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

Abstract

While design expertise has been widely studied across domains such as industrial design, engineering and architecture, visual communication design has received limited attention. Earlier research examined novice designers’ development of reflective capability, and its link to expertise progression. This study extends that work by investigating how expertise manifests and is fostered among experienced designers within visual communication design practice.

Through in-depth interviews with five experienced designers (20–35 years’ industry experience), this qualitative case study employed thematic analysis grounded in Schön’s reflective-practice theory and Lawson and Dorst’s (2013) design-expertise model. This approach enabled close examination of how reflective processes, mentoring structures and studio cultures shape expertise development within professional contexts. Findings revealed characteristics associated with advanced levels of expertise, including progression from technical to strategic thinking, cultivation of collaborative studio cultures, structured reflection practices and interdisciplinary knowledge integration.

The analysis identified tensions between participants’ stated values and the structural realities of practice, such as hidden hierarchies, selective mentoring and the influence of privilege on expertise trajectories. The study extends existing expertise frameworks by linking reflective processes and collaborative practices with the structural conditions of work, providing a basis for understanding how expertise develops and is sustained in visual communication design practice. This basis highlights the need to investigate how technological change is reshaping learning pathways and the strategies through which expertise will be developed and sustained within AI-integrated design practices.

Introduction

While design expertise has been extensively studied across multiple design domains, significant gaps remain in understanding how expertise develops and operates within professional visual communication design contexts. Through interviews with experienced industry practitioners, this article contributes empirical insights into a field that has received limited scholarly attention.

Disciplinary terminology

This study focuses on practitioners who identify as graphic designers, although it is important to note that these participants began their careers during a period that preceded visual communication design as a mainstream disciplinary concept. Their professional practice encompasses the broader scope of visual problem-solving that characterizes contemporary visual communication design, including strategic thinking, multi-media applications and communication-focused approaches. The expertise characteristics and knowledge transfer mechanisms identified in this research are applicable across the spectrum of visual communication practice, including both graphic design and visual communication design, regardless of specific disciplinary labels. For clarity and contemporary relevance, this article uses the term ‘visual communication design’ while acknowledging participants’ professional identity as graphic designers.

Background

Understanding how expertise characteristics appear in professional contexts has significant implications for both professional development and design education, particularly as the field seeks more targeted approaches to cultivate higher-order cognitive skills and adapts to evolving professional contexts. This understanding becomes increasingly critical as design problems become more complex and interconnected, requiring sophisticated approaches to expertise development.

Recent sector reports also highlight a persistent skills gap within the design economy. For example, the UK Design Council’s Designing a Future Economy report (Design Council, 2018) identified widespread deficiencies in design skills across the UK workforce, estimating that one in eight design employers report staff who are not fully proficient in their roles. The report also estimated that existing design skills gaps cost the UK economy £5.9 billion annually (approximately AUD 12 billion), driven by rapid technological change and new working practices. It emphasized that design work increasingly demands higher-level qualifications and adaptive capabilities, reinforcing the importance of understanding how professional expertise is developed and sustained within 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.

Methodology

Research approach

This study employs a case study research strategy within an interpretative paradigm, using a qualitative methods approach. The research design has been carefully structured to investigate how design expertise manifests in professional practice, while maintaining sensitivity to its context-dependent nature. This approach enables deep investigation of how expertise develops and manifests while preserving the rich context of professional practice. This study obtained ethics approval from the University of Wollongong Human Research Ethics Committee (Ethics Number 2019/001).

Research questions

The main question that led this study is:

1. How do expert visual communication designers foster expertise development within their professional practice environments?

More specifically, we aimed to examine:

1. What approaches do expert designers use to develop expertise in their professional environments?

2. How do expert designers share and transfer knowledge within their practice?

3. What factors do expert designers consider important for expertise development in others?

Theoretical framework

The research is theoretically grounded in two complementary frameworks that inform both data collection and analysis.

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.

Research design

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:

1. Participants’ career trajectories and expertise development

2. Knowledge transfer approaches and mechanisms

3. Reflective practice in professional work

4. Critical incidents and learning experiences related to their specific professional sphere of activity

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.

Results And Analysis

This study analysed five interview transcripts from experienced designers with 20–35 years of professional practice. Using Lawson and Dorst’s (2013) expertise model as a framework, the analysis revealed characteristics and behaviours primarily aligned with Expert and Master levels, highlighting distinctive approaches to practice, studio culture, reflection and knowledge transfer.

