Editorial Two papers in this issue continue the theme of Participation in Design from our last issue, guest edited by Henry Sanoff. In fact, these two papers - by Francis and by Iacofano, Moore and Goltsman - were originally submitted for the last issue but had to be held over because of lack of space.

Another major theme of design research is taken up by three other papers which coincide in this issue. The papers by Eckersley, Waldron and Waldron, and Stauffer and Ullman are all concerned with the problems of how to investigate the design process through studies of designer behaviour.

Studies of designer behaviour can be broadly classified into those which are based on observation of live design projects and those which are laboratory based. It is often difficult to gain access to live design projects for research purposes, and the natural complexity and richness of data of such projects create a daunting task for the researcher. However, it is important that such studies are attempted. Design behaviour is a natural phenomenon, which we must try to document reliably if we are to theorise effectively about it or to attempt to develop new techniques or procedures within it. Studies of live projects document the 'real world' of design practice, and can provide a common core of understanding, or discourse, for the 'theoretical world' of design research. The paper by Waldron and Waldron is based on one such study, and the other paper by Stauffer and Ullman includes this same study with five others in a comparison which develops the essential discourse. Both papers are concerned with the mechanical engineering design process.

Laboratory stndies of design behaviour can be at various levels of remove from the real world of design practice. At the closest, they can be observations of designers or design teams engaged in projects which to all intents and purposes are 'real', but which have been devised or set up specially for the research study. At intermediate levels they might be focused on selected aspects of the design process; at the furthest level of abstraction, laboratory studies might be based on, say, aspects of general problem-solving behaviour which are relevant to design but which use artificial problems for the study. Eckersley's paper reports a study of the intermediate type, focused on aspects of space planning by interior designers.

In a previous issue (July, 1987), we published papers by Hubka and Eder and by Bayazit. We would like to acknowledge the help of Wojciech Gasparski in the selection of these papers, which were revised versions of papers presented at the Cybernetics and Systems Research Conference, Vienna, Austria, April 1986.

D E S I G N S T U D I E S AWARD

We are very pleased to be able to announce that Butterworth Scientific and the Design Research Society have jointly launched a new award to promote the recognition of good examples of design research. An annual award will be made for the best paper published in Design Studies, and will include a prize of £200. The criteria for the award are, in order of priority:

• development of the field of design research • originality of research or scholarship • breadth of relevance • clarity and style of presentation.

We are also pleased to be able to announce the winner of the first such award. The Design Studies Award for 1987 is to be made to R. Davies and R.J. Talbot for their paper Experiencing Ideas: identity, insight and the imago published in the January, 1987 issue. The judges were particularly impressed by the authors' success in bringing extra-disciplinary methods to bear on one of the most difficult, but central aspects of the study of design. The research reported in the paper was based on the experiences of thirty five Royal Designers for Industry.

Nigel Cross

66 DESIGN STUDIES