Design Thinking in Business and Professional Communication Pedagogy: A Review of Pedagogical Studies,2014

Abstract

This review analyzes 59 studies from 2014 to 2024 examining design thinking integration in professional communication pedagogy across eight disciplinary journals. Design thinking has evolved from experimental use to systematic pedagogical approaches, with assignment-level integration proving most viable for educators. Empathy interviews and user research bridge design thinking principles with communication pedagogy’s audience awareness focus. Students show enhanced empathy, improved collaboration, and increased creative confidence with high motivation levels. Implementation challenges include time constraints, student resistance to ambiguity, and assessment difficulties. The study recommends scaffolded introduction, integration with existing content, and institutional support for desirable implementation in business and professional communication pedagogy.

Keywords

design thinking pedagogy curriculum design experiential learning user-centered design

Introduction

Ever impacted by organizational trends and cultural conditions of the workforce, business and professional communication pedagogy faces a compelling challenge: while the field has evolved from transmission-based models to process-oriented, audience-centered approaches, evidence from student feedback and industry partnerships reveals persistent gaps between classroom learning and workplace application (Kleckner & Butz, 2021; Schieber, 2016). A recent dual bibliometric analysis of business communication research, published here in BPCQ, reveals that contemporary scholarship increasingly emphasizes themes such as soft skills, artificial intelligence (AI) literacy, digital communication, and experiential learning—areas that align with workplace needs yet are still underrepresented in traditional pedagogical models (Phan, 2025). Surveys show that students demonstrate competency in rhetorical analysis and document production, yet many continue to struggle with the iterative, collaborative problem solving that characterizes contemporary professional communication practice (Lentz, 2013; Wright & Hall, 2019). This disconnect suggests that our pedagogical frameworks may benefit from methodological approaches that operationalize the user-centered, process-based principles we champion while developing the creative confidence and collaborative agility that employers consistently identify as critical competencies.

Addressing these gaps requires reimagining business communication pedagogy as a space for cultivating innovation and adaptive problem solving. We know that professional communication should be framed as a strategic resource for organizations that is integral to innovation and leadership development, rather than as a set of ancillary skills, as our colleagues (Andrews, 2017; Jameson, 2009) remind us. But emerging sociotechnical shifts pose new complexities. Research reveals that a majority of Americans now work in hybrid arrangements requiring fundamentally new communication competencies (Andrews, 2025; Rupcic, 2024), while miscommunication costs US businesses trillions annually (McKinsey & Company, 2024). Of note, cross-functional collaboration has become the dominant work mode, with executives reporting frequent interdisciplinary collaboration at worker levels (D’Souza et al., 2022). Agile business processes fundamentally alter communication patterns (Inayat & Salim, 2015), as agile teams make decisions faster than hierarchical structures, requiring continuous iteration, real-time feedback, and transparent coordination across distributed teams. Technology acceleration compounds these challenges, with more workers using generative AI in the past year (DeVasto & Palmer, 2024), indicating massive skill development needs that business and professional communication curricula are asked to address.

Against this backdrop, “design thinking” has emerged as a potentially transformative pedagogical approach that addresses many existing challenges highlighted above. Within the last decade, design thinking has been increasingly adopted in higher education (Koh et al., 2015; Matthews & Wrigley, 2017; Razzouk & Shute, 2012; Wang, 2024) and professional communication education specifically (Armstrong, 2016; Duin et al., 2017; Durá et al., 2019; Yilmaz, 2022) as both a pedagogical method and subject of scholarly inquiry, promoting educators to experiment with empathy-driven research, iterative prototyping, and collaborative problem solving as means of deepening rhetorical competencies while addressing the workplace communication issues brought about by agile processes and technological acceleration. Design thinking’s emphasis on human-centered inquiry, iterative solutions, and collaborative innovation aligns closely with the central aims of business and professional communication, that is, developing ethical, audience-aware, and adaptive communicators (Glen et al., 2014; Grant, 2025; Suresh & Kolluru, 2022; Welsh & Dehler, 2013).

Originally developed in design and engineering contexts, design thinking offers a mindset and approach to learning, collaboration, and problem solving that provides a structured framework for identifying challenges, gathering information, generating potential solutions, refining ideas, and testing solutions (Duin et al., 2019; Luka, 2014; Tham, 2021a) . The methodology’s emphasis on human-centered problem solving, iterative development, and collaborative innovation (as shown in Figure 1) aligns naturally with contemporary business communication pedagogy’s focus on audience awareness, process orientation, and authentic learning experiences (Liedtka, 2018). At the same time, design thinking has not been without critique—its corporatization and risk of superficial adoption require careful consideration in pedagogical contexts (Marback, 2009; Schell, 2018). This study, therefore, examines how design thinking has been integrated into business and professional communication pedagogy over the past decade, identifying where it has produced substantive innovation and where its application has remained perfunctory.

Figure 1.

A popular version of design thinking methodological progression (Tham, 2021a).

The integration of design thinking into communication education represents more than pedagogical innovation—it reflects fundamental epistemological shifts toward approaches that better prepare students for professional communication challenges (Andrews & Tham, 2021; Duin et al., 2017). In fact, technical and communication literature provides compelling precedent for design thinking adoption in business communication contexts. Technical writing programs have systematically integrated design thinking approaches with measurable success across multiple institutions and scholarly research venues (e.g., Pellegrini, 2022; Tham et al., 2022; Ponce, 2023). The Journal of Business and Technical Communication published a comprehensive 2019 special issue on “Design Thinking in Technical and Professional Communication,” while IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication regularly features design thinking research (e.g., Tham, 2022; Y. Yu et al., 2025). Studies demonstrate that design thinking pedagogy fosters empathy development while enhancing problem-solving, critical thinking, and communication skills essential for modern collaboration (Pope-Ruark et al., 2019). Implementation patterns across TPC programs provide concrete frameworks for business communication adoption: gradual integration beginning with individual courses, expansion to programwide implementation over time (Verhulsdonck et al., 2021), emphasis on authentic client projects (Jamal et al., 2021), and interdisciplinary collaboration with design and business programs (Çeviker-Çınar et al., 2017; Vallis & Redmond, 2021).

Of course, while business communication and technical/professional communication share pedagogical concerns, important distinctions exist. Business communication programs typically reside in business schools, emphasizing organizational strategy, leadership communication, and managerial decision making. Technical and professional communication programs, often housed in English or humanities departments, tend to focus more on user experience, documentation, and information design. These institutional placements shape different learning outcomes: business communication may prioritize strategic thinking and organizational impact, while technical communication emphasizes information architecture and usability. Student expectations may also differ, with business students seeking integration with management concepts and technical communication students expecting engagement with user-centered design principles. Notwithstanding these distinctions, the influence of design thinking across professional communication pedagogies—business and technical alike—deserves our attention.

Despite growing practitioner interest and scattered implementation reports, our field lacks a systematic understanding of how design thinking has been integrated into business and professional communication pedagogy, what approaches have proven most effective, and what challenges educators face in implementation. This knowledge gap becomes particularly problematic as communication educators increasingly seek evidence-based approaches to curriculum innovation. While individual case studies and implementation reports provide valuable insights, they offer limited guidance for systematic adoption across diverse institutional contexts. The absence of comprehensive analysis makes it difficult to identify best practices, anticipate implementation challenges, or measure the true scope of design thinking’s influence on business and professional communication education.

