Lost in translation: bridging gaps between design and evidence-based design

Area of Science:

• Healthcare Design
• Architectural Research
• Evidence-Based Design (EBD)

Background:

• The healthcare design field is rapidly adopting Evidence-Based Design (EBD).
• The precise role of research within architectural practice remains ambiguous.
• Factors contributing to this ambiguity include varied EBD interpretations and conflicting expectations between designers and researchers.

Purpose of the Study:

• To clarify the role of research within architectural practice in the context of EBD.
• To explore the challenges in integrating research into the design process.
• To propose a methodology for enhancing the connection between design and EBD.

Main Methods:

• Analysis of the current state of Evidence-Based Design adoption in healthcare architecture.
• Examination of the tensions between research-driven and market-driven research.
• Identification of competing standards between design practitioners and researchers.

Main Results:

• The integration of research into architectural practice for EBD is hindered by unclear definitions and conflicting expectations.
• A gap exists between design practitioners' needs and researchers' outputs.
• Research must be an integral part of the design process to effectively contribute to building projects.

Conclusions:

• A comprehensive programming methodology is needed to effectively integrate research into the design process.
• This methodology can help close the gap between architectural design and Evidence-Based Design principles.
• Aligning research with the design process ensures direct contributions to building projects.