Generating Evidence from Day-to-Day Activities: Methodological Issues—Part 1

Two of the fundamental tenets of evidence-based design are the use of reliable evidence in decision making and generating evidence where it is lacking. These may represent a tall order to many, especially when the term evidence is equated with experimental studies. However, as I have noted in other articles, experimental study design is only one of the numerous available designs adopted in research studies-and a very robust one. More importantly, nonresearch activities that incorporate certain necessary attributes of scientific research can produce quality evidence. Quality evidence from sources other than traditional scientific research has already been promoted in evidence- based practice (Stetler et al., 1998). Such activities constitute the focus of this article.We approach this topic in three steps. This section clarifies a few terms, which is necessary for a better comprehension of the subsequent discussions. The following section addresses six activities that present opportunities for the generation of quality evidence. The last section (in Part 2 of this article) outlines five methodological issues that should be considered necessary steps to convert day-to-day activity data into valuable evidence. This is not a research methods chapter; ideally, individuals interested in the topic should consult textbooks on the subject.Several tasks that design and/or clinical professionals conduct in typical projects can be used to generate high-quality evidence. The proposition here does not entail changing the tasks being performed; rather, it focuses on a few areas of methodological modification to incorporate some fundamental principles of scientific research. It should be emphasized that the activities presented in this paper are commonly conducted in professional projects. They do not entail any significant additional commitment of human resources. A few precautionary steps can help ensure the generation of valuable evidence.The scope of this column is limited to nonexperimental methods and, more specifically, activities that by definition fall outside the realm of research. Thus, a few definitions are warranted to eliminate any potential ambiguity in the following discussions. To begin with, what is research? To keep it simple, I will use a definition from an introductory statistics book: "research is any process by which information is systematically and carefully gathered for the purpose of answering questions, examining ideas, or testing theories" (Healey, 1999, p. 1). Although many of the activities introduced in the following section may seem to be "addressing questions" or "examining ideas," the word systematic truly distinguishes scientific research from these activities. All scientific studies follow a standard set of steps, which may vary marginally between disciplines but are necessarily adhered to by all researchers. Almost all activities performed in a typical architectural project fall outside the definition of research.Clarification is also warranted on the terms subjective and objective. These are highly complex concepts, and a lot has been written on them in research methods books. The intention here is to begin to understand these concepts. The term objective (or subjective) can be associated with the data as well as with the process or method adopted. The essence of the term subjective is captured in the dictionary as "characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind; relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states" (Merriam-Webster, 2011). In other words, any data generated as the result of a mental or cognitive process of a human being are subjective. Examples of subjective data include preferences, judgments, opinions, and self-assessments of health conditions such as stress or pain, among others. Owing to the nature of the data, the things that we are interested in are not amenable to direct measurement. …