Negotiating Design

Negotiating Design A Major Essay for the MA (Cultural Studies & Communication) INTRODUCTION The use of the term design in its narrowest sense relates to different forms of professional practice that fall, roughly, into two main categories. The first category encompasses the disciplines of industrial design, graphic design, interior design, fashion design and the like. These disciplines by virtue of the historical location of their educational programs in art and design schools, are considered to be more artistically oriented. The second category relates to the various disciplines of engineering and computer science. These disciplines are regarded as being more technically and rationally oriented (Dilnot 1989a: p 234; Margolin 1989a: pp 4-5). Though there are exceptions to these generalised categories (architecture is notable for being considered as both technical and artistic) they serve well to provide a sense of the two key paradigms that much of design studies has been premised on. My use of the term design, in this essay, relates more to the understanding of it as artistically oriented, and although the case studies chosen for analysis focus on graphic design, I will work through issues that are of concern to design in its broadest possible conception. Design literature, historically, has been dominated by a preoccupation with the lives of individual designers and their views on design; historical movements in design; the processes of making objects; or upon the designed object itself (Dilnot 1989b: pp 2201; Forty 1986: p 239). This model for the study of the practice and history of design is a consequence of design scholars drawing upon the methodology and epistemology of art history and practice, unsurprising given the location of much design education in art schools (Blauvelt & Davis 1997: p 79; Dilnot 1989a: pp 235-9). The tendency of art historians to locate the individual and the artefact as their main concerns perpetuates an ideology that privileges the individual and the aesthetic over the social dimensions of 'artistic' production (Bourdieu 1993: pp 35-6). By transposing this model onto design studies, without even questioning any similarities or differences between the two fields, an overly aestheticized view of design practice, which sees design as 'Art', has developed. The privileged position of this discourse constructs the designer as the central creative figure in the design process and ignores the social situatedness of design practice. Drawing upon recent theories of the social construction of technology, discourse analysis, cultural studies and design as rhetoric, I will argue that design practice is a form of cultural production that is social, contingent and negotiated. Furthermore, I will argue that these social circumstances relate to the roles that a range of 'actors', not just the designer, and the circulation of numerous codes through discourse, other than the codes of aesthetics, play in the negotiations that characterise the design process. Little attention has been given to these complex circumstances in which the design process is located and less still has been given to the specific negotiations that occur between the client and the designer within that context. Recent work in examining these negotiations has concentrated on the rhetorical use of language in constituting the object as a means of exploring the social nature of design practice (See Cuff 1991; Fleming 1996 & 1998; Forester 1989; Schon 1983). This has been done primarily by analysing the ways in which the codes of language used are modified according to the expertise of the participants and the role this plays in Mark Roxburgh University of Western Sydney, 1999 1 Negotiating Design A Major Essay for the MA (Cultural Studies & Communication) reaching an agreeable design outcome. What has been lacking in these studies is an examination of the way in which clients and designers draw upon a range of codes, which involve different subject positions in interaction with each other, as a rhetorical strategy to reach a negotiated outcome. Against the view of design as 'Art' this essay seeks to demonstrate the situated and negotiated nature of design by exploring the codes and subject positions that circulate through conversational discourse between clients and designers. In examining the meetings between two sets of clients and designers I have identified four key codes that frame their conversations. The first code deals with the aesthetic parameters of the proposed design artefact and its crafting. Contrary to the notion that designers are solely responsible for these aspects of the artefact I will argue that clients also play a significant role in shaping them, at times positioning themselves in conversation as designers. The second key code relates to the functional aspects of the proposed artefact. In the context of the case studies the function of the artefact is to communicate a message in text and graphic form. I will argue that the presence of this code, and the negotiations that occur in relation to it, further challenges the aestheticized view of design. The third code is concerned with the audience or users of the proposed artefact. I will examine the manner in which both clients and designers discursively configure the 'user' as a means of establishing their own authority in the negotiations. The final code relates to the negotiated nature of the of design process as manifested in conversational discourse. I will argue that these aspects of the conversations demonstrates the contingent and social nature of the design process, a view which is contrary to the notion of the designer as 'Artist'. Mark Roxburgh University of Western Sydney, 1999 2 Negotiating Design A Major Essay for the MA (Cultural Studies & Communication) CHAPTER 1: The Situation of Design 1. The Paradox of Design 'Creativity' A fundamental paradox in the understanding and articulation of design practice can be found within a wide array of design literature, both scholarly and professional. The view that dominates, posits designers as being creative individuals almost solely responsible for the conception and production of designed artefacts. This is in contrast to the practice of design in which client needs and demands are integral to the design process as are budgetary limitations; production personnel and processes; materials and so forth. This representation of what is essentially a socially interactive process, as being the work of a sole 'creative' being, has its roots in the historical confusion of design with 'Art' and is at odds with the view that design practice is embedded in a complex network of social, material and economic relations (Bird 1977: p 88; Forty 1986: pp 239-41; Mackay & Gillespie 1992: pp 686-7). By viewing design as 'Art' many of the assumptions about the nature of artistic practice are transposed onto design practice. These assumptions relate to the common idea that 'Art' is the creative self-expression of a gifted individual, pursuing their artistic vision with little concern for public taste and economic success, who makes or supervises others to make the artistic artefact. As this ideology is not true of design, so too is it not true of art. It is an ideology premised on the notion that artistic production is devoid of any social determination or function. It ignores the role that critics, audiences, art dealers, art galleries and the like, as well as artists, play in shaping what constitutes 'Art' (Bourdieu, P. 1993: pp 34-7). The genealogy of this discourse can more or less be traced back to the Renaissance with its notion of the artist as genius, and unique individual, which developed with the rise of humanist ideas in philosophy and religion during the fifteenth century. Over the next few centuries this view gained greater currency with the artist being increasingly conceived of as a person without institutional ties (Wolff 1981: pp 26-7). However, it was with the emergence of the early bourgeoisie during the late eighteenth century that this discourse began to take a central place in the conception of art, most notably manifest in Romanticism (Eagleton 1991: p 34). The idea of the artist as an outsider was reinforced by the rise of individualism as an ideology during the development of industrial capitalism in the nineteenth century. This coupled with the collapse of the system of patronage, to be overtaken by the dealer critic system, heightened the sense of separation from social structures that artists felt (Wolff 1981: p 11). As a consequence of the changes to the social, ideological and economic circumstances in which artistic work was produced, artists were seen, ironically, as wholly shaping the conceptual and aesthetic dimensions of their output, with little influence from these circumstances. A detailed analysis of this discourse and its history is, however, not the aim here; rather my purpose is to outline the dominant view of cultural production that it frames and the manner in which conceptions of design activity have been influenced by notions of artistic practice. This has occurred in a large part, as earlier argued, through the close proximity of much design education to art education. These educational institutions are one part of the network of institutions that help to reproduce the dominance of the ideology of the aesthetic and the notion of the creative genius Mark Roxburgh University of Western Sydney, 1999 Negotiating Design A Major Essay for the MA (Cultural Studies & Communication) (Bourdieu 1993: p 260). In relationship to 'Art' these other institutions include: places of exhibit, art dealers, critics, art historians, art publications and the like. In the case of design, many of these types of institutions similarly deal with design artefacts (Margolin 1989b: pp 266-8) and we can add to this list professional publications. The view of the 'creative' artefact solely embodying a single person's artistic vision, and being in a sense outside the culture in which it was produced, fails to come to terms with the idea that cultural artefacts are informed by and inform our understanding of who we are. That is they reflect and reflect upon the ideological dimensions of the culture in which they are produced (Mackay & Gillespie 1992: pp 690-2; Wolff 1981: pp 54-5). By returning to the analysis of cultural production, including art and design, a sense of the social situatedness - indeed the social specificity of particular practices - the ideological dimensions and ramifications of any 'creative' production can be examined. It is in this respect that much design writing has failed. 2. Design Literature and 'Creativity' It is not my intention here to exhaustively review the history of design literature as it relates to the reproduction of the discourse of the designer as 'artist'. Rather, my aim is to demonstrate briefly that this discourse is a common feature of a range of design literature and its presence in the 'institutional field' of design, to paraphrase Bourdieu, plays a role in its reproduction. Pevsner's "Pioneers of Modern Design" (1960; 1st pub. 1936), is regarded as being one of the early key texts on the topic of design (Dilnot 1989: p 217; Forty 1986: p 239). Drawing upon the methodology of art history, Pevsner produced a view of design practice that conforms to art history's model of biographical and artefactual account, effectively reproducing the notion of the designer as 'artist'. At around the same time a number of other writers published books on design that were heavily influenced by the values of the British arts and crafts movement of the nineteenth century, as was Pevsner. These include Gloag's "Design in Modern Life" (1934) and Read's "Art and Industry" (1966; 1st pub. 1937); both books outlining a vision of design that was premised on the idea that the skill and creativity of the designer would improve the quality of mass produced (read 'inferior') industrial products. If these works hark back, in part, to an earlier century for their models of creative practice, others were looking to their own time for the same purpose. The influence of modernist conceptions of artistic practice upon design is noticeable in the work of Kepes (1944) and Rand (1947). Both articulated a view of graphic design that departed from the conventional concern for layout techniques and drew upon understandings of modern art to shape their views of design. Needless to say this view locates the designer at the centre of 'creative' practice, given the modernist tendency for self-referential narrative (Eagleton 1990: p 140). The interest in the relationship between design and modern art during this period was further demonstrated by the establishment of the Museum of Modern Art's industrial design department in the early fourties, and its program of publications on the topic, thus reinforcing the discourse of the designer as 'artist' (Margolin 1989b: pp 268-9). In Industrial Design, Loewy provides a biographical account of his years as one of America's leading industrial designers and though he demonstrates an awareness of Mark Roxburgh University of Western Sydney, 1999 Negotiating Design A Major Essay for the MA (Cultural Studies & Communication) the role of clients, markets and colleagues in the design process, he sees intuition and creative freedom as the keys to good design (Loewy 1979: p 15). Likewise Bayley argues that designers are creative individuals who are hampered in designing by client input. He believes that designers should "defy the status quo and reject authority" in their work, a view not unlike the proclamations of many avant-garde art movements, and one "whose typology would be familiar to chroniclers of Romanticism" (Bayley 1990: p 61). This is unsurprising given Bayley's earlier declaration that "industrial design is the art of the twentieth century" (Bayley 1979: p 10). Echoing Bayley's view, Kernan, though recognising the need to negotiate with clients, argues that the best design is produced when they allow designers substantial creative freedom. He bases the success of the design process upon the extent to which his creative self-expression is fulfilled (Kernan 1997: p28), a view shared by Minale (1989). Pearce sees creativity as "rebellion against what is known" and that this enables creative people, including designers, to stand apart from society (Pearce 1995: p 65). The idea of the designer as outsider comes as a consequence of designers pushing "the envelope of creativity" and getting as "creative or daring as possible" (Torrreano 1996: p 116). This idea is taken to farcical lengths in Ogde's (1994) satirical piece on the marginalisation of designers by technology. This piece proposes that designers will become disenfranchised because their work will be automated and that when the world realises it needs them for their 'creative' vision, they will be hailed as heroes and command enormous salaries. Goines, though acknowledging 'creative' people's ideas are located within cultural and economic circumstances, also sees them as being 'outside society' because it is left to them as the "disenfranchised to introduce change" (Goines 1997: p 260). This final point demonstrates the inherent contradiction within this conception of the designer as 'artist'; it locates them simultaneously outside society, as rebels or the disenfranchised, and inside it, as existing in a cultural and economic context in which their creative ideas are shaped. 