An Analysis of Qualitative Research Trends in Korean Design Studies(2016-2025)

(Background and Purpose) This study is to methodically examine qualitative research articles published in the domain of Korean design field over the past decade (2016–2025) to ascertain the extent to which qualitative approaches have been adopted and applied in design practice. As the design paradigm shifts from a technology-centered approach to one that emphasizes user experience and sociocultural contexts, the adoption of qualitative methods—capable of capturing complex and nuanced meanings not easily addressed through quantitative approaches—has been steadily increasing. However, there remains a paucity of methodological clarity and consistency in the reporting of qualitative methods are reported within the design field. This study is to utilize an empirical approach to elucidate the manner in which qualitative research is applied in the domain of design, with a view to identifying prevailing trends and characteristics through an integrated analysis. (Method) The analysis focused on 142 qualitative research articles published between 2016 and 2025 in journals indexed in the Korean Citation Index (KCI) specializing in design. The following five elements are to be included in the documentation of research: (1) the year of publication, (2) the research approach(including whether it was explicitly stated or not), (3) the research topic, (4) the research participants, and (5) the data collection methods. For categories where temporal variation was deemed pertinent, cross-tabulation and time-series analysis were conducted. In addition, topic modeling using Non-negative Matrix Factorization (NMF) was employed to structurally interpret the thematic distribution of qualitative research in the design field. (Results) The most frequently used approach was case study (40.8%), while grounded theory demonstrated a notable increase in recent years. Notably, 31.7% of the studies did not explicitly state the qualitative methodology used, indicating a lack of standardized terminology and methodological definition in the field. Topic analysis revealed that “education and community research based on design” accounted for the largest proportion (31.7%), followed by studies on user experience and digital services. With respect to the participants in the research, the term, “users” was the most frequently mentioned category (40.1%), while 33.1% of the articles did not specify a participant group. The the most prevalent data collection method was interviews (29.6%), while practices such as observation, focus groups, and workshops were utilized less frequently or lacked adequate description. (Conclusions) This study corroborates the notion that qualitative research in the design field is being applied in diverse ways, characterized by interpretive flexibility and a strong orientation toward practice. Concurrently, it highlights a paucity of clarity in methodological specification and an insufficiency of documentation of research procedures, which may hinder the reliability and academic communication of such research. Moving forward, it is essential for qualitative design research to maintain its practical and creative strengths while enhancing methodological transparency and reporting rigor. By providing an empirical account of how qualitative approaches are being implemented, this study contributes to a deeper understanding of their identity and applicability in design and offers a foundation for improving future research design and reporting practices.