Author: Design Incubation

Design Incubation Colloquium 7.2: 109th CAA Annual Conference

Presentations and discussion of Research and Scholarship in Communication Design at the 109th Annual CAA Conference 2021.

Wednesday, February 10, 2021
6:00 PM – 6:30 PM

This is a virtual conference.

Video presentations of design research, history, theory, and practice in the field of communication design. A live moderated discussion will occur during the conference. Conference registration is required.

Wednesday, February 10, 2021
6:00 PM – 6:30 PM
Live Q&As Online – Meeting B

CO-CHAIRS

Aaris Sherin
Professor
St. John’s University

Dan Wong
Associate Professor
New York City College of Technology, CUNY

DISCUSSANT

Liz DeLuna
Professor
St. John’s University

Presentations

Spencer Thornton Banks in St. Louis
Aggie Toppins
Associate Professor
Washington University in St. Louis

One Year On: Reflections on the Launch of the Chinese Type Archive
Caspar Lam
Assistant Professor of Communication Design
Parsons School of Design

YuJune Park
Assistant Professor of Communication Design
Parsons School of Design

Honeybee Colonies: An Interdisciplinary Approach to the Studio Classroom
Mark Randall
Assistant Professor
The New School, Parsons School of Design

Design Thinking X Medical Education: Empowering Empathy for Patient-Centered Care
Hannah Park
Assistant Professor
School of Architecture and Design
University of Kansas

Edgelands: Using Creative Technology to Predict the Future
Jonathan Hanahan
Assistant Professor
Washington University in St. Louis

Adaptation in Design Research: Combatting Social Isolation in Older Adults
Christine Lhowe
Assistant Professor
Seton Hall University

Feminine Archetypes on Women’s Suffrage Postcards as Agents of Propaganda
Andrea Hempstead
Assistant Professor
Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi

Teaching Communications Design History Beyond the Canon
Carey Gibbons
Visiting Assistant Professor
Pratt Institute

Basics of Peer Review for Communication Design Scholarship

The evaluation of scholarly work by others in the same field or discipline.

Jessica Barness, Dan Wong, Aaris Sherin, Robin Landa, Alex Girard

Design-Incubation-White-Paper-Peer-ReviewDownload

This white paper focuses on the basics of peer review for the following types of work: abstracts, books, grant proposals, journal article manuscripts, as well as papers, creative projects, and documentation of teaching submitted for conferences and symposia. Throughout this paper, “author” refers generally to authors, creators, and researchers, while “editor” refers generally to publication editors as well as staff members that facilitate peer review evaluations for organizations or events.

What is peer review and why is it important?

Peer review is the evaluation of scholarly work by others in the same field or discipline. Peer reviewing (or refereeing) is a significant part of an author’s path to publication and other modes of dissemination. Though specifics of the process differ depending on the intended outcome of the author’s work, it is widely used for publishing scholarly journals, books, and conference proceedings, as well as for trade/commercial books. Additionally, peer review is used to select participation for academic conferences, symposia, and colloquia, and grant funding. 

Variations of the peer-review process have been in use for over a thousand years, and it is rooted in the circulation of scientific texts. There is evidence that the first documented instance of peer review was in Syria, and dates to the 9th century CE; it is described in the book Ethics of the Physician by Ishap bin Ali Al Rahwi1. The peer-review process involving an editor began to take shape in the 17th century with scientific journals Journal des Sçavans and Philosophical Transactions2. 

Why do we do peer review?

Peer review is a means to assure a field of study, in our case communication design, that the research that was conducted and the results are worthy of adding to the body of knowledge. It is a system of checks and balances used to confirm the work being done is original, persuasive, and currently of significance to the field. This is why citation and reference should play a key role in the communication of the research and ideas. Just as professional practice does not exist in a vacuum, research projects and the writing and presentations that result from them should build on the work of other designers, scholars, researchers, and educators. 

The Purpose of Peer Review is to:

  • Support the building of a discipline’s knowledge base.
  • Determine whether or not the work is suited for a given publication or presentation venue.
  • Provide a means to self-monitor the quality of creative work, scholarship, and research for the discipline.
  • Confirm the work is original, persuasive, and significant.
  • Provide a standardized method to evaluate the validity and rigor of research.
  • Offer feedback on errors, highlight problems, or indicate gaps in the research.
  • Engage authors and reviewers in a collaborative effort to provide feedback, to help the author strengthen their work with the aim of advancing the field.
  • Offer an objective and ethical process for considering the presentation or publication of research.

Who Engages in Peer Review?

Peers are researchers and faculty who specialize in a specific area of research, creative practice, or scholarly activity similar to the work being reviewed. Depending on where the author is submitting the work, they may be asked to recommend researchers who are experts in the same field to be peer reviewers. In some cases, the author may request the exclusion of reviewers where there may be potential conflicts-of-interest. More often, the publishers will have a peer committee or invite experts. An academic conference will have a pre-determined group of peer reviewers to evaluate proposals and/or proceedings. These peers will review the work for substance, originality, creativity, context, methodology, verifiability, and whether the results and conclusions seem accurate and believable.

Types of Peer Review

Different types of peer review may be used by journals, conferences, publishers, colloquia, and so forth. Varying degrees of anonymity is one of the most substantive ways peer review differs from other forms of review. Peer-review works on the assumption that an anonymized process lessens the chance of bias in the evaluation of the work. Blind peer review aims to correct biases such as an author’s reputation, the institution where they work, their geographic location, the previous work they have published or presented, or any professional or personal bias the reviewer may have towards the reviewer. Even with a carefully anonymized peer review process, however, a reviewer may be able to guess an author’s identity based on their writing style, selected citations, or the research itself. In highly specialized research communities, for example, specific research projects may be well known to others. Standardized peer-review processes are used across disciplines to maintain an objective evaluation and help guide authors and researchers toward the goal of producing high-quality publications or presentations.

Double-blind Peer Review

  • Identities of the reviewer and author are concealed from each other.
  • Common review type for publications and conferences in the design, humanities, and social sciences disciplines.3
  • Considered rigorous and the highest quality by tenure and promotion committees at research institutions.

Single-blind Peer Review

  • Identity of the author is known to the reviewer, but not vice versa.
  • Common review type for science and medical disciplines.3
  • Common for textbooks and trade books in the design disciplines.

Open Peer Review

  • Identities of reviewer and author are disclosed to both at some point in the process.
  • Newer model that encourages cooperation, accountability, and civility by peer reviewers.

Types of scholarly work that involve peer review

  • Book proposals and book manuscripts
  • Grant proposals
  • Journal article manuscripts
  • Academic posters
  • Materials submitted for conferences and symposia including papers, creative projects, documentation of teaching

Other Types of Review for Communication Design Scholarship

Academic editorial review

Academic journals and book publishers generally have a mission, focus, and readership. An editor-in-chief’s responsibility is to ensure that the content of a submission is appropriate and within the scope of the publication. The editor decides whether or not to initiate the peer review process. 

