I arrive at the concept of Nordic social design by combining Koskinen’s definition of ‘new social design’ (Koskinen, 2016) as that where the object of design is the social for ex. the social structures, processes, practices, forms of actions, etc., with elements drawn from Markussen’s original framework (Markussen, 2017) to set the purpose of this design process: to effect a decisive qualitative change in the circumstances of participants through the skills and capacities of design and design artefacts. Nordic projects such as UTOPIA (1981-85) are pioneering forerunners – its goal was the development of powerful skill enhancing tools for graphic workers, in the light of the emerging graphic workstation technology (Bødker, Ehn, Sjögren,& Sundblad, 2000).
Scandinavian participatory design approaches emphasise change and development, not only technological change and systems development, but change and development of people, organisations, and practices, occurring in changing socio-historical contexts. (Gregory, 2003)
Thus, when selecting the guiding principles for such Nordic social design, I have relied on the legacy of the original Scandinavian tradition of participatory design approaches (Gregory, 2003) to provide generally agreed upon first principles (Luck, 2018). Shared verbatim from Greenbaum & Loi (2012) below, I have interspersed some italicized interpretations and adaptations for better fit for purpose:
Equalising power relations – finding ways to give voice to those who may be invisible or weaker in organisational or community power structures (Mulder & Wilke, 1970), which is embedded in;
- Centering the agency, expertise, and lived experience of participants
Situation based actions – working directly with people and their representatives in their workplace or homes or public areas to understand actions and technologies in actual settings, rather than through formal abstractions, which in part can give rise to;
- Place-based and community-centric (see Vanderlinden et al., 2020) concept design , informed by contextual understanding through design ethnography and exploratory user research
Mutual learning – encouraging and enhancing the understanding of different participants, by finding common ground and ways of working, which hopefully is fostered by;
- Cognitive justice (Visvanathan, 2005; Santos, 2007) and Recognition (Coolsaet, 2016)
Tools and techniques – that actually, in practical, specific situations, help different participants express their needs and visions, which does require;
- Tools for thinking, and for planning, as well as creative expression (physical, not digital)
Alternative visions about [technology] – whether it be in the workplace, at home, in public or elsewhere; ideas that can generate expressions of equality and;
- Here is where I make what could be considered the biggest change to these principles, by removing the emphasis on technology which tends to be interpreted as computing and digital devices, and replace the word ‘technology’ with ‘futures’ – alternative visions of one’s own practices and ways of making, doing, being, and creating, whether occupational or lifestyle based. This is the key to my approach and framing of the higher order purpose and aims of such Nordic social design, given that the object of design is the social and human relations do not have to default to digital or technological intermediation for impactful outcomes.
Democratic practices – putting into play the practices and role models for equality among those who represent others (Greenbaum & Kensing, 2012).
- Agency, recognition, respect, and cognitive justice can only come together when we consider the full diversity of thinking, knowledges, life experiences, worldviews, etc as all having contribution to the outcome. For the Nordic social design process, attributes of diversity and variation are considered design factors, criteria, and constraints.
Designing the organizational structure of a newly established non-profit association
Now, from the perspective of this conceptualization of Nordic social design and its guiding principles, object, aims, and outcomes, how would I design an NGO? After all, you don’t need me to provide citations to prove the fact that organizations – whether for profit or not for profit, large or small, etc – are comprised of human beings, and thus, social structures with social processes, forms of actions, and practices. Undeniably the object of Nordic social design, per Koskinen (2016). Whatever its mission statement, an NGO is a civil society organization, and tends to aim at improving the circumstances of some population group, who may or may not be members of the organization (for eg. a worker’s union). This can be said to be “effecting a decisive qualitative change in circumstances” of people perceived as disadvantaged in some way (Markussen, 2017) otherwise you wouldn’t be collectively banding together or looking to serve them with your NGO.
Now, what distinguishes this imaginary NGO that we’re designing is the inclusion of the conditional statement from Markussen’s social design framework (2017) that the stated outcome of a decisive qualitative change in the circumstances of a small confined group of people disadvantaged in their societal milieu in some way, can only be effected through the skills and capacities of design, and design artefacts. That is, its efforts in civil society are the outputs of the skills and capacities of design, regardless of the methodology utilized (for ex., participatory or expert led (Sanders, 2006)), or the form of manifestation (for ex. a poster by a graphic designer, an interdisciplinary product development workshop sequence, or the embodied experience of artistic practice in a forest setting). Creativity and innovation provide the foundation, these most human of all capacities, transcending disciplinary boundaries and struggling against confined descriptions and definitions. Such a “Nordic social design” team would thus have a fluid, flexible, amorphous, and ambiguous organizational structure, since its this social aspect that is “designed” to respond to different challenges and needs.
Could it not just be a design studio specializing in Nordic social design? Must it be a non profit?
It depends on its underlying value system (core values) and ideology. If indeed your stated aim is to effect a decisive qualitative change in the circumstance of disadvantaged groups, one can only assume that it is for the better rather than worse. In my 30+ years as practitioner, for both for-profit and non-profit contexts, I have found that the for-profit design briefs, no matter how well meant, end up making compromises at some point or the other, for profit. Or rather, for economic considerations. And, these compromises rarely benefit the target audience, else they wouldn’t be compromises made to the intervention. Agendas and ideologies, in the context of the practice of Nordic social design, are as much a part of the object of design, given that they are themselves a form of social action, practice, structure, or process.
