Keywords
research through design
virtual reality
prototype
traceability
evidence
reflexivity
Abstract
Practice-based immersive design research produces rich artefacts but often weakly traceable claims. Prototype operation, designer reflection, technical traces, participant accounts, and theoretical interpretation may be combined even though they support different inferences. This short article proposes the Prototype-to-Claim Traceability Protocol (PCTP), developed through methodological synthesis and demonstrated through an artefact-centred reconstruction of four immersive VR prototypes: Resonance of Light, Breathing Space, Temporal Displacement, and Echoes of Self. No participant quotations, outcomes, recordings, transcripts, or personal data are reported. The protocol separates five evidence classes and pairs them with descriptive, relational, explanatory, and transfer claims. Its six-stage workflow covers evidence planning, source identification, artefact versioning, source-near coding, claim–evidence mapping, and negative-case/verb auditing. The PCTP treats absent or retrospective records as limits rather than invitations to reconstruct evidence. It offers a compact method for retaining the epistemic value of making while increasing auditability, reflexivity, and ethical restraint.
Keywords: practice-based research; research through design; virtual reality; prototype; traceability; evidence; reflexivity
References
Borgdorff, H. (2012). The conflict of the faculties: Perspectives on artistic research and academia. Leiden University Press.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238
Candy, L., & Edmonds, E. (2018). Practice-based research in the creative arts: Foundations and futures from the front line. Leonardo, 51(1), 63–69. https://doi.org/10.1162/LEON_a_01471
Fallman, D., & Stolterman, E. (2010). Establishing criteria of rigour and relevance in interaction design research. Digital Creativity, 21(4), 265–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/14626268.2010.548869
Finlay, L. (2002). Negotiating the swamp: The opportunity and challenge of reflexivity in research practice. Qualitative Research, 2(2), 209–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/146879410200200205
Frayling, C. (1993). Research in art and design (Royal College of Art Research Papers, Vol. 1, No. 1). Royal College of Art.
Gaver, W. (2012). What should we expect from research through design? In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 937–946). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208538
Nelson, R. (2013). Practice as research in the arts: Principles, protocols, pedagogies, resistances. Palgrave Macmillan.
Polydorou, D. (2024). Immersive storytelling experiences: A design methodology. Digital Creativity, 35(4), 301–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/14626268.2024.2389886
Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121
Wragg, N., & Barnes, C. (2021). Advancing interactivity: Graphic designers' practice-based contribution to developing the Web. Digital Creativity, 32(2), 143–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/14626268.2021.1898987
Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J., & Evenson, S. (2007). Research through design as a method for interaction design research in HCI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 493–502). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240704
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2026 Xiangting Jiao, Ahmad Rashidi bin Hasan