Allenjcochran 3rd qtr_docs

Allen J Cochran

M.F.A. Candidate, Design

The Ohio State University

Department of Design

3rd QuarterReview

June 4, 2010

Submitted to:

Peter Kwok ChanElizabeth B.-N. SandersR. Brian Stone

A Case Study on Co-Creation:

The Creative Management and the Scope of Design Services of In-house Design Groups within Academic Institution Environments.

ContentsOverview

Research Questions

Abstract

Exploratory Pilot Study

Introduction to the Community

Introduction to the Area of Interest

Participants

Data Collection Method

Data Analysis

Future Work

Annotated Bibliography

Course Plan

Appendices

CITI Certification

IRB Proposal

3rd Quarter Paperwork (Sample)

4

5

6

7

8

9

11

13

16

9

20

23

30

31

32

36

Overview

Overview

© 2010 Allen J Cochran 5

Research Questions

1 How do differently sized design groups within an academic organization function externally: to other offices and to the public?

4 Through a collective understanding of their situation, how can differently sized design groups within an academic organization provide a more comprehensive service to themselves and their target audiences?

2 How do differently sized design groups within an academic organization function internally and manage workflow: project management and creative management?

3 How can these groups become collectively aware of their own situations so that they better understand the external and internal organization more completely?

Overview


AbstractDesign practice is a major part of any major company. It is no different at The Ohio State University (OSU). Design at OSU is of particular importance because of its direct connection to university communication and therefore to the overall University community. Whether that be inside or outside the University, communication and design explains much about the University overall. Preliminary examination of the University leads me to believe that there are more than twenty offices performing design functions at OSU with the potential to have more than 100 employees fulfilling the functions of communicator or designer.

Review of these in-house services at OSU could provide a better understanding of design management, collaboration, workflow and creative process, internal and external communications. Additionally, careful exploration of such variously sized offices will provide perspectives on how design teams work together as well as how they work separately while collectively trying to present a unified message to a diverse audiences.

The scope of this project will lead me through a formal understanding of an academic institution, in this instance, The Ohio State University. It will also take me through the in-house design structure of a large non-profit company. I will perform a series of cycles aimed at gaining this understanding from a participatory action research standpoint.

Action research is intrinsically personal and ongoing. Similar to the design process, action research moves continuously, often looking backwards before it moves again forward. It differs from expert based research in that the outcomes, executed during the “act” stage are very specific to the community of interest investigated. To achieve this difference from traditional scientific research, action research is intended to start broadly with relatively open ended questions and work towards the more specific stakeholder-centric reflections, and action research always moves in repeatable, similarly formatted stages.

The series of cycles will develop at my question and goals are refined. Most likely my research will be three cycles long. Each cycle will follow the same format, “look, think, act” (Stringer, 8). Similarly, each cycle will be evaluated before moving on and subsequent cycles will be altered slightly to accommodate for new findings. Though I plan on having a preliminary idea of what to research in each of the cycles, this reflection will help align the each subsequent cycle with the changing research from the previous. Should they be needed, additional cycles may be included following the original three.

ExploratoryPilot Study



Introduction to theCommunityAcademic institutions, in many respects, function like huge corporations. It could be argued in fact, that universities are just corporations whose main product is education. Colleges, schools and departments act as different divisions of this corporation; each selling their own unique product line of educational degrees. A College of Art may sell you a degree in painting, while a College of Engineering may dispense mechanical engineering degrees. Like any other massive corporation, these products must be communicated to the public, prospective students and throughout the University itself. These products must be disseminated right along side the global message of the corporation.

The administrative structure that supports such complex academic institutions is equally complex. Major academic institutions may have an internal economy all their own. For example, organizational offices like facilities, communications, planning, food services, entertainment (athletics, theater and music departments), finance and accounting, governmental affairs groups, and even campus newspapers, work in unison to advance their parent institutions. The larger the academic institution, the larger the line of educational products and messages to convey. Thus, there is a more complex support structure.

The Ohio State University (OSU) is one such academic institution. It is statistically larger than the any other American university. OSU also is one of the largest employer in the Greater Columbus Area. If student employees and graduate instructors are counted into this number, OSU would be the largest employer in the Columbus. Further if the four regional campus are included, the University would be on of the largest employers in the state of Ohio. This goes to show that in order to run such a complex system, many people are needed to facilitate the administrative aspects of the institution.

The major difference between an enormous corporation like Procter & Gamble and an academic institution like Ohio State, is that OSU’s consumers are active in the day-to-day activities. Not only do OSU’s consumers buy the educational products, they also take part in the daily activities of the University. In this way, communication is two way and real time. Procter & Gamble only sells to consumers; therefore, the communication may be two way, but the consumer feedback rate is probably very slow. A university and it’s students are inexorably linked. Without a constant flow of incoming and outgoing students, OSU would not remain an educational conduit.



As such, there is a considerable support structure that specifically drives design and communications at all major institutions. For that matter, design and communications are a major part of any corporation. At OSU, design has a direct link to the University Communications Department, and so plays a vital role in the overall connection that the University has to its constituents. With Ohio State being so large, design, marketing and communications are essential. Information is passed to the public, prospective students, current students, faculty, staff, and other targeted audiences on a regular basis.

Introduction to the Area of InterestDesign plays a vital role in our current society. Literally everything around us is designed. Everything has been through the styling hands of a designer. Designers provide the life of a product, and they infuse products with the visual life that keeps them relevant and interesting. More designers are working on projects from the very start, rather than just the styling end-cap. The unique problem solving mindsets that are bred into designers produce individuals who can tackle any problem they’re presented with. Nowadays, physical products are only one end of a spectrum of services designers can handle.

Society’s demands have determined that design is also a major part of any large corporation, whether that be employees managing outside contract design firms, or in-house employees designing for the company. Design connects an organization to its staff as well as to its audience. At OSU this is no different. Design is driven by in-house employees, and as The Ohio State University has grown and expanded various colleges the number of active designers has also grown. Preliminary research shows that there are more than twenty offices performing design functions at the University, with the potential to have more than 100 employees. By any account this is a large group.

My interest in the design community stems from a desire to provide a service. As the public understanding of design expands from “working for” to “working with” this desire grows from providing a service, to collaborating to facilitate a service. In a deeply personal way, I believe this interest in collaboration has drawn me into design and continues to power my enthusiasm.

In a similar way, I am drawn to the design profession because of it’s inherent, process-based approach to problem-solving. Because design is so service



oriented, process is as much about communicating solutions to clients (or coworkers as in the case of in-house designers), as it is about following a fluid set of steps from project input to output. At the top, the design profession has a strong sense of management built into its practices. Managing such a fluid process, and acting between the process and the client, has meant that designers naturally take on leadership roles.

Management and collaboration, coupled, are my two main interests within the design community. Considering that OSU is home to so many in-house designers who perform various types of design, the University is an opportune space for me to learn more about the businesslike on goings of design. A careful exploration of these in-house design offices will provide perspectives on how design teams work together, as well as separately to collectively present a unified message to diverse audiences.

Personal interest started my inquiry. However, after initial talks with the community, it struck me that more can be done with the designers at OSU. I mentioned that as OSU expanded, the number of designers also grew. As OSU increased in size and scope of education, individual colleges and departments isolated themselves from each other. Ultimately this produced a silo philosophy that keeps actual, wide-spread collaboration from occurring. Faculty and staff alike identify closely with their particular college or department, sometimes seemingly forgetful that they work for entire The Ohio State University rather than just their specific college.

This fact was recently made very real for me. In an exploratory study one community member, when discussing this prevalent silo mindset, mentioned, “I can name names,” in reference to those University groups that still feel strongly about individualism. This same community member remarked, “do you want me to tell you how it works or how it should work?” Two other community members explained similar viewpoints.

Along these lines, the University is undergoing a brand evaluation. On Wednesday, November 4, 2009, members of the University community met about the “One Ohio State Framework Plan”, a master plan proposal for advancing the entire University into the future. The framework outlines financial, architectural, even academic plans. In a more abstract way it also states “[the] plan must promote interaction and collaboration among University units to create One Ohio State (http://fod.osu.edu).”

Never before has OSU undergone a personal evaluation and expanded its own collaborative efforts while the design profession is undergoing its own radical transformation. By moving towards more collaborative professional practices, now is a salient time for the in-house designers to understand themselves. In the end, I will achieve my personal interests from a design, management, and



collaboration standpoint also bringing to light new ideas and facilitating new discussions among the resident designers at OSU. Community members have mentioned their enthusiasm for my research, and at this early stage, they seem to be open in expressing their opinions. Exploratory discussions with designers at OSU lead me to believe that there is no better time than now to review current professional design practices at OSU, because of the efforts that University is simultaneously working on.

Professionally, before returning to academia in pursuit of my graduate degree, I worked at the University of Cincinnati Foundation (UC Foundation). The UC Foundation is the fundraising arm of the University of Cincinnati (UC). On paper the Foundation and the University functioned separately but worked very closely together. At the UC Foundation, I worked as a graphic designer and event producer. My role was to facilitate events on behalf of not only the UC Foundation, but the fundraising or alumni related events that individual UC colleges and departments wished to put on.

In my two year tenure at the Foundation I produced more than seventy-five events across the country. The sheer quantity of events meant that I worked with a huge number of people throughout the University. I witnessed first hand the lack of collaboration and the constant reinforcement of being in a silo. In some instances, UC’s colleges were unaware of the marketing pieces being distributed from within their own departments. When the earlier participant mentioned the actual working habits, versus the ideal working habits, it was a clear parallel to UC for me. I draw many parallels between OSU and UC based on my first hand interactions in Cincinnati and the recent exploratory studies I’ve done. In fact, the discrepancies I came across while at the UC Foundation are what ultimately drove me back to graduate school.