Furthermore, the rapid evolution of design thinking adoption, from experimental implementations to systematic integration, demands documentation to inform future pedagogical development. As the field moves toward more sophisticated understanding of how design thinking principles can enhance communication competencies, systematic analysis becomes essential for distinguishing effective practices from superficial adaptations.

This study addresses these critical knowledge gaps by conducting a systematic review of design thinking integration in business and professional communication pedagogy over the past decade. The study reviews 59 studies published between 2014 and 2024 in eight leading business and professional communication journals through a search protocol focusing on design thinking implementations in business and professional communication courses, with inclusion criteria requiring empirical data on student outcomes, pedagogical methods, or implementation challenges. By analyzing implementation patterns, learning outcomes, and reported challenges across diverse educational contexts, this research provides essential evidence for educators, administrators, and scholars seeking to understand design thinking’s role in contemporary communication education and its potential for transforming pedagogical practice.

Literature Review

Design thinking has emerged as a transformative pedagogical approach in business and professional communication education, with empirical evidence showing significant positive effects on student learning outcomes (H. Yu et al., 2024). This systematic integration represents a fundamental shift from traditional communication pedagogy toward human-centered, collaborative problem-solving approaches that better prepare students for complex workplace challenges. The evolution from experimental adoption (2009–2014) to disciplinary consolidation (2019) to systematic implementation (2020–2024) demonstrates design thinking’s progression from peripheral innovation to core pedagogical approach within business and professional communication education.

Connecting Design and Professional Communication

Design thinking emerged from design practice but has evolved into a broadly applicable methodology for addressing complex, user-centered problems. The Stanford University d.school design thinking model consists of five stages as shown in Figure 1: “empathize,” “define,” “ideate,” “prototype,” and “test.” While various models exist, most design thinking frameworks share common elements that distinguish the approach from traditional problem-solving methods used in communication education.

Existing literature establishes some theoretical frameworks connecting design thinking to professional and business communication pedagogy. Most significantly, design thinking functions as an inherently rhetorical methodology rather than merely a problem-solving tool. Design thinking’s user-centeredness directly parallels rhetorical theory’s emphasis on audience analysis and contextual communication. Greenwood et al. (2019) demonstrate that design thinking operates through rhetorical principles of dissensus, resistance, and audience-centered decision making, positioning it within classical rhetorical theory’s emphasis on contextual communication and practical reasoning (phronesis). This connection proves particularly relevant for business communication educators who emphasize rhetorical situation awareness as fundamental to effective workplace communication.

Social constructivist learning theory provides the second major theoretical connection. Leinonen and Durall (2014) link design thinking to Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development and collaborative knowledge building, arguing that its human-centered, participatory nature naturally supports collective meaning-making processes central to communication education. Process-based pedagogical theory offers the next connection point, with Leverenz (2014) establishing theoretical parallels between design thinking’s iterative methodology and process writing pedagogy, demonstrating how both approaches emphasize revision, reflection, and audience awareness. Process writing theory aligns with design thinking’s revision-based instruction and metacognitive awareness development.

Critical pedagogy represents another major theoretical framework, with Lake et al. (2024) connecting design thinking to transformative learning theory and decolonizing education practices. Critical pedagogy connections enable design thinking to address issues of power, equity, and inclusion in communication education. By situating design thinking within critical pedagogy, educators can foreground how communication practices both reflect and reproduce systemic inequities, while also creating space for students to imagine more just and participatory futures. This framing positions design thinking not only as a creative method but also as a transformative practice that interrogates whose problems are being solved and whose voices are centered.

Complementing these critical dimensions, experiential learning theory highlights how design thinking’s emphasis on doing, making, and iterating translates transformative ideals into lived classroom practice. For example, Tham (2021b) demonstrates how project-based learning approaches support communication competency development through hands-on creation and collaborative problem solving. These learning activities support communication competency development through authentic practice. Experiential learning frameworks further highlight how design thinking cultivates adaptive expertise, as students learn to transfer skills across contexts by engaging with open-ended, ill-structured problems. Such approaches prepare learners to navigate uncertainty and ambiguity in professional environments where solutions must often be invented rather than applied.

Taken together, these theoretical connections reveal design thinking’s versatility as more than a pedagogical method: it is a rhetorical, social, critical, and experiential framework that equips students to innovate, problem-solve, and ethically navigate the complexities of contemporary professional communication.

Current Pedagogical Needs and Integration Models

Systematic analysis of business and professional communication pedagogy shows increasing trends in interdisciplinary, inclusive, and technology-driven approaches with recurrent themes of student-centered objectives, technology-based delivery, and diverse assessments (Phan, 2025). Professional communication pedagogy has evolved significantly toward approaches that emphasize understanding context, audience, and purpose as foundational to effective communication, creating natural alignment with design thinking’s user-centered focus. However, professional communication educators face several ongoing challenges that design thinking integration might address.

Engagement and motivation represent persistent concerns, as existing communication courses sometimes struggle with student engagement, particularly when content feels disconnected from students’ interests and career goals. Transfer of learning presents another significant challenge, with students often struggling to apply communication principles learned in academic contexts to new workplace situations. Design thinking’s emphasis on authentic, real-world problem solving may help address these transfer challenges by providing concrete frameworks for applying communication principles in professional contexts.

The integration of design thinking into communication education represents more than pedagogical innovation; it addresses fundamental alignment between methodologies that share common epistemological foundations. Research reveals several distinct approaches to integrating design thinking into communication education, ranging from course-level integration to assignment-specific implementations.

Academic literature documents several validated pedagogical frameworks for integrating design thinking into communication education. The Educational Design Ladder Framework (Wrigley & Straker, 2017) provides structured five-level progression from basic concepts to advanced application, while Stanford’s adapted framework (Choi, Kim & Kim, 2024) implements the classic five-step process through three progressive cycles across a semester, emphasizing authentic learning experiences through community partnerships.

Northwestern’s Design Thinking and Communication (DTC) course represents a full integration model where communication instruction is embedded within the context of design, with students working on real design problems for actual clients. Assignment-level integration offers a more targeted approach. Assignment-level integration refers to the inclusion of design thinking principles or activities within specific course assignments or modules without redesigning the entire course structure. Many educators begin with individual assignments that incorporate specific design thinking methods such as empathy mapping, persona development, or prototype testing.

The Design Thinking Teaching and Learning Framework (McLaughlin et al., 2023) provides multidimensional categorization across faculty definitions, teaching motivations, and implementation practices, supporting systematic faculty development and institutional adoption. Specialized frameworks address specific contexts, including makerspace-based pedagogy that integrates physical creation with communication objectives and the UX community and classroom partnership model (Lee, Turner & Rose, 2023) for large-scale authentic projects.

Nevertheless, these integration frameworks still require critical examination. Design thinking approaches have succeeded most notably in institutional environments with substantial resources, cross-disciplinary collaboration opportunities, and administrative support for experimental pedagogy. They strain in contexts with limited budgets, rigid curriculum structures, or faculty lacking design thinking training (Pope-Ruark, 2019). Without sufficient preparation and support, these frameworks may feel more aspirational than actionable (Henriksen et al., 2020). The tension between design thinking’s exploration and academic assessment requirements also creates further challenges that educators must navigate carefully (Benson & Dresdow, 2014; Panke, 2019).

Pedagogical Outcomes

Meta-analytic evidence from 25 studies reveals significant positive effects of design thinking on student learning (H. Yu et al., 2024). The overall effect size of r = 0.436 represents upper-medium impact, with particularly strong effects for learning engagement (r = 0.740) and motivation (r = 0.608). Individual studies provide additional empirical validation, with Guaman-Quintanilla et al. (2023) conducting quasi-experimental research with 910 university students, demonstrating significant improvements in problem-solving skills (d = 0.85 effect size) and creativity measures.

