Allenjcochran 3rd qtr_docs

Allen J Cochran
M.F.A. Candidate, Design

The Ohio State University
Department of Design

3rd Quarter
Review
June 4, 2010

Submitted to:

Peter Kwok Chan
Elizabeth B.-N. Sanders
R. Brian Stone

A Case Study
on Co-Creation:

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

Contents
4 Overview
5 Research Questions

6 Abstract

7 Exploratory Pilot Study
8 Introduction to the Community

9 Introduction to the Area of Interest

11 Participants

13 Data Collection Method

16 Data Analysis

9 Future Work
20 Annotated Bibliography
23 Course Plan
30 Appendices
31 CITI Certification

32 IRB Proposal

36 3rd Quarter Paperwork (Sample)

Overview

Research Questions

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

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

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

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

© 2010 Allen J Cochran 5

Overview

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

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

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

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

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


Exploratory Pilot Study

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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



Process Diagram (Revised May 31, 2010)

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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



PART 001
Technology, Brand Awareness, Brand Strategy, Collaboration

PART 003
Collaboration, Process, and Management

PART 004
Communication, Strategy, Over-arching Vision

PART 005
Process, Technology, Service Design

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

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

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



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

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

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

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


Future Work

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

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

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


Future Work

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

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

Workbook

Bibliography

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

This book is an all-purpose reference for Action Research. The authors have included
several case studies as well as several definitions of Action Research form various
professions and organizational perspectives. Bradbury and Reason breakdown the
notion that Action Research is somehow “teaching” research and the emphasize
Action Research as a framework for participatory action in many fields.

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

This paper compares quantitative and qualitative research and outlines why qualitative
research is not only important but a better overall choice for a participatory method like
Action Research. The author is careful, however, not to totally downplay quantitative
findings. Instead, she proposes that they are useful but shouldn’t be the main point
of data for an Action Research projects.

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

This source comes from a department that regularly encourages students to utilize
Action Research as a critical lens for their research. The site spells out basic action
research principles. It also provides links to several hyper-links to different types of
Action Research projects - at Pepperdine, Action Research proposals and findings
mostly make their way to the public via a website.

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

This book is an in-depth explanation of Action Research. Stringer outlines the
history of action research and its methodology. He breaks down his discussion
by leading readers through each part of the process from research plan design to
implementation.


Bibliography

Action Research (Continued)

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

This is a reference book for methods and methodologies relating directly to art
education. At this point I have not read much of it, however its referenced several
times in Boyd’s work and I have cited it because of its potential value in the future.

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

This book is an exploration of design management methodologies. It utilizes theory
and validates it through case studies. The author defines design management and
steps through the fundamentals of practice. She then goes further into the importance
of design and thus the importance of managing that process accurately.

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

This book is broken into two sections: 1) research and 2) collaboration - both
pertaining to design. Each section begins with a formal, theoretic and historical
outline followed by several chapters of case studies. Particularly interesting, there are
several chapters on the synthesis of design, technology and business goals as well
as practicing collaboration within virtual organizations.

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

This paper discusses what people say, what people do, and what people make. This
is a guiding principle in my exploratory study. The paper examines the current state
of beliefs within research. It also discusses several methods of acquiring creative
data from people stereotyped as non-creative.


Bibliography

Action Research (Continued)

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

This paper establishes a basis for codesign. Sanders and Stappers examine the
history of designing with users and lays the framework for professional designers to
act as facilitators of designs so that the users needs are truly met.

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

Though not a theoretical guide to project management, this gives a hands-on,
practical perspective on project management. It will be useful to compare office
observations of my community of interest against the certification system set for
project management.

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

This source is the gateway to understanding the University’s marketing and
communications departments. Additionally, this website presents guidelines for
messaging and design and defines the majority of design functions at OSU.

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

This source is the definitive portal to all information for my community of interest.
Though information is sometimes difficult to get through, nearly everything about the
university is contained within this website.


Course Plan

Course Plan By Year & Quarter

Year Quarter Course Number & Title Type Cred

2009 AUTUMN Design 693 - Independent Study T 3.00
Design 780 - Design Issues Seminar C 4.00
Design 785 - Orientation to Graduate Studies in Design C 4.00
2010 WINTER Design 693 - Independent Study T 5.00
Design 786 - Design Research & Inquiry C 4.00
2010 SPRING Design 693 - Independent Study T 4.00
Design 787 - Design Planning, Development, and Evaluation C 4.00
Design 760 - Graduate Design Studio C 5.00
ART ED 795 - Action Research in Art. Ed. C 4.00

2010 SUMMER CSE 201 - Elementary Computer Programming E 4.00
Design 795 - Design & Business E 4.00
Design 685 - Field Work in Design S 1.00
ART ED 795 - Arts & Cult. Org Res. & Rev. Management C 5.00
CSE 502 - Object Oriented Programming E 3.00
ACCAD 740 - Interactive Arts Media 1 S 3.00
Comm 656 - Info. Tech. & Org. Comm. E 5.00
CSE 668 - App. Comp. Programming for Eng. E 3.00
CSE 767 - Applied Object-Oriented Analysis & Design E 3.00
2011 SUMMER CSE 541 - Elementary Numerical Methods E 3.00
Design 673 - Interactive VC: Strategies Web Comm. S 4.00
Design 660.02- Visual Communication Design Studio S 5.00
Comm - 655 Computer Interfaces and Human Identity E 5.00
CSE 670 - Introduction to Database Systems 1 E 3.00
Design 661.02- Advanced Design Studio S 5.00
Design 950 - Research Problems in Design T 5.00
Design 998 - Research in Design: Thesis T 7.00

