ArticlePDF Available

A framework for empathy in design: Stepping into and out of the user's life


Abstract and Figures

In user-centred design, a widespread recognition has surfaced for the importance of designers to gain empathy with the users for whom they are designing. Several techniques and tools have been developed to support an empathic design process and several issues are indicated that support an empathic process, but precise definitions and a framework of what makes ‘empathy’ is missing. Although the need for empathic approaches in design has been repeatedly stressed, a fundamental basis of the concept of empathy is missing. The goal of this paper is to inform the discussion in the design community by applying the concept of empathy as it has developed in psychology. This paper presents a review of how empathy has been discussed in design and psychology literature, and proposes a background framework for supporting empathic approaches in designing. The framework presents empathy in design as a process of four phases, and gives insight into what role the designer's own experience can play when having empathy with the user. This framework can be applied to three areas: research activities, communication activities and ideation activities.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Engineering Design
Vol. 20, No. 5, October 2009, 437–448
A framework for empathy in design: stepping into and out
of the user’s life
Merlijn Kouprie and Froukje SleeswijkVisser*
Industrial Design Engineering, ID-StudioLab, TU Delft, Landbergstraat 15, Delft 2628CE,
The Netherlands
(Received 10 March 2008; final version received 20 January 2009)
In user-centred design, a widespread recognition has surfaced for the importance of designers to gain
empathy with the users for whom they are designing. Several techniques and tools have been developed to
support an empathic design process and several issues are indicated that support an empathic process, but
precise definitions and a framework of what makes ‘empathy’is missing.Although the need for empathic
approaches in design has been repeatedly stressed, a fundamental basis of the concept of empathy is
missing. The goal of this paper is to inform the discussion in the design community by applying the
concept of empathy as it has developed in psychology. This paper presents a review of how empathy has
been discussed in design and psychology literature, and proposes a background framework for supporting
empathic approaches in designing. The framework presents empathy in design as a process of four phases,
and gives insight into what role the designer’s own experience can play when having empathy with the user.
This framework can be applied to three areas: research activities, communication activities and ideation
Keywords: empathy; user experience understanding; user research; designing
1. Empathic design
Consider a multi-disciplinary design team consisting of marketers, engineers, product designers,
usability professionals, etc. The team has received a brief to design a communication product for
elderly people, but none of them belongs to the user group himself. How does the design team
make appropriate design choices for others who are unlike themselves?
The problem of understanding the user and his or her experience has a central place in user-
centred design (Sanders and Dandavate 1999, Koskinen and Battarbee 2003, Sleeswijk Visser
et al. 2005). The design literature of the past two decades has explored several ways of bringing
contextualand affectivefactorsintodesign.By ‘empathic design’(Koskinenet al. 2003),designers
attempt to get closer to the lives and experiences of (putative, potential or future) users, in order to
*Corresponding author. Email:
ISSN 0954-4828 print/ISSN 1466-1837 online
© 2009 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/09544820902875033
Downloaded By: [Technische Universiteit Delft] At: 10:00 26 August 2009
438 M. Kouprie and F. Sleeswijk Visser
increase the likelihood that the product or service designed meets the user’s needs. Practitioners
acknowledge the need to inform designers about user experiences and their context (Leonard and
Rayport 1997, Buchenau and Fulton Suri 2000), and a number of tools and techniques have been
presented (Fulton Suri 2003a) aiming to support designers to ‘step into the user’s shoes’and ‘walk
the user’s walk’in order to design products that fit the user’s life.
But, although the need is acknowledged, and techniques have emerged, a fundamental under-
standing is lacking of what empathy in design is, and how it can be achieved. In this study, we
review the concept of empathy as discussed in design and in psychology and propose a frame-
work of how empathy can be supported in designing. We have reviewed the interaction design
and design research literature, which has a strong focus on user involvement and user experience.
The design literature addresses empathy as a quality of a design process (Section 1.1) which can
be influenced by individual ability and the willingness of the designer (Section 1.2) and several
techniques have been proposed to enhance empathy in design (Section 1.3).
Inthe remainder of this article, we refer toallpeoplewhoare involvedin product idea generation
(including marketers, engineers, usability professionals, etc.) when we mention designers.
1.1. The ‘empathic’ as a quality of designing
The adjective ‘empathic’ in relation to design was introduced in the late-1990s (Battarbee and
Koskinen 2005) when companies started to realise that only listening to customers’ responses
on questionnaires was not enough to develop successful products (Leonard and Rayport 1997,
Sanders and Dandavate 1999). This led to the view that designers should be more sensitive to
users, be able to understand them, their situation, and feelings: to be more empathic. In the
book ‘Empathic Design’ (Koskinen et al. 2003), several design practitioners discuss the role of
empathy in design. All indicate that empathy is a necessary quality for developing products that
meet customer needs. Mattelmäki and Battarbee (2002) and Fulton Suri (2003b) stress the need
forqualitativeresearch toinform and inspire designers to create ‘more useful and enjoyable things
for people [they] may never meet’. Empathy supports the design process as design considerations
move‘from rational and practical issues topersonalexperiencesand privatecontexts’(Mattelmäki
and Battarbee 2002).
All the earlier-mentioned authors agree on seeing empathy as a quality of designing. But what
exactly is meant by this empathic quality of designing? Metaphors have been the most prominent
way of describing how empathy can be achieved. Battarbee et al. (2002) describe it as ‘leaving
the design office and becoming immersed in the lives, environments, attitudes, experiences and
dreams of the future users’ and ‘internalizing the requirements of the users’(Battarbee 2004). This
‘immersing’ and ‘internalizing’suggests that designers become users by releasing their own view:
they merge with the users. Others describe empathic design as ‘an imaginative projection into
another person’s situation’(Koskinen and Battarbee 2003), or a ‘particular kind of imagination’
(Fulton Suri 2003b). These terms ‘projection’ and ‘imagination’ imply that being empathic is
a range of activities where designers should imagine what it would be like for themselves to
be (in the position of) the user. These subtle differences in wording reflect the nuances found in
the psychological literature in Section 2, but have not explicitly been discussed in design literature
Empathic understanding goes beyond knowledge: when empathising you do not judge, you
‘relate to [the user] and understand the situations and why certain experiences are meaningful to
these people’ (Battarbee 2004), a relation that involves an emotional connection (Battarbee and
Koskinen 2005).
Concluding, ‘the empathic’ is an acknowledged quality of the design process, but its definitions
stay rather vague.
