#L2D4G: A personal manifesto of design ethics

8/13/2019 #L2D4G: A personal manifesto of design ethics

1/34

#L2D4GLearning to design for goodA personal manifesto of design ethics

Meredith Thompson


2/34

Merci, beaucoup!

I would like to extent my sincerest thanks to the following

people for their ongoing help and support during this project:

M. Barrettara, R. Bider, P. Q. Davis, W. Dickson, R. Fraquelli, J.

Franz, L. Hindle, M. Hutchinson, J. Jackson, D. Kasaboski,

G. Kallenos, L. Layman, N. Shadbolt, S. Thompson, S. Wood,

and M. Woods.

Copyright 2013 by Meredith Thompson

www.merethom.com

#L2D4G: Learning to design for good

First Edition, Paperback published 2013

Whiteshoes Press

Plymouth, United Kingdom

ISBN: 100100100

All rights reserved. No part of t his book may be reproduced

or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or

mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any

information storage and retrieval system without the written

permission of the author, except where permitted by law.

Designed by Meredith Thompson

Set in Quadon by Rne Bider

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1


3/34

#L2D4GA personal manifesto of design ethics

HELLO WORLD! I am a young designer.As an activity, I believe design is any and all things done to negotiate between reality and that-which-

could-be [possibility]. Possibility refers to anything which is imagined and desired. It could as simple as

a thank you card or as lofty as an new economic system. The process of bringing either of those about is

still design. At its core, I believe design is an innately human activity that can and should be harnessed

for tremendous good. I live within the confines of a capitalist economy and choose to participate in it by

making a livelihood out of design. As it relates to my work, design is primarily concerned with visual

communication, interaction, information, and systems design. It involves bringing about the possibilities

of others. Possibilities that are motivated by a myriad of factors, which are increasingly complex and

frequently beyond my control. I fear finding myself in a situation where I am asked to use design in a

way I find unethical.

To help navigate such situations and ensure I design for good, I will keep the following at the front of my

mind during the design process on every project:

If design is a negotiation between the reality and possibility, then design ethics is the manifestation of

that-which-could-be that requires the use of our innate ability to think reflectively about the implications

of previous experiences during the negotiation process. I will reflect upon the ramificationsboth

positive and negativethat a design will have by comparing it to previous design scenarios that share

similarities with the design project in question.

To guide my decisions about positive and negative implications of my designed outcomes I will refer to

the following as my guiding poles:

I will endeavour to seek harmony between human existence and terrestrial health in all I design as

a current defining factor of being human is living on a planet whose health is linked to our ability to

survive as a species.

I will endeavour to design with and for dignity, the innate right of everyone to be valued and receive

ethical treatment. When possible, I will not design solutions that limit access to things such as the

alleviation of suffering or the beneficial extension of human ability based on ones economic power.

I will use desiremy own and othersas a source of inspiration, motivation, and to bolster my own

confidence in doing good.

I will honour these statements for even the humblest and plainest of tasks, for I believe continual steps

toward positive possibilityno matter how smallcan create significant transformation over time.

Sincerely,

Meredith Thompson


4/34

0709111525

3555575861

Preface

Methodonics

Ethics + Design = ?

What is design?

Guiding poles of possibility

#L2D4G Manifesto

Bibliography

Works Cited

Image Credits

Introduction


5/34

Everything youdont know aboutme (but youreally should)While I know, quite intimately, all the reasons that

lead me to this project, you probably dont. So, let me

help you make some sense of my headspace with a

tour of my thought process to situate yourself beforewe proceed into the depths of my mind.

It makes perfect sense that I became a designer.

I have created and curated at every opportunity for as long as

I can remember: arts & crafts, DIY & design. As a child I would

fold piec es of p aper or doodl e on anything and everything . As

an adult this transformed into a career in design, but the need

to doodle/sketch/endlessly take notes never went away. The

vast majority of my hobbies relate to making or organising. I

have a deep compulsion to solve problems, optimise systems,

and devise the best means of clearly articulating and commu-

nicating these solutions to others. What starts out as finding

the most efficient way to complete a lap of the grocery store

quickly balloons into discussing theoretical solutions to large

wicked problems currently affecting the world. Food banks

supplied solely by grocery store food waste anyone?

I rely a great deal on my intuition 1arguably one of a design-

ers biggest tools. Personal trauma has forced me to evaluate

my own ethics and morals on an ongoing basis. I never stop

reading articles and having discussions about issues of moral

importance, in an effort to continuously develop my own mo-

rality. Of particular interest to me are the social and economic

systems that frame discourse around ethical issues. As a de-

signer, it is of the utmost importance to me that I am then able

to communicate these realisations, share my ideas with others,

and contribute to these discussions. To sum it up, I like to ex-

plore, understand, solve, make and share: espec ially to do good.

1 I consistently score as an INFjor Ellon Jungian-inspired personality typologies,I have this intuition thing

down!

7


6/34

The path that lead me here.

At an early age, I p romised myself I would obtain as much

education as I wanted regardless of any barriers. By the time

I entered secondary school I was relatively certain I wanted to

obtain at least a masters degree. The final year of my un-

dergraduate degreethe York-Sheridan Joint Programme in

Graphic Designleft me with more questions than answers, a

strong desire to acquire more knowledge, and the realisation

that simply making beautiful things would never be enough

to fulfil me. I took a year off and worked as a designer for a

finance c ompany, where I decided I wanted to use a ma sters

degree as a means of gaining a deeper understanding of how I

could use my design abilities to do good (and not evil).

Why a manifesto?

In my own design practice, I am enchanted by graphic commu-

nications (anything from imagery, to typography, to informa-

tion design), system design, and interaction design/user expe-

rience. I consider myself fortunateboth through hard work

and natural abilityto have developed skills that I consider to

be quite strong in those areas that I love most, but also feel that

I lacked grounded ethical guidance to keep my practice from

inadvertently veering into evil territory.

Inspired partly by my own ethical convictions, and partly

by Milton Glasers 12 Steps in the Road to Hell2, I deci ded t o

create a manifesto that would give me some ethical guide-

lines for my practice.

Through a developing personal practice, this research will

serve as a manifesto for a contemporary understanding of

design ethics situated clearly in design and ethical politic. It

will result in a set of guidelines I can carry forward into my

fledgling p ractic e, which w ill help me create et hical des ign.

What Ive created is undoubtedly deeply personal due to the

very nature of a manifesto, but I have attempted to ground itin enough theory hold up to academic ri gour and hopefully

even contain some takeaway or inspiration for others who read

it. At the very least, I have now formally articulated a way of

keeping t he ethical at the forefront of my des ign pra ctice as I

re-enter industry.

Enjoy.

2 Glaser, M. These Are Some Things I Have Learned. Address, AIGA National Desi gn Conference, March

23, 2002. A 12-question test developed by Milton Glaser to test his willingness to lie.

What you canexpect to find inthis documentThis document is comprised of two movements: a

manifesto and an extended discussion of relevant

subject matter to give contextualisation.

Manifestos have a well established traditionespecially within

art and designof being the chosen mode of conveying ones

beliefs and intentions in writing. I have chosen to pair mine

with a longer background discussion of my thoughts ground-

ed in theory. Movement one contains the long-form discussion

of arriving at my manifesto through a narrative of theory.

Movement two contains the manifesto itself, a set of guidelines

to keep in mind as I re-enter practice.

98


7/34

Methodonicsmake themanifestoThis section has been included in place of a more

traditional methodologies or methods section.

What are methodonics?

Methods are the techniques or procedures used to gather and

analyse data related to some research question or hypothe-

sis3and methodology (in design) is the comparative study of

method4or the study of the principles, practices and proce-

dures of design... Its central concern is with how designing

both is and might be conducted5. They are the traditional ways

in which specific process is disc ussed in design research. Peter

Quinn Davis believes that there is a notion within design re-

search that rigid methodologies should always be employed6,

however, design practices may contain a range of methods

which do not always add up to a complete methodology. An

alternative way of approaching this area of design research

is methodonics7Daviss name for Mario Bunges concept of

Methodics8the collection of methods employed in a research

field. Not to be confus ed wit h methodology9.

Methodonics used in the creation of this manifesto

Theoretical and visual primary and secondary research was

undertaken to provide foundations for and expand my under-

standing of design ethics. This research served as the content

which was reflected upon and synthesised into a narrative of

theory and a personal manifesto. Finally, reflective making

was undertaken to help others gain a deeper understanding of

the narrative and manifesto.

3 Crotty, M. The Foundations of Social Science Research:meaning and Perspective in the Research

Process. New South Wales: Allen and Uwin, 1998, 3.

4 Friedman, K. Theory Construction in Design Research: Criteria: Approaches, and Methods. Design

Studies24, no. 6 (2003): 507.

