An Exploration of Communication Skills Employed by Instructional Designers in the Field

Introduction

Communication is integral to the instructional design process and shapes how ideas move from conception to implementation. Instructional designers rarely work in isolation; rather, they collaborate with subject matter experts, learners, and other key stakeholders to create instructional solutions that are both effective and contextually appropriate (Cennamo & Kalk, 2019; Summers et al., 2002). This collaboration requires more than technical instructional design knowledge. It requires instructional designers to listen actively, ask clarifying questions, and translate complex information into actionable design decisions. Strong communication allows instructional designers to bridge gaps in expertise, align stakeholder expectations, and ensure the instructional products and solutions they design meet their intended purpose (Bagdy & Stefaniak, 2025).

The International Board of Standards for Training, Performance, and Instruction (IBSTPI) has consistently emphasized communication as a core competency for instructional design professionals (Koszalka et al., 2013). Communication involves active listening, facilitating meetings, using negotiating skills, and engaging in conflict resolution as needed. Despite the recognized importance of communication in instructional design practice, relatively little empirical research has examined the specific communication strategies instructional designers use in their day-to-day work (Lockee & Larson, 2022; York & Ertmer, 2016).

Much of the literature focuses on design models, tools, and processes, assuming communication is an implicit skill instructional designers bring to their projects (Klein & Kelly, 2018; Stefaniak, 2025; Ying & Othman, 2020; York & Ertmer, 2016). As design projects become increasingly collaborative and interdisciplinary, communication demands have intensified (Lockee & Larson, 2022). Understanding how instructional designers navigate these communicative tasks is necessary to advance both the field's professional standards and the preparation of future instructional designers (Klein & Kelly, 2018).

This study explores the communication skills instructional designers use in their professional practice. By foregrounding communication as a central dimension of practice, this research aims to deepen our understanding of how instructional designers operationalize IBSTPI competencies in real-world settings and to provide insights that can inform both training programs and professional development initiatives (Stefaniak, 2025).

Literature Review

Instructional designers work in collaborative relationships with Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) to bring their expertise together to design and develop learning interventions. Chen and Carliner (2021) determined that communication was a key factor in facilitating a collaborative relationship between instructional designers and SMEs. Kumar and Ritzhaupt (2017) further supported this by outlining the instructional designer's major responsibilities, including course development and improvement, project management, formative and summative evaluation, faculty training, and communication.

In this context, communication is the process by which instructional designers and SMEs build collaborative relationships by identifying each other's needs and objectives and exchanging ideas (Dicks & Ives, 2009; Kang, 2001). Because instructional designers and SMEs have different expertise and backgrounds, communication challenges can arise (White, 2000). SMEs are experts in their field or area of study but do not necessarily possess the same level of expertise in educating others (Chen & Carliner, 2021; Watson-Held et al., 2024).

To avoid miscommunication, they must work together to develop and communicate in a shared language (Hixon, 2008). A common language can help instructional designers understand faculty members’ instructional intentions, reduce the potential for conflict (Pan & Thompson, 2009), and increase SMEs' comfort with the overall learning intervention design process (Wagner & Hulen, 2015). The instructional designer and SMEs build a common language by meeting, clarifying roles, and asking questions (Watson-Held et al., 2024).

Asking questions and listening play a key role in facilitating strong communication between the instructional designer and SME (Bawa & Watson, 2017; Watson-Held et al., 2024). Asking effective questions allows the SME to fully express their ideas, vision, and objectives for the learning intervention (Bawa & Watson, 2017). A common understanding of the roles and responsibilities involved in designing and developing a learning intervention is facilitated through listening and helps to create a shared vision of the overall project (Bawa & Watson, 2017; Campbell et al., 2006; Dicks & Ives, 2009; Stevens, 2013; Xu & Morris, 2007).

