A Critical Assessment of Evidence-Based Design's Knowledge Base and Inspiration: A Systematic Review

Purpose: This study examines Evidence-Based Design (EBD) as an epistemological framework for guiding design research and practice, with a particular focus on its reliance on Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) as a source of methodological inspiration. Background: Over the past two decades, EBD has been promoted as a way to strengthen design processes through the systematic use of scientific evidence. Its relationship to EBM, however, remains conceptually ambiguous: EBD draws legitimacy from EBM's hierarchical conception of “best evidence” while at the same time acknowledging the specificities of design practice, which do not easily fit such a model. Methodology: A systematic review was conducted on 31 publications in the design research literature that explicitly address the tension surrounding EBD's conception of “best evidence.” The criticisms raised were coded and analyzed by main topics and subtopics. Results: The review highlights several reasons why EBM's hierarchical view of “best evidence” is an unsuitable epistemological foundation for EBD. It imposes scientifically inappropriate and practically ineffective methodological standards, devalues important sources of design knowledge, and fails to address central epistemic challenges intrinsic to design processes. Conclusions: By bringing together critical yet fragmented insights from the literature, this study argues for the development of an updated epistemological framework for EBD. Constructing this framework will require sustained interdisciplinary dialogue between design research and philosophy of science.