Clothing & Textiles

Research Journal

A Direction for Clothing and 28(3) 205-217

ª 2010 International Textile &
Apparel Association
Textile Design Research Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0887302X10371505
http://ctrj.sagepub.com

Elizabeth Bye1

Abstract
Clothing and textile design is a discipline of practice, scholarship, and research, sharing many
characteristics and issues with the broader discipline of design. This manuscript briefly introduces
some of the history and main concepts of the design discipline and design research; presents a
framework for Design Scholarship to initiate a discussion about research, and suggests ways to
contribute to the larger academic dialogue on forming a design discipline. The main thrust is to
argue that a different context is needed for creative scholarship; one of design research that can
add to the knowledge base and help build theory in the field. The tacit knowledge of hands-on
experience is distinct, but cannot remain solely with the practitioner or the artifact. Clothing and
textile design has a long tradition in creative practice, but due to the increasing complexity of our
world, there is a need to formally capture the knowledge of the field.

Keywords
design research, research through practice, clothing and textile design, design methodologies
Clothing and textile design is a discipline of practice, scholarship, and research. It shares many
characteristics and issues with the broader discipline of design that embraces a wide range of fields
from architecture and engineering to communication design and urban planning. The design disci-
pline is supported by academics and professional practitioners who are involved with ‘‘defining,
planning, and configuring artifacts and systems’’ (Friedman, 2002, p. 200). As the field continues
to evolve, designers will require empirical knowledge that is not currently available from existing
models of professional design practice. The increasing complexity of our society’s problems
requires a foundation in theory to guide provisional solutions, identify the actions needed to reach
them and evaluate the results. The purpose of this article is to briefly introduce some of the history
and main concepts of the design discipline and design research; initiate a discussion and debate
about the clothing and textile design discipline; and suggest how we can contribute to the larger aca-
demic dialogue on forming a design discipline. My main thrust is to argue that we need to create a
different approach to our creative scholarship; one of design research that can add to the knowledge
base and help build theory in our field. Different points of view are presented to give a more holistic
view of the current debate. A framework of clothing and textile design scholarship is proposed.
For clarification, the following definitions will be used.

1
University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, USA

Corresponding Author:
Elizabeth Bye, University of Minnesota, 240 McNeal Hall, 1985 Buford Ave, St. Paul, MN 55108, USA
Email: ebye@umn.edu

205
206 Clothing & Textiles Research Journal 28(3)

Scholarship is the original, intellectual work of discovery, integration of knowledge, teaching,

and service whose significance is communicated to and validated by peers in appropriate ways
so as to have impact on or significance for the public and the discipline (Boyer, 1997).
Research is ‘‘accessible systematic inquiry’’ (Gray & Malins, 2004, p. 3).
Design research is accessible, systematic inquiry based on the practice of designing that uses
analysis and synthesis to discover new knowledge.
Practice is the professional execution of design work; including profit, nonprofit, and academic
pursuits.

History
The design discipline began to emerge in the early 20th century as the complexity of technology
and products increased. However, it has only been during the past 60 years that the issues of form-
ing an academic discipline have been debated and discussed internationally. Design as a recog-
nized academic discipline began to develop its own culture, terminology, and rigor based on
the practice of conceiving ideas and forming a representation of those ideas (Cross, 2006). This
view has developed over time and continues to evolve through the discourse of many design scho-
lars. Theory, practice, and production are core elements of the design discipline (Buchanan, 2001),
thus academics and practitioners should dialogue and collaboratively create the knowledge that
affects the field and design education (Dorst, 2008). It is only in the last decade that a PhD in
Design has been offered and the graduates have taken leadership in building the discipline using
design research. Thus, some of the following references use the context of research as part of a
PhD program and others use an academic or practitioners’ point of view from a variety of disci-
plines. All are valid and valuable contributions to help us collaboratively define and build the
design discipline.
During the 1950–1960s, there was a strong movement to mold design to fit the tenets of science.
This is called ‘‘design science,’’ a rational, systematic approach to design that considers design a
scientific activity (Cross, 2007). However, many researchers believe that it is misguided to design
based on the values of objectivity and rationality. Although there is strong focus on validity and
proof in the scientific community, they are not fundamental to design, where the use of emotion and
intuition in uncertain situations is an example of competency (Cross, 2007). The view of design as a
prescriptive process began to change with the work of Rittel (1973) who promoted the use of design
to solve ‘‘wicked problems:’’ those that could not be solved using science and engineering. Both
science and design require conceptual thinking and experimentation; however, science looks at the
world as it exists, in an effort to explain and predict. Design uses information from the natural world
and science in an effort to imagine what could exist (Bonsiepe, 2007).
Jonas (2007) believes that there has been progress in research about design and research that sup-
ports design. Research about design is similar in concept to the science of design, which scientifi-
cally looks at the history, sociology, psychology, and culture of design to improve our understanding
of design in the world. Bonsiepe (2007) refers to this as exogenous research with design as the
object. Research that supports the work of designers may include ethnography, materials, and ergo-
nomics. In most cases, this research is conducted by individuals outside the design discipline who
are working from established disciplines in the arts and sciences. Their work primarily contributes
to their own disciplines and designers benefit from this knowledge. Unfortunately, neither contri-
butes to building the design discipline by expanding our understanding of design as a way of know-
ing. Archer (1979b) argues that design is one of the three areas of human knowledge in addition to
the arts and sciences. However, there has been less value placed on design awareness and the use of
modeling to express ideas developed through making and doing than ideas expressed through
language and numbers.