Ineffective communication occurs when instructional designers and their SMEs struggle to exchange ideas or align on expectations for the learning intervention (Bird et al., 2007; Gerin‐Lajoie, 2015; Hixon, 2008; Stevens, 2013; Xu & Morris, 2007). Ineffective communication can result from technical terms or jargon, which can lead to unintended misunderstandings (Chen & Carliner, 2021). Instructional designers often use technical terms that peers in the field understand, but individuals outside instructional design may lack the context to interpret them (Bird et al., 2007; Xu & Morris, 2007; Stevens, 2013).

Methods

This study explored the communication skills instructional designers use in the field. The following research questions guided this study:

1. What is the frequency with which instructional designers employ different communication skills in the field?

2. What communication skills do instructional designers prioritize during projects?

Participants

Participants in this study were instructional designers who had at least one year of experience. Participation was voluntary and involved completing an online survey. A total of 58 instructional designers completed the survey, and most (71%) had more than 10 years of experience in the field. While every industry was represented in our survey, corporate (41%) and higher education (33%) were most represented. The most common degrees were a master's (47%) and a doctorate or professional degree (44%). Almost all our participants (83%) have completed formal training or certifications. Twenty-four percent of our participants were located outside the United States of America. Table 1 provides an overview of the participants' demographic data.

Table 1

Demographics of Survey Instructional Designers (n=58)

Our participants' work environments vary. About half (55%) work with diverse cultural audiences and multiple languages. Less than half (44%) work in large organizations with over 5,000 employees. 51% of participants work remotely, and 48% work in a team. Regarding team size, 47% work with teams of about 2 to 5 people, and 26% work in groups larger than 11 people. Table 2 provides an overview of their working environments.

Table 2

Survey Respondents' Working Environments (n=58)

Data Collection

This study used a survey as the primary data collection method. The university's Institutional Review Board approved the survey. The study recruited participants through professional networks for instructional designers. The survey was deployed over four weeks to allow sufficient time for participant responses. The study recruited participants through professional social networking platforms, including targeted outreach on LinkedIn and posts in the Association for Educational Communications and Technology’s social media groups. These channels were selected to reach instructional design professionals and scholars.

The survey included a series of Likert-scale items to measure participants’ self-reported proficiency and frequency of use across a range of communication skills aligned with communication skills identified in instructional design studies (e.g., Klein & Kelly, 2018; Koszalka et al., 2013; Lockee & Larson, 2022; Ritzhaupt & Kumar, 2015). The survey also included open-ended questions inviting participants to describe any communication-skills training they had received, the most valuable types of training, and the communication challenges they found most prevalent in their design work. They were also asked to identify what communication skills they believed were most important for instructional design. By combining Likert-scale and open-ended items, the survey explored the range of communication skills instructional designers use.

Results

Table 3 summarizes instructional designers’ communication frequency and methods. The results indicate that instructional designers communicate frequently with both their immediate team members and broader collaboration groups, though the patterns differ slightly between the two. Communication with team members occurs predominantly daily (71%), with an additional 16% reporting weekly interaction. Notably, no participants reported monthly communication, underscoring consistently high engagement within core teams. Communication with collaboration groups such as SMEs, faculty, or cross-functional partners most commonly occurs weekly (64%), followed by daily communication (24%). Only a small portion reported monthly interaction (10%) or no contact at all (2%), suggesting that designers routinely engage with external stakeholders as part of their workflow.

Preferences for communication methods reveal a strong reliance on virtual meetings, selected by 60% of respondents, with in-person meetings (12%), email (10%), instant messaging (9%), and other methods (9%) used less frequently. No respondents identified phone calls as their preferred communication method. Additionally, two-thirds of respondents (67%) reported using productivity software, indicating that digital tools play a significant role in coordinating tasks and managing projects.

Table 3

Instructional Designers Communication Frequency and Methods (n=58)

Participants were asked to share how confident they felt employing different communication skills when working on projects (Table 4). The results indicated that instructional designers generally reported high confidence across a range of communication- and collaboration-related competencies. The highest levels of confidence were reported in interpersonal communication, including actively listening to SMEs and stakeholders, coaching others through an instructional design project, communicating effectively in both verbal and written forms, managing time needs, negotiating project scope, and persuading others to consider instructional design perspectives with a median response of 5 (“Extremely Confident”) and a mode of 5 suggesting a strong sense of self-efficacy in the relational and consultative aspects of instructional design work.

