Design teaching as design research validation

Validation of design research results has been an ongoing challenge. Validating is defined as ‘supporting or corroborating on a sound or authoritative basis’ or ‘recognizing, establishing, or illustrating the worthiness or legitimacy of (something)’ (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary). In scientific research we validate theory and results through observation, experimentation, and repeatability. What about design research? Much of our published work in design research struggles to claim validation if it even acknowledges such a need explicitly. When I propose a methodology for how a large design organization should conduct its design operations, how could I validate my proposal? Scientifically speaking, I should observe the organization in operation with and without using my method over a period of time and on several projects (to avoid one positive result being a fluke), and then compare the quality of the resulting designs. There is no chance I would find a company to agree to that, even if I paid them.Well, I could use some students, set up a controlled experiment, and observe the results. I could use acknowledged statistical metrics to confirm I conducted things right, although a convincing statistical significance is becoming much tighter (e.g., Benjamin et al. 2018, http://dx.doi.org/10. 1038/s41562-017-0189-z) and student experiments tend to be tainted by suspicions of convenience and expediency. I could at least work on repeatability so others can try my methods and hopefully get the same results. Alas, for quite some time now our research studies employ much too complicated computational models and methods to be able to describe them in a reasonably long paper and ‘supplementary material’ repositories are woefully sparsely used. Plus, graduate students who hold the keys to the codes move on and the new ones always want to start from scratch. These are legitimate ‘explanations’ and there are of course notable exceptions. But when it comes to design methods, research validation is really, really hard. And so, over the years I developed a very simple criterion on whether a method (mine or anybody else’s) is valid. I ask the question: ‘Can I honestly use it in my design course?’ and if I do, ‘Would my students honestly use it?’ I emphasize honestly because I want to make sure I will put this method in my syllabus believing that I will not waste my students' time, and that my students will use it because they perceive its value rather than just making me happy and claiming their deserved grade. The results are usually quite evident at the end of the course or even earlier, whether I ask the students or not. Students have ways of telling teachers quite clearly what they think – a kind of body language that experienced teachers quickly recognize. When I judge the results as positive, then I will try the method again next time I teach the course. Over time the method becomes part of my design teaching toolkit. The method has been validated! While I claim no scientific validation, the above certainly serves me as a teaching practitioner. But there is a broader issue here. If discipline is the creation and propagation of knowledge, what constitutes the body of knowledge in design as a discipline? Research is the generation of knowledge and teaching is its propagation. Presumably what we teach must be the guide in defining the body of knowledge. Disciplinary fields with a long history have well-developed instructional materials that are quite universally accepted and taught. Thermodynamics or Classical Literature come to mind (although the latter is increasingly challenged). This is clearly not the case in design, where we have no real ‘canonical’ textbooks that cover the basics. Moreover, until very recently design instructors have been mostly industry practitioners bringing the wealth of their experiences into the classroom and taking away the burden of teaching design from the academic career professors. Again, there have been exceptions, notably in certain INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DESIGN CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 2020, VOL. 8, NO. 1, 3–4 https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2019.1690963