Question: How important is it that an author has written a book before? Does that improve their chances of you taking on their project and giving them a contract? –MR
Answer: While there is an element of reassurance if an author has already published a book before, everyone has to start somewhere and there will always need to be a ‘first book’ at some point.
Some big textbook lists/publishers may not sign unpublished authors as the bigger textbook projects have a higher risk factor than an academic monograph might do, but this isn’t the same across the board.
I’ve worked on subjects where academic scholarship was relatively new, so the pool of previously published authors was very small – getting new voices into the mix was really important to build up the high quality literature in the area.
Equally, if someone has written many books before, it doesn’t mean that they will necessarily be offered a contract for their next book.
Whether you have tons of experience as an author, or are brand new, the combination of the project itself and your experience in the area (as a researcher, practitioner or teacher, depending on the type of book) along with the feedback from the peer reviews is a more realistic predictor of whether a project would be approved. If in doubt, just drop the editor/publisher an email and see if it’s worth submitting a proposal.
Louise Baird-Smith Commissioning Editor – Design and Photography
Bloomsbury Visual Arts
“Ask the Editor” is a Design Incubation series, where design academics, researchers, and practitioners pose their questions to editors of books, journals, conferences and other academic and design trade publishing organizations. If you would like your questions answered by publishing professionals, send your questions to Design Incubation via the “Ask the Editor” form on our website.
Saturday, February 24, 2018 10:30AM–1:30PM Hoffmitz Milken Center for Typography / Archetype Press South Raymond Avenue
Pasadena, California 91105
The Hoffmitz Milken Center for Typography [HMCT] at ArtCenter College of Design was founded in 2015 in memory of Professor Leah Hoffmitz Milken, a well-known typographer, letterform designer and esteemed faculty member at ArtCenter. Archetype Press houses more than 2,500 cases of rare American and European foundry type, wood type, and ornaments.
Gloria Kondrup, Executive Director of Hoffmitz Milken Center for Typography and Director of Archetype Press, will also be moderating a special program of typography research presentations during Affiliated Society Meeting: Design Incubation Special Program on Typography. For details visit the website announcement. All are welcome to attend these events. Please register in advance.
Presentations and discussion in Research and Scholarship in Communication Design at the 106th Annual CAA Conference 2018 in LA.
Hosted by CAA Affiliated Society, Design Incubation
Research in Communication Design. Presentation of unique, groundbreaking, significant creative work, practice of design, case studies, contemporary practice and the academic and scholarly review of creative projects. New approaches to design education and pedagogy will also be discussed.
Design Incubation Colloquium 4.2: CAA 2018 Los Angeles Saturday, February 24, 2018, 2:00–3:30 PM LA Convention Center: 402A
We invite faculty, researchers and interested parties to engage with the data collected as part of the Faculty Census 2017 and to use the information gathered here to support their own work and their engagement with institutions in higher education.
Deadline: Friday, December 15, 2017.
CC: My name is Catherine C, I’m the Assistant Editor for Design at Bloomsbury Visual Arts
LB: and I’m Louise Baird Smith, im the Commissioning Editor for Design and Photography books
LB: So this is a talk in collaboration with the Design Incubation team and Bloomsbury Publishing, just talking you through really how to start off with the book proposal, how to present it, and is it what we are looking for.
What is Your Book?
LB: So the first thing you want to establish is, what is the book? What sort of book is it?
Is it a going to be a research book—so you are looking at a quite high level specific academic scholarly work?
Or is it something that might be used by students and professionals in their day-to-day lives?
Or is it something like a text book, that would be used by a first year or above undergraduates.
Or is it going to be a big reference book which is covering the whole state of a specific topic or subject?
Once you establish what sort of book its going to be, you have to work out who it is for. So like these ones, this is what you would have for the students, books for the researchers, and books for academics.
You need to look at why they actually want that book? Is it something that is going to be aligning to their course, or is it going to be something that they need to pass exams, or is it looking at a new technology that they might be using in their work?
So those are the key considerations that you need to think about when you start looking at a book proposal. And then you’ll need to think about which publisher you’ll be looking to contact.
Choosing Your Publisher
CC: In terms of choosing a publisher, doing some research and just looking at websites is obviously a really good idea. You’ll want to look at a publisher who already publishes books in your area. And just checking websites is a really good way to.
