#13 Structuring the Chaos: Integrating the Double Diamond into a Neurodesign Research Process

After establishing a general research direction around neurodesign and eye-tracking, the next step is less glamorous but significantly more important: structure. Or, more precisely, preventing this project from turning into an endless collection of “interesting observations” without a clear outcome. Following a strong recommendation from Prof. Baumann, I am integrating the Double Diamond model (Design Council, 2005) into my research process—adapting it to fit an empirical, neurodesign-driven approach. The goal is to align creative exploration with methodological rigour, especially in preparation for the exhibitions taking place in early June. The Double Diamond framework divides the design process into four phases: Discover (diverging) , Define (converging), Develop (diverging), Deliver (converging). While traditionally used in design practice, it is increasingly applied in research contexts to structure problem framing and solution validation (Design Council, 2005). 

For a neurodesign project, this is particularly useful because the field itself sits between disciplines. Without a clear framework, it is very easy to: 

• read everything, 

• test everything, 

• and conclude… nothing specific. 

Trust me, I’ve been there…

Phase 1: Discover

The objective at this stage is to build a broad theoretical and contextual foundation.

To do so, the research begins with an extensive review of existing literature across multiple fields. This includes neurodesign and cognitive processing (Posner, 1980; Auerhammer, 2020), offering insight into how visual information is received and interpreted in the brain. In parallel, methodologies such as eye tracking (Holmqvist et al., 2011) provide a measurable way of observing attention in real time. Further perspectives on visual attention and cognitive load (Sweller, 1988; Spinks & Mortimer, 2016) help frame how and why certain elements are noticed, ignored, or cognitively processed. Alongside this theoretical groundwork, existing exhibition formats and visual environments are analyzed to understand how design operates within spatial and contextual settings. These observations help translate abstract concepts into applied scenarios.From this, a set of initial variables begins to emerge. Among them, the distinction between viewer expertise, comparing designers and non designers, becomes particularly relevant, as well as the type of visual stimuli presented. At this stage, the focus remains intentionally broad. The aim is not immediate clarity, but rather to create a state of informed confusion, an expanded field of understanding from which more precise questions can later develop.

Phase 2: Define

The objective at this stage is to narrow the research focus into a testable direction before the exhibitions begin. This process is guided through continuous refinement of the research question, supported by weekly discussions with Prof. Baumann. These conversations help translate broader interests into a more precise and actionable framework. Based on this, key parameters are defined. This includes identifying the target groups, as well as establishing clear measurement criteria such as fixations, gaze paths, and areas of interest. In parallel, a structured experimental setup is developed, specifically adapted to exhibition contexts, where environmental factors play a significant role in how visual information is perceived. To ensure feasibility, initial pilot tests are conducted. These include calibration processes and technical validation, allowing potential issues to be identified and resolved early on. This phase is critical because it transforms the intention to study neurodesign into a research approach that can be systematically observed, tested, and measured in practice.

Phase 3: Develop

The objective at this stage is to collect and expand empirical data within real world contexts. Eye tracking studies are conducted during exhibitions, with early June marking a key milestone in the data collection process. Participants are drawn from both designers and non designers, allowing for a comparative perspective on how visual information is processed across different levels of expertise. The experimental setup remains flexible throughout this phase. Adjustments and iterations are made where necessary in order to respond to practical challenges and ensure the reliability of the collected data. In addition to quantitative measurements, observational notes are recorded to capture contextual factors that may influence participant behavior but are not directly measurable through eye tracking alone. This phase represents the core stage of data generation. While grounded in a defined structure, it remains intentionally exploratory, balancing controlled conditions with the variability of real world environments.

Phase 4: Deliver

The objective at this stage is to consolidate the findings and translate collected data into meaningful outcomes. The process begins with the analysis of eye tracking data, including heatmaps, fixation durations, and gaze sequences. These metrics provide insight into how visual attention is distributed and how information is processed over time. Based on this, comparisons are drawn between different participant groups, particularly between designers and non designers. This allows patterns in visual attention and perception to emerge, highlighting both similarities and differences in how visual stimuli are interpreted. The identified patterns are then translated into research insights, forming a foundation for further reflection. In addition, potential implications for design practice are developed, connecting empirical findings back to applied design contexts. At this stage, the project shifts from collecting data to actively interpreting and applying it, turning observations into structured knowledge.

The exhibitions in early June function as a fixed point within the process. Instead of treating them as just another data collection opportunity, they become: A deadline for having a functional methodology . A contextual test environment for real-world perception. A transition point between defining and developing phases. In other words, if the setup is not ready by then, the entire timeline politely collapses. This structured approach also aligns with key ideas in neurodesign research. Auerhammer (2020) emphasises the importance of linking design decisions to measurable cognitive and emotional responses, rather than relying on subjective interpretation. 

Similarly, attention research highlights that perception is: selective (Posner, 1980), capacity-limited (Sweller, 1988)  and expertise-dependent (Lohmeyer et al., 2014). By embedding these principles into the Double Diamond framework, the process becomes not just structured, but scientifically grounded. 

The Double Diamond does not reduce complexity—it organises it. And for a project dealing with neurodesign, eye-tracking, and human perception, that is probably the closest thing to control we are going to get. 

Sources: 

.