Study Design Process Research Articles

Semiosic Processes and Design Processes. Inventiveness, Dialogue, Narrativity, Translation

Design semiotics could lead to two lines of research: the study of design products and the study of design processes. As much as the analysis of artifacts has significance, the survey about semiosic processes inside design processes is the one that defines the unique nature of semiotics in the design context. This investigation follows “the pragmatist route” to design semiotics, for two reasons: (1) because it understands design as an activity that leverages the concept of inventive abduction and can provide answers to cognitive challenges; (2) because the work of design is never to be conceived as concluded in the final result, but embedded in a f low of unlimited semiosis. I will focus on the concept of semiosis according to Peirce’s semiotics, understood as a process of production of sense. In this way, I will deal with the following four processes: Inventiveness, whose logical model refers to abduction, the process that enables exploration of the ways to possible meanings. Based on Bakhtin’s literary theory and Bohm’s epistemology, dialogicity, which will be considered as the social interaction model underpinning every social idea of design. Narrativity, understood as the general scheme that is implemented in a project, understood as a series of actions leading to the achievement of a goal, and as a process of transformation. Translation, considered not only as an interpretation process that takes place between different forms of expression, but especially as a transition from a problem or desire to an “interpretant artifact.”

A Programmatic Approach to the Design of a Video Simulation Case Study

BackgroundThis feasibility study describes the often-underreported process of designing, testing, and refining a video simulation case study before implementing into coursework. MethodThe revised Medical Research Council Framework (2014) was used as a guide to develop a video simulation case study. It was evaluated using a systematic refinement strategy and the Simulation Design Scale. Ratings were analyzed using descriptive data. Nursing students also responded to an open-ended question to provide qualitative feedback to its design elements. Written comments by students were analyzed using the principles of qualitative content analysis. ResultsWe used five best practice guidelines, a subject matter expert group, and nursing students to guide the video simulation case study's design process. During its refinement, descriptive statistics revealed a gradual increase in the mean scores of the Simulation Design Scale; the first iteration's mean score was 3.45 ± 0.17, and the third iteration's mean score was 4.85 ± 0.14. Conclusion(s)A best practice approach and a systematic refinement strategy improved its overall design elements and merited further investigation.

Maintaining Internal Validity in Community Partnered Participatory Research: Experience from the Community Partners in Care Study.

With internal validity being a central goal of designed experiments, we seek to elucidate how community partnered participatory research (CPPR) impacts the internal validity of public health comparative-effectiveness research. Community Partners in Care (CPIC), a study comparing a community-coalition intervention to direct technical assistance for disseminating depression care to vulnerable populations, is used to illustrate design choices developed with attention to core CPPR principles. The study-design process is reviewed retrospectively and evaluated based on the resulting covariate balance across intervention arms and on broader peer-review assessments. Contributions of the CPIC Council and the study's design committee are highlighted. CPPR principles contributed to building consensus around the use of randomization, creating a sampling frame, specifying geographic boundaries delimiting the scope of the investigation, grouping similar programs into pairs or other small blocks of units, collaboratively choosing random-number-generator seeds to determine randomized intervention assignments, and addressing logistical constraints in field operations. Study protocols yielded samples that were well-balanced on background characteristics across intervention arms. CPIC has been recognized for scientific merit, has drawn attention from policymakers, and has fueled ongoing research collaborations. Creative and collaborative fulfillment of CPPR principles reinforced the internal validity of CPIC, strengthening the study's scientific rigor by engaging complementary areas of knowledge and expertise among members of the investigative team.