Although confidence ratings remained high overall, several areas showed comparatively lower levels. Specifically, participants reported more moderate confidence in conflict-oriented or leadership-focused behaviors, including employing conflict resolution, delegating tasks, stakeholder management, and employing empathy toward collaborators, with a median response of 4 (“Confident”) and a mode of 4.

Table 4

Instructional Designers' Confidence in Different Situations (n=58)

A total of 31 participants (53%) indicated they have received some form of training specifically in soft skills for communication. Participants reported a variety of training, including Conflict resolution and negotiation, leadership and coaching, communication techniques, training/communication platforms, team building and facilitation, academic/professional education, training on specific programs, and other training, such as job aids, just-in-time training, and independent learning outside of work. Participants did not always receive training from their workplace; some have additional degrees and certifications in soft skills or attend professional development through professional organizations.

The most valuable training has been in active listening and empathy. Participants’ examples included how to compromise, listen with intent, and ask better questions. Participants also found value in training on communicating clearly and participating in self-directed learning using resources such as Webinars, blogs, videos, and LinkedIn Learning.

Other trainings mentioned by participants included project management, presentation and facilitation skills, conflict resolution and how to have difficult conversations, and digital tools and communication platforms. Valuable trainings included role-playing and scenario-based practice, on-the-job or experience-based learning, peer learning and mentoring, and completing formal education or certification through graduate courses or professional organizations.

The biggest challenge respondents mentioned was explaining the roles instructional designers play. This includes convincing stakeholders to view instructional designers as learning experts, explaining instructional designers' work, defining the terms instructional designers use, and convincing stakeholders to use instructional design best practices. Other challenges included SMEs and stakeholders being unavailable, unresponsive, and not providing feedback in a timely manner. Miscommunication, as well as mismatched expectations and scope, was also mentioned, as stakeholders might micromanage instructional designers, have inconsistent priorities, set unrealistic goals, and not provide enough feedback. Participants mentioned learning to adapt to business language and getting buy-in from leadership as other challenges. Participants also noted interpersonal factors instructional designers face, such as disability-related discomfort, intergenerational misunderstandings, and working across different time zones.

Participants identified many communication skills that would benefit future instructional designers. The main skills were interpersonal and soft skills such as active listening, constructive feedback, being direct, setting boundaries, and conflict management. Participants also felt that business communication and leadership are important skills for instructional designers to learn. These skills include knowledge of the business world, including how to speak the language of business, advocate to stakeholders, build consultation skills, market learning initiatives, take initiative, lead without authority, lead projects, coach collaborators, and say no. Participants also mentioned skills in AI and emerging technology, cultural competence, collaborating in remote and digital formats, learning about the organization to clarify roles and set expectations, building professional skills and fluency, and self-managing and reflecting.

Participants identified interpersonal and soft skills as critical, including active listening, conflict resolution, empathy, negotiation, and teamwork. Participants also mentioned core communication skills such as clear and concise writing, verbal and technical communication, detecting nonverbal cues, and presentation skills, as well as more strategic and adaptive communication skills, including setting expectations, proactive communication, change management, and stakeholder management.

Discussion

The findings reveal several notable patterns in instructional designers’ self-reported confidence across interpersonal, project management, and leadership-related competencies. Overall, participants reported relatively high levels of confidence across a variety of communication and collaboration tasks; however, meaningful differences emerged between competencies tied to relational interactions and those associated with broader organizational influence. These patterns align with scholarship that characterizes instructional design as a multifaceted professional role requiring advanced communication skills and coordinated project management (Allen & Gardner, 2021; Van Rooij, 2010).