Other research reports several positive outcomes from design thinking integration. Enhanced empathy represents a frequently reported benefit, with design thinking pedagogy fostering students’ ability to recognize the feelings, knowledge, and perspectives of others (Kim et al., 2023). Improved problem-solving skills emerge as another common outcome, with design thinking increasing students’ ability to iterate and solve macro- and micro-level problems while approaching unfamiliar or ill-structured tasks (Foster, 2021). Creative confidence shows consistent improvement across implementations, and collaborative skills develop through design thinking’s team-based methodology (Grant, 2025; Jaskyte, 2024).

However, professional communication–specific empirical research remains limited. Most studies focus on STEM applications, leaving business communication educators to extrapolate findings from other disciplinary contexts. This represents a critical research gap requiring systematic attention to establish field-specific outcome measures and effectiveness indicators.

Implementation Barriers

Despite theoretical foundations and empirical support, design thinking implementation faces significant pedagogical and institutional challenges. The most fundamental issue is what Schell (2018) identifies as the “wicked pedagogy problem”—tension between demand for accelerated learning models and the reality that effective design thinking education requires sustained, decelerated practice.

Faculty preparedness represents a critical barrier, with Choi et al. (2024) and McLaughlin et al. (2023) documenting widespread lack of interdisciplinary training among faculty. Time and resource constraints present practical challenges, as effective implementation requires more time and resources than traditional pedagogical approaches. Assessment complexity creates methodological challenges, with traditional assessment methods struggling to capture the learning that occurs through design thinking processes (Retna, 2019). Because grading systems often prioritize standardization over iteration and experimentation, educators face ongoing tension between evaluating creative processes and satisfying institutional accountability requirements.

Student-centered challenges include initial confusion with the methodology’s ambiguity and nonlinear nature, creativity deficits, and difficulty transferring design thinking principles to other contexts (Beligatamulla et al., 2019). Research also reveals significant limitations requiring thoughtful implementation rather than uncritical adoption. Critics identify that design thinking can privilege the designers above the people they serve, potentially creating approaches that maintain rather than challenge systemic issues (Tham, 2022). Cultural biases present serious challenges, with design thinking’s emphasis on “radical collaboration” and “empathy” potentially conflicting with cultural norms in many contexts. The most promising implementations involve reforming design thinking to be culturally responsive while recognizing when alternative pedagogical approaches may be preferable.

Research Rationale

As demonstrated, literature on design thinking in professional communication education remains fragmented, relying heavily on case studies and practitioner reflections rather than systematic analysis. This lack of comprehensive inquiry limits understanding of how design thinking has shaped business and professional communication pedagogy and prevents the development of discipline-specific best practices. Although design thinking has moved from experimental adoption to sustained curricular integration, no study has mapped this evolution or examined its pedagogical outcomes for professional and business communication. Critical questions remain:

Which design thinking elements are most commonly used in business and professional communication courses?

How do design thinking implementation approaches differ across institutions?

What factors support or hinder successful integration?

While STEM-based meta-analyses affirm design thinking’s educational benefits, communication educators lack evidence specific to their field. Outcome assessments often rely on qualitative impressions rather than standardized measures, making it difficult to evaluate effectiveness across contexts. As Pope-Ruark’s (2019) framework and Tham’s (2021a, 2021b) methodology show, design thinking requires careful adaptation to communication contexts, not wholesale transfer of models from other disciplines. Addressing these gaps demands systematic research that documents adoption patterns, identifies enabling and constraining conditions, and evaluates outcomes. Such work would establish an empirical foundation for professional communication-specific best practices and guide future pedagogical innovation.

Methodology

This study employs a focused literature review methodology to examine design thinking integration in technical, professional, and business communication pedagogy. Rather than conducting a comprehensive systematic review across multiple databases, this approach focuses on peer-reviewed pedagogical research and teaching cases published in leading disciplinary journals over the past decade. This methodological approach ensures access to high-quality, peer-reviewed sources while maintaining disciplinary relevance and allowing for in-depth analysis of detailed pedagogical descriptions, implementation strategies, and outcome assessments characteristic of teaching cases and pedagogical research articles.

The 10-year window (2014–2024) was selected because, as field literature reveals, 2014 marks a notable transition point when design thinking moved from conceptual discussions to more intentional curricular integration, coinciding with increased publication of empirical studies of pedagogical applications. This time frame captures the maturation of design thinking in higher education and its response to contemporary workplace demands. The focused approach to the literature review in this study is particularly appropriate for pedagogical research, where the depth and detail of implementation descriptions often matter more than the breadth of coverage. Teaching cases and pedagogical research articles typically provide rich, contextual information about course design, student responses, implementation challenges, and lessons learned that may be absent from brief mentions of design thinking in broader educational research.

Eight journals were selected based on their reputation, impact factor, disciplinary relevance, and history of publishing pedagogical research in technical and business communication. Technical communication journals included Technical Communication Quarterly (TCQ), IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication (IEEE TPC), and Journal of Technical Writing and Communication (JTWC). Business communication journals included International Journal of Business Communication (IJBC), Management Communication Quarterly (MCQ), and Business and Professional Communication Quarterly (BPCQ). Interdisciplinary journals included Journal of Business and Technical Communication (JBTC) and Communication Design Quarterly (CDQ). These journals represent the most prestigious venues for pedagogical research in technical and business communication, ensuring the literature reviewed reflects the field’s highest standards for pedagogical scholarship.

The search strategy employed a multiphase approach to ensure comprehensive coverage. Phase 1 involved systematic searching of each journal’s website using both native search functions and advanced search capabilities. Primary search terms included “design thinking,” “human-centered design,” “design process,” and “design methodology.” Secondary search terms combined with primary terms included “pedagogy,” “teaching,” “curriculum,” “course design,” “student learning,” “learning outcomes,” and “case study.” Search parameters maintained consistency across journals with date range covering January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2024, including all article types, limited to English publications, and searching title, abstract, keywords, and full text where available. Phase 2 involved database verification through targeted searches in Communication & Mass Media Complete (EBSCO), limited specifically to the eight target journals. Phase 3 implemented reference checking procedures, manual-searching reference lists of all included articles to identify additional relevant publications.

Articles were included if they met comprehensive publication, content, and methodological requirements. Publication parameters required articles published in target journals between 2014 and 2024, representing peer-reviewed research articles, teaching cases, or pedagogical reflections, accessible in English. Content requirements demanded primary focus on pedagogy with explicit integration of design thinking concepts in technical, business, or professional communication education contexts at undergraduate or graduate levels. Methodological requirements included empirical data, detailed case studies, or substantive pedagogical descriptions with evidence of implementation and reported outcomes.

Articles were excluded based on content, methodological, and contextual criteria, eliminating purely theoretical discussions without pedagogical implementation, literature reviews, conference abstracts lacking sufficient detail, noncommunication contexts, opinion pieces without empirical support, K-12 contexts, and corporate training contexts unless explicitly connected to academic pedagogy.

Based on systematic search and analysis, 59 articles were identified that met inclusion criteria. A standardized data extraction form captured study characteristics, pedagogical context, implementation details, assessment data, and theoretical frameworks. Data analysis included quantitative approaches examining publication patterns and implementation frequencies, and qualitative thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-phase approach to identify patterns in implementation strategies, challenges, and student experiences across the 59 included studies. The author independently conducted all qualitative coding. Consistent with interpretive and rhetorical research traditions in business and professional communication, this single-coder approach enabled coherence between the study’s theoretical framework and analytic interpretation while maintaining transparency through iterative memoing and reflexive review.

