Empathy-driven innovation: Understanding the value and limits of perspective

This article discusses the application of empathy in innovation projects and what can be learned from common misconceptions about what empathy does and does not do.*

Illustration by McKensie

Key Takeaways

Before I begin, I want to address some key takeaways of what empathy does and does not do which I support throughout this article:

Empathy does:

• play an important role in innovation work and should be used with care
• provide greater insight into problems facing target communities
• need to be included in all stages of the innovation process

Empathy does not:

• make anyone an expert on someone else’s experience
• replace the voice of the person with lived experience
• provide a full picture of another’s experience

What do we think of, when we think of empathy?

We probably consider its value in understanding others, relating to their experience, or ‘putting ourselves in their shoes.’ Whatever you think of, it likely has something to do with someone else’s situation and your ability to know how you would feel in that situation.*

As we discuss innovation, we often take empathy for granted as a fundamental skill required for this work.

But what does using ‘empathy’ in innovation really mean?

Innovation & Empathy

Innovation has become ubiquitous in the solving of the world’s problems, and a major proponent of the practice of innovating is human-centred design. It comes in many shapes and forms, but usually, it involves an iterative process of various stages with the aim to create solutions that are more easily implemented and scaled.

At the heart of this process, is empathy.

Illustration by McKensie

The value of empathy

If empathy is at the core of our innovation efforts, it is important to understand what empathy does. To explore this, I looked at both how empathy was explained or argued for in human-centred design projects and how it was applied. To my surprise, many did not include any explanation and those that did were rather varied, such as:

“a deep understanding of the motivations and desires that govern human behaviours, as the inspiration and core of the intervention development” (Leung et al. 2020, 2)

“concern for the whole person and their life experiences, reframing purely technical issues in relation to people’s values and the broader human context of implementation” (Holeman & Kane 2019, 491)

“reflection on lived experiences and their content brings expertize as well as ethical qualities” (Macleod & Macdonald 2018, 168)

To better understand where these explanations came from, I traced the usage of human-centred design back to one of its founding champions: IDEO.

In their Field Guide to Human-Centered Design, IDEO explains:

Empathy is the capacity to step into other people’s shoes, to understand their lives, and start to solve problems from their perspectives. Human-centred design is premised on empathy, on the idea that the people you’re designing for are your roadmap to innovative solutions. All you have to do is empathize, understand them, and bring them along with you in the design process. (22)

Considering all of these explanations, they seem to claim that, in this innovative process, the value of empathy is its ability to enable innovators to become a type of ‘expert’ on the target community’s experience.

But, can that be true? Can anyone be an expert on someone else’s experience?

While I agree with the value that empathy can offer in terms of giving insight into what the target community faces, I believe there is a danger in anyone considering themselves an expert on another’s experience. This is especially true when considering how it might affect the dynamics of power and knowledge in cross-cultural projects.

The limits of empathy

As ​​Dr Pierce Otlhogile-Gordon, Director of the Equity Innovation studio at Think Rubix, pointed out in an article on Super Special Skillsets: “You’re an expert of your own experience — and no one else’s.” Applied to empathy, we can see how using it without respecting its limits creates blindspots.

To try and shake away preconceptions, let’s look at this in a different context:

You are walking along a road and find someone in pain. You see their ankle is swollen and they can’t seem to put weight on it. You empathise with their pain, and it reminds you of a time when you fractured your ankle. So, you devise a way to create compression and call for help, explaining the possible ankle fracture.

The most important thing is you tried to help. And you might have made a huge impact. Or, it’s possible the injury was something you have never experienced before, such as a bite from a poisonous snake, which could have been treated differently. In either case, empathy enabled you by activating your understanding of certain aspects of the problem based on your own experience, motivated you to help and seek help, and pushed you to try a solution.

But what is missing? How could you have known it was a bite? And, if it was, would you have known what to do differently?

The power of Empathy

This example might be a bit extreme, and perhaps a little too obvious, but it helps move us into talking about the real power of empathy: enabling action.