206
Bye 207

Knowledge that is unique to a discipline is required to build and advance the discipline. Archer
(1979a, p. 17) argued that ‘‘there exists a designerly way of thinking and communicating that is both
different from scientific and scholarly ways . . . and as powerful as scientific and scholarly methods
of enquiry, when applied to its own kinds of problems.’’ The term designerly refers to efforts that
support design activity in a similar context to the term scientifically referring to efforts that support
scientific activities. The issues surrounding design practice as a way of uncovering knowledge stem
from the debate between propositional knowledge that is a result of scientific research and tacit or
experiential knowledge that uses a variety of sources and forms linked to practice. Research tradi-
tions at most academic institutions are based on the sciences or the arts. A concern with design
research is that there are no collective standards associated with the methods, dissemination, and
evaluation of design research (Roth, 1999). As design became a formal part of universities, it was
considered a professional practice. However, there was no foundation of ontology and epistemology
to guide the practice (Friedman, 2002).
Clothing and textile design has not been a visible part of the discourse on design as a discipline or
design research. In part, this may be due to our own history and struggle to define scholarship and
research from our perspective. In the United States, as part of clothing and textile curricula, clothing and
textile design has been a formal part of academic institutions from late in the 19th century. Programs are
based in a range of academic homes from human ecology to business and art to trade and technical
schools. Colleges and universities place a great deal of value on scholarship and thus have been the major
source for developing knowledge in clothing and textile design. Traditional scientific standards have
been used to guide more traditional research in clothing and textile design, but they have not always
served the work of the academic designer or facilitated collaborations with practitioners.

Method
The design discipline is working to define rigorous methods of capturing design knowledge with an
awareness of previous research and context, performed in a methodical manner with results that are
critically evaluated, analyzed, and accessible. There is a growing body of design research that
explores the parameters of methodology and evaluation. Because there have been few established
standards, these publications are significant in their role of exploring the boundaries. In the book,
Visualizing research: A guide to the research process in art and design, Gray and Malins (2004)
expand standard research systems from the arts and sciences in a manner that creates a parallel for
research through practice methods that address research inquiry in design. This is an excellent ref-
erence for developing a foundation for understanding design research.
Research questions in design cannot be addressed with methods that provide quantitative data, or
be tested and proved as in scientific research (Gray & Malins, 2004). This goes back to the concept
of ‘‘wicked’’ problems (Rittel, 1973), questions that are complex and multidimensional. For exam-
ple, ‘‘How can clothing communicate the value of recycling and reuse?’’ or ‘‘What issues cause the
design process to cycle?’’ Some established research designs are compatible with research through
practice (Douglas, Scopa, & Gray, 2000) and include action research, case study, naturalistic
inquiry, and bricolage, a set of practices and methodologies that are pieced together to respond to
the problem in the current context (Gray & Malins, 2004). Many approaches could be considered
emergent as they are new and developed in response to the researcher’s engagement with the prob-
lem and the action of practice (Gray & Malins, 2004).
Conducting a credible research project depends on research evidence that is transparent, accurate,
complete, and reflective. One method of increasing credibility is the use of triangulation that
includes multiple methods of collecting data. An empirical approach that uses design practice and
the resulting designs as the source of data requires a transparent record of the design activity from
the designer. Pedgley (2007) reports the use of a diary to systematically capture own design activity

207
208 Clothing & Textiles Research Journal 28(3)

for industrial design that allows the capture of reflection-on-action supported by Schön (1983). Use
of diary entries is similar to those used in ethnographic data. Other methods that support the trian-
gulation of data resulting from practice include sketching, mind mapping, photography, and proto-
typing. Evidence that supports rigor and transparency and validates emergent methods needs to be
communicated clearly.