Strong Communication and Interpersonal Confidence

Instructional designers reported the highest levels of confidence in core communication skills, including active listening, verbal and written clarity, persuasion, and coaching others through design processes. This aligns with research positioning instructional designers as communicators who translate complex instructional and technological ideas into actionable solutions (Chen & Carliner, 2021; Mueller et al., 2022). This strong interpersonal confidence underscores the centrality of relationship-building in designers' daily work.

These communication strengths likely reflect the collaborative and dialogic nature of instructional design work. Respondents’ confidence in listening and persuading suggests they are adept at facilitating shared understanding among stakeholders (Bawa & Watson, 2017; Lowell & Ashley, 2018; Richardson et al., 2019). Confidence in coaching behaviors signals an evolving role in which instructional designers are increasingly expected to guide instructors and colleagues in adopting more effective or innovative teaching practices (Chen & Carliner, 2021; Halupa, 2019). This positions them not just as design experts but also as facilitators of learning and instructional change.

Confidence in Project Management Competencies

Participants also reported high confidence in project management-related tasks such as managing timelines, negotiating project scope, and adapting collaborative approaches to different SME experience levels. These results support the idea that instructional designers routinely engage in project management responsibilities, whether formally recognized or embedded informally in design workflows (Allen & Gardner, 2021; Klein & Kelly, 2018; Williams van Rooij, 2011). Their self-reported strength in these areas suggests that they are well-equipped to balance complexity, coordinate activities, and maintain project momentum.

Confidence in negotiating project scope is particularly notable, given that instructional designers often face competing constraints related to time, resources, institutional expectations, and pedagogical quality. These negotiation skills show how instructional designers set boundaries as they navigate organizational, instructional, and learner needs (Johnston, 2024). Additionally, instructional designers’ confidence in adjusting their collaboration style based on SME experience levels reinforces the adaptive mindset associated with agile and iterative design methodologies (Williams van Rooij, 2022).

Moderate Confidence in Conflict Management and Organizational Influence

Despite generally high ratings, confidence levels dipped slightly when tasks involved conflict resolution, delegation, stakeholder management, and organizational change leadership. Although still above the “confident” threshold, these comparatively lower means identify areas where instructional designers may feel less authority or support. This pattern fits with literature documenting the challenges designers face when navigating organizational politics or attempting to influence higher-level decision-making without formal power (Fortney & Yamagata-Lynch, 2013; Halupa, 2019; Mueller et al., 2022).

These areas of lower confidence may reflect structural positioning within institutions, where instructional designers often operate as service providers, consultants, or support personnel. In such roles, designers may facilitate projects but have limited authority to enforce decisions or manage resistance (Tracey et al., 2022). Conflict resolution and delegation require institutional legitimacy that instructional designers may not always have, which could explain the relative dip in confidence. This suggests important opportunities for professional development focused on leadership communication, mediation, and organizational navigation (Koszalka et al., 2013).

Implications for Practice

The findings identify several implications for instructional design practice, particularly related to the interpersonal, managerial, and leadership dimensions of the role. The consistently high levels of confidence in communication-related skills indicate that instructional designers can continue to position themselves as relational anchors within project teams. Their strengths in listening, coaching, and articulating design rationales enable them to bridge disciplinary perspectives and foster shared understanding at key stages of the design process, thereby contributing to more coherent and collaborative decision-making (Stefaniak & Gilstrap, 2024; Richardson et al., 2019; Sharif & Cho, 2015).

The results point to opportunities for strengthening competencies in areas where confidence was comparatively lower. Skills related to conflict resolution, delegation, stakeholder management, and leading change may benefit from targeted professional development through structured training, mentorship, or peer learning communities (Stefaniak, 2025). Enhancing these competencies enables instructional designers to navigate organizational complexity more effectively and to advocate for learning-centered decisions in contexts shaped by competing priorities or institutional politics (Clark-Stallkamp & Stefaniak, 2023).

These patterns also underscore the importance of organizational structures that recognize and support instructional designers' leadership capacity. While participants demonstrated strong interpersonal and consultative abilities, their lower confidence in exercising high-level influence suggests institutions need to clarify expectations, provide appropriate decision-making authority, and create opportunities for designers to contribute to strategic initiatives. Such support can reinforce instructional design as a partnership rather than a service function and elevate designers’ contributions to organizational learning and change (Chen & Carliner, 2021; Miller & Stein, 2016; Mueller et al., 2022).

The findings extend beyond confirming common assumptions about the importance of communication in instructional design by offering a more nuanced understanding of how these skills function in complex organizational contexts (Castro-Figueroa, 2009; Mueller et al., 2022; Ritzhaupt & Kumar, 2015). They highlight how communication competencies shape instructional designers' organizational positioning, enabling them to move from perceived support roles to strategic partners in decision-making processes (Bennett & Albrecht, 2022; Lowell & Ashby, 2022; Summer et al., 2002). Participants’ responses suggest that effective communication increases visibility and credibility within institutions (Fortney & Yamagata-Lynch, 2013; Richardson et al., 2019). This extends the conversation that communication should be viewed as a strategic tool that influences how instructional designers are situated and valued within organizational hierarchies (McDonald, 2023; Stefaniak, 2024).

This study provides additional insight into how instructional designers navigate conflict through communication, an area often acknowledged but underexplored in the literature (e.g., Koszalka et al., 2013; Lockee & Larson, 2022; Mueller et al., 2022). While prior work has noted the collaborative nature of instructional design (e.g., Carliner & Chen, 2024; Lowell & Ashby, 2022; Richardson et al., 2019), these findings illuminate the specific communicative strategies, such as reframing disagreements, negotiating constraints, and managing competing priorities, that practitioners employ when tensions arise (Mueller et al., 2022a). This contributes to the field by positioning conflict navigation as a core dimension of instructional design expertise, with communication serving as the primary means through which instructional designers maintain project momentum and stakeholder alignment (Halupa, 2019; Mueller et al., 2022),

Limitations

Several limitations should be considered when interpreting this study's findings. Because the data relied solely on self-reported perceptions of communication frequency, preferences, and confidence, the results are susceptible to biases such as social desirability, inflated confidence, and recall inaccuracies. Without observational data, it is difficult to determine how well participants’ reported practices reflect their actual communication behaviors in real project settings.

The relatively small sample size represents a limitation as it may limit the extent to which the findings can be generalized. The sample represents a specific group of instructional designers whose experiences may not generalize across institutional types, industries, or organizational structures. The high proportion of participants holding doctoral degrees may limit the generalizability of the findings, as their perspectives may not reflect those of practitioners with different educational backgrounds. Contextual factors such as organizational culture, team size, or job role were not explored in depth, and the survey format limited respondents’ ability to convey nuance regarding communication quality or relational dynamics, resulting in a partial view of the complex nature of communication in instructional design.

Future research should therefore examine instructional designers’ communication practices through mixed-methods or qualitative approaches that can explore the depth and situated complexity of communication in collaborative design work. Interviews, focus groups, and observational studies could demonstrate how communication unfolds in real time, how instructional designers navigate competing demands, and how practices vary across organizational contexts.

Conclusion

This study offers an initial look at how instructional designers perceive their communication practices, identifying areas of strength and domains where confidence varies more. The results underscore the centrality of communication to instructional design work, particularly in the relational and collaborative aspects of the role, while also pointing to opportunities for growth in conflict management, delegation, and organizational influence. Although the findings reflect self-reported data and are limited by contextual factors, they offer meaningful insights that can inform professional development, organizational support structures, and the evolving expectations placed on instructional designers.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The authors obtained IRB approval prior to collecting data for this study.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests related to this work.