How do people work together? How can groups collaborate easier or more efficiently? Can a greater understanding of what all of us do help us do it differently, better, or improve our product or service? These questions, unanswered, pushed me towards graduate design studies, and the opportunity to understand service, business, collaboration, management, and interaction more thoroughly.

ParticipantsTo meet the demands of communicating to many different audiences from many different colleges and departments, OSU is home to a substantial number of employees working in a design capacity. In this context, design is meant to encompass the activities carried out by marketers, communicators, graphic



designers, video editors, web programmers and designers. The seemingly expansive definition of design is derived from the variety of professional skills performed by employees within offices (in-house) at OSU.

In many instances one employee may fulfill the role of marketer, communicator, visual communicator and web designer. In reducing job title terminology, I hope that I can equalize the community members to the same level and in doing so reduces hierarchy and promotes conversation.

The term in-house, has provoked several questions all ready. By this, I mean the production of some commodity or service within a company’s own funds or resources. In-house design refers to the employees mentioned above as being internal and a part OSU.

For this exploratory study, my community participants come from various design management levels at OSU. In my research to date, I have contacted six participants. To keep everyone’s identity anonymous, participants have each been assigned a number. For this study, I contacted four of the six participants; throughout the rest of this paper, I’ll refer to them as PART 001, PART 003, PART 004 and PART 005.

PART 001 is a senior level designer whose main aim is to oversee production and manage a large staff. The primary area of responsibility for this participant is global communications on behalf of the University. PART 001 reports directly to the upper administration of the University.

PART 003 and 004 are senior level designers from one college at Ohio State. Their main function is to produce visual materials for their home college and the departments within that college. They report directly to the college administration and indirectly PART 001’s level as he directs global communications. Per their request, PART 003 and PART 004 were in the same session for my exploratory study.

Lastly, PART 005 does not work in a management capacity but works as a designer for one college at OSU. PART 005’s main role is produce materials within his or her home college. This participant reports to the level of PART 003 and 004.

PART 002 and PART 006 were contacted originally to discuss the concept of in-house design but were not included in this study. Both of these participants should be included in the future. Their insights into the design profession would be valuable. The group that was included represented a cross section of design management at Ohio State and included everyone from upper level management to a non-manager and was sufficient for this exploratory study.



Data collection methodElizabeth Sanders and Colin William write about the distinction between what people say, what people do, and what people make. The authors explain that those methods centralized around what people say are rooted in verbal communication, but are limited to what people can verbalize (2001). What people do is observable and can explain relationships between community members, but it is lacking when it comes to the root motivation behind actions. What people make shows researchers the creative expression that participants have. Sanders and Williams further define what it means to make by saying:

Make methods enable creative expression by giving people ambiguous visual stimuli to work with. Being ambiguous, these stimuli can be interpreted in different ways, and can activate different memories and feelings in different people. The visual nature liberates people’s creativity from the boundaries of what they can state in words. Together, the ambiguity and the visual nature of these tools allow people much room for creativity, both in expressing their current experiences and ideas and in generating new ideas. (2001)

For my exploratory study, I am focusing on what people say and what people make. Each participant session will be formatted as follows: 1) an introduction to my area of interest, 2) an interpretive activity geared at rating the importance of abstract concepts (called an Importance Bulls-eye), 3) a second interpretive activity for participants to describe their daily work activities (called Time on Task), and 4) loosely structured interview questions about each of the interpretive activities.

What people say came from the participants’ comments throughout the session. What people make came from the visual collages they produced from each of the interpretive activities. Each session was held in the participants’ office with the exception of PART 005 whose session was held in a neutral location. Each session took between 35 minutes and an hour.

The first part of each session, an introduction to my area of interest, was explained through a process diagram that I am using to discuss my direction with my research advisors. This diagram is centered around evolving questions which drive my research. Overlapping the question axis are four distinct areas that represent my research questions.

The goal of the first area (represented by a square) is to review the complete scope of professional design and in-house design offices at The Ohio State University.



This will allow me to identify all the stakeholders of the community and give me a true indication of just how large an impact the community has on the University.

Secondly, the diagram depicts a rectangular area where I’ll present the findings of the previous cycle to the community. Thirdly, I’ll work with the community to identify areas to work on, or those areas of true tension. Finally, after the community establishes the direction we will collectively work to co-create their future. Presently this process is rather abstract, but the ultimate goal is to narrow the area of investigation.

The interpretive activities are made up of a diagram and a set of sticky-notes. Participants were asked to manipulate the sticky-notes onto the diagram. For the first activity participants were presented with a bulls-eye image in the middle of an 18 x 24 inch piece of newsprint paper and a set of 30 abstract concepts. The concepts included: service design, interaction design, collaboration, technology, brand awareness, inter-departmental cooperation, and silo philosophy.

I introduced this activity by explaining that these concepts were areas that I was interested in, but more importantly, areas that came from very preliminary discussions with OSU designers (Participants 001 - 006). They were then asked to move the sticky-notes around the bulls-eye in order to rate them according to personal preference. The inner-most circle being the most important and the outermost circle the least important. Each participant took no more than 10 minutes to place the sets of stickies.