Current Issues in Design Research

The role of the professional designer is changing from a creative stylist with knowledge and talent to
a team member who is skilled in communication and problem solving and has the ability to manage
and synthesize knowledge from different domains (Roth, 1999). This shift is due in part to the needs
of an information society and the visibility of design. The complexity of our world requires
designers to be able to address a wide range of issues that may extend beyond their primary field.
We are in a design economy (Pink, 2005) that requires broad knowledge based on explanatory con-
cepts, models, and theories. Thus, we must decide to move forward with the work of building a
design discipline and focusing design education on the knowledge and experiences that support the
future of the field. However, it is challenging to objectively review contributions to the field without
an explanatory framework to support a knowledge base in design (Dorst, 2008).
Although seemingly in conflict, analytical knowledge and tacit experience are equally important
in design. The current model of scientific research, repeatedly searching for patterns in data from the
past, is contrary to design that considers the making of objects for the future (Krippendorff, 2007).
Johnson (2007) proposes that practice can provide a foundation of knowing when it is conducted as a
form of inquiry with reflection, critique, and creativity. He views the main elements of knowing as
action and practice. This view is built from Schön’s (1983) concept of the reflective practitioner,
which values the understanding that develops during the practice of design. In the process of making
an artifact, there is a complex awareness of the tacit decisions and thoughts that guide the designer’s
actions. Reflection on the process can capture that complexity and analysis can uncover the
knowledge resulting from the practice. Thus, analysis that looks for patterns in reflective data is not
a negative exercise in design but one that can build theory central to the discipline.
Although views about what knowledge is and how it can be derived continue to evolve, proposi-
tional knowledge often takes priority over tacit knowledge in academia in relation to funding,
promotion, visibility, and recognition. For example, this is implied in the criteria of the Research
Assessment Exercise (RAE) that funds research in the United Kingdom. It has had many designers
redefining their practice as research when it is not (Durling, 2000). The RAE defines research as
‘‘original investigation undertaken in order to gain knowledge and understanding’’ (Elkin, 2002,
p. 205). Artifacts and products are included but must demonstrate insights that are new or substan-
tially improved. This is challenging because tacit knowledge is nonconceptual and difficult to share
in a traditional form of publication or evaluate objectively because there is limited ability to justify
experiential knowledge except through personal experience (Niedderer, 2007).
Although poorly understood, tacit knowledge is ‘‘important for the generation and application as
well as the experience and judgment of research and its results and for creating new experiences,
abilities, and knowledge’’ (Niedderer, 2007, p. 6). Tacit knowledge is critical to design and equal
in value to propositional knowledge. The design community has a responsibility to continue a dia-
logue with the larger academic community regarding the value of design research as a form of
inquiry that generates knowledge. How the design discipline defines research is the first point of
communication. If we accept the definition of design research as accessible, systematic inquiry
based on the practice of designing that uses analysis and synthesis to discover new knowledge, the
dialogue must then continue through the publication of our discovery in a form that can disseminate
tacit knowing.

208
Bye 209

The traditional outcome of practice has been the artifact not a publication. Artifacts are cultural
objects and the product of the knowledge and knowing of practice. In addition to the designed object,
products of knowing can include prototypes, models, and other physical documentation such as
sketches and diagrams that are the central means that a designer uses to make connections and hold
knowledge (Stappers, 2007). However, the role of an artifact as a holder of knowledge with the abil-
ity to transmit that knowledge is a strong point of debate in the design discipline. Durling (2000)
argues that an artifact cannot explain the process of research without some interpretation and Biggs
(2003) relates that meaning and knowledge can only be given in a context defined by the definition
of research processes and outcomes.
In contrast, Harvard takes the view that artifacts grow in their meaning due to the connections
they make in the ‘‘discourse that is design’’ (2004, p. 1). With regard to publications, Smith
(2004) argues that text is also an artifact and all artifacts contain different forms of knowledge.
Communication of knowledge through the exclusive use of writing can be restrictive and visual
translation, a photograph or sketch, of an artifact from its original medium can lose meaning (Fried-
man, 2002). The question is raised with regard to the ability of texts to abstractly explain an artifact
versus the level of visual literacy of the observer to accurately understand an artifact (Smith, 2004).
These are valid points and the argument can be made that visual, verbal, and written communica-
tions are equally important to the discourse of design. However, the ‘‘self-explanatory’’ artifact
(Friedman, 2002) is a difficult concept to support. An integrated diversity of communications is
essential to develop the discipline and should include objective peer review and publication for all
scholars to evaluate (Durling, 2000).

Current Issues in Clothing and Textile Design Research

Over the last 40 years, clothing and textile design became a concentrated area of study to prepare
individuals for professional activities in the clothing and textile industry. Although the practice of
clothing and textile design is strong, the support for research has been limited and the connection
between the two is weak. Government and military needs for functional, protective and well-
fitted garments, and performance-based garments for clothing companies such as Nike or Patagonia
have provided good opportunities for funding and publication for clothing and textile design
researchers. These follow a problem-solving design research focus using both quantitative and qua-
litative methods in addition to practice to test hypotheses and draw conclusions. Aesthetic and crea-
tive production research topics have less visibility with respect to both funding and publication.
Aesthetic discovery often uses qualitative methods and few examples of creative production as
research exist. Practice is at the core of the profession but without universal standards or a frame-
work for design research there is a concern for academics in clothing and textile design with regard
to their record of scholarship for tenure and promotion. Individuals face very different criteria
related to their scholarship, depending on their academic institution. Davis, Head of the Interdisci-
plinary PhD in Design at North Carolina State University (2008, p. 74), suggests that design
researchers focus on making our work ‘‘integral to the overall research mission of the university’’
so that design scholarship is considered a parallel of traditional university research. Development
of a standard to review the methods, dissemination, and evaluation of design research would give
critical support to clothing and textile design scholars in the context of academic review.
With a basic understanding of the historic and current views surrounding the design discipline, it
is important to look at the history and current state of clothing and textile design scholarship to
explore areas of opportunity. Historically, the main journals reporting research related to clothing
and textile design include the Clothing and Textiles Research Journal (CTRJ), the Journal of Family
and Consumer Sciences (JFCS; formerly the Journal of Home Economics [JHE]), and Family and
Consumer Sciences Research Journal (FCSRJ; formerly the Home Economics Research Journal

