Sarah Rosenbaum has pointed to a very important "political" issue in her
recent discussion of appropriate research methods for design and health.
It has been taken up by leading figures in healthcare architecture such
as Roger Ulrich and Bryan Lawson. The essence is not what are
appropriate or effective ways of validating design thinking or
understanding environmental/social effects, but how to get the
juggernauts of institutional healthcare to attend to these important issues.
The clinical trial is not the best way to do research in many
circumstances (arguably it doesn't even do the job that is claimed for
it in its home territory) but it is the "Gold Standard" that dominates
the thinking of clinicians and healthcare managers so Ulrich and others
have made it their business to supply clinical evidence where they can.
If the work that Sarah describes can move us forward with this
limitation that will be excellent but meanwhile designers need to attend
to the evidence that institutions will buy.
Sometimes this leads to unreasonable effects, which parallel the ethical
concerns of mainstream doctors back in the days when clinical trials
were newfangled and questionable practice (in my lifetime), but in the
aggregate the effort has been worthwhile because it has opened the door
for more humane design which genuinely improves both health and happiness.
Small plug: this is the central topic of a book I hope to launch in 2008
so I'm pleased to see this debate.
best wishes from Sheffield, Home of the Royal Hallamshire Hospital. A
good place to investigate unhealthy build environments
Chris
*********************
Professor Chris Rust
Head of Art and Design Research Centre
Sheffield Hallam University, S11 8UZ, UK
+44 114 225 2706
[log in to unmask]
www.chrisrust.net
|