Downloaded By: [Technische Universiteit Delft] At: 10:00 26 August 2009
Journal of Engineering Design 439
1.2. Ability and willingness as required qualities of designers
Besides being a quality of the design process, empathy is described as an ability people have,
and differs for individuals. McDonagh (2006) defines empathy as ‘the intuitive ability to iden-
tify with other people’s thoughts and feelings – their motivations, emotional and mental models,
values, priorities, preferences, and inner conflicts’. When designing a product for elderly people,
the designer does not have knowledge about being aged from his own experience. Every indi-
vidual has his or her own unique experiences and these define his or her empathic horizon. The
term ‘empathic horizon’ (McDonagh-Philp and Denton 1999) is used to indicate the limits on a
designer’s individual ability to empathise beyond certain characteristics of his or her group, such
as nationality, background, age, gender, culture, experience and education. Baron-Cohen and
Wheelwright (2004) have developed a measure of someone’s level of empathy, called the ‘empa-
thy quotient’ (EQ, which is different from other ‘emotional intelligent quotient’). The empathic
horizon of designers can change over time and be extended by training and experience.
Next to ability, the willingness of the designer plays a role. ‘Design empathy requires direct
and personal engagement and is dependent on the designer’s willingness’(Battarbee 2004). One
can think of the designer’s personal connection with the user that motivates him (e.g. a special
interest into the user group, because it is familiar to him), his emotional state that hinders him
(e.g. tired, or a workshop at the end of the day) or his commitment to the project (e.g. how much
the designer is responsible for the project). This suggests that the situation determines to a large
degree the level of empathy which can be achieved.
Training and practical experience can enhance the designer’s empathic understanding of users.
Suggested ways to increase the designer’s ability and willingness include training of designers
in research skills, and supporting an active and open attitude towards users. These suggestions
require time and effort. In composing a design team, this ability and willingness of individuals
should be taken into account. One designer in a team can have a large influence on the others, by
expressing empathic reactions. To develop empathy is an individual act, but by discussing it in a
team, the discussion serves as a trigger for others to make more connections, which will lead to
increased understanding.
1.3. Empathic techniques
Several authors describe a variety of tools and techniques that are regarded as particularly helpful
for promoting empathy. We have divided these techniques into three main classes: techniques
for direct contact between designers and users (research), techniques for communicating findings
of user studies to design teams (communication) and techniques for evoking the designer’s own
experiences in a domain relevant to the user (ideation) (Figure 1).
First, direct contact with users is much emphasised by practitioners (McDonagh-Philp and
Bruseberg 2000, Mattelmäki and Battarbee 2002, Fulton Suri 2003b). Most authors recommend
having designers conduct observation studies, e.g. to follow the user in his context (Leonard and
Rayport 1997). Sanders and Dandavate (1999) and Sleeswijk Visser et al. (2005) discuss how
generative sessions with researchers and users, preferably with designers present, can assist users
to explore and express their contexts of product use.
Second, communication techniques have been proposed when direct contact is not possible,
which in practice is often the case for limited resources (e.g. budget and timing). External
researchers conduct the user study, and interpret and communicate the user data and findings
to the design team. For enhancing empathic communication, raw data (photos of users in their
home environment, original quotes in their handwriting, etc.) has been advocated as a way to let
designers make personal connections to the users’experiences (McDonagh-Philp and Bruseberg
2000, Fulton Suri 2003a, Sleeswijk Visser et al. 2005). Sleeswijk Visser and Stappers (2007)
Downloaded By: [Technische Universiteit Delft] At: 10:00 26 August 2009
440 M. Kouprie and F. Sleeswijk Visser
Figure 1. Three classes of techniques: for research, for communication and for ideation. From left to right: observation
in the user’s home, a persona representation including an insight and a quote, and a role-playing session of a design team.
discuss how the style in which users are visually depicted can promote or hinder empathic under-
standing. A growing range of storytelling techniques, including personas, scenarios, storyboards
and role-playing, has been developed and applied to help designers appreciate the user experience
(Buchenau and Fulton Suri 2000, Go and Carroll 2004, van der Lelie 2005, van der Lugt and
Sleeswijk Visser 2007).
Third, designers can also step into parts of the user’s experience by simulating the user’s
condition. A variety of role-playing techniques has been described, and promoted under names
‘product handling’, ‘experience prototyping’, ‘bodystorming’ and ‘informance’ (Buchenau and
FultonSuri 2000).Withrole-playing techniques(Laurel 2003), sometimes supported by theatrical
props or suggestive environmental atmospheres (Keller and Stappers 2001), the designer takes
the perspective of the user, and acts out the user’s life. Buchenau and Fulton Suri (2000) refer to
exploringnew product concepts orinteractions with such simulations as ‘experience prototyping’.
An Experience Prototype is any kind of representation, in any medium, that is designed to
understand, explore or communicate what it might be like to engage with the product, space or
systemwearedesigning’. Focusingon situations can bring the designer new ideas, e.g. by wearing
a blindfold and going for a walk a designer learns which obstacles you face as a blind person.
Then the focus of understanding the user is on behavioural and experiential aspects instead of
user characteristics.
Empathic techniques cover direct contact, communication and stimulating ideation by enhanc-
ing imagination. Although many such tools and techniques are presented in design literature,
they are described ‘as is’, and little argumentation or generalisation is given for those wishing to
apply or extend the techniques. One reason for this is that much of the work is exploratory, and
many presented cases are first attempts in a new field. But also we are lacking a shared language,
or even a consensus of what aspects ought to be described, addressed or argued when promoting
empathy in design.
1.4. Partial conclusion on ‘the empathic’in design
Empathy serves to inform and to inspire designers to create products that fit the user’s needs.
Many authors mention the ‘empathic’factor in design and indicate avenues of inquiry; however,
the definition of what ‘the empathic’ exactly is stays rather intuitive. It is related to a deep
understanding of the user’s circumstances and experiences, which involves relating to, more
than just knowing about the user. Moreover, the literature suggests, but does not elaborate, a
wide range of psychological mechanisms, from creating awareness, emotional understanding,
projecting, relating, connecting, to internalising the user’s experiences.At this moment we think
that the description ‘deep understanding of the user and his or her experience including the
situation and feelings’ seems the common umbrella for this, but a structural overview is missing.
Downloaded By: [Technische Universiteit Delft] At: 10:00 26 August 2009
Journal of Engineering Design 441
Design researchers have proposed a variety of tools and techniques for use in an empathic
design process. Their active role, their ability and their willingness are addressed in making the
use of empathic techniques a success. But can the concept of empathy be defined, refined and
applied to evaluate, improve and tune the tools and techniques to better serve an empathic design
process? We (the authors) are designers ourselves and feel the need to improve techniques to
enhance empathy with users in designing. In order to deepen this fundamental understanding, we
reviewed the development of the term empathy in the discipline of psychology, in order to provide
a framework to support further efforts in the development of empathic design.
2. The construct ‘empathy’in psychology
Empathy has been an important concept in psychology, entering from the philosophy of art in
the late nineteenth century, developed in psychotherapy in the first half of the twentieth century,
and in the past decade, receiving renewed attention within design. However, these three periods
are almost unconnected: very few cross-references exist, either from the design literature to
the psychological literature or from the psychological literature back to the arts. We reviewed
the psychological literature by searching disciplinary databases and journals, and by consulting
psychologists and libraries. The review of the psychological literature was aimed at selecting
experimental and theoretical elements which appear fruitful for structuring the design activities.
