After reading these articles, I’ve gathered many definitions of research. General, scientific, design-based. I decided the reasons these definitions are so different is most likely because they were proposed by their faithful subjects. Of course a design major will claim the scientific definition of research is suffocating their creativity. And, of course, a non-design major, perhaps a science major, will believe anything “the research” says. It is within the nature of the individual to do so.
Being a science major myself, I crave the stability of calculation. I want “the research.” However, I want the research supported. So in this sense, the design approach is useful. Since there is no set formula for emotional response (we can predict based on psychological experimental data, but we might never be completely consistent), the design method is a suitable crutch. It can consider culture and other influences as well. Such influences cannot always be measured quantitatively.
Overall, it seems as though all these definitions and methods of research provide pros and cons. Whether or not a certain attribute is a pro or con is up to the person evaluating… I wonder what percentage of evaluators are scientific and what percent are design? And if the scientific outweigh the design, does considering the design stand point matter much?