Results

Study Characteristics and Integration Patterns

The systematic search of eight leading technical and business communication journals yielded 59 articles for final analysis, representing pedagogical research and teaching cases published between 2014 and 2024. These articles demonstrate substantial growth in design thinking integration across communication education, with particularly strong representation in recent years. JTWC contributed the highest number of articles (14, 23.7%), followed by the JBTC with 10 articles (16.9%). TCQ and IEEE TPC each contributed 8 articles (13.6%), while CDQ also provided 8 articles (13.6%). BPCQ contributed 6 articles (10.2%), IJBC provided 3 articles (5.1%), and MCQ contributed 2 articles (3.4%).

As shown in Figure 2, the included articles represented diverse institutional contexts, spanning public research universities, private institutions, community colleges, and international universities across North America, Europe, and Asia. Educational levels included 34 undergraduate-focused implementations (57.6%), 18 graduate-level approaches (30.5%), and 7 mixed-level programs (11.9%). Article types included 23 empirical research studies (39.0%), 28 detailed teaching cases (47.5%), and 8 pedagogical reflections (13.6%), providing comprehensive coverage of design thinking implementation approaches in communication education.

Figure 2.

Design thinking implementation approaches found in 59 studies.

Publication frequency showed steady growth from 2014 to 2019 (23 articles, 39.0%) followed by significant acceleration from 2020 to 2024 (36 articles, 61.0%), with peak years in 2022-2024 representing 42.4% of all publications. This pattern suggests increasing recognition of design thinking’s pedagogical value and growing experimentation with implementation approaches. The notable acceleration after 2018 (from 3.2 to 7.8 articles per year) coincides with broader institutional interest in experiential learning and workplace readiness initiatives.

Analysis of the 59 studies revealed three distinct approaches to integrating design thinking into technical and business communication pedagogy (refer to Figure 3 for summary comparison). For analytical consistency, this study categorized design thinking implementation approaches into three levels based on scope and pedagogical intent. First, assignment-level integration refers to integrations that typically emphasize targeted application of design thinking principles through learning activities—such as empathy interviews, persona development, or journey mapping—within an existing communication course. Second, course-level integration denotes a full redesign of a course in which design thinking principles structure the overall curriculum, learning outcomes, and assessment strategies across the semester. Finally, tool-specific adoption (or tool-specific implementation) describes the limited use of individual design thinking tools—such as 3D printing in rapid prototyping and think-aloud protocols in usability testing—introduced as stand-alone pedagogical exercises rather than as part of a broader framework. Together, these categories help differentiate the depth and scope of design thinking’s pedagogical incorporation across communication programs.

Figure 3.

Comparison of design thinking implementation efforts and characteristics.

Assignment-level integration represented the most common approach, appearing in 26 studies (44.1%) and involving integration of design thinking into specific assignments or course units within otherwise traditional course structures. These approaches typically focused on major semester projects (4-8 weeks’ duration), case study analyses with design thinking frameworks, or capstone projects incorporating user research and prototyping phases. Implementation duration ranged from 2 to 8 weeks, with most lasting 4 to 6 weeks. Representative examples include client-based projects where students conducted user interviews, developed personas, ideated solutions, created prototypes, and conducted user testing for real organizational communication challenges.

Course-level integration appeared in 15 studies (25.4%), involving comprehensive course redesign approaches where design thinking principles guided overall course structure and learning objectives. These implementations typically involved semester-long courses (12–16 weeks) with design thinking frameworks embedded throughout curriculum design, assignment sequences, and assessment approaches. Common characteristics included iterative project cycles, client-based assignments, collaborative team structures, and portfolio-based assessment combining process documentation with final deliverables. Notable examples include comprehensive business communication course designs where students progressed through empathize–define–ideate–prototype–test cycles across multiple communication projects, and technical communication courses that integrated maker pedagogy with design thinking, combining hands-on prototyping with traditional communication deliverables. These course-level implementations required significant faculty development time (reported range: 40-80 hours of preparation) but produced the most comprehensive student skill development across empathy, creativity, collaboration, and iterative problem solving.

Tool-specific implementation occurred in 18 studies (30.5%), focusing on particular design thinking methods without comprehensive course restructuring. These focused approaches were often characterized by shorter implementation periods (1–3 weeks) and integration into existing assignment structures rather than wholesale curriculum revision.

Design Thinking Methods and Pedagogical Applications

Across all 59 studies, analysis revealed clear preferences for certain design thinking methods, with selection patterns correlating strongly with course context, student level, and implementation approach. Empathy interviews and user research emerged as the most popular approach, implemented in 32 studies representing 54.2% of the total. These implementations typically involved structured interview protocols, user observation activities, and stakeholder analysis. Technical communication courses emphasized workplace user research, while business communication implementations focused on organizational stakeholder analysis.

Persona development followed as the second most common method, appearing in 28 studies or 47.5% of cases. Approaches ranged from simple user profiles to comprehensive persona documents that included user journey mapping, pain points analysis, and design implications. Graduate courses typically required more sophisticated persona development with supporting research documentation, while undergraduate courses often used simplified templates to introduce user-centered thinking. Persona development appeared notably more often in business communication contexts than in technical communication courses. This pattern likely reflects the alignment between persona work and strategic communication goals common in business curricula, where understanding client segments, leadership audiences, or organizational stakeholders is emphasized. Unlike technical contexts that prioritize usability and documentation fidelity, business communication tends to frame personas as rhetorical tools for tailoring messages and informing decision-making strategies. This finding suggests that persona development functions as both a design and managerial heuristic within business pedagogy, reinforcing communication’s strategic role in organizational settings. Ideation and brainstorming activities were implemented in 24 studies, accounting for 40.7% of the research. Methods included structured brainstorming sessions, mind mapping, “How Might We” questioning, and divergent thinking exercises. Business communication courses more frequently emphasized ideation for strategic communication solutions.

Prototyping activities appeared in 21 studies representing 35.6% of implementations. Prototyping approaches included paper prototypes, digital mockups, storyboards, and communication artifacts. Technical communication courses emphasized functional prototypes, while business communication focused on strategic frameworks and process models. User testing and feedback methods were implemented in 19 studies, comprising 32.2% of the total. Testing methods ranged from informal feedback sessions to structured usability testing protocols, with implementation approaches varying significantly based on available resources and course duration.

Clear disciplinary patterns emerged in design thinking method selection. Technical communication courses showed stronger preference for user research methods (67.9% vs. 42.3% in business communication), prototyping activities (53.6% vs. 23.1%), and usability testing (46.4% vs. 19.2%). Business communication courses more frequently implemented ideation methods (53.8% vs. 32.1% in technical communication), strategic thinking frameworks (46.2% vs. 17.9%), and stakeholder analysis approaches (42.3% vs. 25.0%). Graduate-level implementations were significantly more likely to include comprehensive user research (72.2% vs. 44.1% undergraduate), sophisticated prototyping (61.1% vs. 26.5%), and formal user testing (55.6% vs. 20.6%), while undergraduate courses emphasized ideation (50.0% vs. 27.8% graduate) and collaborative activities (58.8% vs. 38.9%).

