"A great deal of art or design or technology activity entails some research, or orthodox or unorthodox kinds, in support of the main activity. It is not quite so certain that the activity itself is the same as research activity per se. One has to ask, was the art or design or technological activity an enquiry whose goal was knowledge? Was it systematically conducted? Were the data explicit? Was the record of the conduct of the activity 'transparent', in the sense that a later investigator could uncover the same information, replicate the procedures adopted, rehearse the argument conducted, and produce the same result? Were the data employed, and the outcome arrived at, validated in appropriate ways? Most academic institutions with higher level art, design or technology departments can point to at least a few cases of practical activity where an effort has been made, successfully, to meet these criteria. So can a few research institutes and professional design offices. In these cases the activity can properly be equated with research, and should be recognised and rewarded accordingly. Where any activity, whether it claims to be 'research' or not, fails to meet the criteria which define research activity as 'a systematic enquiry whose goal is communicable knowledge', it cannot properly be classed as research or equivalent to research. Where an activity does meet the criteria, it can be classed as research."
(Bruce Archer, 2004, p.28, The Design and Technology Association)
Archer, B. (2004). "Designerly Activity and Higher Degrees", The Design and Technology Association.
http://www.data.org.uk/generaldocs/dater/Designerly%20Activities.pdf