First, this DBR process requires close collaboration with multiple partners, copious data collection and longitudinal research over 2-4 years or even more than 10 years. How would (or could) this fit in with the normally quick-moving and intuitive (’thin-slicing’) processes in the industry? How would the gap be closed at all?

Second, to collect copious data which are less burdensome (to the subjects), A/P H. suggested “Think Alouds” exercises with audio recordings. However, after the event, can one tell through mere voices “who said what?” Is a general sense of “someone said this” and “another person said that” sufficient for the ‘rigor’ required in research? Work and more work seems the order of the day.

Third, the new terminology seem to highlight issues that are already being considered in current research methods or industry practices. For example, curricula in education tertiary institutions generally evolve over time. Iterations of specific interventions are introduced to the design of certain modules, units or topics over a semester (or week or day), based on indications from earlier data collections (e.g. surveys, focus groups or immediate student responses). I also see terminologies and people from information design/usability camps creeping into DBR, e.g. “usable knowledge”, “design patterns”, Alan Cooper.

Wait a minute. Is this complicated, ‘relevant’, new-fangled way of doing things just some “emperor’s new clothes”? OR will DBR, with its heightened focus on complex design issues, really bridge the gap between theory and practice one day?