Triangulating communication design: emerging models for theory and practice

ABSTRACT

This paper describes the enduring dichotomy between what is defined as science and what is defined as non-science, and shows how this dichotomy serves as a backdrop for current divisions between theory and practice. The canonical concept of invention and contemporary interest in problem setting highlight the similarities between the activities of theoreticians and practitioners and inform the development of a useful definition of rhetorical or communication design. While recent developments in activity-, work-, and ecologically-centered design provide a powerful metaphor for contextualizing communication design work, a tentative argument is made for attending to emerging opportunities and challenges related to distributed space and time.

REFERENCES

• 1: Ancona, D. G., Okhuysen, G. A., & Perlow, L. A. (2001). Taking time to integrate temporal research. Academy of Management Review, 26 (4), 512--529.
• 2: Anderson, J. R., Greeno, J. G., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (2000). Perspectives on learning, thinking, and activity. Educational Researcher, 29, 11--13.
• 3: Michel Avital, Dealing with Time in Social Inquiry: A Tension Between Method and Lived Experience, Organization Science, v.11 n.6, p.665-673, November 2000 [doi>10.1287/orsc.11.6.665.12532]
• 4: Barab, S. A., & Roth, W.-M. (2006). Curriculum-based ecosystems: Supporting knowing from an ecological perspective. Educational Researcher, 35 (5), 3--13.
• 5: Barab, S. A., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13 (1), 1--14.
• 6: Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison, WI: U of Wisconsin P.
• 7: Bereiter, C. (1994). Implications of postmodernism for science, or, science as progressive discourse. Educational Psychologist, 29 (1), 3--12.
• 8: Susanne Bdker, Through the Interface: A Human Activity Approach to User Interface Design, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, NJ, 1991
• 9: Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2 (2), 141--178.
• 10: Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8 (2), 5--21.
• 11: Buchanan, R. (1995). Rhetoric, humanism, and design. In R. Buchanan & V. Margolin (Eds.), Discovering design: Explorations in design studies (pp. 23--66). Chicago, IL: U of Chicago P.
• 12: Buchanan, R. (2001). Design and the new rhetoric: Productive arts in the philosophy of culture. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 34 (3), 183--206.
• 13: Buchanan, R., & Margolin, V. (Eds.). (1995). Discovering design: Explorations in design studies. Chicago, IL: U of Chicago P.
• 14: Stuart K. Card , Allen Newell , Thomas P. Moran, The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, NJ, 1983
• 15: Cole, M., & Engeströöm, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognition: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 1--46). Cambridge, England: Cambridge UP.
• 16: Collins, A. (1996). Design issues for learning environments. In S. Vosniadou, E. De Corte, R. Glaser, and H. Mandl (Eds.), International perspectives on the design of technology-supported learning environments (pp. 347--361). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• 17: Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczye, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13 (1), 15--42.
• 18: Geoff Cooper , John Bowers, Representing the user: notes on the disciplinary rhetoric of human-computer interaction, The social and interactional dimensions of human-computer interfaces, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 1995
• 19: Cross, N. (1995). Discovering design ability. In R. Buchanan & V. Margolin (Eds.), Discovering design: Explorations in design studies (pp. 105--120). Chicago, IL: U of Chicago P.
• 20: Czubaroff, J. (1997). The public dimension of scientific controversies. Argumentation, 11, 51--74.
• 21: Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. Journal of the Learning Sciences 11 (1), 105--121.
• 22: Pelle Ehn, Work-Oriented Design of Computer Artifacts, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, NJ, 1990
• 23: Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R. Punamääki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19--38). Cambridge, England: Cambridge UP.
• 24: Evans, V. (2004). The structure of time: Language, meaning and temporal cognition. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
• 25: Fahnestock, J. (2005). Rhetoric in the age of cognitive science. In R. Graff, A. E. Walzer, & J. M. Atwill (Eds.), The viability of the rhetorical tradition (pp. 159--179). Albany, NY: State U of NY.
• 26: Fleming, D. (2003). Becoming rhetorical: An education in the topics. In J. Petraglia & D. Bahri (Eds.), The realms of rhetoric: The prospects for rhetoric education (pp. 93--116). NY, NY: SUNY P.
• 27: Geri Gay , Helene Hembrooke, Activity-Centered Design: An Ecological Approach to Designing Smart Tools and Usable Systems, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2004
• 28: Gieryn, T. F. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48 (6), 781--795.
• 29: Grabinger, S. (2004). Design lessons for social education. In T. M. Duffy & J. R. Kirkley (Eds.), Learner-centered theory and practice in distance education: Cases from higher education (pp. 49--60). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• 30: Harpine, W. D. (2004). Is Modernism really modern? Uncovering a fallacy in Postmodernism. Argumentation, 18 (3), 349--358.
• 31: William Hart-Davidson , Clay Spinuzzi , Mark Zachry, Visualizing writing activity as knowledge work: challenges & opportunities, Proceedings of the 24th annual ACM international conference on Design of communication, October 18-20, 2006, Myrtle Beach, SC, USA [doi>10.1145/1166324.1166341]
• 32: Heidegger, M. (1968). What is called thinking? J. G. Gray (Trans.). NY, NY: Harper and Row.
• 33: Jablokow, K. W. (2005). The catalytic nature of science: Implications for scientific problem solving in the 21st century. Technology in Society, 27 (4), 531--549.
• 34: P. N. Johnson-Laird, Mental models: towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1986
• 35: Victor Kaptelinin , Bonnie A. Nardi , Catriona Macaulay, Methods & tools: The activity checklist: a tool for representing the “space” of context, interactions, v.6 n.4, p.27-39, July-Aug. 1999 [doi>10.1145/306412.306431]
