Two decades apart and looking forward – exploring rigour in reporting on research in the engineering design research community

Abstract

The engineering design research community is engaged in a long-standing and lively debate about what defines design as a unique field of research. This includes a discourse on a rigorous way of conducting research through various academic outlets germane to the community. This paper explores the current state of rigour in reporting engineering design research by analysing the proceedings of two recent ICED conferences and comparing the results with those of an identical analysis of an equivalent set of ICED proceedings published exactly 20 years earlier. A lack of such rigour ultimately permits lower quality work to prevail as it sets poor examples for young researchers and affects credibility and trustworthiness of the field. The data shows the significant improvements made and identifies potential areas to address. By establishing the current state of rigour in reporting considered acceptable in the community for one of its main conferences and how this has evolved, the paper allows us to infer trajectory and formulate concrete recommendations for further improvement.