The second interpretive activity followed a similar format, but this time the diagram was a list of numbers, one through ten, on the left hand side the paper. Stickies now represented typical work activities that participants might perform in a design office at OSU. These stickies were also derived from early discussions

Process Diagram (Revised May 31, 2010)



with participants. This group of sticky-notes was more concrete than the first and were color coded and grouped into four categories: yellow for management tasks, lime for accounting tasks, blue for design tasks, and pink for marketing tasks. Participants were not told why the words were quartered and color coded. As before, they were asked to move the stickies onto the diagram, but in this activity one represented the task that the participants spent the most time working on and ten represented the tasks that participants spent the least time working on. As before, participants took no more than ten minutes to complete this activity.

Following these activities, the participants were asked several questions were asked. After completing first activity participants were asked: 1) Why did you place the concepts where you placed them, 2) What are the top three most important concepts on the map, 3) From what perspective did you approach your answer (deeply personal or more of a global enterprise view)? In addition, subsequent follow-up questions based on answers that arose during conversation. Once each participant finished the second activity they were asked: 1) Why did you place the tasks where you placed them, and 2) Which numbers comprised your average day?

Participants 001 and 005 had individual sessions. Participants 003 and 004 were included together in one session because they work closely together. PART 003 and 004 approached me about being in the same session because PART 004 once held PART 003‘s position. He left the university and PART 003 was hired. Not long after PART 004 returned to the University and took a position directly beneath PART 003. They both did their own interpretive activities though, but they were conversational in their follow up interview questions.

Reflecting on the sessions themselves, there are a few things I plan on changing in the future. Firstly, this exploratory study needs to be done with a much larger audience. I continue to point out that there is a large number of designers working at various levels, in various offices across the University, four stakeholders out of this broad community of designers is insufficient to determine a global perspective. It would also be beneficial to make some necessary changes to the session activities themselves so that more valuable data can be gathered. This is not to say that these four participant’s provide me with no usable data. On the contrary, these participants had some distinct and important opinions.

Secondly, I believe that the time of day is important. PART 001’s session was late afternoon and PART 003 and 004’s session was mid-morning. PART 005 was around lunchtime. I found that participants were more enthusiastic earlier in the day; their answers were more thorough. Towards the end of the day, their answers were longer and more distracted. This is an early observation and I would need many more participants to confirm this, but at this time I would say that future sessions should be scheduled earlier in the day rather than later.



There is plenty of room for the actual layout of the activities to change. Despite regularly mentioning to participants that they could add stickies as necessary because the list of concepts and task was by no means complete, only in rare instances was anything added. In the future, I believe that leaving several stickies blank, but grouped with the written ones, participants may be more inclined to add their own concepts and tasks to the collages. Additionally, I think that defining the words on the stickies would be beneficial. In doing so, participants may be more likely to spend more time placing (or not placing) concepts rather than trying to define what the words meant.

Data AnalysisAs Sanders and William write that using ambiguous stimuli can open participants to interpreting that stimuli in new and different ways (2001). Similarly, ambiguous words or images may trigger memories that can be informative to the activity and unique to each participants. Collage activities, such as the ones I asked participants to engage in, are geared at getting people to convey experiences through words and images. In order to analyze my participants’ collages, I’ve asked each of them to articulate the importance of concepts and tasks by placing sticky notes on the diagrams as described in the previous section.

I should mention process. Each session was audio recorded and every participant had their own identical set of diagrams and stickies. Following the sessions, I transcribed all the audio recordings and pinned every collage up to a wall where they could be photographed and compared to one another. Themes were then identified from the listening to the audio recordings and re-reading the transcripts. Once themes were identified, I corroborated them with the placement of sticky-notes in the collages.

PART 001 made decisions quickly. They read the sticky-note and quickly placed it. This was true for both activities. On the Importance Bulls-eye, the participant placed stickies centrally on the diagram and they radiated out as he placed more stickies; for the Time on Task, he choose the most poignant tasks and quickly stuck them down as linearly as possible. He was so precise on the second activity, he even folded the sticky notes so that they fit within the provided sections. Of all the participants, PART 001 used the least stickies. Three notes were excluded from the Bulls-eye and ten from the Task activity.



PART 003 and 004 executed the activities simultaneously. PART 003 moved extremely quickly at first and slowed down towards the end. Of all the participants, PART 003 edited the most after placing the stickies. PART 004 was slower moving and asked many more questions. PART 003 needed no direction, almost beginning to place stickies before I had even explained what to do. PART 004 on the other hand, needed clarification and more detailed directions. In the end both participant’s Importance Bulls-eyes resembled grids; they were very structured. The Time on Task activities for both participants were executed in the same way, using organized and structured grids. For both activities, every sticky-note was used. PART 003 added three notes to her bulls-eye and four notes to her task diagram. PART 004 added none.

