Can’t Fix This? Innovation, Social Change, and Solutionism in Design Thinking

IF 2.7 2区 文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION Media and Communication Pub Date : 2023-12-07 DOI:10.17645/mac.7427
Annika Richterich
{"title":"Can’t Fix This? Innovation, Social Change, and Solutionism in Design Thinking","authors":"Annika Richterich","doi":"10.17645/mac.7427","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Design thinking is commonly presented as a solution-oriented approach to innovation. It aims to solve so-called “wicked problems,” with various textbooks and toolkits promising to equip their readers with the skills needed to do so. By rendering design thinking as a magic bullet for problem-solving towards innovation and social change, some of its proponents fall back on a solutionist position. This is despite a growing body of research highlighting critical approaches to design thinking. Drawing on, and adding to, such literature, this article examines how innovation and social change are concretely conceptualised in design thinking guides. Using a cultural media studies approach, the article first contrasts design thinking literature with critical design research, emphasizing the notion of (technological) solutionism. It then zooms in on a purposively selected case: a design thinking textbook aimed at tertiary students. Based on an interpretative analysis of this example, it discusses what understandings of innovation and social change are encouraged in the envisioned design thinking. In linking the reviewed literature and observations from the case study, the analysis highlights two main arguments: First, complex interrelations between innovation and social change are causally simplified in outlining design thinking, thereby fostering techno-fix approaches and mindsets: Readers are encouraged to not merely select but in fact construct solvable “problems,” in turn avoiding confrontations with substantive issues that cannot be fixed through the envisioned design thinking. Second, innovation is conflated with corporate activities and normative questions of innovation, (in-)equality, privilege, and social change are neglected, in turn suggesting a misleading symbiosis between economic and societal interests.","PeriodicalId":18348,"journal":{"name":"Media and Communication","volume":"34 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Media and Communication","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.7427","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Design thinking is commonly presented as a solution-oriented approach to innovation. It aims to solve so-called “wicked problems,” with various textbooks and toolkits promising to equip their readers with the skills needed to do so. By rendering design thinking as a magic bullet for problem-solving towards innovation and social change, some of its proponents fall back on a solutionist position. This is despite a growing body of research highlighting critical approaches to design thinking. Drawing on, and adding to, such literature, this article examines how innovation and social change are concretely conceptualised in design thinking guides. Using a cultural media studies approach, the article first contrasts design thinking literature with critical design research, emphasizing the notion of (technological) solutionism. It then zooms in on a purposively selected case: a design thinking textbook aimed at tertiary students. Based on an interpretative analysis of this example, it discusses what understandings of innovation and social change are encouraged in the envisioned design thinking. In linking the reviewed literature and observations from the case study, the analysis highlights two main arguments: First, complex interrelations between innovation and social change are causally simplified in outlining design thinking, thereby fostering techno-fix approaches and mindsets: Readers are encouraged to not merely select but in fact construct solvable “problems,” in turn avoiding confrontations with substantive issues that cannot be fixed through the envisioned design thinking. Second, innovation is conflated with corporate activities and normative questions of innovation, (in-)equality, privilege, and social change are neglected, in turn suggesting a misleading symbiosis between economic and societal interests.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
无法修复?设计思维中的创新、社会变革和解决之道
设计思维通常被认为是一种以解决方案为导向的创新方法。它的目标是解决所谓的“棘手问题”,各种教科书和工具包承诺为读者提供解决这些问题所需的技能。通过将设计思维呈现为解决创新和社会变革问题的灵丹妙药,它的一些支持者退回到解决方案主义者的立场。尽管越来越多的研究强调了设计思维的关键方法。本文借鉴并补充了这些文献,探讨了创新和社会变革如何在设计思维指南中具体概念化。本文采用文化媒介研究方法,首先对比了设计思维文献与批判性设计研究,强调了(技术)解决方案主义的概念。然后,它放大了一个有意选择的案例:一本针对大学生的设计思维教科书。基于对这个例子的解释性分析,它讨论了在设想的设计思维中鼓励对创新和社会变革的理解。在将回顾的文献和案例研究的观察联系起来时,分析强调了两个主要论点:首先,在概述设计思维时,创新与社会变革之间的复杂相互关系被因果简化,从而培养了技术修复方法和心态:读者被鼓励不仅选择,而且实际上构建可解决的“问题”,从而避免与无法通过设想的设计思维解决的实质性问题发生冲突。其次,创新与企业活动和创新的规范问题混为一谈,(在)平等,特权和社会变革被忽视,反过来暗示了经济和社会利益之间的误导性共生关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Media and Communication
Media and Communication COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
3.20%
发文量
108
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊介绍: Media and Communication (ISSN: 2183-2439) is an international open access journal dedicated to a wide variety of basic and applied research in communication and its related fields
期刊最新文献
Media-Tech Companies as Agents of Innovation: From Radical to Incremental Innovation in a Cluster Legal and Ethical Regulation in Slovakia and Its Relation to Deliberative Communication Symbiosis or Precarity? Digital Platforms’ Role on Australian Digital-Native Journalism and Their Funding Models The Awkward Moment When You Agree With News Outlets That You Normally Distrust Can’t Fix This? Innovation, Social Change, and Solutionism in Design Thinking
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1