5 Cross, N. Developments in Design Methodology. Chichester: Wiley, 1984.

6 Davis, P. Q. Tomz. Lecture, University of Plymouth, United Kingdom, Plymouth, September 12, 2013.

7 Davi s, P. Q. Tomz.

8 Bunge, M. Dictionary of Philosophy. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1999, 179.

9 Bunge, Dictionary of Philosophy, 179.

11


8/34


9/34

What is design?No dialogue on design would be complete without

some discussion surrounding a definition of design.

This manifesto is no exception. Lets begin!


10/34

So, what exactly do I mean by design in this context?

There isat least to some degreea consensus that design

is an innate human activity. Two influential works on the

matterone a book and one an address later published as an

essaygo so far as to share the title What is a designer?. In

1954 Alvin Lustig gave an address called What is a Designer?

to the Advertising Typographers Association of America, and

said Designers anticipate the requirements of their society and

express them before the society is completely prepared or will-

ing to accept what proves to be something they really want10.

Just over a decade later Norman Potter posits in his 1969 book

What is a designer? that Every human being is a designer11

and qualifies design as work in every field that warrants pause,

and careful consideration, between the conceiving of an action

and fashioning of the means to carry it out, and an estimation

of its effects12.

Herbert Simons oft-cited description of design as the

transformation of existing conditions into preferred ones13in

his 1968 work, The Sciences of theArtificial,tends to garner

the reputation as the gold standard of definitions for design.

Building on Simons understanding, in the first chapter of his

2009 book, Design Futuring, Tony Fry puts forward the idea that

everyone is a designer because our innate ability to prefigure

is a defining characteristic of being human14. In his 2012 follow

up, Becoming Human by Design, Fry concludes that design is

indistinguishable from human intelligence (based on recent

paleontological research which suggests that tool usage by

primates caused them to evolve towards greater intelligence)15.

One definition of design to which I am quite partial is taken from

a 2005 paper by Clive Dilnot, titled Ethics? Design?. It bears

resemblance to Simons description of design, and is described

by Dilnot as a situated process that is a sustained examination

of what is possible in the realm of the artificial and a negotiation

with that actuality to realise possibility16. Dilnots overall

discussion of design is incredibly nuanced and will be dealt with

at length in the following chapters, but is quite close to my own

understanding of what design is.

10 Lustig,Alvin.What Is a Designer?.In LookingCloser 3:Classic Writings on Graphic Design,edited by

JessicaHelfand MichaelBeirut, Stephen Heller,and Rick Poynor,106-08. NewYork:Allworth Press,1999,

106.It should be noted here that this was the first address Lustig,a graphic designer by trade,gave after

losinghis vision.11 Potter,N.What is ADesigner: things,places,messages. London:Hyphen Press,2012,10.

12 Potter,N.What is ADesigner: things,places,messages. London:Hyphen Press,2012,10.

13 Simon,H. The Sciences of the Artificial,Cambridge,MIT Press,1968,55.

14 Fry, T,Design Futuring:Sustainability,Ethics and NewPractice.Oxford:Berg,2009, 28.

15 103Rowe,A. Design Futuring:Sustainability,Ethics and NewPractice. Reviewof Design Futuring:

Sustainability,Ethics and New Practice,by Tony Fry.Art/Design/MediaSubject Centre,24 November

2009,http://www.adm.heacademy.ac.uk/library/files/resource-reviews/rowe-design-futuring.pdf,5.

16 Dilnot, C.Ethics? Design? In The Archeworks Papers,Volume 1,Number 2,edited by Stanley

Tigerman,1-149.Chicago:Archeworks Press,2005, 16-7.

Isthis design?

(noun) a specification

of an object, manifested

by an agent, intended to

accomplish goals, in a

particular environment,

using a set of primitive

components, satisfying

a set of requirements,

subject to constraints;

(verb, transitive) to

create a design, in an

environment (where the

designer operates)

17


11/34

Though I agree with each theorist in their understandings, for

the purposes of my manifesto I will define design broadly as

any and all things which we do to move between reality and

that-which-could-be.

But not everyone who designs is a designer, right?

That is correct. Despite the fact Ive recognised design as an

innate human activity undertaken by all (design, the activ-

ity) and defined it in a very broad sense, I also acknowledge

that design is assumed as a livelihood by many individuals

(design, the discipline)myself included. The designation of

design, the discipline is often referred to in design theory. For

instance, Richard Buchanans 1992 paper, Wicked Problems

in Design Thinking discusses the evolution of historic no-

tions of design into our more contemporary understanding.

Buchanan states that during the twentieth century, design

evolved into a new liberal art of technological culture17. When

Buchanan speaks of technology, he is referring to John Deweys

understanding of the word to mean experimental thinking18, as

opposed to the more commonplace definition of technology as

artefact. In a line of thought that is similar to what I outlined in

the previous paragraph, Buchanan defines his understanding of

liberal arts as:

a discipline of thinking that may be shared to some

degree by [everyone] in their daily lives and is, in

turn, mastered by a few people who practice the

discipline with distinctive insight and sometimes

advance it to new areas of innovative application 19.

From this, one can surmise that Buchanan views design as

having evolved from a trade activity or profession into a dis-

cipline of experimental thinking culture, that somebut by

no means allpractice with expertise. Norman Potter takes

a similar view, articulating that while design is an innate hu-

man ability, many [people] also earn their living by design20.

All this i s not to say t hat one is more important and should

be privileged above the otheror even that only two differ-

ent designations exist within. I bring it up to clarify that this

discussion is framed from the viewpoint of someone who

practices within design the discipline and will therefore be

biased towards that understanding to at least some degree.

17 Buchanan,R. Wicked Problems in Design Thinking. DesignIssues,VIII ,no 2 (1992):5.

18 Buchanan.Wicked Problems in Design Thinking.8.

19 Buchanan. Wicked Problems in Design Thinking.8-9.

20 Potter,N.What is ADesigner: things,places,messages.London: Hyphen Press,2012,10.

18

What about different types of designers?

The reality of practice within the discipline of design is that

we oftenfor better or worsebreak its different tasks into

various categories. This is where more defined roles such as

product designer, spatial designer, architect, or graphics

designerthe title by which I typically refer to myselfcome

into play21. In reality, a designers practice rarely operates

strictly within the confines of one such category.

Buchanan calls for design to look for patterns of placements

rather than categorise design action into a series of rigid cat-

egoriesa mode of thinking he feels is inherently problemat-

ic22. Where categories are fixed and determinate, placements

have boundaries that can shape, constrain, and contextualise

meaning and ideas23; they offer a more rhizomatic conception

of design process. Buchanan gives four broad placements

which point toward certain kinds of objectivities in human

experience24where work by designers in each has created a

framework for human experience in contemporary culture25.

These placements are: symbolic and visual communications

[signs], material objects [things], activities and organised

services [actions], and complex systems/environments for

working, living, learning, and playing [thoughts] 26. Buchanan

notes it may be tempting to classify each instance of design

into only one placement, the overlap and interconnection

of the placements is inevitable practice and often allows for

moments of innovation27. Buchanans placements are widely

used in the vernacular of design and design thinking theory

as normative ways of breaking down design practice, but I

still find them quite broad.

Lucy Kimbell argues for an alternative mode of discussing

design thinkingwhich I find to be more usefulin her papers,

Rethinking Design Thinking: Part 1 (2011), and Rethinking

Design Thinking: Part 2 (2012). In Part 1, Kimbell argues that

design thinking as a research area is under theorised and

understudied 28. Though she gives a broad definition for design

thinking as the ways in which designers problem solve29read

move current circumstances to preferred onesshe posits

that there is no singular theory of design thinking, but rather

three heterogeneous accounts can be traced to find its origins 30.

21 Though,I increasingly prefer communications designer or visualcommunications designer.22 Buchanan. Wicked Problems in Design Thinking.12.


24 Buchanan. Wicked Problems in Design Thinking.10.


26 Buchanan. Wicked Problems in Design Thinking.9-10.


28 Kimbell,L. RethinkingDesign Thinking:Part 1. Designand Culture,3, no3 (2011):301.

29 Kimbell,.RethinkingDesign Thinking:Part 1,285.


19


12/34

Kimbell offers criticisms for current accounts of design think-

ing31and ultimately argues for an alternative mode of studying

design thinking which looks at practice 32.

One is the account of design thinking as a cognitive style 33.

This account focuses on design, the discipline and defines

designs purpose as problem solving34. The focus of the

expertise and activity in this account of design thinking are

the traditional roles of designers (product designer, spatial de-

signer, etc.)35, which aim to solve problems of an ill-structured

nature. This account is described by theorists such as Cross,

Dorst, Lawson, Schn, and Rowe and cites abductive thinking,

design ability as a form of intelligence, and reflection-in-ac-

tion as key concepts of design thinking36.