PART 005 placed the first few bulls-eye concepts with no issue, but then began to hesitate for the duration of the first activity. This community member had no trouble with the second activity. She placed the first, most important concepts at the middle and radiated outwards. Unlike PART 001, who angled the notes in various directions, PART 005 placed her notes radiating on one axis across the page. PART 005 used all the concepts and left out thirteen of the tasks.

PART 001 seemed to express his feelings towards design as it is currently at OSU rather than what design could be. Because they folded the stickies, it made me believe even more that they were looking at current realities rather than potential realities. To me, this seemed to say that everything has a place and fits into the picture as it was given. PART 001 explained that both activities were positioned from a global, enterprise level view point because of his or her management level.

On the other hand PART 003 and 004 had interesting positions. Both claimed that they could not separate themselves from thinking ideally about OSU, and thus part of their Importance Bulls-eyes contained global perspectives. However, at the root they approached the initial, most important aspects of the Bulls-eye from a deeply personal perspective because they both agreed, what they do is always at the forefront.

PART 001 and 005, who are technically at opposite ends of the management spectrum, had very similar styles of placement, and left a great deal of stickies off. For the Bulls-eye, both of these community members stacked notes. This was a central concept because they believed that the majority of the concepts were important. PART 005 asked several investigatory questions while working, but for the most part was the one participant that knew the majority of the terms from the stickies.

Each of the participants were asked which of the concepts were the top three from the Bulls-eye. Their responses varied, but their explanations paralleled one another greatly. Below are their responses:



PART 001Technology, Brand Awareness, Brand Strategy, Collaboration

PART 003Collaboration, Process, and Management

PART 004Communication, Strategy, Over-arching Vision

PART 005Process, Technology, Service Design

All participants discussed how design, the type of design they were doing nowadays, is changing. Each of them talked about the decreasing emphasis on printed materials, and the increase in digital, web based design. PART 001 eloquently discussed how, in terms of work, this meant that they were doing less design in the traditional sense, and concentrating more on messaging as a means to design. Technologies like Facebook and Twitter were now providing frameworks for messaging rather than design. Similarly, PART 003 explained that one role he or she has is to design for the web, and that there is a big push from the college to design digitally. Design may be changing, but the participants listed concepts like the Future of Design, Role of Design and How Design Affects OSU as mildly to not important.

Global perspective was a theme that each participant noted in their bulls-eye. Each believed that having a broader understanding of what was happening at OSU particularly within the realm of design, was considerably important. Only PART 001, the senior level manager, felt that he had this perspective; each of the other participants felt they could use further communication in this area. In conjunction, participants felt this would affect collaboration, brand awareness and brand strategy. If the entire University community proceeded towards a unified direction, then each college or department could work informed with this framework in mind. This is where collaboration, process and management became important.

Silo Philosophy, as well as Individualism, was a topic of much discussion. PART



001 said, while determining where to place the sticky, “if you’re literally talking a Silo Philosophy [then] that doesn’t get in the circle...” This participant goes on to say, “I can name names.” In addition, this community member continues to explain that while this belief should not exist it still does. He goes so far as to say there is no “tolerance” for it. All the while, he continues to forceably remove the Silo Philosophy sticky-note and place it exactly outside the outermost circle on the bulls-eye. Though PART 003, 004, and 005 each had thoughts on Silo Philosophy, PART 005 was outspoken with his opinions concerning the topic. The other participants placed it as equally alone and outside their other items as PART 001. PART 004 mentioned it had an “adverse effect” and “seems to not benefit.” PART 003 placed Silo Philosophy on the Bulls-eye because it is good to keep in mind since it does exist, but agreed with the other participants that it wasn’t (or should not be) important.

Technology was a brought up by each participant. For PART 001 technology was a concept at the top of the list, because it can be both a tool and a medium. For PART 003 and 004 it is primarily an avenue to communicate to audiences. PART 005, like PART 005, expressed technology as a way to connect to relevant audiences. PART 005 said, “I feel like we have to keep up with the times in order to stay current with everyone else and be competitive.” PART 001 also remarked that technology was a means to make connections with audiences.

I found that the Time on Task collages substantiated the participants Importance Bulls-eyes. Both PART 001 and 005 explained that their workdays are mostly comprised of the first four spots on the task diagram. PART 001 placed a lot of the broad, strategy concepts in the center. The tasks he placed centrally were meta oriented management tasks like Brand Strategy and Collaboration. PART 005 also placed a lot broad concepts directly in the middle, but listed very specific tasks. I found that participants on the opposite end of the management spectrum included the same number of daily tasks, though PART 001’s choices were nearly all abstract in nature, and PART 005’s were very concrete.

On the other hand, PART 003 and 004 were extremely busy. PART 003’s day-to-day activities were one through six and PART 004’s were one through five. In contrast to what 001 and 005 did, 003 and 004 used all of the task sticky-notes. This means that while PART 003 said that more than half of the task diagram comprised the day-to-day activities, each individual number on the diagram had many tasks listed. The second slot, for instance, had Delegating, Communicating, E-mail (added), Revising, Designing Printed Pieces, Meeting, and Setting Goals all together and overlapping with the slots before and after.

