Re: Nonreplicable publications are cited more than replicable ones
Perhaps in an inwardly-focused, talking to ourselves way, the observations on replication and citations do raise an issue relevant to design research, and PhD studies in particular. I think I have commented before on this list on how few of the early 'classic' studies in design research have been replicated in later work. This means that the foundations are not being checked for their soundness.
As part of PhD studies, replication offers students a way into deeper understanding of the research methods underlying the classic studies and into assessing the validity of the findings and claims made. Replication can lead not just to the binary confirming or refuting of earlier work, but also to nuanced modifying and clarifying of the claims, and to identifying new avenues for research.
The use of citations is also of relevance in a similar way. In some papers, ‘citations’ are often simply nods to earlier, well-known work, without analysis or reflection on their relevance to the new work. Jordan Beck and Laureline Chiapello published a paper in Design Studies in 2018 of their citation analysis within design research of Donald Schön’s intellectual legacy. Whilst Schön is highly cited in design research, they reported ‘We observe few instances of citations that engage critically with Schön or build on his ideas.’ As they say, this uncritical use of citations undermines the quality and integrity of academic knowledge in our field.
Nigel Cross
Reference
Beck, J. & Chiapello, L. (2018) Schön's intellectual legacy: A citation analysis of DRS publications (2010–2016). Design Studies, Volume 56, pp. 205-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2017.10.005
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|