LB: And different publishers might have different lists they work from, and so you might have one publisher, like Taschen, who do big beautiful books that might end up in museums. But you might have others who are like university presses, who wouldn’t necessarily have books that go into bookstores, but are very high level research. So having a look at the different focus they have is very important.
CC: When you get to the stage of wanting to put together/prepare a proposal, most publishers, definitely Bloomsbury, has a set book proposal document which we like authors to complete. You can find that on our website, and all academic contacts are listed on the website. So if you just get in touch, someone will be very happy to send you their document.
Its really good to give as much detail as possible and to stick (obviously) to the structure of their proposal document. So that’s just basically looking at things like—what your books is about, what is its coverage, what is the kind of structure. We ask for an annotated table of contents— that can be very really useful for us in terms of gauging what the book is going to be used for.
LM: That’s basically like how you would have an abstract for a journal—so just a really short description of each chapter.
CC: If you can give us some information about what is unique about your book, what is special about it, in what way is it better than competitive titles, who you think the potential readers will be.
And also see what your experience is, sometimes some authors submit CVs, alongside their proposal documents — which can be really helpful.
LM: Particularly if you teach in the area, or have done specific research already— that is really good for us to know.
And, depending on the publisher as well, they may ask for some sample material. Particularly on the certain textbook side, its really important for us to have a sample chapter, or a sample of a few pages from a chapter, so we can see the writing style, and the level that you write at. For academic books, it might be less important. But each publisher will work in a different way. Some will ask for the whole book, but the majority of publishers will want to see some sample material, and then they can work with you on that.
So the general process is, once you have put together this proposal document, it will go to me or one of my colleagues, who will send you feedback on whether it looks roughly appropriate for the list. If it aligns with the current books that we have got. It is not competing with something we already have? Is it filling a gap in our list, for a market that we can reach with our contacts?
If it is all looking good, and it is looking like a topic of interest, then we will send you feedback— it is a sort of collaboration between you and us making sure it is as strong as it can be at proposal stage. A lot of the development work happens up front, particularly with the more academic books. We want to make sure it is we are both clear on the process and what the actual project would be.
Then we, sort of, look at financial aspects as well at that point. If it is going to be a book based around gallery or archival material—that is obviously very expensive. So if it is a book that has a very small market that could mean financially it would not work for us. So these are the sorts of things we consider at that first, initial stage.
Once we are happy with it, then we will take it onto peer review, which CC will mention in a second. Occasionally it will not be the right book for us or if needs changes—it might not quite what you want to publish. So if it does not look like it would work for the first publisher you contact that does not mean it is not a good potential book and we would be happy to put in the direction of someone it might fit with better if it is not right for our list at that point.
Peer Review to Contract
CC: So if we think it is a project that might be interesting for us, we would send it up for peer review to academics who teach or research in the area, just to get some initial feedback of what they think of it. Obviously we can advise from a publishing perspective but it is really good to get expert advice from people working in that area. We do organize that anonymously, but you do see on the proposal document that we invite suggestions if there’s someone that would be particularly suitable to review a book. We are always very happy to hear your ideas.
LM: And it helps guide us where we send it to, and if we don’t need some specific thing.
CC: That is something that we organize. We aim to get peer review feedback completed in a month. Sometimes the process can take longer, We will return that feedback to you anonymously and then it would be…
LM: And then we discuss it through— both in terms of the editor and editor’s assistant—whomever is working with you on the project at that point. We chat through peer review and work out if its something that we need to do changes on, or if it is looking strong as it is. Occasionally there might be a second round of peer reviews if big changes need to be made. But we use that, like I said as guidance, we can look at it as a book project but actually from the academic side its really helpful to have that extra peer review level of assessment as well.
So if we decide at that point if the project can work for us both financially and in terms of adding something to the field that is new then we put together a proposal pack for our publishing committee—that is sales, marketing, and editorial colleagues—who will look at the project as a potential investment basically for the publisher. We’ll look at potential print run, costings, royalties, looking at the scope of the book, whether is it international coverage. And the marketing, where will be pushing the book to?
And hopefully at that point if all goes through then we’ll be able to offer a contract. That is the point at which you and your editor will discuss and agree what you are agreeing to and what the publishers are agreeing to. That is usually in terms of delivery time scales, what it is that each party are doing? For most publishers its a pretty standard template of what is covered, it usually includes things like proofreading, and who’s responsible for that, who is responsible for the indexing, and number of images and words.
