From time to time, I try to give our Board members an overview of where our adventure has taken us and where it might take us in the future. It seemed to me fitting to share with you—the visitors to our web site—some parts of my most recent report to the Board. It will, I hope, give you some context in which to understand what we do. Here then are some edited extracts

Our past research.

I’ve divided our research into three strands—applied, fundamental, and critical—though they overlap in many ways.

We began our research program with the establishment of the Institute in 1985—first as a small unit within a University, but since 1987, as an independent research institution. By the mid 90′s, we had a number of achievements to be proud of.

Applied research

We successfully demonstrated the generalisability of the methods for communication problem solving that we had developed over the previous 10 years[1], [2]. In a number of published case histories we showed that good communication practices and methods led to significant equity and bottom line improvements [3]. We also showed that these practices could be turned into guidelines that others could use to achieve successful outcomes [4].

The trend in our applied research was to take on projects of ever increasing complexity and depth—moving from the solution of single problems to the solution of systemic problems. In document design this has moved from designing single documents for mass production to designing systems for producing individualised documents on a mass scale [5]. In organisational communication this has meant moving from solving individual organisational problems to redesigning entire services or organisations [6].

The fragments of this work that we have published so far have been mostly in the document design area [7]. But the full scope of the work covered many other aspects of communication, including public relations, dispute resolution, stakeholder management and organisational design. We retain the archives for all these projects—some 200 plus—but so far, as I suggested, we have published only a tiny fraction of the accumulated experience, data, and outcomes.

Funding permitting, we will make this rich material available to our members in the coming years.

The result by the mid 90s was considerable international recognition for our work, and a continuous flow of invitations to undertake new projects in this area. These projects continue to provide us with one of our most successful revenue streams, and with one of the most fertile opportunities both for deepening our applied research and for exploring new areas.

Since the mid 90s the emphasis of our applied research has shifted. Increasingly we turned our attention to the systemic barriers to good communication [8]. In particular, we began to focus on government regulations and industry codes of practice that control the quality of communication between organisations and individuals [9]. As part of this work we have been able to influence government initiatives in the regulation of financial and pharmaceutical product information for consumers [10].

We have also turned our attention to developing performance measures for good communication practices [11]. Thus, while in the late 80s and early 90s our focus was on methods for improving communication, in the mid 90s we began to explore and develop minimum performance benchmarks for good communication practices. This development of performance measures has been most successfully applied in the government regulation and industry practices of the pharmaceutical industry[12], [13]. In Australia it has been accepted that consumer medicines information must be designed to achieve minimum performance levels: 90% of all literate consumers should be able to find what they are looking for in medicine information, and appropriately use 90% of what they find. This performance requirement is now ‘enshrined’ in EU regulations, (though it remains to be successfully implemented) [14].

We now routinely apply these benchmarks and others to a great variety of documents—financial statements, bills, letters, contracts policy documents, and more recently, web sites.

Fundamental research

We began in the 1980s with a serious questioning of the conventional idea of communication as a process of transmission [15]. Through a series of theoretical explorations we articulated the weaknesses and practical consequences of this flawed notion [16]. Slowly, we began to articulate an alternative dialogic or conversational view of communication [17], [18], [19]. This proved to be highly productive in all aspects of our research.

Critical research

We began by picking on a number of single issues: plain English [20], [21], [22]. Government public information campaigns [23], the use of private sector thinking in the public sector [24], and government information and communications policy [25]. In the mid 90s we made a major contribution to the debates about the so called ‘information society’ and the changes to telecommunication and computing that were gathering momentum around the internet [26]. Largely as a consequence of that work, and our own earlier IT experience with FormsDesigner, we took the decision not to get involved in the inflating dot.com bubble. I dread to think where we might have been now, if we had!

Where we are now

Applied research

The most important applied work over the last two years has been our review of research on labelling design and regulation [27]. As well as enabling us to develop an overview of the field and what might be needed for the future, it also enabled us to develop a number of critical criteria for reviewing research in the field more broadly.

We have been invited by a number of pharmaceutical companies to extend our work on labelling, and our results have exceeded our own expectations of the performance of the labelling with consumers. This work is ongoing.

We have continued to refine the methods for large-scale document design production systems for such things as bills, letters and notices. We are beginning to extend this work into the internet. This work is ongoing.

Also, through my continuing involvement with Coventry University, I have been able to write and publish a number of papers on information design and information design methods. These are highly relevant to the more general field of communication problem solving [28].

Fundamental research

Fundamental research has continued apace. I have been working on a number of papers that articulate the relationship between the philosophy of language, design, and communication [29]. This work is ongoing.

Critical research

Lack of resources have limited our capacity to undertake critical work over the last two years.