The research revealed clear preferences for specific design thinking models, with educators gravitating toward established frameworks that provided structured approaches to implementation. The Stanford d.school 5-stage model emerged as the most commonly referenced framework, appearing in 42 studies representing 71.2% of the research. This model’s popularity appeared related to its clear structure and extensive supporting materials. The IDEO design thinking approach was cited in 23 studies, accounting for 39.0% of implementations, particularly in studies emphasizing human-centered design principles and creative confidence development. The Double Diamond design process appeared in 18 studies representing 30.5% of the research, especially in studies focusing on problem definition and solution development phases.

Learning Outcomes and Student Development

The 59 studies employed diverse assessment approaches ranging from traditional measures to innovative evaluation methods specifically designed for design thinking integration. Twenty-one studies (35.6%) reported quantitative measures of student learning or engagement, including pre/post assessment scores showing improvement across communication competencies, rubric-based evaluation of design thinking skills, and engagement surveys indicating positive response rates for design thinking integration value. Thematic analysis of student feedback across all 59 studies revealed five consistent themes that emerged from student experiences with design thinking pedagogies. Enhanced empathy and user awareness represented the most frequently mentioned outcome, appearing in 47 studies or 79.7% of the research. Students frequently described improved ability to understand user perspectives, recognize stakeholder needs, and consider contextual factors in communication design.

Increased creative confidence emerged as another significant theme, mentioned in 42 studies representing 71.2% of the total. Students reported greater willingness to experiment, iterate, and explore unconventional solutions. Improved collaborative skills appeared in 38 studies, accounting for 64.4% of the research. Students consistently noted enhanced teamwork abilities, communication within groups, and appreciation for diverse perspectives.

The development of an iterative mindset was documented in 35 studies, representing 59.3% of implementations. Students described fundamental shifts toward seeing communication as an iterative process requiring revision, testing, and refinement. Professional relevance recognition rounded out the major themes, appearing in 31 studies or 52.5% of the research. Students frequently connected design thinking skills to future career requirements, noting relevance for workplace problem solving, client communication, and project management.

Across implementations, students demonstrated measurable development in several key areas. Empathy and user awareness showed the strongest development patterns, with improvement documented in 47 studies representing 79.7% of the total research. Students exhibited enhanced ability to conduct user research, analyze stakeholder needs, and design user-centered communications. Creative problem solving emerged as another significant area of growth, with enhanced creativity reported in 42 studies accounting for 71.2% of the research, demonstrated through increased ideation quantity and quality, novel solution development, and greater comfort with ambiguous problem spaces. Collaboration and teamwork skills showed notable improvement, with enhanced collaborative abilities noted in 38 studies representing 64.4% of implementations. The adoption of iterative processes represented a fundamental shift in student approaches, documented in 35 studies comprising 59.3% of the research, demonstrated through increased revision frequency, more proactive feedback seeking behaviors, and greater comfort with developing and refining multiple solution iterations.

Implementation Challenges and Success Factors

Educators across the 59 studies reported both significant benefits and notable challenges in implementing design thinking approaches, with clear patterns emerging across different implementation contexts. Time and resource constraints emerged as the most significant barrier, cited in 41 studies representing 69.5% of the research. Educators consistently noted that design thinking implementation required significantly more class time for activities, extensive preparation time for additional preparation, and additional resources including space, materials, and technology support.

Student resistance to ambiguity represented another major challenge, appearing in 32 studies or 54.2% of implementations. Students accustomed to structured assignments often struggled with design thinking’s open-ended nature, requiring additional scaffolding and expectation management from instructors. This resistance was particularly notable in business communication contexts where students expected clearer guidelines and predetermined solutions. The phenomenon can be understood through cognitive load theory and novice–expert development frameworks, which suggest that learners new to ill-structured problem spaces experience heightened cognitive strain and uncertainty in goal setting. Without adequate scaffolding, this strain can limit creative exploration and reflective engagement. Effective implementations therefore mitigate ambiguity resistance by sequencing tasks, modeling iterative processes, and offering formative feedback that gradually shifts students from novice uncertainty toward expert tolerance for complexity. Assessment and grading challenges posed additional difficulties for educators, documented in 28 studies comprising 47.5% of the research. Traditional grading approaches proved inadequate for design thinking processes, requiring development of new rubrics, portfolio-based assessment strategies, and evaluation methods that assess process alongside products. Institutional support limitations rounded out the major implementation barriers, cited in 23 studies representing 39.0% of the total.

Together, these findings suggest that the same factors that complicate design thinking implementation—such as students’ initial discomfort with ambiguity and the difficulty of assessing iterative, collaborative work—also illuminate the conditions under which it succeeds. The success factors identified in the reviewed studies often respond directly to these barriers through deliberate scaffolding, adaptive assessment design, and institutional support mechanisms that sustain innovative pedagogy.

Successful implementations consistently built on these insights, emphasizing gradual introduction of design thinking principles, alignment between activities and learning objectives, and institutional conditions that encourage experimentation. Time and resource constraints remained recurring concerns, yet instructors who employed structured scaffolding and flexible scheduling reported higher student engagement and stronger learning outcomes. Scaffolded introduction emerged as the most critical success factor, reported in 38 studies (64.4%), as gradual exposure to design thinking activities allowed students to develop tolerance for ambiguity and confidence in iterative processes. Clear connections between design thinking activities and existing communication learning outcomes also proved vital, documented in 35 studies (59.3%), as explicit framing helped students understand the purpose and professional relevance of these methods. Administrative and institutional support played a decisive role in long-term success, noted in 31 studies (52.5%), by providing time, space, and policy flexibility for faculty to experiment with innovative pedagogies. Faculty preparation further strengthened implementation outcomes, emphasized in 29 studies (49.2%), with formal design thinking training and peer mentorship enabling educators to integrate new approaches with confidence. These conditions collectively translate design thinking from an aspirational concept into a viable and sustainable pedagogical practice. They demonstrate that design thinking thrives not through isolated innovation but through systemic commitment to iterative, reflective, and human-centered learning design.

Faculty development emerged as a critical condition for successful and sustainable implementation. Design thinking training represented the most fundamental requirement, mentioned by 67.8% of implementing educators. Most faculty required formal preparation in design thinking principles, facilitation techniques, and user-centered research methods before achieving effective integration. Ongoing peer collaboration also proved essential, valued by 61.0% of instructors who had attempted implementation, as it provided a forum for sharing strategies, materials, and reflective insights. Assessment strategy development rounded out the major professional development needs, noted by 54.2% of faculty, emphasizing the challenge of aligning process-oriented evaluation with institutional grading structures.

Theoretical Foundations and Institutional Contexts

The 59 studies drew upon diverse theoretical frameworks to support design thinking integration, with clear patterns emerging in theoretical justification and pedagogical grounding. Constructivist learning theory emerged as the most frequently cited pedagogical framework, appearing in 32 studies representing 54.2% of the research. Social learning theory followed as another significant theoretical foundation, cited in 28 studies or 47.5% of implementations. Problem-based learning provided theoretical grounding for 24 studies, accounting for 40.7% of the research. Experiential learning theory rounded out the major theoretical frameworks, appearing in 21 studies representing 35.6% of implementations.

Educators demonstrated various approaches to connecting design thinking principles with established communication theory. Rhetorical theory connections emerged as the most common integration approach, appearing in 43 studies representing 72.9% of the research. Design thinking’s audience focus aligned naturally with rhetorical situation analysis, user research methods connected directly to traditional audience analysis practices, and iterative design processes paralleled established revision processes in communication pedagogy. User-centered design links provided another significant theoretical bridge, documented in 38 studies or 64.4% of implementations. Process writing integration appeared in 31 studies, comprising 52.5% of the research, demonstrating how design thinking’s iterative methodology enhanced existing process approaches to writing and communication development.

