On 21/07/2011, at 7:13 AM, Bill, Amanda wrote:
> Just substitute 'product design' for 'advertising' ....
Ah if only it were that simple!
At the risk of boring you more with my own work, let me briefly explain. When in 1985 my colleagues and I set up the unit which is now the Communication Research Institute, we began with a broad background in communication research: what goes on between people, between people and organisations, between media and people. We were looking at a broad range of phenomena: interpersonal, group dynamics, organisational and societal. Included within that was the field of advertising.
To cut a very long story short, we came to the view that the data we were looking at and the theories behind them were missing something. At best, the empirical evidence could account for only a few percentage points of what the theories predicted. What followed was a profound paradigm shift. One of the consequences of that shift was a revitalised interest in information design. This has remained at the focus of our research since then.
As to the nature of the paradigm shift and the interest in information design, I have written extensively on that. You will find a gloss on our web site. Originally written as a radio piece, but never broadcast, it might help explain in a general way why I think you may not be able to usefully "just substitute 'product design' for 'advertising' .... "
http://communication.org.au/publications/principles---philosophy/Inside-communication-research/80,30.html
David
--
blog: www.communication.org.au/dsblog
web: http://www.communication.org.au
|