Terry and all,
The contributions of Gunnar, Karel and Mike give an excellent guide to the literature and practice in this area. Terry is also correct to identify 'clinical research' as a useful contribution to knowledge in our field. Arising from this are two research questions (at least) that have long been at the core of my own work.
1. What are the valid, reliable, and sensitive modes of clinical research in this area?
2. What criteria should clinical researchers apply to reviewing the relevant published research in the area (both peer reviewed and grey literature.)
When, in an earlier post on evidence-based design, I was commenting on the shortage of good work in our field, I was specifically referring to what happens when one develops and then applies critical criteria to the published research. It's in that context that I was referring to the shortage of good work. As an example, there are a lot of studies of consumer medicines information (cmi) in the peer reviewed literature that do not include any illustrations of the actual cmi used in the study. This is just one of a number of criteria, that when applied, leave us with a tiny number of useful papers.
David
--
blog: http://communication.org.au/blog/ <http://communication.org.au/blog/>
web: http://communication.org.au <http://communication.org.au/>
Professor David Sless BA MSc FRSA
CEO • Communication Research Institute •
• helping people communicate with people •
Mobile: +61 (0)412 356 795
Phone: +61 (0)3 9005 5903
Skype: davidsless
60 Park Street • Fitzroy North • Melbourne • Australia • 3068
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|