LM: I don’t if know if you want to run over, quickly the time frame that are usually involved in each stage up to the contract?
CC: Yeah. definitely. So when you send us a proposal we will always acknowledge it and then aim to get our in-house editors feedback to you within a month. On from that, we aim to have peer review back to you within hopefully the maximum of 3 months. And then typically the full process—from us receiving the proposal to making revisions as necessary following the review to being able to offer a contract—would be hopefully about 6 months.
LB: That is the ideal. Sometimes its quicker, sometimes its slower. It sort of depends on the time of year and often the kind of revisions that are needed.
So once you are offered a contract, once its signed, you usually have, it is usually about a year to a year-and-a-half to write the book, but obviously that is done in collaboration with you, if you are going up for tenure, or if you are having a sabbatical that might affect the time frame that you have to write the book. So we want to work with you to make sure you’ve got a date that is accurate that we don’t end up missing because that could be quite disasterous for our books. So that is done in collaboration with you, and during that process there are various points where you check-in with the editorial team in house. So you might be working with the development editor if you are working with one of the thick textbooks. So they will be working with you on individual chapters, and images, and things like that. So there is various stages throughout that process. That is before it gets peer reviewed, and taken through to the production process, which is when its copy edited, proofread, typeset, all the rest of that.
Some reasons to publish with Bloomsbury: we combine the best of an academic press in that we have 2 stages minimum of rigorous anonymous peer review.
And we combine that with the best parts of a trade publisher in that our books look really nice. This is especially relevant for Visual Arts publishing.
We really pride ourselves on having good relationships with authors. Its a much more personal relationship than perhaps some of the bigger publishers. You will have one editor who will work with you through the publishing process.
That is a very quick run through of the publishing process, up to contract. After that point you just have to write the book. So pretty easy (laugh). So if you have any questions, our contact details will be available after this. Thanks!
Louise Baird-Smith – Commissioning Editor for Design and Photography, Bloomsbury
In this paper, we expand upon our guest presentation from Design Incubation 3.3 at Kent State University on March 11, 2017. This paper is written for faculty, scholars, administrators, and practitioners interested in learning more about critical practices and their connection with design scholarship. We also draw attention to strategizing and evaluating critical practices as design scholarship in the context of tenure and promotion.
Conventional academic scholarship typically involves publishing one’s research findings in journals and books. In the arts, it may pertain to performing or exhibiting creative work. Design straddles these worlds and adds its own cultural norms, such as industry competitions that seek the commercial work of professional practitioners. Design scholarship, whether written or visual, does not always fit these models.
And so, we ask:
How might design faculty approach the production and dissemination of creative work that is neither client-based nor fine art?
Over the past decade, other paths to knowledge formation and scholarly productivity have emerged, and we refer to these as critical practices. Involving a speculative approach to design (experimental, expressive, future-oriented), critical practices combine an authorial point-of-view with research and the tangible aspects of media, technology, materials, and process.
Critical Practices of Design Scholarship
Products (often) that embody a polemical approach to a prevailing social, cultural, technical, or economic condition.
An approach undertaken in order to explain or understand a theory, phenomenon, or technology. Knowledge is formed through process and product.
Increased agency through confluence of designing, writing, and production. Includes project intitation and entrepreneurship.
Critical Practices are experiential and use design as scholarship: the collective learning, attainments, and knowledge of scholars within one discipline or across many. Merging intellectual inquiry with designed ‘things’ is the key component to forming a scholarly agenda through critical practice. Scholarship is shaped by the institutional frameworks available for legitimizing and sharing that knowledge, such as the peer review process, learned societies, universities and libraries, and books and journals.
Engaging in critical practices requires an enhanced, rigorous approach to scholarship – a strategic integration of making and writing – that moves beyond industry practice and fine arts traditions, and is distinctly relevant to the design discipline. Some design faculty working in these areas have found diverse scholarly venues to share their creative and intellectual work. These dissemination venues often take their cues from other disciplinary cultures like the arts, humanities, science, engineering and business, and may include conference presentations, juried exhibitions, competitions, publication (written or visual essays), media products, live performances, hybrid venues, collections, and commissions. These venues can be an advantage to design scholars as they are already generally recognized and legitimized by academic culture.
The following pages contain past and emerging scholarship models; considerations for strategizing and evaluating scholarship; case studies of scholarly critical practice; and concludes with implications for purposes of tenure and promotion.