References

1. Allen, S. A., & Gardner, J. L. (2021). Project management competencies in instructional design. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 24(2), n2.
2. Bagdy, L.M., & Stefaniak, J.E. (2025). Evaluative practice in learning, design, and technology: Theory, process, and decision-making in context. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781032701301
3. Bawa, P., & Watson, S. (2017). The chameleon characteristics: A phenomenological study of instructional designer, faculty, and administrator perceptions of collaborative instructional design environments. Qualitative Report, 22 (9), 2334-2355. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2017.2915
4. Bennett, L., & Albrecht, A. (2022). Analyzing the instructional designer role: A new framework to improve efficacy and dynamic partnerships. Distance Learning, 18(4), 7-18. https://doi.org/10.1108/dl-04-2022-0002
5. Bird, J., Morgan, C., & O’Reilly, M. (2007). Exploring the Tensions in Educational and Instructional Design in Australian Universities. In M. Keppell (Ed.), Instructional Design: Case Studies in Communities of Practice (pp. 19-35). IGI Global Scientific Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59904-322-7.ch002
6. Campbell, K., Schwier, R.A., & Kenny, R.F. (2006). Conversation as inquiry: A conversation with instructional designers. Journal of Learning Design,1(3), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.5204/jld.v1i3.21
7. Carliner, S., & Chen, Y. (2024). Instructional design: A collaboration or a consultation. The Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 13(1), 63-77. https://doi.org/10.59668/723.13045
8. Castro-Figueroa, A. (2009). Conflicts and communication: Instructional designer and subject matter experts developing interdisciplinary online healthcare content (Publication No. 3380482) Capella University. [Doctoral dissertation, Capella University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
9. Cennamo, K., & Kalk, D. (2019). Real world instructional design: An iterative approach to designing learning experiences (2nd ed.). Routledge.
10. Chen, Y., & Carliner, S. (2021). A Special SME: An integrative literature review of the relationship between instructional designers and faculty in the design of online courses for higher education. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 33(4), 471–495. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21339
11. Clark-Stallkamp, R., & Stefaniak, J. (2023). Inside the garbage can: Theory of organizational anarchy and considerations for instructional designers. TechTrends, 67(4), 752-760. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-023-00857-7
12. Dicks, D., & Ives, C. (2009). Instructional designers at work: A study of how designers design. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology/La revue canadienne de l'apprentissage et de la technologie, 34 (2). https://doi.org/10.21432/T28W26
13. Fortney, K. S., & Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2013). How instructional designers solve workplace problems. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 25(4), 91–109. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21130
14. Gerin‐Lajoie, S. (2015). Being an instructional designer: A job requiring innovation and trust. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 41(4), n4. https://doi.org/10.21432/T2HW44
15. Halupa, C. (2019). Differentiation of Roles: Instructional designers and faculty in the creation of online courses. International Journal of Higher Education, 8(1), 55-68. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v8n1p55
16. Hixon, E. (2008). Team‐based online course development: A case study of collaboration models. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 11(4).
17. Johnston, J. C. (2024). Perceptions of instructional designers on project management (Doctoral dissertation). University of Georgia.
18. Kang, S. (2001). Toward a collaborative model for the design of web‐based courses. Educational Technology, 41(2), 22–30. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44428656
19. Klein, J. D., & Kelly, W. Q. (2018). Competencies for instructional designers: A view from employers. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 31(3), 225-247. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21257
20. Koszalka, T.A., Russ-Eft, D.F., & Reiser, R. (2013). Instructional designer competencies: The standards (4th ed.). Information Age Publishing.
21. Kumar, S., & Ritzhaupt, A. (2017). What do instructional designers in higher education really do? International Journal on E-Learning, 16(4), 371–393. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/150980/
22. Lockee, B.B. & Larson, M.B. (2022). Developing consulting skills in novice instructional designers. In J.E. Stefaniak & R.M. Reese (Eds.), The instructional design trainer’s guide: Authentic practices and considerations for mentoring ID and ed tech professionals (pp. 229-244). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003109938
23. Lowell, V. L., & Ashby, I. V. (2018). Supporting the development of collaboration and feedback skills in instructional designers. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 30(1), 72–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-018-9170-8