Publishing, education and training

As you know from the first part of my report, I have moved our publishing program over to our web site, and this will be the vehicle for our publication program into the future. Also, the background work on organising our archives is now complete and we are ready to start making the findings and case histories more widely available.

Our intention was to use our postgraduate course fees as the means to funding our publication program. In the event, the initial interest in our postgraduate courses did not translate into enrolments. Most of the initial interest occurred at the peak of the dot.com bubble. It did not survive the dot.bomb.

Where do we go from here?

A plan?

From time to time [The Board] have asked me to prepare a ‘strategic plan’ for the Institute, and I have resisted such requests. The plain fact is that we do not have sufficient control over the environment we work in to make long range plans that are worthwhile or meaningful. Instead I have opted for what I call ‘principled opportunism’: guided by a set of principles, we grasp hold of opportunities as they arise. With this in mind, I think it would be useful to try and articulate those principles.

Principle 1: the public good

From its inception, we conceived the Institute as contributing to the public good. But from the late 80s and throughout the 90s we saw both an erosion of the public sphere and a diminished interest in supporting work for the ‘public good’. Nonetheless, we have been able to maintain the momentum of our contribution to the public good because many businesses have taken on board the idea of ‘customer service’ and ‘user friendliness’ as part of their overall objectives. This has meant that we have been able to maintain the momentum of our contribution, albeit under a different description.We are in a strange period of Capitalism where making money and being nice to people go hand in hand. This has enabled many people of good will to do good work from within the corporate world, and engage us to help them. I believe that our capacity to contribute to the public good in this area will continue, and we must take advantage of the opportunities as they present themselves.

Principle 2: independence

In the social sciences and philosophy there is a long and distinguished tradition of independent critical research and commentary. I believe strongly that part of our remit must be to continue that tradition.

While no sector in our society is beyond critical scrutiny, in our time we can note that government has progressively reduced its commitment to the public good, and the opportunities for making a contribution to communication between state and citizens has, if anything, diminished. Many government ‘commitments’ to good communication practices that we have been involved in at first hand have turned into token and sometimes empty gestures. There is no legal requirement for good communication in government. This is in sharp contrast to the increasingly stringent requirement for good communication that government has imposed on the private sector through such legislation as the Trades Practices Act and the recent Financial Services Reform Act.

Accordingly, I am proposing that we enter into a phase of critical research on government communication practices. As we are unlikely to receive any funding for such work, this will necessarily be opportunistic, focusing on the issues of the day when time and resources permit. Our objective must be to bring about desirable changes in the communicative relationship between government and citizens.

Principle 3: sharing knowledge

As a research Institution we have an obligation to publish our research findings and share our accumulated insights with others. It is also the means by which we receive critical scrutiny and review by our peers.

In our time there is a tension between publicly shared knowledge and intellectual property rights, between open source and proprietary systems. In the past we have left this tension unresolved and tried to play both ends of the game. This, in my view, is both unsustainable and unnecessary.

Our experience, now over many years, suggests that guarding our intellectual property rights has neither increased our revenue nor enhanced our reputation. Nor is there any indication that we have lost revenue as a result of sharing our expertise, while sharing our knowledge has done both. Moreover, maintaining a proprietary hold on knowledge is inimicable to the public good.

I’m therefore proposing that in future we make all our knowledge and insights publicly available. We would continue to charge business and government for our services; but all our publications should either be free over the internet or at a price that is affordable and consistent with its value. In order to make available our accumulated body of case histories, I am actively seeking special funding for grants that will enable us to fund the publishing program.

Principle 4. institutionalising good practice

Many of the innovative designs we created in the late 80s were copied by others wishing to improve their communication practices. This was particularly noticeable in our work on Australian Taxation Office forms and our redesign of bills for Telecom. This process of ‘copying’ is one we have welcomed and encouraged, even though, at times, the copying has been superficial.

Many of the communication problems we have investigated and solved in the last decade have generic characteristics. For example, we have been able to generalise our work on medicine information and labelling to provide industry and government with guidelines and codes of practice. We are at the moment developing such a code of practice with the non-prescription medicines industry and with the investment and financial services industries. Working collaboratively with industry peak bodies, regulators, consumers, and other stakeholders, we are having some success in developing industry-wide solutions. I see this as a fertile area for development, serving a variety of industry and public sector groups. Our objective here must be to institutionalise good practice in as many domains as we can.

Your comments?

I hope, as a visitor to our site, this edited extract of my report to our Board of Governors gives you some insight into what we do. The Board and I would welcome your comments and thoughts on our activities. Please do drop me a line with your comments, if you would like to.

All the best for the festive season and the new year.

David Sless
Director

References

[1] Shulman A D Penman R & Sless D 1990
Putting information technology in its place: Organizationalcommunication and the human infrastructure In Carroll J (ed) Applied Social Psychology & Organisational SettingsHillsdale N J: Lawrence Erlbaum 155—191

[2] Penman R & Sless D 1990
Politics & practice of research in the public domain: A case study inAustralia, In Narula U & Pearce W B (eds) Cultures, Politics & ResearchPrograms: An International Assessment of Practical Problems in Field Research Hillsdale N J: Lawrence Erlbaum 213—235

[3] Fisher P & Sless D 1990
Improving information management in the insurance industry
Information Design Journal 6 (2) 103—129

[4] Sless D & Shrensky R 2006
Writing about medicines for people (3rd edition)
Canberra: Department of Health and Human Services

[5] Sless D 1999
The mass production of unique letters
In Bargiela—Chiappini F and Nickerson C (eds) Writing Business: Genres, Media and Discourses
Harlow: Longman 85—99

[6] Sless D 1990 Equity and efficiency in corporate communication: the emerging challenge
Australian Journal of Communication 17 (1) 19—42

[7] Penman R Sless D & Wiseman R 1996
Best practice in accessible documents in the private sector (two papers) paper 1, paper 2
In Putting it Plainly: Current Developments and needs in Plain Englishand Accessible Reading Materials Canberra: Australian Language and Literacy Council

[8] Sless D 1989
What could a good communication policy look like? Occasional Paper 13
Canberra: Communication Research Institute of Australia

[9] Sless D & Shulman A 1992
Product labelling regulation: can it lead to good information design?
In Sless D & Penman R (eds) Designing information for people
Canberra: Communication Research Press 63—76

[10] Sless D 1996
Regulating Financial Advice: Opinions for the Australian Securities Commission
Canberra: Communication Research Institute of Australia

[11] Sless D 1996
Better information presentation: satisfying consumers?
Visible Language 30(3) 246—267

[12] Seymour E 1996
Rethinking Labelling Regulation and Practice: Report on the Forum
Canberra: Communication Research Press

[13] Sless D & Wiseman R 1997
Writing about medicines for people (3rd edition)
Sydney: Australian Self Medication Industry

[14] European Commission 1998 29 September
A Guideline on the Readability of the Label and Package Leaflet of Medicinal Products for Human use
Brussels: European Commission

[15] Sless D 1985
Repairing messages: The hidden cost of inappropriate theory
Australian Journal of Communication 9—10 82—93

[16] Morehead A & Penman R 1989
Federal government information campaigns: a critical review Occasional Paper 11
Canberra: Communication Research Institute of Australia

[17] Sless D 1991
Communication and certainty
Australian Journal of Communication 18 (3) 19—31

[18] Penman, R. (1993)
Conversation is the common theme
Australian Journal of Communication 20(3) 30—43

[19] Sless D and Shrensky R 1995
The boundary of communication
Australian Journal of Communication 22 (2) 31—47

[20] Penman R 1992
Plain English: Wrong solution to an important problem
Australian Journal of Communication 19(3) 1—18

[21] Penman, R. 1993
Unspeakable acts and other deeds: a critique of plain legal language
Information Design Journal 7(2) 121—132

[22] Sless D 2002
Problems with plain language

[23] Morehead A & Penman R 1989
Federal government information campaigns: a critical review
Occasional Paper 11
Canberra: Communication Research Institute of Australia

[24] Sless D 1999
Restructuring government for failure
Paper presented at the Australian and New Zealand CommunicationAssociation Conference Parramatta July 1999

[25] Sless D 1988Full Steam Ahead: a view from the railway sidings
Sydney Morning Herald August 28 1988

[26] Sless D 1994
Information: the first and final commodity
Communication News 7 (3) 1—3

Sless D 1994
Between dreams and reality
Communication News 7 (4) 1—7

Sless D 1995
Superhighway superbill
Communication News 8(2) 1—3

Sless D (ed) 1995
The Informationless Society
Canberra: Communication Research Press

[27] Sless D 2001
Usable written information for patients
Editorial Medical Journal of Australia 174 (11) 557—558

Sless D 2001
Usable medicines information
Canberra: Communication Research Press

[28] Sless D 2000
Between prosthesis and panacea: some thoughts on the philosophy of information design
Keynote address InfoD 2000 Coventry April 2000

Sless D 2000
Experiences in co-designing
Keynote address Co-designing 2000 Coventry September 2000

Sless D 2000
Communication and information design for people
Keynote address Ergonomics for life: annual conference of the
Australian Ergonomics Society Adelaide October 2000

[29] Sless D 2002
Philosophy as design: a project for our times
3rd International Conference of the Design Education Association,Cardiff March 2002

Sless D 2002
Designing Philosophy
Design Research Society conference ‘Common Ground’
Brunel University September 2002