A Community Approach to Design Thinking
Although this class is named Design Thinking for Collective Impact, and we have spent countless hours discussing the processes and mindset of design thinking, I still struggle to describe it when asked by a friend or family member. In fact, I feel like the abstract and vague language of design thinking is one of its key characteristics.
The design thinking models we have studied in class give the impression that design can be packaged in a simplified, step-by-step process guaranteed to produce an effective design at the end. These do have variation, but the most commonly seen model, created by the Stanford d.school, is to first empathize or understand the users you are designing for, define what the design should address, then brainstorm, create, and test your ideas.
Some models point to the iterative nature of design, showing that a design can cycle between the testing, prototyping, or brainstorming stages many times before it becomes finalized. In the Design Council’s Double Diamond model of design, designers alternate between narrowing in on a specific problem, design, or solution and exploring a wide variety of areas and interventions to focus on.
These models vary in their specificity, labeling, and ordering of steps, but all provide generally, an abstract guide to approach a design challenge. As stated by Kareem Collie and many of the other designers interviewed by students from a previous SISE 3010 class, design thinking is just a way to formalize and label the processes that designers naturally use. These models allow for a designer’s thinking to be displayed in a more approachable way.
These design thinking models are marketed as something that can be applied to many different fields and contexts. Mari Mater O’Neill spoke on how design thinking has become popular with corporations, nonprofits, and others outside of the design world simply because it allows non-designers to approach problems through the lens of a designer. Design thinking and the language associated with it have undoubtedly become buzzwords.
While design thinking appears to democratize the design process and make it more accessible, these models also create a false sense of simplicity. The straightforward steps may be useful to create a product or a small intervention but are not equipped to create designs that tackle complex social issues. In Natasha Jen’s “Design Thinking is Bullsh*t”, she doesn’t hold back on her critiques of design thinking, most of which resonated with me. She points out the rather obvious products that were supposedly a result of design thinking, like marketing Olay to older women. Basically, design thinking and the trendy jargon surrounding it are used to make simplistic products appear meaningful and process-oriented rather than actually creating practical or revolutionary designs.
Apart from this critique, my own issues with design thinking are centered around the separation between the designer and the user or community. I think it’s important to note that design thinking is currently presented as something that can just as easily be used to create a product as a nonprofit social innovation. I take issue with this, as the motivation for creating something for consumption is vastly different than designing for the benefit of a community. Design thinking models should be differentiated by the motivation for the design.
For my design thinking model, I want to focus on community-centered design, something that is motivated by a desire to uplift and improve life in a community, rather than seek profits. In most of these models, the user is only referenced in the first stages. You are supposed to initially empathize with and understand the problem through their eyes, but after this first step, their contribution is minimized.
In the context of designing for collective impact and social innovation, the community that will live with a design intervention every day should be integrated more fully into the process. My model literally centers the community during every step of the design process.
This was partially inspired by Maria Rogal’s interview, where she discussed how designers should treat people as experts in their own communities. There is a lot of harm that can be done by an outsider coming into a community to implement a design with only a minimum amount of culturally or place-specific knowledge. Power dynamics and identity can also increase the potential for harm, such as if a white, affluent designer entered into a low-income, black community without considering the implications of race, socioeconomic status, and historic oppression (Harrington, 2019). Rogal spoke on design as a process that is only possible through building relationships and openly exchanging knowledge within communities.
In the commonly used design thinking models, there is no anchoring point or guiding principle that directs the process. In my model, the design thinking process derives from the community and is guided by their needs and goals. This community-centered process is more time-consuming and complex but will more fully allow designs to truly uplift communities.
Works Cited
Harrington, C. N. (2019, September 24). Towards equitable design when we design with marginalized communities. Medium. https://medium.com/acm-cscw/towards-equitable-design-when-we-design-with-marginalized-communities-c2f447f21568
Natasha, J. (2017, August 11). Natasha Jen: Design Thinking is Bullsh*t. Adobe 99U. https://99u.adobe.com/videos/55967/natasha-jen-design-thinking-is-bullshit
Hello from the Pluriverse Interview with Kareem Collie