209
210 Clothing & Textiles Research Journal 28(3)

[HERJ]). Visibility of a field can be measured by a count of articles published. From 1911 to 1980 in
the JHE and from 1972 to 1980 in HERJ, there were 185 articles categorized as construction/design.
This category included teaching, research, and extension articles related to tailoring, general design-
ing, special purpose clothing, machine sewing, and sizing with commercial patterns (Chowdhary &
Meacham, 1983). At only 8% of all clothing and textile–related articles in these two journals, design
had very poor visibility. In a review of all articles published from 1980 to 1999 in FCSRJ, CTRJ, and
JFCS, only 50 of the 586 or about 8.5% were categorized as aesthetics/design/construction (Lennon,
Johnson, & Park, 2001). Reviewing the SAGE database for the CTRJ, from January 1982 to January
2010, there was also limited visibility of design research. Four percent (30/707) of the articles used
design as a keyword and 14.3% (101/707) used the word design in the abstract. These included arti-
cles related to sizing and fit, technology, and aesthetics with only a few that can be considered design
research. This count did not include those articles related to research design. In the last 10 years,
more international journals have been developed where clothing and textile design research meets
the content criteria. These include Fashion Practice, Fashion Theory, Journal of Research Practice,
Journal of Textile and Apparel Technology and Management, and Textiles: The Journal of Cloth and
Culture. Journals with a broader interest in design, including Design Studies, Design Issues, and The
Design Journal have little representation from clothing and textile design. As scholars in clothing
and textile design, we need to increase our visibility and voice through published research.
In addition to research, scholars in clothing and textile design exhibit and present a range of orig-
inal work based on practice in regional, national, and international exhibitions and many have
authored books supporting clothing and textile design topics. The first national design exhibition
sponsored by the Association of College Professors of Textiles and Clothing (currently the
International Textiles and Apparel Association [ITAA]) was held in 1989 in Atlanta, Georgia.
The theme was ‘‘Apparel for Travel’’ and there were 10 faculty finalists and 19 student finalists
(N. MacDonald, personal contact, February 21, 2008). This modest exhibition has grown to a profes-
sionally produced runway show and standing exhibition. In 2009, with an acceptance rate of 27%, the
exhibition presented a total of 102 artifacts from faculty, professionals, and students. Catalogues
were published for the 2006–2009 exhibitions in response to the need for formal, retrievable documen-
tation. Between the January 2002 issue and the January 2010 issue, 14 design abstracts from award
winners have been published in CTRJ. These describe the inspiration, materials, and design process,
but they are not particularly design research because there is not an analysis or synthesis component
based on an inquiry. This is not a full view of the research and scholarship in clothing and textile
design, but it is representative of members of ITAA with a focus on clothing and textile design.

Future
The concept of pluralism in design research is critical because the discipline is built from many
domains, each influenced by its own challenges and methods of discovery (Buchanan, 2007; Cross,
2007). The foundations needed to build the discipline depend on each domain contributing to the
larger knowledge base. With a focus on the designerly ways of knowing, thinking, and acting,
approaches to theory and design research can be developed that are domain independent (Cross,
2007). The future of the clothing and textile design discipline is linked to the larger design domain.
A broader view of our similarities will help move the design discipline beyond the tradition of tech-
nical crafting to a tradition of design knowing. Friedman (2002, p. 210) characterizes this concept as
the difference between ‘‘doing things right,’’ which is a technical decision and ‘‘doing the right
thing,’’ which is a design decision. Although he was referring to industrial design practice, the idea
applies to all fields of design.
To create a design discipline with the appropriate knowledge, foundation, and theories, endogen-
ous research must be initiated from researchers who are also designers. There is distinctive