Future Work

Future Work


Future Study & Next StepsAfter this exploratory study, it is clear there is more work that can be done. Participants seem to realize that the University is by no means perfect, and has room to grow not only internally but, externally as well. There are great opportunities for new relationships if the community can understand one another, put forward a collective strategy, present a consistent message, and reduce the individual silos that still exist. The hopes of the One University Framework strive to hit these targets, but even that plan seems restrictive since only the senior level participant of this study was aware of it.

In the broadest scope of my research, this project is intended to lead me through a formal understanding of an academic institution – in this case, The Ohio State University. It is also my intention that this process take me through the in-house design structure of a large non-profit corporation. From this point, I plan to perform a series of cycles each aimed at gaining this understanding from a participatory standpoint.

Essentially, the future of this work should concentrate on surveying more community members. The benefit of this is two-fold. First, interviews with more people will introduce my research to a wider sample of the community, will help me build rapport within the community. Secondly, working with a more extensive group will allow me to refine my direction. The four participants have identified some central areas that seem to be all-encompassing for the community but bringing these to light with other community members will validate those points and potentially introduce new ones.

Future Work


More practically, I believe the question becomes about how the rest of the community should be approached. For me, this could happen one of two ways: 1) spend time scheduling meetings with other community members and making stick-it note activity kits, or 2) prepare a workbook composed of an introduction to my research and interests, as well as a short questionnaire and similar activities. The first approach will take considerable time, and each session would have to be recorded and later transcribed. The second approach would reach a larger audience faster, and follow up interviews could be scheduled as needed to clarify questionable remarks in the workbooks. For this early exploratory stage of my research, where the idea is not all together too clear, it would seem to me that spending time on interviews would be a wasteful use of my time. Whereas, I could prepare a workbook and hand deliver them so that I can begin to build the rapport I need to continue.

In truth the future of this project is speculative. It is currently happening very fluidly, and maintaining a steadily evolving direction each week. The path is certainly narrowing to a concrete direction. I hope by repeating the Importance Bulls-eye and Time on Task activities, in some capacity to a larger sample of community members that I can identify a research direction, the necessary stakeholders important to making my research happen and create real change for the design community at OSU.

Workbook

AnnotatedBibliography

Bibliography


Bradbury, Hilary, and Peter Reason. Handbook of Action Research, Concise Paperback Edition. London [u.a.]: SAGE, 2008. Print.

This book is an all-purpose reference for Action Research. The authors have included

several case studies as well as several definitions of Action Research form various

professions and organizational perspectives. Bradbury and Reason breakdown the

notion that Action Research is somehow “teaching” research and the emphasize

Action Research as a framework for participatory action in many fields.

Action Research

Boyd, Joni. Making Research Meaningful: An Exploration of Participatory Action Research. Working paper. Print. Winter 2009.

This paper compares quantitative and qualitative research and outlines why qualitative

research is not only important but a better overall choice for a participatory method like

Action Research. The author is careful, however, not to totally downplay quantitative

findings. Instead, she proposes that they are useful but shouldn’t be the main point

of data for an Action Research projects.

“Center for Collaborative Action Research.” Cadres | Graduate School of Education and Psychology | Pepperdine University. Web. 05 Apr. 2010. < http://cadres.pepperdine.edu/ccar/projects.community.html >

This source comes from a department that regularly encourages students to utilize

Action Research as a critical lens for their research. The site spells out basic action

research principles. It also provides links to several hyper-links to different types of

Action Research projects - at Pepperdine, Action Research proposals and findings

mostly make their way to the public via a website.

Stringer, Ernest T. Action Research. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Sage Publications, 2007. Print.

This book is an in-depth explanation of Action Research. Stringer outlines the

history of action research and its methodology. He breaks down his discussion

by leading readers through each part of the process from research plan design to

implementation.

Bibliography


Mozota, Brigitte Borja De. Design Management Using Design to Build Brand Value and Corporate Innovation. New York: Allworth, 2003. Print.

This book is an exploration of design management methodologies. It utilizes theory

and validates it through case studies. The author defines design management and

steps through the fundamentals of practice. She then goes further into the importance

of design and thus the importance of managing that process accurately.

Design Management

Poggenpohl, Sharon Helmer., and Keiichi Sato. Design Integrations: Research and Collaboration. Chicago: Intellect, the University of Chicago, 2009. Print.

This book is broken into two sections: 1) research and 2) collaboration - both

pertaining to design. Each section begins with a formal, theoretic and historical

outline followed by several chapters of case studies. Particularly interesting, there are

several chapters on the synthesis of design, technology and business goals as well

as practicing collaboration within virtual organizations.

Stockrocki, M. Research Methods and Methodologies for Art Education. Ed. S. Pierre and E. Zimmerman. National Art Education Association. Print.

This is a reference book for methods and methodologies relating directly to art

education. At this point I have not read much of it, however its referenced several

times in Boyd’s work and I have cited it because of its potential value in the future.