3. The Social Situatedness of Design As design is not primarily about a designer's creative self-expression it seems peculiar that this discourse has dominated for so long. The case for a more socially situated view of design seems warranted given its direct connection to industrial capital and processes, the mass consumption of designed artefacts, and the relationship between clients and designers in shaping the design outcome. The reasons why this view has persisted for so long are of less interest to me, however, than examining particular aspects of the social processes that shape design outcomes, at work at the micro level, as manifested in client-designer negotiations. Forty (1986) deconstructs the dominant notion of the designer as the central creative force in the production of artefacts through a systematic historical analysis of the material, economic and social circumstances in which design practice evolved. In doing this he argues that the owners of capital have historically utilised design as a means of encoding their understanding of the social meanings and values of the day into the artefacts they produce, to make them more appealing to consumers. He contends, then, that ideology is as important an element in design as the materials and processes used, and that design is both a social process and an ideological practice in Mark Roxburgh University of Western Sydney, 1999 Negotiating Design A Major Essay for the MA (Cultural Studies & Communication) which symbolic and functional meanings are encoded into the designed artefact (Forty 1986: pp 9, 63, 87-93). Similarly Hebdige sees designed artefacts as being made meaningful "through their location within cultural/ideological codes" (Hebdige 1998: pp 85-6). However, his analysis differs from Forty's on two key points. Firstly, Hebdige is more concerned with the circulation of discourses whereas Forty is interested in the relationship between production and design. Secondly, Hebdige is more explicitly aware that the process of consumption has as important ideological consequences as the processes of design and production. Whilst not directly relevant to my project the significance of the role of consumption in the network of relationships, in which design activity exists, is in understanding the ways in which meanings encoded in any consumer good are accepted, modified or rejected by users and how this in turn can feed back into subsequent design activity (Cockburn 1992: p 37; Jackson & Holbrook 1995: pp 1913-4; Mansell & Silverstone 1996: p 10; Mackay & Gillespie 1992: pp 698-9). This further underscores the contingent nature of design. Though Forty touches upon consumption, if only in general terms, he fails to address how the link between the design of the artefact and the user is made (Silverstone & Hadden 1996: p 49). By concentrating almost exclusively on the macro dimensions of design practice and production, with little regard for the role of consumption, his analysis tends to privilege the role of the structure of society over the subject in constituting the social world (Mackay & Gillespie 1992: pp 691-2). Focusing, as he does, on the macro he is unable to deal with the nuances of the micro aspects of negotiation that occur between the conception and distribution of any artefact. In short, the role of agency at this micro level of the network and the particular ways in which meanings are encoded and decoded, in relationship to the artefact, remain underdeveloped. The relationship between social structure and human action in cultural production is more adequately accounted for by Wolff in her analysis of the social production of 'Art' (Wolff 1981). She argues that human agency is both located within and determined by a network of social structures that enable human action by providing the conditions for and choices of these actions. This view of cultural production finds parallels in the work of Bourdieu. He describes the relationship between social agents and systems as being one in which the system makes available a repertoire of possibilities. Social agents, who have real interests in different possibilities, take up positions as a strategy to ensure one set of possibilities prevails over another. Through this relationship, social change is possible (Bourdieu 1993: p 34). Conceived in this way human agents are not free in the sense of being undetermined but are free in regards to their ability to "make situated choices and perform situated practices ...... and in their conscious and reflexive monitoring of their actions" (Wolff 1981: p 24). This conception of the relationship between structure and agency makes it possible to take both a macro view of design action, by exploring the wider social circumstances in which it takes place, and a micro view which values the choices and actions made by individuals and groups within those circumstances. By viewing 'creative' production in this way we can begin to examine how the macro and micro articulate with one another to produce and reproduce social meaning. Much writing on design that deals with its contingent and social nature tends to look at the broader or macro Mark Roxburgh University of Western Sydney, 1999 Negotiating Design A Major Essay for the MA (Cultural Studies & Communication) social circumstances of its practice from either a historical or theoretical perspective (See for example Dilnot 1989 a&b; Forty 1986; Kalman et al 1994; Hyin 1997; Lupton, E. 1989) Whilst this work is valuable in mapping out a framework for thinking about the social nature of design that moves beyond its 'aestheticized' limitations, the lack of attention to the role of human agency at the micro level leaves us with a structurally determinate model. It becomes difficult to read the levels of complexity in which design practice operates, and the analysis of the manner in which the reproduction of ideologies occurs, through design, exists only at a generalised level. This macro view of design is similar to the notion of technological determinism, where subjects have little or no agency in shaping technology and subsequently social structures (McKenzie & Wacjman 1985: pp 4-5). Human agents are, according to this view, wholly shaped by social structures and effects. The dominant ideology of 'artistic creativity', on the other hand privileges human agents over social structures and configures them as being wholly determinate in shaping those structures (Bourdieu 1993: pp 262-63). In returning to an analysis that considers the role of human agency in cultural production I am not proposing that human subjects are wholly determinate, as the ideology of 'artistic creativity' proposes - rather I see them as having agency in complex institutional, social and discursive networks. What the human and structurally determinate models of society both have in common is that they separate human subjects from the structures in which they exist and propose that one wholly drives the other (Law 1992: p 382). It is this reductive view that Is wish to avoid. As outlined, Bourdieu and Wolff propose a way of viewing cultural production that locates the human subject, and their creative practices and outputs, within a social structure in which the subject is in a kind of dialectical negotiation with and within those structures. In this sense neither the social, the material nor the subject is wholly determinate, they are instead co-determinate (Mansell & Silverstone 1996: p 8). This model of the relationship between subjects, the social and the material finds strong parallels in Actor-Network Theory which proposes a similarly complex network of relations in which 'negotiation' between these elements is ongoing and no single one is wholly determinate in shaping the others. In this theory these elements are known as 'actors' and they include human subjects, social structures, materials, technology, economic and political systems. It is through these 'negotiations' that meaning is produced and reproduced, be it in material or social form. (Law 1992: 385-6). The production and reproduction of social meaning in material form occurs through the mechanisms of encoding and decoding. Encoding involves the production of the artefact or 'text' through which those meanings are inscribed. Decoding involves the reception and transformation of those meaning by the 'audience' of the artefact or text. As Hall has argued, encoding and decoding are thus important, though not symmetrical, aspects in the circulation of meaning within the social world (Hall 1990 1st pub. 1980: p 131). Despite Hall outlining a model of the communication of social meaning, through cultural production, that emphasised the discursive dimensions of both encoding and decoding practices, much work undertaken by scholars subsequent to the publication of this theory have concentrated largely on aspects of decoding (See for example Ang 1985; Nightingale 1996; Morley 1986). Mark Roxburgh University of Western Sydney, 1999 Negotiating Design A Major Essay for the MA (Cultural Studies & Communication) The relevance of Hall's concept of encoding, to my interests, lies within the discursive dimensions of the production of a 'text' and the way in which codes of professionalism mediate the content and meanings of that 'text'. These codes encompass routines of production, technical skills, concepts of quality, assumptions about the audience, institutional knowledge and professional ideologies. Through the wide distribution and conformity to these codes, by a profession, they become profoundly 'naturalised' and this has the ideological effect of concealing the manner in which they are socially, not naturally, constituted (Hall 1990: pp 129-32). Professionalism has been described as a general modality that indicates competence, efficiency and mastery of the field, rather than a specific occupation (Noble & Lupton 1998: p812). Viewed this way, practices of cultural production, such as art and design, can be seen as 'professions', indeed Bourdieu (1993: p 259) refers to the professional ideology of the artist. This is significant for the consequence of the process of the naturalisation of codes is that it enables those working in a field to claim a position of authority that appears natural and allows them to regulate the boundaries of inclusion and exclusion to that field and its discourses (Bourdieu 1993: pp 262-3). Thus the idea of the designer as 'artist' can be viewed as part of a professional ideology that, in drawing upon the mythical notion of the artist as outsider, naturalises the idea of the 'mystery' of the design process as a means of regulating those boundaries. By recognising that 'text's are created and circulated in a complex environment, and that the process of 'negotiation' that brings them into being is framed by professional codes, we can begin to understand the ideological dimensions of 'creative' production. It is with this in mind that my investigations into the negotiations between clients and designers, in the conception and creation of an artefact or 'text', have been framed. 4. Discourse and Design Herbert Simon's proposition that design is an intellectual activity that is concerned with devising "courses of action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones", through the production of artefacts (Simon 1981: pp 129-33), finds parallels in Mansell's view that design is a process through which social actors, who desire a 'situation', satisfy that desire by actualising an outcome (Mansell 1996: p 23). Though Simon's account of design recognises its contextually contingent nature (Simon 1981: p 177) his emphasis on a scientific model for its practice effectively locates social structure as the determinate factor in cultural reproduction. Like Forty, Simon fails to adequately account for the role of human agency in regard to this. Mansell on the other hand, though conceiving of design in a similar way to Simon, recognises that agents and structures are co-determinate in cultural reproduction (Mansell 1996: p 28). Buchanan and Fleming have both argued that Simon's concept of design implicitly hints at its rhetorical dimensions (Buchanan 1995: p 42; Fleming 1996: p 136). However, rhetoric is not just a feature of the negotiations that bring the artefact into being, it is also a feature of the artefact itself. Artefacts have rhetorical capacity in that they can persuade, convince, and direct users to courses of action (Buchanan 1995: p 24-6; Golsby-Smith 1996: p 8; Schon 1983: p 79). This proposition has direct parallels with the notion of enrolment developed within Actor-Network Theory. In Mark Roxburgh University of Western Sydney, 1999 Negotiating Design A Major Essay for the MA (Cultural Studies & Communication) that theory all 'actors' in the network of social relations attempt to persuade or 'enrol' others into a preferred course of action (Mackay & Gillespie 1992: p 687). Design considered this way is an active process "closely associated with individual and collective actions which create differentiation and variety in social systems by marking out signs, symbols, or other boundary indicators" (Mansell 1996: p 23). The rhetorical dimensions of the negotiations within the design process and of the artefact itself, this ability to 'enrol' others into courses of action, is then both political and ideological. Pinch and Bjiker (1984) argue that to reveal the ideological dimensions of technological development it is necessary to analyse the choices that are made through the social negotiations that constitute the design process. I would also argue that to counter the 'common sense' view of design as being the practice of 'artistic' individuals (a kind of ego deterministic model) that this type of investigation must also be undertaken. The study of individual designers or the design artefact, without reference to the wider context in which they exist, are circumscribed in their ability to examine the ways in which symbolic and functional meaning circulate through and around cultural artefacts. The practices of encoding meaning into designed artefacts are part of that context and an examination of this phase of an artefact's cultural trajectory will provide valuable insights into how this occurs (Mackay & Gillespie 1992: pp 690-4). A key part of the design process, during the 'encoding' phase, is the negotiations, through conversation, between a client and designer. Language is a central medium through which clients and designers communicate and it is used with rhetorical intent in an attempt to enrol each other into a preferred course of action. It is enmeshed within social structures and is not a neutral medium but one through which competing ideologies circulate (Kress 1988: p 80). Fleming argues that it is only "when design artefacts are seen as enmeshed in contexts of production and use, that language takes its place as a constitutive element in the invention of the built world" (Fleming 1998: p 42). Studies in the use of conversation in design generally have as their aim the examination of the role language plays, in client/designer or teacher/designer interactions, in constituting the designed artefact (Cuff 1991; Fleming 1996 & 1998; Forester 1989; Schon 1983). Cuff sees design as a process of socially constructing the artefact and that the objective of the conversations between designers and clients is to move "toward a specific scheme that will be mutually agreeable" (Cuff 1991: p 194). Fleming argues that the design process, of which these conversations are an integral part, can be seen as a rhetorical action that is "social, discursive and argumentative" and not just a practical task of creating a designed artefact (Fleming 1996: p 136). He describes discourse as "not merely a tool for depicting reality but rather a means through which individuals try to constitute that reality by influencing the beliefs and actions of themselves and others" (Fleming 1996: p 138). Conversational strategies employed during the design process, understood in this way, can be seen as a means of setting and constraining boundaries of inclusion and exclusion, (Cuff 1991: p 181; Fleming 1996: p 140; Golsby-Smith 1996: p 19; Forester 1989: p 120). Forester develops this argument further by contending that design conversations are not just about creating the object but also about the reproduction of the participants' Mark Roxburgh University of Western Sydney, 1999 Negotiating Design A Major Essay for the MA (Cultural Studies & Communication) identities and social relations (Forester 1989: pp 129-30). In doing this, though, he outlines a fairly generalised account of the relationship between the participants, their social histories and context, and their 'identities' (Forester 1989: pp 70-2 & 78-9). It is an account that looks at the structural (macro) conditions in which this occurs and the issue of the relationship of human agency to these structures is not adequately accounted for. Similarly Golsby-Smith argues that design conversations include a search for identity but again this is explained only in general terms (Golsby-Smith 1996: p 20). In exploring the ways in which clients and designers use their insider/outsider knowledge during negotiations, Fleming (1996) comes closest to articulating how identity is configured in