210
Bye 211

knowledge in the awareness and ability of the designer that is independent of different professional
domains, but the work must extend beyond the general application of the design process (Cross,
2007). Everyday practice alone or exemplary work is not research. It requires the development of
professional or academic practice (Friedman, 2002) that intentionally looks for new knowledge and
understanding.
Research based on practice is critical to the design discipline. Empirical inquiry that includes the
activity of designing and the designed object as the outcome is a valid source of data for reflection,
analysis, and knowledge development (Pedgley, 2007). Multiple methods, both established and
experimental, may be required to address the variety of data needed (Gray & Malins, 2004) to
respond to a problem or inquiry derived from practice. Schön (1983) promotes the value of a practi-
tioner’s experience, believing in the benefit of recorded reflection, planned and unplanned actions
and their results, and redirection along with more systematic reporting, which includes the develop-
ment of the problem. Many in the design discipline have agreed that design has its own culture of
developing knowledge. The academic design community is working toward establishing methods
and evaluation criteria to support the discovery and communication of new design knowledge based
on our own standards of rigor that are equal but may differ from those in the sciences and arts (Cross,
2007).
The discipline’s need for both broad design knowledge and knowing based in physical craft sup-
ports two forms of design research, both based on practice: problem solving and creative production
(Scrivener, 2000) or research through practice. Both can generate primary data that can be analyzed
and presented in a form that contributes to the knowledge base (Douglas et al., 2000). Problem-
solving design research that is framed around a problem derived from an identified need uses prac-
tice and testing to support the discovery of new knowledge. This type of research has been called
functional design, technological research (Scrivener, 2000), or product development. In clothing and
textile design, this could be a functional problem, ‘‘How can ocean lifeguards protect themselves
from the sun?’’ or an aesthetic problem ‘‘What visual elements best represent patriotism in an Olym-
pic uniform?’’ Many hold the point of view that problem solving is essential to practice design and
for design research. Buchanan (2001) suggests that without a design problem, the work is evolution,
not research.
Although less familiar than product development, creative production can be approached from an
evolving model of research through practice. Research through practice is focused on problems
derived from practice, initiated from an inquiry, or directed by an aim or goal. It uses documented
practice and other appropriate methods, including reflection, in the development of an artifact.
A variety of primary data forms can capture the experience and a critical analysis is completed to
respond to the purpose of the research. The artifact is not made to be tested or measured but is evi-
dence of the knowledge discovered during practice. Forms of data could include uncompleted arti-
facts, prototypes, and evidence of process including sketches. Scrivener (2000) presents this concept
as an alternate to a problem-solving project that also meets the research requirements of a PhD in
Design. He suggests that creative production (research through practice) is fundamentally different
from problem solving because the knowing and knowledge is a derivative of the practice.
Arguments can be made that creative production is not research or design; however, an open view
is needed to understand the unique qualities of knowledge derived from practice. If research through
practice is an accessible and systematic inquiry that uses analysis to inform the practice of design,
then this knowledge is valuable and critical to building the design discipline. The case examples,
visuals, and knowing that result and are communicated inform strategies for practice that advance
the field (Schon, 1983; Scrivener, 2000). An excellent example, though not from clothing and textile
design, is the work by Bunnell (1998) who looked at the impact of technology and environmentally
sensitive materials on her work as a ceramist. The body of work developed new aesthetic qualities in
the medium and extended the knowledge of appropriate and practical capabilities of the

211
212 Clothing & Textiles Research Journal 28(3)

technologies. Her use of a naturalistic approach to the research contributes to the development of
appropriate methodologies for research through practice. The research completed by Otto Von
Busch (2008), Fashionable Hacktivism, is an example of practice combined with action research
methods. His work offers a new perspective and model for design research. The advancement of
a research through practice approach will depend on continued exploration and review of our pub-
lished work. Continued efforts to investigate diverse data resulting from creative practice are needed
to reveal information and interpret patterns gathered from the practitioner’s point of view (Douglas
et al., 2000). Collaboration with design practitioners who may not be familiar with a research frame-
work may be essential in cocreating knowledge (Dorst, 2008).
There has been considerable research on the processes and practices of design; however, the areas
of epistemology and phenomenology are rich with opportunities (Cross, 2007). Across design
domains, we tend to focus on clinical or case study research. This is valuable knowledge that may
give insight into problems beyond the individual case. However,

‘‘We will do well to recognize that gathering data and assembling facts is only a small part of the chal-
lenge of research to advance that understanding of design. Applied research is critical to this task, since it
seeks to establish connections among many individual cases. And basic research is the most difficult and
critical to the future of the field, because it seeks to establish which are the significant facts and connec-
tions in our experience of design.’’ (Buchanan, 2001, p. 10)

Understanding the hierarchy of case, applied and basic research can help to frame a plan and direc-
tion for design researchers. Buchanan (2001) suggests that the challenge in building a design disci-
pline is to understand how designers can contribute to interdisciplinary work and then return with
knowledge that addresses the problems of design.
Bonsiepe (2007) believes that design knowledge is inherent in the people, processes, and products
of design. Dorst (2008) suggests a framework for the design discipline that includes design object,
designer, design context, and design process. Unfortunately, there is relatively little research sup-
porting the object, the designer, or the context. He calls for more analysis to support the why ques-
tions of design that could lead to models and theories. Information from research through practice
could introduce some fresh perspective to many of these why questions.
Consider Buchanan’s (2001, p. 5) definition of design, ‘‘Design is the human power of conceiv-
ing, planning, and making products that serve human beings . . . ,’’ and a very simplified definition
of research, ‘‘accessible systematic inquiry’’ (Gray & Malins, 2004, p. 3). Much of our creative scho-
larship in clothing and textile design is focused on designing an artifact based on inspiration and for
the pleasure of the designer or a client. With the addition of reflection and analysis in a discovery
context, artifacts and exhibitions that are developed as research through practice can contribute
important knowledge to the design discipline. Knowledge that resides within individual designers
needs to find a path to the larger body of design knowledge. With so many ‘‘rules of thumb’’ or
assumptions in clothing and textile design practice that are not based on research, developing a
research question should not be an issue. All forms of scholarship are valuable components of our
profession, but it is research that advances the discipline.
Some of our published scholarship in clothing and textile design reports experimental investiga-
tions describing the process of exploring techniques to achieve a desired result. This documentation
of tacit information is valuable; however, it is the addition of an analysis component developed from
a research inquiry, a problem from practice, or reflection on original work that transforms the infor-
mation to knowledge. Parsons and Campbell (2004) presented a purposeful analysis of the impact of
digital printing technology on a four-phase design process based on the results of five projects. As
experience with the limits and advantages of the technology increased, the design process became
more linear with the advantage of increased attention on creative exploration. Townsend (2004) used