Action Research (Continued)

Sanders, Elizabeth B. -N, and Colin T. William. Harnessing People’s Creativity: Ideation and Expression through Visual Communication. Ed. J. Langford and Philip D. McDonagh. Focus Groups: Supporting Effective Product Development (2001). Print.

This paper discusses what people say, what people do, and what people make. This

is a guiding principle in my exploratory study. The paper examines the current state

of beliefs within research. It also discusses several methods of acquiring creative

data from people stereotyped as non-creative.

Bibliography


Nokes, Sebastian, and Sean Kelly. The Definitive Guide to Project Management: the Fast Track to Getting the Job Done on Time and on Budget. New York: Pearson Education. Prentice Hall Financial Times, 2007. Print.

Though not a theoretical guide to project management, this gives a hands-on,

practical perspective on project management. It will be useful to compare office

observations of my community of interest against the certification system set for

project management.

Project Management

Sanders, Elizabeth B.-N., and Pieter Jan Stappers. Co-Creation and the New Landscapes of Design. CoDesign (2008). Journals Online. Web. 4 Nov. 2009. <http://journalsonline.tandf.co.uk>.

This paper establishes a basis for codesign. Sanders and Stappers examine the

history of designing with users and lays the framework for professional designers to

act as facilitators of designs so that the users needs are truly met.

Action Research (Continued)

University Relations - The Ohio State University. Web. 12 Apr. 2010. < http://relations.osu.edu/ >.

This source is the gateway to understanding the University’s marketing and

communications departments. Additionally, this website presents guidelines for

messaging and design and defines the majority of design functions at OSU.

Welcome to Ohio State - The Ohio State University. Web. 14 Apr. 2010. < http://www.osu.edu >.

This source is the definitive portal to all information for my community of interest.

Though information is sometimes difficult to get through, nearly everything about the

university is contained within this website.

Community

Course Plan

Course Plan


Course Plan

2009 AUTUMN Design 693 - Independent Study T 3.00 Design 780 - Design Issues Seminar C 4.00 Design 785 - Orientation to Graduate Studies in Design C 4.00

2010 WINTER Design 693 - Independent Study T 5.00 Design 780 - Design Issues Seminar C 4.00 Design 786 - Design Research & Inquiry C 4.00

2010 SPRING Design 693 - Independent Study T 4.00 Design 787 - Design Planning, Development, and Evaluation C 4.00 Design 760 - Graduate Design Studio C 5.00 ART ED 795 - Action Research in Art. Ed. C 4.00

2010 SUMMER CSE 201 - Elementary Computer Programming E 4.00 Design 795 - Design & Business E 4.00 Design 685 - Field Work in Design S 1.00

2010 AUTUMN Design 693 - Independent Study T 2.00 ART ED 795 - Arts & Cult. Org Res. & Rev. Management C 5.00 CSE 502 - Object Oriented Programming E 3.00

2011 WINTER Design 693 - Independent Study T 2.00 ACCAD 740 - Interactive Arts Media 1 S 3.00 Comm 656 - Info. Tech. & Org. Comm. E 5.00 CSE 668 - App. Comp. Programming for Eng. E 3.00

2011 SPRING Design 693 - Independent Study T 4.00 ACCAD 741 - Interactive Arts Media 2 S 3.00 CSE 767 - Applied Object-Oriented Analysis & Design E 3.00

2011 SUMMER CSE 541 - Elementary Numerical Methods E 3.00 Design 673 - Interactive VC: Strategies Web Comm. S 4.00 Design 685 - Field Work in Design S 1.00

2011 AUTUMN Design 693 - Independent Study T 1.00 Design 660.02- Visual Communication Design Studio S 5.00 Comm - 655 Computer Interfaces and Human Identity E 5.00 CSE 670 - Introduction to Database Systems 1 E 3.00

2012 WINTER Design 693 - Independent Study T 2.00 Design 661.02- Advanced Design Studio S 5.00 Design 950 - Research Problems in Design T 5.00

2012 SPRING Design 693 - Independent Study T 2.00 Design 998 - Research in Design: Thesis T 7.00

Year Quarter Course Number & Title Type Cred

By Year & Quarter

T - Thesis Development Courses C - Core Seminar Courses E - Elective Courses S - Studio Courses

Course Plan


Thesis Development Courses

Design 693 - Independent Study T 3.00Design 693 - Independent Study T 5.00Design 693 - Independent Study T 4.00Design 693 - Independent Study T 2.00Design 693 - Independent Study T 2.00Design 693 - Independent Study T 4.00Design 693 - Independent Study T 1.00Design 693 - Independent Study T 2.00Design 950 - Research Problems in Design T 5.00Design 693 - Independent Study T 2.00Design 998 - Research in Design: Thesis T 7.00 37.00