2.1. Origin of empathy
Several authors on the history of psychology have addressed the origins of empathy (Wispé 1987,
Duan and Hill 1996, Håkansson 2003, Nilsson 2003, Jahoda 2005). The construct of empathy
originated in 1873 in art history, whenVischer used the term ‘Einfühlung’ (German for feeling-
into) to describe a process in which a woman projects her entire personality upon an object, and
in some sense merges with this object. The psychologist Theodor Lipps (1851–1914) applied it
to explaining aesthetic experiences ‘Einfühlung [...] is the fact that the contrast between myself
and the object disappears’ (Lipps 1903), and then applied the term to people’s experience and
knowledge of other peoples mental states (Nilsson 2003). This addressed a fundamental problem
of philosophers and psychologists, namely, how we come to know other people’s minds. Lipps
proposed that people knew and responded to each other through Einfühlung, which was preceded
andbrought about by projection and imitation,especially imitation of affect. For example, smiling
when you see someone else smiling.
Titchener translated the German term Einfühlung into the English term empathy (from Greek
em – into and pathos – passion, feeling). In 1915, he wrote that empathy is important in imagina-
tion: ‘We have a natural tendency to feel ourselves into what we perceive or imagine. (...) This
tendency to feel oneself into a situation is called empathy, on the analogy of sympathy, which is
feeling together with another’. The distinction between empathy with and sympathy for has been
a returning element in both scientific and popular accounts, empathy referring to an instrumental
understanding, sympathy to an absorbed feeling. When you feel sympathy for someone your con-
cern is for the other person’s well-being; you feel like you are the other. When you have empathy
with someone your concern is to understand the other person; you feel as if you are the other.
Wispé (1986): ‘Empathy is a way of “knowing”. Sympathy is a way of “relating”’.
Over the years, the concept of empathy developed in sociology, psychology and psychotherapy,
and a shared jargon evolved, indicating the subject and object of empathy as the empathiser and
empathee,respectively,and therealisationthatempathy is not an instantaneous quality,butevolves
inaprocessovertime. Practitioners in these fields have addressed severalissues within the concept
Downloaded By: [Technische Universiteit Delft] At: 10:00 26 August 2009
442 M. Kouprie and F. Sleeswijk Visser
ofempathy.Three issues will be discussed in the following sections: the merging of ‘affective’and
‘cognitive’mechanisms (Section 2.2), the question of whether the perspectives of the empathiser
and empathee, psychotherapist and patient, designer and user should coincide or remain separate
(Section 2.3) and the steps that are taken to empathise (Section 2.4).
2.2. Affective and cognitive empathy
Most of the psychological literature distinguishes two components of empathy: affective and
cognitive (Figure 2). The affective component is seen as an immediate emotional response of
the empathiser to the affective state of the empathee. This emotional response can have several
forms, of which congruence or emotional contagion (e.g. automatically responding with a smile
and feeling happy when you see somebody smile at you) is the most common form (Gladstein
1983, cited in Duan and Hill 1996, Vreeke and van der Mark 2003). It is an automatic response
to another’s emotional state.
The cognitive component was added by Mead: the understanding by the observer of the other
person’s feelings (Baron-Cohen andWheelwright 2004). The empathiser sees or hears about the
situation of the empathee and imagines this situation from his own perspective. It is concerned
with intellectually taking the role or perspective of another person, ‘a capacity to take the role
of the other person with whom one interacts’ (Mead 1934). Mead emphasised the role-playing
activity, and suggested this perspective-taking can facilitate one’s ability to understand another
person’s affective behaviour and understand how another person views the world.
Although the affective and cognitive components can be discussed separately in theory, several
writers have argued that they cannot be separated in reality. These components function because
they are strongly interrelated.
For example, when people make decisions in social situations, the brains make use of several
affective and cognitive components (Damasio 1994).
For designers, awareness of both components is essential. One of the two components will not
suffice for understanding the user’s world. Having an emotional response (affective) to another’s
emotional state and being able to reflect on that by perspective taking (cognitive) seems to be the
coremechanism of empathy.Creatingthe right balance between affectiveresonance and cognitive
reasoning is a basic issue of empathy.We think designers should gain understanding of the user
(cognitive), by feeling the user’s emotional state (affective).
2.3. Perspective taking: becoming the empathee or staying beside the empathee
Asecond important issue is whether theempathiser shares or understands the empathee’sfeelings.
Boththe metaphors from the designliterature,asthe early notions discussed in Section2.1,suggest
there is a difference.
Figure 2. The components of empathy.
Downloaded By: [Technische Universiteit Delft] At: 10:00 26 August 2009
Journal of Engineering Design 443
Figure 3. Left: according to Lipps, the viewer becomes the other. Right: Stein states that the viewer does not disappear,
but takes a place beside the other.
Lipps had stated that Einfühlung takes place when the boundaries between the empathiser and
the empathee disappear, and explains this with an example of having empathy with an acrobat
(Figure 3). In contrast, the philosopher Edith Stein believed that the boundaries should not disap-
pear. The empathiser should understand the feelings of the empathee (Nilsson 2003).Also Rogers
(1959) advocated the difference, describing empathy as a state ‘[...] to sense the hurt or the
pleasure of another as he senses it and to perceive the causes thereof as he perceives them, but
without ever losing the recognition that it is as if I were hurt or pleased and so forth’ (cited in
Håkansson 2003).
This dichotomy reflects the split between affective and cognitive mentioned above, between
‘resonatingemotion’and ‘reasoning perspective’.Thus, just as affectiveandcognitivecomponents
are interwoven, becoming and staying beside the empathee are related.
The distinction is relevant for designing, because the various techniques in the field of design
address both possibilities. When observing the user in the user’s environment, the designer stays
beside the user. One reason is that the designer is aware of his intervention in the user’s context
and has a researcher’s role to play. By, e.g. role-playing, the designer can become the user for a
2.4. Empathising as a process
Stein proposed a process of achieving empathy consisting of three phases (Stein 1917, cited in
Nilsson2003).Thesephases are:(1)the emergenceofthe experience;(2) ‘the fulfillingexplication’
of the experience; and (3) the ‘comprehensive objectification’of the experience. She argues that
in the first phase you perceive a past experience of somebody else; in the second phase you get
pulled into this experience, you stand next to the person facing the object of his emotion; and
in the third phase you withdraw from the other’s experience and you are back in the first state,
though with a richer understanding of the experience of the other.
After Stein, psychotherapists such as Theodore Reik and Carl Rogers proposed variants of this
process. Rogers referred to the middle phase as ‘temporarily living in’the empathee’s experience
(Rogers 1975, cited in Håkansson 2003). Table 1 compares these process models. In the 1980s,
several variants of such processes were published (Barrett-Lennard 1981, Gladstein 1983, Kohut
1984). Although these processes differ in their details, their structure is fundamentally the same
as those shown in Table 1.
