How expert designers foster expertise: a study of professional visual communication practice

Design expertise as embodied knowledge

Design expertise is fundamentally embodied knowledge, developed through practice, observation and experimentation rather than explicit instruction alone. The challenge of understanding design expertise can be approached through Polanyi’s (1966) concept of tacit knowledge – the idea that ‘we know more than we can tell.’ Designers acquire intuitive understanding of balance, hierarchy, spatial relationships and aesthetic judgment through what Polanyi describes as ‘indwelling’ – internalizing knowledge through immersion in practice. This tacit dimension helps explain why experienced designers can intuitively frame problems, make aesthetic decisions and recognize effective solutions without being able to fully articulate their reasoning. This embodied nature of design expertise has been observed across creative professional domains. In professional communication, expert practitioners develop sophisticated tacit knowledge about visual and verbal patterns, gained through extensive practice rather than formal instruction (Schriver, 2011). This aligns with Polanyi’s (1966) concept of tacit knowledge in demonstrating how expertise develops through immersive practice across design-related fields.

Theoretical models and expert characteristics

The development of design expertise can be understood through the expertise model described by Lawson and Dorst (2013), which describes progression through six levels: novice, advanced beginner, competent, expert, master and visionary. At the novice level, designers rely on objective features and strict rules, consciously processing technical elements which limits their capacity for broader strategic thinking. Expert level designers, in contrast, demonstrate intuitive responses and immediate appropriate actions without distinct problem-solving processes, operating comfortably and proficiently. Masters advance beyond this to see standard practices as contingent rather than fixed, showing deeper field involvement and acute contextual awareness.

Importantly, designers may exhibit different levels of expertise within a single project depending on specific challenges, suggesting that expertise development follows non-linear paths influenced by both individual factors and environmental conditions. This fluid movement between expertise levels represents a key characteristic that challenges traditional linear models of skill development.

Research across design domains reveals that these expertise levels are characterized by several key transformations (Tollestrup et al., 2023). Expert designers demonstrate sophisticated integration of experience that enables intuitive problem-solving and adaptable practice across varied contexts (Cross, 2018; Lawson and Dorst, 2013). At the core of this integration, expert designers develop what can be understood as a ‘repertoire’ – a deeply internalized body of knowledge that transcends simple information storage – while novices typically possess a ‘repository’ of facts and procedures. This repertoire enables the intuitive problem-solving developed through years of practice and reflection (Schön, 1983), embodying Polanyi’s (1966) concept of knowing more than can be explicitly articulated.

Key distinctions between expert and novice characteristics include the evolution from rule-following to intuitive judgment, the shift from technical focus to strategic thinking and the development of adaptive capacity rather than rigid approaches to design challenges (Cross, 2018; Lawson and Dorst, 2013). Designers demonstrating expert level characteristics also demonstrate advanced problem-framing capabilities, whereby design challenges are redefined and restructured to reveal deeper underlying issues rather than being accepted as presented, and sophisticated pattern recognition developed through extensive experience (Cross, 2006; Tollestrup et al., 2023).

These expert characteristics are consistent with findings from related creative professional domains. Schriver’s (2011) research with professional communicators revealed that experts develop extensive pattern recognition abilities and can coordinate multiple representations simultaneously, moving fluidly between visual and verbal elements to meet stakeholder needs. This sophisticated integration of knowledge types exemplifies the kind of adaptive expertise that distinguishes expert from novice practice.

While novice designers, despite possessing technical skills, often struggle with drawing broader generalizations and abstractions from their experiences (Ellmers & Foley, 2020), expert designers develop reflective capacities that enable them to move beyond project-specific understanding to develop the abstraction abilities and adaptive expertise that distinguish expert practice (Kokotovich and Dorst, 2016). The development of abstraction abilities appears closely linked to interdisciplinary knowledge integration, as expert designers increasingly draw insights from domains beyond traditional design boundaries. Yet Tollestrup et al. (2023) found that most studies focus on individual cognitive processes or educational contexts, leaving notable gaps in understanding how these expert characteristics manifest within the collaborative environments of professional practice.

