Dissensus, Resistance, and Ideology: Design Thinking as a Rhetorical Methodology

April Greenwood Michigan State University ; Benjamin Lauren Michigan State University ; Jessica Knott ; Dànielle Nicole DeVoss Michigan State University

Abstract

Design thinking—at times described as a mind-set, practice, process, method, methodology, tool, heuristic, and more—is a productive, iterative approach used to engage divergent thinking. Often made up of stages incorporating empathy, definition, ideation, prototyping, and testing, design thinking provides a framework for identifying and approaching problems. Design thinking, however, generally lacks a critical–rhetorical–methodological structure that makes room for what Rebecca Burnett called “substantive conflict,” or “conflict that deals with critical issues of content and rhetorical elements.” This article situates design thinking across the professional and academic spaces in which it is heralded and implemented in order to explore how it can be used in collaborative contexts to support substantive, productive dissensus. The authors lean on the ways in which they engage in design thinking in their different roles to situate the good, the bad, and the ugly of design thinking. They conclude by suggesting a rhetorical methodology for cultivating design thinking that facilitates dissensus, addresses resistance, and considers ideological variables.

Journal
Journal of Business and Technical Communication
Published
2019-10-01
DOI
10.1177/1050651919854063
Open Access
Closed
Topics

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (5)

  1. Computers and Composition
  2. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
  3. Technical Communication Quarterly
  4. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
  5. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication

Cites in this index (3)

  1. College Composition and Communication
  2. College Composition and Communication
  3. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
Also cites 13 works outside this index ↓
  1. 10.5250/quiparle.17.2.1
  2. 10.2307/1511637
  3. 10.1177/0095798407299512
  4. 10.1145/291224.291235
  5. 10.1145/1015530.1015555
  6. 10.1177/0963662510394040
  7. 10.1111/caim.12023
  8. 10.1145/3309578.3309584
  9. 10.4324/9780203481141
  10. 10.1111/j.1942-5074.2009.00001.x
  11. 10.1002/tl.37219904204
  12. 10.1016/j.jesp.2005.12.007
  13. 10.1007/BF01405730
CrossRef global citation count: 25 View in citation network →