Design


 * Etymology**

The Oxford English Dictionary notes that Design is derived from 4th century classical Latin //dēsignāre// meaning “to mark out, trace out, indicate, point out, denote, assign, point, order, plan, scheme” (2015, n.p.). It was in use as //designer// (v.) circa 1150 in Anglo-Norman and Middle French. Circa 1450 century, the noun //design// emerged, generally to reference a drawing, plan, or graphic representation (2015). From the 18th century onward, both noun and verb forms referred to plans to “construct based on aesthetic or functional criteria” (2015, n.p.). The general notion of design might be easy to ascertain, but a specific formal definition is difficult to derive considering that the noun has eleven general uses and is a part of fourteen compound phrases recognized by the OED (2015).

Associated terms: //Argument, epistemology, inquiry, media, message, message design logic, method, persuasion, practice, technology, system//


 * Design Thinking**

According to Nelson and Stolterman (2012), in both academic and professional realms, design is considered both methodology and practice that is used in a great variety of contexts (p. viii). It is applicable to both the social sciences and humanities (p. 34-35). As a practice, design aims to “evoke, or [create], the ideal in the real” (p. 39). In addition, Schön (1983) generally asserts that design is not the mere application of idealistic theory. It is grounded in real situations that occur outside of theoretical abstractions, affected by available materials and in the settings in which it takes place. As a mode of inquiry that occurs before, during, and after practice, design serves as a way of knowing (Aakhus & Jackson, 2015; Nelson and Stolterman, 2012, p. 39) by confirming what we believe to be true and to bring about consequences that were at one time unknowable or, at the least, unlikely predictions (Nelson and Stolterman, 2002, p. 40; see also Jones, 1992). Furthermore, as a mode of inquiry, it seeks truth in particular instances and not universal truth (p. 32). Inquiry must regard the products, people (creators), manufacturing processes (Cross, 2006), creative and engineering processes and the intended goals of designing efforts (Harrison, 2014, p. 136). Nelson and Stolterman (2012) note that, though a design’s goals may intend to achieve a greater good, the undesirable consequences that result as a matter of “chance, necessity, or intention” (p. 185) is unavoidable. However, undesirable consequences furthers human knowledge when investigated (p. 185).


 * Design in Communication**

In the introduction to the Journal of Applied Communication Research’s special edition on design in communication research, Jackson and Aakhus (2014) draw upon Nelson and Stolterman's (2012) work and add that although many communication scholars create research designs, they do not place as much weight on the designs they use as they do on their research results. Jackson and Aakhus comment that communication design is an important way of knowing, for these designs illuminate “how else communication can be constituted” (p. 127). As practice, communication design is the effort to make unlikely (Aakhus & Laoreij, 2012) and difficult (Harrison, 2014, p. 136) communication possible.

//Macro design// Design thinking may be used to investigate each component of a system's or technology's design as a hypothesis (Jackson and Aakkhus, 2005). For example, Hetch and Miller-Day (2007) conducted research on how messages were designed for an anti-drug campaign. Jackson and Aakhus (2014) celebrated this research for its particular attention to the campaign's successful design as a mode of practice and inquiry and its de-emphasis of the resulting messages' success.

//Message design// On the individual level, human beings regularly engage in message design (see O’Keefe & Shephard, 1987; O’Keefe & McCornack, 1987; O’Keefe, 1988). O’Keefe and Shephard (1987) state that human communication involves the pursuit of achieving goals (including regulative, see O’Keefe & McCornack 1987) through the advancement of arguments and persuasive messages that follow message design logics. The message design logic model “offers an analysis of message-to-task fit, positing that the apparent style of an individual’s messages will vary with situation and task” (p. 70-71). Humans employ expressive logic, conventional logic, and rhetorical logic to design, understand, interpret, and act upon messages, though humans may tend to use one or two of these logics over others (O’Keefe, 1988).

//Multiple level design// Barbour, Jacocks and Wesner (2013) conducted research that addressed the message design logics organizational leaders employ to explain organizational changes (essentially changes in organizational design), demonstrating that communication design research may simultaneously investigate human communication at multiple levels.

include component="comments" page="page:Design" limit="10"

First post created by Kristopher Weeks (2015)


 * References**

Aakhus, M., & Jackson, S. (2005). Technology, interaction, and design. In K. Fitch & R. Sanders (Eds.), //Handbook of language and social interaction// (pp. 411–436). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Aakhus, M., & Laureij, L. V. (2012). Activity, materiality, and creative struggle in the communicative constitution of organizing: Two cases of communication design practice. //Language and Dialogue, 2//(1), 41-59. []

Barbour, J. B., Jacocks, C. W., & Wesner, K. J. (2013). The message design logics of organizational change. //Communication Monographs, 80//(3), 354-378. []

Cross, N. (2006). //Designerly ways of knowing.// Basel: Birkhäuser.

Hecht, M. L., & Miller-Day, M. (2007). The drug resistance strategies project as translational research. //Journal of Applied Communication Research, 35//(4), 343–349. [|http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 00909880701611086]

Jackson, S. & Aakhus, M. (2014). Becoming more reflective about the role of design in communication. //Journal of Applied Communication Research, 42//(2), 125-134. []

Jones, J. C. (1992). //Design methods// (2nd ed.). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2012). //The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world// (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

O’Keefe, B. J. (1988). The logic of message design: Individual differences in reasoning about communication. //Communication Monographs//, //55//(1), 80-103. [|http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637758809376159/]

O'Keefe, B. J., & McCornack, S. A. (1987). Message design logic and message goal structure: effects on perceptions of message quality in regulative communication situations. // Human Communication Research, 14 //(1)// , //68-92//. // []

O'Keefe, B. J., & Shepherd, G. J. (1987)//.// The pursuit of multiple objectives in face-to-face persuasive interactions: Effects of construct differentiation on message organization//. Communication Monographs, 54//(4)//,// 396-419//.// @http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637758709390241

Patrosky, H. (2006). // Success through failure: The paradox of design. // Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press //. //

Schön, D. A. (1983). //The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action.// New York: Basic Books.

Simon, H. A. (1996). // The sciences of the artificial // (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Tyler R. Harrison (2014) Enhancing communication interventions and evaluations through communication design. //Journal of Applied Communication Research, 42//(2), 135-149. [|http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2013.825047]