Downloaded By: [Technische Universiteit Delft] At: 10:00 26 August 2009
444 M. Kouprie and F. Sleeswijk Visser
Table 1. Phases of empathy distinguished by different authors.
Phase 1 2(a) 2(b) 3
Stein (1917) Emergence of
the experience:
perceiving a past
experience of
someone else
Fulfilling explication:
getting pulled into the experience, standing
next to the person facing the object of his
from the other’s
with increased
Reik (1949) Identification:
paying attention
to another and
allowing oneself to
become absorbed
in contemplation of
that person
making the
other’s experience
one’s own via
internalising the
the other’s
experience while
attending to one’s
own cognitive
and affective
associations to that
moving back from
the merged inner
relationship to a
position of separate
Rogers (1975) Entering:
entering the
world of someone
else, becoming
at home and
being sensitive to
what someone is
temporarylivingsomeone’slife; sensing the
other’s world with fresh eyes, not making
any judgements
your senses to the
other, checking
if your senses
are correct, being
guided by the
other’s responses
All these authors describe the movement of an empathiser stepping into and stepping out of the
empathee’s life; and in between, the empathiser wanders around in this other person’s life. The
stepping in is needed for deep understanding, the stepping back for competent action. What serves
as a process to guide psychotherapists in helping their patients may well also guide designers in
helping users. Therefore, in empathic design, this stepping into and stepping out of the user’s
world are important phases to distinguish and to achieve. In the next section, we translate these
issues into a framework for empathy in design.
3. The process of empathy in design practice
The above describes issues derived from psychological literature which are essential to apply
and develop techniques and tools in design. We propose a framework that can be applied to
design practice, which is based on processes of empathy as described in Section 2.4 and inte-
grates the factors of ability, affective resonance and cognitive reasoning. The framework shows
a process consisting of four phases. It is based on the principle that a designer steps into the
life of the user, wanders around for a while and then steps out of the life of the user with
a deeper understanding of this user. These phases are (1) discovery, (2) immersion, (3) con-
nection and (4) detachment. In each phase the relation of the designer with the user changes.
The framework is presented in Table 2. This framework can be used to support further devel-
opments of empathic techniques in design. The framework shows that empathy includes both
cognitive and affective efforts, and that empathy can be enhanced by a stepwise process. The
four phases in the framework might seem obvious steps, but making each of these phases explicit
and discussing them separately supports practitioners in understanding and applying empathic
Downloaded By: [Technische Universiteit Delft] At: 10:00 26 August 2009
Journal of Engineering Design 445
Table 2. Four phases of empathy.
Entering the user’s world
Achieve willingness
The process starts with the designer approaching the user.
He makes a first contact with the user, either in person
or by studying provoking material from user studies.
The designer’s curiosity is raised, resulting in his/her
willingness to explore and discover the user, his/her
situation and experience
Wandering around in the user’s world
Taking user’s point of reference
After the first encounter with the user’s experience, the
designer takes an active role by leaving the design office and
wandering around in the user’s world (data from qualitative
user research). The designer expands his knowledge about
the user and is surprised by various aspects that influence the
user’s experience. The designer is open-minded, interested
in the user’s point of reference. He is being pulled into the
user’s world, and absorbs without judging
Resonating with the user
Achieve emotional
resonance and find meaning
In this phase, the designer connects with the user by recalling
explicitly upon his own memories and experiences in order
to reflect and be able to create an understanding. He makes a
connection on an emotional level with the user by recalling
his own feelings and resonates with the user’s experience.
At this phase both affective and cognitive components are
important; the affective to understand feelings, the cognitive
to understand meanings
Leaving the user’s world
Design with user perspective
The designer detaches from his emotional connection in
order to become ‘in the helpful mode’ with increased
understanding. The designer steps back into the role of
designer and makes sense of the user’s world. By stepping
back out to reflect, he can deploy the new insights for
techniques. The different perspectives of the designer in each phase become more explicit, and
give him better insight into what roles can be taken.When designers have more knowledge about
the fundaments of empathy, they can choose specific techniques and tools and use them in the
right order.
Downloaded By: [Technische Universiteit Delft] At: 10:00 26 August 2009
446 M. Kouprie and F. Sleeswijk Visser
Since the willingness of the designer determines to a large degree the level of empathy he or she
achieves, the first phase in the framework ‘discovery’ is needed to support the designer’s curiosity
and motivation.
The second phase ‘immersion’, might be the most important phase in realising an empathic
process. In this phase, the designer takes time to wander around in and be surprised by various
aspects of the user’s world. This phase requires time. Without this phase, the knowledge about
the user’s world will not increase. In design practice, this phase is often not given sufficient time.
Designers can be reluctant to immerse themselves, as this activity is not directly solution focused,
and therefore the activity may not be perceived as relevant beforehand. By explicitly having the
task to wander around, to immerse, without making judgments and implementations the designer
becomes open-minded and experiences the user’s world for a while.
After having been deeply immersed, the designer can make emotional resonances by including
his own experiences. The second and third phases are closely related, but by dividing them into
two, we emphasise the explicit phase of bringing in the designer’s own experiences in order to
understand what the user feels and what it could mean to the user.
In the last phase, the designer becomes the designer again and can use his increased
understanding for generating ideas that better fit the user’s world.
This framework can be used to structure and organise design activities and to provide guidance
for developing specific tools and techniques. The framework is not limited to specific activities
e.g. a role-playing exercise, an observation study or a communication process, but rather pro-
vides a fundamental understanding of the mental process of achieving empathy and using that
understanding in designing. It suggests a stepwise process which can be applied in various ways
ranging from a small exercise to the planning of a design project over a longer time.According
to the different factors of each project or activity (e.g. time scales, design problems, skills of the
designers), researchers and designers can apply the process of this framework in their own ways.
We illustrate the way the framework can be helpful by applying it to each of the classes of
techniques mentioned in Section 1.3 (research, communication, ideation).
In research, when e.g. observing a user, the designer should realise there are differences and
similarities between his life and the user’s life and how to make use of these similarities and
differences.Adesignercoulde.g.afterafieldvisitinauser’shome, which is mainly the immersion
step, make a mindmap of these similarities and differences to help him detach from the user’s
perspective and interpret his/her observations.
Communication of user study results could support both possibilities to immerse in the user’s
world and to reflect on it with the designer’s own experiences. Communication tools should
convey the flavour of the user’s world, as well as an understanding of it. By using tools which
combine raw data (e.g. video fragments, quotes) and suggestive leads towards interpretations
designers are supported in following all steps of the process. The raw data support their curiosity
(discovery), allow them to dive into the user’s world (immersion) and enable understanding of
the user’s feelings (connection). Next to raw data, suggestive leads towards interpretation (e.g.
coding, patterns, diagrams) support designers in stepping out of the user’s world and back into the
role of the designers, creating insights for ideation. Tools in which designers are participative in
interpreting the message are most fruitful for a deep understanding of the user (Sleeswijk Visser
et al. 2007). Data represented in stories, storyboards or in personas serve very well in allowing
designers to step into and walk around in the user’s world, and connect with the user (Pruitt and
Adlin 2006).
