On what grounds? An intra-disciplinary account of evaluation in research through design

Research through design is a murky field and there is an increasing interest in understanding its varied practices and methodology. In the research literature that is initially reviewed in this paper two positions are located as the most dominant representing opposite opinions concerning the nature of such a methodology. One position proposes a cross-disciplinary perspective where research through design is based on models and standards borrowed from natural science, social sciences, humanities and art, while the other position claims a unique epistemology for research through design insisting on its particularities and warning against importing standards from these other disciplines. In this paper we argue for taking a third position, an intra-disciplinary position that appreciate how design processes and the making of artifact can be a method of inquiry, while at the same time insisting on using standards and terminology that can foster a cross-disciplinary interplay with surrounding scientific cultures. To substantiate our claim we further introduce five practices of evaluation in research through design, which are derived from a close examination of a sample of PhD theses that are claimed to be exemplary of the field. In so doing, we aim to lay new grounds for a methodology.