Individual and social dimensions of professional practice

While traditional design expertise models offer valuable insights into individual skill development, research increasingly recognizes that expertise manifests through both individual capabilities and collaborative practices within professional environments. Tan (2021) argues that expertise models focusing primarily on individual cognitive processes may not fully capture the social complexities of how expertise manifests and is maintained in professional practice. Reviewing the general expertise literature, Tan (2021: 15) identified four themes: experiential knowledge, adaptability, perceptiveness and motivational support – that better address ‘the varied ways in which meaning, competence and power are shared, created, experienced, and negotiated among members of a professional community’.

This integrative approach acknowledges that the development of expertise involves not simply individual capabilities but complex social dynamics and collaborative practices within professional environments, where competence and knowledge are both individually possessed and collectively constructed. Schriver’s (2011) empirical research with professional communicators provides concrete evidence of these social dimensions in practice. She found that expert practitioners develop sophisticated abilities to ‘read the context and scope out social resources’, coordinate multiple stakeholder needs and navigate the political and cultural landscapes of workplace environments. This workplace-embedded nature of expertise development suggests that professional design practice may involve capabilities beyond those typically examined in educational or laboratory settings.

The relationship between individual and collaborative expertise appears particularly complex, as expert practitioners must simultaneously demonstrate personal design capabilities while creating environments that foster collective expertise development. Understanding how these dimensions interact represents a significant area for investigation.

Recent research spanning multiple design domains reveals considerable gaps between novice and expert capabilities, particularly in problem-framing, pattern recognition and complexity management (Tollestrup et al., 2023). However, Tollestrup et al. found that most expertise research focuses on educational contexts or individual cognitive processes, leaving significant gaps in understanding how expertise characteristics manifest within the social and collaborative contexts of professional practice.

The role of reflective practice

Reflective practice has been identified as a crucial mechanism for expertise development across design domains. Schön’s (1983) theory of the reflective practitioner provides important insights into how designers develop and apply tacit knowledge through reflection-in-action, reflection-on-action and reflection-on-practice. This theoretical framework helps explain how designers move beyond rule-following approaches to develop the intuitive judgment characteristic of expert practice.

Research demonstrates that structured approaches to reflection can support knowledge transfer and expertise development. Ellmers (2017) found that when graphic design students engaged in structured and critical reflective practice, they could identify and analyse knowledge embedded in their design processes and draw generalized reflections that fostered conditions for knowledge transfer. However, the types of reflection that support knowledge transfer – generalization and abstraction – were not as readily apparent in student reflections, aligning with novice-level expertise characteristics.

The challenge of moving from description and analysis to generalization and abstraction appears central to expertise development, suggesting that different types of reflective practice may be necessary at different stages of professional development.

Research gap: visual communication design practice

While design expertise research has examined domains such as engineering design, industrial design and architecture extensively (Tollestrup et al., 2023), professional visual communication design practice remains largely unexplored. Of the 110 papers reviewed by Tollestrup et al. (2023), only Ellmers et al.’s (2020) study of novice graphic designers directly addresses this domain. This gap is significant given visual communication design’s distinct characteristics: the primacy of message clarity and audience comprehension, compressed project timelines requiring rapid iteration cycles and the integration of strategic communication thinking with aesthetic decision-making. Understanding expertise within these specific professional contexts offers valuable insights for practice and education, particularly as AI-driven transformation reshapes the field.