relationship to conversational codes. However, he is more concerned with how the gap between designer and client cultures is constituted, by examining the accounts of clients and designers of their shared experience of the design process, as opposed to explicitly examining the way subjectivity is configured through discourse in the design conversations (Fleming 1996: p 157). Others too, have observed that design conversations are conducted through the discussion of a range of themes or codes that emerge, disappear and re-emerge during the course of one or more interactions (Cuff 1991: pp 185-91; Forester 1989: pp 121-3; GolsbySmith 1996: pp 19-21). Like Fleming, none of these accounts analyse the specific mechanisms that conversational participants use to configure their identities during the design process. In her analysis of the construction of subjectivity Hollway (1984) explores the nexus between discourse and subject positions. She argues that discourses make available positions for subjects to take up but that the histories of social practices and meanings developed through peoples' lives, shape what discourses they have access to (Hollway 1984: pp 236-7). It is through discourse that we categorise, make sense of and describe the material and social world (Davies & Harre 1990: pp 45-6). Thus, the contingent nature of our access to discourses is ideological and has implications for notions of the self, as the self is produced through discourse (Thompson 1990: pp 901). This means that identity is never finally fixed; there is always a degree of ambiguity in the way in which subject positions are articulated (Mouffe 1989: p 35). This concept of the changeable and contingent nature of identity supplants then the idea of a unified self with the notion of multiple selves (Lupton 1998: p 26). In relation to conversation, discourse encompasses both the structure of language and the way sense is made of social meanings and practices through it. In the design conversations observed, as I will demonstrate, each participant takes up a variety of subject positions in relation to the circulation of different codes through discourse. This relationship between design conversations and the reproduction of identity, however, is not solely related to the participants' own subject positions; subject positions of people outside of these conversations are also configured. These positions relate to interest groups that the client and/or the designer represent. The most significant group of people 'outside' the design process that is discursively constructed by both parties is the eventual audience or 'user' group of the proposed design outcome. Fleming examines the way in which designers invoke the notion of 'users' in relationship to their design decisions. However, this is done through their accounts of Mark Roxburgh University of Western Sydney, 1999 Negotiating Design A Major Essay for the MA (Cultural Studies & Communication) a specific design project and not through the analysis of the design conversation itself (Fleming 1996: pp 145-6). As such the rhetorical dimensions of configuring the user during such conversations can only be implied. Akrich (1992: p 208) also describes the manner in which designers define users during the design process in such a way that their vision of the user and the world they live in becomes inscribed into the object. Though she critiques this model of the design process as being technologically determinate, through reference to specific case studies, she too does not address the rhetorical and discursive dimensions of conversation in configuring the user. In her study of the development of a new food processor, by a large domestic appliance company, Chabaud-Rychter examines the discursive production of both real and imagined users. She argues that the range of staff involved in the development of the artefact: designers, engineers, market researchers, technicians, managers etc; conceive users in different ways depending on their needs. In the process of negotiation between these 'actors', the construction of users is variable and contingent and is used with rhetorical intent by each actor (Chabaud-Rychter 1994: pp 77-9). I will be drawing upon this notion of the rhetorical intent of configuring users, and its ideological dimensions, in my examination of the conversations between designers and clients (a group absent in Chabaud-Rychter's work). I shall also extend this concept to examine the way in which clients and designers configure other subject positions 'outside' of the conversation (eg. peers, colleagues and superiors) for similar rhetorical purposes. 5. Summary As discourse is the means through which ideology circulates and subjectivity is constituted, it can be seen as a mechanism through which individuals and social groups can strategically negotiate to achieve desired ends (Lupton 1994: p 18). Though the application of these issues are common place in critical social theory and analysis, they have not been systematically explored in relation to design theory and practice. These concepts have much to offer in developing an understanding of the social and negotiated nature of the design process and could provide designers with new models of design practice that move beyond the dominant model of intuitive creativity. In this light, rhetoric can be seen as an enrolment device through which participants, in design negotiations, access a range of codes through discourse and subject positions to legitimate their authority. This is fundamentally an ideological practice and it is this aspect of design conversations I wish to analyse. 6. The Study To examine these issues two separate case studies of design projects were undertaken. Despite the apparent narrow empirical base of this study I would argue that my work is "aiming for depth of interpretation rather than for statistically representative results" (Jackson & Holbrook 1995: p 1916). With that in mind, case study projects were chosen that involved designers and clients of differing levels of experience in the design process to add to the depth of interpretation. By contrasting the progress of the two projects I will demonstrate the way in which the differing levels of experience of the participants influence the degree of sophistication of their rhetorical use of subject positioning. To provide a richer analysis of the material I also undertook semi-structured interviews with each of the participants shortly after the completion of both projects. Mark Roxburgh University of Western Sydney, 1999 Negotiating Design A Major Essay for the MA (Cultural Studies & Communication) In these interviews the participants were asked to reflect upon both their understanding of the design process in general and their specific experiences within the context of the projects just finished. The contrast between what was said in interview and what was said during the design process highlights the tensions and competing understandings of design that exists between clients and designers, and the different discourses they draw on. As I have argued, the subject positions made available to and accessed by human agents are contingent upon their discourse histories. In undertaking interviews my intention is to provide a sense of the histories of the participants to enable a more nuanced view of their rhetorical use of subject positioning during the design process. The first case study (CS1) involved the design of a company logo, business card and stationary for a self-employed IT contractor starting up his own company. The female designer, Toni1, has been working as a designer for ten years. Prior to this she worked in marketing in the fashion industry for several years. Toni freelances as a designer and also works half-time as a lecturer in design at a Sydney university. She had not previously worked for the client on this project. Toni is in her early forties. The client on CS1 is a male in his early thirties, named Mike, who had not previously commissioned design work or worked with a designer. Mike has been working as a software engineer for six years and had recently set up his own company in order to work as a freelance consultant in the IT industry. Both Mike and Toni knew each other socially for several years prior to working on this project. It was this social contact that led Mike to contract Toni to undertake the work. The second case study (CS2) involved the design of both a recruitment poster for Canadian students and a prospectus for international students for a Sydney university. The designer is a female in her late twenties named Jae. Jae is the senior publication designer at a design and multimedia company set up by the same university. She has three years working design experience and is also a graduate of that university. The female client, Kath, is in her late twenties and is a marketing officer of the International Student Centre at the same university. She has been working in this capacity for eighteen months. During that period both Jae and Kath have worked on numerous projects together. Prior to working with Jae, Kath had only worked with one other designer for a period of two months. 7. The Codes of Design Drawing upon the notion that themes or professional codes frame the constitution of 'texts' through discourse (Fleming 1996: pp 136-7; Hall 1990: p 129), I identified four key codes that were either explicitly dealt with in the design meetings or were an implicit part of them. In interview, these codes were also identified by the participants in relationship to their views of the design process and their roles in it. It is through these codes that I will explore both the participants' views of design and the rhetorical use of subject positioning during the design process. These codes are: • 1 The Form of Design The names of all participants have been changed to preserve their anonymity. Mark Roxburgh University of Western Sydney, 1999 Negotiating Design A Major Essay for the MA (Cultural Studies & Communication) This code relates to the aesthetic and material properties of the proposed design artefact. Discussions about these properties, in the case studies, often involved discussions and actions of crafting the artefact. • The Function of Design This code relates to functional properties of the proposed design artefact. The case study projects involved the graphic design of a various visual communication media. The functional aspect of the proposed design artefacts is therefor to communicate a message in graphic, image and text form. • The Use of Design This code relates to the intended use of the proposed design artefact. In these case studies the artefacts are intended to communicate a message to an 'audience' or 'user' group; they are configured with that 'user' group in mind. • The Negotiation of Design This code relates to the process through which the proposed design artefact is configured. It is not a code that was explicitly dealt with in the design conversations, rather it was the mechanism through which agreement was reached on aspects of the preceding three codes. All participants recognised the negotiated nature of their interactions thus it is a code that frames those interactions. Mark Roxburgh University of Western Sydney, 1999 Negotiating Design A Major Essay for the MA (Cultural Studies & Communication) CHAPTER 2: The Form of Design 1. Participants Views of Design As we have seen in examining the ideology of design as 'Art', concern with the aesthetic and formal properties of the design artefact figures large in the preconceptions of the designer's role and notions of design 'creativity'. In examining the discursive dimensions of this particular code I will analyse empirical material that deals with both the 'look' of the proposed design and its 'crafting'. Though it might seem that I am conflating what appears to be two categories, the discussion of how the artefact would look was generally accompanied by discussions about, or actions of, crafting it in prototype or sketch form. The conception and discussion of the aesthetics of the designed artefact, therefor, does not occur independent of this prototype crafting and they are, in fact, parallel ways of designing (Henderson 1995: p 197; Schon 1983: p 80). The codes of 'the form of design' relate, then, to the aesthetic and material nature of the intended designed artefact and the processes associated with bringing it into being. The preconception of design and the role of the designer as being 'artistically creative' was a view that both designers held when first attracted to design as an occupation. Toni I only saw it as a means to an end, as a possible way of being creative with my hands. A way to do artwork that would also supply me with a bit of an income. Jae I wanted to do something creative. Mike, not having previously worked with a designer, similarly assumed that what designers did was 'artistic' and that the negotiations with Toni would be focused on the aesthetic aspects of making the artefact: Mike Well I was expecting [Toni] to bring some samples and just talk about the design, what's it going to look like, what colours and that sort of stuff. With the exception of the first of their three meetings, Mike felt that Toni spent most of her time dealing with the aesthetics of the object, stating that it took "about 75% of her time". As a client Kath has had significantly more experience in working with designers than Mike. In spite of her experience she also characterises the designer's role as being concerned with aesthetic issues: Kath I think her input was to, basically, to point out that perhaps my original brief would have made the poster look busy. < > That was basically her input. She has a good eye and she does make it balance, makes it look presentable. Despite these preconceptions the clients recognised, ironically, that they too played an important role in shaping the object's aesthetic dimensions. Mike, having acknowledged that there was little or no discussion of aesthetics in the first meeting with Toni, felt that this changed in subsequent meetings and that he "definitely had Mark Roxburgh University of Western Sydney, 1999 Negotiating Design A Major Essay for the MA (Cultural Studies & Communication) input into the creative side of things". Upon reflection, Toni acknowledged that Mike played a creative role in the design process: Toni Sometimes you get clients that need their own creative input. < > Corporate clients tend to be much more decisive, they're not really interested that much in concept, like Mike wasn't, it was more how it looked. What Toni and Mike both articulate here is a notion that creativity is concerned largely with issues of aesthetics, once again conforming to the dominant ideology of design as an aestheticised activity. Similarly Kath and Jae conflate aesthetics with creativity. In interview Kath discussed a disagreement that arose between herself and Jae about the look of the poster. Kath I pushed my preference for the full colour as against the white sort of background she wanted ... < > you know she [Jae] had all these artistic considerations and I decided that I didn't like it. That was personal more than anything else, I just didn't like it and I felt it worked better the other way. Kath is obviously conscious of her role in shaping the aesthetics of the design outcome in her negotiations with Jae. She characterises Jae's aesthetic concerns as being "artistic" thus reinforcing her preconceptions of the nature of design. Like Toni, Jae also acknowledged the client's role in shaping the aesthetic parameters of the design outcome: Jae You can't sort of go "I'm a designer and I know everything and this is what you are going to get". < > With a client, because they've got more of a set mind, you can give up your examples and they understand it, but if they don't get what they are looking for they'll be unhappy. So you try and mix those two ideas and give them what they want. Jae's comments point to an awareness that the aesthetic aspects of the proposed design are subject to negotiation. It is recognition that the social and material parameters of design are constituted by both participants (Fleming 1996: p 139). Each participant clearly and consciously configures themselves, and the other party they were working with, as being involved in aesthetic decisions. This contradicts their stated views of the role of the designer which conforms to the prevailing ideology of the designer as 'artist', a point I shall deal with shortly. 