Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Connective Methodologies: Visual Communication Design and Sustainability in Higher Education

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook of Sustainability and Social Science Research

Part of the book series: World Sustainability Series ((WSUSE))

  • 2139 Accesses

  • This study has evolved from ongoing research by two graphic design faculty: Denielle Emans and Kelly M. Murdoch-Kitt (respectively teaching at VCUQatar in Doha, Qatar and Rochester Institute of Technology, in Rochester, New York, when this chapter was written; Kelly now teaches in the Penny W. Stamps School of Art & Design at University of Michigan). Building off their prior research in Intercultural Design Collaborations (IDC), these two educators examine university-level design partnerships involving team-based projects and virtual communication in order to advance sustainable design.

Abstract

By employing an expanded view of 21st-century communication design as a starting point for research, this paper aims to share with a multidisciplinary audience a brief overview of design research methodologies and intersections with sustainability. The researchers trace this evolution from the 1960 s to present, wherein higher education classrooms frequently integrate ecological and social dimensions into teaching and learning. The literature reveals how design research has developed distinct approaches to working for and with communities to fuel creative action. The researchers utilize grounded theory to review results from a series of initial interviews and survey data collected from a purposive sample of design professionals in the United States, along with an analysis of a range of texts in the intersecting realms of design, education, and sustainability. Professional respondents cite evolving trends in global business interactions, communications, and problem-solving as indicators that higher education should prepare design students to tackle complex sustainability challenges. This paper concludes with a discussion of the importance of integrating intercultural collaboration into higher education curricula to help students realize the intricacies involved in environmental health and cultural vitality.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 229.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • AASHE. (2016). Sustainability tracking, assessment and rating system (STARS). Association for the advancement of sustainability in higher education. https://stars.aashe.org/. Accessed: 27. Sept. 2016.

  • AIGA. (2017). The Professional Association for Design. Retrieved from http://www.aiga.org

  • Archer, B. (1981). A view of the nature of design research. In R. Jacques & J. A. Powell (Eds.), Design: Science: method (pp. 36–39). Guilford, England: Westbury House.

    Google Scholar 

  • ArtCenter College. (2016). Designmatters at ArtCenter college of design leads conversation about vital role of design in addressing most pressing societal challenges. http://www.artcenter.edu/connect/college-news/designmatters-at-artcenter-college-of-design-leads-conversation-about-designs-vital-role-in-addressing-societys-most-pressing-challenges.html. Accessed: 12. Feb. 2017.

  • ASU. (2017). The nation’s first school of sustainability. https://design.asu.edu/degree-programs/environmental-design. Accessed: 12. Feb. 2017.

  • Ball, S., & Gilligan, C. (2010). Visualising migration and social division: Insights from social sciences and the visual arts. Forum: Qualitative social research, 11(2). http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1486/3002#footnoteanchor_6. Accessed: 27. Sept. 2016.

  • Bjögvinsson, E., Ehn, P., & Hillgren, P. A. (2010). Participatory design and democratizing innovation. In Proceedings of the 11th Biennial Participatory Design Conference, pp 41–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjögvinsson, E., Ehn, P., & Hillgren, P. A. (2012). Design things and design thinking: Contemporary participatory design challenges. Design Issues, 28(3), 101–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloemink, B. (2007). Design for the other 90% catalogue. New York: Cooper-Hewitt, National Design Museum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design thinking for social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, pp 30–35. (Winter).

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. (2008). ‘Design Thinking’, Harvard Business Review, June, pp 84–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CCA. (2016). MBA in design strategy from California college of the arts. https://www.cca.edu/academics/graduate/strategy-mba. Accessed: 27. Sept. 2016.

  • Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheek, A. (2016). Designing for service with human-centered design research methods. Doha, Qatar: Carnegie Mellon University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chick, A., & Micklethwaite, P. (2011). Design for sustainable change: How design and designers can drive the sustainability agenda. Worthing: AVA Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • CMU. (2016). MDes at Carnegie Mellon University, Graduate Program. http://design.cmu.edu/programs/grad. Accessed: 27. Sept. 2016.

