Design-based research (DBR) methods are an important cornerstone in the methodological repertoire of the learning sciences, and they play a particularly important role in CSCL research and development. In this chapter, we first lay out some basic definitions of what DBR is and is not, and discuss some history of how this concept came to be part of the CSCL research landscape. We then attempt to describe the state-of-the-art by unpacking the contributions of DBR to both epistemology and ontology of CSCL. We describe a tension between two modes of inquiry-scientific and design-which we view as inherent to DBR, and explain why this has provoked ongoing critique of DBR as a methodology, and debates regarding the type of knowledge DBR should produce. Finally, we present a renewed approach for conducting a more methodologically-coherent DBR, which calibrates between these two modes of inquiry in CSCL research. Definition & Scope DBR is one of a cluster of terms used to describe various intersections between design and research, especially in the realm of academic research in either education or in human-computer interaction. In this section, we attempt to define what we mean by design-based research and contrast it with other definitions. DBR methods were originally defined (Design-Based Research Collective [DBRC], 2003; Hoadley, 2002), like the earlier concept of design experiments (Brown, 1992; Collins, 1990,1992), as a research method or related methodology which used a blended form of design activities and research activities to produce design-relevant, empirically supported knowledge. Designed interventions in DBR are tested iteratively in a context of use, and the iterations become settings to collect data that support or refute inferences about underlying theoretical claims. At the same time, the iterations are used for increasing the fit between the theory, the design, and the enactment or implementation so as to best test the theoretical conjectures. Unlike earlier definitions associated with design experiments (notably Brown's, 1992), DBR methods were claimed to be not merely related to hypothesis generation, but a scientific enterprise in their own right. This approach stemmed from a very practical problem described earlier by Simon (1969) in his seminal book-The Sciences of the Artificial-namely, that

This case study considers how educational researchers and practitioners can work together to engage in participatory knowledge building, a process rooted in both empirical research and the lived practices and expertise of on-the-ground educators that produces knowledge relevant to both educational theory and practice. The method shared was used as part of a broader approach called research-practice partnerships (RPPs), a model of collaboration between researchers and practitioners that departs from and counters traditional assumptions of “research translation” that suppose a unidirectional relationship where researchers simply share findings with educators, administrators, and youth. Instead, research-practice partnerships are characterized by joint work, mutuality, and a focus on persistent problems of practice across stakeholder groups. Within research-practice partnerships, we propose participatory knowledge building as one method that indexes these values. Rooting our case in the production of collaborative white papers addressing shared issues between researchers and practitioners, we first focus on practical techniques associated with participatory knowledge building, then discuss the outcomes of this approach for research- practice partnerships, and finally make recommendations for utilizing this approach. In discussing techniques to develop collective knowledge through participatory processes, we detail topic emergence and selection, leveraging community contexts as spaces for knowledge building, integrating basic research data, synthesizing and creating an initial draft of the paper, and engaging in community-based feedback and dissemination. We then detail the outcomes that such a process has for those engaged in research-practice partnerships, including development of shared language, fostering a collective knowledge-building orientation, surfacing practitioner expertise, implicit renegotiation of the focus of joint work, and catalyzing new educational experiments and shifts in practice. We close with lessons learned from our experience in this area and recommendations for others who are looking to engage in this practice. Broadly, the case highlights both the practicalities and affordances of using collaborative, participatory methods of knowledge production when the goal is first and foremost to improve educational practice.