The urgency for transdisciplinary research to address complex global challenges is increasingly being recognised and reflected in calls driven by research funders seeking synergistic research at the interface between different disciplines (UKRI 2023). While potential collaborators, responding to these calls, coalesce with mixes of disciplines each with their preferred approaches and methods, will they conduct truly synergistic research or operate in default ‘work package’ mode? During formation of teams and formulation of proposals, what might help each discipline understand the relative merits of complementary but perhaps unfamiliar approaches and methods which may have a useful role in addressing complex challenges?

The author proposes that cognitive maps may be useful in modelling topographies of research and for identifying opportunities for combining mixed approaches and methods in trans-disciplinary studies. In this paper, as his point of departure, the author revisits the ‘cognitive collage’, first proposed by Sanders (2006), further discussed in Sanders (2008), inspired herself by Tversky (1993), for the mapping and relative positioning of the many different design research methods within the landscape of design research (figure 1). Since first publishing her work, Sanders’ model has proved a seminal point of reference for designers, design researchers and doctoral students discussing the design research landscape and the different approaches to, or types of design research methods, tools and specialisms within this.

Figure 1: Diagram adapted from figures in Sanders 2006 and Sanders 2008.

However, the field has moved on. In this paper, the author discusses his rationale for revisiting Sanders' model and proposing a revised version which reflects a more participatory landscape in which different disciplines have the opportunity to bring together mixed methods from different fields to meet a common objective. In so doing, author questions some of Sanders’ original terms of reference for the vectors used in her model. By way of illustration, he references a set of four collaborative design- and healthcare-related research case studies (Macdonald et al. 2012; Loudon et al. 2014; Jones et al. 2020; Macdonald et al. 2020) to discuss the role of different participative processes, and the expansion of what is normally regarded as evidence (Glasby et al. 2007; Draper 2018). He then proposes a new framework drawing from experiences and insights from these case studies (figure 2). Through this he also illustrates where different research questions may be located, again helpful in identifying the types of engagement and evidence required.

Figure 2: The proposed axes delineating the model for promoting consideration of collaborative, transdisciplinary, mixed method studies involving design and healthcare.

The author proposes that the construction of cognitive maps such as in the example provided may be helpful to those engaged in the collaborative design and healthcare research space, particularly for those designers who wish to achieve wider legitimacy for their approaches and their design methods, and for these to be assimilated into transdisciplinary healthcare-related research.

Selected references

Draper, J. 2018. “Healthcare Education Research: The Case for Rethinking Hierarchies of Evidence”. [Editorial], Journal of Advanced Nursing (14): 2480–2483. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/jan.13697

Glasby, J., K. Walshe, and G. Harvey. 2007. “What Counts as 'Evidence' in 'Evidence-based Practice'?”, Evidence and Policy 3 (3): 325-327. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426407781738038

Jones, F., K. Gombert-Waldron, S. Honey, G. Cloud, R. Harris, A. Macdonald, C. McKevitt, C., G. Robert, and D. Clarke. (2020). “Using Co-production to Increase Activity in Acute Stroke Units: the CREATE Mixed-Methods Study”, Health Services and Delivery Research 8:35. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK561473/

Loudon, D., A. Taylor, and A.S. Macdonald. (2014), “The Use of Qualitative Design Methods in the Design, Development and Evaluation of Virtual Technologies for Healthcare: Stroke Case Study”, in Virtual, Augmented Reality and Serious Games for Healthcare 1, edited by M. Ma, L. Jain and P. Anderson, 68: 371-390. Intelligent Systems Reference Library, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54816-1_19

Macdonald, A.S., G. Teal, C. Bamford, and P.J. Moynihan. (2012), “Hospitalfoodie: an Inter-Professional Case Study of the Redesign of the Nutritional Management and Monitoring System for Vulnerable Older Hospital Patients.” Quality in Primary Care, 20 (3): 169-177.

Macdonald, A.S., M. Chambers, R. La Ragione, K. Wyles, M. Poyade, A. Wales, N. Klepacz, T. Kupfer, F. Watson, and S. Noble, S. (2020), “Addressing Infection Risk in Veterinary Practice through the Innovative Application of Interactive 3D Animation Methods.” The Design Journal. 24 (1): 51-72.

Sanders, E. B.-N. 2006. “Design Research in 2006”, Design Research Quarterly 1 (1): 1–8.
https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/5f4a9a22-5569-4876-880a-58927836546a/downloads/DesignResearchin2006_Sanders_06.pdf?ver=1600007016962

Sanders, L. 2008. “An Evolving Map of Design Practice and Design Research.” Interactions 15 (6): 13-17.
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1409040.1409043

Tversky, B. 1993. “Cognitive Maps, Cognitive Collages, and Spatial Mental Models.” in Spatial information theory, edited by A. Frank and I. Campari, 14-24. Berlin: Springer.

UK Research and Innovation (UKRI). 2023. “Transdisciplinary networks to tackle antimicrobial resistance (AMR).”
https://www.ukri.org/opportunity/transdisciplinary-funding-to-tackle-antimicrobial-resistance-amr/