empathy as a design methodology

Empathy as a Design MethodologyAnthony Woodfield Acock, Cal Poly Pomona, United States of

America

The success of a professional designer is intrinsically tied to their ability to empathize with the client or issue.

In my paper, I will discuss a methodology to best empathize with both sides of a polarizing issue in effort to

holistically understand the challenge, and grow as a professional.

Using an example from a class in which the students were to pick a controversial topic of their choice, and

create a: logo, poster, and website mockup. In this process they would write a short annotated research

paper covering the issue as passionately as possible.

Unbeknownst to them, once complete, they would then do the same task, for a new organization that was

diametrically opposed to the first. This proved challenging as the first topic was based off of their personal

passions, now they had to challenge those with equal vigor. The prolife students had to design for the

prochoice community. The pro death penalty students, had to design for the anti death penalty community.

In the end, they would write a third paper, outlining ways in which both sides can come together to find

common ground. They would then use design thinking to organize a conference in which both organizations

would be present. They were tasked with designing a poster, logo, website, and brochure for the conference.

They were also challenged with picking a logical location for the conference, as well as a selection of

speakers, from both sides.

By requiring the students to start from a place of personal passion, and then counter design against their

very being, the class grew as a whole. The critiques ranged from political debate, to formal design

conversations. In the end, the students felt their empathy towards the opposition had grown, and in some

cases, the students had major philosophical changes on the issue.

Keywords: Graphic Design, Empathy, Debate, Polarizing Opinions, Opposites, Design for Advertising,University of Central Missouri, Cal Poly Pomona, Non-Profit, Social Advocacy

Design for Advertising, Fall 2012

Introduction

here is a growing eld of advocacy based design, and this is afifantastic opportunity for students and design educators toT

AIGA Connecting Dots

explore. The idea of “cause” marketing has become the primarysource of philanthropic corporate dollars, and giving studentsthe skillset to navigate in this climate seems fundamental to thesuccess of a junior designer in an ever changing market place.

Each year, over 700 million dollars11 are spent on suchefforts. As designers, we can use social advocacy design to raisepublic awareness, and create outreach campaigns that serve as acall to action for political or societal reform. I will, throughthis paper, encourage social advocacy amongst students, in such amanner as to generate, pride building, humanization of “others”,and empathy. However, to do so with only the similar minded,misses the greatest opportunity for growth of an issue.

The key to effective advocacy is to listen to what the publicsactually desire. The most well intentioned project can failmiserably by the designer not fully understanding the personhoodof the community they are working with, representing, ortargeting. An example of this can be illustrated by looking atthe Hearing For All project by Godisa Technologies Trust.

“Initially, we started with a body hearing aid, but deafpeople everywhere prefer to not be conspicuous and have abig gadget on their bodies, so we took the conventionalbehind-the-ear hearing aid and used solar technology torecharge the battery”. 22

By actively collaborating with their public, GodisaTechnologies Trust was able to better understand the needs ofpeople who are deaf, and in the case of this project, theenvironmental implications of hearing devices, and how to keepthem charged. This becomes more complicated when dealing with acommunity that has an antithetical community geared against it,which presumably, the deaf community does not.

1 Judith Schwartz, “Socially Responsible Advertising. Altruism or Exploitation?,”Citizen Designer. ed.

2 Smith, “Hearing For All”. Design for the Other 90%. (New York: Cooper-Hewit, 2007) 100.

Acock: Empathy as a Design Methodology

Similar to graphic design challenges, in which the author of adesign piece seeks to convey a message, or counter an argument.How can we instill in students the ability to design with empathyto those they are trying to persuade? To illustrate thischallenge, I will use two examples, Nike’s Major ThreatSkateboard Tour, and Aim High Enough’s Down Syndrome AwarenessPoster Series. Two obviously different audiences, however in onecase the designers used deep empathy to allow their audience tocommunicate for themselves, and in the other, a misguided nodturned into cultural appropriation.