Exhibition juried/curatorial review

Exhibition of creative projects through a jury-selection process, or chosen by curator/s, may be viewed as comparable to peer review in the context of tenure and promotion. Unlike the peer review process, the evaluation for exhibiting creative work is often given as a yes/no decision with little or no feedback given to the applicant.

Trade or commercial events

The organizers of trade shows, commercial exhibitions, trade conferences, and editors and publishers of trade magazines, also offer options for disseminating creative and written work produced by faculty in communication design. Though these may have merit and value for a faculty member’s creative career, evaluations for these types of venues are not the same as academic peer review. They may or may not be “counted” as scholarship for tenure and promotion at an institution. Authors should check with their department chairperson, director, and/or dean before pursuing these venues for dissemination. 

Editorial review of consumer media

Trade journals, popular magazines or websites, and industry conferences, for example, do not typically make use of the peer-review process. An editor or staff member reviewing a submission may be a subject expert and provide guidance. However, the decision typically rests on the decision of one person (or a group) and is often based on anticipated sales of books, seats at a conference, and so forth. For tenure and promotion purposes, this type of review is often referred to as “accepted through the editorial process.”

Elements evaluated by peer reviewers

The specific criteria for peer review can vary widely among publishers, journals, conferences, and organizations. Common elements that peer reviewers consider will include some or all of the following:

  • The work is significant to the field/discipline (the contributions relate to practice, theory, methodology, pedagogy, history, etc.)
  • The title is concise, descriptive, and appropriate for the topic and venue.
  • The project/topic fits within the scope of the venue and/or is appropriate for its readers.
  • The topic is clearly defined and presented.
  • The keywords/keyword phrases are concise, descriptive, appropriate for the topic, and venue.
  • The thesis is original or unique, it clearly builds on the work of other researchers, and/or it furthers existing ideas or theories (rather than repeating established concepts).
  • The approach or methodology of the research is valid.
  • Literature/media reviews are provided to give context within the field/discipline.
  • The conclusions are drawn from the results of the research and the assessment of the author’s outcomes is valid.
  • The citations and referencing styles are correct as indicated by each organization/publication for example Chicago or APA.
  • The style of writing is appropriate for the journal or venue
    for dissemination. 
  • An introduction and conclusion are included and evaluated.

Initiation of the peer review process 

The specific steps an author, editor, and peer review evaluators will be asked to go through as part of the peer review process may vary by publisher, journal, conference, or organization. Note: “editor” refers generally to publication editors as well as staff members who facilitate peer-review evaluations for organizations or events. The outline below includes a basic overview of the most common steps:

  1. Author submits work such as a full paper, abstract, or proposal (in the case of a book project, grant, or conference presentation).
  2. Editor reviews the submission and determines whether or not to proceed with peer review (often called a desk or editor review). 
  3. Editor contacts peer reviewers to request their evaluation of the submission.
    • Typically, a submission undergoes evaluation by 2 or 3 peer reviewers (sometimes more). Some journals or publishers may ask the author to provide names of potential peer reviewers who align with their area of research and could provide an unbiased evaluation. Other entities will have editors identify the potential peer reviewers. 
    • Often, one evaluator will have expertise that is closely tied to the topic of the submission, and another reviewer will represent a more general audience.
    • Peer reviewers are often provided with a rubric to guide their evaluation.
  4. Submission is considered to be “under peer review” when peer reviewers agree to review and receive the submission.
    • This step is crucial for tenure and promotion. It can provide evidence that the submission has made it through the first step in the peer-review process.
    • The editor will provide an author with information that their submission is under peer review and will give some indication of how long it may take to receive feedback. 
    • This could take anywhere from two weeks to six months (or beyond), depending on the publisher, journal, or organization and their schedule.
  5. Peer reviewer sends their evaluation back to the editor.
  6. Editor reads through the peer reviews and decides what outcome will be communicated to the author.
    • At times, the peer reviewers will offer similar evaluations of a submission. Or, they could be wildly different. The editor compiles the evaluations and returns the recommendation to the author for next steps.  
    • In some instances, an editor may override the recommendation of the peer reviewers. In rare cases, the submission may be sent to a different group of reviewers. This is done when editors feel the reviewers have bias or did not adequately review the submission.  

Outcomes of the peer review process

The author is given a recommendation after peer reviews are completed. The specific terminology may vary among publishers, journals, and organizations, but the outcomes listed below are commonly used.

Accept as-is with no revisions 

  • This is an uncommon response.

Accept with minor or major revisions

  • This means the evaluations and editor are in favor of publication/presentation of the work, but some minor or major edits must be made before it is officially accepted. There may be multiple rounds of edits and further review.
  • See the “Advice to Authors Navigating Peer Review” document for further information on advice for authors going through the peer-review process.

Revise and resubmit

  • This means the evaluations and editor indicate that there are substantial revisions necessary before they can agree to accept the work under review. The author can choose whether or not to move forward and revise the piece. 
  • Once the author has revised the work, it should be resubmitted to the publisher, journal, or organization according to their submission guidelines.
  • In some instances, the revised work is considered a new submission, and it may be sent back to the same reviewers. In other instances, the editor or staff member will decide whether the author has adequately incorporated feedback.
  • See the Advice to “Authors Navigating Peer Review” document for further information on advice for authors going through the peer-review process.

Reject

  • This means the evaluations and editor/staff are not in support of the publication/presentation. 
  • When rejection happens as an outcome of peer review, the author is typically given the reviewers’ comments. This differs from rejection at the time of the initial editor/desk review because peer review feedback is not provided when a submission is rejected at that stage.
  • The work rejected at either initial desk review or after peer review should not be resubmitted to the same venue.
  • If the researcher has submitted a grant proposal, the grantor, trust, or foundation will have guidelines on whether or not feedback will be provided for rejected proposals. 

Advice for Peer Reviewers

At some point, you may be asked to serve as a peer reviewer
for a journal, conference, colloquia, or an organization awarding grant funding. Taking on the role of peer reviewer means you are dedicating time and energy to support another author’s/researcher’s work, and you are committing to helping to strengthen the research within the communication design discipline. Before you agree (or decline) to take on the task, think about the following things.

