Types of Research
At Design Academy Eindhoven (DAE), both Design Research and, increasingly, Artistic Research are practiced. To effectively situate projects within an appropriate framework, it’s essential to be clear about the specific type of research being conducted.
DAE predominantly follows a Research through Design (RtD) approach, which distinguishes it from other design research methodologies such as Research into Design (as described by Nigel Cross in Designerly Ways of Knowing) and Research for Design (commonly practiced at institutions like TU Delft, where research focuses on improving designs). Unlike these approaches, RtD positions the act of designing itself as the primary method of inquiry; the research is conducted through the act of designing, with the design process and its artifacts serving as the central tools for inquiry. This approach often leads to usable outcomes, such as frameworks, prototypes, or systems that have practical applications. The goal is to generate new insights or develop innovations (this can also be social innovations) grounded in the design process.
In contrast, Artistic Research is a more conceptual and exploratory approach. Here, the artist’s creative process is the method of inquiry, focusing on reflective, critical, or aesthetic explorations. The knowledge generated through artistic research is typically more interpretive, often leading to new ways of thinking, feeling, or experiencing the world, rather than delivering direct, practical outcomes.
By understanding these distinctions, it becomes clearer what kind of knowledge is being generated—whether through design research that is oriented toward practical impact or through artistic research, which focuses on conceptual exploration and aesthetic expression. This differentiation helps situate the work in the appropriate context and informs the contributions it makes to the broader field.
While both Design and Artistic Research at DAE are embedded in practice, experimentation, and iterative processes, they differ in their aims, methods, and outcomes, reflecting the diverse ways in which creative practice can contribute to knowledge creation at DAE.
What are the commonalities between Design Research and Artistic Research at DAE?
Practice-Based Inquiry
Both approaches emphasize practice as a method of inquiry. Whether through designing or creating art, the process of making is central to exploring research questions and generating knowledge. The act of creating is not just a result but an integral part of the research itself. At DAE we also refer to this as thinking-through-making.
Tacit and Embodied Knowledge
Both Design and Artistic Research highlight the importance of tacit knowledge—understanding that emerges from hands-on practice, which is often difficult to verbalize. Additionally, both approaches recognize the value of embodied knowledge, where insights come from the physical and sensory engagement with materials, tools, or processes.
Iterative and Reflective Process
Reflection is key in both research forms. In Design Research, there’s an iterative cycle of designing, testing, and refining; in Artistic Research, the creative process often loops through stages of making, reflecting, and reworking. Critical reflection on these processes is essential in generating new insights.
Exploratory and Speculative Nature
Both Design and Artistic Research can be exploratory and speculative. They often seek to explore possibilities beyond immediate practical solutions, whether through imagining new futures in design or pushing the boundaries of artistic expression and thought.
Contextual and Situated
Both research forms engage with their contexts, whether it’s a real-world environment in Design Research or a cultural, social, or personal context in Artistic Research. Each approach generates insights from the interaction between the work and its broader surroundings or community.
Interdisciplinary and Collaborative
Both fields often involve interdisciplinary work. Collaboration with other disciplines—such as philosophy, sociology, technology, or science—enhances the research, providing new perspectives and methodologies. Stakeholder and user engagement is common in Design Research, while Artistic Research may collaborate with theorists, critics, or communities.
What are the differences between Design Research and Artistic Research at DAE?
Purpose and Goals
Design Research (RtD): The primary aim is often practical or focused on innovation, generating usable outcomes, frameworks, or systems that have tangible applications. It seeks to improve or innovate within a specific design context, creating solutions or approaches that address real-world needs.
Artistic Research: Artistic Research is more conceptual and reflective. The goal is often to generate new ways of thinking, feeling, or experiencing the world. It may explore abstract or philosophical questions, without necessarily aiming for practical application.
Methodology
Design Research (RtD): In RtD, the design process itself is the method of inquiry. The creation of prototypes, artifacts, or systems is central to exploring research questions, with a focus on how these designs function within a specific context.
Artistic Research: Artistic Research uses the artistic process—such as making, performing, or creating installations—as its methodology. Here, the artwork or performance is both the method and the outcome of the research, with the goal of expressing ideas, emotions, or critiques.
Outcomes
Design Research (RtD): The outcome is often a designed artifact, prototype, or system that addresses a specific challenge. These outcomes can lead to new frameworks, design solutions, or (social, technical or organisational) innovations, often documented through case studies or models.
Artistic Research: The outcome may be a creative work—such as visual art, performance, or multimedia installation—that embodies the research. The artistic work itself serves as a form of knowledge, often accompanied by reflective writing or documentation, but the focus is on provoking thought or offering new perspectives rather than on delivering practical applications.
Nature of Knowledge Generated
Design Research (RtD): The knowledge generated is often situated in practical applications, exploring how design can be used to address real-world issues. This knowledge may result in new design methodologies, frameworks, or insights about how design interacts with users and contexts.
Artistic Research: The knowledge generated is more reflective and often takes the form of personal, cultural, or philosophical exploration. Artistic Research may generate insights into human experience, emotion, or social issues, focusing on how art can challenge or change perceptions.
Focus on Aesthetic and Sensory Experience
Design Research (RtD): While aesthetics and sensory experience are important, particularly in terms of user interaction, they are often considered secondary to the functionality or practicality of the design. Aesthetic choices are usually linked to the usability or communicative goals of the design.
Artistic Research: Aesthetic and sensory experience is often central to Artistic Research. The emotional, sensory, or aesthetic impact of the work is a key part of the inquiry, exploring how these experiences shape understanding or provoke new reflections.
Documentation and Communication
Design Research (RtD): RtD often emphasizes documenting the design process, from ideation to iteration, with a focus on sharing insights in a practical or applied way, through prototypes, case studies, or technical reports.
Artistic Research: Artistic Research may be documented through diverse formats—from exhibitions and performances to reflective writing or multimedia presentations. The documentation is often more interpretive, aimed at capturing the emotional or conceptual depth of the research.