  • Cross, N. (2001). Designerly ways of knowing: Design discipline versus design science. Design Issues, 17(3), 49–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2007). Designerly ways of knowing. Basel, Boston, Berlin: Birkhäuser Architecture.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cumulus. (2014). In D. Laubscher, F. Freschi, C. Luisa, A. Breytenbach & K. Pope (Eds.), Proceedings of Cumulus Johannesburg Conference: Design with the other 90%, 22–24 September 2014, University of Johannesburg and Greenside Design Center, Johannesburg, South Africa. Retrieved from http://www.cumulusjohannesburg.co.za/files/9014/1810/9492/CumulusJoburgProceedings_Sep14.pdf

  • Cumulus. (2016). In A. L Bang, M. Mikkelsen, & A. Flinck (Eds.), REDO cumulus Conference Proceedings, Design School Kolding, Denmark, 30 May–2 June 2017. Retrieved from https://issuu.com/designskolen_kolding/docs/a4_redo_samlet

  • Davis, M. (2012). Graphic design theory: Graphic design in Context. London: Thames & Hudson.

    Google Scholar 

  • DRC. (2017). The design research center at The University of North Texas. http://designresearchcenter.unt.edu. Accessed: 12. Feb. 2017).

  • DRS. (2013). In J. B. Reitan, P. Lloyd, L. M. Nielsen, I. Digranes & E. Lutnæs (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference for Design Education Researchers, 14–17 May 2013, Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, Oslo, Norway, Vol. 1. Retrieved from https://journals.hioa.no/index.php/formakademisk/article/view/506

  • DRS. (2015). In R. V. Zande, E. Bohemia & I. Digranes (Eds.), Proceedings of the LearnxDesign 3rd International Conference for Design Education Researchers, 28–30 June 2015, The School of the Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago, IL, Vol. 2. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279182507_Proceedings_of_the_3rd_International_Conference_for_Design_Education_Researchers_volume_3

  • Ehn & Badham. (2002). Participatory design and the collective designer. In T. Binder, J. Gregory, I. Wagner (Eds.), PDC 02 Proceedings of the Participatory Design Conference, Malmo, Sweden, pp. 23–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faude-Luke, A. (2009). Design activism: Beautiful strangeness for a sustainable world. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankel, L., & Racine, M. (2010). The complex field of research: For design, through design & about design. Paper presented at the International Conference of the Design Research Society, Montréal, July 2010. http://www.drs2010.umontreal.ca/data/PDF/043.pdf. Accessed: 12. Feb. 2017.

  • Frascara, J. (1998). Graphic design: Fine art or social science? Design Issues, Fall, 5(1), 18–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frascara, J. (2002). From user-centered to participatory design approaches. In J. Frascara (Ed), Design and the social Sciences. London: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fry, T. (2009). Design futuring: Sustainability and ethics and new practice. London: Bloomsbury.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley, CA: The Sociology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. (2010). The future of grounded theory. Qualitative Health Research, 9(6), 836–845.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, M., & Owens, K. (2015). Making meaning happen between ‘Us’ and ‘Them’: Strategies for bridging gaps in understanding between researchers who posses design knowledge and those working in disciplines outside design. In P. Rodgers & J. Yee (Eds), The Routledge Companion to Design Research pp. 386–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayoun, N. (02 February 2017). Nelly Ben Studios launches University of the Underground – a radical rethink of design education.” It’s Nice That. http://www.itsnicethat.com/articles/university-of-the-underground-launch-020217. Accessed: 12. Feb. 2017.

  • Hill, L., Brandeau, G., Truelove, E., & Lineback, K. (2014). Collective genius. Brighton: Harvard Business Review Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holm, J., Søndergård, B., & Hansen, O. (2010). Design and sustainable transition. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • IDEO. (2016). Design Kit Methods http://www.designkit.org/methods. Accessed: 28. Dec. 2016.

  • Indigenous Rising. (2015). http://indigenousrising.org/. Accessed: 11. Feb. 2017.

  • Johnson, K. (2014). Beyond the artifact; developing student awareness of contextual social and environmental sustainability. Design with the other 90%: Cumulus Johannesburg Conference Proceedings, Edited by D. Laubscher, F. Freschi, C. Luisa, A. Breytenbach, and K. Pope, pp. 169–180. http://www.cumulusjohannesburg.co.za/files/9014/1810/9492/CumulusJoburgProceedings_Sep14.pdf. Accessed: 27. Sept. 2016.