  • Be familiar with the publisher, journal, or organization requesting peer review. Predatory journals and organizations exist; if the request is coming from an unfamiliar source, it’s wise to investigate. If you are unsure, ask trusted colleagues; if that is not possible, check to see if your institution has a faculty professional development office and if they can support you. 
  • For journals, conferences, and colloquia: Once you have received the submission, consider whether the work relates to your area of communication design expertise or knowledge. If yes, great! If not, it’s okay to decline the invitation or ask for clarification from the editor or staff person assigned to the submission. Perhaps you know a colleague who is the perfect fit; consider recommending them as a peer reviewer or as a general reader (for a book).
  • Take note of the deadline and consider if you will have the necessary time and energy to review the work and provide substantive feedback by the deadline. Peer reviewers should want to review the work, and not simply take it on as an obligation. If the deadline poses a barrier, be open with the editor and consider asking if an extension is possible.
  • Evaluate the work according to the journal or organization’s peer review rubric.
    • Peer review rubrics vary widely. Sometimes they are surveys with a combination of yes/no, numeric ranking, space to provide comments, a spreadsheet, or guidelines that require several paragraphs of feedback.  
    • If the journal or organization does not provide a rubric or guidelines, ask the editor or staff member for guidance.
  • One of the most helpful things a peer reviewer can do, if they recommend rejecting the submission, is to suggest other venues for the author to submit the work.  
  • Be kind and generous. It is appropriate to provide negative comments, but your feedback should be constructive and actionable.  Spend time thinking about how the author could improve the work. Give specific and detailed suggestions and remember to note what works in the piece/submission. The goal is to provide feedback to help make the work better!

References

  1. Ray Spier, “The history of the peer-review process”, Trends in Biotechnology, Volume 20, Issue 8, 2002, Pages 357-358.
  2. “350 Years of Scientific Publication: from the Journal des Sçavans and Philosophical Transactions to SciELO” https://blog.scielo.org/en/2015/03/05/350-years-of-scientific-publication-from-the-journal-des-scavans-and-philosophical-transactions-to-scielo/#.X80Bt8tKiAl
  3. “Understanding Peer Review: A Guide for Authors” https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/publishing-your-research/peer-review/

Bibliography

A Beginner’s Guide to the Peer Review System
https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/gradhacker/beginner%E2%80%99s-guide-peer-review-system

Case No. 16-08: Author requests for certain experts not to be included in the editorial process
https://publicationethics.org/case/author-requests-certain-experts-not-be-included-editorial-process

CAA Statement on Exhibition Venues
https://www.collegeart.org/standards-and-guidelines/guidelines/statement-of-exhibition-venues

COPE Peer Review Process (website subsection)
https://publicationethics.org/peerreview

Editorial and Peer Review Process
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/editorial-and-peer-review-process#loc-editorial-decisions

How To Be a Good Peer Reviewer
https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2019/09/17/how-to-be-a-good-peer-reviewer/

Kill Peer Review or Reform It?
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/01/06/humanities-scholars-consider-role-peer-review

Our Processes & Policies. Royal Society of Chemistry.
https://www.rsc.org/journals-books-databases/journal-authors-reviewers/processes-policies/

Peer Review in the Humanities and Social Sciences
https://www.wiley.com/network/researchers/being-a-peer-reviewer/peer-review-in-the-humanities-and-social-sciences

Peer Review in the Humanities and Social Sciences: If It Ain’t Broke, Don’t Fix It?
https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2016/09/21/peer-review-in-the-humanities-and-social-sciences-if-it-aint-broke-dont-fix-it/

“350 Years of Scientific Publication: from the Journal des Sçavans and Philosophical Transactions to SciELO”
https://blog.scielo.org/en/2015/03/05/350-years-of-scientific-publication-from-the-journal-des-scavans-and-philosophical-transactions-to-scielo/#.X3YB2JNKiL8

Scholarly Journals vs. Trade Journals vs. Popular Magazine
https://www.jbu.edu/assets/library/resource/Scholarly_Journals_vs_Trade__Journals_vs__Popular_Magazines.pdf

“The History of the Peer-Review Process” Spier, Ray. Trends in Biotechnology, Volume 20, Issue 8, 357 – 358
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-7799(02)01985-6

Types of Peer Review
https://authorservices.wiley.com/Reviewers/journal-reviewers/what-is-peer-review/types-of-peer-review.html

Understanding Peer Review: A Guide for Authors
https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/peer-review/

What is Peer Review?
https://www.elsevier.com/reviewers/what-is-peer-review

What To Do After the Reviews Arrive
https://howardaldrich.org/2016/07/what-to-do-after-the-reviews-arrive/

Grant Review Process
https://www.genome.gov/research-funding/apply/Grant-Review-Process#:~:text=A%20submitted%20grant%20application%20undergoes,grant%20award%20can%20be%20made.

Peer Review
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer-review.htm

Advice to Authors Navigating Peer Review

Planning for a successful submission can help you identify where to publish and how to set yourself up for success.

Aaris Sherin, Jessica Barness, Robin Landa

White-Paper-Peer-Review-AdviceDownload

Whether you’ve just received your first peer-review evaluation, or this is one of many, you should begin by reading through the editor’s decision letter and peer review comments. 

Then, (depending, of course, on the peer review outcome and suggestions) give yourself a high-five or cry into a pillow. Go for a walk. Remember, having something accepted with no revisions or minor revisions is rare. Order pizza. Then, no matter how you are feeling about the peer reviews, take a step back and wait a day or two before proceeding.

Major or Minor Revisions

If your work has been accepted with major or minor revisions, or you’ve been asked to resubmit, you have some decisions to make. Grants and juried exhibitions often provide a yes/no outcome, so the following may not apply. Keep in mind that the peer reviewer’s evaluation of your project is based solely on what you’ve written/created. Take a deep breath and get back to work:

  • Thank the editor. Do this even if you received a rejection—don’t burn bridges!
    • If you were given a timeline for completing revisions, let them know you will meet that deadline. 
    • If you were not given a timeline, let them know when you plan to submit revisions.
  • Remember that getting feedback from peer reviewers is valuable. Also, peer review is one of the only ways to get detailed free, unbiased feedback. Allow the process to help strengthen your work.
  • Read through the peer review feedback again. If you have difficulty understanding the comments, ask a trusted colleague to help you navigate the feedback; if that is not possible, check to see if your institution has a faculty professional development office or research officer and if they can support you. If feedback continues to be confusing you may address specific points with the editor/ staff person assigned to your submission. 
  • Authors are often asked to address all concerns noted by peer reviewers. Sometimes it’s helpful to create a spreadsheet to sort through these.
    • You might agree with the peer review comments, and you might also disagree with some of them. 
    • If you disagree with the feedback given by the reviewers, it is acceptable to submit a rebuttal to the editor and explain why. The editor will then weigh whether or not specific revisions need to be made and will advise accordingly. For example, you may realize that a suggested revision is outside the scope of the paper. If that is the case, it may be worth looking at how you are communicating your research and make sure the scope is clearly described.
  • If you receive a rejection or a substantial amount of negative feedback, it’s possible your submission may not be the best fit for your selected venue. Consider a different, more appropriate place to publish or present your research. 
    • It is considered ethical to ask for feedback and find out why the work was not accepted. Sometimes an editor may suggest an author look at other venues and at other times they may provide additional feedback. 
    • If the work is rejected during the peer review process the author is usually given feedback from the peer reviewers. 
  • When revising, be aware of word count and stay within the criteria of the publication/venue you are working with.
  • Make a writing schedule so that you meet your deadlines, and respond to peer reviewer feedback accordingly.

What happens after a submission is accepted?