Finally, in ideation activities there could be several loops of the process taking place in order
to explore and develop ideas. To evaluate if an early idea would fit the user’s needs, the designers
could step in the user’s world, discover what aspects would have influence on the product use,
wander around, try to understand how the user would feel and evaluate (detachment) how the idea
can be improved according to the imaginary user’s situation. Some activities do not involve all
Downloaded By: [Technische Universiteit Delft] At: 10:00 26 August 2009
Journal of Engineering Design 447
phases of the process naturally; e.g. during role-playing, designers are trying to connect with a
user who is not there. Without having insight into qualitative user data, the main source addressed
is their own experience, which is rich and useful, but one should be aware of its limitations.
A detailed case description of applying this framework in an ideation workshop is presented in
Sleeswijk Visser and Kouprie (2008) and in Sleeswijk Visser (2009). This is only one implication,
and we think that there are many possibilities to apply this framework in activities of designing.
4. Conclusion
The framework presented in this study gives insight into three key elements of empathy in design.
(1) Motivation is crucial for an effective process. When designers do not see the advantages of
empathy in design, the results can be unsatisfying. (2) Being aware that the process involves a
combination of affective resonance and cognitive reasoning regarding the user’s life can enhance
empathy. Experiencing and reflecting can alternate the designer stepping into and stepping out of
the user’s life. Flexibility in this stepping in and out may be a key element of training designers
at designing with empathy. (3) A process of empathy in design practice requires a structured
investment of time. Not having or taking time is often the first barrier for an empathic process.
Insights into the process of empathy can help designers to decide to use their time effectively
according to the framework. For example, if designers follow an elderly person for a day, they
have mainly invested their time in the first two phases of the process of empathy in design
practice. If designers spend a few hours of observation and use their time, during and right after
the observation, to go through all four phases explicitly, they can enhance their empathy.
We have presented a framework for applying empathy in design. The framework is based
on fundamental findings from psychology brought to a designer’s perspective. It is intended to
contribute to the design discipline by helping to structure current approaches in empathic design.
This framework gives insight into the process of empathy for the role of designer in relation to
the user, and can be used to apply existing empathic research and design techniques, support
development of new empathic tools and techniques and foster discussion about the emerging
role of empathy in the design process. We hope the discussion about empathy in design and the
development of empathic design tools and techniques continues, and that this article provides a
new impulse to do so.
Baron-Cohen, S. and Wheelwright, S., 2004. The empathy quotient: an investigation of adults with asperger syndrome
or high functioning autism, and normal sex differences. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34 (2),
Barrett-Lennard, G.T., 1981. The empathy cycle: refinement of a nuclear concept. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
28 (2), 91–100.
Battarbee, K., 2004. Co-experience: understanding user experience in social interaction. Doctoral dissertation. Series
ILMARI A51, University of Art and Design Helsinki.
Battarbee, K. and Koskinen, I., 2005. Co-experience: user experience as interaction. CoDesign, 1 (1), 5–18.
Battarbee,K., Baerten, N.,and Hinfelaar,M., 2002. Pools and satellites: intimacy in the city. Proceedings ofthe conference
on designing interactive systems DIS’00. NewYork, NY: ACM Press, 237–245.
Buchenau, M. and Fulton Suri, J., 2000. Experience prototyping. In: D. Boyarski and W.A. Kellogg, eds. Proceedings of
the conference on designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques, 17–19 August. New
York, NY:ACM Press, 424–433.
Damasio, A., 1994. Descartes’error: emotion, reason, and the human brain. NewYork, NY: Gosset/Putnam Press.
Duan, C.M. and Hill, C.E., 1996. The current state of empathy research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43 (3),
Fulton Suri, J., 2003a. The experience evolution: developments in design practice. The Design Journal, 6 (2), 39–48.
Fulton Suri, J., 2003b. Empathic design: informed and inspired by other people’s experience. In: I. Koskinen, K. Battarbee,
and T. Mattelmäki, eds. Empathic design, user experience in product design. Helsinki: IT Press, 51–57.
Downloaded By: [Technische Universiteit Delft] At: 10:00 26 August 2009
448 M. Kouprie and F. Sleeswijk Visser
Gladstein, G.A., 1983. Understanding empathy: integrating counseling, developmental, and social psychology perspec-
tives. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 30 (4), 467–482.
Go, K. and Carroll, J., 2004. The blind men and the elephant: views of scenario-based system design. Interactions, 11 (6),
Håkansson, J., 2003. Exploring the phenomenon of empathy. Doctoral dissertation. Stockholm University, Department of
Psychology, Stockholm.
Jahoda,G., 2005.Theodor Lipps and theshift from‘sympathy’to ‘empathy’. Journalof theHistory ofBehavioral Sciences,
41 (2), 151–163.
Keller, I. and Stappers, P.J., 2001. Presence for design: conveying atmosphere through video collages. CyberPsychology
and Behavior, 4 (2), 215–223.
Kohut, H., 1984. How does analysis cure? Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Koskinen, I. and Battarbee, K., 2003. Introduction to user experience and empathic design. In: I. Koskinen, K. Battarbee,
and T. Mattelmäki, eds. Empathic design, user experience in product design. Helsinki: IT Press, 37–50.
Koskinen, I., Battarbee, K., and Mattelmäki, T., 2003. Empathic design, user experience in product design. Helsinki: IT
Laurel, B., 2003. Design research: methods and perspectives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
van der Lelie, C., 2005. The value of storyboards in the product design process. Proceedings of 3AD third international
conference on appliance design. Bristol, UK: TheAppliance Design Network, 87–89.
Leonard, D. and Rayport, J.F., 1997. Spark innovation through empathic design. Harvard Business Review, 75 (6),
Lipps, T., 1903. Einfühlung, innere Nachahmung, und Organempfindungen. Archiv für die gesammte Psychologie,1,
van der Lugt, R. and Sleeswijk Visser, F., 2007. Creative workshops for interpreting and communicating rich user
information. Proceedings of include conference. London: RCA, 1–5.
Mattelmäki, T. and Battarbee, K., 2002. Empathy probes. In: T. Binder, J. Gregory, and I. Wagner, eds. Proceedings of
the participatory design conference 2002. PaloAlto CA: CPSR, 266–271.
McDonagh, D., 2006. Empathic research approaches to support the designer: a supra-qualitative research for designing
model. Design Issues.
McDonagh-Philp, D. and Bruseberg, A., 2000. Using focus groups to support new product development. Institution of
Engineering Designers Journal, 26 (5), 4–9.
McDonagh-Philp, D. and Denton, H., 1999. Using focus groups to support the designer in the evaluation of existing
products: a case study. The Design Journal, 2 (2), 20–31.
Mead, G.H., 1934. Mind, self and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Nilsson,P.,2003. Empathyandemotions: onthe notion ofempathy as emotionalsharing. Doctoral dissertation.Department
of Philosophy and Linguistics, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Pruitt, J. and Adlin, T., 2006. The persona lifecycle. Keeping people in mind throughout product design. San Fransisco,
CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Rogers, C.R., 1959. A theory of therapy, personality and interpersonal relationships, as developed in the client-centered
framework. In: S. Koch, ed. Psychology: a study of science.Vol. 3. New York, NY: Mc Graw Hill, 184–256.
Rogers, C.R., 1975. Empathic: an unappreciated way of being. Counseling Psychologist, 5 (2), 2–10.
Sanders, E.B.-N. and Dandavate, U., 1999. Design for experiencing: new tools. In: C.J. Overbeeke and P. Hekkert, eds.
Proceedings of the first international conference on design and emotion, 3–5 November 1999, The Netherlands:
Delft University of Technology, Delft, 87–92.
Sleeswijk Visser, F. (in press). The everyday life of people in product design. Doctoral dissertation. Technical University
of Delft.
Sleeswijk Visser, F. and Kouprie, M., 2008. Stimulating empathy in ideation workshops. Participatory design conference.
Indianapolis, 174–177.
Sleeswijk Visser, F. and Stappers, P.J., 2007. Mind the face. Proceedings of the conference on designing pleasurable
products and interfaces. Helsinki. NewYork: ACM Press, 119–134.
Sleeswijk Visser, F., et al., 2005. Contextmapping: experiences from practice. CoDesign, 1 (2), 119–149.
Sleeswijk Visser, F., van der Lugt, R., and Stappers, P.J., 2007. Sharing user experiences in the product innovation process:
participatory design needs participatory communication. Journal of Creativity and Innovation Management, 16 (1),
Stein, E., 1917. Zum Problem der Einfühlung. Halle: Waisenhauses.
Vreeke, G.J. and van der Mark, I.L., 2003. Empathy, an integrative model. New Ideas in Psychology, 21 (3), 177–207.
Wispé, L., 1986. The distinction between sympathy and empathy: to call forth a concept, a word is needed. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 50 (2), 314–321.
Wispé, L., 1987. History of the concept of empathy. In: N. Eisenberg and J. Strayer, eds. Empathy and its development.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 17–37.
Downloaded By: [Technische Universiteit Delft] At: 10:00 26 August 2009
... Keywords used for searching were empathy, empathy in design, empathy in design thinking and empathy review. We initially focused on reviews (e.g., Kouprie & Sleeswijk Visser 2009;Shamay-Tsoory 2011;Zaki & Ochsner 2012;Mattelmäki, Vaajakallio & Koskinen 2014;Clarke, DeNora & Vuoskoski 2015) and handbook chapters (e.g., Batson 2009;Shamay-Tsoory 2009;Neumann & Westbury 2011;Köppen & Meinel 2015) both in psychology and design. In addition, we followed a snowball procedure by revising the sources cited by authors. ...
... The applied nature of empathy in design Given that design is a heavily context-based discipline, designers have been interested in conceptualising empathy under the light of their practice. In design, empathy is seen as a design approach aiming at matching the mental contents and imagination of designers with that of end-users (Heylighen & Dong 2019) to obtain better design outcomes (Kouprie & Sleeswijk Visser 2009). However, this concept has adopted multiple forms. ...
... Thus, in addition to being an attitude, empathy is understood as an instrumental skill (Riemer 2004). Based on psychology, Kouprie & Sleeswijk Visser (2009) introduced the dichotomy of affective versus cognitive empathy into design. They write that 'having an emotional response (affective) to another's emotional state and being able to reflect on that by perspective taking (cognitive) seems to be the core mechanism of empathy' (p. ...
Full-text available
Empathy is argued to be a key factor for a successful design discussion. However, such causality cannot be empirically proven based on how empathy is currently defined in design community. Empathy is used as an umbrella construct, broad and encompassing of diverse phenomena, making it difficult to quantify. We suggest improving such a situation by introducing a definition of empathy based on psychology literature, which provides structure and guidance for studying the role of empathy in design. We first break empathy to components. Then, we review empathy as used in design. Finally, we synthetize the reviewed material. From this synthesis, we conclude that empathy in design shares several key components of empathy in psychology; particularly with state influences, top-down control process and emotional stimuli. These are present in design methods although they have not been studied using such terms. Incorporating psychological components of empathy into design can help conceptualising empathy from a different angle, thus opening interesting new avenues for future research. We hope that our treatment provides present and future designers with some useful guidance.
... Values (Non-exhaustive) associated with the action or result of creativity summarised from Runco and Jaeger (2012), Simonton (2016) and Glaveanu (2019) and adapted by the author. ............ 55 Table 4: Techniques to enhance Empathy in Design, Kouprie and Visser (2009) ...
... Based on the work of Hess and Fila (2015), Van Rijn (2011) and Kouprie and Visser (2009), the findings began from the position that the design students were designing empathetically because of their engaging with a participant directly. Next to this, within the transcripts, empathy was evidenced of how students were showing emotional interest, how they were evidencing how someone else feels, and their taking the participant's perspective (Baldner and McGinley's 2014). ...
... Finally, what is required or evidenced in a designer's way of working to show that they have achieved empathy?To address these initial questions involves first understanding how empathy and design is referenced within literature. In literature, empathy and design is often discussed in terms of empathy being established through the designer's emotional understanding of the needs of a user and the designer's reflection or analysis of this need which in turn results in a designed object that is responsive to the needs or context of use(Kouprie and Visser 2009;Postma et al. 2012). However, empathy is also discussed as a result of particular methods and processes that are experienced by the designer in direct involvement with participants or users(Kouprie and Visser 2009;Battarbee et al. 2014). ...
Full-text available
Designing for one is a form of design participation in which a designer works together with one individual. The result of this interaction is a bespoke design that is responsive to the needs, abilities, preferences and situation of the individual. Applied with design education, this research sought to understand the ways this approach impacted a) student learning, b) the generation of empathy and c) the traditional design educational space. This study involved six methods of inquiry for examining the impact of designing for one on the student experience: four Student Module Cases Studies, one expert design educator workshop with 21 participants, 28 student interviews, seven expert design educator interviews and included mapping (a method used within the workshop), observations and post analysis thick descriptions. In terms of student learning, the study identified seven key learning experiences that students had when designing for one, with the most prevalent being: Process (the students developed knowledge about the design process, research methodology and the act of designing), Design Skills (they learned about and applied specific skills related to their discipline), Soft-Design Skills (they developed understanding regarding using and incorporate soft-skills into their design process) and Interaction (they identified the value of the interaction between themselves and their participant). Regarding empathy, the study identified 11 factors that influence the forming of an empathetic relationship between designer and participant, resulting in a set of empathy factors that can be referred to when seeking to build relationships within design participation. In terms of impacting the routine design space, the study identified 11 variables that design educators can use to disrupt a traditional educational setup with the most important variables identified being participation with real users (bringing students in contact with real users) and the location of the module situation (taking the ‘classroom’ off site into a situation of use). By purposefully placing students within these individual situations of an ‘other’, the result is a form of design participation that emerges from the orchestrated relationship and the exchange. The result of this thesis, then, is the offering of designing for one as pedagogical approach that increases levels of complexity, planning, research and collaboration serving to complement existing design educational practice.
... Finally, phase 4, detachment, is partially seen in the process of writing this chapter. In various ways, this phase in the South Australian project study was experienced differently from the psychological framework for empathy proposed by Kouprie and Visser (2009). Detachment phases are complex, needing sensitive exit strategies to promote sustainability and avoid the negative impacts on the intervention. ...
... The useful framework, discovery, immersion, connection and detachment of Kouprie and Visser (2009) are parallel to the process for creating empathy that the project artist-researchers experienced, yet with some variations. During the discovery phase, the first encounters with the South Australian groups included informal introductions between the artist-researchers and participants. ...
... The artist-researchers' involvement through an ethnographic approach led to an empathetic understanding, reflection, analysis and deeper involvement with the workshop participants, as opposed to a diametrical detachment, which is the final phase proposed by Kouprie and Visser (2009). Detachment processes are complex and require highly sensitive withdrawal strategies that promote sustainability and avoid negative impacts on the intervention. ...
This chapter draws on two workshops carried out with a group of Anangu Aboriginal artists and the Fibrespace Incorporated textile artist group in South Australia. The two workshops are part of a two-year project titled ‘Women Living on the Edges of the World’, which is also informally known as ‘Margin to Margin’ (2016–2017). The role of art, storytelling and narrative practice as a means for local empowerment is discussed in this chapter, here by focusing on the front end of social design processes, when artistic and social design methods are used to familiarise the participants, designers, artists or artist-researchers with one another.
... To take end-users' perspectives, designers talk with users, imagine users and synthesise their needs, as well as test solutions with users (Hess & Fila 2016). Also, taking part in users' experiences and purposeful reflection can support more in-depth understanding (Kouprie & Visser 2009;Smeenk et al. 2016). ...
... In light of the current study, the effects of perceived time pressurea variable that has eluded many existing research (e.g., Kouprie & Visser 2009;Oygür 2018)could be a particularly interesting variable to explore in such studies. ...
Full-text available
Taking the perspective of users and stakeholders can help designers incorporate human-centricity in their practice. However, we know relatively little of the dynamics of perspective taking – a cognitive facet of empathy – in design processes as a situated cognitive and behavioural activity, rather than as an overall orientation. To illuminate how perspective taking is used in design, we carried out a longitudinal multiple case study of 49-month-long graduate-level product and service design projects, exploring differences between high and midscale performance in different design phases. Through thematic analysis of review session discussions, we find that perspective taking in high-performing sessions involves three aggregate dimensions: gathering data to form perspectives, scoping and making sense of perspectives and using perspectives in creative processing. We identify phase-dependent characteristics for the scope and emphasis of perspective taking in concept development, system design and detailed design. We also describe different ways in which novice teams struggled to create and apply user perspectives. As a result, the current study sheds light on perspective taking and the changing nature of effective perspective taking across the design process.
... The body of literature related to design phenomenology points to a strong focus on empathy in design and the impact of design in everyday life (e.g., Ho et al., 2011;Kouprie & Visser, 2009). Empathy places the "Other" as the frame of reference or feeling with the Other; it is a critical condition in understanding how others see the world (Husserl, 1998). ...
... Without empathy, designers lose the emotional connection with the user. Rather, empathetic understanding allows designers to understand the perspectives of the user, which are meaningful to them (Battarbee & Koskinen, 2005;Kouprie & Visser, 2009;Norman, 2013). ...
Globalization in modern times has leant increased significance to design thinking in education. However, the adoption of design thinking in education requires deep understanding in order to mitigate a reductionist approach, which tends to overlook the complexity of implementing design knowledge. Educating designerly aims to produce thinkers who can benefit from designers’ extensive experience and who are more attuned to the “realities” of professional practices. Toward this goal, this chapter aims to first interrogate the notion of “design knowledge” alongside other related terms. Our review highlights key perspectives on design knowledge based on three dominant approaches to design studies, namely, design epistemology, design praxiology, and design phenomenology. Rooted in these approaches, our examination of current research foregrounds critical dispositions for education. In particular, we highlight how designers in various professional practices have emphasized the possibility of creating social futures that celebrate positivity, inventiveness, empathy, and pragmatism.KeywordsDesign epistemologyDesign praxiologyDesign phenomenologyDesign thinkingInventive practices
... The realization that empathy is an important skill for engineering students is gaining increasing attention from engineering educators as evidenced by the growing body of research [6]. This can also be seen in the evolution of the design thinking process [7]. It is common to see "empathize" precede "defining the problem" in the design process. ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
A typical undergraduate engineering curriculum will give students a broad technical background in their major of choice. With the limited time faculty have with the students to develop technical skills it is not uncommon for many non-technical aspects of engineering to be given limited coverage. This can have potential unintended consequences for how students view the role of an engineer and what skills will help them to thrive when working in industry. One such skill is the ability to think empathically-specifically in an engineering role. This paper details a study in which student beliefs on engineering roles and undergraduate engineering program emphases are compared between first-year and upper-level undergraduates. Responses to survey questions show a decay with time in the importance students place on considerations for public welfare, social consciousness and other non-technical aspects of engineering. A short lecture and assignment related to engineering ethics and empathy was then used as a small intervention. Results are presented between control groups that did not participate in the empathy module and those who did as well as from pre-module and post-module surveys. Conclusions are further drawn from an analysis of the assignments. It is found that this intervention produces stronger outcomes in upper-level students who expressed more difficulty in crafting empathic responses to professional scenarios than first-year students. The first-year students in this study were enrolled in an introduction to engineering course that covered both technical and non-technical topics. The upper-level students were in a technical course (fluid mechanics), and an account is also provided on the empathy lesson implementation and student reception in this context.
... Researchers have also argued that individuals are more likely to take action when they perceive situations through the 'imagine-self' lens and that this tendency also varies based on designers' level of experience (Chung and Joo 2017). Furthermore, Kouprie and Visser (2009) argue that designers must invest sufficient time and have the willingness to successfully empathize with the user. They also suggest that designers' perspectives and prior experiences could influence their ability to empathize with the user, an argument also made by Håkansson and Montgomery (2003). ...
