Peavey Erin, Vander Wyst Kiley B
1 HKS Knox Advisors, HKS Inc., Dallas, TX, USA.
2 School of Nutrition and Health Promotion, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
HERD. 2017 Oct;10(5):143-156. doi: 10.1177/1937586717697683. Epub 2017 Mar 28.
This article provides critical examination and comparison of the conceptual meaning and underlying assumptions of the concepts evidence-based design (EBD) and research-informed design (RID) in order to facilitate practical use and theoretical development.
In recent years, EBD has experienced broad adoption, yet it has been simultaneously critiqued for rigidity and misapplication. Many practitioners are gravitating to the term RID to describe their method of integrating knowledge into the design process. However, the term RID lacks a clear definition and the blurring of terms has the potential to weaken advances made integrating research into practice.
Concept analysis methods from Walker and Avant were used to define the concepts for comparison.
Conceptual definitions, process descriptions, examples (i.e., model cases), and methods of evaluation are offered for EBD and RID. Although EBD and RID share similarities in meaning, the two terms are distinct. When comparing evidence based (EB) and research informed, EB is a broad base of information types (evidence) that are narrowly applied (based), while the latter references a narrow slice of information (research) that is broadly applied (informed) to create an end product of design.
Much of the confusion between the use of the concepts EBD and RID arises out of differing perspectives between the way practitioners and academics understand the underlying terms. The authors hope this article serves to generate thoughtful dialogue, which is essential to the development of a discipline, and look forward to the contribution of the readership.
本文对循证设计（EBD）和研究导向设计（RID）这两个概念的概念意义及潜在假设进行批判性审视和比较，以促进其实际应用和理论发展。
近年来，循证设计已被广泛采用，但同时也因僵化和误用而受到批评。许多从业者倾向于使用“研究导向设计”一词来描述他们将知识整合到设计过程中的方法。然而，“研究导向设计”一词缺乏明确的定义，术语的模糊可能会削弱将研究整合到实践中所取得的进展。
采用沃克和阿万特的概念分析方法来定义用于比较的概念。
提供了循证设计和研究导向设计的概念定义、过程描述、示例（即典型案例）及评估方法。虽然循证设计和研究导向设计在意义上有相似之处，但这两个术语是不同的。比较循证（EB）和研究导向时，循证是指广泛的信息类型（证据）被狭义地应用（基于），而后者指的是狭义的信息（研究）被广泛应用（导向）以创建设计的最终产品。
循证设计和研究导向设计概念使用中的许多混淆源于从业者和学者对基础术语理解方式的不同观点。作者希望本文有助于引发深入的对话，这对一门学科的发展至关重要，并期待读者的贡献。