  • Most of the time, this is the end of the peer-review process. At this stage, the author’s work is accepted for publication or presentation. 
  • Grants and abstract submissions often end here, and the author is awarded funds. For some grants, a report is due at the midterm and/or completion of the grant-funded research.
  • For longer forms of writing such as books, significant work may still need to be done even after a work is accepted for publication. For example, authors of books may have a proposal accepted through the peer review process but still need to write the full manuscript, or write/rewrite sample chapters. 
  • Journal article manuscripts typically go through another round of editor and peer review. Authors of journal articles and books may need to secure permissions for images and quotes beyond fair use and work with a copy editor on small text and citation changes. 

Rejections Happen

Why might a submission be rejected? There are several reasons a submission might be rejected and they include but are not limited to the following: it may not fit the scope of what the journal/venue publishes, the methodology may be flawed, there may be too few references or it may be unclear how the work contributes to current topics considered to be particularly relevant in the field, citations may be lacking, or the structure and syntax of the writing may not meet stated criteria. Regardless of why a submission is rejected, the peer review process should provide feedback. The feedback you receive can be used to help you revise your work and get it ready to submit to another venue. It can provide information that can help you decide whether you should realign your research to fit the scope of publications/venues that are more likely to want to disseminate your work.

Submitting the same work to multiple venues 

  • It is typically considered unacceptable to submit a paper to multiple journals at one time. Start with the venue that seems most fitting and appropriate; if the reviews are not helpful, or the work just doesn’t fit that venue, consider submitting elsewhere. 
  • Books proposals are an exception and may be submitted to multiple publishers at one time. State that your submission is simultaneous, if it is.
  • Typically, it is considered unacceptable and unethical to submit the same paper or presentation to multiple conferences. However, this continues to be common practice in the design disciplines as standards evolve. A best practice would be to vary the presentation each time to make each work unique from the other. Check the criteria for each conference or venue you submit to ensure you are maintaining and supporting academic standards. Note: Trade publications and conferences are primarily concerned with generating revenue and may welcome or even solicit duplicate submissions. (This would be a good time to read the fine print and understand who retains the copyright for a given text. You may inadvertently hand over the rights to your own words and ideas.) 

Self-plagiarism and self-citation

  • Self-plagiarism is unethical and occurs when an author presents/publishes their previously presented/published work as something new. 
  • You may need to secure permission from your publisher if you’re quoting yourself elsewhere beyond fair use.
  • If you must reference your previously published scholarly work (creative project, written research, etc.) self-citation is appropriate. Style guides such as Chicago, APA, and MLA provide further guidance on how to approach self-citation.

Before you submit to a publication or venue:

Unsure where to start?  Planning for a successful submission can help you identify where to publish and how to set yourself up for success. 

  • Ask colleagues/mentors about where they have published.
  • Look for venues that have published work similar to yours. 
  • Understand the publisher and type of publications they produce.
  • Understand the mission or focus of the publication, venue, or conference.
  • Learn each venue’s process for submission and review.
  • Research the biographies of the editors, and if possible, look at the criteria they use to choose who will review submissions.
  • Adjust the focus of the work you have done and adapt it to the audience you are seeking.

Climate Designers EDU: Climify Design Projects

How educators bring climate-related projects and parameters into the classrooms

Sat, January 9, 2021
12:30pm – 2:00pm EST
Zoom Meeting

College students today are more aware of our climate crisis than previous generations. Many are actively looking for ways to use their creative talents to take much needed climate action in the classroom and out.

During this event, design educators are invited to join members of the Climate Designers EDU team as they share their own work and answer questions about how educators can bring climate-related projects and parameters into their classrooms.

The Climate Designers EDU team will provide an overview of the CD EDU initiative, share student work, demo their v1 climate project submission process, and answer any questions educators might have about the initiative or how to “climify” design projects. 

New Directors of Research Initiatives and Design Futures

Here at Design Incubation, 2020 has been a challenging yet productive and exciting year.  Despite the shifts to online teaching and the need to physically distance, we have continued to connect with you via virtual presentation opportunities. Also, we have been working on new resources for design faculty.
 
As we plan for a fresh start in 2021 and beyond, we continue to evolve our programming, developing new resources and events to better serve design researchers and scholars. To help us with these endeavors, we are pleased to announce we are appointing two new directors to the team. Jessica Barness will join Design Incubation as the Director of Research Initiatives and Heather Snyder Quinn will take on the role of the Director of Design Futures. Please join us in welcoming Jessica and Heather to the Design Incubation Leadership Team.
                                                                   
Jessica Barness is an Associate Professor in the School of Visual Communication Design at Kent State University. She is both a scholar and practitioner; her work has been published in internationally recognized journals. Recently, Jessica spearheaded the development of a pair of white papers, which examine the role of peer review in design research and publishing. Jessica will continue to work with the Design Incubation Leadership Team on research-related initiatives and new programming, which will examine how design faculty can approach writing from idea through to publication.
 
Heather Snyder-Quinn is an Assistant Professor of Design in The College of Computing and Digital Media at DePaul University. Her work focuses on the future ethics of emerging technology, including augmented reality (AR), artificial intelligence (AI), and the Internet of Things. Heather was the host of Design Incubation’s Affiliated Society meeting at the College Art Association’s 2020 annual conference inviting twelve local design organizations in Chicago to participate in a round table and Q&A. She hosted a Design Incubation Colloquium at DePaul in 2019, which coincided with Chicago Design Week. We look forward to working with Heather to produce events and content focused on emerging technologies and their role in design futures.

If This is Theory, Why Isn’t It Boring? Connecting traditional text[book]s to real-life contexts with Augmented Reality

Teaching Award Winner

Although it pains me to say so, I find that many undergraduate students think “theory” is a difficult, if not an irrelevant, even “boring” subject. In the case of my sophomore-level online course, “GD303 Graphic Design Theory + Practice,” students access course content asynchronously, oftentimes when they are alone, perhaps in the privacy of their own homes. In other words, their learning does not take place in a space where “real” people sit together as a “real” instructor moves around the lecture hall (who, incidentally, is able to observe facial expressions of confused or enlightened students). GD303 satisfies university “General Education” course requirements — consequently, at least half the students enrolled each semester are not Graphic Design majors.

The project I am pleased to submit to the 2020 Design Incubation Award is an Augmented Reality (AR) application, designed for my GD303 course and supported through a NCSU Course Innovation Grant from DELTA that I received in 2018. AR learning experiences, in the form of digital overlays that appear in the physical world, render abstract theoretical topics more concrete, no matter the student’s major, and in ways that motivate them to study and engage with course content (especially the textbook). Target images printed in the textbook trigger twelve different AR multimedia learning experiences that designed to “make visible” key theoretical concepts by animating them in a way that demonstrates and illustrates these concepts. The app is available to anyone, whether they own the textbook or not, and they do not need to be enrolled in the course. It is downloadable for free on Apple Store or Google Play (tablet or smart phone). The design of the app also meets usability and accessibility criteria for learners with vision disabilities.

