Design - Friday, July 16, 2010 8:08 - 0 Comments

2010 Design Debate – Recap

Can Design Save the World?

by Lindsey Berdan, Immediate Past Chapter Chair of IDSA Northwest and 2010 Design Debate Moderator

The answer is yes, design can save the world, but perhaps not in the way you think.  Design is a tool.  Design is a verb.  A product, process or service may result from using this tool.  But what if the end product was actually teaching someone how to use the tool?  What if saving the world means educating the world in how to use the design process?

As the moderator of the IDSA Northwest 2010 Design Debate my goal was to understand how the practice of  what is known as Design for the Majority, Design for the Other 90%, Design for the Base of the Pyramid and Humanitarian Design could ever be a viable and sustainable venture.  I had the chance to interview the design debate panel members, both one on one and in front of a live audience.  Many of the questions from the audience mirrored those of my own:

-         What is the basis for believing that designers from the Western world are qualified to design for people in Africa or India?

-         Why does the emphasis appear to be on issues in developing nations?  What about solving local problems?

-         How important is it for the products/solutions to be manufactured close to where they will be used, by the people who will use them?

-         What if the consequences of a design intervention are negative?  How can this be prevented?

My conclusion is that the term “Design for the Majority” is a misnomer.  Jason, Michael, Kevin, Kara and Sergio never described their work as designing something “for” the people of Uganda, India, or Rwanda, rather they described their process of designing WITH the culture and people of these nations.  Each debate panel member emphasized the importance of doing local, immersive research into the lives and cultures they are trying to serve.

According to panel member Kara Pecknold, Design Researcher/Design Entrepreneur at Olivelife Creative, developing nations do not have design in their education systems.  Based on her experience working with women in Rwanda she came to the realization that the next step for her is to bring the skills and training in design, rather than designers themselves, to Rwandans.

When ask about the appropriateness of people from the Western world intervening in the problems of the developing world, panel member Sergio Paleroni, Professor of Architecture at Portland State University,  stated that sensitivity is required and the approach of culture-centered design must be used in addition to traditional design thinking in order to make connections.  Panel member Michael Cetaruk, Associate Creative Director at frog design, described the scenario as one of design research rather than actual design.  From his perspective the fun part is getting to know a culture and debunking his preconceptions.

When asked “Isn’t your work promoting a culture of aid and hand-outs instead of encouraging local or native solutions?” Mr.Cetaruk commented that his perspective is that his job is to bring the tools of design thinking and design research to developing nations, and Mr. Palleroni agreed that it is about education. Panel member Jason Morris, Associate Professor of Industrial Design at Western Washington University, found that he had to work against the endemic culture of aid in his experience in Uganda.  The Ugandans he was working with were less interested in the bicycle he was designing for them and more interested in the potential relationship with Western Washington University.  The community had been conditioned to prefer and even expect hand outs.  Because he didn’t choose his life, he sees his advantages as a gift and doesn’t view aid as a bad thing as long as it is done right.  From Ms. Pecknold’s perspective it’s about understanding what someone’s purchasing power is; understanding the difference between when aid is needed and when empowerment is needed.  In her experience, understanding someone’s purchasing power allows one to determine “when it’s time to be charitable, kind and generous” in the form of aid.

In response the audiences question “Where are products manufactured and how important is it that they be manufactured locally?” panel member Kevin Flick, Program Officer with the Safe Water project at PATH, stated that it depends on the product.  There isn’t anything inherently bad about a local manufacturing model versus a remote manufacturing model.  The PATH Safe Water project is designing a home water filtration system that will be very low cost to meet the exceptionally low price point, necessary for its adoption in India.  This means that the manufacturing will take place in China, for the cheapest mass production possible.  Mr. Morris’s response to this question is that the goal of his project was to do local manufacturing of the bicycles but found that there were too many barriers to accomplishing this (no electricity for arc welding for example).

When asked “What about local problems; helping the disadvantaged in America?” Ms. Pecknold

agreed that solving local problems is important and described work by Emily Carr students to address AIDS issues in Vancouver B.C.

Lastly, when asked “What would happen if you or we don’t do it?”, attempt to save the world, that is, Mr. Cetaruk’s response was that the world is becoming increasingly smaller, and if we don’t solve these problems, they will persist and grow in scale.  Ms. Pecknold’s motto is “To whom much is given, much will be required.”  The act of relating to other human beings by helping them allows us to learn things about ourselves, and this is what makes the world what it is.

This month the design leader Bruce Nussbaum posted an article on Fast Company magazine’s design forum titled “Is Humanitarian Design the New Imperialism?”. It sparked a debate about the merits of designing for the majority.  Responses included this from Kara Pecknold: “For the Love of Labels.” And this response from frog design (one of the design debate sponsors) designer Jon Kolko: “The Puzzle of Bruce’s Zeitgeist.”

It would appear that the debate of design’s efficacy in addressing the problems of the world is divided into two camps: the Old School and the New School.  The debate is on!

Visit debate sponsor Blink Interactive’s site to watch the IDSA Northwest 2010 Design Debate.

Thanks again to IDSA Northwest’s Sponsors and Partners in this event: AIA Seattle, AIGA Seattle, Blink Interactive, Objet/Keemera, DGTL/NVJO design, General Assembly, frog design, Teague, Produxs and 56seven8 design.

Check out more event photos at the IDSA Northwest Facebook wall!