212
Bye 213

design practice as a methodology to explore the relationship between 2D textile prints and 3D gar-
ment forms, resulting in a simultaneous design method that combines computer-aided design (CAD)
and traditional draping. Sustainable clothing design methods using post-consumer recycled clothing
were analyzed using information from focus groups, garment diaries, and exhibit questionnaires to
evaluate personal, environmental, and economic value (Young, Jirousek, & Ashdown, 2004). The
results suggested that clothing can act as a common vehicle to encourage discussion about recycling
and reuse and that good design is essential to communicate environmental principles. Our challenge
is to reframe experimental investigations and the development of artifacts and exhibitions as
research through practice. For example, in Explorations in Pleated Fabric Garment Structures
(Sparks, 2004), the author indicates that the purpose of the article is to document the process and
summarize previous experimental research. Although not formally framed as such, this is research
through practice. The implicit inquiry or problem derived from practice is ‘‘What methods and tech-
niques are appropriate to give a garment constructed of woven fabric the stretch and wrinkle resis-
tance of a knit?’’ The development of seven artifacts was a systematic, purposeful investigation that
has been documented and analyzed, and it is accessible through its publication.
We have great opportunities to contribute to the content of and discourse on design research.
Many current scholars with a focus in clothing and textile design were trained to use scientific meth-
ods of inquiry when they completed their doctoral degrees. As researchers, we understand the objec-
tive process of collecting data, testing hypotheses, drawing conclusions, and contributing to the
building of theory and the larger knowledge base. As designers, we understand the design process
and the practice of design. The problem lies in the perception that research and practice fall at oppo-
site ends of a spectrum. Pursuing a course of research through practice is a way to transfer the tacit
knowledge of practicing designers to a broader, more robust knowledge base that can be shared by
researchers, educators, and practitioners. The clothing and textile field has moved away from a mas-
ter/apprentice approach of transferring knowledge and skill. The tacit knowledge that is held by a
master designer is in danger of being lost for several reasons: (a) there are fewer masters still practi-
cing who have the ability and opportunity to share with the next generation, (b) the increased use of
technology has removed some of the nuances and details in the design and production process and
the awareness of their value has disappeared. For example, though pattern grading is quick and inex-
pensive using CAD methods, much of the art of pattern grading is lost when the process is reduced to
moving coordinates to meet a desired measurement without regard for the final visual results of pro-
cess (Bye & DeLong, 1994), and (c) most designers are now trained in a formal academic environ-
ment with faculty who have varying levels of experience in practice. Thus, there is a real need to
capture the knowledge of practice.

Framework for Clothing and Textile Design Scholarship

The following framework for clothing and textile design scholarship offers possible approaches to
addressing practice as a key element of the scholarship in the field. It is intended to be viewed as a
continuum with many shared elements: the primary being practice and the making of an artifact. For
ease of discussion, the three approaches are presented as independent paths. However, the designer/
researcher may move between paths or adopt new approaches as the research and project evolves.
The purpose of this proposed framework is to provide a context for discussion and debate regarding
the defining characteristics of design research and scholarship in clothing and textiles. Each
approach is discussed briefly (Figure 1).
Problem-based design research starts from a clearly defined problem derived from an identified
need. This path closely follows a traditional approach to research with a review of literature, estab-
lished research methods for testing or evaluation, and practice. An artifact, product, prototype, or
system results from the practice and an analysis is conducted using the data resulting from the testing

213
214 Clothing & Textiles Research Journal 28(3)

Figure 1. Framework for clothing and textile design scholarship.