Research questions

The main question that led this study is:

More specifically, we aimed to examine:

Reflective practice theory

Schön’s (1983) theory of reflective practice provides a foundational framework for understanding the cognitive processes underlying expert design practice. This theoretical lens enables examination of the reflection processes that occur during design activities, as well as the development and application of tacit knowledge. It further highlights how implicit understanding transforms into explicit knowledge, while also revealing the decision-making mechanisms that operate within professional practice. Through this perspective, it is possible to observe how designers engage with complex problems, draw upon their experiential wisdom, articulate new insights and navigate the multifaceted choices that characterize expert design work.

Design expertise model

Lawson and Dorst’s (2013) expertise model provides a structured framework for analysing the manifestation and development of design expertise. This model facilitates understanding of the characteristic behaviours associated with expert practice, while also highlighting the nuanced transitions between expertise levels that designers experience throughout their careers. It reveals the various knowledge transfer mechanisms that enable expertise to be shared and cultivated within design communities, as well as the distinctive problem-framing approaches that emerge at different stages of professional development. Through this theoretical lens, it is possible to see how designers evolve from rule-following novices to intuitive experts capable of reframing design situations and contributing to the advancement of practice itself.

Interpretative framework

The study is grounded in an interpretative paradigm, recognizing that reality is socially constructed (Mertens, 2005). This paradigm acknowledges that individuals have their own unique view of the world, with the researcher’s role being to make sense of participants’ realities and experiences (Radnor, 2002). As Flick (2018) notes, this interpretative approach enables revelation based upon information while providing the ability to judge effectiveness.

The interpretative framework facilitated the researchers’ work by offering a lens that allowed them to explore the participants’ relatability and tailored perspectives. The investigation through qualitative interviews allowed for a holistic understanding while identifying variables that may interconnect, particularly when comparing participants’ experiences.

Case study approach

The case study approach was selected because it enables in-depth investigation of how design expertise manifests while preserving the rich context in which it develops. As Yin (2018) explains, case studies are especially suited for research questions that ask ‘how’ or ‘why’, making them ideal for examining how expertise manifests through practitioners’ lived experiences. For this research, we used the case studies approach to describe significant cases that clarify and serve as examples of the problems under investigation (Flick, 2018).

Each case is examined ‘in depth’ regarding ‘real-life’ context as Yin (2018) suggested to be an important feature of the chosen methodology. The approach enables deep investigation of participants’ perspectives, beliefs and accumulated knowledge that might not be accessible through other methods.

Data collection method

The research design centres on in-depth, semi-structured interviews with experienced visual communication design practitioners, all with more than 20 years’ industry experience. As Creswell (2007) notes, this focused approach allows for detailed examination of how expertise develops within specific professional contexts. Data were collected in late 2019, before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which situates participants’ reflections within pre-pandemic studio conditions and professional practices.

Interview protocol development

A semi-structured interview protocol was developed to guide discussions while maintaining flexibility to explore emerging themes. The protocol addressed:

The semi-structured format allowed for systematic data collection while enabling participants to share unique insights and experiences. The open-ended questions provided space for participants to share perspectives beyond the specific questions asked (Flick, 2018).

Participants

Five visual communication design practitioners with 20–35 years of industry experience and recognized professional standing were interviewed for this study. Participants were identified and recruited through the researchers’ professional networks, providing access to established practitioners. All were based in Australia and comprised three male and two female designers representing diverse professional contexts within the design industry.

Participants represented a broad range of senior designers whose experience spanned commercial, cultural and educational contexts. Collectively, they had directed independent design practices, led multidisciplinary teams and contributed to teaching and mentoring within higher education. Several had founded and managed their own studios recognized for design excellence, while others held senior leadership roles within established design practices. All had extensive professional experience within Australia and varying levels of international experience. This mix of entrepreneurial, organizational and educational perspectives provided a strong foundation for examining how expertise is cultivated, transferred and sustained across different modes of professional practice.

All participants shared a common career progression, beginning in hands-on design roles before advancing to leadership positions involving creative direction and strategic practice. Most had received professional recognition through awards or participation in significant industry events, establishing their credibility within the design community. Participants were therefore regarded as experts due to their demonstrated competence and peer-acknowledged standing (Flick, 2018). Their sustained engagement in the profession and capacity to adapt to changing industry conditions further supported their inclusion in this study.