  • Jordan, P. (2002). Human factors for pleasure seekers. In J. Frascara (Ed), Design and the social sciences (pp 9–23). Abingdon: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klemmer, S., Hartmann, B., & Takayama, L. (2006). How bodies matter: Five themes for interaction design. DIS 2006, June 26–28 (pp. 140–149).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolko, J. (2012). Wicked problems: Problems worth solving: a handbook & a call to action. USA: Ac4d.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuzel, A.J. (1999). Sampling in qualitative inquiry. In B. F. Crabtree & W. L. Miller (Eds.), Doing qualitative research (pp. 33–45). California: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landa, R. (2011). Graphic Design Solutions (4. Ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lilley, D. (2009). Design for sustainable behaviour: Strategies and perceptions. Design Studies, 30, 704–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockton, D., Harrison, D., & Stanton, N. (2008). Making the user more efficient: Design for sustainable behavior. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 1, 3–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loewenson, R., Flores, W., Shukla, A., Kagis, M., Baba, A., Ryklief, A., et al. (2011). Raising the profile of participatory action research at the 2010 global symposium on Health Systems Research. MEDICC Review, 13(3), 35–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, P. (2017). From design methods to future-focused thinking: 50 years of design research. Design Studies, 48, A1–A8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lupton, E. (2012). Graphic Design: Now in Production, ed. Andrew Blauvelt and Ellen Lupton. Minneapolis: Walker Art Center, pp 12–13. http://elupton.com/2010/10/the-designer-as-producer/. Accessed: 15. Feb. 2017.

  • Malmö University. (2017). Research at Malmö University. http://mah.se/english/research/. Accessed: 15. Feb. 2017.

  • Margolin, V. (2010). Design research: Towards a history. In Proceedings of the Design Research Society International Conference “Design & Complexity”. Université de Montréal, Montreal, Canada, 7–9 July 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, P., & Hanington, B. (2012). Universal methods of design: 100 ways to research complex problems, develop innovative ideas, and design effective solutions. USA: Rockport.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, P., & Ahdab, D. (2015). A pedagogical prototype focused on designing value. In Proceedings of Learn X Design: 3rd International Conference. LearnxDesign: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference for Design Education Researchers, Edited by R. V. Zande, E. Bohemia, and I. Digranes, vol 2: 715–734. https://www.academia.edu/13300519/Proceedings_of_the_3rd_International_Conference_for_Design_Education_Researchers_volume_2_. Accessed: 27. Sept. 2016.

  • Masdar. (2017). About Masdar Institute of Science and Technology. http://www.masdar.ae/en/research/detail/about-the-masdar-institute-of-science-and-technology.Accessed: 4. Feb. 2017.

  • MCAD. (2016). Sustainable design master of arts. http://mcad.edu/academic-programs/sustainable-design. Accessed: 27. Sept. 2016.

  • McDonough, W., & Braungart, M. (2013). The upcycle: Beyond sustainability — designing for abundance. New York, NY: Melcher Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonough, W., & Braungart, M. (2002). Cradle to cradle: Remaking the way we make things. New York: North Point Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre, A. (2008). Participatory action research: Qualitative research methods series 52. California: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Medley, S. & Kueh, C. (2015). “Beyond problem solving: A framework to teach design as an experiment in the university environment.” In L. A. Noel and M. L. Poy. Ministry of Design – From cottage industry to state enterprise (pp 170–80). St. Augustine, Trinidad: Department of Creative and Festival Arts, The University of the West Indies.

    Google Scholar 

  • MICA. (2016). MA in Social Design. https://www.mica.edu/Programs_of_Study/Graduate_Programs/Social_Design_(MA).html. Accessed: 27. Sept. 2016.

  • Murdoch-Kitt, K., & Emans, D. (2015). Experiential elements of high-to-low-context cultures. LearnxDesign: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference for Design Education Researchers, Edited by R. V. Zande, E. Bohemia, and I. Digranes, vol 3: 1301–1318. https://www.academia.edu/13300472/International_Conference_for_Design_Education_Researchers_volume_3_. Accessed: 27. Sept. 2016.

  • Murdoch-Kitt, K., Emans, D., & Martin, K. (2015). “Sustainability at the forefront: educating students through complex challenges in visual communication and design.” In P. Thompson (Ed), Interdisciplinary Environmental Review (vol. 16, 2–4).