If one adopts the core values – takes an explicit ethical stance – of cognitive justice and recognition of wide ranging and varied perspectives and knowledges; of fostering participants’ agency and capacity for personal and creative expression; of recognizing and respecting diversity of backgrounds and worldviews – then, can one craft outcomes of Nordic social design, as outlined above, for a profit without undermining the credibility of one’s own practice? Efforts in redesigning “the social” will always be suspect when its for a profit, whether of the design firm, or of their client. The organizational structure and forms of action in this context necessarily foreground the profit margin and the economic returns on investment.
A clear example from Nordic welfare states is the differences in the way privatized for-profit operators manage daycare provision versus the way municipal services are provided to tax-payers and citizens. The nature of the welfare state’s service provision is inherently democratic and inclusive in that it is designed to provide a service to an eligible resident of the state, and therefore does not distinguish in quality of service provision between a rich person and poor person because pricing is not a design driver for service design. On the other hand, for profit service provision must price services, and thus variations will exist between a higher priced service and a lower cost one. It is true the service experience of my 300 euro dental visit is different from the free visit provided by the municipal health center, but it is also true that a low income patient at the municipal health center has the same customer experience as a rich one.
Isn’t Nordic social design just another name for service design?
No. Scholars have extensively elaborated this conceptualization of social design, to distinguish it from other design disciplines as well as from variations of the creative and innovative “social” such as social innovation, design for social impact, and social entrepreneurship. Services are delivered. Social structures, processes, practices, forms of actions, etc. – the object of Nordic social design – are more often experienced as an outcome, and approaching them as the object of our design skills has the capacity to change the outcome, and thus the experience of the individual. My own example of this is the case of facilitation of group work. If one considers facilitation as the object of design, then one can unpack every aspect of it such as choice of facilitator based on numerous criteria, their training and skills development, and their attitude and approach.
Such a consciously crafted approach ( “the social design”) for any particular group of participants and known objectives, removes the randomness of participants experience of a facilitated activity. See Light and Akama, 2012 for two comparative cases where it can be seen that the difference in participant experiences were due to the differences in facilitator – who they were, what their background and attitude was, and how they interacted with the group. What Light and Akama, 2012 have foregrounded for me, is the impact of a well designed facilitation on the participatory design outcomes – the social – in addition to the well planned tools, methods, activities, and artefacts used in the sessions – the functional (see Sanders et al., 2010 for a taxonomy of the same).
Where is this blogpost going?
Its stopping here. The magic has just begun.
References
Bødker, S., Ehn, P., Sjögren, D., & Sundblad, Y. (2000, October). Co-operative Design—perspectives on 20 years with ‘the Scandinavian IT Design Model’. In proceedings of NordiCHI (Vol. 2000, pp. 22-24).
Coolsaet, B. (2016). Towards an agroecology of knowledges: Recognition, cognitive justice and farmers’ autonomy in France. Journal of Rural Studies, 47, 165-171.
Greenbaum, J., & Loi, D. (2012). Participation, the camel and the elephant of design: an introduction. CoDesign, 8(2-3), 81-85.
Gregory, J. (2003). Scandinavian approaches to participatory design. International Journal of Engineering Education, 19(1), 62-74
Koskinen, I. (2016). The Aesthetics of Action in New Social Design. In Proceedings of DRS 2016 International Conference: Future-Focused Thinking.” Proceedings of DRS (Vol. 1).
Light, A., & Akama, Y. (2012, August). The human touch: participatory practice and the role of facilitation in designing with communities. In Proceedings of the 12th Participatory Design Conference: Research Papers-Volume 1 (pp. 61-70).
Luck, R. (2018). What is it that makes participation in design participatory design?. Design Studies, 59, 1-8.
Markussen, T. (2017). Disentangling ‘the social’ in social design’s engagement with the public realm. CoDesign, 13(3), 160-174.
Sanders, E. B. N., Brandt, E., & Binder, T. (2010, November). A framework for organizing the tools and techniques of participatory design. In Proceedings of the 11th biennial participatory design conference (pp. 195-198).
de Sousa Santos, B., Nunes, J. A., & Meneses, M. P. (2007). Opening up the canon of knowledge and recognition of difference. In de Sousa Santos, B.(Ed) Another Knowledge Is Possible: Beyond Northern Epistemologies.
Vanderlinden, J.P., Baztan, J., Chouinard, O., Cordier, M., Da Cunha, C., Huctin, J.M., Kane, A., Kennedy, G., Nikulkina, I., Shadrin, V. , Surette, C., Thiaw, D., and Thomson, K., 2020. Meaning in the face of changing climate risks: Connecting agency, sensemaking and narratives of change through transdisciplinary research. Climate Risk Management, 29, p.100224.
Visvanathan, S., (2005). Knowledge, justice and democracy. In: Leach, M., Scoones, I.,Wynne, B. (Eds.), Science and Citizens: Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement. Zed Books, London; New York (p. viii, 295 p.)