Nike’s Major Threat Skateboard Tour from 2005 (Figure 1)sought to invite the punk rock contingency of skateboard cultureby repurposing the imagery from punk rock band, Minor Threat’sEP. Nike changed the name on the graphic from ‘Minor Threat’ to,‘Major Threat’, and removed the emblematic combat boots,replacing them with Nike skate shoes. The intent was relativelybenign, however, by not understanding their target audience –those involved in punk rock, and skateboarding, they managed toexpose their ignorance in a fantastic manner.

Figure 1: Minor Threat, EP, (left) Nike Major Threat (right)

Sources: Minor Threat, 1984, Nike, 2005

Ian Mckay’s response open letter to Nike exposes the root oftheir error, and a lack of empathy from the part of Nike.

"What the hell were they thinking? …to set the recordstraight — Nike never contacted Dischord, nor Minor Threat,


to obtain permission to use this imagery, nor was anypermission granted. Simply put, Nike stole it and we're nothappy about it… To longtime fans and supporters of MinorThreat and Dischord, this must seem like just anotherfamiliar example of mainstream corporations attempting toassimilate underground culture to turn a buck, However, itis more disheartening to us to think that Nike may besuccessful in using this imagery to fool kids, justbeginning to become familiar with skate culture,underground music and D.I.Y. ideals, into thinking that thegeneral ethos of this label, and Minor Threat inparticular, can somehow be linked to Nike's mission."33

The end result of this misguided attempt to court punk rockskaters ended with an open apology from Nike, a whole lot of backtracking from Wieden and Kennedy, who evidently did not designthis particular Nike ad, and a whole sale obliteration of anyevidence. Today, if you try to Google this Nike Skateboard Tour,all you will find are articles criticizing how horrible thedesign ideas behind it were.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, a great example of howdesign can reflect the community it hopes to advocate for wouldbe the subway poster campaign, Down Syndrome, Aim High Enough. Aseries of posters designed to help raise awareness and illustratesimilarities between people with Down Syndrome to their typicallyabled peers.

Design as a tool for advocacy –in particular for people withdisabilities– is ooded with well-crafted sympathy generatingflcampaigns. While well intentioned, these types of campaigns missthe mark and reinforce the concept of ‘otherness’. While workingwith the Kansas City based non-profit organization, The HALOFoundation, I remember being curtly told, ‘No Sarah

3 “Nike Uses Minor Threat: Sneaker Outfit Apologizes For Borrowing Punks' Album Art” Rollingstones, http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/nike-uses-minor-threat-20050628, (June 28, 2005)


McLaughlin’s”, generating pity does little to promote empathy orawareness.

In Aim High Enough’s People First Campaign, they embody thespirit of empathy in communication. By allowing the participantsin the photos to dictate who they are, they clearly presentthemselves how they see themselves. “I am a breakdancer, I haveDown Syndrome”.

This is not a sympathy generating campaign, rather acelebration of personhood and individuality. Individuality ofpeople who happen to have Down Syndrome. These posters were hungin Japanese subways during disability awareness month, and areoften cited as an example of a great “people first” campaign.

Often when we think of advocacy-based design challenges, wethink of rallying cries, and illustrations of pride, which –whilecertainly valid– forget that at least half of their audience isnot rallying behind the cause. Often times, they are rallyingagainst. For advocacy-based design to truly be valid, we need tothink how the message will be perceived by those who oppose thecause. How will the prolife community respond to a prochoicecampaign, and vice versa?

It’s easy, and perhaps comfortable to raise flags ofsolidarity, and share them with the like minded, however, theeffectiveness of that, from a messaging and social changeperspective, falls into question. How can we as design educators,get students and junior designers to design with the counterpointin mind.

The Design of a Fictional Non Profit Organization

Round One

“The graphic designer must have empathy for whom and whatthey are designing. Building research into the designprocess avoids resultant design solutions serving only tosatisfy the designer or paint over the cracks of an issue”4

4 Mike Bond, “Approaching + Reacting to Research. Design is About Understanding, ”A Designers Research Manual: Succeed in Design by Knowing Your Clients and What They Really Need. ed. Jennifer and Ken Visocky O’Grady (Singapore: Rockport


In the Fall of 2012, I was given the class, “Design forAdvertising” at the University of Central Missouri in WarrensburgMissouri where I was starting my very first tenure track teachingposition after completing my MFA at Pratt Institute in New YorkCity. Advocacy based design challenges are of a personal interestto me, and so I sought to find a way to interject this practice,in conjunction with research, writing, and planning, into aDesign for Advertising curriculum.

On the first day of this project, I asked students to think ofpolarizing issues they cared about. At first, the ideas were slowto trickle out into the public forum. People mentioned budgetdeficits, and generic concepts of ‘the economy’, as polarizing,with little understanding of how the economy is an “issue” andhow it can be divided into pro and con communities scenario.

After a few minutes, one student raised her hand and said shewas adamantly prochoice. Perfect, now we were getting somewhere.After a few consensual nods, I asked the class who was prolife.No one raised their hand, or said a word. After a moment ofawkward silence, I brought up the fact that, statistically, atleast 49% of the class was likely somewhat prolife, even if theydidn’t want to admit it publically. And with that, the floodgatesopened.

Soon, students were debating Roe vs Wade, concepts of consent,sexual reproduction, what it meant to be a ‘slut’, PlannedParenthood. This lead seamlessly into other topics. MilitaryFunding, Gay Marriage, Pirating Music, and Software. Everyone hadpassionate opinions on every topic. From that moment on, themajority of class that day, resembled more of a debate lecture,than an art class.

To start the project, the students were tasked with finding agap in the non-profit landscape of their issue, and creating afictional non-profit group to fill it. To do so, they would needto name the organization, design a logo, a poster, and a websitefor the group. While doing this, they were to write a researchpaper –not on advocacy based design, but rather on the issue thattheir group was advocating for.

Publishers, 2009) 109-111.


For example, the adamantly prochoice student was now to writea research paper on why abortion should be legal. The prolifestudent was to write a research paper on why abortion should beillegal.

The designed results, the logo, poster, and website, for thisphase of the project were relatively predictable. Those who feltattached to certain issues had clear preconceived notions as towhat the visual language of these communities should look like,resulting in work that passed through the critique with commentssuch as, “it looks like a real logo” whatever that means.


Round Two

After phase one of the project was complete, the second phase,and the idea that the semester was going to be engulfed in thisproject came to light. The students were tasked with thechallenge of doing the same thing, this time however, for theopposite end of the spectrum.

Students who had previously designed for the prochoicecommunities had to now do the same body of work for the prolifecommunity. Those who had passionately written research papersdefending a woman’s right to abortion, now had to write equallypassionate research papers about the sanctity of life and howabortion should be illegal.

This created obviously tense moments during the project briefperiod. On the other hand, however, it forced students who hadpreviously viewed each other as philosophical adversaries, now asallies. Students against capital punishment had to sit down withstudents for capital punishment, and –with empathy– listen to whythat student felt America needed capital punishment.

For many it seemed as if this was the first time they had notonly considered the opposition, but empathetically engaged init’s premise. Arguments were sparked, and friendships were made.The class dynamics shifted radically as students actively soughtopinions that were counter their own.


Students were required to check out books from the librarythat supported their new forced thesis’ and form convincingarguments that were antithetical to their original projects.

The final design pieces, without exception, were exponentiallybetter, more unique, and more refined than the originals. Itseems that by requiring students to investigate and researchareas that they are not familiar with, they do so more honestly,with more empathy, and when it comes to hitting the drawingtable, they do so less instinctually, and more carefully.

This created moments where students were critical of their ownwork, and certainly critical of their previous work. Instead ofdesigning logos that ‘looked like real logos’ they were designingconceptual pieces that hit key factors of the issues’fundamentals.