Traditional Scholarship Model: Art Department Context
The traditional scholarship model for design faculty, at least in second half of the twentieth century, was situated within fine arts departments. In this context, the emphasis was on teaching pre-professional courses and designing “things,” either through professional practice (typically client-oriented commercial work) or through creating personally expressive art work. The former found dissemination through industry competitions and trade publications, while the latter was exhibited in galleries and museums.
Emerging Scholarship Model: Design Program Context
In this emerging model, with design often in its own academic department, research informs teaching and is conducted to create new knowledge for the discipline. Critical practices such as critical making, critical design and design authorship are used to inquire about, and respond to, complex social challenges that often lie outside of professional practice concerns.
Strategizing and Evaluating Design Scholarship
Considerations for evaluating design scholarship in higher education include faculty effort, the scholarly product, the selection process, dissemination venues, scope (local, regional, national, international), and the resulting impact. The design scholarship matrix below provides specifics on considerations such as these. Evaluating design scholarship necessitates an understanding of how these works “fit” into traditional academic contexts.
Design faculty must strategize their work to connect with expectations for tenure and promotion; however, this may pose challenges if tenure and promotion guidelines do not explicitly allow for diverse forms of scholarship. Thus, the faculty member may need to strategize competitive dissemination as well as determine the impact of a project for purposes of tenure and promotion.
The case studies on the following pages are all self-initiated, critical practice projects. For each, authorship, links, and brief descriptions are provided. Additionally, we have included suggestions on the ways this design scholarship matrix may be applied as projects are approached (by faculty) and evaluated (by colleagues, reviewers, and administrators).
Design Scholarship Matrix
(can be applied sequentially from left to right columns, and non-sequentially with different entry points)
Citations, collections, awards, number of viewers/users/visitors, funded, licensing, media attention, legislation, regulation, human welfare, policy, environmental impact, quality of life, commercial success, other evidence
1. Consideration of role if collaborative scholarship
2. Consideration of relationship to core discipline if interdisciplinary or extra-disciplinary
3. The product is tangible and/or retrievable
4. Designed work can be: object, image, experience, interaction, performance, service, environment, etc.
5. Consideration of acceptance rate if known
6. “Blind reviewed” refers to anonymity between reviewer and submitter, and can apply to selection criteria beyond journal articles, such as juried exhibits and competitions
7. Consideration of reputation or ranking of venue or publication if known
8. If exposed to different audiences, works can be disseminated in multiple venues (i.e. traveling exhibits, different jurors)
9. includes in print and online, and analog and digital formats
10. Consideration of scope (local, regional, national, international) if known
11. Consideration of impact factor
Figure 3. Design Scholarship Matrix, courtesy of Steven McCarthy.
Critical Making: Design and the Digital Humanities, Visible Language (2015)
Jessica Barness, Amy Papaelias (editors)
Anne Burdick, Donato Ricci, Robin de Mourat, Christophe Leclercq, Bruno Latour, Holly Willis, Tania Allen, Sara Queen, Stephen Boyd Davis, Florian Kräutli, Steve Anderson, Padmini Ray Murray, Chris Hand, Jentery Sayers, Steven McCarthy (authors)
The special issue of Visible Language journal, “Critical Making: Design and the Digital Humanities” (vol. 49, no. 3; double-blind peer reviewed) locates where, how, and why critical making is emerging and the scholarly forms it takes. Nine articles by an international group of authors were organized into two areas that blurred disciplinary boundaries: Theories and Speculations (methods and systems to facilitate research), and Forms and Objects (publishing, prototyping, and hacking practices). The editors approached the issue itself as research in critical making by performing a text analysis and created data visualizations to better understand the language used to communicate the concept of critical making and show structural connections among the articles.
Critical Making Zine and Disobedient Electronics are self-published, handmade book projects that critically examine the ways making can extend conversations on technology, society, and culture. The ten volumes of Critical Making contain works by over 70 contributors from various disciplines, and produced using a photocopy machine and staples. Similarly, the contributors to Disobedient Electronics are also scholars, writing on projects and perspectives surrounding the theme of ‘Protest’. Both works have been exhibited internationally and acquired by permanent collections.
They were also given away for free to project contributors, individuals, and organizations.
