Ethical Struggles in Design Thinking

With graduation approaching in May 2021, questions swarm my brain. How do I make a positive, compassionate, and meaningful impact on society while living within systems, institutions, and norms that contribute to oppression, discrimination, and lack of accountability? Is it possible to work within these systems and make lasting systems change in a way that most benefits historically excluded groups? Already I’d been pondering these questions, then I embarked on a 3-month journey in a design thinking class for my social innovation and social entrepreneurship (SISE) minor at Tulane University. What seemed to be another interesting and thought-provoking requirement evolved into a source of worthwhile discomfort, strengthening the seemingly never-ending tug of war of ethical struggles in my mind.

So, what is design thinking? Design thinking is the process of utilizing a feedback-focused and understanding-based process to create and test solutions for opportunities of varying sizes. I purposely use the word ‘opportunities’ instead of ‘problems’ because, according to Christina Wodtke, a businesswoman who specializes in design thinking, the word opportunity “encompasses both problems and good things that could be better/different/cheaper (classic differentiation strategy)” (2020).

As there is no one right answer to any given question in the first paragraph, the definition and context of design thinking vary from person to person, often based on one’s identity. For example, Michael Lee Poy, an architect interviewed by a SISE student in 2019, sees design thinking as “part of the architectural process”. Tania Anaissee, another interviewee who focuses on the equity design framework, views design thinking as “an interactive process alongside community members in order to create a beneficial design in a social justice-oriented fashion”. Considering Aniassee grew up in an empathy-centered household, her transition to human-centered social work seems natural. Furthermore, Michael Bonnick, an industrial designer based in Kingston, Jamaica is no stranger to cognitive dissonance, as he notes living in both more developed and less developed countries has shaped his world view by forcing him to “wear two hats” in his work. These interviews illuminate the fact that context is key to design thinking, and that lived experience influences the way one approaches design, two elements I incorporate in a design thinking process I created and showcase later on.

Ultimately, design is for the person or community we are designing for, not the designer. However, the designer enters a design process with biases and unique positionality. Therefore, in a largely human-centered approach, how do we mitigate our own biases in the design thinking process? Let’s consider Stanford’s d.school’s 5 hexagon model.

This model makes design thinking accessible and applicable to every field. Accenture encourages its employees to use design thinking for professional services, such as consulting and outsourcing across strategy and technology. Seems helpful right? Sure, the d.school’s model is helpful for simplifying an opportunity and coming up with a host of solutions. But, these advantages are the same reason that Natasha Jen takes issue with design thinking, and she’s not alone in this opinion (2017). Christina Wodtke agrees and states “this is not the complete design process” (2020). Jen believes this model is too linear a process that is not actually representative of design, and the model is missing a key step: crit (Jen, 2017). However, Jen also says that “the problem with design thinking as a diagram is that you really can’t understand what is the outcome of it, and without an outcome, you cannot critique how good it is” (2017). While I agree with Jen that there is no obvious outcome step of the diagram, the ultimate goal of any design thinking process is to create a solution, hence the process naturally produces an outcome if the designers decide a project is worthwhile to continue with. The outcome is a result of the design thinking process, an implied next step, and although it could be directly detailed in the model, this is not necessary.

Another popular model is the double diamond model, originally proposed by Béla H. Bánáthy.

This model also makes the design thinking process accessible and easy to comprehend by incorporating just four major aspects of the design process: discover, define, develop, and deliver. Although the two narrowing points corresponding to ‘design brief’ or ‘problem definition’ and ‘solution’ tell us we should be honing in on high-quality ideas at these times in the process, the model does not specify the direction the design process should move in. Double-sided arrows along the lines between these two points would better clarify design thinking as an iterative process. Wodtke describes design thinking as a great tool for “approaching problems in a new way and coming up with opportunities for improvement,” but states it “does not address the complexity of designing a product that is launch-ready” (2020). I wholeheartedly agree, but I also think it is possible design thinking’s purpose is just that: to approach problems in a new way and coming up with opportunities for improvement. What if complexity is rightfully omitted from these two aforementioned models so that the models can be applied broadly and widely? IDEO explains design thinking as a method “to describe the elements of the practice we found most learnable and teachable.” Design thinking is supposed to be a process of transferable value, therefore its lack of complexity is justified.

Circling back to my initial ethical concerns, it bothers me that neither of these models incorporates an integral aspect of design: positionality. We must recognize how our identities affect our outlooks, biases, and our design processes. Engaging in meaningful self-reflection to examine how our identities impact our work and the way we work with others is crucial to respecting others and ourselves. Based on this idea, I created the following model for design thinking designed specifically for social innovation. In social innovation, it is especially important to consider the person or community we are designing for because we focus on social problems. At the end of the day, the people we are designing for are the ones who have to navigate these problems without the help of the designer. The orange circles do not represent steps of the process as much as elements of the design thinking process. The circular shape shows the process is nonlinear, iterative, and collaborative.

I may never find the answer to my ethical ponderings, but frameworks like this one can help one become more self-aware, informed, and critical. I can only hope that I actively recognize my biases, am open to receiving help and critical feedback, and strive to build sustainable solutions. Using the design thinking model shown above, I will push myself to understand others and the systems at play to the best of my ability and challenge myself to understand more deeply and see the big picture. I challenge you to do the same.

References

Anaissie, T. Pluriversal Design Interviews for SISE 3010 [Interview]. (2019). Retrieved 2020.

Bonnick, M. Pluriversal Design Interviews for SISE 3010 [Interview]. (2019). Retrieved 2020.

Dam, R., & Siang, T. (2020, August). 5 Stages in the Design Thinking Process. Retrieved November 26, 2020, from https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/5-stages-in-the-design-thinking-process

The Double Diamond model: What is it and should you use it? (2018, November 6). Retrieved November 26, 2020, from https://www.justinmind.com/blog/double-diamond-model-what-is-should-you-use

History. (n.d.). Retrieved November 26th, 2020, from https://designthinking.ideo.com/history

Jen, N. (2020, April 23). Natasha Jen: Design Thinking Is Bullsh*t. Retrieved November 26, 2020, from https://99u.adobe.com/videos/55967/natasha-jen-design-thinking-is-bullshit

Lee Poy, M. Pluriversal Design Interviews for SISE 3010 [Interview]. (2019). Retrieved 2020.

Wodtke, C. (2020, June 13). Design’s Unsexy Middle Bits. Retrieved November 26, 2020, from https://cwodtke.medium.com/designs-unsexy-middle-bits-a8cc17f0246d