While the physical world where we live and learn is a 3-dimensional spatial world, it is paradoxical that the materials for delivering online curricula are mostly 2-dimensional, flat media. The choice of AR is about exploring innovative solutions to the design of course content beyond typical textbooks, study guides, and Powerpoint lectures. The AR-enhanced reading experiences are designed to be immersive, colorful, surprising, interactive, and energetic to get students to delve deeper into and reflect upon the theoretical topics we cover. AR technology brings a “boring” textbook to life by connecting reading assignments (accessed as static pages) to real-world digital examples from different perspectives — examples that students prefer, i.e., dynamic media. It functions like an interactive “pocket study guide” that students can use while they read their assignments. It is designed to “perform” like a teacher in a live class by pointing out main concepts — and their locations — in the textually dense readings. As a “virtual instructor,” the application poses “pop-up pop-questions” to help students prepare for exams — a feature that helps students grasp one of Graphic Design’s main visual theories, “Gestalt”. The AR tools are designed to help students visualize other difficult-to-understand concepts, such as “objective reality,” “three-point perspective,” and “vectors,” as well as “see” how a designer uses a grid to layout a design. Furthermore, the AR experiences provide multiple means of representation (two dimensional, three-dimensional, audio, video, animated media) so that students can approach information in more than one way. Examples include: digital storytelling by a virtual agent who explains theories used in a seminal Postmodern design poster; the ability to see how form communicates meaning in the design of an architectural feature; or a virtual magnifying glass that lets users zoom into an image to read small type that otherwise could not be read in a print reproduction.

The move from an inert medium, such as a static drawing or photograph printed in a book, to dynamic interactive representations that visually demonstrate conceptual frameworks is positively changing how students think about theory in this course (see “Evidence of Outcome”). I considered how images already published in the textbook could incorporate new visual representations in the form of three-dimensional models and time-based animations— e.g., how static printed images become dynamic media that delves further into topics for those students who may want or need more in-depth explanations.

Early evaluations of the tool found that students (even non-majors) were not only enthusiastic about learning complex subjects, but they had made significant conceptual developments and improved exam scores (see “Evidence of Outcome”). Furthermore, the menu-driven, collapsible interface is designed for easy expansion — more experiences are planned in the future.

Each type of media I have incorporated in my GD303 course (the textbook, the lecture slides, the online Moodle platform, and now, the augmented reality application) are designed with a consistent “look and feel” across the different media. Graphic Design majors, especially, want to see the learning materials they engage with in their design courses as being informed by the design principles of good form, design consistency, and engaging visual vocabularies that they are learning about in their educations — it is my way of putting theory into practice.

Click to access Littlejohn-Evidence-of-Outcomes.pdf

All contributors affiliation is:
North Carolina State University
Distance Education and Learning Technology Applications (DELTA)

Rich Gurnsey, Lead Multimedia Designer
Laurie Gyalog, Lead Project Manager
Stephen Waddell, Immersive Media Developer
Matthew Casto, 2D/3D Artist

Deborah Littlejohn is an Associate Professor in the Department of Graphic Design & Industrial Design and affiliated faculty with the College of Design’s PhD in Design program. She teaches masters and undergraduate courses in the areas of history, theory, and research methods, as well as studios that focus on the cognitive-cultural aspects of design. Her research is guided by questions that address relationships between new information environments, technology, and people’s ability to learn, adapt, and change through the mediating influence of design. Projects focus on understanding the perceptions of professional, technological, and socio-cultural impacts on design’s professional and academic development. In the community engagement space, she works on visualization tools and interactive asset mapping applications to support stakeholders in communicating their community’s future development and potential.

Rich Gurnsey is a lead multimedia designer at DELTA (Distance Education and Learning Technology Applications) at North Carolina State University. In this role, Rich collaborates with instructors, subject matter experts, instructional designers, and other teammates to develop or improve upon courses and instructional materials via visual media including animation, video, AR, VR, motion graphics, illustration, and graphic design.

Rich’s recent projects include leading a team in the creation of an augmented reality app that transforms a graphic design theory textbook into an engaging multimedia experience, and helping to create a virtual organic chemistry lab — complete with 360 video and animation, which enables users to carry out five experiments in a VR environment. Additionally, Rich’s freelance animation work has been featured in film festivals in the U.S. and abroad, as well as in galleries, online, and on TV. He is a graduate of the College of Design at NC State.

Laurie Gyalog, a Lead Project Manager, with NC State University, works on a variety of projects ranging from course grants and learning analytics to workflow management of marketing and communications. Laurie works to enhance efficiency, effectiveness, transparency, collaboration and communication across all projects and areas of the organization. She is the founder of the NC State University Project Management and Agile Community (PMAC), a Certified Scrum Product Owner® (CSPO®), Certified SAFe® 5 Program Consultant (SPC), Certified SAFe® 5 Lean Portfolio Manager (LPM), Certified SAFe® 5 Product Owner/ Product Manager (POPM), Certified SAFe® 5 Practitioner (SP), Certified SAFe® 4 Agilist (SA), and ICAgile Certified Professional – Agile Coach (ICP-ACC).

Stephen Waddell works with NC State’s Distance Education (DELTA) department as an Immersive Media Developer. Generally this involves working with cutting edge XR technology to enhance course design, and exploring new software and hardware to further the media possibilities in and outside of the traditional classroom setting. With a background in both design and computer science his role blends both the design and realization of immersive media projects.

Matthew Castro is a 2D/3D Artists with over 5 years’ experience, who strives to make the work stand out from the rest. He enjoys working with others and troubleshooting any task that presents itself. Matthew collaborates with numerous DELTA staff as a team member on a variety of distance education projects, doing what he can to ensure the projects are memorable, usable, educational, and delightful.

Design Incubation Communication Design Awards 2020 recipient

AIGA Design Educators Community SHIFT 2020 Virtual Summit

Service Award Runner-Up

In the summer of 2020, design educators were exhausted. They had just finished a spring semester unlike any other, in which halfway through they were required to quickly transition their classes to a remote format due to a global pandemic. Many had lost access to childcare; many were home schooling their young children. As they looked ahead to the fall—another uncertain and tenuous semester as a global health crisis continued to unfold—the anxiety and lack of support they felt was palpable.

The AIGA Design Educators Community Steering Committee felt this firsthand. We knew something had to be done to support educators during such a challenging and uncertain time. Most design conferences had been cancelled or postponed, including the AIGA national conference. We decided to convene our first virtual conference to directly address the issues weighing heavily on educators. We called it the SHIFT 2020 Virtual Summit.