Evolution from technical to strategic thinking

All five participants demonstrated an evolution from technical craft to strategic thinking, reflecting transitions consistent with expert-level design reasoning. Participant 1 articulated: ‘I realized what I like isn’t creating something that looks cool . . . It’s just solving a problem in a larger sense.’ They noted ‘Early on [in my] career it’s very much stylistic’, but later valued ‘being clever and solving the problem’ over being ‘stylistically cool’. They described developing intuitive judgment: ‘It just doesn’t feel right’ and immediate recognition of design potential: ‘I can see the potential of it straight away now. Instead of having to test and test . . . I can kind of see what’s going to happen before.’

Participant 2 similarly emphasized that ‘the heavy lifting is in the thinking.’ They explicitly prioritized process over product: ‘I’ve always been more interested in the process than I have been [in] the product’, finding the conceptual development stage most compelling: ‘The most thrilling part to me has been that process at the start.’ Participant 4 rejected being treated as ‘a service industry or a commodity’, positioning their self as ‘a thinker’ who should be ‘part of the decision making’. Participant 3 transformed their business: ‘not a graphic design business anymore’, achieving triple profitability despite downsizing.

Deliberate studio culture development

Four participants consciously developed studio cultures challenging traditional hierarchical models, demonstrating Master-level transformation of field practices.

Participant 2 implemented a collaborative approach: ‘the work is the work of the studio. It’s not the work of me; it’s not the work of the person that led the job.’ They trained their team to say, ‘we, never me’.

Participant 5 created a non-competitive environment where ‘everyone was on an equal playing field’. They explained this as ‘a conscious decision’ based on past experiences, believing ‘if [many] heads together can create a better solution, that’s the better design.’ They recognized cyclical creative capacity: ‘You can’t be creative every day’, designing work patterns that accommodate individual rhythms: ‘Some designers can be pretty good at being on for four days and then the fifth day probably not so on.’

Participant 3 ‘removed any hierarchical nomenclature in job titles’, focusing on ‘giving them accountability’ and ‘an equal voice’. Participant 1 selectively mentored ‘only . . . people who I think really want to learn.’

Structured reflection practices

All participants implemented reflection practices varying from formal systems to personal rituals, demonstrating both Expert and Master-level approaches.

Participant 3 established a ‘weekly cycle’ where team members answer questions about ‘what we learnt’. Their focus was on ‘emotional culture . . . about us becoming better at being people’ rather than technical skills.

Participant 2 encouraged ‘getting work up on the wall, doing pin-ups’, while noting that reflection often ‘happens by osmosis’ through conversations where designers recall ‘when we did X? We did it this way and we learned this.’ Their reflection also addressed emotional aspects of design practice, noting the importance of ‘a very delicate balance between feeling a little bit of pressure and a little bit of anxiety’ while avoiding ‘crippling anxiety’ that impedes creativity.

Participant 5 conducted ‘critiques every day’ where designers ‘talk about the theory behind’ their work, plus weekly meetings to ‘organize the week’. Participant 4 maintained daily meditation and yoga practices, which they connected to design: ‘You can balance your reaction to that external experience. And I think that’s interesting for design.’

Participant 1 reflected through teaching: ‘If you can’t teach something, you don’t really know it . . . if I stumble over it . . . that kind of forces me to rethink it.’

Constraints as creative catalysts

Three participants explicitly valued constraints in design, showing Expert-level understanding of effective problem-solving conditions.

Participant 1 preferred projects ‘with no money and more limitations’ finding it ‘easier to do when you have a lot of limitations’. They contrasted this with their [corporate company] experience: ‘You’ve got a million dollars . . . Make it look good . . . You’re not getting any satisfaction from doing it.’

Participant 3 applied constraints to their business model, deliberately scaling down while increasing profitability: ‘I don’t need more bums on seats to make more money.’

Interdisciplinary knowledge integration

Four participants emphasized integrating diverse knowledge into practice, demonstrating Master-level transformation through cross-domain fertilization.

Participant 4 sought inspiration beyond design: ‘I don’t find answers in design books or design blogs . . . travelling to me is a way of feeding and nourishing my visual sense.’ They valued their diverse background as ‘building blocks’ that ‘add beautiful value’.