2. Regulating the Form of Design A feature of first time client/designer negotiations is the 'courtship' stage in which the participants attempt to establish an understanding of each other and the parameters of their working relationship (Cuff 1991: pp 178-9). In CS2 the client and designer have worked on numerous projects over eighteen months and the meetings observed did not involve this courtship'. Their working relationship was characterised by a degree of informality and an implied shared understanding of the design process; so much so that Kath readily positioned herself as a 'designer' in the initial meeting by accessing the codes related to the form of the artefact: Mark Roxburgh University of Western Sydney, 1999 Negotiating Design A Major Essay for the MA (Cultural Studies & Communication) Kath I'm going to work off the ad that you've done. I'm thinking in terms of size around the planner size. Around that size. [points to a poster on the wall] Jae That's A2. And it's a full colour? Kath I mean if it's not full colour we can talk about what you've done with the ad, maybe keep it to a black and university orange, maybe a costing for both would be really handy. Jae Alright, OK. Kath So we'll have a full colour as against a two colour. Do a costing on both. In doing this, Kath's view of the form of the object is dominant and Jae is in effect relegated to the status of a paste-up artist. When questioned about the poster being colour, something it would appear Kath has not considered, Kath shifts between the use of 'you' and 'we' to position Jae as a participant in the design process. By discursively configuring herself as a 'designer' ahead of Jae, Kath is staking a claim to a comparable (if sometimes dominant) role in the design process thereby limiting Jae's ability to claim this position as a source of her own authority. This is typical of their first meeting. Jae is less concerned with the aesthetics of the object and seems more intent on understanding what Kath wants. Jae rarely accesses the codes of form; rather it is Kath that more actively positions Jae as a 'designer' in relation to those codes. She does this by configuring them as collaborators in decisions related to formal issues: Kath So where this is put [Kath points to a section of copy] we could have the city image and then "turn your diploma into a degree" and then the student image ... perhaps ... and then all of this at the bottom, wherever you want to put it. Jae OK. Kath Do you think it will all fit? Jae It'll fit. Kath Is it going too look to busy? Jae I'll have to have a look, I can do it so that it doesn't look so busy, maybe along the same line as this ad. [Jae waves her hand over an ad she previously designed for Kath] And then see, ... if it's too busy can we drop some words and what have you. At this stage of the negotiation the proposed poster is loosely based on a pre-existing advertisement; thus the aesthetic parameters of the modifications exist primarily in Kath's mind. As such it is not surprising to find Kath accessing the codes of form to Mark Roxburgh University of Western Sydney, 1999 Negotiating Design A Major Essay for the MA (Cultural Studies & Communication) articulate how she envisages it looking. However the use of terms like "we could" or "we might", which configures Kath and Jae as aesthetic collaborators, is both a rhetorical strategy to make Jae feel like she is part of the decision-making process and a defensive mechanism for Kath should Jae challenge these ideas. By monopolising the use of this code Kath limits the extent to which Jae is positioned as a participant in the considerations of the form of the poster. By rhetorically constituting these ideas as the property of both parties it also becomes easy for Kath to drop them at a later time, should they be challenged, without feeling as if her judgement is in question. Conversely Jae rarely accesses the codes of form in this encounter; access to the position of 'designer' is regulated by Kath, Jae has little aesthetic investment in the object, as they are not her ideas being put forth and discussed. When she does position herself as such it is usually in relation to the forming of the artefact that will occur in the future - "I'll have to have a look" - and is done in a non-committal manner "maybe along the same line". This strategy allows her to postpone decisions about how things will look until she actually makes the object, which she can then defend or modify in a subsequent meeting. As in CS2 there was no apparent courtship phase of Mike and Toni's working relationship, which can be attributed to their longstanding social relationship. In the first meeting of three, most of the discussion centred around the nature of Mike's work and the image he wanted to communicate through the designed material. This reflected Toni's approach to the design process in that she "was trying to incorporate what he [Mike] did in his own work in the logo". This meeting lasted about fifty minutes in all and of that time only about eight minutes were spent discussing the aesthetic parameters of the proposed design. This part of the conversation was in response to Mike's desire to have the initials of his company used as the basis of the logo. Mike Obviously it's the most important facet of the card because all the other details can change but the logo is the same. Toni Yeah it becomes the thing people see, it's the positioning in their minds, it's what you represent to them and that's why it's better that I don't work on it just looking at the T's and the S's and the C's and stuff because that just tends to be too descriptive. So I try and think about what it is you are doing and how you work. You communicate that first and then try and use the letters. If I can't use the letters I won't. If they don't appear ... Mike I'm glad you warned me. [laughs] Toni If I feel you're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole by using those letters I won't use them. I'll still make use of them but that's what I mean that sometimes ... Toni is not committing herself to Mike's suggestion and positions herself as the dominant party by accessing the code of form and Mark Roxburgh University of Western Sydney, 1999 Negotiating Design A Major Essay for the MA (Cultural Studies & Communication) talking about what she will and won't do - "if I can't". Though Toni does recognise Mike's aesthetic contribution she clearly positions him as a lesser 'designer' than herself - "if I feel you're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole by using those letters I won't use them". This positioning can be seen as an attempt, by Toni, to clearly mark out the boundaries of inclusion and exclusion of the aesthetic territory. However, to totally exclude Mike would be counterproductive to Toni's agenda as it would undermine the rapport that is necessary to negotiate towards a satisfactory design outcome (Cuff 1991: p 237). In light of this Toni does, from time to time, position Mike as a collaborator in aesthetic discussions: Toni What we'd do is finalise the logo first and then apply it to business cards, once you've narrowed down to 2 or 3, and then I'll do a range of applications to business cards and letterheads. So first of all we agree to the logo because that's the hardest part. Here decision and action are not only potentially collaborative, as the use of "what we'd do" demonstrates, but Toni allows Mike a degree of 'creative' autonomy, for her work is dependent on him narrowing the logos down to 2 or 3. It is, though, only a semblance of autonomy for his choice is contingent upon what she presents him with. What is significant about this passage though is that Toni, like Kath, uses the device of rhetorical substitution - "I'd" for "we'd". The effect of this in design conversations is to enable the other participant to feel that they have an important role to play in the design process even if that role is highly regulated (See Fleming 1998: pp 50-1). As in Kath an Jae's first meeting this encounter is characterised by the degree to which access to the codes of the form of the proposed design is regulated. 3. Negotiating the Form of Design In subsequent meetings, once the design proposal had material form, the regulation of access to the codes of form, that dominated both initial meetings, gave way to a greater degree of negotiation. Instances of rhetorical substitution increased as did the positioning of each party as a 'designer'. At the second meeting, of CS2, Jae presents a rough version of the poster to Kath on a computer screen. Now that Jae has a design prototype to discuss she more actively configures herself as a 'designer', by arguing and defending her work with recourse to the codes of form. The rhetorical use of her positioning as a 'designer' was particularly evident when she was explaining to Kath why she omitted a photo she was requested to include: Kath Did you try and get the photo of the city in? Jae Yeah, I tried but the thing is you see there's so much information that you're either distracted by photos ... otherwise ... because you've got so much text ... I've tried this way and I've tried that way so you read the ... but you really need some empty space to balance it all out otherwise it doesn't work. Jae configures herself as a hardworking designer trying to meet Kath's request - "I've tried this way and I've tried that way". In doing this she demonstrates to Kath that she has taken the request seriously and not dismissed it out of hand but that on the basis of her aesthetic expertise she has concluded it doesn't work visually. The inclusion of the Mark Roxburgh University of Western Sydney, 1999 Negotiating Design A Major Essay for the MA (Cultural Studies & Communication) photo, she argues "doesn't work" because it doesn't help to "balance it [the poster] all out". She is, in short, trying to enrol Kath into this point of view through positioning herself as a 'designer' by accessing the codes of form. This is a clear example of the rhetorical use of this device and it is an ideological practice. The inclusion of the photo was a sticking point and in trying to negotiate towards an agreeable outcome Kath asks to see what it looks like with the photo included. By requesting to evaluate the 'look' of the poster Kath begins to position herself as a 'designer', so much so that during this passage of conversation Kath actually instructs Jae to make changes to the poster on the computer screen. Kath I'd still actually, if it's not a pain for you, like to see what it looks like with a photo of Sydney. Jae ... of Sydney. Kath Yeah. Jae See the only other place is to put it here. [Jae draws box where the photo might go on poster on screen] Kath Well we could move the text, [points to where she wants the text moved to] study at the largest ... like ... Do you know what I mean? Jae Hmm. Kath Down there as well. [points again] Jae Because it, it sort of fits in like that and you're drawn into the pictures and then see how everything goes out ... that's much better. You see once you start putting a picture in ... [puts a picture in] ... the focus gets lost because of the picture ... [moves this image box all around on poster on screen trying out different positions] ... and then even if I put a picture like on top to sort of say Sydney dah dah dah and then even put headings lets say study at dah dah dah dah dah it ... what it does is that you've got so many messes it distracts the ... Kath ... it distracts the eye. Jae Yeah ... yeah. Jae So that's why I didn't put any ... any other picture whatsoever, so that it's nice and clean and then it comes down. [Traces hand over flow of text on poster on screen]. Kath Can it, can it be put over the photo of the students in some way? Mark Roxburgh University of Western Sydney, 1999 Negotiating Design A Major Essay for the MA (Cultural Studies & Communication) Jae Uh ... that's ... Kath Without ruining it. Jae [Laughs] See there is OK, maybe if you put it here but ... wherever you put it you are ruining it. Right away it gets distracted. [Long silence] Kath Yeah I suppose. Kath obviously senses Jae's resistance to including the image and rather than demanding its inclusion outright tries to negotiate a satisfactory compromise. This is a common way of handling disputes in interactions between clients and designers and it is done to avoid a deterioration in their relationship or inappropriate decisions being made (Cuff 1991: p 183). Kath does this by positioning herself and Jae as collaborative participants in solving this aesthetic impasse through the use of rhetorical substitution - "we could move the text". This subtle strategy of enrolment is another example of the rhetorical use of subject positioning and is ideological in nature. However Jae seems unconvinced the proposal will work and does not take up the offer of the collaborative positioning. Further she distances herself from the problem of the image's inclusion through the rhetorical substitution of 'you' for 'I' when she states that "once you start putting a picture in the focus gets lost". Though 'you' does not explicitly relate to Kath, it is a general term which can encompass anyone, Jae's constant reference to 'I' in relation to trying to solve this particular problem implies it is Kath's understanding of the codes of form that are at fault. Jae's line of argument is based upon her rhetorical use of the codes of form and the associated configuration of herself as a superior 'designer'. This has the affect of positioning Kath as a less competent 'designer' than herself. The issue of the inclusion of the image was not resolved to the mutual satisfaction of both parties at this point though it cropped up again later in the meeting. The deferral of problem resolution is also a common feature of the design process (Cuff 1991: p 184). In the second meeting of CS1 Toni presents the roughs to Mike for comment and feedback. In this meeting Mike more actively positions himself as a 'designer' by discussing the aesthetic aspects of the logo. However, this only occurs after Toni has stated emphatically that the 'objects' are her work, though she does require his input. Toni This is purely just the logo and it's based on what you told me and it's based on also how I see your industry; how I see your place in it and what you do rather than it being specific this or that or whatever. I've tried to integrate those three elements, um, as well as making it clean and simple and still look aesthetically attractive. Mike Hmm. Mark Roxburgh University of Western Sydney, 1999 Negotiating Design A Major Essay for the MA (Cultural Studies & Communication) Toni So I've given you about, I don't know I think there's about 12 there to have a look at. So basically the point of today is just to have a look at them let me know if I'm on the right track. This is not dissimilar to the way in which Jae was more active in positioning herself as a 'designer' in the second meeting of CS2. The aesthetic dimensions of the design have been manifest in material form and Toni, like Jae, now has something tangible to address and argue for. However, it becomes apparent Toni controls Mike's access to the codes of form more rigorously than Jae controlled Kath's. In CS2 Kath positioned herself as a 'designer' by accessing the codes of form almost from the outset. In CS1, Mike is not positioned as a 'designer' until a third of the way into the second meeting. Toni No, no, it would be 2 colours, I mean that's the problem with this sort of thing, I only did it, and with all of them I didn't take them beyond ..., they were just sort of like different ideas, cause there's no point developing up an idea if we absolutely hate them. His positioning, though, is only as a collaborative 'designer' - "we" - and is contingent still on Toni's position of dominance in the relationship - "I mean"; "I only"; "I didn't". By excluding Mike from this position for so long it has allowed Kath to comprehensively state her intentions for each logo, argue them through and defend them. Only after this has been done is Mike's positioning in relation to the codes of form negotiated rather than regulated. It is then that Mike takes up the opportunity to engage in