Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This article contributes to recent debates regarding graphic design and research – in this journal and elsewhere – by reflecting on my own project, which may or may not be considered research. London is Changing was staged online and on large-scale networked digital billboards in Central London during 2015. It engaged the participation of more than 5,000 Londoners in a discussion about the future of the city. Reflecting on the significance and outcomes of London is Changing, and in particular why it is so difficult to frame as research, provides the basis for a broader reconsideration of the definition and valuation of graphic design research. One key issue is whether or not it is productive for those involved in graphic design, a discipline that is arguably defined by its experimental approach to publishing, to focus on conventional or externally prescribed forms of scholarly publishing in an attempt to strengthen its position as a field of research. I conclude by arguing that graphic design’s potential contribution to the wider scholarship in the context of mounting pressures on all academic fields to demonstrate “impact” is rooted precisely in the integrated approach that it takes in the production, form, and circulation of knowledge.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rebecca Ross (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: