Research interests
Creation and use of visual information; image-enabled discourse; multimodal discourse and communication

Current research topic: Image-enabled discourse
Those that study prehistoric drawings understand the importance of considering the circumstances and context of creation when trying to decipher the meaning conveyed by an image. Most image-oriented research focuses on the visual artifact, rather than the contextualized process of image-creation. Research in the area of image-enabled discourse seeks to address this gap through exploratory empirical study of image creation as a communicative, information-driven activity.

Anyone who has reached for pen and paper during a discussion in order to clarify a thought or prompt a response from a companion has exploited the potential of image-making to enhance communication. We might tend to think of words as being the primary building blocks from which we construct conversations. However, a number of other tactics are available to us when we try to communicate with others. We can gesture, growl or make a face. We also have the ability to communicate by making pictures. Because images and visual information enable exchange of meaning across a range of contexts, they are playing an increasingly important role in how we work and communicate with each other, in both face-to-face and virtual environments.

My current research focuses on the creation of a particular type of image, so-called "napkin drawings." This ubiquitous type of image creation activity consists of making marks on an available surface during the flow of a conversation. These images are sometimes kept, sometimes abandoned, and notoriously cryptic for those not involved in the discussion. Marks on a napkin or sketches created on a white board are information artifacts that embody a particular type of communicative practice that plays a specific role in the exchange of meaning between individuals. These spontaneously created visualizations can anchor, bridge, and facilitate the flow of information at crucial moments in a conversation. Rarely seen as aesthetic objects of great admiration for their own sake, these images answer to a different set of requirements than other constructed images (such as art). Often corresponding to moments of heightened clarity, insight or coordination, the creation of such visualizations can be viewed within a broad communicative context, alongside linguistic and other non-textual modes of conversation. Image-enabled discourse refers to this phenomenon in a broad sense, and ad hoc visualizations (i.e. napkin drawings) are one type of image-enabled practice.

Inspired by the artist's notion of mark-making, image-enabled discourse views the human proclivity to create and deploy visual information in situ, during conversations, as a phenomenon worthy of focused study. In the field of painting and drawing, the term "mark-making" is used to isolate and highlight the practice of using an instrument to leave a mark on a surface. Sometimes employed by art historians and critics when discussing the gestural qualities of a piece of art, this term is most frequently used by artists to refer to the way that a mark (or series of marks) indicates the human hand of the maker. From this perspective, marks left on a surface convey particularly potent information about the moment of expression and the act of creation.

Although the special significance given to the act of mark-making by artists may be challenging to extend into non-art realms, a seemingly ubiquitous fascination with making marks is evident in many every day situations, across many cultures. What is it about ad hoc visualizations that make them such good conveyors of meaning within a given context? Or stated another way, why do people start drawing while they are talking? Why make a mark rather than utter a word? It may be hard to think of this as anything but a natural, automatic and intuitive response and many will call up the adage "a picture is worth a thousand words." However, the question remains which thousand words are being replaced and why? Is the image really replacing words or is it offering an alternative or supplement to other modes of communication? And why, when given the choice between words, which have dictionary definitions and specific rules of grammar, do we sometimes turn to the seemingly ambiguous realm of images in order to be more precise?