Core Semenar Courses

Design 780 - Design Issues Seminar C 4.00Design 785 - Orientation to Graduate Studies in Design C 4.00Design 780 - Design Issues Seminar C 4.00Design 786 - Design Research & Inquiry C 4.00Design 787 - Design Planning, Development, and Evaluation C 4.00Design 760 - Graduate Design Studio C 5.00ART ED 795 - Action Research in Art. Ed. C 4.00ART ED 795 - Arts & Cult. Org Res. & Rev. Management C 5.00 34.00

Elective Courses

CSE 201 - Elementary Computer Programming E 4.00Design 795 - Design & Business E 4.00CSE 502 - Object Oriented Programming E 3.00Comm 656 - Info. Tech. & Org. Comm. E 5.00CSE 668 - App. Comp. Programming for Eng. E 3.00CSE 767 - Applied Object-Oriented Analysis & Design E 3.00CSE 541 - Elementary Numerical Methods E 3.00Comm - 655 Computer Interfaces and Human Identity E 5.00CSE 670 - Introduction to Database Systems 1 E 3.00 33.00

Studio Courses

Design 685 - Field Work in Design S 1.00ACCAD 740 - Interactive Arts Media 1 S 3.00ACCAD 741 - Interactive Arts Media 2 S 3.00Design 673 - Interactive VC: Strategies Web Comm. S 4.00Design 685 - Field Work in Design S 1.00Design 660.02- Visual Communication Design Studio S 5.00Design 661.02- Advanced Design Studio S 5.00 22.00

Course Plan By Course Type

Appendices

Course Plan


CITI Certification10/2/09 1:40 PMCompletion Report

Page 1 of 2https://www.citiprogram.org/members/learnersII/crbystage.asp?strKeyID=C66BBFB5-65CC-40EC-A2AC-48C7E1479CB1-4670973

CITI Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative

Human Research Curriculum Completion ReportPrinted on

Learner: Allen Cochran (username: cochran291)Institution: Ohio State UniversityContact InformationThe Ohio State University

Department of Design128 N. Oval Mall, Hopkins HallColumbus, OH 43230 United States of AmericaDepartment: Department of DesignPhone: (513) 549-1554Email: [email protected]

Group 2.Social and Behavioral Research Investigators and Staff.:

Stage 1. Basic Course Passed on 10/02/09 (Ref # 3594273)

Required ModulesDate

Completed ScoreIntroduction 10/02/09 no quizHistory and Ethical Principles - SBR 10/01/09 3/4 (75%)Defining Research with Human Subjects - SBR 10/01/09 5/5 (100%)The Regulations and The Social and BehavioralSciences - SBR

10/01/09 5/5 (100%)

Assessing Risk in Social and Behavioral Sciences - SBR 10/01/09 5/5 (100%)Informed Consent - SBR 10/01/09 4/4 (100%)Privacy and Confidentiality - SBR 10/01/09 3/3 (100%)Records-Based Research 10/01/09 2/2 (100%)Research with Prisoners - SBR 10/02/09 4/4 (100%)Research with Children - SBR 10/02/09 4/4 (100%)Research in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools -SBR

10/02/09 4/4 (100%)

International Research - SBR 10/02/09 3/3 (100%)Internet Research - SBR 10/02/09 5/5 (100%)HIPAA and Human Subjects Research 10/02/09 2/2 (100%)Conflicts of Interest in Research Involving HumanSubjects

10/02/09 2/2 (100%)

Ohio State University 10/02/09 no quiz

For this Completion Report to be valid, the learner listed above must beaffiliated with a CITI participating institution. Falsified information andunauthorized use of the CITI course site is unethical, and may beconsidered scientific misconduct by your institution.

CITI Certification Report (acquired October 2009)

Course Plan


IRB Proposal

IRB Proposal Page 01 of 06

Course Plan


IRB Proposal


Course Plan


IRB Proposal


Course Plan


IRB Proposal


Course Plan


IRB Proposal


Course Plan


IRB Proposal


Additional Documents Forthcoming

Consent FormInterview QuestionsSurvey QuestionsFocus Group Questions

Course Plan


3rd Quarter Paperwork

Sample 3rd Quarter Review Documentation.

1

3rd Quarter Review (Updated March 2010)

For the MFA in the Department of DesignMandatory

Date:

Candidate:

The undersigned Graduate Faculty members have reviewed the research and coursework of the candidate above during this the 3rd quarter of their graduate enrollment.

The results of the review are as follows:

Continue in the MFA program

Deny continuation in the program

Delay review for one quarter (a rationale must be specified on this form)

Submitted by:

A delayed review will cause the student to be placed on departmental probation until the subsequent 3rd quarter review that must take place during the following quarter, at which time department pro-bation will be removed or the student will be denied continuation in the program.

A one page preliminary research proposal must be given to each committee member one week prior to the review.

Recommendations:

Committee Chair

Committee member

Committee member

visi

t us o

n th

e w

eb:

ww

w.d

esig

n.os

u.ed

u ht

tp:/

/acc

ad.o

su.e

du

For more informationor to contact

www.allenjcochran.com

Date post:	21-Oct-2014
Category:	Education
View:	502 times
Download:	0 times