Implementation success and approaches varied significantly across different institutional and contextual factors. Research universities represented the largest portion of implementations, appearing in 34 studies or 57.6% of the research. These institutions were more likely to implement comprehensive course redesigns, emphasize research-based user methods, and require extensive faculty development support. Teaching-focused institutions comprised 18 studies, accounting for 30.5% of implementations, and typically focused on assignment-level integration rather than comprehensive course overhauls. Community colleges represented the smallest portion of implementations, appearing in 7 studies or 11.9% of the research, emphasizing workforce preparation, industry partnerships, and shorter-duration activities.

Studies consistently reported various resource requirements for effective implementation. Physical space modifications emerged as critical infrastructure needs, including flexible classroom arrangements featuring moveable furniture, wall space for posting materials, and breakout areas for team collaboration. Technology requirements represented another significant resource category, with presentation technology needed in 83.1% of studies, collaborative platforms required in 67.8% of implementations, and access to prototyping software necessary in 42.4% of cases. Time requirements imposed substantial demands, with implementations typically requiring an increase in class time for activities, extensive faculty preparation, and extended assignment durations. Material resources included printing and presentation materials needed in 72.9% of studies, prototyping supplies noted in 40.7% of implementations, and access to user populations for research required in 33.9% of cases.

Discussion

This focused review of design thinking integration in technical and business communication pedagogy reveals several significant patterns that have implications for both educational practice and future research. The analysis of 59 pedagogical publications across eight leading journals in the last 10 years reveals notable patterns in implementation approaches, learning outcomes, and instructional challenges, demonstrating that design thinking has gained substantial traction in communication education, with implementations spanning diverse institutional contexts and pedagogical approaches. Three key findings were identified: design thinking has evolved from experimental adoption to more systematic integration; assignment-level implementation proves most sustainable so far; and success depends heavily on institutional conditions and instructor preparation.

The evidence suggests that design thinking integration in communication education has evolved from experimental implementations to systematic pedagogical approaches. Early adopters (2014–2017) focused primarily on tool-specific implementations and single assignment integrations, while more recent implementations (2019–2024) demonstrate comprehensive course redesigns and programwide initiatives. This evolution reflects growing confidence among educators and accumulating evidence of positive outcomes. Several major patterns emerge from the analysis: assignment-level integration represents the most common approach (47.5% of studies), suggesting educators prefer manageable, targeted implementations that can be tested and refined before broader adoption. The dominance of empathy interviews and user research methods (71.2% of studies) indicates strong alignment between design thinking’s human-centered approach and communication pedagogy’s traditional emphasis on audience awareness. The consistent reporting of enhanced empathy and user awareness as learning outcomes (87.2% of qualitative studies) demonstrates successful translation of design thinking principles into communication contexts.

Pedagogical Implications and Implementation Strategies

The synthesis of pedagogical experiences across reviewed studies yields several evidence-based recommendations for communication educators considering design thinking integration. Assignment-level integration provides the optimal starting point for most educators because it allows controlled experimentation within existing course structures, requires fewer institutional resources than comprehensive course redesign, enables iterative refinement based on student response and educator learning, and provides evidence of effectiveness before broader implementation. Educators implementing this strategy reported manageable increases in workload, positive student engagement, and successful skill development outcomes.

Scaffolded introduction of design thinking concepts rather than immersion approaches proves critical for success. Studies demonstrating gradual introduction over multiple class sessions showed higher student acceptance, better skill development, and fewer implementation challenges. This success stems from reduced student anxiety about ambiguous tasks, clearer connections between design thinking methods and traditional communication competencies, and adequate time for concept internalization and practice. Successful implementations consistently emphasized integration with existing course content rather than replacement, with educators positioning design thinking methods as extensions of established communication principles, such as audience analysis and revision processes, reporting smoother implementation and stronger student buy-in.

Integration approaches that proved most effective included iterative project cycles of 3–4 weeks’ duration, client-based or community-engaged projects providing authentic contexts, collaborative team structures of 3–5 students enabling peer learning, and portfolio-based assessment documenting both process and product development. These approaches succeeded because they mirror professional communication practices, provide multiple opportunities for skill practice and feedback, and accommodate the iterative nature of design thinking while maintaining academic structure.

Assessment strategy recommendations emerge clearly from the evidence. The most effective approaches involved a combination of process documentation and final deliverable evaluation, rubrics addressing both communication effectiveness and design thinking process implementation, peer evaluation components reflecting collaborative learning emphasis, and reflection activities connecting design thinking experiences to communication competencies. These methods proved valuable because they align assessment with design thinking’s process orientation while maintaining accountability for communication outcomes. Traditional assessment approaches that proved problematic included purely product-focused evaluation neglecting design thinking process development, standardized rubrics failing to accommodate creative and iterative approaches, individual assessment of inherently collaborative activities, and absence of reflection components limiting transfer of learning.

Notably, the reviewed studies demonstrate that assessment practices both constrain and enable design thinking integration. In assignment-level implementations, assessment is typically flexible and formative—emphasizing reflection, peer feedback, and iterative deliverables rather than summative grading of final products. Course-level implementations, however, require more formalized evaluation frameworks that balance creative exploration with curricular outcomes and accreditation standards. Tool-specific adoptions often sidestep comprehensive assessment entirely, focusing instead on participation or completion metrics. These patterns highlight that assessment is not merely an afterthought but a structural determinant of what forms of design thinking pedagogy are possible. Sustainable adoption therefore depends on developing assessment models that value experimentation and reflection without compromising accountability.

Resource planning emerges as a critical factor in successful implementation. Studies consistently reported that adequate physical space supporting collaborative work significantly enhances implementation success, technology access for prototyping and collaboration tools proves essential for many design thinking methods, sufficient preparation time (25%–40% increase) ensures quality activity development and material creation, and ongoing professional development support enables educator confidence and skill development. Faculty development appears essential, with evidence suggesting that understanding of design thinking philosophy and methods provides necessary foundation for authentic implementation, experience with facilitation techniques enables effective collaborative learning management, skills in alternative assessment approaches align evaluation with design thinking principles, and knowledge of relevant technology tools supports method implementation.

Theoretical and Pedagogical Contributions

This review demonstrates that integrating design thinking into business and professional communication pedagogy advances both theoretical development and practical teaching innovation. Design thinking operationalizes long-standing rhetorical concepts such as audience analysis, situational awareness, and revision by providing concrete methods for implementation. Through user research, empathy development, prototyping, and iterative testing, design thinking extends process pedagogy beyond abstract advocacy toward systematic, user-centered practice. These methods address persistent challenges in professional communication instruction, including limited authentic engagement with audiences, underdeveloped approaches to collaborative learning, and weak connections between classroom communication and workplace problem solving.

The reviewed studies reveal that design thinking contributes to pedagogy theory by transforming abstract constructs like “audience awareness” into structured inquiry and by reframing communication as service to users rather than demonstration of competence. This shift underscores the philosophical as well as methodological implications of user-centered pedagogy. Moreover, design thinking fosters interdisciplinary learning by bridging communication with design, engineering, business, and social innovation, showing that disciplinary identity can be preserved while expanding methodological breadth.

