Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:35:56.843Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Writing Typology for Designers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 May 2022

M. Sabatelli
M. Sabatelli*
Affiliation:
The Ohio State University, United States of America
*
[email protected]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

While design is often thought of as a visual field defined by renderings, models, and sketches, the use of writing can be just as pertinent and necessary. This paper presents seven writing types used by students uncovered during an ethnographic study of three interdisciplinary design studios. By reflecting on a compilation of writing practices, this study presents the modes in which we communicate design textually while reconsidering the possibility for new ones that incorporate interdisciplinary values and verbiage.

Keywords

design writingethnographydesign typologydesign toolsdesign education
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 2: DESIGN2022 , May 2022 , pp. 941 - 950
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2022.

References

Chen, S. and Venkatesh, A. (2013). “An investigation of how design-oriented organisations implement design thinking”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 29 No. 15-16, pp. 1680–1700.Google Scholar
Coleman, L. and Tuck, J. (2020), “'We do not have a writing culture’: exploring the nature of ‘academic drift’ through a study of lecturer perspectives on student writing in a vocational university”, Journal of Vocational Education & Training, Vol. 72 No. 4, pp. 575–594.Google Scholar
Cross, N. (1982), “Designerly Ways of Knowing”, Design Studies, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 221–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doloughan, F. (2002), “The Language of Reflective Practice in Art and Design”, Design Issues, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 57–64.Google Scholar
Johnson Sheehan, R. (2002), “Being visual, visual being”, in Allen, N. (Ed.), Working with Words and Images: New Steps in an Old Dance, Ablex, Westport, CT, 75–96.Google Scholar
Lawson, B. (2006). How Designers Think (3rd Ed). New York, NY: Architectural Press.Google Scholar
Midgelow, V. (2013), “Sensualities: Experiencing/Dancing/Writing”, The International Journal for the Practice and Theory of Creative Writing, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 3–17.Google Scholar
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., and Saldana, J. (2019), Qualitative data analysis (4th ed.), SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
Reynolds, M. (2011), “Reflective practice: origins and interpretations”, Action Learning: Research and Practice, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 5–13.Google Scholar
Schon, D. (1983), The Reflective Practitioner. How Professionals Think in Action, Basic Books, New York, NY.Google Scholar
“Social Development Theory (Lev Vygotsky)”, Instructional Design, Instructionaldesign.org.Google Scholar
Stompff, G., Smulders, F., and Henze, L., (2016). “Surprises are the Benefits reframing in multidisciplinary design team”, Design Studies, Vol. 47, pp. 187–214.Google Scholar
Sutton, S. (2015), “Reality Based Learning”, in Jackson Bell, C. (Ed.), Space unveiled: invisible cultures in the design studio, Routledge, New York, NY.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978), Mind in Society, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, S., and Daly, S.. (2015), “Feedback in concept development: Comparing design disciplines”, Design Studies, Vol. 45, pp. 137–158.Google Scholar