Participant 3 sought ‘renaissance person[s] that has multiple things’ over traditional qualifications: ‘I don’t care what the job title is . . . where they went to school . . . if they’ve got a degree.’

Participant 5 valued their diverse background in ‘packaging, product development and point-of-purchase (POP’s), believing designers ‘have open possibilities’ and that ‘everything I’ve done along the way has added to my knowledge.’

Knowledge transfer mechanisms

These mechanisms operate predominantly within advanced levels of expertise (Expert and Master), illustrating how designers at these stages facilitate learning and knowledge transfer across their teams.

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’.

Contradictions and exceptions

While the preceding themes align with Expert and Master characteristics, the following patterns expose where such expertise is complicated by contextual or structural conditions.

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.

Discussion

Our findings both align with and extend Lawson and Dorst’s (2013) expertise model, revealing fluid movements between expertise levels and emphasizing how expert practice manifests through creating environments for collective expertise development rather than individual mastery alone. The following sections interpret these findings within existing theoretical frameworks and conclude by identifying key limitations and directions for future research.

Design expertise development: beyond technical mastery

The findings from this study suggest that design expertise development aligns with a trajectory that extends beyond technical mastery toward strategic thinking and broader field transformation. All five participants demonstrated characteristics that align with Expert and Master levels described by Lawson and Dorst (2013), with evidence of fluid movement between these levels depending on context and project demands.

The evolution from technical to strategic thinking observed across all participants appears to correspond with a shift from the rule-based approaches characteristic of novice-level behaviours toward the more intuitive and contextually responsive approaches associated with expert-level behaviours (Lawson and Dorst, 2013). Participant 1’s shift from stylistic preoccupations to problem-solving illustrates this transition, as does Participant 2’s emphasis that ‘the heavy lifting is in the thinking’ rather than the execution. This aligns with previous research by Ellmers and Foley (2020), who found that developing expertise involves moving beyond project-specific understanding to more abstract thinking.

However, this study reveals a more fluid progression than might be inferred from Lawson and Dorst’s model. Participants described deliberately moving between different levels of expertise depending on context, with Participant 4 explicitly acknowledging this fluidity as essential to ‘learning and growing’. This suggests that expertise development may be better understood as expanding one’s repertoire of available approaches rather than a linear progression from one level to the next.

Constraints as creative catalysts

A notable finding from this study is that participants demonstrated expert-level behaviours in relation to constraints, viewing limitations as productive frameworks rather than obstacles. Participant 1’s preference for projects ‘with no money and more limitations’, finding them ‘easier to do’, contrasts sharply with his dissatisfaction when given extensive resources but limited creative challenge. This aligns with Stokes’ (2008) research demonstrating that paired constraints – precluding existing solutions while promoting novel ones – are fundamental to creative breakthrough. Stokes identifies how experts often become ‘stuck’ in successful solutions, reducing the variability on which creativity depends. The deliberate embrace of constraints by participants represents what Stokes terms true ‘artistic freedom’ – the expert ability to choose and use one’s own constraints. This extends Stokes’ framework into professional design practice, suggesting that expertise development involves fundamental changes in how designers engage with limitations, transforming potential obstacles into creative catalysts. This orientation toward constraint may partly explain designers’ willingness to engage in pro bono or self-initiated work, where creative challenge becomes a primary source of motivation.

Studio culture as expertise manifestation

A significant finding is how expertise manifests through deliberate cultivation of studio culture. Four participants described consciously creating collaborative environments that challenge traditional hierarchical models, suggesting that master-level expertise may align with the ability to transform field practices beyond individual design capabilities.

The collaborative structures implemented by Participant 2 (‘the work is the work of the studio’) and Participant 5 (‘everyone was on an equal playing field’) appear to foster conditions where knowledge transfer can occur more freely. This collaborative approach to expertise development contrasts with more individualistic conceptions often emphasized in expertise literature. These findings align with Ellmers and Foley (2020) research on how structured reflection within collaborative environments can support knowledge transfer and expertise development by creating spaces where tacit knowledge becomes explicit through interaction. The findings suggest that as designers progress toward master-level characteristics, they may increasingly recognise the value of distributing expertise across teams rather than concentrating it in individuals.

This aligns with what Kokotovich and Dorst (2016) identified as the need for methods and tools to support designers in achieving improved levels of expertise. The studio cultures described by participants appear to function as such tools, creating environments that systematically foster expertise development through structured interaction and reflection.