Data analysis

A thematic analysis was conducted in this study. The interviews were carefully analysed to identify patterns and themes across the data. To ensure validity and reliability of the study findings, the analysis was conducted collaboratively among the three authors and compared to confirm emerging themes and conclusions. Each case was analysed following the interpretative framework previously described.

The three researchers independently coded portions of the data before coming together to discuss and refine the coding framework. Discrepancies in coding were resolved through discussion until consensus was reached. The coding framework was iteratively developed, with initial descriptive codes later grouped into more interpretative categories and finally into overarching themes that addressed the research questions.

Formalized documentation systems

Participants described deliberate systems for capturing and sharing procedural knowledge within their studios, illustrating how formalized documentation supports consistency, delegation and collective learning. Participant 3 implemented ‘standard operating procedures’ for processes like ‘how to art direct a shoot’, empowering team members to improve these documents. Participant 2 used ‘design development folders’ with files that ‘have the date and name’, preserving process history and facilitating knowledge sharing.

Structured critique and reflection

All participants described structured critique and reflection sessions as key knowledge-transfer mechanisms that foster shared understanding, critical dialogue and emotional awareness within their teams. Participant 5 held daily critiques discussing the ‘theory behind’ design work. Participant 3 prioritized emotional development: ‘The theme is emotional culture . . . about us becoming better at being people in our business.’ Participant 2 facilitated both formal and spontaneous reflection through wall-based displays and conversations.

Mentoring and cascading knowledge

Participants emphasized mentoring as a primary vehicle for knowledge transfer, with senior designers intentionally cascading expertise through structured, relational and practice-based learning models. Participant 1 implemented a cascading approach: ‘If I teach the seniors a lot, they’ll teach the juniors’, allowing knowledge to flow throughout the team. Participant 4 developed a structured pedagogical approach using ‘concentric circles’ that begins with designer identity (‘who they are’) before expanding to interpersonal relationships and broader business contexts. Participant 5 encouraged direct client communication for newer designers: ‘He’s talking directly to one of our biggest clients . . . on [online systems].’ Participant 2 criticized designers who are ‘secretive and possessive around their information’, creating a ‘toxic kind of way to be in the studio, because no one learns’.

Non-linear expertise development

While Lawson and Dorst’s (2013) framework could be interpreted as a linear progression through expertise levels, a more nuanced reading of the framework allows for fluid movement between these characteristics. The framework describes behaviours rather than prescribing a linear path. Participants in this study demonstrated more flexible transitions than might be expected, with Participant 4 explicitly describing moving between expert and novice states, drawing connections between experiences across disciplines.

Collaborative versus individual expertise

The model’s individual focus does not fully capture the collective expertise emphasized by three participants. Participant 5 directly challenged individual mastery: ‘If [many] heads together can create a better solution, that’s the better design.’ Participant 2 similarly emphasized collective expertise: ‘The work is the work of the studio. It’s not the work of me.’

Rejection of linear design process models

Participants also challenged conventional step-by-step design models, describing their own processes as cyclical, overlapping and responsive rather than linear or sequential. Three participants explicitly rejected linear design processes that often underpin formal frameworks. Participant 4 questioned traditional models: ‘It sort of doesn’t kind of work like that, really, does it?’, offering instead her ‘folding cake’ metaphor: ‘a constant folding in of all kinds of things when you’re working.’

In summary, the analysis revealed how participants’ expertise was enacted through iterative reflection, collaborative studio cultures, engagement with creative constraints, integration of interdisciplinary knowledge, and deliberate mentoring and knowledge-transfer mechanisms. While these practices exemplify advanced professional judgement and adaptive learning, they also exposed underlying tensions between stated values and the structural realities of practice. These patterns and tensions are explored further in the discussion section.