An investigation into language and collage, The Best American Book of the 20th Century presents the intertextuality of multiple narratives, author-reader dynamics, and shape of language over time. The project was also conceived as an exhibition, as a “‘stockroom-booksale’, resonating the symptoms of mass-distribution as visualized both on a sculptural and a graphic, formalized level” (Onomatopee web site). The book is composed entirely of the first lines from best selling books spanning 1900–1999.
• media attention
• commercial success
MediaWorks Pamphlet Series (2002–05)
Image credits: Courtesy of the authors.
MIT Press, various authors and designers
The MIT Press MediaWorks Pamphlet Series merges form and function through collaborative pairings of writers and designers. The presence of co-authorship is amplified through the weaving together of design decisions and primary written narrative, resulting in objects that are “zines for grown-ups, commingling word and image, enabling text to thrive in an increasing visual culture” (MIT Press website).
• editor reviewed
• media attention
• commercial success
The Electric Information Age Book and album (2011–12)
Image credits: Project Projects website.
Image credits: We Are the Masses website.
Jeffrey T. Schnapp, Adam Michaels (book) The Masses (album) Project Projects (design)
The Electric Information Age Book, and its audio extension, continue the investigation of mass-market publishing and graphic experimentation begun in the late 1960s by Jerome Agel, Quentin Fiore, and Marshall McLuhan with The Medium is the Massage. The LP mixes musical genres with text samples from the book. This project exemplifies collaborative work that explores the edges of media and performance, while also encompassing scholarly thought and creative practice.
• editor reviewed
• digital distribution (audio tracks)
• media attention
• commercial success
Best Made / Re Made
Image credit: ReMade Co. website.
Peter Buchanan-Smith (left) Rebekah Modrak (right)
Re Made Plunger, a project by Rebekah Modrak, is a parody of Best Made Axe, a retail product by Peter Buchanan-Smith. Re Made is “a very pointed, and useful, example of object-as-critique, setting off a very serious line of questioning about the ideologies and biases embedded in designed things.
If a picture is a worth a thousand words, maybe sometimes the right critical object is worth a thousand critical essays”
• peer reviewed
• published articles
• media attention
• number of views
All Possible Futures (2014)
Jon Sueda (curation)
Curation as critical practice is also a scholarly means to investigate a topic and engage the public. All Possible Futures explores speculative work by contemporary graphic designers. This broad spectrum of work includes self-initiated projects, experimental client work, and other endeavors that respond to a question of “what if?” – and highlights the potential for expanding the conventional boundaries of design practice. Moving design away from its expected context, the exhibition provides opportunity for visitors to interact with designed “things” in a new way.
• invited (exhibition venue)
• media attention
• number of visitors
metaLAB, Harvard University
Curarium is an example of research at the intersection of experimental humanities, data visualization, and design. According to the project webpage, the interface is a “collection of collections, an ‘animated archive,’ designed to serve as a model for crowdsourcing annotation, curation, and augmentation of works within and beyond their respective collections.” Curarium integrates visual and interactive argumentation with storytelling and annotation, and presents a possible means to explore museum collections in a compelling, engaging way.
• peer reviewed
• published articles
• number of viewers or users
Casualties of War (2005)
Casualties of War is a series of design projects that sought to visually enumerate and differentiate the growing list of United States military fatalities in the current Iraq War. These are projects that enumerate the total number of fatalities (quantity) yet strive to differentiate among the individual soldiers (quality). For the first time in the history of the United States women are fighting in a war zone as enlisted soldiers and as a result many are dying. The quilt results from a process by which portraits of American women soldiers killed in the Iraq War are repurposed from digital images grabbed from the Faces of the Fallen interactive feature on WashingtonPost.com into large-scale patchwork quilts. The fabric is also repurposed from second hand clothing and upholstered furniture.
• published articles
• media attention
Emigre Magazine Index (2012), Vision in the Making (2017)
In these two projects, the contents of an archive or collection are translated to new contexts. The Emigre Magazine Index (left) is a digital interface developed as part of a public engagement program at the Goldstein Museum of Design. This online finding tool situates the contents and contributors of all sixty-nine issues in an interactive context, and served as a means to investigate authorship hierarchies and resulting navigational challenges. The close reading of texts outside traditional design literature prompted the development of Vision in the Making (right), a visual essay-manifesto composed of text snippets found within the editor’s introductions to inaugural issues of design periodicals. This textual assemblage preserves original typefaces and presents a glimpse of design publication history through critical, creative analysis.