discussions about the form of the design. Mike So in terms of even space on the page I mean something like this which takes up a lot of vertical space might not be as appropriate as this. [Mike points to two logos] Toni Also I try and keep them so that they're not to long or too much that way, that they tend to be more of a ... Mike ... ball? Toni Yeah ... like a chunk of space. Mike Hmm. I'd be happy to work on some sort of variation of that. [Mike points to the 1st logo presented] Toni Do you want to take them away, I'm quite happy to ... Mike Yeah, yeah I think that's probably a better idea. Toni Have a think about them, um, let me know, you know just a process of elimination, have a look around, I won't be able to work on them until Thursday cause uni starts this week so if you Mark Roxburgh University of Western Sydney, 1999 Negotiating Design A Major Essay for the MA (Cultural Studies & Communication) can give me some feedback before Thursday, then I can do some more on Thursday. Mike Have you got any other stuff to give me ideas ... of ... work you've done? It is noticeable, in this passage, that though Mike has now positioned himself as a 'designer' - "I'd be happy to work on"- Toni has not entirely vacated her position as such - "I can do some more". Though Toni is still more or less controlling the negotiations she has opened them up by positioning Mike as a 'designer' by suggesting he takes the designs away and works on them. It is evident then, that access to the codes of form has shifted from regulation to negotiation but it is a negotiation that is carefully controlled by Toni. 4. Summary Neither case study involved the courtship phase of first-time client/designer negotiations. In CS2, though the parameters of the relationship did not need to be worked out, the parameters of the job did and this knowledge resided with Kath. This, coupled with the apparent ease with which they worked together, enabled Kath to regulate the boundaries of inclusion to the codes of form in their first meeting. The role of regulating the boundaries in CS1 was, in contrast, reversed. It was the designer and not the client controlling access to the codes of form. That Mike did not challenge his effective exclusion from them in this first meeting reflects his inexperience in dealing with design, the immaturity of their working relationship, and Toni's rhetorical sophistication. The regulation at this stage reflects the privileged position that one party has regarding knowledge pertinent to the specific job or process being discussed. This regulation gives way to a more negotiated access to the codes of form in the second meetings. This reflects the fact that the design proposal has material form, at this point, and both parties have a specific object through which they can articulate their concerns (Fleming 1998: pp 45-6). However the degree of negotiation differed between both case studies. In CS1 Toni continued to regulate Mike's access to the codes of form until well into the meeting. This enabled her to thoroughly articulate her rationale for the aesthetic dimensions of the logos presented. Only when this had been done did the negotiation of access to these codes really begin to take place. CS2, in contrast was characterised by a greater degree of negotiation earlier on, reflecting the degree to which Jae, as the person who gave the object form, began to access these codes and the extent to which Kath also continued to do so. Fleming (1996: pp 139-40) argues that the regulation of the boundaries of inclusion and exclusion in design conversations is contingent upon the discourse histories of the participants. As his work focuses on the accounts of these conversations and not the conversations themselves he is unable to demonstrate how this is played out in those conversational exchanges. In analysing such conversations I would argue that these boundaries are established through the regulation and negotiation of access to the codes of form by the conversational participants. This is contingent, however, upon the discourse histories of those participants and is reflected in the degree to which they each positioned themselves as a 'designer' through conversation. By regulating one participant's access to these codes, the other party is able to take the initiative in Mark Roxburgh University of Western Sydney, 1999 Negotiating Design A Major Essay for the MA (Cultural Studies & Communication) relation to the aesthetic parameters of the job and this provides them with greater authority in the ensuing negotiations. This positioning is used as a rhetorical device and is ideological in nature. Furthermore, these boundaries are not fixed but shift through the ebb and flow of the conversation. That all participants accessed the codes of form demonstrates that the design process is not simply about the 'creative' self-expression of an individual. The degree of involvement by the clients in aesthetic considerations and negotiations also contradicts the preconceptions that all parties had of design and indeed the view of their role in this particular instance. Contradiction in relation to social systems or practices is commonplace, for the struggles for meaning and the position taking that occurs engenders such contradiction (Bourdieu 1993: p 34). Thus the contradictions evident in these case studies can be seen as a consequence of the struggle for authority in the negotiations. The preconceptions that the participants had of design conform to the discourse of design as a form of 'Art'. Cuff (1991: p 179) has noted that preconceptions of client and designer roles play an important part in shaping the design process by framing the participant's behaviour. As assumptions about the nature of 'production' form part of the professional ideology of any production field (Hall 1990: p 129) we can see that the pre-conception of the designer as 'artist' and its impact upon design negotiations is indeed an ideological and social process. Mark Roxburgh University of Western Sydney, 1999 Negotiating Design A Major Essay for the MA (Cultural Studies & Communication) CHAPTER 3: The Function of Design 1. Participants Views of Function Despite the overly aestheticised view of design, it is not simply a process concerned solely with the material and aesthetic parameters of the object. There are social and task parameters associated with the design outcome that also have to be negotiated through the design process (Fleming 1996: 139). Golsby-Smith (1996: pp 5-9) has recognised that as a designer's expertise develops they may well move away from the domain of design that focuses solely on the aesthetic of the object to the domain that encompasses issues of readability and useability. The issue of readability is concerned then with the communication of a 'message' through the design artefact. The meaning of any 'message' encoded into a design artefact can be conceived of as both functional and symbolic (Mackay & Gillespie 1992: p 692). For the purposes of my thesis, though, I will not be analysing the differences between functional and symbolic meaning - which, it has been argued, are not clear cut anyway (Mackay & Gillespie 1992: p 692). So in referring to the codes of the function of design I am intending it to be a catch-all phrase that relates to notions of the meanings being communicated through the artefact - be they functional or symbolic. My interests lie less in any distinction between those conceptions of meaning and more in the ways in which discussions about the communication of meaning, which is the function of the design artefact, are a site of rhetorical negotiation. This is important for if designers require sophisticated rhetorical skills to deal with issues of readability and useability (GolsbySmith 1996: p 11) the assumptions about design as being an aesthetic activity are further challenged. All participants either explicitly or implicitly defined the function of the design artefact as being to communicate a message, instruction or image to an audience. Toni describes the function of logo design as "the communication of the essence of the company and the essence of the company is not just the image, it's also the mood and the feel." Jae, whilst not explicitly mentioning communication, implies this function of the design artefact by stating it needs to be relevant to the 'audience' it is intended for: Jae ... it's like if you don't talk to the client and get as much information out of them, then what goes through that client and what comes out of you won't go to the audience, and I think if the process between you and the client doesn't work then I don't think the end result will work. Similarly both Mike and Kath do not explicitly state that design is about communication but it is strongly implicit in their comments. When talking about what he expected the design process to be like, Mike, thought it would be concerned with the aesthetic of the object when "in fact it was who am I, what do I do, what do I want to portray, all that sort of stuff." Kath also implies that the communicative function of the artefact is important when she comments that but for Jae's input the outcome "wouldn't have drawn attention to the components of the poster that were most relevant, that we wanted the audience to look at." The importance of the issue of the communicative function of the artefact is underscored by references to markets, audiences and users of the design that appeared in the interviews. As is evident here, Mark Roxburgh University of Western Sydney, 1999 Negotiating Design A Major Essay for the MA (Cultural Studies & Communication) to communicate through design one must have an audience or user of design to communicate to. 2. The Codes of Function and Rhetoric Toni's view of the function of logo design is reflected in the large amount of time she spent in the first meeting questioning Mike about his business. This included questions about: his business practices - "Like how do you propose to go around and get business?"; what he did - "Tell me what you do?"; who he dealt with in his work "To whom would you be speaking within the company? What level? Sort of middle management?"; what differentiated him from his competition - "Well what makes you so different to everybody else that's doing the same thing?"; how he saw his company - "I want you to describe your company in human terms and human characteristics. What are your impressions of them? The company itself."; and what his communication objectives were - "what are you trying to achieve here?". The information that Toni gathers through these questions forms the basis of the 'message' to be encoded into the design artefact, as she states towards the end of the first meeting: Mike I'm not going to see all of this on a card am I? [laughs] Toni Yeah it's going to be subliminal. See the briefing process for me is like that because I need to understand the context in which you work. I need to understand what exactly it is that you do. She restates this upon the presentation of the rough logos at the next meeting, for the image they are to communicate is "based on what you told me" and "how I see your industry" and "your place in it." Clearly Toni positions herself as someone who 'communicates' through design by accessing the codes of the function of the design artefact. In previously analysing the passage of conversation these extracts are from, I identified the presence of the codes of the form of the design - it had to "look aesthetically attractive". The presence of those codes alongside the codes of function indicate a relationship between the aesthetics of the object and its functional purpose. Toni's concurrent accessing of both codes means that she simultaneously takes up the position of 'designer' as well as 'communicator' through design. That the object has a function that is related to its form and that Toni positions herself as someone interested in both aesthetic and functional issues further challenges the notion that design is a purely aesthetic practice. As Toni takes up both these positions, Mike is implicitly configured as both also, for Toni needs Mike's input to let her know if she is "on the right track". Being "on the right track" relates both to the aesthetic dimensions of the artefact and the message it is communicating about Mike's company. Where access to these codes was initially regulated by Toni, by the end of this passage of conversation they are opened somewhat for negotiation. The accessing of these two codes, and the dual and dialectic positioning by Toni, lends rhetorical weight to the outcomes she has presented. She is not just arguing for them from the perspective of how they look but also how they function; that is, how they communicate the image that Mike outlined of his industry and his place in it. This strategy provides her with substantial authority in the negotiations. Mark Roxburgh University of Western Sydney, 1999 Negotiating Design A Major Essay for the MA (Cultural Studies & Communication) Toni's collaborative gesture reinforces the sense of Mike's involvement in the design process and makes it harder for Mike to reject the outcomes as they are based upon the information he supplied in the first meeting. If he critiqued them as being 'wrong' or 'inappropriate', Toni could argue that the information he provided her with was faulty or incomplete in the first place. This sense of collaboration is, though, occurring on Toni's terms and by suggesting that she requires his input Mike can still feel he is part of the process, though his role is highly circumscribed. Mike's access to the codes of function appear then to be regulated to a degree by Toni as he shows little inclination to access them. The degree to which Toni regulates this access is clearly demonstrated in the first meeting when Mike briefly outlined an earlier attempt to promote his company: Mike For tax reasons I put an ad in the paper a couple of years ago and nothing came of it so ... Toni Yeah, well, advertising is always a bit dodgy. I think you have to be very specific about how you do promotion because um ... Mike ... and it's got to be ongoing promotion, it can't be just one ad, it's got to be every week ... bang bang. Toni Well it's got to be kind of relevant to the kind of work that you do and I think you know, given that you work in large slabs for reasonably, reasonable size companies that probably wouldn't use that form of advertising or you know they wouldn't in those kinds of things. It's probably not appropriate. By criticising Mike's promotional strategy - "It's probably not appropriate" - Toni implicitly criticises his competence in this field. Despite the appearance of opening up access to the codes of function to Mike in the second meeting, Toni dominates the discussions of the communicative aspects of the proposed design. Mike it would seem, prefers only to access the codes of form, a point noted by Toni at the commencement of their final presentation meeting: Toni When you first looked at them it was really interesting, because I guess what I was trying to do was looking at an approach conceptually. Like you know trying to work out a way in which I can get the letters to work but also communicate something of the essence of what you do and based on the response you gave me I think you were looking more at the lettering and just how it looked, you know visually, and the impact it had, so I changed tack. Mike's apparent pre-occupation with the codes of form and his lack of reference to the codes of function reflects his pre-conception that design is essentially an aesthetic activity, his relative lack of experience in the design process, and the authority with which Toni controls the negotiations. Toni's experience of the design process can be seen in the manner in which she simultaneously positions herself as a 'designer' and Mark Roxburgh University of Western Sydney, 1999 Negotiating Design A Major Essay for the MA (Cultural Studies & Communication) 'communicator' through design and her rhetorical skill in regulating Mike's access to these positions and thus controlling the negotiations. In Toni and Mike's negotiations the codes of the function of the design dominated the first meeting and were largely separate to aesthetic considerations. In Jae and Kath's negotiations there was no point where the codes of function were accessed