Leadership as hidden hierarchy

Across the participating studios, descriptions of ‘flat’ organizational structures and collaborative cultures often sat uneasily alongside concentrated authority and decision-making power. All participants operated within small, closely collaborative studios or teams (typically 3 to 10 people), where proximity encouraged flexibility but also blurred distinctions between shared creativity and principal control. Participants described environments that valued equality and collective authorship, yet in practice retained control over strategic direction, client relationships and resource allocation. These patterns suggest that egalitarian studio rhetoric can conceal underlying dependencies on principal discretion, shaping how expertise is both developed and recognized, and indicating that even designers at advanced levels of expertise remain subject to contextual constraints that temper the autonomy that Lawson and Dorst (2013) associate with higher expertise.

Tacit mentoring pathways

Knowledge transfer within studios often relied on subjective judgments about who ‘wants to learn’, fits the culture, or shows an ‘entrepreneurial mindset’, functioning as invisible filters that may reproduce privilege while appearing performance-based. Mentoring pathways appeared largely tacit and dependent on senior practitioners’ intuition, meaning those who did not align with dominant communication styles or cultural expectations could face reduced access to developmental opportunities and advancement, despite genuine capability or motivation. Such selectivity is not necessarily problematic; it can help define a studio’s distinctive focus and attract aligned clients and projects. However, when criteria remain unspoken, access to sustained guidance – and therefore expertise progression – may depend more on implicit cultural fit than on demonstrated competence, suggesting that access to the reflective and adaptive learning behaviours central to higher levels of expertise can be unevenly distributed.

Economic necessity as principle

Economic pressures often appeared to underpin what participants described as creative or philosophical choices. Decisions framed as expressions of principle – such as ‘constraints breed creativity’ or prioritizing ‘thinking over execution’ – were frequently aligned with sustaining profitability or adapting to changing markets. One participant’s emphasis on limited budgets as creatively advantageous, for instance, also contributed to leaner operations and increased efficiency, while another’s shift toward research and academia coincided with reduced commercial opportunities reframed as intellectual evolution.

Such behaviour demonstrates the acute sense of context and deeper awareness of the professional field characteristic of practitioners who see their ways of working not as natural but as contingent on market conditions, a sensitivity to context that Lawson and Dorst (2013) identify as characteristic of advanced levels of expertise. However, when this economic adaptation remains unacknowledged or is reframed as purely creative principle, the rhetoric of personal growth and creative maturity obscures how material conditions and market pressures shape practice. These constraints then appear as individual preference or principled choice, potentially disadvantaging those without the resources or security to frame economic necessity as creative virtue.

Privilege as invisible infrastructure

Unacknowledged forms of privilege also appeared to underpin many participants’ career continuity and opportunities. References to elite or advanced education, international travel for ‘inspiration’, multiple qualifications and financial resources enabling entrepreneurial ventures were often presented as background circumstances rather than recognized as structural advantages. Several participants described the ability to travel extensively or maintain practices during quieter commercial periods as conditions that may have been supported by accumulated resources and professional networks.

These patterns suggest that privilege can function as an invisible infrastructure enabling professional stability and long-term expertise development, illustrating how sustained practice at advanced levels of expertise often depends on external supports that sit outside Lawson and Dorst’s (2013) primarily cognitive–behavioural framework. Yet within participants’ accounts, such factors were rarely acknowledged, with success instead attributed to individual motivation, talent and perseverance. However, privilege alone does not explain the expertise outcomes observed. Participants’ achievements also reflected initiative, sustained effort and a willingness to embrace uncertainty to pursue growth and renewal, such as relocating internationally, leaving secure employment, or transitioning to a smaller, more flexible studio model. Recognizing these underlying supports does not detract from participants’ accomplishments but underscores how accumulated social, educational and economic capital can influence who is able to sustain development within professional design practice.