• 36: King, J. L., & Frost, R. L. (2002). Managing distance over time: The evolution of technologies of dis/ambiguation. In P. Hinds & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Distributed work (pp. 3--26). Cambridge, MA: MIT P.
• 37: Kinneavy, J. L. (1971). A theory of discourse: The aims of discourse. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• 38: Koumi, J. (2005). Pedagogic design guidelines for multimedia materials: A mismatch between intuitive practitioners and experimental researchers. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, II. Available online: http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2005/Jack_Koumi.htm
• 39: Latour, B. (1988). Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.
• 40: Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. London, England: Sage.
• 41: Levy, P. (2003). A methodological framework for practice-based research in networked learning. Instructional Science, 31, 87--109.
• 42: Manzini, E. (1995). Prometheus of the everyday: The ecology of the artificial and the designer's responsibility. In R. Buchanan & V. Margolin (Eds.), Discovering design: Explorations in design studies (pp. 219--243). Chicago, IL: U of Chicago P.
• 43: Mehlenbacher, B., Bennett, L., Bird, T., Ivey, M., Lucas, J., Morton, J., & Whitman, L. (2005). Usable e-learning: A conceptual model for evaluation and design. Proceedings of HCI International 2005: 11th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Volume 4 - Theories, Models, and Processes in HCI. Las Vegas: NV: Mira Digital P, 1--10.
• 44: Miller, C. R. (1979). A humanistic rationale for technical writing. College English, 40 (6), 610--617.
• 45: Thomas P. Moran , Alex Cozzi , Stephen P. Farrell, Unified activity management: supporting people in e-business, Communications of the ACM, v.48 n.12, December 2005 [doi>10.1145/1101779.1101811]
• 46: Bonnie A. Nardi , Vicki L. O'Day, Information ecologies: using technology with heart, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999
• 47: Donald A. Norman , James C. Spohrer, Learner-centered education, Communications of the ACM, v.39 n.4, p.24-27, April 1996 [doi>10.1145/227210.227215]
• 48: Pea, R. D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognition: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 47--87). Cambridge, England: Cambridge UP.
• 49: Perkins, D. N. (1993). Person-plus: A distributed view of thinking and learning. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognition: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 88--110). Cambridge, England: Cambridge UP.
• 50: Petroski, H. (1982). To engineer is human: The role of failure in successful design. NY, NY: St. Martin's P.
• 51: Pfeffer, J. (1993). Barriers to the advance of organizational science: Paradigm development as a dependent variable. Academy of Management Review, 18 (4), 599--620.
• 52: Powell, W. W., & Owen-Smith, J. (2002). The new world of knowledge production in the life sciences. In S. Brint (Ed.), The future of the city of intellect: The changing American university (pp. 107--130). Stanford, CA: Stanford UP.
• 53: Preece, J. (2001). Sociability and usability in online communities: Determining and measuring success. Behaviour and Information Technology, 20 (5), 347--356.
• 54: Clark N. Quinn , Martyn Wild, Supporting Cognitive Design: Lessons from Human-computer Interaction and Computer-mediated Learning, Education and Information Technologies, v.3 n.3-4, p.175-185, December 1998 [doi>10.1023/A:1009689213212]
• 55: Rowland, G. (2004). Shall we dance? A design epistemology for organizational learning and performance. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52 (1), 33--48.
• 56: Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. NY, NY: Basic.
• 57: Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• 58: Herbert A. Simon, The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996
• 59: Solomon, M. (2001). Is isn't the thought that counts. Argumentation, 15 (1), 67--75.
• 60: Elliot Soloway , Shari L. Jackson , Jonathan Klein , Chris Quintana , James Reed , Jeff Spitulnik , Steven J. Stratford , Scott Studer , Jim Eng , Nancy Scala, Learning theory in practice: case studies of learner-centered design, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: common ground, p.189-196, April 13-18, 1996, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada [doi>10.1145/238386.238476]
• 61: Clay Spinuzzi, Modeling genre ecologies, Proceedings of the 20th annual international conference on Computer documentation, p.200-207, October 20-23, 2002, Toronto, Ontario, Canada [doi>10.1145/584955.584985]
• 62: Spinuzzi, C. (2006). What do we need to teach about knowledge work? Computer Writing and Research Lab White Paper Series: #060925-1. Austin, TX: U of Texas at Austin. Available online: http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/node/962
• 63: Lucy A. Suchman, Office procedure as practical action: models of work and system design, ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), v.1 n.4, p.320-328, Oct. 1983 [doi>10.1145/357442.357445]
• 64: Tomasello, M. (1995). Language is not an instinct. Cognitive Development, 10 (1), 131--156.
• 65: Turner, J. W., & Reinsch, Jr., N. L. (2007). The business communicator as presence allocator: Multicommunicating, equivocality, and status at work. Journal of Business Communication, 44 (1), 36--58.
• 66: van der Aalsvoort, G. M., & Harinck, F. J. H. (2000). Studying social interaction in instruction and learning: Methodological approaches and problems. In H. Cowie & G. M. van der Aalsvoort (Eds.), Social interaction in learning and instruction: The meaning of discourse for the construction of knowledge (pp. 5--20). Kidlington, Oxford: Elsevier Science.
• 67: Vera, A. H., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Situated action: A symbolic interpretation. Cognitive Science, 17 (1), 7--48.
• 68: Warschauer, M. (2002). Reconceptualizing the Digital Divide. First Monday, 7 (7). Available online: http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_7/warschauer/index.html
• 69: Terry Winograd , Fernando Flores, Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, 1987

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)
      H.5.2 User Interfaces (D.2.2, H.1.2, I.3.6)
          Subjects: Training, help, and documentation

General Terms:
Design, Documentation, Human Factors, Theory

Keywords:
communication, design, practice, theory