About the event

The events of 2020 required design educators to shift many things: priorities, expectations, formats, locations, modalities, and perspectives. The suddenness of these shifts also revealed many previously unseen or overlooked aspects of design education: weaknesses, biases, inequities, issues of accessibility—as well as opportunities for innovation and evolution. Questions lingered about what it means to be a design educator and what our role might look like in the future. The SHIFT Virtual Summit, Aug. 3-7, was a week-long online event that gathered the design education community to take stock of where we were, what we had learned, and what we wanted to do next. The summit focused on themes of Teaching, Research, and Community, with one day of the summit devoted to each theme. We wanted to create a space that allowed participants to pause, listen, reflect, and learn from each other. Through dialogue and discourse, we aimed to explore pluralistic answers to the following questions:

  • How must our teaching shift?
  • How must our research shift?
  • How must our community shift?
The content

The primary goal of the summit was to bring together as many different voices and perspectives as possible, especially those that have been historically underrepresented in conversations around design education. As such, we decided to forego the traditional call for proposals and peer review process, and instead opted for an intentional arrangement of curated content. We identified key issues and topics that were of interest to educators in the current moment, and hand-selected speakers and panelists who would provide diverse perspectives and expertise. Some of the topics addressed: inclusion in the classroom, virtual critiques, decolonial design, global community, design in k-12 education, design educators and mental health, inclusive graphic design history, tenure and promotion, sponsored research and studios, and more. View the full list of events on the DEC website: https://educators.aiga.org/shift-2020/

It was important to us that the participant experience was manageable and accessible for all, so we planned both synchronous and asynchronous content, and a schedule that accommodated multiple time zones. The events of the summit took many formats: pre-recorded panels, user-submitted videos, live panels, live virtual roundtables, and live virtual mixer sessions. All pre-recorded videos included closed captioning, and many live events included ASL interpreters. All sessions were recorded and can be viewed on the AIGA DEC Youtube page: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQo7UMhLPFcb_Mbw4zCXks_BQcg337cZ7

Another fundamental aspect of the conference was to provide opportunities for connection amongst participants. Many virtual meetings and webinars tend to isolate participants and create disjointed experiences. We wanted to bring people together. Our main hub for the week was Slack. Channels were created for each of the three themes, teaching, research, community, as well as for introductions, social chatter and general announcements. Conversations about the panels and video content were carried out in Slack each day. Throughout the week, volunteers helped to moderate the conversations.

The organizers

The summit was a 100% volunteer-run event, and free and open to all design educators. AIGA DEC Steering Committee members Alberto Rigau, Liese Zahabi and Ali Place co-chaired the event. It was developed in partnership with the AIGA Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) Task Force. The summit would not have been possible without the DEC Steering Committee members, DEI Task Force members and numerous other educators who generously volunteered their time and effort to make the event a resounding success. We cannot thank them enough for their contributions.

To keep the summit free and open to all, we capitalized on the affordances of free digital tools and platforms, such as Slack and YouTube. The DEC received funding from AIGA National to upgrade the DEC Zoom account and to provide ASL interpretation at live sessions. 

The outcome

The SHIFT Virtual Summit was an incredible success that surpassed all our expectations. At the end of the week, 1,200 participants had registered and joined our Slack community (more than four times number of participants at the largest DEC conference to date). What surprised us even more was the global reach of the event—more than 25 countries were represented. Pre-recorded videos garnered hundreds of views. The live roundtable discussions were full of insightful and forward-thinking ideas. The Slack channels were buzzing with boisterous conversations that were thoughtful and caring. Threads popped up about crucial topics like supporting students who can’t afford laptop computers, how to teach community-oriented service learning courses remotely, and what it’s like to be a mother on the tenure track. Participants had a chance to share stories, seek advice and offer words of encouragement. It was a beautiful display of connection and community.

The outcomes of the SHIFT Virtual Summit will take the form of a Living Archive. Rather than a static collection of papers written by a handful of people, we wanted to capture ideas shared and discussed during the summit and make it accessible and editable by our attendees. The Living Archive includes resources shared, tips and tricks, ideas, links, quotes, discussions and debates, and more, culled from the Slack channels as well as the chat transcripts from live sessions. In addition, we announced a call for submissions for materials from and about the summit. We are seeking various types of submissions, including research-based papers, visual expressions, practical and hands-on submissions, and other kinds of writing which will be peer-reviewed and edited together in a publication that will also be part of the SHIFT Living Archive.

Click to access shift_outcomes.pdf

Alison Place is a design educator, researcher and practitioner. Her research examines the intersection of feminism and design as a space for radical speculation and critical making. She is currently writing a book that aims to define feminist design through key principles, methods, interviews and case studies. She is an assistant professor of graphic design at the University of Arkansas School of Art, and is currently serving as interim director of the graphic design program. She is also a member of the AIGA Design Educators Community National Steering Committee. Previously, she worked for more than ten years as a creative director and designer for higher education and nonprofit institutions. She earned an M.F.A. in experience design from Miami University of Ohio, and a B.S. in graphic design and journalism from the University of Cincinnati College of Design, Architecture, Art and Planning.

Liese Zahabi is a graphic/interaction designer and Assistant Professor of Design at the University of New Hampshire. She received her Master of Graphic Design from North Carolina State University, and her Bachelor of Fine Arts from Eastern Michigan University. She has been working as a designer for twenty years, and teaches courses in graphic design, interaction design, motion design and animation, typography, game design, user experience and design research. Liese’s academic research focuses on search as a cognitive and cultural process, and how the design of metaphoric interfaces can change the experience of digital search tasks. Her creative design work is also metaphorical and explores how the nature of search manifests itself in visual patterns and sense-making, how the digital record influences memory and our understanding of history, and how language and image intersect within the context of the Internet.

Alberto Rigau is a graduate of the Masters in Graphic Design program at NC State University’s College of Design and a Poynter Institute Visual Journalism Fellow. He pursued undergraduate studies in cultural anthropology, graphic design and photography at Syracuse University. He runs Estudio Interlínea, a design studio that engages design and anthropology through the crafting and conceptualization of brands, exhibits, way-finding systems, publications, books, architectural collaborations of an interpretative nature. Alberto’s work has been recognized here and abroad. He currently lectures on design thinking methodologies and creativity as a tool to ignite meaningful cultural experiences.

Design Incubation Communication Design Awards 2020 recipient

Diseño y Diáspora Podcast

Service Award Winner
Jury Commendation for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Service: Expanding the Canon

This is a podcast on social design for the Spanish and Portuguese speaking community. We publish 2 episodes per week. We have 10000 listeners per month which is currently the most popular design podcast in Spanish.

We have published 180 interviews with selected professionals working in the field of design, mostly in the area of social innovation. The topics on which we focus covers the contribution of design to education, development, health, sustainability, security and public administration. In addition, we have numerous episodes dedicated to communities of designers supporting informal education and designers doing a collaboration with indigenous communities.

The aims of this podcast are to connect researchers and designers in the Spanish and Portuguese diaspora with those communities living in their home countries and to bring together a variety of design researchers and practitioners. We connect designers interested in social change, while speaking and understanding the same languages, yet living in different parts of the world.

We gather and spread social design materials through our Instagram account and our website, disenoydiaspora.org. For example, there are many listeners to our podcasts that regularly make requests for academic papers and publications that we share on our Instagram page. We have many thematic lists that can be accessed via Spotify and our website.

