Praxiology: Mapping Categories of Design Research

Mapping Categories of Design Research

Introduction

Co-design and the wider family of “co-methods” are messy. There are multiple labels, overlapping practices, and no clear agreement on where each sits. My goal in this research is to bring some clarity to that space. As a reference point, I’ve been looking at how others have tried to categorise design research. One example is Frankel & Racine’s (2010) map of design research categories.

💡 Praxiology

From the Greek praxis (action), praxiology is the study of practice and purposeful human activity. In design research, it anchors models that view knowledge as something created in and through practice, rather than detached from it.

The Diagram

Figure adapted from Frankel & Racine (2010): Map of Design Research Categories.

Figure adapted from Frankel & Racine (2010): Map of Design Research Categories.

This diagram maps three domains of design research that sit across several continuums: case-based to theoretical, practice-oriented to research-oriented, and design methods to design science. The domains are described as clinical, applied, and basic research, aligned with Frayling’s categories of for, through, and about design. At the centre is praxiology, which anchors the model in practice and positions action as the common root of design knowledge.

The construction is multi-dimensional. It recognises that design research operates simultaneously through methods, through epistemology, and through its orientation to practice or theory. Clinical work supports projects directly, applied work reflects and generalises from practice, and basic work interrogates the theoretical and epistemological foundations of design. The diagram sets these strands in relation, without flattening their differences. For me, this kind of structuring is directly relevant to the goal of bringing clarity to co-design and the wider family of co-methods, where confusion still dominates.

Why This Matters

I find that there is a lack of clarity in the field of co-design and the wider set of co-methods, particularly in Health research where practitioners are from many varied fields. Terms are often used interchangeably, methods overlap, and boundaries blur. Frankel & Racine’s diagram shows one way of addressing this problem in design research: it categorises without oversimplifying. By positioning clinical, applied, and basic research across multiple continuums, it demonstrates that complexity can be ordered in a way that is still comprehensible.

For me, this matters because co-design in health and care may benefit significantly from a framework that shows relationships between methods, while still recognising their differences, could give researchers and practitioners a clearer map to work from.

Taxonomy Development

A taxonomy is a structured system for classifying and organising. In research, taxonomy development means identifying categories, defining their boundaries, and mapping their relationships. The aim is clarity: to reduce confusion by showing how different elements fit together into a coherent whole.

Conclusion

Mapping categories is a way of making sense of a complex field and showing how diverse practices relate to one another. The opportunity—and the task— that I see is to draw on models like this and extend them into co-design, building a framework that helps researchers and practitioners navigate methods with greater clarity and confidence.

Related Resources

• Frankel, L., and Racine, M. (2010) The Complex Field of Research: for Design, through Design, and about Design, in Durling, D., Bousbaci, R., Chen, L, Gauthier, P., Poldma, T., Roworth-Stokes, S. and Stolterman, E (eds.), Design and Complexity - DRS International Conference 2010, 7-9 July, Montreal, Canada. https://dl.designresearchsociety.org/drs-conference-papers/drs2010/researchpapers/43
• Frayling, C. (1993). Research in art and design. Royal College of Art Research Papers, 1(1), 1–5. Royal College of Art. https://researchonline.rca.ac.uk/384/