    Google Scholar 

  • Papanek, V. (1995). The green imperative: Natural design for the real world. New York: Thames and Hudson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papanek, V. (1971). Design for the real world: Human ecology and social change. New York: Pantheon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, E. (2016). Developing citizen designers. New York and London: Bloomsbury.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rittel, H., & Webber, W. (1973). “Dilemmas in a general theory of planning.” policy sciences (4 (2), pp. 155–69). Netherland: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, T., & Simonsen, J. (2012). Participatory design. In Routledge International (Ed.), Handbook of participatory design. Abindgon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saikaly, F. (2005). approaches to design research: Towards the designerly way, paper presented at the sixth international conference of the European Academy of Design (EAD06). Bremen, Germany: University of the Arts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, E. (1999). Postdesign and participatory culture. Useful and critical: The position of research in design. 9–11 September 1999; Tuusula, Finland. University of Art and Design Helsinki (UIAH).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, E. (2002). From user-centered to participatory design approaches. In J. Frascara (Ed), Design and the social sciences (pp 1–8). Abingdon: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, E., & Stappers, P. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign (vol 4(1)).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, E., & Stappers, P. (2014). From designing to co-designing to collective dreaming: Three slices in time interactions, 21(6), 24–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarker, S., Lau, F., & Sahay, S. (2000). Building an inductive theory of collaboration in virtual teams: An adapted grounded theory approach. 33rd Annual Hawaii International Conference in Systems Science, Hawaii.

    Google Scholar 

  • SCAD. (2016). Design for sustainability. https://www.scad.edu/academics/programs/design-sustainability. Accessed: 27. Sept. 2016.

  • Schön, D. A. (1991). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Aldershot: Avebury, Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shea, A. (2012). Designing for social change: Strategies for community-based graphic design. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, C. (2011). Just design: Socially conscious design for critical causes. How Books Sociology Icons by Yu Luck from the Noun Project.

    Google Scholar 

  • SVA. (2016). MFA in design for social innovation. http://www.sva.edu/graduate/mfa-design-for-social-innovation. Accessed: 27. Sept. 2016.

  • Tassi, R. (2009). Service design tools. http://www.servicedesigntools.org/taxonomy/term/1. Accessed: 12. Feb. 2017.

  • Trimmel, S. (2015). Directions towards sustainability through higher education. LearnxDesign: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference for Design Education Researchers, Edited by R. V. Zande, E. Bohemia, and I. Digranes, vol 2: 907–920. https://www.academia.edu/13300519/Proceedings_of_the_3rd_International_Conference_for_Design_Education_Researchers_volume_2_. Accessed: 27. Sept. 2016.

  • Tunstall, E. (2000). Sapient Communities Project Phase I and II Reports.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tunstall, E. (2008). My communitas Workshops. School of design, NC State University, Raleigh. Retrieved 11 Feb, 2015. http://dori3.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/01/my-communitas-w.html.

  • UNESCO. (2005–2014). United nations decade of education for sustainable development (2004–2015): Draft international implementation scheme. 2005. Paris: UNESCO.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO. (2016). Sustainable development knowledge platform. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300. Accessed: 27. Sept. 2016.

  • Vernon, S, (2013). Design education for social sustainability. Design education from kindergarten to PhD – Design learning for tomorrow: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference for Design Education Researchers, Edited by J. B. Reitan, P. L. E. Bohemia, L. M. Nielsen, I. Digranes, and E. Lutnæs, pp 204–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wendel, S. (2014). Designing for behavior change. CA: O’Reilly Sebastopol.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The researchers would like to thank their respective institutions for support of this research: Virginia Commonwealth University in Qatar and Rochester Institute of Technology. The researchers also acknowledge the generosity of the professional respondents who shared their time and energy as part of this study. Your feedback and insights made this paper possible.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graphic Design Department, Virginia Commonwealth University in Qatar, Ar-Rayyan, Qatar

    Denielle Emans

  2. Centre for Communication and Social Change, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

    Denielle Emans

  3. Penny W. Stamps School of Art & Design, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Kelly M. Murdoch-Kitt

Authors
  1. Denielle Emans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kelly M. Murdoch-Kitt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Denielle Emans .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Life Sciences, HAW Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

    Walter Leal Filho

  2. Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

    Robert W. Marans

  3. Graham Sustainability Institute, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

    John Callewaert

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Emans, D., Murdoch-Kitt, K.M. (2018). Connective Methodologies: Visual Communication Design and Sustainability in Higher Education. In: Leal Filho, W., Marans, R., Callewaert, J. (eds) Handbook of Sustainability and Social Science Research. World Sustainability Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67122-2_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation