Blogless

A recent New York Times article showcases the so-called “social design” (alt. “service design”) phenomenon. Social design, apparently, is a sort of hybrid practice that applies the creative approaches traditionally associated with professional designers alongside the research approaches of ethnographers, anthropologists, and sociologists to create novel solutions to social problems.

This is certainly an interesting territory for designers (reminiscent, philosophy heads will recognize, of the great Critical Theory movement as defined in the Frankfurt school in the 1930s and 40s) and I would argue it is also one whose every potential engagement will be an incredibly high-stakes ethical proposition.

Consider the Times’ example: The ReD Associates social design firm (comprised of designers alongside ethnographers, etc.) was asked by the city of Copenhagen to propose solutions to improve the rate of employee sick leave in the city’s offices. Apparently, sick leave was costing the government something on the order of $140 million per year.

The firm found that a third of all of employee sick leave was motivated psychologically — mostly low morale — rather than by poor employee health (e.g. caused by physical stressors in the work environment). That is a tragic, Kafkaesque fact, and there’s no doubt that design brains could be put to good use in addressing it. The tragic nature of the problem is also what makes the ethical stakes so high in developing a design solution. The Times writes:

ReD suggested various measures…intended to coax absentees back to work. After four weeks’ absence, each employee has a formal discussion with a manager, who will be encouraged to consider whether he or she would benefit from changes in the working environment, or from edging back to work by returning part time.

Which I read, sadly, in the following way: Rather than address endemic problems of office culture, the designers put procedures in place to provide therapy or threats to downtrodden office workers. Of course this worked: the Times reports that “the sick-leave numbers are already heading in the right direction — downwards.” But is it a good design solution?

I would argue no. I find that it places the onus of change on the unhappy employees, providing measures (therapeutic or threatening) to coax them back into a psychologically damaging routine, rather than attempting to change the routine itself. I would consider a solution that put the onus of the change on the organizational culture more successful.

I am sure, as a caveat, that Red suggested solutions which did just that. I am likewise sure that some of them are being considered and/or implemented. (The NYT article indicates certain bureaucratic changes that were no doubt motivated by a desire to change broken cultures.) However, the bottom line is clear.

Designers undertake social problems at the behest of clients, who are likely not motivated to adopt the most ethical solutions to their problems. The onus is thus squarely on designers to meet client needs only with solutions that do not promote repressive or psychologically damaging social practices.