Dear Nynke, Azza and all interested,
I agree with the idea that Social Design should aim to solve collective problems on a long-term scale. However, I think that in terms of community involvement, the direction that is needed really depends on the issue and on the environment in which it is implemented. As an example, I have been working on the topic 'youth radicalization', with my team in The Hague. At the same time, this topic was looked at in Arnhem and in Sydney. In all three cities, the solution that was found involved stakeholders, who experimented with us and who took part of the ownership of the project. Only if this ownership is felt by a couple of ambitious people which are part of the local community, this project will have the required impact.
Then, about using artefacts to enable social change, I think that artefacts often do not create the impact that is necessary to solve a certain social issue. Of course, on could argue that smartphones changed our behavior on a large scale, but it has more to do with the underlying fact that people are constantly connected with each other. Also, when changing behavior on a conscious level, giving people experiences which happen around them or have highly emotional impact, are from my perspective more influential than an object that one holds in its hand. So, I think that a system's thinking approach is much more applicable to solving complex social issues, though the final intervention could of course lead to an object, or artefact.
This is one of the reasons that I find Social Design so fascinating. It is still not defined so that it remains having these 'trends' of design approaches. Starting with developed world vs. western world, now it is about community involvement vs. the designer on his/her own, conscious vs. unconscious interventions, artefacts vs. systems.. I am very interested about what others have to say about this topic.
All the best,
Madelaine Berlis
--
Berlis Design
Social & Interaction Design
www.madelaineberlis.com
[log in to unmask]
06 57 27 45 11
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Im Auftrag von Nynke Tromp - IO
Gesendet: 09 February 2017 01:18
An: [log in to unmask]
Betreff: Re: About social design
Dear Azza,
In my modest opinion, I think we do need this and I intend to offer a start for this in a book I am currently finishing (co-authered with Paul Hekkert). Hopefully it’ll be published later this year with Bloomsbury.
In my view, doing social design practice without such theoretical framework, which roughly means applying (service) design methods and tools within public/social contexts in order to “solve" social or public issues, is limited and at some stage even problematic. I do not say it doesn't bring value, it does, but designing for societal needs requires different considerations and additional viewpoints than predominantly considering the current needs of service users, communities or citizens.
I feel that stating principles about the way of working within social design (e.g., designing with communities instead of for them) offer little ground for establishing social design as a new discipline and I may even disagree with some of them. I know it is controversial, but I argue that in some cases it might even be better to design without community/citizen involvement. I do agree that we have currently embedded our social and community values in large-scale systems and thereby we have sometimes disabled people to experience, enact and modify those values in the services society provides. Yet we neither should underestimate the quality of those systems we have been developing over the years. And a reactive response to the drawbacks of these systems by letting people explain their current experience with its services and design from there, is not the dominant path to building socially sustainable societal structures. We need more. Nonetheless, it is currently the dominant view in social design practice and research.
Paul and I argue for a science-based approach (building on social scientific and philosophical theory) to social design, and we offer a design approach in which long-term societal concerns are placed central within the design proces. The key here is to understand how to deal with conflicts that rise between short-term individual concerns and those of society at large in the long run. Another key-focus of the framework is to appreciate the value of the artefact in facilitating social change (which makes it a distinct approach from social welfare approaches and humanitarian actions) through its power to change behaviours. A focus on behaviour change does not only help designers to focus, it also fosters critical reflection on what behaviours are desirable from a social point of view and it helps measuring effectiveness and impact.
Let me know whether you wish to exchange any further thoughts on this. We might continue this off-the-list as well. In any case, I am curious why you where wondering in the first place.
Best, Nynke
Dr. ir. Nynke Tromp
Social Design & Behaviour Change
+31641206265
@NynkeTromp
On 08 Feb 2017, at 16:03, azza rajhi <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
theoretical framework for social design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