We also collaborate intensively with professors in universities that have used the podcast in their classes. On our blog, we have written four articles documenting this collaboration and the possible uses of the podcast in design education. At the moment we are exploring the possibility to do a series of books based on compilations of interviews done for the podcast. We are collaborating on this endeavor with researchers in the fields of health and public administration as the first two books that we will publish are on design and health and the contribution of design to government. Under Mariana’s initiative, we have gathered a group of designers doing podcasts in Spanish. Now we are 25 in this group and we are developing as a collective and considering our direction of growth. Mariana collaborated with another podcaster from this group to write an article about the state of the art of the podcast on design in Spanish.

This podcast is a team effort. Andrés Fechtenholz, Julian Pereyra, Antonio Zimmermann and Mercedes Salgado are key members. Andrés and Julian are sound designers and co-producers, Antonio does the original music and Mercedes is the community manager of Instagram.

Mariana Salgado is a senior designer and a researcher working in service and interaction design.

Currently, she works in Inland design, an innovation and design lab at the MInistry of the Interior: Inland design.  This lab used to be part of the Finnish Immigration Service where she worked for two and a half years, leading it. In addition, she currently produces and hosts Diseño y diáspora, a podcast on design for social change (in Spanish and Portuguese).

Previously, she has worked in cultural heritage and global health projects always under a participatory framework. Her partners varied from project to project but the setting is always transcultural and transdisciplinary. She has worked in collaboration with different communities such as vulnerable groups of immigrants, professionals in memory organizations, global health experts, and rural citizens in developing countries.

She has a doctorate degree from the Media department (2009) and master degree from the Design Department at the University of Art and Design Helsinki (2002). Her bachelor degree is in Industrial Design from the University of Buenos Aires (1998).

Andrés Fechtenholz is a film director, storyteller, and podcast producer. After 15 years as a cameraman and editor, he gained experience and knowledge in new media exploring new ways of telling stories. He developed his career at the rhythm of the digitization of media’s tools and content. He works with new technologies, hybrid formats, in convergent companies. The starting point was a degree as a podcast specialist in cultural industries in the digital convergence era at the UNTREF (University of Tres de Febrero). He is a co-producer and sound designer in Diseño y diáspora.

Julián Pereyra studies music and sound production at the ORT Institute. He works as a functional analyst in the Secretary of Public Innovation. He is a sound designer in Diseño y diáspora podcast.

Antonio Zimmerman is a composer, teacher, and entrepreneur. He is currently working as a Professor at UNTREF (University of Tres de Febrero). As a composer and sound designer, he makes music and sounds for video games and media. He created the music for Diseño y Diáspora. Also, he developed Oir, an award-winning music game for iOS.

Mercedes Salgado Moralejo is a feminist anthropologist. She is the community manager for Diseño y diáspora. In her free time, she enjoys playing football or learning a new language.

Design Incubation Communication Design Awards 2020 recipient

afFEMation.com

Scholarship: Creative Works Award Runner Up
Jury Commendation for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Scholarship: Creative Works: Expanding the Canon

The afFEMation.com online, interactive, archive addresses the previous invisibility of women in the history of women in Australian graphic design.1 This problem was demonstrated in the low representation of women in the Australian Graphic Design Associations (AGDA) Hall of Fame which had only one-woman inductee prior to the site’s launch. However, since the launch three more women’s biographies have been added, one which cites afFEMation.com.2 The data set demonstrating this was published in the appendix of The View from Here.3

CONTRIBUTION

#afFEMation – demonstrating a framework for gender-equitable histories, is an article outlining a methodological innovation that emerged from an analysis of the site’s build.4 This framework consists of five steps designed to assist researchers, historians and archivists consider gender-equitable histories. The steps include systemized privilege checking and the prioritizing of recent histories.

AIM

Filling the gendered gaps in Australia’s graphic design history and increasing the visibility of women was the aim of afFEMation.com. Right through the UK, US and Australia women are graduating from graphic design qualifications in a high majority.[5] afFEMation.com was designed to make this new knowledge available as accessible and sharable portraits, biographies, galleries of work, videoed interviews and visualised networks.

SIGNIFICANCE

The significant and interactive design of afFEMation.com was reviewed by HOW Magazine as one of the ‘10 Best Design Websites’.6 The site was also launched at the Women in Design symposium and reviewed on-line as “thought-provoking”.7 Design industry blogs also published articles demonstrating the interest in equitable design histories, citing afFEMation.com.8

Click to access afFEMation.com-Jane-Connory.pdf

References
  1. afFEMation.com was a collaborative project which profiled Michaela Webb, Annette Harcus, Lynda Warner, Rita Siow, Lisa Grocott, Abra Remphrey, Dianna Wells, Sandy Cull, Sue Allnutt, Fiona Sweet, Gemma O’Brien, Jenny Grigg, Jessie Stanley, Kat Macleod, Simone Elder, Chloe Quigley, Kate Owen, Laura Cornhill, Rosanna Di Risio, Suzy Tuxen, Zoe Pollitt, Natasha Hasemer, Fiona Leeming and Maree Coote. Research, writing, art direction, and design was by Jane Connory, photography, sound, and image recording by Deborah Jane Carruthers and Carmen Holder, assistance from William Aung, and website development by Danni Liu. Jane Connory (2017) “#afFEMation. Making heroes of women in Australian graphic design”, http://affemation.com (website accessed April 9, 2020). See more in Figures 1-12 in Documentation of the work itself. For evidence of the public launch at the Women in Design conference in Design Tasmania, 2017, see Document1_WomenInDesign.pdf in Other Uploaded Documents.
  2. The AGDA Hall of Fame began in 1992 and was published in the AGDA award compendiums before being compiled on their current website. afFEMation.com is cited in Graham Rendoth (2018) “Annette Harcus”, https://www.agda.com.au/hall-of-fame/annette-harcus (accessed April 9, 2020). See more in Figure 13 in Evidence of Publication and Significance.
  3. Jane Connory (2019) The view from here: Exploring the causes of invisibility for women in Australian graphic design and advocating for their equity and autonomy, Thesis, Monash University, pp. 176. https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/237518812?q=Jane+Connory+the+view+from+here&c=book&versionId=265087902 (accessed April 9, 2020).
  4. Jane Connory (2017) “#afFEMation – demonstrating a framework for gender-equitable histories.” Community Informatics Research Network (CIRN), Conference, Prato, Italy, October, pp 41-47. https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/1397018/prato_proceedings_2017_final_edited1July2018.pdf (accessed April 9, 2020). Also see Document2_CIRNConference.pdf in Other Uploaded Documents.
  5. Jane Connory (2017) “Plotting a Historical Pipeline of Women and Design Education.” Design History Australian Research Network (DHARN) http://dharn.org.au/plotting-the-historical-pipeline-of-women-in-graphic-design/ (accessed April 9, 2020). Also see Document3_PlottingThePipeline.pdf in Other Uploaded Documents.
  6. https://www.howdesign.com/web-design-resources-technology/website-and-responsive-design/top-10-sites-for-designers-october-2017-edition/ (attempted accessed April 9, 2020). Unfortunately, this online magazine has since gone into receivership and this link is no longer live.
  7. Penny Craswell (2017) Women in Design at Design Tasmania, The Design Writer, July 3. https://thedesignwriter.com.au/women-design-design-tasmania/ (accessed April 9, 2020). See more in Figure 14.; Anita Pava (2017) Colloquium includes Graphic Design, Stream, July 31. https://www.streamdesign.com.au/graphic-design-tasmania-colloquium-includes-graphic-designer-speaker/ (accessed April 9, 2020). See more in Figure 15.
  8. Mirella Marie (2018) afFEMation.com, Women of Graphic Design https://womenofgraphicdesign.org/post/165087420998/jane-connory-melbourne-australia (accessed April 9, 2020). See more in Figure 16.; Jane Connory (2018) Invisible women in Australian graphic design, Eye Magazine, July 4,

