Design thinking has failed to deliver on its promise to solve the world’s thorniest social challenges. Adopting a critical design stance can help designers serve communities, rather than their own methodology.
we explain why design thinking as typically practiced has not been able to create impactful and sustainable solutions to complex social issues. Instead, we call for a critical stance on design,
decontextualization also perpetuates the myth that design thinking is an objective and apolitical approach. Within this fiction, designers perceive themselves as impartial agents in design projects
When communities feel as if they’re being repeatedly asked to recount their experiences without witnessing the changes promised by the organizations that ask for their stories, participation becomes tokenizing, extractive, and triggering.
In the design-thinking process, the organization initiating the project and/or the professional designers working on it typically frame the problem at the beginning. However, external actors who do not experience the problem firsthand rely on assumptions to determine the accuracy, validity, and/or relative importance of the problem.
A critical design stance questions whether prioritizing novelty serves organizational priorities and designers’ freedom of creativity above community needs and desires. Impact does not necessarily require developing novel services or products but can result from leveraging resources to support communities’ initiatives—as the local government organization Southwark Council in London realized after working with the consultancy Engine Service Design in 2009. Engine collaborated with the council and citizens on solutions on issues related to health and the domestic environment. To the surprise of the Southwark team, who thought that residents would request new services or technology, several of the residents’ ideas relied on already-available community experts and resources. For instance, one idea proposed to use many of Southwark’s spaces and buildings for community-building activities like dinners and sports activities. Another recognized the presence of local food and health experts and recommended that these experts coach families on how to make healthy meals.
a critical design stance might ask whether scaling should be equated with increasing the number of beneficiaries. Could it instead be about solidifying or improving what an organization does in service to the same group of people?
Rather than focusing on demonstrating impact by increasing its numbers of beneficiaries, Amartha chose to focus on deep impact by doing more for the same communities in one region.
we urge those who practice design thinking to ground their practice in a critical design stance and to be reflexive and deliberate about the intentions, actions, and effects of their work