While I disagree with popular notions of empathy’s value, insomuch as it serves to bolster outside expertise, I do hold that empathy has a valuable place in innovation work, as long as it is used with care. As illustrated in the example, empathy created a connection between the passerby and the one in pain and compelled them to act. Empathy also helped them determine possible solutions but failed when they assumed to understand too well and were incorrect in their assumptions.

Of course, we cannot forget one of the most important elements of innovation & human-centred design: iteration. You may argue that through iteration these problems would be solved, but this brings me to the importance of understanding the power and limits of empathy.

While studying innovation projects which used empathy and iteration in a human-centred design process, I have seen time and again how the initial idea of the outside innovators or facilitators is carried through to the final design. This happens despite concern from the target communities or despite learnings from what has previously been tried.

As an observer, it seems to me that these projects faced the same problem as the passerby from the example — that the power of empathy, when not yielded with care, created blindspots.

Giving voice to perspective

Illustration by McKensie

One argument for a solution to this pattern is to be better at empathy: ask more questions, get more information, etc. And this is true, we can and should do better. But no matter the situation, outside innovators or facilitators will come with their own preconceptions or project guidelines, which will inevitably limit what elements of a problem can be addressed.

It is in these times that I believe it is important to remember what empathy does and does not do.

So let us remember:

Empathy does play an important role in innovation work and should be used with care. Our empathy is what calls us to action, and keeps us motivated to find solutions to other’s problems.

Empathy does provide greater insight into problems facing target communities. The application of empathy has had an impact on how we address development and humanitarian work, but we can not expect to know more from it than insight.

Empathy does need to be included in all stages of the innovation process. If we only use empathy in the beginning, we may stop asking questions or attending to the response of the target community to different iterations of a solution.

And, importantly:

Empathy does not make anyone an expert on someone else’s experience. While I will address in a later article how the dynamics of expertise, in general, can cause harm in cross-cultural work, I hope I have made clear the danger of it here. When we claim to be experts on someone else’s experience, it can be an act of silencing the voice of the only one who truly knows what they have faced.

Empathy does not replace the voice of the person with lived experience. Innovators should always seek to put the voices of the target community forward. When pitching a new solution, rather than summarising experiences, use real quotes, or even better: let them speak for themselves. If they truly believe in the solution from their experience, they may be excited to lend their voice to its support.

Empathy does not provide a full picture of another’s experience. We can never truly see through the eyes of another because we all have our own way of seeing the world. While it can be beautiful to connect on shared feelings, I believe the future is valuing what we cannot share: our own unique perspectives.

Coming up… In part two of this series, I will discuss the importance of language: how we talk about empathy in different spaces, what kinds of language are empathy’s enemies, and what are its heroes. And in part three we will get to the good stuff: how all of this learning will make us better innovators. Stay tuned.

Notes

• This is the first in an upcoming series of articles which covers various findings from a research project entitled, Health By Design: Understanding the discourse of human-centred design in global health development projects, which has not yet been published. Should you have questions or an interest in funding this research, please reach out here.
• You may be wondering how empathy differs from sympathy. While I will discuss this more in my next article, for now let’s consider empathy as the ‘ability’ to relate to another, whereas sympathy is a ‘feeling’ that is shared. For several definitions, see here.

References*

Holeman, I., & Kane, D. (2020). Human-centered design for global health equity. Information Technology for Development, 26(3), 477–505.

IDEO.org (2015). The field guide to human-centered design. Retrieved from IDEO.org: https://www.designkit.org/resources/1

Leung, C. L., Naert, M., Andama, B., Dong, R., Edelman, D., Horowitz, C., Kiptoo, P., Manyara, S., Matelong, W., Matini, E., Naanyu, V., Nyariki, S., Pastakia, S., Valente, T., Fuster, V., Bloomfield, G., Kamana, J. & Vedanthan, R. (2020). Human-centered design as a guide to intervention planning for non-communicable diseases: the BIGPIC study from Western Kenya. BMC Health Services Research, 20(415).

MacLeod, M., & Macdonald, I. (2018). Learning from the locals: how can co-design support malaria education in a post-colonial environment? Design for Health, 2(1), 163–185.

*Some references not listed due to privacy restrictions.