and evaluation. Expected outcomes include peer-reviewed publications and presentations, patents,
exhibits, or commercial products. This approach is most directly related to a combination of quan-
titative and qualitative methods, with the incorporation of a practice element that becomes iterative
with testing and defining the research problem. This iterative process is directly related to the design
process. In clothing and textiles research, this design process and related frameworks studied by
LaBat and Sokoloski (1999), Regan, Kincade, and Sheldon (1998), and Lamb and Kallal (1992)
have guided the development of the problem-based design research path.
Research through practice is initiated based on a problem or question that is derived from prac-
tice. A contextual review is similar to a literature review but extends more broadly to include a cri-
tique of other media, interviews, exhibits, and artifacts. Practice is the main method of discovery
though other appropriate methods may be adopted, adapted, or developed. Frequently, reflection
during practice is recorded and becomes the data for analysis and interpretation. An artifact or arti-
facts result from the practice, and an analysis of the practice is completed to share in a peer-reviewed
publication or presentation, an exhibition, patent, or commercial product. The framework’s path of
research through practice is built on Schön’s Reflective Practitioner, Johnson’s (2007) view that the
main elements of knowing are action and practice, Gray and Malins (2004) models from Visualizing
Research, and examples including Parsons and Campbell (2004), Sparks (2004), and Bunnell
(1998).
Creative practice is scholarship initiated from an inspiration, the desire to express an idea, or sim-
ply create. The design process is followed to develop an artifact or a body of work that may then be

214
Bye 215

shared in a peer-reviewed publication or presentation, exhibition, or as a patent or commercial prod-

uct. Although some evaluation takes place during the design process, there is no formal analysis in
response to a problem or inquiry. The resulting artifact does reflect the culture and designer, how-
ever, it is not considered research. Although much creative scholarship is presented in juried exhibi-
tions, the design process can become the focus of peer-reviewed publications. Some examples are
Wearable Art through Free-Motion Stitching (Haar, 2004) and Practical Techniques for Designing
with Exotic Leather: American Alligator and Emu (Belleau, Marquette, & Summers, 2004). It would
strengthen the growing body of design knowledge to reframe some of our creative practice scholar-
ship as research through practice.
The continuum from problem-based design research to creative practice represents the current
boundaries of clothing and textile design scholarship. However, these boundaries only represent the
edge of future discovery in the discipline. The framework is intended to allow for evolving methods
and standards of evaluation under the context of research through practice.

Conclusion
As we move from a rigid definition of knowledge as certainty and fact, there is opportunity to con-
tribute to the unique knowledge of design. The tacit knowledge of hands-on experience is distinct
but it cannot remain solely with the practitioner or the artifact. Clothing and textile design has a long
tradition in creative practice and apprenticeship but due to the increasing complexity of our world
there is a need to formally capture the knowledge of our field. The design discipline is dependent on
all areas of design to contribute to our understanding of a designerly way of knowing that develops
theory serving the practice of design. This may not be in the form of formal theory but rather as
‘‘examples, images, understandings’’ (Schön, 1983, p. 138) that can be used to advance practice
(Scrivener, 2000). Lack of established methods and standards of evaluation present challenges, but
there is clear evidence that the design discipline wants to establish a strong foundation and advance
the field. The proposed framework for clothing and textile design scholarship is intended to bring
clothing and textile scholars into the broader conversation about design research and to ignite
research through practice as a valuable approach to developing knowledge. Our continued discourse
and participation beyond current clothing and textile design publications, exhibitions, and confer-
ences will contribute to shaping the tenets of design research, allowing this unique, tacit knowledge
to grow more robust and accessible. This construction of knowledge that is characteristic of design
grows the discipline: one that complements scientific thinking and thus expands our vision for the
world.

Acknowledgement
The author gratefully acknowledges the role of the editor, associate editor, blind reviewers, and the
Practice-led Research panel from the 2009 ITAA conference in the refinement of this manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of
this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

References
Archer, B. (1979a). Whatever became of design methodology? Design Studies, 1, 17-18.
Archer, B. (1979b). The three Rs. Design Studies, 1, 18-20.

215
216 Clothing & Textiles Research Journal 28(3)