• peer reviewed
• published articles
• number of viewers
• media attention
WYSi-WE (What You See is What Emerged) (2013)
WYSi-WE (What You See is What Emerged) is a series of graphic assemblages created to investigate social intersections and photographic documentation of human nature. Photographs, sourced by keywords related to class, faith, gender, politics and sexuality, are fused together at the level of code bits (a technique known as databending or glitching) to graphically expose the influence of one piece of social identity on another. Understanding the visual work requires viewing the assemblages in published or exhibited form; each work is accompanied by documentation of its text-image parts, and the viewer is invited to read through the compositions in multiple ways.
• published articles
• number of exhibition visitors
Book Art The Information Electric Age (2015)
Operating under the theoretical frameworks of ‘remediation’, ‘recontextualization,’ and ‘critical design,’ this project proposes an alternative method to standard book reviews and to notions of publishing. It is a critical book review with a supporting essay that includes an in-depth description of the author’s hybrid digital-analog process. Book Art is a critical remix of The Electric Information Age Book McLuhan/Agel/Fiore (Jeffery Schnapp and Adam Michaels), with cameo appearances by The Medium is the Massage. Book Art uses collage to reconfigure and re-imagine these books as a commentary on mediation, information, expression, communication, and authorship.
• published articles
• commercial success
Wee Go Library (2016)
Wee Go Library is a small, mobile display unit for twenty-two altered books. The books were harvested from Little Free Libraries in the Twin Cities (“take a book, leave a book”) as a commentary on neighborhood, community, design, architecture, and of course, books. Custom-built oak and pine cabinets are mounted to a metal hand-truck; drawers are felt-lined; the Wee Go Library sign is laser-cut in oak. Each book is sourced to its donor library with a small pamphlet that has a pin-pointed map and photos of the library structure and sponsoring house. Various re-mixing techniques were used to enliven the books: collage, rebinding, cutting, folding, tearing and gluing.
• published articles
• media attention
Implications for Tenure and Promotion of Design Faculty
In conclusion, we recommend the following be considered by faculty engaging in critical practice as design scholarship. These questions should be addressed in the early stages of projects and research agendas — in connection with an institution’s guidelines for tenure and promotion – to clarify expectations and possibilities.
Is your environment accepting of diverse forms of scholarship?
Are senior colleagues supportive?
Tools and Procedures
Do your tenure and promotion guidelines “literally” accommodate diverse forms of scholarship?
Can ‘novelty’ of critical practices be leveraged into impact, rigor, etc.?
Interdisciplinary and Collaborative Work
Can documentation, support, and legitimacy be garnered from other fields (humanities, the arts, sciences, etc.)?
Is collaborative work supported, and in what ways?
Are the external reviewers appropriate for evaluating the candidate’s dossier for tenure and/or promotion?
Jessica Barness (MFA University of Minnesota) is an associate professor in the School of Visual Communication Design at Kent State University. Her research resides at the intersection of design, humanistic inquiry, and interactive technologies, investigated through a critical, practice-based approach. She has presented, exhibited, and published her work internationally, and co-edited the special issue of Visible Language journal, Critical Making: Design and the Digital Humanities.
Steven McCarthy (MFA Stanford University) is a professor of graphic design at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities campus. His long-standing interest in design authorship, as scholar and practitioner, has led to publications, presentations, exhibits and grant-supported research in a dozen countries. His book on the topic, The Designer As… Author, Producer, Activist, Entrepreneur, Curator and Collaborator: New Models for Communicating was published in 2013 by BIS Publishers, Amsterdam. McCarthy is currently serving a three year term on the board of the Minnesota Center for Book Arts.
Colloquium 4.2:CAA 2018 Los Angeles. Deadline for abstract submissions: December 21, 2017.
Hosted by CAA Affiliated Society, Design Incubation.
We invite designers—practitioners and educators—to submit abstracts of design research. Presentations are limited to 6 minutes, preferably Pecha Kucha style. A moderated discussion of the research will follow.
Design Incubation Colloquium 4.2: CAA 2018 Los Angeles
Saturday, February 24, 2018
2:00–3:30 PM Room: 402A, Los Angeles Convention Center
Design Incubation invites educators, students and professional designers for a conversation focused on the creation of design projects, assignments and syllabi.