separate to the codes of form. At the outset of the first meeting Kath states that the key functional objective of the poster is to inform prospective Canadian students that they can get a degree in one year from the University by studying in Sydney: Kath What I want to achieve with the poster is ... these are Canadian students who are looking at turning their diploma that they have, from about 25 colleges, into a degree and they can do that in about 1 year here, OK. Kath I want to also put a Sydney slant on it, ... OK? So maybe if you want to find an image ... Jae Right. Kath ... that's very, either, Australian, or Sydney oriented ... Jae OK. Kath I don't care what it is but I'd prefer it if it wasn't too kitschey like the, the Harbour Bridge and all the, you know, Opera House. In articulating these objectives Kath takes up the position of a 'communicator' through design, which is unsurprising given she is a marketing officer. At the same time she adopts the position of 'designer' by beginning to articulate some of the aesthetic parameters of the poster she has in mind. The concurrent expression of the codes of form and function also reflects the fact that the poster is loosely based on a previously designed advertisement, thus it has some kind of material form. In these early discussions Jae also positions herself simultaneously as a 'communicator' and 'designer' by accessing both codes. This only occurs after Kath outlines how she wants the poster to look and what it is to communicate and the type of images "we could have". It is at this point, when Kath has discursively positioned Jae as a collaborator, that Jae accesses the codes and it is done in response to Kath's concern that the poster is "going to look too busy". Jae states that she will "have a look" and "do it so that it doesn't look so busy" and to get around this problem she will "probably emphasise on the subjects and the message". Looking busy is in part then an aesthetic concern, a concern with the look of the poster, and in part a functional concern, a concern with its readability. When analysing the passage of conversation these extracts came from, in relation to the codes of form, I noted that Kath largely regulated Jae's access to them. This regulation also occurs then in relation to the codes of function. Kath's ability to control the negotiations in this way is a result of her occupying a privileged position in relation to her knowledge of the parameters of the job. Mark Roxburgh University of Western Sydney, 1999 Negotiating Design A Major Essay for the MA (Cultural Studies & Communication) In the subsequent meeting the central concern of the conversation related to the poster's aesthetic qualities, though issues of communication did get raised. As previously mentioned, there was some tension between Kath and Jae over Jae's decision not to include the requested photo of Sydney. I have already examined how Jae accessed the codes of form as a rhetorical strategy to convince Kath of the validity of this decision. To add weight to her rhetorical agenda Jae also accesses the codes of function: Jae [Imports a picture of the Opera House into poster] See right away it's, it gets distracted..... and let's just say ... put it there ... Kath Hmm. Jae ... then you've got all this other information that, they wouldn't read that information it gets distracted where it goes all over the place. I mean I even tried it like this where ... [moves image around on poster on screen] ... well I did try to sort of like put it sort of near, like, there but then you've got that you've got this and you've got so much information that you you lose you tend to lose the plot. It's better to sort of say Sydney rather than have a picture. She takes up the position of a 'communicator' through design by accessing the codes of function when she refers to reading "all this other information". Despite her best efforts - "I did try" - the poster is still difficult to read with the inclusion of the photo because "it gets distracted". Again the codes of function are coupled with concerns for aesthetics, as Jae's manipulation of the form of the poster by changing the position of the image in an attempt to improve its readability demonstrates. This rhetorical device provides Jae with a greater sense of authority in mounting her argument as it is not based solely on 'artistic' grounds. Kath's concern that the poster communicates a certain image of the University, as expressed in the first meeting, is evident in her first question of Jae in the second meeting - "Did you try and get the photo of the city in?". Jae responds that she did try but that it "doesn't work" and then goes on to explain briefly why she didn't include it. She quickly changes the topic by moving on to other aesthetic aspects of the poster. After a considerable amount of time discussing these issues and making adjustments to the poster Kath turns the conversation back to the inclusion of the image of Sydney: Kath I'd still actually, if it's not a pain for you, like to see what it looks like with a photo of Sydney. As we have seen Jae imports the image and whilst moving it about continues to argue why it doesn't work. After about ten minutes of this Kath finally becomes insistent on the photo's inclusion: Kath Well the initial conversation with John, and actually Larry Slough from Canada, is that they wanted the touristy Sydney shot Mark Roxburgh University of Western Sydney, 1999 Negotiating Design A Major Essay for the MA (Cultural Studies & Communication) or something you know definitively Australian ......... um ..... someway to be interpreted. In order to impress Jae with the need to include the photo to fulfil the function of the poster, Kath has had to make reference to her superiors in the International Student Centre. By invoking their authority and positioning them as the ones setting the functional objectives Kath is able to bring a substantial amount of rhetorical weight to bear upon Jae to comply. In positioning them in this way, Kath is able to vacate the position of 'communicator' through design and distance herself from the decision, ensuring she is not seen by Jae as responsible for it and thus maintaining their rapport. This strategy finally seems to have worked for a minute later Jae suggests a possible solution to the impasse. To ensure rapport is maintained Kath once again reinforces this distancing strategy by finally conceding there are problems with the image - "I mean you're right, I think it does look busy." 3. Summary In both meetings with Kath, Jae did not the access the codes of function to the same extent that she accessed the codes of form. Nonetheless, her actions in accessing them can be seen as a clear attempt to enrol Kath into her course of action. Kath's accessing of the codes of function was also limited and her reference to them was similarly employed as a rhetorical device. As tension escalated over the inclusion of the photo in the poster, both parties simultaneously accessed the codes of form and of function to lend greater authority to their argument, with Kath finally positioning her superiors as setting the functional agenda to settle the matter. The dominance of codes of form over codes of function in these meetings reflects the detailed understanding that Jae has developed of the International Student Centre's communication objectives, over an eighteen month period. This means that these objectives do not need to be explicitly stated at the commencement of each job, they become to a degree 'taken for granted'. This was recognised by Kath in interview for she stated of Jae that "she knows us and knows what we want." In the meetings between Toni and Mike, it was Toni who more regularly accessed the codes of function. Mike seemed more comfortable in accessing the codes of form and this reflects both his inexperience in the design process and his pre-conceived view of design as being largely concerned with aesthetics. Toni's ability to control the negotiations through her access of the codes of function, and her sometimes simultaneous use of the codes of form, placed her in a considerable position of authority and strengthened her rhetorical hand. This can be attributed to her substantial design experience and her knowledge of marketing. The dominance the codes of function over codes of form in their first meeting reflects the fact that this is the first time they have worked together and indeed the first time Mike has worked with a designer. As a consequence Toni had no historical knowledge of Mike's communication objectives. Toni acknowledged in interview that extensive questioning in relation to these issues is typical in the first meetings she has with firsttime clients. Once she has developed an understanding of the clients organisational culture and general communication objectives, subsequent meetings and jobs focus much more on issues of form. Again the functional purpose becomes 'taken for granted'. Mark Roxburgh University of Western Sydney, 1999 Negotiating Design A Major Essay for the MA (Cultural Studies & Communication) The presence of codes of function in these conversations, and the negotiations drawing upon them, further challenges the idea that design is a purely aestheticised activity. The explicit references to the users or audiences of the proposed design also demonstrates that its communicative function is a significant factor in discursively configuring the negotiations, participants and outcomes of the design process. However, where rapport between participants has been established, designers develop an implicit understanding of the client's communication needs. These communicative or functional objectives become, to a degree, 'taken for granted' and their explicit discussion generally occurs only when a participant needs to add rhetorical weight to their argument. The 'taken for grantedness' of the functional aspects of the design artefact and the subsequent concentration on its formal properties reinforces the common view that design is primarily an aesthetic activity. This shift then is ideological in nature. Bourdieu (1993: p 255) notes that the dominant view of 'Art' emphasises the absence of any functional purpose or objective of the artwork and privileges concern for the pure aesthetic. The ideological objective of this move is again to regulate the boundaries of inclusion and exclusion to the discourses of 'artistic' activity. Given the discourse of design creativity draws upon this ideology it is not surprising we see the concern for function being 'taken for granted' despite its discursive dimensions in shaping the design process and outcomes. Mark Roxburgh University of Western Sydney, 1999 Negotiating Design A Major Essay for the MA (Cultural Studies & Communication) CHAPTER 4: The Use of Design 1. Participants Views of Users The conception of users of design, during the encoding process, is also a discursive and ideological practice. Designers often configure users by making assumptions about the nature of the entities in the world that will receive the design, entities which encompass users, and by 'putting themselves' in the user's place (Chabaud-Rychter 1994: p 85). Design is not just a consideration of the relationship between the formal and functional aspects of the object then, it is enmeshed in contexts of economics, production and use. Reference to the users of the design artefact were mentioned explicitly in interview by all but one participant. Toni thinks that many of her clients show little awareness that the designs they are commissioning will be used by people because they are "thinking about what they [her clients] want it to look like without thinking about what their clients [the users] want to see visually." Jae feels that a design artefact is "only good if it works for the market" and "if it doesn't you haven't done your job." Kath's view of the relationship between the design artefact and the audience is similar to Jae's for she thinks that "you've got to know what the users are doing with the output; who the audience is." Mike was the only participant that did not directly comment on the notion of the use of the artefact by a potential 'audience'. His lack of awareness of this issue can be accounted for by his inexperience in the use of design, as compared to Kath. However his reflection that he thought Toni and he would "just talk about the design, what's it going to look like" when it was also about "who am I, what do I do, what do I want to portray, all that sort of stuff" implies a nascent sense of a user audience, for there has to be someone to portray all that sort of stuff to 2. Configuring the User In following the negotiations between Kath and Jae we can see that the codes of use are also accessed in an attempt to resolve the tension concerning the inclusion of the photo. This code appears only once in the first meeting and is accessed by Kath when she tells Jae she doesn't want a touristy shot of Sydney Harbour on the poster because she doesn't "want to mislead them" and that "sometimes when you put that image in they think we are sitting on the harbour itself and we're not." This device has implications for both the formal and functional aspects of the poster; the photo needs to be of a particular style and to communicate a particular image of the university so as not to mislead the users of the poster. This is a powerful rhetorical device for it invokes an ethical responsibility to the users. In the next meeting when the poster has material form and changes to it have to be negotiated between both parties, the codes of use are accessed again. At the poster's presentation Kath complains that the photo chosen should be colour and not black and white because she wants it "to catch their eye," it is "what we want them to look at." This tactic has both a practical and ideological outcome. In practical terms the image is changed for a colour photo. In ideological terms Kath discursively configures the users as having certain aesthetic tastes which is a rhetorical means of validating her point of view. It is a tactic that gives her aesthetic opinions a greater degree of authority. Mark Roxburgh University of Western Sydney, 1999 Negotiating Design A Major Essay for the MA (Cultural Studies & Communication) Similarly, Jae uses the same strategy when discussing the inclusion of the contentious image of Sydney. After placing a picture of the Opera House in the poster, at Kath's request, she argues that "right away it's, it gets distracted" and that as a result "you've got all this information that ... they won't read" because it "gets distracted [by the photo]." In doing this Jae positions the user as reading in a particular way and this says as much about her aesthetic and communication preferences as it does about her pre-conceptions of how users read. Like Kath, Jae discursively configures the user to fit in with her rhetorical agenda to give weight to her opinions, again an ideological exercise. At Kath's insistence Jae continues to try and incorporate the photo into the poster. In resisting this pressure Jae expresses her concern that the inclusion of the photo means that the copy on the poster will have to be smaller and by implication harder to read: Jae That's OK but then you've got this picture sitting there ... < > ... that's alright but that just means I've got to make everything else smaller. Kath I quite like that. ..... I mean, yeah really all that ... they're only going to read that if they're interested anyway. Kath reframes the problem from one of general readability, which is Jae's concern at this point, to one of relevance to a more specific user. This is done by configuring them as being users only interested in overseas study. Again this is a rhetorical strategy that is aimed at enrolling Jae into Kath's point of view and is ideological in nature. In the meetings between Kath and Jae, the discursive production of 'users' became more active once the design proposal had material form; it was not a prominent feature of their initial meeting. In contrast, this was a significant feature of the first meeting between Mike and Toni. In this meeting Toni tries to develop an understanding of Mike's work culture and how he deals with his clients - the potential audience of the proposed designs. The questions that she asks are in themselves rhetorical by nature, the