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


Course Plan

Course Plan By Course Type
Thesis Development Courses
Design 693 - Independent Study T 3.00
Design 950 - Research Problems in Design T 5.00
Design 998 - Research in Design: Thesis T 7.00
37.00
Core Semenar Courses
Design 785 - Orientation to Graduate Studies in Design C 4.00
Design 786 - Design Research & Inquiry C 4.00
Design 787 - Design Planning, Development, and Evaluation C 4.00
Design 760 - Graduate Design Studio C 5.00
ART ED 795 - Action Research in Art. Ed. C 4.00
ART ED 795 - Arts & Cult. Org Res. & Rev. Management C 5.00
34.00
Elective Courses
CSE 201 - Elementary Computer Programming E 4.00
Design 795 - Design & Business E 4.00
CSE 502 - Object Oriented Programming E 3.00
Comm 656 - Info. Tech. & Org. Comm. E 5.00
CSE 668 - App. Comp. Programming for Eng. E 3.00
CSE 767 - Applied Object-Oriented Analysis & Design E 3.00
CSE 541 - Elementary Numerical Methods E 3.00
Comm - 655 Computer Interfaces and Human Identity E 5.00
CSE 670 - Introduction to Database Systems 1 E 3.00
33.00
Studio Courses
Design 673 - Interactive VC: Strategies Web Comm. S 4.00
Design 660.02- Visual Communication Design Studio S 5.00
Design 661.02- Advanced Design Studio S 5.00
22.00


Course Plan

CITI Certification
Completion Report 10/2/09 1:40 PM

CITI Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative

Human Research Curriculum Completion Report
Printed on

Learner: Allen Cochran (username: cochran291)
Institution: Ohio State University
Contact Information The Ohio State University
Department of Design
128 N. Oval Mall, Hopkins Hall
Columbus, OH 43230 United States of America
Department: Department of Design
Phone: (513) 549-1554
Email: cochran.291@osu.edu
Group 2.Social and Behavioral Research Investigators and Staff.:

Stage 1. Basic Course Passed on 10/02/09 (Ref # 3594273)
Date
Required Modules Completed Score
Introduction 10/02/09 no quiz
History and Ethical Principles - SBR 10/01/09 3/4 (75%)
Defining Research with Human Subjects - SBR 10/01/09 5/5 (100%)
The Regulations and The Social and Behavioral 10/01/09 5/5 (100%)
Sciences - SBR
Assessing Risk in Social and Behavioral Sciences - SBR 10/01/09 5/5 (100%)
Informed Consent - SBR 10/01/09 4/4 (100%)
Privacy and Confidentiality - SBR 10/01/09 3/3 (100%)
Records-Based Research 10/01/09 2/2 (100%)
Research with Prisoners - SBR 10/02/09 4/4 (100%)
Research with Children - SBR 10/02/09 4/4 (100%)
Research in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools - 10/02/09 4/4 (100%)
SBR
International Research - SBR 10/02/09 3/3 (100%)
Internet Research - SBR 10/02/09 5/5 (100%)
HIPAA and Human Subjects Research 10/02/09 2/2 (100%)
Conflicts of Interest in Research Involving Human 10/02/09 2/2 (100%)
Subjects
Ohio State University 10/02/09 no quiz

For this Completion Report to be valid, the learner listed above must be
affiliated with a CITI participating institution. Falsified information and
unauthorized use of the CITI course site is unethical, and may be
considered scientific misconduct by your institution.
https://www.citiprogram.org/members/learnersII/crbystage.asp?strKeyID=C66BBFB5-65CC-40EC-A2AC-48C7E1479CB1-4670973 Page 1 of 2

CITI Certification Report (acquired October 2009)


Course Plan

IRB Proposal

IRB Proposal Page 01 of 06


Course Plan

IRB Proposal



Course Plan

IRB Proposal

Additional Documents Forthcoming

Consent Form
Interview Questions
Survey Questions
Focus Group Questions



Course Plan

3rd Quarter Paperwork
3rd Quarter Review (Updated March 2010)
For the MFA in the Department of Design
Mandatory

Date:

Candidate:

The undersigned Graduate Faculty members have reviewed the research and coursework of
visit us on the web:
www.design.osu.edu
http://accad.osu.edu

the candidate above during this the 3rd quarter of their graduate enrollment.

The results of the review are as follows:

Continue in the MFA program

Deny continuation in the program

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

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

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

Recommendations:

Submitted by:

Committee Chair

Committee member

1 Committee member

Sample 3rd Quarter Review Documentation.


For more information
or to contact

www.allenjcochran.com

Allenjcochran 3rd qtr_docs

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Similar a Allenjcochran 3rd qtr_docs

Similar a Allenjcochran 3rd qtr_docs (20)

Más de Allen Cochran

Más de Allen Cochran (20)

Último

Último (20)

Allenjcochran 3rd qtr_docs