@article{gallagher_martin_ma_2011, title={Visual Wellbeing: Intersections of Rhetorical Theory and Design}, volume={27}, ISSN={["1531-4790"]}, DOI={10.1162/desi_a_00075-martin}, abstractNote={In her recent book Classical Rhetoric and the Visual Arts in Early Modern Europe, Caroline van Eck argues that classical rhetoric influenced both the producers and consumers of visual art and architecture in early modern Europe through concepts related to vivid representation. Indeed, according to van Eck, both oral communication and image making share the goal of establishing vivid representation (or enargeia). In addition, she argues that both rhetoric and the visual arts work “to bring to life that which is absent.” Building upon her work and also following the work of Buchanan (2001) and Kaufer & Butler (1996), we suggest that an even stronger argument can be made for the interrelatedness of rhetoric and the visual arts, particularly in the field of design. In this paper, we speak from within two intellectual traditions—rhetoric and visual design—that have developed separately. Despite this separation, we argue that what emerged as two distinct fields of study are intricately related, as reflected in their assumptions, goals, and functions. For instance, scholars in design and rhetoric define their practices and objects of study similarly. In addition, they have similar values and goals particularly related to the possibility of changing an imperfect situation and instigating a level of social consciousness. Furthermore, both fields work toward human advancement in both functional and moral senses (Figure 1). Indeed, Twyman1 and Bonsiepe,2 both of whom write from a design perspective, argue that ancient rhetoric resembles modern design because both arts deal with functional, contextual, and social aspects of language and symbol systems and thus are well suited to design issues. In their book, Rhetoric and the Art of Design, Kaufer and Butler suggest that rhetoric belongs to the family of design arts, like architecture and graphics, because all of these arts are arts of production.3 They conclude that theories of rhetoric are theories of design. Meanwhile, Ehses, a design educator, argues that rhetorical theory is relevant for information design because of the applicability of the three operational functions of rhetoric—to instruct, to move, to please—to the nature of design.4 Twyman and Bonsiepe also argue that ancient rhetoric did in fact consider, and therefore address, the visual. Gronbeck,}, number={2}, journal={DESIGN ISSUES}, author={Gallagher, Victoria J. and Martin, Kelly Norris and Ma, Magdy}, year={2011}, pages={27–40} }
 @article{dannels_gaffney_martin_2008, title={Beyond Content, Deeper than Delivery: What Critique Feedback Reveals about Communication Expectations in Design Education}, volume={2}, url={https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2008.020212}, DOI={10.20429/ijsotl.2008.020212}, abstractNote={In design education, the critique is a communication event in which students present their design and critics provide feedback. Presumably, the feedback gives the students information about their progress on the design. Yet critic feedback also serves a socializing function—providing students information about what it means to communicate well in the design education context. Using a qualitative research methodology, this study explores what critic feedback reflects about expected communication competencies in design studios. Results suggest that communication competence in this setting involves interaction management, demonstration of design evolution, transparent advocacy of intent, explanation of visuals, and the staging of the performance—all of which imply a communicative identity for students that is tethered to the content and delivery of the presentation, but has implications beyond the content and delivery to the broader disciplinary culture. Implications of this study provide insight for faculty and students involved in pedagogical spaces in which feedback plays an important role in the instructional process—suggesting its potential for shaping disciplinary identities, relationships, and social contexts.}, note={In design education, the critique is a communication event in which students present their design and critics provide feedback. Presumably, the feedback gives the students information about their progress on the design. Yet critic feedback also serves a socializing function—providing students information about what it means to communicate well in the design education context. Using a qualitative research methodology, this study explores what critic feedback reflects about expected communication competencies in design studios. Results suggest that communication competence in this setting involves interaction management, demonstration of design evolution, transparent advocacy of intent, explanation of visuals, and the staging of the performance—all of which imply a communicative identity for students that is tethered to the content and delivery of the presentation, but has implications beyond the content and delivery to the broader disciplinary culture. Implications of this study provide insight for faculty and students involved in pedagogical spaces in which feedback plays an important role in the instructional process—suggesting its potential for shaping disciplinary identities, relationships, and social contexts.}, number={2}, journal={International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning}, publisher={Georgia Southern University}, author={Dannels, Deanna and Gaffney, Amy and Martin, Kelly}, year={2008} }
 @article{dannels_martin_2008, title={Critiquing critiques - A genre analysis of feedback across novice to expert design studios}, volume={22}, ISSN={["1552-4574"]}, DOI={10.1177/1050651907311923}, abstractNote={ In the discipline of design, the most common presentation genre is the critique, and the most central aspect of this genre is the feedback. Using a qualitative framework, this article identifies a typology of feedback, compares the frequencies of feedback types between different levels of design studios ranging from novice to expert, and explores what the feedback reflects about the social and educational context of these design studios. Results suggest that the feedback socialized students into egalitarian relationships and autonomous decision-making identities that were perhaps more reflective of academic developmental stages or idealized workplace contexts than of actual professional settings—therefore potentially complicating the preprofessional goals of the critique. }, number={2}, journal={JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND TECHNICAL COMMUNICATION}, author={Dannels, Deanna P. and Martin, Kelly Norris}, year={2008}, month={Apr}, pages={135–159} }