Should we implement monitoring or research for conservation?

[Letter to editor, brief commentary or brief communication ]

Navigating the methodological mire : practical epistemology in design research

The field of design research is a marketplace of methodological diversity. It isn't just that there are many different research methods in the field, but that there are many different methodological 'foundations' - principles for how research can and should be done, for how contributions to knowledge ought to be pursued. This is not particularly surprising given how broadly 'design' is often conceptualised. Herbert Simon (1996) suggested "the proper study of mankind is the science of design"; Nigel Cross has identified a principal difference between humankind and the animal kingdom to be our ability to design. In light of such encompassing notions of design it is difficult to imagine how the field of design research should exhibit any less diversity than that found within and among the arts, humanities, the human and social sciences.

Not just what they want, but why they want it: Traditional market research to deep customer insights

Purpose This paper explores advantages and disadvantages of both traditional market research and deep customer insight methods in order to lay the platform for revealing how a relationship between these two domains could be optimised during firm-based innovation. Design/methodology/approach The paper reports on an empirical research study conducted with thirteen Australian based firms engaged in a design-led approach to innovation. Firms were facilitated through a design-led approach where the process of gathering deep customer insights was isolated and investigated further in comparison to traditional market research methods. Findings Results show that deep customer insight methods are able to provide fresh, non-obvious ways of understanding customer needs, problems and behaviours that can become the foundation of new business opportunities. Findings concluded that deep customer insights methods provide the critical layer to understand why customers do and don’t engage with businesses. Revealing why was not accessible in traditional market research methods. Research limitations/implications The theoretical outcome of this study is a complementary methods matrix, providing guidance on appropriate implementation of research methods in accordance with a project’s timeline to optimise the complementation of traditional market research methods with design-led customer engagement methods. Practical implications Deep customer insight methods provide fresh, non-obvious ways of understanding customer needs, problems and behaviours that can become the foundation of new business opportunities. It is hoped that those in a position of data collection are encouraged to experiment and use deep customer insight methods to connect with their customers on a meaningful level and translate these insights into value. Originality/value This paper provides original value to a new understanding how design techniques can be applied to compliment and strengthen existing market research strategies. This is crucial in an era where business competition hinges on a subtle and often intimate understanding of customer needs and behaviours.

Powering innovation through tax concessions: The changing research & development tax incentives

The changes to the R&D tax concession in 2011 were touted as the biggest reform to business innovation policy in over a decade. Three years later, as part of the 2014 Federal Budget, a reduction in the concession rates was announced. While the most recent of the pro-posed changes are designed to align with the reduction in company tax rate, the Australian Federal Government also indicated that the gain to revenue from the reduction in the incentive scheme will be redirected by the Government to repair the Budget and fund policy priori-ties. The consequence is that the R&D concessions, while designed to encourage innovation, are clearly linked with the tax system. As such, the first part of this article considers whether the R&D concession is a changing tax for changing times. Leading on from part one, this article also addresses a second question of ‘what’s tax got to do with it’? To answer this question, the article argues that, rather than ever being substantive tax reform, the constantly changing measures simply alter the criteria and means by which companies become eligible for a Federal Government subsidy for qualifying R&D activity, whatever that amount is. It further argues that when considered as part of the broader innovation agenda, all R&D tax concessions should be evaluated as a government spending program in the same way as any direct spending on innovation. When this is done, the tax regime is arguably merely the administrative policy instrument by which the subsidy is delivered. However, this may not be best practice to distribute those funds fairly, efficiently, and without distortion, while at the same time maintaining adequate government control and accountability. Finally, in answering the question of ‘what’s tax got to do with it?’ the article concludes that the answer is: very little.