Student outcomes further demonstrate the impact of these integrations. Across implementations, students reported enhanced empathy, stronger teamwork skills, greater creative confidence, tolerance for ambiguity, and clearer connections to professional relevance. Skill development included improved user research, synthesis of complex information, generation and testing of solutions, and effective communication with diverse stakeholders. Engagement increased when students worked on authentic, community-based problems, suggesting that relevance and structured collaboration can drive motivation.

Institutional Considerations

While outcomes of design thinking integration are generally positive, persistent institutional challenges complicate implementation. Studies highlight that inadequate collaborative spaces, limited technology access, insufficient professional development, and administrative pressure for standardized assessment often undermine success. These issues reflect infrastructures designed for lecture-based teaching, technology budgets prioritizing functionality over innovation, professional development focused on content rather than pedagogy, and assessment systems prioritizing uniformity over authentic evaluation.

Assessment remains a particular barrier: traditional grading structures poorly capture process-oriented learning, standardized rubrics undervalue creativity, and meaningful feedback requires more time than conventional approaches allow. Such tensions intensify in large classes and under policies that mandate standardization. Student adaptation also varies, with resistance most common among learners accustomed to rigid academic structures or motivated primarily by grades. Effective strategies include explicit articulation of design thinking’s professional relevance, gradual method introduction, structured team-building, and transparent assessment criteria supported by examples.

Limitations and Future Studies

This review has several limitations that suggest directions for future research. First, the focus on published empirical studies may overlook valuable insights from ongoing implementations not yet documented in scholarly literature. Second, the reliance on eight English-language journals and the predominance of North American and European contexts limit the understanding of design thinking’s applicability in other educational and underrepresented systems. Third, variation in implementation and outcome measure complicates comparison. Most studies included in this review examined short-term outcomes, leaving questions about the long-term impact on professional practice unanswered.

Future research should pursue several promising directions. First, longitudinal studies tracking business and professional communication graduates into workplace practice would illuminate design thinking’s long-term impact. Next, comparative research across institutional (and international) contexts could identify enabling conditions and adaptational strategies related to cultures and conventions. Future work should also examine how assessment frameworks can better align with iterative and collaborative learning models, ensuring that grading practices reinforce rather than restrict the creative and reflective aims of design thinking pedagogy. Additionally, research examining design thinking’s intersection with emerging technologies, particularly AI-assisted design tools and processes, could inform next-generation professional communication pedagogical approaches.

Conclusion

This review provides the first comprehensive analysis of design thinking integration in technical and business communication pedagogy, synthesizing 59 studies across eight journals published between 2014 and 2024. Findings reveal a clear evolution from experimental adoption to systematic pedagogical implementation, with publications more than doubling between the early (2014–2018) and recent (2019–2024) periods. Among the various implementation models, assignment-level integration—the incorporation of design thinking principles into individual projects or course modules without full curriculum redesign—emerges as the most feasible and sustainable entry point for educators. This approach consistently yields positive outcomes with manageable resources. Likewise, tool-specific adoption, in which instructors implement discrete design thinking techniques such as empathy mapping or user interviews, provides an accessible starting framework that bridges traditional audience analysis with contemporary user-centered practices. Across these pedagogical strategies, empathy interviews and user research most effectively translate rhetorical principles of audience awareness into applied classroom practice, with outcomes including enhanced empathy, stronger collaboration, and increased creative confidence among students.

Practical strategies for educators include beginning with iterative, assignment-level projects that connect design thinking activities to core communication learning outcomes; emphasizing authentic client- or community-based contexts that promote relevance and engagement; and prioritizing flexible collaborative spaces and accessible prototyping tools that support hands-on learning. Effective assessment models combine process documentation, reflection, and peer feedback with evaluation of final deliverables, aligning learning outcomes with both communication and design competencies.

The integration of design thinking into communication pedagogy marks not merely a pedagogical trend but a paradigm shift in how professional communicators are educated. As higher education confronts rapid technological change, interdisciplinary collaboration, and evolving workplace expectations, design thinking offers a sustainable framework for cultivating adaptable, empathetic, and ethically responsive communicators. When implemented deliberately and scaffolded through evidence-based practice, it transforms professional communication pedagogy into an active process for innovation, reflection, and inclusive problem solving.

Looking ahead, scholars and educators should extend this work by developing comparative frameworks, longitudinal assessments, and culturally responsive models that expand design thinking beyond its current boundaries. In doing so, the field can lead broader conversations about creativity, collaboration, and human-centered learning—affirming design thinking’s promise to reimagine how communication is taught, learned, and practiced in modern higher education and professional contexts.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Jason Tham

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biography

Jason Tham is an associate professor of technical communication and rhetoric at Texas Tech University. He is author and collaborator of 10 books, including Design Thinking in Technical Communication (2021) and The Rhetoric of Design Thinking (2025).

References

Andrews

D. C.

(2017). A space for place in business communication research. International Journal of Business Communication, 54(3), 325–336.

Andrews

D. C.

(2025). Designing business communications in a disrupted workplace. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 88(4), 769–784.

Andrews

D. C.

Tham

(2021). Designing technical and professional communication: Strategies for the global community. Routledge.

Armstrong

C. E.

(2016). Teaching innovation through empathy: Design thinking in the undergraduate business classroom. Management Teaching Review, 1(3), 164–169.

Beligatamulla

Rieger

Franz

Strickfaden

(2019). Making pedagogic sense of design thinking in the higher education context. Open Education Studies, 1(1), 91–105.

Benson

Dresdow

(2014). Design thinking: A fresh approach for transformative assessment practice. Journal of Management Education, 38(3), 436–461.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

Çeviker-Çınar

Mura

Demirbağ-Kaplan

(2017). Design thinking: A new road map in business education. The Design Journal, 20(1), S977–S987.

Choi

Kim

(2024). Enhancing creativity through a problem-based design thinking project in higher education. Cogent Education, 11(1), 2378272.

10.

DeVasto

Palmer

(2024). Building critical AI literacy in the business communication classroom. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 87(4), 557–572.

11.

D’Souza

D. E.

Bement

Cory

(2022). Cross-functional integration skills: Are business schools delivering what organizations need? Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 20(3), 117–130.

12.

Duin

A. H.

Moses

McGrath

Tham

Ernst

(2017). Design thinking methodology: A case study of “radical collaboration” in the wearables research collaboratory. Connexion: International Professional Communication Journal, 5(1), 45–74.

13.

Duin

A. H.

Tham

Moses

(2019). Connecting silos through design thinking: Radical collaboration in the Wearables Research Collaboratory. In Minacori

(Ed.), Technical communication: Beyond the silos (pp. 51–65). Hermann Publications.

14.

Durá

Perez

Chaparro

(2019). Positive deviance as design thinking: Challenging notions of stasis in technical and professional communication. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 33(4), 376–399.

15.

Foster

M. K.

(2021). Design thinking: A creative approach to problem solving. Management Teaching Review, 6(2), 123–140.

16.

Glen

Suciu

Baughn

(2014). The need for design thinking in business schools. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 13(4), 653–667.

17.

Grant

(2025). Enhancing creative confidence in marketing pedagogy with design thinking. Marketing Education Review, 35(1), 16–30.

18.

Greenwood

Lauren

Knott

DeVoss

D. N.

(2019). Dissensus, resistance, and ideology: Design thinking as a rhetorical methodology. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 33(4), 400–424.

19.

Guaman-Quintanilla

Everaert

Chiluiza

Valcke

(2023). Impact of design thinking in higher education: A multi-actor perspective on problem solving and creativity. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 33(1), 217–240.

20.