24. McDonald, J. K. (2023). The everydayness of instructional design and the pursuit of quality in online courses. Online Learning, 27(2), 137-69. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v27i2.3470
25. Miller, S., & Stein, G. (2016, February 8). Finding our voice: Instructional designers in higher education. Educause Review. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2016/2/finding-our-voice-instructional-designers-in-higher-education
26. Mueller, C. M., Richardson, J. C., Watson, S. L., & Watson, W. R. (2022). How instructional designers approach conflict with faculty. The Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.59668/354.5894
27. Pan, C., & Thompson, K. (2009). Exploring dynamics between instructional designers and higher education faculty: An ethnographic case study. Journal of Educational Technology Development, 2(1), 33–51. https://doi.org/10.18785/jetde.0201.03
28. Richardson, J. C., Ashby, I., Alshammari, A. N., Cheng, Z., Johnson, B. S., Krause, T. S., Lee, D., Randolph, A., & Wang, H. (2019). Faculty and instructional designers on building successful collaborative relationships. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(4), 855–880. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9636-4
29. Ritzhaupt, A. D., & Kumar, S. (2015). Knowledge and skills needed by instructional designers in higher education. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 28(3), 51-69. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21196
30. Sharif, A., & Cho, S. (2015). 21st-century instructional designers: Bridging the perceptual gaps between identity, practice, impact and professional development. Revista de Universidad y Sociedad Del Conocimiento, 12(3), 72–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.7238/rusc.v12i3.2176
31. Stefaniak, J. E. (2024). Examination of systemic factors that impact instructional designers’ practices in higher education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 72(6), 3139-3158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-024-10388-4
32. Stefaniak, J. E. (2025). Avenues to support the professional development of instructional designers. In R.A. Reiser, A.A. Carr-Chellman, & J.V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (fifth ed., pp. 440-454). Routledge.
33. Stefaniak, J., & Gilstrap, S. (2024). Enacting change: Examining the instructional designer’s role in higher education through a coaching lens. The Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 13(1), 33-41. https://doi.org/10.59668/723.13041
34. Stevens, K.B. (2013). Contributing factors to a successful online course development process. Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 61(1), 2–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/07377363.2013.758554
35. Summers, L., Lohr, L., & O'Neil, C. (2002). Building instructional design credibility through communication competency. TechTrends, 46(1), 26-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02772034
36. Tracey, M. W., Baaki, J., Budhrani, K., & Shah, S. (2022). “Behind the curtain”: Exploring how instructional design teams function to complete design and development. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32(5), 2853–2871. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09715-0
37. Van Rooij, S. W. (2010). Project management in instructional design: ADDIE is not enough. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(5), 852-864. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00982.x
38. Van Rooij, S. W. (2022). Project management for instructional designers: Navigating people, processes, and politics. In The instructional design trainer’s guide (pp. 189–205). Routledge. https:/doi.org/10.4324/9781003109938-19
39. Wagner, D.L., & Hulen, K.G. (2015). Collaborating with an instructional designer to develop a quality learner‐engaged online course. Journal of Nursing Education and Practice, 6(4), 40–47. https://doi.org/10.5430/jnep.v6n4p40
40. Watson-Held, H. A., Gray, J., & Grodziak, E. (2024). Promoting positive instructional designer and faculty relations: A case study from a state university. Journal of Educators Online. https://doi.org/10.9743/JEO.2024.21.1.1
41. White, C. (2000). Collaborative online course development: Converting correspondence courses to the web. Educational Technology, 40(6), 58-60.
42. Williams van Rooij, S. (2011). Instructional design and project management: Complementary or divergent? Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(1), 139–158. https:/doi.org/10.1007/s11423-010-9176-z
43. Xu, H., & Morris, L.V. (2007). Collaborative course development for online courses. Innovative Higher Education 32 (1), 35 – 47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755‐006‐9033‐5
44. Ying, H. Y., & Othman, A. M. A. (2020). Expected competencies of companies towards designers in Malaysia. International Journal of Business and Technology Management, 2(1), 54-65.
45. York, C. S., & Ertmer, P. A. (2016). Examining instructional design principles applied by experienced designers in practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 29(2), 169-192. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21220