Full-text available
As global resources deplete, there has emerged a need for designers to emphasize sustainability in engineering design. Several researchers have proposed design tools to support sustainable design; however, designers must be sufficiently motivated to actively adopt a sustainable design mindset and utilize these design tools. Prior research has identified the need for interpersonal skills (e.g., empathy, pro-environmental attitudes, and intentions) among individuals to encourage an active sustainable mindset. While researchers have demonstrated the relationship between designers’ empathy and their identification of problem requirements in design, little research has explored this relationship in the context of sustainable design. Moreover, little research has investigated this relationship with a focus on novice designers. Our aim in this paper is to explore this research gap through an experimental study with 40 undergraduate engineering students. Specifically, we investigated the relationship between novice designers’ trait empathy, their beliefs, attitudes, and intentions towards environmental sustainability, and their identification of problem requirements. From the results, we see that participants’ empathic concern – a component of trait empathy – correlated positively with their attitudes and intentions towards sustainability. Additionally, participants’ beliefs, attitudes, and intentions towards sustainability significantly predicted their identification of environment-focused problem requirements, with their intentions towards sustainable action demonstrating the strongest positive relationship. Finally, we see that although components of participants’ trait empathy did not significantly predict their identification of problem requirements, participants’ score on fantasy demonstrated the strongest positive relationship with the number of environment-focused requirements identified by them, a novel finding in this work. Taken together, these findings provide an important first step towards understanding the relationship between novice designers’ individual differences and their adoption of environment-focused sustainability in engineering design.
... Things change when it comes to applying the principles to actual design problems, which requires lifting the veil of ignorance to let context sensitive information about specific users and situations to flow into design processes. Empathy again has been reclaimed to design in this connection to access users' needs as well as the background beliefs and values that structure their experience (Kouprie & Visser, 2009) (van der Bijl-Brouwer & Dorst, 2017. Since artefacts are "objects embedded in use plans" (Houkes & Vermaas, 2010, p. 137), it is sensible to expect designers to recruit cognitive empathy to anticipate users' experience. ...
Conference Paper
In this paper, we outline a framework for justice in design practice that escape the paradox inclusive design seems to be trapped in and introduces three tools to meet the demands it raises: Rawls’s idea of the original position, cognitive empathy, and public deliberation. We suggest that applying these tools to the design process makes sense of inclusive design as an effective design stance and allows meeting the demands for equitable use it raises.
... The engagement that the students were having with residents leaned on the tenets of human-centered design (Roth 1999) and the relationship between design and context of use (Sanders 2002). Next to this, the empathy that was generated from this engagement resulted in empathetic designers (Kouprie and Visser 2009) as well as student designers being engaged (even if briefly) in societal matters (Papanek quoted by Klein n.d.). This called for further investigation into the value of designing for one and how it was affecting the student's way of being within the action of designing. ...
Full-text available
This article shares the results of research into the designing for one approach, a term referring to a (student) designer designing for one individual in which the individual’s specific interests, accessible tools, capabilities, etc. shape the designer’s process and are reflected in the resulting bespoke design. This particular study looked at four individual case studies in which design students of diverse design disciplines and educational levels from universities in the US and in Belgium used this approach. The cases were analyzed by a panel of twenty-one design education experts looking specifically to identify factors that were different within this approach from that of the educator’s own practice, factors that potentially had shifted the educational context and student experience from the known and routine into areas that were unfamiliar. Next to this, the analysis included over 200 pages of interview transcripts from students in the four cases, looking to identify how these identified factors impacted the student’s experience. Using the participant’s own voice to provide context to these points of difference, this article offers readers a list of eleven variables that were identified as factors which set the designing for one approach apart from standard, skills-based design education. A call to action for educators, the article proposes how these variables can facilitate a shift in learning to bring students experiences that challenge their discipline, medium, and processes.
With the challenges of a global pandemic, political and social unrest, and the consequences these issues bring, there is a universal call for empathy as we attempt to maneuver through this tumultuous time. For instructional designers, this includes employing empathy and empathic design as they grapple with how to design instructional interventions for learners. Empathy is the first stage in the design thinking process, now a popular buzz word in design research and practice. It suggests that empathy results in a design that meets the audience needs. But how do we know if this is true? As professors of instructional design and researchers of design practice, we teach empathy for action as a means for design students to act by producing a meaningful design deliverable. Over a 15-week semester, we taught and measured designer empathy and empathic design with 31 graduate students while they worked in design teams, participating in authentic design projects with two nonprofit organizations. Results indicate that 75% of the instances of empathy were students showing sensitivity to the end-learners’ experiences and situations, 52% were directed toward identifying with the end-learners’ thoughts and feelings. This did not necessarily translate to the designed deliverables as only three of the nine student teams created final meaningful design deliverables. We report on our instructional process, our research results and provide the framework for what we believe is needed to bridge the connection of empathy, empathic design, and meaningful design deliverables.
Empathy is an essential part of normal social functioning, yet there are precious few instruments for measuring individual differences in this domain. In this article we review psychological theories of empathy and its measurement. Previous instruments that purport to measure this have not always focused purely on empathy. We report a new self-report questionnaire, the Empathy Quotient (EQ), for use with adults of normal intelligence. It contains 40 empathy items and 20 filler/control items. On each empathy item a person can score 2, 1, or 0, so the EQ has a maximum score of 80 and a minimum of zero. In Study 1 we employed the EQ with n = 90 adults (65 males, 25 females) with Asperger Syndrome (AS) or high-functioning autism (HFA), who are reported clinically to have difficulties in empathy. The adults with AS/HFA scored significantly lower on the EQ than n = 90 (65 males, 25 females) age-matched controls. Of the adults with AS/HFA, 81% scored equal to or fewer than 30 points out of 80, compared with only 12% of controls. In Study 2 we carried out a study of n = 197 adults from a general population, to test for previously reported sex differences (female superiority) in empathy. This confirmed that women scored significantly higher than men. The EQ reveals both a sex difference in empathy in the general population and an empathy deficit in AS/HFA.
Reviews the literature of social and developmental psychology on empathy theory and research. These 2 subdisciplines differ in their definitions and measures from each other, as well as from the counseling/psychotherapy area. At the same time, all 3 disciplines identify 2 major types of empathy: (a) affective empathy, or feeling the same way as another person, and (b) cognitive or role-taking empathy. Four proposals that result from an integration of these 3 literatures are discussed: First, empathy should be viewed as a multistage interpersonal process that can involve emotional contagion, identification, and role taking. Second, empathy in children is probably different from empathy in adolescence and adulthood. Third, empathy can but does not necessarily lead to helping behaviors. Last, empathy in counseling/psychotherapy can be helpful in certain stages, with certain clients, and for certain goals. However, at other times it can interfere with positive outcomes. (79 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved).
Six blind men encounter an elephant. Each of them touches a different part of the elephant and expresses what the elephant is. Although they are touching the same elephant, each man's description is completely different from that of the others. We have been using this story as a metaphor for understanding different views of scenario-based system design.