Henriksen

Gretter

Richardson

(2020). Design thinking and the practicing teacher: Addressing problems of practice in teacher education. Teaching Education, 31(2), 209–229.

21.

Inayat

Salim

S. S.

(2015). A framework to study requirements-driven collaboration among agile teams: Findings from two case studies. Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 1367–1379.

22.

Jamal

Kircher

Donaldson

J. P.

(2021). Re-visiting design thinking for learning and practice: Critical pedagogy, conative empathy. Sustainability, 13(2), 964–989.

23.

Jameson

D. A.

(2009). What’s the right answer? Team problem-solving in environments of uncertainty. Business Communication Quarterly, 72(2), 215–221.

24.

Jaskyte

(2024). The power of design thinking: Exploring creative confidence and creative efficacy in college students. The Journal of Nonprofit Education and Leadership, 14(1), 71–85.

25.

Kim

H. J.

B. W.

(2023). Deepening students’ experiences with problem identification and definition in an empathetic approach: Lessons from a university design-thinking program. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 15(3), 852–865.

26.

Kleckner

M. J.

Butz

(2021). Addressing undergraduate skill gaps in higher education: Revisiting communication in the major course outcomes. Journal of Education for Business, 96(7), 411–423.

27.

Koh

J. H. L.

Chai

C. S.

Wong

Hong

H. Y.

(2015). Design thinking for education: Conceptions and applications in teaching and learning. Springer Singapore.

28.

Lake

Guo

Chen

McLaughlin

(2024). Design thinking in higher education: Opportunities and challenges for decolonized learning. Teaching and Learning Inquiry, 12, 1–22.

29.

Lee

Turner

H. N.

Rose

E. J.

(2023). Community-engaged user experience pedagogy: Stories, emergent strategy, and possibilities. Communication Design Quarterly, 11(3), 28–41.

30.

Leinonen

Durall

(2014). Design thinking and collaborative learning. Comunicar, 21(42), 107–116.

31.

Lentz

(2013). MBA students’ workplace writing: Implications for business writing pedagogy and workplace practice. Business Communication Quarterly, 76(4), 474–490.

32.

Leverenz

C. S.

(2014). Design thinking and the wicked problem of teaching writing. Computers and Composition, 33, 1–12.

33.

Liedtka

(2018). Why design thinking works. Harvard Business Review, 96(5), 72–79.

34.

Luka

(2014). Design thinking in pedagogy. The Journal of Education, Culture, and Society, 5(2), 63–74.

35.

Marback

(2009). Embracing wicked problems: The turn to design in composition studies. College Composition and Communication, 61(2), 397–419.

36.

Matthews

Wrigley

(2017). Design and design thinking in business and management higher education. Journal of Learning Design, 10(1), 41–54.

37.

McKinsey & Company. (2024). Is working remotely effective: The research is in. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/real-estate/our-insights/americans-are-embracing-flexible-work-and-they-want-more-of-it

38.

McLaughlin

J. E.

Lake

Chen

Guo

Knock

Knotek

(2023). Faculty experiences and motivations in design thinking teaching and learning. Frontiers in Education, 8, 1172814.

39.

Panke

(2019). Design thinking in education: Perspectives, opportunities and challenges. Open Education Studies, 1(1), 281–306.

40.

Pellegrini

(2022). Composing like an entrepreneur: The pedagogical implications of design thinking in the workplace. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 52(3), 316–333.

41.

Phan

T. A.

(2025). Business communication research: Trends and themes from dual bibliometric analysis. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly. Advance online publication, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294906251358384.

42.

Ponce

(2023). The Twain shall meet: Shakespeare, design thinking, and technical communication pedagogy. Pedagogy, 23(2), 249–262.

43.

Pope-Ruark

(2019). Design thinking in technical and professional communication: Four perspectives. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 33(4), 437–455.

44.

Pope-Ruark

Tham

Moses

Conner

(Eds.). (2019). Design thinking approaches in technical and professional communication [Special issue]. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 33(4), 370–465.

45.

Razzouk

Shute

(2012). What is design thinking and why is it important? Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 330–348.

46.

Retna

K. S.

(2019). Thinking about “design thinking”: A study of teacher experiences. In Liu

W. C.

Goh

C. C. M.

(Eds.), Teachers’ perceptions, experience and learning (pp. 4–18). Routledge.

47.

Rupcic

(2024). Working and learning in a hybrid workplace: Challenges and opportunities. The Learning Organization, 31(2), 276–283.

48.

Schell

(2018). Design thinking has a pedagogy problem. . . and a way forward. Design and Creative Technologies, University of Texas at Austin. https://designcreativetech.utexas.edu/design-thinking-has-pedagogy-problem-way-forward

49.

Schieber

D. L.

(2016). Learning transfer from the business communication classroom to the workplace [Doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University].

50.

Suresh

Kolluru

(2022). Pedagogy innovation for management graduates: Application of design thinking. International Journal of Innovation Science, 14(3-4), 659–674.

51.

Tham

(2021a). Design thinking in technical communication: Solving problems through making and collaboration. Routledge.

52.

Tham

(2021b). Engaging design thinking and making in technical and professional communication pedagogy. Technical Communication Quarterly, 30(4), 392–409.

53.

Tham

(2022). Pasts and futures of design thinking: Implications for technical communication. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 65(2), 261–279.

54.

Tham

Howard

Verhulsdonck

(2022). Extending design thinking, content strategy, and artificial intelligence into technical communication and user experience design programs: Further pedagogical implications. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 52(4), 428–459.

55.

Vallis

Redmond

(2021). Introducing design thinking online to large business education courses for twenty-first century learning. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 18(6), 213–234.

56.

Verhulsdonck

Howard

Tham

(2021). Investigating the impact of design thinking, content strategy, and artificial intelligence: A “streams” approach for technical communication and UX. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 51(4), 468–492.

57.

Wang

C. C.

(2024). Using design thinking for interdisciplinary curriculum design and teaching: A case study in higher education. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), 1–13.

58.

Welsh

M. A.

Dehler

G. E.

(2013). Combining critical reflection and design thinking to develop integrative learners. Journal of Management Education, 37(6), 771–802.

59.

Wright

C. S.

Hall

A. A.

(2019). Communication skills in the workplace: An investigation into student perceptions. The Journal of Research in Business Education, 59(2), 55–63.

60.

Wrigley

Straker

(2017). Design thinking pedagogy: The educational design ladder. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54(4), 374–385.

61.

Yilmaz

(2022). Revitalizing the communication classroom: A case of design thinking. Communication Teacher, 36(3), 216-233.

62.

Lin

(2024). A meta-analysis of the effects of design thinking on student learning. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), 1–12.

63.

Pan

(2025). Design fiction as a novel approach to cultivate awareness of social responsibilities: An explorative study in a technical writing course for engineering students. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 68(1), 99–117.

Design Thinking in Business and Professional Communication Pedagogy: A Review of Pedagogical Studies,2014–2024

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Literature Review

Connecting Design and Professional Communication

Current Pedagogical Needs and Integration Models

Pedagogical Outcomes

Implementation Barriers

Research Rationale

Methodology

Results

Study Characteristics and Integration Patterns

Design Thinking Methods and Pedagogical Applications

Learning Outcomes and Student Development

Implementation Challenges and Success Factors

Theoretical Foundations and Institutional Contexts

Discussion

Pedagogical Implications and Implementation Strategies

Theoretical and Pedagogical Contributions

Institutional Considerations

Limitations and Future Studies

Conclusion

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Author Biography

References