Research findings that remain unknown to design practitioners stand little chance of improving their design processes or project outcomes. The research utilization gap is evident from both the perspectives of scholars and design practitioners. While design scholars have long lamented practitioners’ apparent indifference toward scholarly research, some interior designers and architects attribute their apathy to irrelevance. The few strategies that have been offered to reconcile this divide largely remain untested. Consequently, little is known about practitioner motivations for seeking information and their patterns of behavior while doing so.
This study used Pelz's Research Utilization Strategies and Hëinstrom's Information–Seeking Behaviors to gain a contemporary understanding of interior designers’ information preferences (i.e., their motivations for seeking information and their activities while doing so). Findings stemming from 104 commercial interior designers and managers suggest that designers value information, often seeking sources for their general enlightenment. However, analysis revealed a statistically significant preference for rapid reviewing processes. Differences were also revealed between information preferences and the age and experience of respondents, such that inexperienced designers were more likely to use information to confirm beliefs rather than explore a problem.
The apparent dichotomy between interior designers’ desire to seek information and their often cursory behaviors while reviewing it, suggests that scholars who aim to share their findings with practitioner audiences may need to reexamine their dissemination strategies. Findings suggest confusion surrounding the ethical and appropriate application of information within project settings and design educators may wish to emphasize the application of research in studio settings.
AlbækE. (1995). Between knowledge and power: Utilization of social science in public policy making. Policy Sciences, 28(1), 79–100.
3.
AmaraN., OuimetM., & LandryR. (2004). New evidence on instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic utilization of university research in government agencies. Science Communication, 26(1), 75–106.
4.
AndersonM., CosbyJ., SwanB., MooreH., & BroeckhovenM. (1999). The use of research in local health service agencies. Social Science & Medicine, 48(8), 1007–1019.
BarryC. L. (1994). User–defined relevance criteria: An exploratory study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(3), 149–159.
11.
BawdenD., & RobinsonL. (2009). The dark side of information: Overload, anxiety and other paradoxes and pathologies. Journal of Information Science, 35(2), 180–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551508095781
12.
BergerJ. (2013). Contagious: Why things catch on. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
13.
BeyerJ. (2011). Research utilization gap: Bridging a cultural gap between communities. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20(4), 385–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/105649269761004
14.
BeyerJ. M. (1997). Research utilization: Bridging the gap between communities. Social Science and Medicine, 49(8), 1007–1019.
15.
BeyerJ. M., & TriceH. M. (1982). The utilization process: A conceptual framework and synthesis of empirical findings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27(4), 591–622. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392533
BoschS., & NandaU. (2011). Outside the ivory tower: The role of healthcare design researchers in practice. Journal of Interior Design, 36(2), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-1668.2010.01055.x
18.
BrentR. S., & PhillipsR. G. (1987). The Department of Housing and Interior Design at the University of Missouri, Colombia: The environment and behavior paradigm. The Environmental Professional, 9, 194–196.
19.
CaplanN. S., MorrisonA., & StambaughR. J. (1975). The use of social science knowledge in policy decisions at the national level: A report to respondents. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.
CascioW. F. (2007). Evidence–based management and the marketplace for ideas. The Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1009–1012. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159905
22.
CherneyA., HeadB., BorehamP., PoveyJ., & FerugosnM. (2013). Research utilization in the social sciences: A comparison of five academic disciplines in Australia. Science Communication, 35(6), 780–809. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547013491398
23.
CherneyA., & McGeeT. R. (2011). Utilization of social science research: Results of a pilot study among Australian sociologists and criminologists. Journal of Sociology, 47(2), 144–162.
24.
CohenD. J. (2007). The very separate worlds of academic and practitioner publications in human resource management: Reasons for the divide and concrete solutions for bridging the gap. The Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1013–1019. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159906
25.
CreswellJ. E. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
de BruijnB. W., & BostromA. (2013). Assessing what to address in science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(3), 14062–14068. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212729110
29.
DeshpandeR. (1983). “Paradigms lost”: On theory and methods in research in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 47(4), 101–110.
30.
DickinsonJ. I., AnthonyL., & MarsdenJ. P. (2009). Faculty perceptions regarding research: Are we on the right track?Journal of Interior Design, 35(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-1668.2009.01024.x
31.
DickinsonJ. I., AnthonyL., & MarsdenJ. P. (2012). A survey on practitioner attitudes toward research in interior design education. Journal of Interior Design, 37(3), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-1668.2012.01078.x
32.
DickinsonJ. I., MarsdenJ. P., & ReadM. A. (2007). Empirical design research: Student definitions, perceptions, and values. Journal of Interior Design, 32(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-1668.2006.tb00309.x
33.
DicksonA. W., & WhiteA. C. (1993). Are we speaking the same language? Practitioners’ perceptions of research and the state of the profession. Journal of Interior Design, 19(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-1668.1993.tb00146.x
34.
FarbsteinJ., & KantrowitzM. (1991). Design research in the swamp. In ZubeE. H. & MooreG. T. (Eds.), Advances in environment behavior and design. (pp. 297–315). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
FriedmanM. A., & FaragZ. E. (1991). Gaps in the dissemination/knowledge utilization base. Science Communication, 12(3), 266–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/107554709101200305
40.
GeladeG. A. (2006). But what does it mean in practice? The Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology from a practitioner perspective. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79(2), 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317905X85638
GroatL., & WangD. (2013). Architectural research methods. (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
43.