http://www.eyemagazine.com/blog/post/invisible-women-in-australian-graphic-design (accessed April 9, 2020), (Figure 17); Jane Connory (2019) The Invisible Women of Australian Graphic Design, Parlour, October 17, https://archiparlour.org/the-invisible-women-of-australian-graphic-design/ (accessed April 9, 2020) See more in Figure 18.; Jane Connory (2020) Change, Word—Form, https://word-form.com/words/index/view/category/change/article/dr-jane-connory (accessed April 9, 2020). See more in Figure 19.

Dr Jane Connory has a PhD from Monash University, Art, Design, and Architecture, which worked towards a gender-inclusive history of Australian graphic design. She was awarded a Master of Communication Design (Design Management) with Distinction from RMIT and has been a practising designer in the advertising, branding, and publishing sectors, in both London and Melbourne, since 1997. She has also lectured in and convened communication design programs in both the VET and Higher Education sectors since 2005. Alongside her research exploring the visibility of women in design, she is currently a lecturer in Design Futures and Design Strategy at Swinburne University of Technology.

Thank you to all the women profiled on the website including: Michaela Webb, Annette Harcus, Lynda Warner, Rita Siow, Lisa Grocott, Abra Remphrey, Dianna Wells, Sandy Cull, Sue Allnutt, Fiona Sweet, Gemma O’Brien, Jenny Grigg, Jessie Stanley, Kat Macleod, Simone Elder, Chloe Quigley, Kate Owen, Laura Cornhill, Rosanna Di Risio, Suzy Tuxen, Zoe Pollitt, Natasha Hasemer, Fiona Leeming and Maree Coote.

Photography, sound & image recording: Deborah Jane Carruthers & Carmen Holder, assistance from William Aung.

Website development: Danni Liu & ClickTap Digital Media.

Research supervision: Pamela Salen & Gene Bawden.

Research assistants: Rachael Vaughan, Luke Robinson, Kristy Gay & Nick Fox.

Design Incubation Communication Design Awards 2020 recipient

Cradlr: A Design Project for Refugee Children

Scholarship: Creative Works Award Winner

The growing global refugee crisis in the recent decade has reached a staggering height—in nearly 80 million displaced people, 26 million are registered refugees—and over half of the refugees are under the age of 18. The phenomenon of displaced people has existed since the dawn of human civilizations caused by wars, famines, mass migrations, pandemics, climate change, political persecutions, natural disasters, and more. In these calamities, children have been the first victims of conflict and displacement experiences. As of today, no digital platforms have been built for displaced children—the most vulnerable group who doesn’t have cell phones.

The Cradlr project was created in the hope of developing not only a digital tool but a vision for a global network that might help displaced children to overcome many adversities in life and receive more love and brighter futures. After examining historical evidence and current situations, this project goes beyond the realm of digital product design in an attempt to find a humanitarian solution for a complex social challenge. The final product embraces the connection and communication among the displaced children, their families and temporary guardians, education affiliations, international and regional organizations, as well as volunteers and donors. The stories and personal data of displaced children accumulated by adults are stored and protected by the Cradlr Network Database, which becomes a collective digital memory. Cradlr offers a blueprint whose purpose is to serve as a possible testing ground envisioning a digital network system that transcends political boundaries so that various parties can connect to rescue and nurture young lives collectively on a global scale.

* Cradlr is a United Nations Academic Impact (UNAI) project at Monmouth University.

Rationale

The seed of this project was sown two years ago when the designer started the Jiang Jian project [www.jiangjianz.com/eng]—a research and design project that sheds light upon the forgotten stories of Jiang Jian and the Mothers’ Movement in China during the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945)—a major achievement of the Chinese Women’s Movement in the first half of the 20th century. Supported mainly by donations, the Mothers’ Movement rescued and educated 30,000 displaced children during the war. Based on this research, the designer learned many aspects of wartime refugees—forcibly displaced people—in China and complex stories behind the scenes. She soon started to question how other countries protected and rescued children at that time and acquired historical evidence in European countries during WWII. Through her study, some social patterns gradually unveiled, from which the inception of this project began to sprout.

Furthermore, the growing global refugee crisis has reached a staggering height in the recent decade. Lining up incidences from different regions and eras, the designer recognized ineffable human suffering repeated continuously in devastating and grotesque ways, such as mass killing, abduction, raping, child trafficking, the fact that refugee parents murdered or abandoned their children due to untamable obstacles, and so on.

Although incapable of stopping wars and adversities, the designer hopes to learn from facts and history to help displaced children today. In this digital age, many refugees have access to cell phones, so creating mobile apps to assist humanitarian work is not a novel idea. However, the project presented here goes beyond the realm of digital product design in an attempt to find a humanitarian solution for a complex social challenge by connecting various parties to rescue and nurture refugee children worldwide.

Click to access JingZhou_Cradlr-Evidence-1.pdf

Jing Zhou is an interdisciplinary artist, designer, researcher, and Associate Professor at Monmouth University in New Jersey. She works at the intersection of visual and interaction design, interactive media, animation/video, and fine arts. Her work has been shown and collected internationally including: Triennale Design Museum, Milan; British Computer Society, London; Asian Cultural Center, Manhattan; SIGGRAPH Art Gallery; ISEA; IEEE; CAA; Les Abattoirs Museum, France; Royal Institution of Australia; Danish Poster Museum; Athens Digital Art Festival, Greece; Taksim Republic Art Gallery, Istanbul; FILE, Sao Paulo; Korea Visual Information Design Assn.; Stanford University; Yale University; public collection of the WRO Media Art Center, Poland; Waikato Museum, New Zealand; Moravian Gallery in Brno, Czech Republic; and Chinese Culture Center of San Francisco. Ms. Zhou has received many awards in the U.S. and Europe.

https://www.monmouth.edu/directory/profiles/jing-zhou

Design Incubation Communication Design Awards 2020 recipient