answers largely implicit in the questions: Toni So tell me what happens then when you actually go in and see the client for the first time? Do you sit down, do you have a meeting? They ring you up, you arrange a time, you go in ... Mike Yeah, go into the site. Talk about what they want. Put together a bit of a proposal, just a verbal sort of ... Toni To whom would you be speaking then within the company? What level? Sort of middle management? Higher? ... Depending on the company? Mike Well in this case, the telemarketing company, I'm speaking to the IT manager and I've also had dealings with the finance director and the MD there as well. Mark Roxburgh University of Western Sydney, 1999 Negotiating Design A Major Essay for the MA (Cultural Studies & Communication) Toni Alright, so you take a brief from them, is that right? Mike Well in this case the brief was some existing software that needs to be rewritten. Toni And they, so basically they tell you what the problems are with it and what they'd like it to be able to do? Mike Yep. It's my, it's my job to find out what they want. Work out what the business requirements [are], that's what I consider my job as being. This line of questioning is framed in such a way that it would appear as if Toni not only understands the IT industry but that she, like Mike, works in it; in effect she positions herself and Mike as IT experts. In doing this both Mike and Toni discursively produce the position of the user of the proposed design but this has occurred primarily in response to Toni's rhetorical initiative. In contrast to CS2 this strategy is not employed in relation to a stated preconceived image of the artefact, rather it is used largely independent of any proposed aesthetic. This is significant in that it develops a sense of a shared understanding of the context in which Mike works, a context Toni stated in interview she needed to understand to be able to design. It also anchors the eventual outcomes in that shared understanding, a point Toni signals halfway through the first meeting: Toni Well to me, what I'm understanding is that your actually projecting ... you want a logo for the company and the company has to embody certain charac ... personal characteristics. When people see the business card they have to see in it that you and it are the same thing. That they're not competing. That they don't get a business card that says something different to the kind of style that's on the business card. The sophistication of the rhetorical dimensions of this passage is substantial. Toni outlines the understanding she has developed with Mike and touches upon the relationship between this understanding and the functional, formal and use dimensions of the project. She configures the user as being dependent on the manifestation of this understanding in the card and thus herself and Mike responsible to get it right so as not to mislead them. This responsibility has ethical implications and provides Toni with a powerful tool of enrolment to access when needed. This she does in the next meeting for when she presents the logos she states that they are "based on what you told me" and "also how I see your industry." When I previously examined the statement this extract is drawn from, I argued that it presents the designed outcomes as being strongly contingent on Mike's input and is used to make him feel more involved in the process. As we can see his involvement in the process is also framed in terms of an ethical responsibility which reinforces his sense of ownership of the process and outcome. His view, in interview, that he was the participant that largely shaped the design process and outcome - "I formed it entirely" - demonstrates the degree to which this strategy made him feel in control of the negotiations. It is a strategy, though, that provides Toni with a considerable Mark Roxburgh University of Western Sydney, 1999 Negotiating Design A Major Essay for the MA (Cultural Studies & Communication) amount of control in the process and is reflected in her own view that "he followed my lead really". Much of the second meeting is spent discussing the form of the logos presented and reference to users is minimal. The clearest reference to them comes at the end of the meeting where Toni suggests to Mike that he take the logos she has presented and show them around to his peers to get some feedback: Toni If there is anything you can think of before Thursday, if in looking at them, or you give them to somebody else and somebody comments on them, or ... His peers are configured as potential users of the design by having to respond to the logos presented. This strategy appears to empower Mike by giving him responsibility to gather this feedback and use it to shape his preference of logos. A process which seems to validate his choice of logo for at the next meeting he states - "I showed quite a few people at work and they all picked the one that I picked." This is a choice that Toni appears disappointed in: Toni Maybe because it's simple ... < > Well in the end when you said it looks a lot like the one you had done yourself, that explained it, because you look for the familiar. Mike defends his choice as being valid by replying "I definitely got a feeling people liked the one I pointed out." Toni thinks that they have chosen this particular logo because "they haven't seen these," the new logos. At this point Mike agrees that "they haven't seen these" and that also they're "pretty boring people really, in this respect." A comment Toni agrees with. By configuring these users as boring, which by implication configures him as not boring, Mike dismisses the validity of their views thus enabling him to change his opinion without any significant loss of face. Shortly after this, Toni reinforces Mike's discursive shift by discussing some of the new logos: Toni Because this is something that's saying something about you, you know like we said in the first discussion it's saying something about you're ... the personality of your company, your business. And say something like this is probably saying something a bit more creative [points to new logo] and individual than something like this would be. [points to old logo] In doing this Toni positions Mike as a creative IT person, as reflected in the new version of the logo, as opposed to the boring users that chose the old logo. So despite Toni's recommendation to Mike to test the logos out on a group of 'users' she is quick to argue against any response that she doesn't think fits with how she sees the image of Mike's company. By mentioning what was said in the first discussion, regarding the image to be projected, Toni draws upon a powerful rhetorical tool by referring to their negotiated understanding of that image and by implication their ethical responsibility to the users. Toni's strategy of enrolment has clearly worked and though Mike's shift in logo choice has been negotiated, Toni has, to a large degree, controlled the negotiation. Mark Roxburgh University of Western Sydney, 1999 Negotiating Design A Major Essay for the MA (Cultural Studies & Communication) 3. Configuring the Self as User At other times, when the conversational participants configured users to argue their case they used the device of rhetorical substitution. This involved the substitution of terms such as "them", "they", or "they're" for terms like "you", "you're", or "you'd" when discussing the readability of the proposed design. Though these terms do not literally mean the person addressed, they are commonly used to refer to "you", "I", or "one", they are couched in such a way that the person addressed is encompassed into the conception of "you". The use of this device did not appear in the first meetings but was employed on a number of occasions once the proposed design had material form. At the outset of the second meeting, in CS2, when asked about the photo of Sydney, Jae argues that its inclusion makes the poster difficult to read because "you're either distracted by photos" or the amount of text on it. After she has placed the photo in the poster, at Kath's insistence, she compares both versions on the computer screen and argues that her version, minus the photo, is better because "you're drawn into the pictures." This rhetorical substitution and the accessing of the codes of use positions both Kath and Jae as users of the poster. The code of use is also accessed concurrently with the codes of function and form by Jae and this lends greater authority for her argument. During this meeting, Kath did not position herself or Jae as users. As we have seen she mounted her argument with recourse to formal and functional considerations; configuring others as users; and finally invoking external authorities to make her point. However, in the discussion surrounding the prospectus they were also working on, she used this device to explain to Jae the difference between, and the relationship of, two diagrams, a matter that seemed to have been confusing for Jae. Kath OK. You must have English at that level to get in. Jae Oh, so it's wrong? Kath Oh, no no no, that's fine. It's not wrong. What we are saying here, in this, entry requirements are, the academic entry, the minimum academic levels, we will admit you under, and this shows the minimum English. In doing this Kath has clearly positioned Jae as a user of the document by talking to her if she is a prospective student looking at the document whilst at the same time as positioning herself as the university - "we will admit you". This rhetorical strategy worked, for Jae understood the implications for users of the relationship of both diagrams. It is a strategy that is also used in CS1 and again it only appears when the proposed design has material form. In the second meeting Mike indicates he likes a particular logo and Toni explains that it has some shortcomings because when it is faxed "you wouldn't be able to see the variations in the tone." The ramifications of this point were quickly grasped by Mike who suggested that it needs "clear spaces and lines" to be legible if faxed. There is, however, no further usage of this strategy in this meeting. Mark Roxburgh University of Western Sydney, 1999 Negotiating Design A Major Essay for the MA (Cultural Studies & Communication) This contrasts with its occasional appearance in the second meeting of CS2, which marks a similar stage in design development of the respective projects. This could be attributed to the conflict over the inclusion or arrangement of particular design elements between Kath and Jae which necessitated access to, and more sustained usage of, a wider variety of rhetorical tools in an attempt to break any impasse. In the comparable meeting in CS1 there was no disagreement concerning the presented roughs, and indeed the very nature of having a wide variety of choice, circumvented the potential for much conflict by allowing both Mike and Toni more room to negotiate in narrowing down the final choice. Likewise it is a strategy that is virtually absent from their final meeting and is only used in passing when Toni is asked by Mike which of the logos she likes. Toni I like this one because of the way the S and C work together and I think that you know the T stands out, it's the first thing you see, it's definitely a T an S a C and I like the way that works together and in that sense it also says something about your company about putting disparate elements together." Here Toni positions herself and Mike as users of the logo - "it's the first thing you see" - but this has not been adopted in the context of needing to argue her case, rather she was responding to Mike's question. Despite this it is not unreasonable to assume that her opinion as both a designer and a user will have an effect on Mike's final choice, thus it has rhetorical implications. 4. Summary In CS1, the configuration of users by Toni provided her with a greater degree of control in the negotiations by framing the design objectives in terms of how users would read the proposed artefact prior to it having material form. This allowed her to argue her proposals, when presented, from the perspective of how well they met those objectives thus giving them greater legitimacy. The rhetorical dexterity Toni demonstrated in these negotiations reflects the amount of time she has worked as a designer and the inexperience of Mike in the design process. In CS2, both Jae and Kath used this device as a rhetorical strategy when tensions arose over particular decisions. It was, however, a device that was used to a lesser degree in their meetings compared to Mike and Toni's. This reflects the extent to which Jae and Kath take for granted each other's understanding of the relationship between the issues of readability and useability of the proposed design and is a consequence of their longstanding working relationship. It is also in keeping with their view, as stated in interview, that the design process between them is substantially negotiated. In configuring users in an attempt to resolve tensions, designers in particular distance themselves from client needs and characterise their own preferences as being based on the needs of those users (Fleming 1996: p 145). This is a discursive practice that is often framed in terms of ethical consideration for the user; the design should not mislead them in what it is communicating, should be readable by them and should suit their aesthetic preferences. This tactic allows the participants to appear as if they are distancing themselves from their own (subjective) point of view by referring to how others use or read the design artefact thus invoking an objective view of its use. Mark Roxburgh University of Western Sydney, 1999 Negotiating Design A Major Essay for the MA (Cultural Studies & Communication) Chabaud-Rhychter (1994: p 85) argues that the identification by design participants with users is incomplete as it remains connected to "technical thought processes and activities of the invention and transformation of the object." That is the participants are never wholly the user, they are also the designer. This can be seen in the extracts from these meetings where discussions of users often occurred in conjunction with discussions of the formal and functional aspects of the design proposal. This coupling of these codes is ideological in two respects. Firstly it prescribes how users will respond to different aspects of the design artefact. Secondly it provides the conversational participant who configures the user with greater authority to the arguments they are mounting by aligning their interests with the user. The presence of the codes of use, the discursive production of users and the negotiated nature of that production further demonstrates that the design process is contingent and social and challenges its aestheticised conception. Mark Roxburgh University of Western Sydney, 1999 Negotiating Design A Major Essay for the MA (Cultural Studies & Communication) CONCLUSION Negotiating Design 1. Views of Negotiation Thus far all parties have demonstrated an awareness of the formal, functional and use dimensions of the design object through their reflections upon these projects. The analysis of the meetings I have undertaken also demonstrated the social and negotiated nature of the design process. Though the negotiation of design was not a code that was explicitly articulated in the meetings it was a means through which agreement was reached in relation to the preceding three codes. In interview all participants acknowledged the negotiated nature of the process. Toni and Jae's pre-conceptions of what design was about altered subsequent to their employment as designers. Toni saw the designer more as a "director" and the basis of design as "understanding people" and "directing the process." Jae, on the other hand, saw design in terms of "counselling" which requires you to "nurture your relationship" with clients. This demonstrates they both have an understanding of the contingent and social nature of design practice which contrasts with the view they had prior to working professionally. However, Toni's view implies a sense of wanting to control the process whilst Jae's view suggests she is happy for it to be a more equitable process of negotiation. These understandings of the design process framed the encoding of the design artefact in both case studies. The