present or even extending them, they are actually making the same mistake as was made in the 1970s: ignoring the possibly conflicting and less-pressing (yet important!) concerns we have.

While co-design practices may offer substantial benefits when compared with others, they fail to acknowledge the core issue standing in the way of a truly sustainable future: As a design practice, co-design (and the fruits of its implementation) satisfies concerns that we are feeling and experiencing now but often conflict with others that are equally important.

Ignoring concerns that are important to all human beings may lead to design solutions that can cause serious problems over time. Solutions that foster solidarity may create problems for people’s independence, and design interventions that aim for sustainability may conflict with our need for individual status. Designers need to be taught to understand just how easily important concerns can conflict, and new concerns can arise, in order to be one step ahead. The fact that we are now preoccupied with safety in our neighborhoods, environmental sustainability, and our health illustrates that these concerns were ignored by the design solutions that enabled them—the very same solutions that attempted to address our needs for independence, status, and convenience. The truth is that in solely responding to current prevailing societal concerns, designers are forgetting that we all have a hard time expressing or emphasizing concerns that are not being experienced or vividly felt. It has become imperative for designers to take such concerns into account to prevent the realization of solutions that foster future problems, considering the impact that design practices exert on the world around us. In other words, we designers need to assume the responsibility (indeed: responsibility) for considering how and why new concerns arise, in order to prevent ourselves from creating the problems of tomorrow.

This wouldn’t be a confession if I
had nothing to confess. Admittedly, I
am reflecting on this design practice
from an academic perspective. I see
very clearly how designers and design
scholars often fail to notice this pattern:
Focusing on solving today’s problems
by addressing vividly felt concerns
will create the next generation of
problems. I see how independence and
individualism were worthwhile pursuits
at one time, and I see how acquiring
them has led to our desire for solidarity
and collectivism. Only designs that do
justice to both individual and collective
concerns will lead to a balanced way
of living. Only a context- and time-
independent perspective can help us
understand how concerns conflict.

This means that when we develop
community-based services, we should
force ourselves to imagine what negative
consequences for independence they
imply. It means that although we see
the drawbacks of current services,
systems, and designs, we should force
ourselves to see the benefits, too. And
it means that when a design appears
to offer a clear benefit to people’s lives,
we should question it carefully. When
we acknowledge that our individual
concerns for comfort, convenience,
efficiency, status, and independence are
as valid as our collective concerns for
peace, health, sustainability, safety, and
solidarity, we will be able to consistently
build a future that does justice to what
makes us human.

Of course, I am also aware of how immensely difficult this is in practice. Alongside my work in academia, I also work in the field. I know how tempting it is to address overtly expressed concerns, and I know how satisfying it is to develop a design that makes people smile and truly contributes to their lives now. But it is the responsibility of designers to move beyond the frame of reference created by users, clients, and other stakeholders without ignoring them. It is the responsibility of designers to acknowledge felt concerns as well as known concerns. And it is the responsibility of designers to take the time to consider, and give equal measure to, concerns that nobody else expresses.

 

Nynke Tromp is an assistant professor in the Department of Industrial Design, Delft University of Technology, and a social designer at Reframing Studio in Amsterdam. In both positions, she works on the social implications of design caused by the implicit influence design inevitably has on people’s behavior.

JULY–AUGUST 2014 INTERACTIONS 21 INTERACTIONS.ACM.ORG P H O T O G R A P H B Y G O R D O N R O S S