Belleau, B., Marquette, Y. B., & Summers, T. A. (2004). Practical techniques for designing with exotic leather:
American Alligator and Emu. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 22, 53-60.
Biggs, M. (2003). The role of ‘‘the work’’ in art and design research. Parip National Conference September
11–14. Retrieved August 16, 2008, from http://www.bristol.ac.uk/parip/biggs
Bonsiepe, G. (2007). The uneasy relationship between design and design research. In R. Michel (Ed.), Design
research now (pp. 25-40). Basel, Switzerland: Birkhäuser Verlag AG.
Boyer, E. L. (1997). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Buchanan, R. (2001). Design research and the new learning. Design Issues, 17, 3-23.
Buchanan, R. (2007). Strategies of design research: Productive science and rhetorical inquiry. In R. Michel
(Ed.), Design research now (pp. 55-66). Basel, Switzerland: Birkhäuser Verlag AG.
Bunnell, K. (1998). The integration of new technology into ceramic designer-maker practice. Retrieved January
15, 2009, from http://www.biad.uce.ac.uk/research/rti/case_studies/design/bunnell/aims.htm
Bye, E., & DeLong, M. R. (1994). A visual sensory evaluation of the results of two pattern grading methods.
Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 12, 1-7.
Chowdhary, U., & Meacham, E. (1983). Changing focus of textiles and clothing within home economics: An
analysis of two professional journals. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 2, 15-18.
Cross, N. (2006). Forty years of design research. Design Research Quarterly, 1, 3-5.
Cross, N. (2007). From a design science to a design discipline: Understanding designerly ways of knowing and
thinking. In R. Michel (Ed.), Design research now (pp. 41-54). Basel, Switzerland: Birkhäuser Verlag AG.
Davis, M. (2008). Why do we need doctoral study in design? International Journal of Design, 2, 71-79.
Dorst, K. (2008). Design research: A revolution waiting to happen. Design Studies, 29, 4-11.
Douglas, A., Scopa, K., & Gray, C. (2000). Research through practice: Positioning the practitioner as
researcher. Working Papers in Art and Design 1. Retrieved August 16, 2008, from http://www.herts.ac.
uk/artdes/research/papers/wpades/vol1/douglas2.html
Durling, D. (2000). Reliable knowledge in design. Working Papers in Art and Design 1. Retrieved September
16, 2008, from http://www.herts.ac.uk/artdes/research/papers/wpades/vol1/durling2.html
Elkin, J. (2002). The UK research assessment exercise 2001. Libri, 52, 204–208. Retrieved January 31, 2009,
from http://www.librijournal.org/pdf/2002-4pp204-208.pdf
Friedman, K. (2002). Conclusion: Toward an integrative design discipline. In S. Squire & B. Byrne (Eds.), Cre-
ating breakthrough ideas: The collaboration of anthropologists and designers in the product development
industry (pp. 199-214). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Gray, C., & Malins, J. (2004). Visualizing research: A guide to the research process in art and design. Hants,
England: Ashgate Publishing.
Haar, S. J. (2004). Wearable art through free-motion stitching. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 22, 31-37.
Harvard, A. (2004). Prototyping spoken here: Artifacts and knowledge production in design. Working Papers in
Art and Design 3. Retrieved August 16, 2008, from http://www.herts.ac.uk/artdes/research/papers/wpades/
vol3/ahfull.html
Johnson, M. (2007). ‘The stone that was cast out shall become the cornerstone:’ The bodily aesthetics of human
meaning. Journal of Visual Art Practice, 6, 89-103.
Jonas, W. (2007). Design research and its meaning to the methodological development of the discipline. In
R. Michel (Ed.), Design research now (pp. 187-206). Basel, Switzerland: Birkhäuser Verlag AG.
Krippendorff, K. (2007). Design research, an oxymoron. In R. Michel (Ed.), Design research now (pp. 67-80).
Basel, Switzerland: Birkhäuser Verlag AG.
LaBat, K., & Sokolowski, S. (1999). A three-stage design process applied to an industry-university textile prod-
uct design project. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 17, 11-20.
Lamb, J. M., & Kallal, M. J. (1992). A conceptual framework for apparel design. Clothing and Textiles
Research Journal, 10, 42-47.
Lennon, S. J., Johnson, K. K. P., & Park, J. H. (2001). Research trends in textiles and clothing: An analysis of
three journals, 1980-1999. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 30, 117-139.

216
Bye 217

Niedderer, K. (2007). Mapping the meaning of knowledge in design research. Design Research Quarterly, 2,
5-12.
Parsons, J., & Campbell, J. R. (2004). Digital apparel design process: Placing a new technology into a
framework for the creative design process. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 22, 88-98.
Pedgley, O. (2007). Capturing and analyzing won design activity. Design Studies, 28, 463-483.
Pink, D. (2005). A whole new mind. New York, NY: Riverhead Books.
Regan C. L., Kincade D. H., & Sheldon G. (1998). Applicability of the engineering design process theory in the
apparel design process. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal. 16(1), pp 36-46.
Roth, S. (1999). The state of design research. Design Issues, 15, 18-26.
Rittel, W. M. (1973). Dilemmas in general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155-169.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Scrivener, S. (2000). Reflection in and on action and practice in creative-production doctoral projects in art
and design. Working Papers in Art and Design 2. Retrieved August 16, 2008, from http://sitem.herts.ac.
uk/artdes_research/papers/wpades/vol11/scrivener2.html
Smith, C. (2004). Critical objects: the practice of research through making. Working Papers in Art and Design
3. Retrieved August 16, 2008, from http://www.herts.ac.uk/artdes/research/papers/wpades/vol3/csfull.html
Sparks, D. (2004). Explorations in pleated fabric garment structures. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal,
22, 38-43.
Stappers, P. J. (2007). Doing design as part of doing research. In R. Michel (Ed.), Design research now
(pp. 25-40). Basel, Switzerland: Birkhäuser Verlag AG.
Townsend, K. (2004). Transforming shape: Hybrid practice as group activity. The Design Journal, 7, 18-31.
Von Busch, O. (2008). Fashionable Hacktivism. Retrieved September 17, 2009, from http://www.selfpassage.org/
Young, C., Jirousek, C., & Ashdown, S. (2004). Undesigned: A study in sustainable design of apparel using
post-consumer recycled clothing. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 22, 61-68.

Bios
Elizabeth Bye is an Associate Professor in the College of Design at the University of Minnesota. Her areas of
interest in teaching and research include apparel technology, product development and sizing and fit.
ebye@umn.edu

217