degree to which Toni controlled the conversations fits in with her concept of the role of the designer as being a director, whilst Jae's more negotiated approach reflects her view of the importance of nurturing relationships. The clients were also conscious of role of negotiation the design process. Mike described his relationship with Toni as a "relationship where I'm giving her ideas, ideas are bounced back, ideas go to and fro." However, he did see it as a relationship in which he was dominant in negotiations for he felt that he "formed it [the brief] entirely." Not surprisingly this contrasts with Toni's view for she felt "he followed my lead" in the negotiations. Kath reflected that "the relationship building process is probably one of the most important things about working with a designer and that the design process "is collaborative." Because of this, Kath felt that Jae "knows what we want." Both Kath and Jae's view of their relationship and the design process are fairly closely aligned. The significance of the differing views of who controls the conversation, in the design process, relates to the understanding that the design artefact is configured through conversation. By controlling the conversation the client, or designer, gains a degree of authority in shaping the design outcome (Cuff 1991: p 191). The differing views of these relations of power, in the negotiations, can also be accounted for by the length of time that the relevant parties have known and worked with each other. Toni and Jae have worked together on a variety of projects for about eighteen months and it is clear that over time they have established a good working relationship, having long established its parameters. On the other hand Mike and Toni had never worked together and the decision to employ Toni was made by Mike because "we played in the same volley ball team so we had a friendship already established". Though they had negotiated their Mark Roxburgh University of Western Sydney, 1999 Negotiating Design A Major Essay for the MA (Cultural Studies & Communication) relationship in social terms they had at no point prior to this negotiated their professional relationship. The shift in the nature of their relationship was effectively acknowledged by Mike who, when reflecting upon the initial meeting with Toni, said that he "felt like he needed a stiff drink" afterwards because of its intensity. This was a comment he also expressed at the conclusion of that first meeting and reflects his unpreparedness for the rigorous and professional nature of their exchanges. 2. Conclusion At the outset of this essay I argued that design outcomes are not, as the dominant conception of design activity would have us believe, the result of one person's creative or artistic genius. Instead I have presented a view of design as a socially situated form of cultural production that occurs through negotiation between a range of 'actors'. It is a dialectical process through which human subjects exercise situated choices and participate in situated practices within the context of social structures and material conditions. In outlining this view I have not sought to erase the role of the 'author' in cultural production, rather I see 'authorship' as being contingent upon those conditions. The negotiations that characterised the design process in these case studies occurred through conversation. These conversations involved the articulation of codes of form, function and use by all participants. Wolff (1981: pp 64-5) and Hall (1990: p 129) have both argued that in cultural production, codes operate as mediating influences between ideology and the material outcome by interposing themselves as sets of rules or conventions. In accessing these codes during the design process the participants configured a material outcome; their social relations and identities; and conceptions of the user. Seen this way the rhetorical use of these codes and the associated subject positioning is discursive and ideological. It was evident in the case studies that many contradictions abounded about the nature of design and the role of the participants. It was seen as a process that was at once concerned largely with issues of aesthetics and yet also issues of readability and useability. Design outcomes were seen largely as a result of the creativity of the designer yet they also involved the negotiated contribution of the client regarding issues of form, function and use. That these contradictions should be present points to the fluid and evolving nature of ideology and the way in which dominant, residual, emergent, oppositional and alternative ideologies can circulate concurrently (Wolff 1981: p 53). Furthermore, to presume that all participants in these negotiations should have a unified and fixed view of the design process runs counter to the notion of the contingent nature of ideology and the sectional interests, as displayed through their ideological preferences, of those participants in social interaction (Wolf 1981: p 59). These contradictions, are then, all part of the struggle for legitimacy in being able to define the territory of particular acts of cultural production (Bourdieu 1993: pp 2612). That these contradictions did not lead to any significant conflict in the case studies, though they obviously led to tensions, relates back to the nature of negotiation. Hall argues that codes of negotiation allow social actors to accept a dominant or hegemonic viewpoint as being legitimate in a broad or abstract sense, but at the level of situated practices it allows them to access alternative ideologies. These negotiations operate on situated logic, that is the logic is relevant only to that Mark Roxburgh University of Western Sydney, 1999 Negotiating Design A Major Essay for the MA (Cultural Studies & Communication) particular situation (Hall 1990: p 137). As such the contradiction is confined to that situation as the codes of negotiation help mediate the competing ideologies without rejecting the authority of the dominant view. The notion of the designer as 'artist' can be seen as one way of thinking through a historical professional ideology of the designer that, in spite of the presence of contradictory discourses, has had its hegemony assured by the operation of codes of negotiation and the use of situated logic. Furthermore, the hegemony of this view has, not surprisingly, been perpetuated by the design profession itself to maintain the myth of the centrality of the designer to the design process (Forty 1986: p 242). As I have noted in regards to Bourdieu, ideologies about the nature of 'artistic' practice enable those with expertise in the field to control who has access to positions within that field. This argument can equally be applied to other forms of cultural production such as design. Schon (1983: p 340) has argued that the special status accorded to professionals, based on the notion of authoritative and specialised knowledge, enables them to coerce and control clients to varying degrees. To demolish the myth of the designer as 'artist' challenges the very authority upon which designers rely to control negotiations. By questioning the model of design practice that posits it as an 'Art' and by exploring its' social, negotiated and discursive dimensions we can begin to conceive of a new model of design practice. In examining its' ideological aspects we are able to see that the choices negotiated during the design process are not the 'natural' consequence of a given set of circumstances rather they are but one set of possibilities amongst many. As design is concerned with 'what might be' (Dilnot 1999: p 72) it is necessary for the design community to realise that the limitations of the model of intuitive creativity prevent it from seeing these other possibilities or indeed hear the 'voices' of other 'actors'. Further by understanding design as fundamentally an ideological activity that involves other 'actors' we can not only ask the question, together, 'what might be' but more importantly 'is it needed' and 'what are its implications?'. Mark Roxburgh University of Western Sydney, 1999 Negotiating Design A Major Essay for the MA (Cultural Studies & Communication) BIBLIOGRAPHY Ackrich, M. (1992) "The De-Scription of Technical Objects: Describing the Interaction Between Technics and Humans" in Bilker, W. E. & Law, J. (eds) Shaping Technology / Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change Cambridge (Mass): MIT Press Ang, I. (1985) Watching Dallas: Soap Opera and the Melodramatic Imagination London & New York: Methuen Bayley, S. (1979) In Good Shape: Style in Industrial Products 1900 to 1960 London: Thames & Hudson Bayley, S. (1990) "On Creativity Versus Bureaucracy" in Design #497, p 61 Bird, J. (1977) "Art and Design as a Sign System" in Leisure in the Twentieth Century: Conference on Twentieth Century Design History London: Design Council Publications Blauvelt, A. & Davis, M. (1997) "Building Bridges: A Research Agenda for Education and Practice" in Bierut, M. et al (eds) Looking Closer 2: Critical Writings on Graphic Design New York: Allworth Press Bourdieu, P. (1993) The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature Cambridge: Polity Press Buchanan, R. (1995) "Rhetoric, Humanism and Design" in Buchanan, R. & Margolin, V. (eds) Discovering Design: Explorations in Design Studies Chicago: University of Chicago Press Chabaud-Rychter, D. (1994) "Women Users in the Design of A Food Robot: Innovation in a French Domestic Appliance Company" in Cockburn, C. & Dilic, R. (eds) Bringing Technology Home: Gender and Technology in a Changing Europe Birmingham & New York: Open University Press Cockburn, C. (1992) "The Circuit of Technology: Gender, Identity and Power" in Silverstone, R. & Hirsch, E. (eds) Consuming Technologies: Media and Information in Domestic Spaces London & New York: Routledge Cuff, D. (1991) Architecture: The Story of Practice Cambridge (Mass): MIT Press Davies, B. & Harre, R. (1990) "Positioning: The Discursive Production of Selves" in Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour Vol 20, # 1, pp 43 - 63 Dilnot, C. (1989a) "The State of Design History Part II: Problems and Possibilities, V. (ed) Design Discourse Chicago: Chicago University Press Dilnot, C. (1989b) "The State of Design History Part I: Mapping the Field" in Margolin, V. (ed) Design Discourse Chicago: Chicago University Press Mark Roxburgh University of Western Sydney, 1999 Negotiating Design A Major Essay for the MA (Cultural Studies & Communication) Dilnot, C. (1999) “The Science of Uncertainty: The Potential Contribution of Design to Knowledge” in R Buchanan et al (Eds) Doctoral Education in Design: Proceedings of the Ohio Conference October 8-11 1998, pp. 65-97 Pittsburgh: Carnegie Mellon University Eagleton, T. (1991) The Ideology of the Aesthetic Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Fleming, D. (1996) "Professional-Client Discourse in Design: Variation in Accounts of Social roles and Material Artefacts by Designers and Their Clients" in Text Vol 16, # 2, pp 133 - 60 Fleming, D. (1998) "Design Talk: Constructing the Object in Studio Conversations" in Design Issues Vol 14, # 2, pp 41 - 62 Forester, S. (1989) Planning in the Face of Power Berkeley: University of California Press Forty, A. (1986) Objects of Desire: Design and Society 1750 - 1980 London: Thames & Hudson Gloag, J. (1934) Design in Modern Life London: George Allen & Unwin Goines, D. (1997) 'Where Ideas Come From' in Communication Arts Vol 39, #7, Dec, pp 254-264 Golsby-Smith, T. (1996) "Fourth Order Design: A Practical Perspective" in Design Issues Vol 12, # 1, Spring Hall, S. (1990) (1st pub 1980) "Encoding / Decoding" in Hall, S. (ed) Culture Media Language: Working Papers in Cultural Studies, 1972 - 79 London: Unwin Hyman Hebdige, D. (1988) Hiding in the Light London & New York: Routledge Henderson, K. (1995) "The Visual Culture of Engineers" in Star, S. L. (ed) Cultures of Computing Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Hollway, W. (1984) "Gender Difference and the Production of Subjectivity" in Henriques, J. et al (eds) Changing the Subject: Psychology, Social Regulation and Subjectivity London & New York: Methuen Hyin, N. (1997) "Fabulous Us: Speaking the Language of Exclusion" in Bierut, M. et al (eds) Looking Closer 2: Critical Writings on Graphic Design New York: Allworth Press Jackson, P. & Holbrook, B. (1995) "Multiple Meanings: Shopping and the Cultural Politics of Identity" in Environment and Planning A Vol 27, pp 1913 - 1930 Kalman, T. (et al) (1994) "Good History/Bad History" in Bierut, M. et al (eds) Looking Closer Critical Writings on Graphic Design New York: Allworth Press Mark Roxburgh University of Western Sydney, 1999 Negotiating Design A Major Essay for the MA (Cultural Studies & Communication) Kepes, G. (1944) Language of Vision Chicago: Paul Theobold Kernan, S. (1997) 'Two Scripts' in Communication Arts Vol 39, #5, Sep/Oct, pp 22 28 Kress, G. (ed) (1988) Communication and Culture Kensington: New South Wales University Press Law, J. (1992) "Notes on the Theory of the Actor Network: Ordering, Strategy, and Heterogeneity" in Systems Practice, Vol 5, #4, pp 379 - 93 Loewy, R. (1979) Industrial Design London & Boston: Faber & Faber Lupton, D. (1998) The Emotional Self: A Sociocultural Exploration London: Sage Publications Lupton, D. (1994) Medicine as Culture: Illness, Disease and the Body in Western Societies London: Sage Publications Lupton, E. (1989) "Reading Isotype" in Design Discourse Chicago: Chicago University Press Mackay, H. & Gillespie, G. (1992) "Extending the Social Shaping of Technology Approach: Ideology and Appropriation" in Social Studies of Science Vol 22, pp 685716 Mansell, R. (1996) "Communication by Design?" in Mansell, R. & Silverstone, R. (eds) Communication by Design Oxford: Oxford university Press Mansell, R. & Silverstone, R. & Hadden, L. (1996) "Introduction" in Mansell, R. & Silverstone, R. (eds) Communication by Design Oxford: Oxford university Press Margolin, V. (ed) (1989a) "Introduction" in Design Discourse Chicago: Chicago University Press Margolin, V. (ed) (1989b) "Postwar Design Literature: A Preliminary Mapping" in Design Discourse Chicago: Chicago University Press McKenzie, D. & Wacjman, J. (1985) The Social Shaping of Technology Milton Keynes: Open University Press Minale, M. (1989) "Editorial" in Design # 489, September, p 12 Morley, D. (1986) Family Television: Cultural Power and Domestic Leisure London: Comedia Publishing Group Mouffe, C. (1989) "Radical Democracy: Modern or Postmodern?" in Ross, A. (ed) Universal Abandon? The Politics of Postmodernism Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Mark Roxburgh University of Western Sydney, 1999 Negotiating Design A Major Essay for the MA (Cultural Studies & Communication) Nightingale, V. (1996) Studying audiences : The Shock of the Real London & New York: Routledge Noble & Lupton (1998) "Consuming Work: Computers, Subjectivity and Appropriation in the University Workplace" in The Sociological Review Vol 46, # 4, November, pp 803-27 Ogde, D. L. (1994) "A Clockwork Magenta and Orange" in Bierut, M. et al (eds) Looking Closer: Critical Writings on Graphic Design New York: Allworth Press Pearce, B. (1995) "Process Revealed" in Metropolis Vol 14, # 9, May, pp 59-67 Pevsner, N. (1960) Pioneers of Modern Design Harmondsworth: Penguin Books Pinch, T. J. & Bjiker, W. E. (1984) "The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other" in Social Studies of Science Vol 14, pp 399 - 441 Rand, P. (1947) Thoughts on Design New York: George Wittenborn Read, H. (1966) Art and Industry: The Principles of Industrial Design London : Faber Schon, D. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action New York: Basic Books Silverstone, R. & Hadden, L. (1996) "Design and the Domestication of Information and Communication Technologies: Technical Change and Everyday Life" in Mansell, R. & Silverstone, R. (eds) Communication by Design Oxford: Oxford university Press Simon, H. (1981) (2nd edition) The Sciences of the Artificial Cambridge (Mass): MIT Press Thompson, J. B. (1990) Ideology and Modern Culture Cambridge: Polity Press Torreano, R. (1996) "Creativity in South America" in Communication Arts Vol 38, # 2, May/June, pp 109-123 Wolff, J, (1981) The Social Production of Art MacMillan Mark Roxburgh University of Western Sydney, 1999