Saturday, October 21, 2017
Type Directors Club
347 West 36th Street
New York, NY 10018
The development of design projects and course plans is being conducted in increasingly complex educational environments requiring a more sophisticated set of thoughtful and negotiated responses. Educators work to devise projects that will best serve students, the discipline and the profession. Once complete they then have to decide how and when these materials should be revised and updated. We must weigh our responsibility to be innovative and experimental against the need to be pragmatic and mindful of concerns such as job readiness and technological competencies. Design Incubation invites educators, students and professional designers to join us and a panel of experienced design educators for a lively and informative conversation focused on the myriad considerations that come into play during the creation design projects, assignments and syllabi and the thorny issues associated with their development and distribution.
The conversation will be moderated by Aaris Sherin, Professor of Design at St. John’s University and Liz Deluna, Associate Professor of Design at St. John’s University.
Ned Drew Professor, Graphic Design Coordinator Rutgers University-Newark Co-editor, Design Education in Progress: Process and Methodology, Volumes 1, 2 and 3
Alex Girard Assistant Professor Graphic Design Southern Connecticut State University
Debbie Millman Host, Design Matters Chair, Masters in Branding School of Visual Arts
Scott Santoro Adjunct Professor Pratt Institute Author, Guide to Graphic Design
Drew was a member of the AIGA’s DEC Steering Committee and is the Director of The Design Consortium, a student/teacher design studio. Drew was the co-editor of Design Education in Progress: Volumes 1, 2 and 3 and co-author of BY ITS COVER, Purity of Aim: The Book Jacket Designs of Alvin Lustig and George Giusti: The Idea is the Heart of the Matter.
Drew work has been included in Typographic Design: Form and Communication, Graphic Design Referenced, US Design 1975-2000, Working with Computer Type, the AIGA’s Rethinking Design 3: Speaking Volumes, Graphic Design Solutions and Color Management.Drew’s work has also been recognized by the AIGA, the TDC, the IDA, the Art Directors Club, Creativity, the FPO Awards, the UCDA and the AAM as well as Graphis, CA, Print and How magazines.
Ned Drew heads the Graphic Design area at Rutgers University-Newark where he teaches design and design history courses.
Alex Girard is an Assistant Professor of Graphic Design at Southern Connecticut State University. At SCSU, he serves as the Graphic Design program lead for the Art Department. Girard’s experience includes graphic design, web design, social media management, marketing and organizational leadership. He received a BA from the University of Northern Iowa, where he studied Graphic Design and Painting in 2004 and a MFA in Graphic Design from the Rochester Institute of Technology in 2007. While at RIT, his research focused on using principles of graphic design to deconstruct, evaluate and reconstruct methods for developing organizational structures within a collaborative problem-solving environment. Girard continues this research and works to identify intersections between industry and academia that allow his students to engage with curriculum in collaborative, authentic, and meaningful ways.
Debbie Millman is Co-Founder and Chair of the Masters in Branding Program at the School of Visual Arts in New York City. She is also President of the design division at Sterling Brands where she has worked on the redesign of over 200 global brands, including projects with P&G, Colgate, Nestle, Kraft and Pepsi. Millman has authored six books on branding and an in 2005 she began hosting “Design Matters” the first podcast about design on the Internet. In 2011, the show was awarded a Cooper Hewitt National Design Award. Millman currently serves on the board member of The Type Director’s Club (TDC) and is President Emeritus of AIGA.
Scott W. Santoro is an adjunct professor at Pratt Institute, teaching graphic design there for over 20 years. He is the author and designer of “Guide to Graphic Design,” published by Pearson Education, which was recently translated into both Chinese and Arabic. Scott has served as a Fulbright judge for the program’s review of student design applications, and for Sappi Paper’s “Ideas that Matter” design grant. He was both a symposium presenter and design judge for the Brno International poster biennial in the Czech Republic, and speaker for the Australian Graphic Design Association’s seven city chapters. Scott received his BFA in graphic design from Pratt Institute, and his MFA from Cranbrook Academy of Art. His studio, Worksight, is a noticeable entity among New York City design firms.
Design Incubation, the esteemed 2017 awards jury, and Bloomsbury Publishing is pleased to announce the recipients of the Design Incubation Educators Awards in Communication Design 2017 in the categories of Scholarship: Creative Work, Scholarship: Published Research, Service, and Teaching.
Thank you to all who entered the competition and those who participated in recognizing the efforts of academics in design research.