GuerinD. (2016, March). Informedesign. Presentation at the Interior Design Educators Conference, Portland, OR.
44.
HallG. E., GeorgeA. A., & RutherfordW. L. (1979). Measuring states of concern about the innovation: A manual for the use of the SoC Questionnaire(Report No. 3032). Austin, TX: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, the University of Texas.
45.
HarterS. (1992). Psychological relevance and information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43(9), 602–615.
46.
HeinströmJ. (2005). Fast surfing, broad scanning and deep diving: The influence of personality and study approach on students’ information–seeking behaviour. Journal of Documentation, 61(2), 228–247. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410510585205
47.
HeinströmJ. (2006). Broad exploration or precise specificity: Two basic information seeking patterns among students. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(11), 1440–1450. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20432
48.
HillC., HedgeA. L., & MatthewsC. (2014). Throwing in the towel: Burnout among practicing interior designers. Journal of Interior Design, 39(3), 41–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/joid.12029
HuberA. (2016a). Design research: Off the rails or on the right track? Paper presentation at the 20th DMI: Academic Design Management Conference, Boston, MA.
51.
HuberA. (2016b). Is seeing intriguing? Practitioner perceptions of research documents. Journal of Interior Design, 41(1), 13–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/joid.12067
KernohanD. (1991). “Einsteins’ theory” of environment–behavior research: A commentary on research utilization. In ZubeE. & MooreG. (Eds.), Advances in environment behavior and design. (Vol. 3). New York, NY: Plenum.
KimberlyJ. R. (2007). Shifting boundaries: Doing research and having impact in the world of business education. Journal of Management Inquiry, 16, 128–154.
59.
LandryR., AmaraN., & LamariM. (2001a). Climbing the ladder of research utilization: Evidence from social science research. Science Communication, 22(4), 396–422.
60.
LandryR., AmaraN., & LamariM. (2001b). Utilization of social science research knowledge in Canada. Research Policy, 30(2), 333–349.
61.
LathamG. P. (2007). A speculative perspective on the transfer of behavioral science findings to the workplace: “The times they are a–changin”. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1027–1032. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159908
62.
LavisJ. N., RobertsonD., WoodsideJ. M., McLeodC., & AbelsonJ. (2003). How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision makers?The Milbank Quarterly, 81(2), 221–248.
63.
LewinK. (1948). Resolving social conflicts. New York, NY: Harper Brothers.
MaysE. M., & KossayanC. (2011). Design research in a non–linear world: Adapting to a ubiquitous playground of content. Proceedings of the Design Principles and Practices Conference, Rome, Italy. Retrieved from http://2011.designprinciplesandpractices.com/sessions/index.html
66.
McCuskey ShepleyM., & DankoS. (2017). Design as caring: Serving special populations. Journal of Interior Design, 42(2), 5–7.
67.
MilkmanK., & BergerJ. (2014). The science of sharing and the sharing of science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 11(4), 13642–13649.
PandaA., & GuptaR. K. (2014). Making academic research more relevant: A few suggestions. IIMB Management Review, 26(3), 156–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iimb.2014.07.008
72.
PelzD. C. (1978). Some expanded perspectives on use of social science in public policy. In YingerM. & CulterS. J. (Eds.), Major social issues: A multidisciplinary view. (pp. 346–357). New York, NY: Free Press.
PfefferJ., & SuttonR. I. (2000). The knowing–doing gap: How smart companies turn knowledge into action. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
75.
PopovL. (2009). Modes and models of environment and behavior research utilization: Toward analysis of design–research interactions. In BissellJ., ChapinM., L'HeureuxM. A., MooreK. D., RashidM. & SpreckelmeyerK. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Environmental Design Research Association. (p. 342). Edmond, OK: Environmental Design Research Association.
76.
PurcellA. T., & HeathT. (1982). Two communities. In BartP., ChenA. & FrancescatoG. (Eds.), Knowledge for design proceedings of the 13th International Conference of the Environmental Design Research Associates. (pp. 3–15). Washington, DC: Environmental Design Research Association.
77.
RichR. F. (1997). Measuring knowledge utilization: Processes and outcomes. Knowledge and Policy: The International Journal of Knowledge Transfer and Utilization, 10(3), 11–24.
78.
RynesS. L., BartunekJ. M., & DaftR. L. (2001). Across the great divide: Knowledge creation and transfer between practitioners and academics. The Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 340–355 Retrieved from https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/3069460
79.
RynesS. L., GilukT. L., & BrownK. G. (2007). The very separate worlds of academic and practitioner periodicals in human resource management. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1046–1054. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2007.27151929
SomekhB. (2006). Action research: A methodology for change and development. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.
83.
SommerR. (1997). Utilization issues in environment–behavior research. In MooreG. T. & MaransR. W. (Eds.), Toward the integration of theory, methods, research, and utilization. (pp. 347–368). New York, NY: Springer US.
ThompsonJ. A. (1992). Design research. In ThompsonJ. A. (Ed.), ASID professional practice manual. (pp. 47–50). New York, NY: Whitney Library of Design.
87.
TofleR. B., & ColeL. B. (2016). Interior design in research universities: Optimizing opportunities and thwarting threats. Presentation at the Interior Design Educators Council, Portland, OR.
88.
Vande MoereA., & PurchaseH. (2011). On the role of design in information visualization. Information Visualization, 10(4), 356–371.
89.
WeissC. (1979). The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review, 39(5), 426–431. https://doi.org/10.2307/3109916
