Design-based research

Reference: Barab & Sequire (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences. 13 (1), 1-14.

The authors of this article are trying to make the case for design-based research (DBR) as distinctive from other research designs such as traditional psychological experiments or evaluation.

Several characteristic of DBR are presented:
· It is interventionist – it includes procedures to be implemented
· It develops in a naturalistic setting
· It is repetitive with feedback being incorporated into further refinements of the procedure

DBR is considered different from traditional psychological experiments in several aspects:
· It is developed within the “real world”, outside of the laboratory
· The context is taken into consideration
· It involves multiple dependent variables
· The design is flexible and subject to revision
· The social interactions are considered
· The participants are treated as partners by the researcher (co-participants)

What sets apart DBR from formative evaluation, although similarities have been pointed out:
· Constant connection with theory
· Potential to generate new theories (it is used to advance theory)
· “The context in which the DBR is being carried out is the minimal ontology for which the variables can be adequately investigated” (p. 5).

The most important difference, the authors point out, which separates DBR from other theory oriented research is that DBR has to produce “demonstrable changes at the local level” (p.6). Context is again extremely important for this kind of research; it emphasizes changes in the context “as necessary evidence for the viability of a theory” (p.6). The declared goal of design-based researcher is “to directly impact practice while advancing theory that will be of use to others” (p.8).
Narrative is one way of presenting DBR. The article, however, does not discuss alternative ways of making sense of DBR.

An interesting section of this article refers to the notion of replicability of DBR. The argument is that since the cultural context of the research is pretty much set, it becomes difficult to replicate a design-based study. “Providing rich description of the context, guiding and emerging theory, design features of the intervention, and the impact of these features on participation and learning”, in addition to describing the research design, constitute an approach that make the process visible to other interested in replication.

One of the challenges of DBR is that the researcher is not only observing the naturalistic context but she is “causing” the interactions in this setting. The whole idea of DBR seems to be that the researcher is supposed to intervene whenever is possible so the intervention is refined. The claims of the DBR should however acknowledge the researcher’s impact on the context. Thus the findings should be generalized with caution.

After reading this article, my questions are:
· Where does design-based research stand in relation to qualitative research and quantitative research?
· How different is it really from an iterative program evaluation?
· What are other ways of making sense of DBR than narrative?
· What kinds of questions does this type of research answer?