Another is the account of design thinking as an organisational

resource.37This account focuses on design by businesses and

other organisations in need of innovation and defines designs

purpose as innovation38. The focus of expertise and activity in

this account of design thinking can be found in any context in

which organisational problems are framed as design prob-

lems39. This account is described by theorists such as Bauer,

Brown, Dunne, Egan, and Martin, and cites abductive thinking,

empathy, integrative thinking, prototyping, and visualisation

as key concepts of design thinking40.

The final is the account of design thinking as a general theo-

ry of design41. This account differs vastly from the others, as

its key concept is that design has no special subject matter

of its own42. This account is described in Richard Buchanans

1992 paper, Wicked Problems in Design Thinking, and defines

design problems as wicked problems, and the purpose of

design as taming wicked problems43. Wicked problems are

social system problems which are ill-formulated, where the

information is confusing, where there are many clients and

decision makers with conflicting values, and where the rami-

fications in t he whole system are thoroughly confusing44.

As criticisms for the three accounts, Kimbell offers t he fol-

lowing ideas. First, these accounts often make a distinction





35 Kimbell,.RethinkingDesign Thinking:Part 1,297.36 Kimbell,.RethinkingDesign Thinking:Part 1,297.







43 Kimbell,.RethinkingDesign Thinking:Part 1,297

44 Rittell,HorstinBuchanan,R.WickedProblemsinDesign Thinking. DesignIssues,VIII, no2 (1992):15.

20

between theoretical and real world action45. Second, they

make generalisations about design thinking without address-

ing the diversity and historically situated legacy of design

practices46. Third, they rely on design theories that privilege

designers as the main actors in designing47. As designboth

the activity and practicemanifests itself in such diverse

ways, I agree both with Kimbells criticisms and her call for an

alternative understanding.

In that case, what is a good alternative?

As an alternative to the traditional understandings, Kim-

bell suggests dismissing the notion of a generalised de-

sign thinking, and instead focusing on situated, embodied

material practice48where design becomes a set of routines

that emerge in context49. She says we should understand

design as a situated, contingent set of practices carried by

professional designers and those who engage with designers

activities50and argues that this will allow us to gain more

insight on whether designs way of interacting with the world

is unique to designers or found in other disciplines51.

Kimbell begins the paper by gathering some understand-

ings of practice from theorists in sociology and science and

technology studies52. She sets up the use of practice theory in

relation to design thinking by stating that it

shift[s] the unit of analysis away from a micro

level (individuals) or a macro one (organizations or

groups and their norms) to an indeterminate level

at a nexus of minds, bodies, objects, discourses,

knowledge, structures/ processes, and agency,

which together constitute practices that are carried

by individuals53.

Kimbell then puts forward that most theories of practice

share two common ideas:first, that practice cannot be con-sidered by taking any of its constituent elements in isola-

tion54; and second, that practices are understood to be produced

dynamically through the interplay of diverse elements in

relation to one another55.


46 Kimbell,.RethinkingDesign Thinking:Part 1,301.47 Kimbell,.RethinkingDesign Thinking:Part 1,301.





52 Kimbell.RethinkingDesign Thinking:Part 2,132-4.

53 Kimbell.RethinkingDesign Thinking:Part 2,131.



21


13/34

Kimbell hopes to establish an understanding [of] the socio-

material world as dynamic and constituted56to help move

away from some of the difficulties presented in accounts of

design thinking57To do this, she refers to Reckowitzs ele-

ments of practice (forms of bodily activities; forms of mental

activities; things and their use; a background knowledge in

the form of understanding; know-how; states of emotion; and

motivational knowledge58) and emphasises four aspects of

practice theory t hat are relevant to design:

1. How practices are understood as (re)configurings of

the world through which the determination of bounda-

ries, properties and meanings is differentially enact-

ed59. With practice theory, design can be viewed as an

activity distributed across various people and arte-

facts, which together enact designing and designers.60

2. How structures are constituted in practice (using var-

ious studies on technology, design, development, and

media)61. This demonstrates that structure is enacted

by users in practice62.

3. The attention paid to the role of objects in constitut-

ing practice63. Paying attention to objects allows us to

distinguish practice as more dynamic, creative, and

constructive64.

4. Knowledge; specifically, the notion that it is mediated by

interactions with people and arrangements in the world 65.

With those aspects established, Kimbell moves on to discuss

in more detail her analytical devices of design-as-practiceand designs-in-practice. Design-as-practice is a way of

thinking about the work of designing that acknowledges

that design practices are habitual, possibly rule-governed,

often routinised, conscious or unconscious, and that they are

embodied or situated66. Designs-in-practice foregrounds the

incomplete nature of the process and outcomes of design-

ing67and refers to the fact that through engagement with

a product or service over time and space, the user or stake-

holder continues to be involved in constituting what a design

is68. Kimbell cites three main differences in her conception of




59 Kimbell.RethinkingDesign Thinking:Part 2,133.60 Kimbell.RethinkingDesign Thinking:Part 2,133.









22

design thinking69: it conceives design as constituted relationally

through intra-action of several elements70; it asks how the par-ticular configurations design may arrive at are constructed 71; and

finally, it can be used to discuss any designed entity72.

In my opinion, Kimbells analytical devices and focus on situat-

ed practice make for one of the most cogent means of looking

at design practice . It also serves to remind me that any under-

standing of design ethics must have a means of application in

a diversity of design practices.

So, what is design?

For the purposes of this manifesto, design is understood to be

any and all thingswhether an innate activity or part of a disci-

plinethat we do to move from realit y to that-which-could-be.





23


14/34

Ethics + design =what, exactly?Well, that is the understanding I am working toward.

Now that a working definition of design has been

established, its time to incorporate ethical theory.


15/34

Lets begin with some normative ethical theory

After much exploration and review of t he branches of norma-

tive ethics, casuistryor its more modern title, case-based

reasoning stands out to me as the most analogous theory

for my conception of design et hics.

A poetic article from 1995 by Albert R Jonsen titled Casuistry:

An Alternative or Complement to Principles draws some

beautiful metaphoric parallels between design and case-based

reasoning. Though the definition li sted in many contemporary

dictionaries may read otherwise, casuistry is a traditional

method of interpreting and resolving moral problems. It focus-

es on the circumstances of particular cases rather than on the

application of ethical theories and principles73

. Jonsen states

that people use case-based reasoning on a daily basis every

time they ruminate about how they ought to act or argue

about how others should act or have acted 74.

Jonsen uses the metaphor of Matteo Riccis memory pal-

acea mental device to aid with the recollection of ideasto

help frame case-based reasoning.75In order to relate case-

based reasoning to traditional moral and ethical theory, he

conceives of a moral memory palace. In this palace, a moral

philosopher would be assigned the role of architect and a

casuistone who practices case-based reasoningthe role of

interior decorator76.

The palace, constructed of theory and principles,

is empty without the interior design, finishing, and

furniture of circumstance. These do not merely

stand around as neutral items, but are intrinsic

features of the edifice, without which interpretation

and appreciation are impossible. 77

To Jonsen, the use of case-based reasoning allows one to

move through the mental spaces of moral argument with

ease and enjoyment78.

Case-based reasoning has also found wide application in general

decision making, especially computerised decision making. A

1994 article by Aamodt and Plaza states that cases typically

consist of a problem, its solution, and information on how the

solution was reached79. They also divide case-based reasoning

into a formalised four-step process:

73 Jonsen,A.R. Casuistry:An Alternative or Complement toPrinciples?.Kennedy Institute of Ethics

Journal,5,no 3(1995): 237.

74 Jonsen. Casuistry:An Alternative or Complement toPrinciples?,237.

75 Jonsen.Casuistry:An Alternative or Complement toPrinciples?,241.


77 Jonsen.Casuistry:An Alternative or Complement toPrinciples?,248.


79 Aamodt A& E Plaza,Case-Based Reasoning:FoundationalIssues,MethodologicalVariations,and

SystemApproaches.ArtificialIntelligence Communications,7,no 1(1994): 39-52.

Ethics(generally):

(noun)alsoknown as

moralphilosophy,is a

branch of philosophy

that involves

systematizing,

defendingand

recommending

concepts of right and

wrongconduct.

27


16/34

1. Retrieve.Gather information on completed cases that

share similarities with the target problem80.

2. Reuse.Map the solution from the previous case to the

target problem, this may involve adapting the previous

solution to fit the new situation 81.

3. Revise.Test the new solution and revise if necessary 82.

4. Retain. Once a successful solution is reached, the experi-

ence is stored as a new case for future reference 83.

Though the specific application of Aamodt & Plazas process

is for use by computers, it offers a more rigid counterpoint

to Jonsens conception and could act as a starting point for a

practice-based aspect of my understanding of design ethics.

When combined, the approaches feel congruent with many

existing design processes and practices. It also maintains a

flexibility for the development of an understanding of design

ethics, which goes along with Kimbells ideas about the diver-

sity of practice.

And on to some more design-specific ethical theory

Beyond normative ethical theory, I set out to identify some

authors that discussed the subject as it relates to design.

Despite the prevalence of social and sustainable design

areas I believe are firmly rooted in ethical concernsvery

little theory explicitly tackles the issue of design ethics. After

some digging, I was able to find two authors whose ideas I

found useful for developing my own understanding: C harles

Burnette and Clive Dilnot.

Charles Burnette is the former Dean of the School of Architec-

ture at the University of Texas at Austin, former Director of

the Graduate Program in Industrial Design at the University

of the Arts in Philadelphia, PA, and the former Chairman of

its Industrial Design Department. In a series of independently

published papers he outlines a new t heory of design t hink-

ing and outlines its moral and ethical implications. Burnette

relates wider moral and ethical considerations to his Theory

of Design Thinking model, which contains a series of thought

categories that comprise the design process: referential

80 Aamodt &Plaza,Case-Based Reasoning:FoundationalIssues,MethodologicalVariations,and

SystemApproaches,39-52.

81 Aamodt &Plaza, Case-Based Reasoning:FoundationalIssues,MethodologicalVariations,and System

Approaches,39-52.

82 Aamodt & Plaza,Case-Based Reasoning:FoundationalIssues, MethodologicalVariations,and


83 Aamodt &Plaza,Case-Based Reasoning:FoundationalIssues,MethodologicalVariations,and


28

thought, relational thought, formative thoughts, procedural

thought, evaluative thought, and reflective thought 84. To

return to the work of Kimbell that was previously discussed, I

regard Burnettes model as one of many possible design prac-

tices and therefore not a widely applicable design ethics. He

does, however, establish a few interesting ideas worth taking

into consideration.

Burnette first makes the distinction that morals refer to the

beliefs of an individual and ethics refer to morality put into

practice for the greater good.85He believes that design and de-

sign thinking can help to develop a set of morals and ethics 86

and that they should be separated from their traditional roots

in religion, tribalism, and nationalism87. Instead, he offers a

cogent, scientifically-founded means of explaining moral/eth-

ical behaviour:

Genes enable capacities which develop through

natural experience to recognize certain recurring

types of information; these neural agencies evolve

to afford forms of cognition able to recognize,

process and synthesize such information in

different situations. These evolved modes of

thought collaborate to express thought and

behavior in response to needs and desires that

arise from different situations. Emotions, feelings,

and preferences are applied to value thoughts and

behaviors in each situation, and their consequences

inform the morals and ethics that guide us as

individuals, communities, and cultures. It is this

defining, structuring, expressing, processing and

valuing structure that affords the possibility to

analyze, compare and develop what we believe and

do in different circumstances.88

The grounding of ethical ability firmly in human neurobiology

echoes back key ideas of casuistry; humans, Burnette says,

are hardwired to use case-based reasoning to make moral and

ethical decisions. That is not to say our brains make us inca-

pable of acting unethically or amorally as the cri teria used

when making these decisions would differ on an individual

basis. It simply recognises that the ability to make compara-

tive decisions of an ethical nature is innate within our biology.

84 Burnette, The Morals and Ethics of ATheory of Design Thinking 2.

85 Burnette,C.The Morals and Ethics of ATheory of Design Thinking accessed 2 September 2013.

http://www.academia.edu/4390557The_Morals_and_Ethics_of_A_Theory_of_Design_Thinking,1.


87 Burnette,The Morals and Ethics of ATheory of Design Thinking 2.


29


17/34

Burnette also makes a distinction between aesthetic judgement

and ethical judgement. He concedes that it is possible to experi-

ence aesthetic pleasure in response to an ethically determined

valuation 89but states that the inverse is not possible because

aesthetic judgment is situation dependent, immediate, and

felt, while ethical judgment is based on knowledge acquired

over time across experiences in different situations 90. This

distinction is especially important because aesthetics are often

regarded as one of designs primary concerns.

Ethics? Design?

A design educator and historian, Cl ive Dilnot lays out a

preliminary outline for a new practice o f design ethics in his

45,000-word paper91, Ethics? Design?.The second in a series

published by Chicago architecture fi rm Archeworks, Dilnot

draws on the works of Giorgio Agamben, Alain Badiou, Gilles

Deleuze, Martin Heidegger, Gillian Rose, Elaine Scarry, Herbert

Simon, Gianni Vatimo, among others to nuance his under-

standing of the subject. His text is divided into two parts: Part

I contains an understanding of whattheoreticallyan ethics

of design might entail, and Part II offers three considerations

this ethics may manifest in practice. This discussion will fo-

cus primarily on the information covered in Part I; discussion

on Part II can be found in the next chapter.

Dilnot begins by outlining two dominant approaches to

design ethics, which he believes are inadequate. The firsta

pragmatic focusis t he development of a set o f professional

guidelines or principles which designers can apply at the

individual level; Dilnot argues that this approach does not

make full use of designs transformative capabilities 92. The

second focuses on an individual designers superego or moral

compass and lauds the importance of moral/ethical values,

then encourages designers to work whilst keeping those

in mind. Dilnot criticises this approach because the lack of

concrete guidance may ultimately leave the design profes-

sion unchanged93. In the remainder of the text, Dilnot offers a

thirdmore adequateapproach to design ethics.

A key point that Dilnot makes is that an ethics of design cannot

be separated from ethics per se because the establishment of

89 Burnette, The Morals and Ethics of ATheory of Design Thinking 9.90 Burnette,The Morals and Ethics of ATheory of Design Thinking 9.

91 I could have easily written adissertation on this essay alone.That however,would not have met

the criteriaI set for myself for this manifesto,soIve done my best to recap only the ideas I found most

relevant.

92 Cokelet, B.The Archeworks Papers,Volume 1,Number 2:

Ethics? Design? Reviewof The ArcheworksPapers, Volume 1, Number 2, edited by Stanley Tigerman.

DesignIssues, Volume 23,Number 2,summer 2007,93.

93 Cokelet.The Archeworks Papers,Volume 1,Number 2:

Ethics? Design? 93.

30

consumer capitalism over the past two centuries has created a

world where our humanness is in many ways indistinguishable

from the artificial94. To clarify what he means when discussing

ethics, Dilnot quotes Deleuze, stating that ethics, which is to say

a topology of immanent modes of existence replaces morality,

which always refers to transcendent values95. For the purpos-

es of my manifesto, I interpreted this statement to mean that

ethics is concerned with manifestations of divinity in the real

world96, and represents a shift away from morality (which relies

on beliefs taken from more typical notions of divinity). Dilnots

interpretation of this statement represents a shift from away

from the ideal toward the real97.

Dilnot also brings in Alain Badious criticism that ethicsin the

weak sensebends to what is necessary98. As a counterpoint

Dilnot views ethics in the strong sense as active engagement

with the real understood as actuality99. Actuality to Dilnot refers

to both what we encounter as given (real) and the givens capacity

for change (possibility)100, and also indicates that we understand

that the real always includes possibility for negation, transfor-

mation, or reconfiguration101. In other words, Dilnot understands

design as the recognition of the possibility of change102that

94 Dilnot,Ethics? Design?,8.

95 Gilles Deleuze in Dilnot,Ethics? Design?,14.96 I find this term tobe problematic and loaded with ties toorganised religion.Instead,I have come to

understand divinity as both the beauty that arises through the coalescence of science and nature to

create the realworld,and alsothe extreme potentialand resilience possessed by humans.


98 Alain Badiouin Dilnot, Ethics? Design?,15.





transformative

action

the becoming of that

which could be

possibility

the given's possibility

for change

the real

what we encounter as

given in the world

negotiation

31


18/34

opens up these possibilities through negotiation103.

Dilnot describes design as a situated process that is a sus-

tained examination of what is possible in the realm of the arti-

ficial [actuality] and a negotiation with that actuality to realise

possibility104. As such, the two primary components of a de-

sign ethics Dilnot posits are possibility and negotiation. Possi-

bility is the abstract component of design ethicsits content105.

It represents a transfiguration and illustrates the need to

develop ethics that encompass radical change106. Negotiation

to Dilnot is the concrete or immanent component of design

ethicsits form taken in making107. It represents configuration

and brings up questions of recognition, incommensurability,

and mediation108. Dilnot gives three realities of which nego-

tiation is comprised: the demands and needs of the subject,

the limits of the possible (e.g. what is socially, economically,

politically, or physically possible), and transformative action109.

Dilnot also brings up some important considerations about the

ethical (design) significance of negotiating possibility:

1. Negotiation is a different way of engaging with actuality. 110

2. Design is a process of negotiating incommensurability

to create configurations (e.g. this resolution, in thisway,

responding to these circumstances)111.

3. One constant pole of incommensurability is the subject;

therefore, design can be described as an ethical negotiation

around the incommensurability of subject and object 112. The

ethical implications here are found in how the subject is

recognised (e.g. understood, listened to, etc.)113.

4. Design is an inherently relational activity; every thing has a

relationship to everything114.

5. Design differs from technology.115Technology aims to elimi-

nate incommensurability (or, to seek compatibility) whereas

design welcomes incommensurability and seeks out all

conditions that must be negotiated with as part of the design

process, then uses them for inspiration.116

6. Design as negotiation also means design as mediation.117


104 Dilnot, Ethics? Design?,16-17.


106 Dilnot, Ethics? Design?,28.



109 Dilnot, Ethics? Design?,28.110 Dilnot,Ethics? Design?,30.





115 Dilnot,Ethics? Design?,32.Dilnot does not specify,but I assume in this context he is referringto

technology the artefact,and not Buchanans notion of technology.

116 Dilnot,Ethics? Design?,33-34.

117 Dilnot,Ethics? Design?,34-35.Mediation in this sense is what is other torepresentation.

32

Dilnots understanding of design ethics as a combination of

negotiation and possibility align closely with my own ideas

about the subject, and his insights into negotiation extends

my understanding greatly. As one of the most in-depth texts

explicitly relating to design ethics, it is one of the most influ-

ential to my research. Though his ideas are highly theoretical

they are grounded with a solid philosophical foundation and I

find them to have a great resonance with the understanding of

design ethics I wish to cultivate.

So, ethics + design = what?

Though not yet complete, within the context of my manifesto I

interpret the previous discussion to conceive design ethics as

a way(s) in which any/all desired futures can be brought about.

It is possibility [theoretical aspects] and negotiation [physical

aspects]. It is the physical manifestation of human ideas about

what could be that requires the use of our innate ability to

think reflectively about previous experiences whilst making

decisions. It differs from, and should not be confused with,

aesthetic judgement. It is currently incomplete.

This understanding describes the process of design ethics, but cur-

rently lacks poles to guide the types of possibilities that should be

held as inherently good and worked towards. In the discussion that

follows, I will attempt to pin down some guiding poles.

33


19/34

Whichpossibilitiesshould westrive for?The answer to this question lies in a common design

tactic: take the problem and turn it into a solution.


20/34

How do you even begin to answer such a question?

One common thread encountered throughout my research

perhaps quite predictablyis industrial capitalism. Across the

board, theorists describe the ways in which industrial capital-

ism has fundamentally altered our existence. Upon reviewing

the theory collected throughout my research process, three

problematic alterations kept rising to the fore. These trans-

formations are not discrete, nor are they the definitive list of

capitalisms effects, however, they offer what I believe to be

some areas of opportunityor at the very least consideration

for ethical design. Each issue will be addressed with a bri ef

contextualisation followed by some possible ways design can

be used to counter the issue. They will act as the guiding poles

for that-which-should-be-regarded-as-good in my understand-

ing of design ethics at the present time.

37


21/34

A crisis of terrestrial health, or harmony?

In the centuries since the Industrial Revolution, the use of

production surpluses to expand production capacity has made

continual economic growth the status quo118and defining marker

of progress. This c ycle of consumption and economic growth

is widely regarded as a factor of the planets impending health

crisis. This crisis and its potential solutions are frequently dis-

cussedespecially within the design industry.

Though easily dismissed as a polemicist, Tony Fry offers some

ideas about the effect humans have had on the planet worth

mentioning. In his recent trilogy containing the works Design

Futuring, Design as Politics, and Becoming Human by Design,

Fry respectively articulateswith immense convictionthat

design practice be reconceptualised in a way that is harmoni-

ous with his notion of sustain-ability119, that desi gners must

politici se themse lves as chang e makers in order to achieve

this end120, and offe rs a contextual isation of his mandates

within fundamental questions about the nature of human-

ness121. Thematically speakingand of particular relevance

to this discussionthe ethical implication Fry outlines is that

design has a moral obligation to humanity and must put its

efforts towards finding a collective finitude because design is

inextricable from its ability to create potential futures for the

world 122futures which Fry conceives of as primarily destruc-

tive123. As such, he believes that politics must shift their focus

and become what he calls a dictatorship of sustainment124.

I find Frys dictatorship to be incredibly radical, and as such I

have difficulty agreeing with it wholly. Perhaps it is his choice

of words that gives me this impression, but in my opinion

he leaves no room for what I would describe as grey areas.

For instance, his thesis appears to be that current human

life should neverunder no circumstances whatsoeverbe

privileged above sustainment. In theory, this wou ld condemn

the existence and use of life-saving medical technology that

was borne out of a capitalist economy. I interpret this to mean,

for instance, the p romotion of a ban on the production or use

118 Walker,S. Sustainable By Design: Explorationsin Theory and Practice,Earthscan, London,2006, p.10.

119 Rowe,A. Design Futuring:Sustainability,Ethics and NewPractice. Reviewof DesignFuturing:

Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice,by Tony Fry.Art/Design/MediaSubjectCentre,24November

2009,http://www.adm.heacademy.ac.uk/library/files/resource-reviews/rowe-design-futuring.pdf,1.

120 Tonkinwise,C. Against Becoming Unsustainable by Human-Centered Design:A reviewof Tony Fry

BecomingHuman by Design [Berg,2013]. Reviewof Becoming Humanby Design, by Tony Fry.2013,

http://www.academia.edu/2985203/_Against_Becoming_Unsustainable_by_Human-Centered_Design_.

121 Tonkinwise,Against BecomingUnsustainable by Human-Centered Design:A reviewof Tony Fry

BecomingHuman by Design [Berg,2013].

122 Owens, K. Design and Politics by Tony Fry. Reviewof Designand Politics, by Tony Fry. Design

Philosophy Papers, No2,2011, http://www.academia.edu/827369/Design_and_Politics_by_Tony_Fry_A_

review_by_Keith_Owens,6.

123 Owens,K. Design and Politics by Tony Fry. Reviewof Designand Politics, by Tony Fry. Design

Philosophy Papers, No2,2011, http://www.academia.edu/827369/Design_and_Politics_by_Tony_Fry_A_

review_by_Keith_Owens,6.

124 Tonkinwise,Against Becoming Unsustainable by Human-Centered Design:A reviewof Tony Fry

BecomingHuman by Design [Berg,2013].

39

!"#$%& (%)*$+ ,) , &%#-# * & " # . , + ( / # , 0 & * 0 %&1,& 0,+ 2% 3 ,*( 03, *4&"555*##%)/%0&*6% "! 1"7." 8 0 8 # # % + & 3. & 1 * + 9,+( !% %3 ,2"8 & (%)*$+ :

." 8 + % % ( & " 4 % , ) 8 # %

."8# "7+ 8+(%#)&,+(-*+$ ,$,*+)& 71,& !"3-3"7) , +( &1 % !,0& "!( % ) * $ + ; ) 0 " + & * + 8 , 3 3.$ # " 7 * + $ * 4 / " # & , + 0 %

, ) , ( % 0 * ) * 6 % ! , 0 & " #* + " 8 # ! 8 & 8 # % 1 , 6 * + $, !8&8#%5 +,&8#% ,3"+%0,++ "& )8)&,* + 8) < 7%,#% &"" 4, +.: 7 % 1,6%( " + % & " " 4 8 0 1 % 0 " -

3 " $ * 0 , 3 ( , 4 , $ % : , + (7 % 1 , 6 % 2 % 0 " 4 % & " "( % / % + ( % + & 8 / " + & 1 %,#&*!*0*,3 7"#3() &1,&7% 1 ,6% (%)* $+% (: !,2-


22/34


23/34

A hierarchy of human value, or dignity?

The second problematic alteration of industrial capitalism was

brought to my attention in Part II of Dilnots Ethics? Desi gn?

during his discussion of dignity and design in relation to

the public sphere126. Dilnot points out that capitalism and its

trappings (mindless consumption, valuing greed, the desire

for endless economic grow th, etc. ) reduce t he agency or social

worth of individuals to their economic power127. In perhaps one

of the most poignant passages in the book, Dilnot articulates

the ramifications of this system128:

If we are to consider the politics of the subject

todayespecially in urban politics in the USA, and

globally with respect to the poor (urban and rural)

then what we are most concerned with is creating

the conditions, materially and ideologically, for

the reverse of victim-hoodthat is for creating

subjectivity. We know from our earlier discussions

that the Holocaust could only happen once The

Jew as a category of person has been stripped of all

personhood. As we saw in the Berlin project, material

deprivation, public humiliation and petty cruelty are

integral part of that process [sic]which is why they

precede genocide. But this is also why class-interests

in politics have a vested interest in supporting both

humiliation and deprivation in however small ways

voter registration processes in Florida let us say, or

cut-backs to funding for infrastructure for public

education. The point about these processes is that

they are erosive of personhood with respect to whom

they are applied. In so far as they succeed (again in

even small ways) as subject into a victim and the

politics of this, to repeat, is that in so doing one has

created a person to whom anything can be done, for

the victimand children know this from playground

bullyingis one for whom in contradiction to how we

like to think about it, there can be no pity. The aim of

all ethical-politics thenhas to be to reverse the logic

of the victim. One reverses this logic by re-creating

the victim as a subject with power, and one gives

power (the term is literal) by endowing the victim/

subject with value as a subject.129



128 After many attempts tosummarise his words in an equally compellingmanner,Ive decided to just

include themas an extended quotation topreserve their gravitas and poetry.


43

! " # $ % & ' " # $ ) * $ ) + $ )"#! ,!&* -!)-! ".&)-/01.2- -34-"&)"$5! -30/0 ! . $ ) + 0 . 1 2 " # ! % 1 ) /% . ! " ! % 1 ) - ! 6 3 ! ) % !1 0 7 ! % $ - $ 1 ) - / 2 & 7 ! " 1"#&"/,#$%#/#&88!)-/"1/5 $ % " $ 2 - 9 & ) 7 " # ! . ! 4 :+$5!- "#! &'$4$ "1 "#1-!,#1-! 7!%$- $1)- ,!.!.!-81)-$4'! 01. ,#&"" . & ) - 8 $ . ! 7 ; < $ ) " # $ -

".&)-'&"$1)= -34>!%"-4 ! % 1 2 ! 5 $ % " $ 2 - 9 & ) 7" # ! . ! 0 1 . ! $ ) - 1 2 ! $ 2 /8'$% $" 2&)) !. &" ' !&-"8&."$&'': &3"#1.- 10"#!$. 1,) 0&"!; &)7 "#!

!5!)" $"-!'0 '1-!- $" ? -81'$"$%&' 9&)7 %.$2$)&';&%"3&'$" :@01. " #! 5 $%/"$2 $- &',&:- &) 14>!%"&)7 14>!%"- &.! "#&"


24/34

The notion that capitalism is ravaging our planet in an envi-

ronmental sense is often articulated, but in this passage, Dilnot

articulates a very different type of consequenceone that

strips away personhood. As a result, he explains that ethical

design calls for design that undoes harm and restores human

dignity130. This is the foundation for the second pole I would

like to establish for that-which-should-be-regarded-as-good in

my understanding of design ethics: dignity, the innate right of

everyone to be valued and receive ethical treatment. The ob-

vious means for employing dignity in the design practice is to

create design that actively challenges this problem, but some

more nuanced ideas are expanded upon in Part II of Dilnots

Ethics?, Design?.

Dilnot titles his first section of Part II Compassion, or the Arti-

fact: Sentient Perception and the Interior Structure of the Arti-

fact131 to establish a direct link between artefacts and compas-

sion . He states that all ethics begins with compassion132, but

that in the past century we have been unable to make compas-

sion political133. To tie compassion to design, Dilnot examines

the designers ability to relieve the pain of others and heavily

references the final chapter of Elaine Scarrys, The Body In

Pain134.As it relates to ethics, Dilnot states that designers re-

lieve suffering not just with empathy to those in pain, but also

through a translation (akin to the translation of poetry from one

language to another) of their perceptions and understandings

of that pain into an artefact which works to alleviate it.135Dilnot

gives Harry Becks 1933 London Underground diagram136and

references Scarrys example of the incandescent light bulb 137as

exemplars of this translation.

Dilnot expands the notion of pain from the sense of our bodily

capacities and capabilities to the more general sense of how

we feel alive at any momentwhich therefore relates also to

consciousness and the particularly to self-consciousness of

who we are and how we may be138. Though never stated so

explicitly, Dilnot is referring to the innate human longing for

possibili ty of what we could beor r atherdes ire. He goes on

to state that design should strive not only to alleviate pain and

suffering, but also to offer an opening to happiness139.

130 Dilnot, Ethics? Design?, 140.






136 Dilnot, Ethics? Design?, 90-91.



139 Dilnot, Ethics? Design?, 95. What Heidegger calls, Being of Joy.

Dilnot links this back to artefacts translating them into gifts

made things are essentially anonymous gifts140whose produc-

tion should be addressed to a recipient141. He maintains that this

view of artefacts as gifts may have a lot to offer in the confound-

ing of commodity consumption and subject-subject relations 142.

Dilnots discussion of modesty and radical impurity has two

key takeaways for t he purpos e of thi s manifesto. First, D ilnot

dances around modesty as it relates to design. Through the

use of subheadings such as proximity and the space of being

ordinary, Dilnot constructs a notion of modesty that can be

summed up as focusing on the nearest or plainest artefacts

(those with a primary concern of serving a compassionate end)

and not on those which are opulent or borne from self-indulgent

aesthetics143. Second, Dilnot puts forth the concept of radical

impurity, by which he means design that hovers perpetually

between two conditions144. For instance, design that is between

such things as: imaginative projection and realisation; artwork

and the object made real; prototype and ubiquitous stereotype; or

inventive and everyday145. This once again harkens back to Dil-

nots theory that (design) ethics is a negotiation between the real

and the ideal, and therefore implicates that to design in a space of

radical impurity is to design ethically.

In summation, with this pole I wish to articulate that the full

access to things such as the alleviation of suffering, the exten-

sion of human experience, and dignity should not be directly

correlated to ones economic power.







4544


25/34


26/34

A crisis of confidence, or desire?

This final problematic alteration of industrial capitalism is a dis-

belief in our own ability to successfully undertake and complete

transformative change. It is perhaps the most key of the three, as

the subtext of the first two requires transformation.

This issue is covered very thoroughly in Jill Franzs 2013 key-

note presentation at the DRS//Cumulus Oslo 2ndInternational

Conference for Design Education Researchers. In her address,

Franz proposes a new design pedagogy with wide application

for education at any level which regards desi gn learning as

a force for engaging the radical self146. In Franzs context, a

radical self is:

one who takes responsibility for designing their own

existence, who is intensely desiring of reform and

transformation despite risk, disruption and ambiguity;

who contests intentions to control preferring to adopt

a nuanced, textured approach to life; who embraces

uncertainty because of the impetus it provides to move

beyond the world that is147.

Franz states that there is a general consensus (amongst the

media, government, design industry, business, etc.) that

abductive reasoning and creative problem solving must be

used to solve the wicked problems of our postnormal world148

including, in this context, the two aforementioned problematic

alterations. However, she believes we currently lack the confi-

dence to see such transformation through, using the Ziauddin

Sardar quote, in our time it is possible to dream all dreams of

visionary futures but almost impossible to believe we have the

capability or commitment to make any of them a reality149to

articulate the idea poetically.

Franz explains this crisis of confidence by stating that humans

have undergone the extinction of experience150as capitalism

has changed transformed the relationship children have with

nature from direct exposure to an indirect and virtual experi-

ence151. Franz believes these indirect experiencesmediated by

technologylimit childrens opportunities to experience won-

der and surprise and for dealing with uncertainty, risk, and fail-

146 Franz,Jill. [Design]Learning: AProductive Force for Engagingthe RadicalSelf. Keynote Presentation

for DRS//Cumulus Oslo2013-2nd InternationalConference for Design Education Researchers,Oslo,

Norway,16 May 2013.

147 Franz,[Design] Learning:A Productive Force for Engaging the RadicalSelf

148 Franz,[Design] Learning:A Productive Force for Engagingthe RadicalSelf.

149 Sardar,Z. Welcome topostnormaltimes. Futures, 42,no.5,(2010 quoted in Franz,[Design]Learning:

AProductive Force for Engagingthe RadicalSelf. How doesthis relate toDilnots notionof ethicsbeing

the mediationbetweenthe real and ideal ifour faith inour own ability tocreate the ideal nolonger

exists?

150 Franz,[Design] Learning:A Productive Force for Engagingthe RadicalSelf. The extinctionof

experiencereferstoa sense ofdisembodimentor alienationfromnature and the natural world.

151 Kellert,S. Building for Life. Washington:Island Press,2005,45 quoted in Franz,[Design] Learning:A

Productive Force for Engagingthe Radical Self.

& ' $ + # " 4 3 ' 4 " . & ) - /0 1 . 2 - " # ! # 3 2 & )0.12 & % .!&"3. ! , #1-8!)7- &88.1A$2&"!':1) ! " #$ .7 10 !&%# 7&:+.18$)+ $) "#! 7&.*= "11)! ,#1 -!!- 2!.!': 4:,&)"$) + "1 -!! B $"- $2/81--$4': 0.&+$'!= 2$'*:/, # $ " ! % 3 . 5 ! 7 + ' 1 4 !8 . 1 " ! % " $ 5 ! ': & . 1 3 ) 7&) !5!) 21.! 0.&+$'! =

3 8 . $ + # " / " # ! ) / 0 1 ' 7 $ ) +0 $ ' & 2 ! ) " 1 0 , $ . ! $ -" # ! 2 & " ! . $ & ' $ C & " $ 1 )10 )!$ "#!. .!"$)& = )1.838$' = )1. 7&:/-!! $)+=)1. )$+ #"/-!! $ )+D $" $-

& 2 &"!. $&' $C&"$1 ) 1 0 &% 1 3 ) " ! . 0& % 3 "& ' 8 ! . /%!8"$1) & 413" "#! 7!/8 ! ) 7 & ) % ! 1 0 # 3 2 & )- $ + # " 1 ) " # ! . # : " # 2

49


27/34

ure152ultimately leaving them with reduced opportunities to

develop resilience and adaptive, critical and creative responses

and to build an experiential repository for future. To Franz, this

shift changes the ways in which we define our humanness.

In this particular instance, an extinction of experience with

nature has shaken the confidence in our ability to successfully

undertake transformative change153. This is the backgrund for

the third pole I would like to establish for that-which-should-

be-regarded-as-good in my understanding of design ethics:

desire as a source of inspiration and motivation.

As a mea ns of co unteracting this c risis of confidenc e, Franz

introduces aspects of Nelson & Stoltermans 2010 work, The

Design Wayspecifically the idea of desiderata (that-which-

is-desired). Nelson and Stolterman argue that we typically

attempt to solve problems with a negotiation between that-

which-is and that-which-ought-to-be but do not include

that-which-is-desired (desiderata)154. Instead, they argue that

we should include desiderata and use humanitys hardwired

desireto thrive and not merely surviveto reinvigorate our

transformative action155. They offer the idea that desire is

the destabilizing trigger for transformational change, which

facilitates the emergence of new poss ibilities and reali zations

of human being156

.

The significance of this is that design can enable a positive

impulse born out of the desire to create situations, systems of

organisation, or concrete artefacts that enhance our life expe-

riences157. As Franz puts it, a shift to include desires as well

as needs, for all concerned, might invoke greater potential and

embodied generative capacity of design for transformational

change 158. Franz and Nelson & Stolterman believe desiderata

could help to restore faith in our abilities to create transfor-

mation as it can help initiate a certain kind of design action,

capacity, or agency linking this human capacity to human

achievement in a highly productive way159.

In this way, desiderata can be can be thought as of that-

which-is-not-yet160and the creation of transformative changethrough desiderata contains three dimensions: what we want

152 Franz, [Design] Learning: A Productive Force for Engaging the Radical Self.


154 Nelson , H & E Stolterman. The Design Way, 2ndEdition. London: The MIT Press, 2010, 117 quoted in

Franz, [Design] Learning: A Productive Force for Engaging the Radical Self.

155 Nelson, H & E Stolterman. The Design Way, 2nd Edition. London: The MIT Press, 2010, 117 quoted in


156 Nelson, H & E Stolterman. The Design Way, 2nd Edition. London: The MIT Press, 2010, 110 quoted in





159 Nelson, H & E Stolterman. The Design Way, 2nd Edition. London: The MIT Press, 2010, quoted in Franz,

[Design] Learning: A Productive Force for Engaging the Radical Self.



(our aesthetics); what we believe ought to be (our ethics); that

which needs to be (corresponding to reason)161. In relation to

design, Franz voices Nelson & Stoltermans belief that design

should intentionally direct evolution rather than allow evolu-

tion to happen as a reactive trigger to negative change 162as it

ensures design is a grounded and purposeful activity.

161 Franz, [Design] Learning: A Productive Force for Engaging the Radical Self. The extinction of

experience refers to a sense of disembodiment or alienation from nature and the natural world.

162 Nelson, H & E Stolterman. The Design Way, 2ndEdition. London: The MIT Press, 2010, 117 quoted in


5150


28/34


29/34


30/34

Works CitedAamodt, A., and E. Plaza. Case-Based Reasoning: Foundational Issues,

Methodological Variations, and System Approaches.Artificial Intelli-

gence Communications7, no. 1 (1994): 39-52.

Buchanan, R. Wicked Problems in Design Thinking. Design IssuesVIII, no.

2 (1992): 5-21.

Bunge, M. Dictionary of Philosophy. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1999.

Burnette, C. The Morals and Ethics of A Theory of Design Thinking.

Academia.edu. February 9, 2013. http://www.academia.edu/4390557/

The_Morals_and_Ethics_of_A_Theory_of_Design_Thinking.

Burnette, C. A Theory of Design Thinking. Academia.edu. November 1,

2009. http://www.academia.edu/209385/A_Theory_of_Design_Think-

ing.

Cokelet, B. The Archeworks Papers, Volume 1, Number 2:

Ethics? Design? Review of The Archeworks Papers, Volume 1, Number 2,

by S. Tigerman. Design Issue23, no. 2 (Summer 2007).

Cross, N. Developments in Design Methodology. Chichester: Wiley, 1984.

Crotty, M. The Foundations of Social Science Research:meaning and

Perspective in the Research Process . New South Wales: Allen and Uwin,

1998.

Davis, P. Q. Tomz. Lecture, University of Plymouth, United Kingdom,

Plymouth, September 12, 2013.

Dilnot, C. Ethics? Design? In The Archeworks Papers, Volume 1, Number 2,

edited by S. Tigerman, 1-149. Chicago: Archeworks Press, 2005.

Franz, J. [Design] Learning: A Productive Force for Engaging the Radical

Self. Address, DRS//Cumulus Oslo 2013-2nd International Conference for

Design Education Researchers, Norway, Oslo, May 16, 2013.

Friedman, K. Theory Construction in Design Research: Criteria: Approach-es, and Methods. Design Studies24, no. 6 (2003): 507-22.

Fry, T. Becoming Human by Design. London: Berg, 2012.

Fry, T. Design as Politics. Oxford: Berg, 2011.

Fry, T. Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics, and New Practice . Oxford:

Berg, 2009.

Glaser, M. These Are Some Things I Have Learned. Address, AIGA Nation-

al Design Conference, March 23, 2002.

Jonsen, A. R. Casuistry: An Alternative or Complement to Principles?

Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal5, no. 3 (1995): 237-51.

Kellert, S. Building for Life. Washington: Island Press, 2005.

Kimbell, L. Rethinking Design Thinking: Part 1. Design and Culture3, no. 3

(2011): 285-306.

Kimbell, L. Rethinking Design Thinking: Part 2. Design and Culture4, no.

2 (2012): 129-48.

Lustig, A., and R. Poynor. What Is a Designer. In Looking Closer 3: Classic

Writings on Graphic Design, edited by M. Bierut, J. Helfand, and S. Heller,

106-08. New York: Allworth Press, 1999.

Nelson, H., and E. Stolterman.The Design Way: Intentional Change in an

Unpredictable World. 2nd ed. Cambridge, Massachusestts: MIT Press,

2012.

Owens, K. Design and Politics by Tony Fry. Review of Design and Politics,

by T. Fry. Design Philosophy Papers 2 (2011). Accessed August 2013.

http://www.academia.edu/827369/Design_and_Politics_by_Tony_Fry-

_A_review_by_Keith_Owens.

57


31/34

Potter, N. What Is a Designer: Things, Places, Messages. London:

Hyphen, 2012.

Rowe, A. Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice. Review

of Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice. Art/Design/

Media Subject Centre, September 24, 2009. http://www.adm.heacademy.

ac.uk/library/files/resource-reviews/rowe-design-futuring.pdf.

Sardar, Z. Welcome to Postnormal Times. Futures42, no. 5 (2010): 435-44.

Simon, H. The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996.

Tonkinwise, C. Against Becoming Unsustainable by Human-Centered

Design: A Review of Tony Fry Becoming Human by Design [Berg, 2013].

Review of Becoming Human by Design, by T. Fry. Accessed August 2013.

http://www.academia.edu/2985203/_Against_Becoming_Unsustaina-

ble_by_Human-Centered_Design_.

Walker, S. Sustainable by Design: Explorations in Theory and Practice

London: Earthscan, 2006.

BibliographyAamodt, A., and E. Plaza. Case-Based Reasoning: Foundational Issues,

Methodological Variations, and System Approaches.Artificial Intelli-

gence Communications7, no. 1 (1994): 39-52.

Barreto, Susana. Ethics for the Real World: The Impact of Globalisation on

Communication Design. In 10th European Academy of Design Confer-

ence - Crafting the Future, 13. Gothenburg, 2013.

Baudrillard, Jean. For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign . Trans-

lated by Charles Levin. New York: Telos, 1981.

Baudrillard, Jean.Simulacra and Simulation. Translated by Sheila Faria

Glaser. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1994.

Baudrillard, Jean. The Consumer Society: Myths and Structures. London:

Sage, 1998.

Black, Misha. The Designer and the Client. In Looking Closer 3: Classic

Writings on Graphic Design, edited by Jessica Helfand Michael Beirut,

Stephen Heller, and Rick Poynor, 109-11. New York: Allworth Press, 1999.

Bretteville, Shela Levrant de. Some Aspects of Design from the Perspec-

tive of a Woman Designer. In Looking Closer 3: Classic Writings on

Graphic Design, edited by Jessica Helfand Michael Beirut, Stephen Heller,

and Rick Poynor, 238-45. New York: Allworth, 1999.

Bronwen Grey, Alan Young. Communication Design and Community:

Pedagogy and Empowerment. In 10th European Academy of Design

Conference - Crafting the Future, 14. Gothenburg, 2013.

Buchanan, R. Wicked Problems in Design Thinking. Design IssuesVIII, no.

2 (1992): 5-21.

Buck-Coleman, Audra. Navigating Cross-Cultures, Curriculum and

Confrontation: Addressing Ethics and Stereotypes in Design Education.

Visible Language 44, no. 2 (2010): 187-208.

Bunge, M. Dictionary of Philosophy. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1999.

Burnette, C. The Morals and Ethics of A Theory of Design Thinking.

Academia.edu. February 9, 2013. http://www.academia.edu/4390557/

The_Morals_and_Ethics_of_A_Theory_of_Design_Thinking.

Burnette, C. A Theory of Design Thinking. Academia.edu. November 1,

2009. http://www.academia.edu/209385/A_Theory_of_Design_Think-

ing.

5 8 5 9

Cokelet, B. The Archeworks Papers, Volume 1, Number 2:

Ethics? Design? Review of The Archeworks Papers, Volume 1, Number 2,

by S. Tigerman.Design Issue23, no. 2 (Summer 2007).

Cross, N. Developments in Design Methodology. Chichester: Wiley, 1984.

Crotty, M. The Foundations of Social Science Research:meaning and

Perspective in the Research Process . New South Wales: Allen and Uwin,

1998.

Danchev, A. 100 Artists Manifestos. London: Penguin, 2011.

Darbyshire, Ralph. Activism, Art Practice and the Vulnerability of Mes-

sage. University of Plymouth, 2011.

Davis, P. Q. Tomz. Lecture, University of Plymouth, United Kingdom,

Plymouth, September 12, 2013.

Dilnot, C. Ethics? Design? In The Archeworks Papers, Volume 1, Number 2,

edited by S. Tigerman, 1-149. Chicago: Archeworks Press, 2005.

Drenttel, Willam and Julie Lasky. Reasons Not to Be Pretty: Symposium on

Design, Social Change and the Museum. Design Observer(2010).

Drucker, Johanna and Emily McVarish. Chapters 4 & 5. Chap. 4 + 5 In

Graphic Design History: A Critical Guide : Prentice Hall, 2008.

Foucault, Michel. The Political Technology of Individuals. In Technologies

of the Self. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1988.

Foucault, Michel. The Archaeology of Knowledge. Translated by A. M.

Sheirdan Smith. Abingdon: Routledge, 1989.

Franz, J. [Design] Learning: A Productive Force for Engaging the Radical

Self. Address, DRS//Cumulus Oslo 2013-2nd International Conference for

Design Education Researchers, Norway, Oslo, May 16, 2013.

Frascara, Jorge. Communication Design: Principles, Methods and Practice.

New York: Allworth Press, 2004.

Friedman, K. Theory Construction in Design Research: Criteria: Approach-

es, and Methods. Design Studies24, no. 6 (2003): 507-22.

Fry, T. Becoming Human by Design. London: Berg, 2012.

Fry, T. Design as Politics. Oxford: Berg, 2011.

Fry, T. Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics, and New Practice. Oxford:Berg, 2009.

Garland, Ken. First Things First. In Looking Closer 3: Classic Writings on

Graphic Design, edited by Jessica Helfand Michael Beirut, Stephen Heller,

and Rick Poynor, 154-55. New York: Allworth Press, 1999.

Garland, Ken. Here Are Some Things We Must Do. In Looking Closer 3:

Classic Writings on Graphic Design, edited by Jessica Helfand Michael

Beirut, Stephen Heller, and Rick Poynor, 187-92. New York: Allworth Press,

1999.

ginger all-lower-case coons, Ricardo Laufuente, Ana Isabel Carvalho.

Bringing the Methods of Free/Libre Open Source Software to Collabora-

tive Graphic Design. In 10th European Academy of Design Conference

- Crafting the Future, 15. Gothenburg, 2013.

Glaser, M. These Are Some Things I Have Learned. Address, AIGA Nation-

al Design Conference, March 23, 2002.

Grayling, A. C. What the Professor Says..Creative Review 27, no. 2 (Febru-

ary 2007): 2.

Grey, Carol and Julian Mailns. Visualizing Research: A Guide to the Re-

search Process in Art and Design. Alsershot, England: Ashgate, 2004.

Haslem, Neal. Radical Communication Design: An Intersubjective Framing

of Collaborative Practice. In 10th European Academy of Design Confer-

ence - Crafting the Future, 13. Gothenburg, 2013.

Heidegger, Matin. Being and Time. Translated by John Macquarrie & Ed-

ward Robinson. Oxford: Blackwell, 1962.


32/34

Heller, Stephen. Introduction. In Citizen Designer: Perspectives on Design

Responsibility, edited by Veronique Vienne Stephen Heller, ix-xi. New

York, USA: Allworth Press, 2003.

Hoel, Anne-Mette; Bitnes, Kristin Schjdt; Staven-Garberg, Kjersti. Amg &

Etikk [Amg and Ethics]. Snitt magasin for visuell kommunikasjon, no. 1

(2008): 26-27.

Jonsen, A. R. Casuistry: An Alternative or Complement to Principles?

Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal5, no. 3 (1995): 237-51.

Junginger, Sabine. Design and Innovation in the Public Sector: Matters of

Design in Policy-Making and Policy Implementation1. In 10th European

Academy of Design Conference - Crafting the Future. Gothenburg, 2013.

Kellert, S. Building for Life. Washington: Island Press, 2005.

Kerr, Russel. Design Can Change the World If We Change the Way We

Approach Design.. Desktop, no. 277 (2011): 2.

Kimbell, L. Rethinking Design Thinking: Part 1. Design and Culture3, no. 3

(2011): 285-306.

Kimbell, L. Rethinking Design Thinking: Part 2. Design and Culture4, no.

2 (2012): 129-48.

Lustig, A., and R. Poynor. What Is a Designer. In Looking Closer 3: Classic

Writings on Graphic Design, edited by M. Bierut, J. Helfand, and S. Heller,

106-08. New York: Allworth Press, 1999.

McCoy, K. Good Citizenship. In Citizen Designer: Perspectives on Design

Responsibility, edited by Veronique Vienne Stephen Heller. New York,

USA: Allworth Press, 2003.

Nelson, H., and E. Stolterman. The Design Way: Intentional Change in an

Unpredictable World. 2nd ed. Cambridge, Massachusestts: MIT Press,

2012.

OBrien, Susie and Imre Szeman. Representation and Construction of

Social Reality. In Popular Culture: A Users Guide : Nelson Education

Limited, 2010.

Oldham, Craig. Design Guidelines.Creative Review 29, no. 5 (2009): 60-61.

Owens, K. Design and Politics by Tony Fry. Review of Design and Politics,

by T. Fry. Design Philosophy Papers 2 (2011). Accessed August 2013.

http://www.academia.edu/827369/Design_and_Politics_by_Tony_Fry-

_A_review_by_Keith_Owens.

Paul A. Rodgers, Andy Tennant, Giovanni Innella, Freddie Yauner. Disrup-

tive Design Interventions as Change Agents. In 10th European Academy

of Design Conference - Crafting the Future, 14. Gothenburg, 2013.

Potter, N. What Is a Designer: Things, Places, Messages. London: Hyphen,

2012.

Roberts, Lucienne. Good: An Introduction to Ethics in Graphic Design . Case

Postale, Switzerland: AVA Publishing SA, 2006.

Rowe, A. Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice. Review

of Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice. Art/Design/

Media Subject Centre, September 24, 2009. http://www.adm.heacademy.

ac.uk/library/files/r

#L2D4G: A personal manifesto of design ethics

Documents

Transcript of #L2D4G: A personal manifesto of design ethics