Developing an Ethically-Aware Design Character through Problem Framing

Developing an Ethically-Aware Design Character THROUGH PROBLEM FRAMING

COLIN M. GRAY Purdue University

CHARLES EAMES, 1969

THROUGH PROBLEM FRAMING

FRAMING JUDGMENTS“what is to be included within the purview of the design process—in other words, what are

the ‘edges’ of the project and what lies beyond consideration”

(Nelson & Stolterman, 2012)

FRAME CREATION MODEL

(Dorst, 2015, p.75)

DESIGN CHARACTER

“a designer’s character is his

or her core.”

self-reflection

values, beliefs, skills, sensibility, reason,

ethics, and aesthetics

design responsibility

how do framing

judgments serve as a

window into a developing designer’s character?

—————————————Nelson & Stolterman, 2012—————————————

1. What types of constraints appear to be most salient for students when constructing a

problem frame?

2. How do these constraints, and their ethical implications, relate

to the final solution?

PARTICIPANTS• Undergraduate and graduate industrial design students at a

large Midwestern university

• 100 students (28 females and 71 males)

• Self-organized into 21 teams comprised of 4-5 students

• Students were convinced they already knew “everything” about problem framing

analysis: 5.33/7 [SD=0.93]

exploration: 5.18/7 [SD=1.08]

defining: 5.02/7 [SD=1.14]

FRAMING WORKSHOP

Create a solution that meets a basic need in a developing region in Sub-Saharan Africa, while improving or creating self-sustaining economic activity.

UNDERSTAND & DEVELOP CONTEXT

45 MINUTES

SYNTHESIZE & FINALIZE

50 MINUTES

IDEATE & ITERATE

50 MINUTES

“

”

WORKSHOP STRUCTURE

�RESOURCES

�DEBRIEF

�INITIAL FRAME

�IDEATION

STAKEHOLDERS

CONSTRAINTS

PROBLEM STATEMENTDEPLOYMENT

�RATIONALE

BIG PROBLEM

FRAME

CONCEPT

�REFINED FRAME

PROBLEM STATEMENT

�RESOURCES

�DEBRIEF

�INITIAL FRAME

�IDEATION

STAKEHOLDERS

CONSTRAINTS


�RATIONALE

BIG PROBLEM

FRAME

CONCEPT

�REFINED FRAME

PROBLEM STATEMENT

WORKSHOP STRUCTURE

�RESOURCES

�DEBRIEF

�INITIAL FRAME

�IDEATION

STAKEHOLDERS

CONSTRAINTS


�RATIONALE

BIG PROBLEM

FRAME

CONCEPT

�REFINED FRAME

PROBLEM STATEMENT

WORKSHOP STRUCTURE

�RESOURCES

�DEBRIEF

�INITIAL FRAME

�IDEATION

STAKEHOLDERS

CONSTRAINTS


�RATIONALE

BIG PROBLEM

FRAME

CONCEPT

�REFINED FRAME

PROBLEM STATEMENT

WORKSHOP STRUCTURE

�RESOURCES

�DEBRIEF

�INITIAL FRAME

�IDEATION

STAKEHOLDERS

CONSTRAINTS


�RATIONALE

BIG PROBLEM

FRAME

CONCEPT

�REFINED FRAME

PROBLEM STATEMENT

WORKSHOP STRUCTURE

�RESOURCES

�DEBRIEF

�INITIAL FRAME

�IDEATION

STAKEHOLDERS

CONSTRAINTS


�RATIONALE

BIG PROBLEM

FRAME

CONCEPT

�REFINED FRAME

PROBLEM STATEMENT

WORKSHOP STRUCTURE

ANALYSIS: FRAME CRITERIA

• Stakeholders: locals (10); government (9); designers/developers (7); companies (7); local organizations/businesses (5); families (4)

• Constraints: cost (13); resources (10); culture (7); education (7); location (7); infrastructure (6)

• Deployment: airdrop (4); external donors (3); charity programs (2); companies (2)

ANALYSIS: PROBLEMSComparison of initial and final problem statements and semantic

differentials along with the final elevator pitch

PROBLEM EXPLORATION WORKSHOP

YOUR TAKE ON THE PROBLEM

Fill out the semantic differential with two different criteria to talk about different types of problems that you might want to solve. Identify and name a few points on each graph to describe different use cases or priorities.

FILL OUT YOUR TEAM’S PROBLEM STATEMENT

needs to be able to

when/where

3

USER OR STAKEHOLDER

NEED YOU ARE ADDRESSING

WHEN/WHERE THE SOLUTION WOULD BE USED


DOES IT SOLVE THE PROBLEM?

While looking at the concept clusters you chose, fill out the semantic differential with two different criteria that represent issues that are important to the success of your solution. Locate each cluster within the semantic differential, and then chose a final concept (or modification/combination of a concept) that best addresses the problem.

FILL OUT YOUR FINAL PROBLEM STATEMENT

needs to be able to

when/where

6

USER OR STAKEHOLDER

NEED YOU ARE ADDRESSING

WHEN/WHERE THE SOLUTION WOULD BE USED


MAKE YOUR FINAL PITCH

Draw out your final concept, with a description and/or annotations.

Create a one-minute “elevator pitch” for your concept that you could give to a person not famil-iar with the problem. This pitch should include the following elements: 1) a brief description of the big problem (10 seconds); 2) the specific problem your team addressed (20 seconds); and 3) your team’s concept, and how it contributes to solving the larger problem (30 seconds). Write out the main points for each section below, and practice giving the pitch to each other.

1

2

3

7

INITIAL AND REFINED FRAMING CRITERIA

Team Initial Framing Criteria Refined Framing Criteria

M4 Education v. Income Community v. Sustainability

M5 Cost v. Volume/Accessibility Technology level v. Innovation

M9 Tangible Product v. Internally developed Consumer operated v. Uninvasive/invasive to culture

M10 Cost v. Complexity Feasibility v. Sustainability

M11 Population size v. Age Population size v. Age

M13 Aesthetic v. Cost Filtration v. Size

A1 Manufacturing (difficult to easy) v. Distributing Maintenance v. Ease of use

A4 Cost v. Durability Cost (low to high) v. Durability

A9 Filtration (-/+) v. Bountiful water (-/+) Cost (-/+) v. Automation (-/+)

A10 Rural v. Family Life Impact (lo/hi) v. Self-sustaining

A11 Technology v. Cost Labor v. Cost

CASE:

Improving Maintenance of Water Filtration Systems

CASE:

Improving Maintenance of Water Filtration Systems1. Internally developed v. tangible product “Local, small business owner (in any area w/ weak infrastructure/poor water quality) needs to be able to provide a water purifying system made with regional materials & maintenance service to evaluate & test the effectiveness of the system to be used/maintained for household & small group use but located in the vicinity of the community well.” [bold text provided on worksheet]

CASE:

Improving Maintenance of Water Filtration Systems1. Internally developed v. tangible product “Local, small business owner (in any area w/ weak infrastructure/poor water quality) needs to be able to provide a water purifying system made with regional materials & maintenance service to evaluate & test the effectiveness of the system to be used/maintained for household & small group use but located in the vicinity of the community well.” [bold text provided on worksheet]

CASE:

Improving Maintenance of Water Filtration Systems2. Consumer operated v. uninvasive to culture “Water filtration technitions with a small business located near a well/area w/ poor water quality need to be able to manage/test/maintain the water filtration system without being culturally invasive when/where there are communities w/ a regional water source that is in need of water management.” [bold text provided on worksheet]

CASE:

Improving Maintenance of Water Filtration Systems2. Consumer operated v. uninvasive to culture “Water filtration technitions with a small business located near a well/area w/ poor water quality need to be able to manage/test/maintain the water filtration system without being culturally invasive when/where there are communities w/ a regional water source that is in need of water management.” [bold text provided on worksheet]

Big problem Specific problem Concept contribution

Water filtration systems in sub-saharan Africa are not

well maintained

Lack of technical knowledge/skills, as well as materials, are factors that

contribute to ill maintained community water sources

Local small business technicians install and maintain underground

pump filters next to communities/existing wells

DISCUSSION

Problem framing provides access to designers’ assumptions about the end user and context

ETHICAL CHARACTER

TRAVERSAL OF THE SPACE ARTICULATES

DISCUSSIONSTUDENTS’ ETHICAL AWARENESS GREW • complexity apparent in the debrief

• but altered (often in a Eurocentric way) when the students moved to their initial problem statement

STUDENTS’ FRAMING ABILITY GREW

analysis: 5.33/7 [SD=0.93] 5.40/7 [SD=1.02]

exploration: 5.18/7 [SD=1.08] 5.41/7 [SD=1.14]

defining: 5.02/7 [SD=1.14] 5.23/7 [SD=1.24]

DISCUSSIONBUT THIS AWARENESS (GENERALLY) DID NOT RESULT IN REGIONALLY APPROPRIATE SOLUTIONS • difficult for students to position take with their target user

• inability for students to embrace the ethical complexity of their role in providing a solution for developing nations

• distancing between students’ own experiences and that of the users for which they were designing

CONCLUSION & FUTURE WORK• We have limited ability to view the ethical development of

individuals, only on the team level

• It appears that students thought they already knew how to engage in problem framing, but realized in working through the problem the limits of their abilities (flat pre/post)

• Need to encourage ethical development in a systemic way throughout design curricula, allowing students to understand the ways in which their normative commitments affect and shape their design process

THANK YOU

COLIN M. GRAY Purdue University

This research is funded in part by the National Science Foundation, Division of Undergraduate Education, Transforming Undergraduate Education in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (TUES Type II)

Grants # 1323251 and #1322552. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

COLINGRAY.ME