Reflective practice as expertise development mechanism

The structured reflection practices implemented by all participants align with Schön’s (1983) concept of the reflective practitioner and appear to play a crucial role in expertise development. These practices ranged from formal documentation systems (Participant 3’s ‘standard operating procedures’) to daily critique sessions (Participant 5’s ‘critiques every day’) to personal rituals (Participant 4’s meditation practice).

These findings also align with Lawson and Dorst’s (2013) assertion that reflective practice is central to expertise development. The variety of reflection mechanisms observed suggests that as designers develop expertise, they may create increasingly sophisticated and personalised approaches to reflection that address both technical and emotional aspects of design practice. Participant 2’s attention to ‘a very delicate balance between feeling a little bit of pressure and a little bit of anxiety’ indicates that expert designers may develop nuanced understanding of the psychological dimensions of creative practice.

The role of reflection in facilitating knowledge transfer appears particularly significant. All participants described mechanisms through which tacit knowledge was made explicit, whether through documentation, critique sessions, or mentoring relationships. This aligns with Ellmers (2014) finding that shifting knowledge from tacit to explicit forms can foster conditions for transfer between projects. Such reflective processes appear foundational to how expert designers sustain growth over time, enabling them to generalise insights from specific experiences and adapt them across new contexts. These capabilities extend beyond Ellmers’ (2014, 2017) findings that novice designers often struggle to move from description and analysis toward generalisation and abstraction for knowledge transfer. Ellmers et al. (2020) later explicitly linked these findings to the development of design expertise, revealing the sophisticated reflection practices that distinguish expert design work.

Interdisciplinary knowledge and expertise breadth

The emphasis on interdisciplinary knowledge integration observed in four participants suggests that expertise development may align with increasingly porous boundaries between design and other domains. Participant 4’s seeking of inspiration beyond design books and Participant 3’s valuing of ‘renaissance person[s]’ indicate that master-level behaviours may involve deliberate cross-fertilisation between design and other fields.

This finding aligns with Tollestrup et al.’s (2023) identification of sophisticated integration of experience as characteristic of expert-level behaviours. It also extends insights from Ellmers (2014), who found that structured reflection helps design students to connect project-specific learning to broader contexts and forming generalisations that inform future work. While this study focused on students developing early-stage expertise, similar reflective mechanisms appear to underpin our participants’ more advanced ability to abstract principles from accumulated experience and apply them across domains. In this sense, the reflective capacities observed by Ellmers (2014) may represent the foundational processes that, when sustained and deepened over time, evolve into the interdisciplinary synthesis evident among expert-level behaviours.

Together, these findings suggest that expertise development involves not only deepening domain-specific knowledge but also broadening conceptual resources beyond traditional design boundaries.

Knowledge transfer mechanisms

The knowledge transfer mechanisms identified in this study reveal how experienced designers deliberately foster expertise development in their teams and studios. The formalised documentation systems, structured critique sessions, and mentoring approaches described by participants appear to align with progression from tacit to explicit knowledge, facilitating what Bransford and Schwartz (1999) call ‘preparation for future learning.’

Participant 1’s cascading approach to mentoring and Participant 4’s ‘concentric circles’ pedagogical model demonstrate how master-level designers may develop sophisticated frameworks for transferring knowledge. These approaches appear to extend beyond technical skill transmission to address deeper aspects of design thinking and identity development. Ellmers et al. (2020) identified similar patterns in their research, finding that structured reflection supports knowledge transfer by promoting the articulation of tacit design decisions and helping designers draw generalizations from specific project experiences. The formalized documentation systems and critique sessions observed in this study appear to serve similar functions in professional contexts.

The finding that all participants implemented structured critique sessions suggests that regular verbalization and social negotiation of design decisions may be crucial for expertise development. This aligns with both Tan’s (2021) emphasis on the social dimensions of expertise development and Cross’s (2018) identification of collaborative aspects in expert practice, highlighting how expert designers develop mastery of collaborative skills alongside technical capabilities.

Our findings support Tan’s (2021) argument that design expertise research needs integrative approaches that better capture the social dimensions of professional practice. The collaborative studio cultures developed by our participants illustrate what Tan describes as motivational support structures essential for expertise development. Their fluid movement between expertise levels demonstrates the adaptability that Tan identifies as a core expertise characteristic, while their evolution from technical to strategic thinking aligns with her concept of experiential knowledge as ‘an intuitive and interpreted form of formal knowledge’ (p. 18) that becomes increasingly personalized through practice. These social and psychological dimensions of expertise, often overlooked in traditional models, proved central to how our participants understood their own expertise development and how they fostered expertise in others.