Along with formal critiques, students asked thosediametrically opposed to themselves if their final pieceseffectively communicated what the other felt. “Is this really howthe pro gun control community feels like”? One student evencommented that, much to their disappointment, upon research, theother side had a much better argument.


Round Three. The Common Ground Conference

Now that the students had a more holistic grasp on both sides oftheir issue, I introduced the concept of Design Thinking into theclassroom in effort to help prepare the students for their nexttask.

Design thinking, as defined by CEO and President of IDEO is,

“…a human-centered approach to innovation that draws fromthe designer’s toolkit to integrate the needs of people,the possibilities of technology, and the requirements forbusiness success”. 5

5 “About IDEO” IDEO, http://www.ideo.com/about/, (accessed: February 15, 2014)


The third, and final phase of the project would use DesignThinking to create a “Common Ground Conference” that would bringtogether both sides of the issue, in effort to bridge the divide.

Students were tasked with: designing a logo (figure 2 and 3),a poster (figure 4), a brochure (figure 5), and a website (figure6), as well as naming the conference, strategically choosing it’slocation, selecting a group of speakers from both sides of theissue, and what those speakers would be speaking about.

Figure 2: PRO 2012 Conference Logo

Sources: Roxann Elder, 2012


Figure 3: Universal Animal Conference 2012

Source: Samantha Maschman, 2012


Figure 4: Future of Defense Conference

Source: Jason McClintock, 2012



During phase three, students who had paired up with oppositionbest, were now suited to once again collaborate. How canProchoice America, and the Right to Life Foundation agree onanything? Who is best equipped to speak on the issue from bothsides of the story? What is the most logical location for theconference? When will it be? How many days? There were so manymoving pieces at this point that the students had no choice butto collaborate with one another to best create not only graphicdesign pieces, but design whole systems.


Post Mortem

Upon reflection, the project was a success. Students created abody of work that had practical implications for theirportfolios. Students were able to say, here is a website Idesigned, here is a logo I designed, here is a brochure Idesigned. In the long view however, the implications are muchgreater.

Students learned to defend their design choices, as well asdefend and respect their moral and philosophical differences.Students learned better ways to research, to write, tocollaborate. More importantly, at the end, they learned to moreempathetically relate to, and design for, target audience, whichmay in fact be the opposition.

Acknowledgement

This paper is made possible through the support of my partnerLourdes, and her ability to endlessly push and inspire me whilewrangling two kids. Todo para la familia.

I would like to thank Cal Poly Pomona, Pratt Institute, and everygraphic design student I have ever had the opportunity to workwith, in particular, those from the Design for Advertising class,especially, Jason McClintock, Roxann Elder, and SamanthaMaschman.


I would like to thank Professor Clint Orr, and Dr. Mick Luehrmanfrom the University of Central Missouri for their help, patience,and guidance at the beginning of my career in academia. You aresome of the good guys, it does not go unnoticed.

REFERENCES

“About IDEO,” IDEO. Accessed February 15, 2014,http://www.ideo.com/about/

Mike Bond, “Approaching + Reacting to Research. Design is AboutUnderstanding,” A Designers Research Manual: Succeed in Design byKnowing Your Clients and What They Really Need. ed. Jennifer and KenVisocky O’Grady (Singapore: Rockport Publishers, 2009) 109-111.

“Nike Uses Minor Threat Sneaker: Outfit Apologizes For BorrowingPunks' album art,” Rolling Stones, accessed February 15,2014, http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/nike-uses-minor-threat-20050628

Judith Schwartz, “Socially Responsible Advertising. Altruism orExploitation?,” in Citizen Designer. ed. Steven Heller,Veronique Vienne et al. (Allworth Press, 2003) Pages 80-85.

Smith, “Hearing For All”. Design for the Other 90%. (New York: Cooper-Hewit, 2007) 100.

empathy as a design methodology

Documents