Yet, alongside these integrative dimensions, our analysis also revealed contradictions between these ideals of collaborative expertise and the structural realities of professional design work.

Contradictions and structural constraints

While the preceding findings highlight sophisticated mechanisms of expertise development, further analysis revealed contradictions between participants’ stated values and the structural realities of professional design practice. This interpretation does not diminish participants’ contributions but shows how designers, even when demonstrating advanced expertise, operate within conditions that can constrain or shape their transformative potential. The following analysis identifies four recurring patterns illustrating how these structural tensions were expressed within participants’ accounts of practice. Viewed through Lawson and Dorst’s (2013) levels of expertise, these tensions suggest that progression toward advanced level expertise does not occur in isolation but within social and economic systems that both enable and constrain development.

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.

Implications for expertise theory

Taken together, these findings suggest that expertise development in design practice operates within overlapping structural constraints. These include concentrated authority within small teams led by principal designers, selective mentoring that shapes access to learning, economic dependencies that influence how principles are framed and the unacknowledged privileges that enable continuity and risk-taking. Even well-intentioned, highly skilled practitioners are still bound by the systems within which they work. These findings extend Lawson and Dorst’s (2013) model by demonstrating that progression through levels of expertise is not purely cognitive or procedural but intertwined with the social, economic and organizational contexts in which designers operate.

Current expertise models, which emphasize cognitive and technical skill acquisition, appear to understate how social, economic and structural forces shape professional trajectories. Addressing these dynamics represents an important direction for future research, particularly studies engaging more diverse practitioner groups and cross-cultural contexts.

Recognizing these conditions does not diminish participants’ achievements or their substantial contributions to expertise development within their studios. Rather, it foregrounds the systemic dimensions of professional practice – highlighting that design expertise is not only a function of individual reflection and skill but also of the environments, networks and resources that make sustained practice possible.

Limitations

This study offers valuable insights into expertise development among experienced designers, but several limitations exist. The sample of five participants limits generalizability and retrospective accounts may introduce recall biases, although the participants’ extensive industry experience (20–35 years) helps mitigate this concern. As all interviews were conducted in 2019 before the COVID-19 pandemic, the findings capture pre-pandemic professional contexts and may not reflect changes in studio culture and expertise development that occurred through subsequent remote or hybrid work conditions. Future research could expand to larger, more diverse samples and implement longitudinal approaches to track expertise development more directly.

Additionally, this study’s focus on Australian design practitioners represents a developed-country context with specific economic and cultural characteristics. Design industries in developing economies across Asia, Africa and Latin America, for example, may demonstrate different characteristics in resource availability, studio structures and knowledge transfer mechanisms. Comparative studies examining how these contextual factors influence expertise development across diverse international settings would provide valuable contributions to visual communication design research.

Future research

The rapid integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into design practice represents a critical area for future research into design expertise. As AI fundamentally alters design workflows and problem-framing approaches, the expertise characteristics and knowledge transfer mechanisms identified in this study provide a crucial baseline for understanding these transformations. Notably, this interview data was collected before recent AI tool developments. Future research proposes returning to the same participants to investigate how AI impacts their design practices and expertise development, offering insights into how established experts adapt to technological change.

Conclusion

The findings collectively respond to the study’s central research question, revealing how experienced visual communication design practitioners foster expertise through interconnected mechanisms of learning, knowledge transfer and contextual awareness. This study revealed three interconnected dimensions through which expert designers foster expertise: creating environments that enable learning, structuring knowledge transfer and responding to contextual factors shaping others’ development. These findings show that expertise extends beyond individual capability to encompass collaborative and reflective ecosystems of practice.

The knowledge-transfer mechanisms identified, documentation, critique and mentoring, offer practical strategies for both education and industry, demonstrating how expert designers actively construct conditions where expertise can evolve rather than relying on personal mastery alone. As design practice adapts to AI integration, the characteristics identified here provide a valuable baseline for understanding these transformations. A key question for the field is how emerging designers will continue to acquire the experiential learning and critical judgment necessary for developing expertise as AI systems increasingly automate or reshape stages of the design process that once offered novices essential opportunities for building experience and progress toward mastery.