Content uploaded by Anne Britt Torkildsby
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Anne Britt Torkildsby on Oct 04, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
EPDE2017/1330
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ENGINEERING AND PRODUCT DESIGN EDUCATION,
7 & 8 SEPTEMBER 2017, OSLO AND AKERSHUS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF APPLIED SCIENCES,
NORWAY
CRITICAL DESIGN – A NEW PARADIGM FOR
TEACHING AND LEARNING UNIVERSAL DESIGN
Anne Britt TORKILDSBY
PhD in Design, The Norwegian Research Laboratory for Universal Design, NTNU, Norway
ABSTRACT
The critical design method, which was originally developed as a tool for designers, architects,
engineers, etc. to open the (design) brief when designing “extreme environments” of the future [1a] –
in so doing throwing light upon the design process from a critical perspective and highlighting
considerations that might otherwise be overlooked – is now gradually being adapted to and applied in
the field of universal design. Bringing this way of thinking about design into higher education could
encourage teachers and students to broaden their knowledge in this field, better equipping students to
create in an inclusive manner and ensuring that future products, buildings, and exterior spaces are
accessible to all to the greatest extent possible [2].
In order to test and further develop this way of thinking about universal design for educational
contexts, two series of workshops have been conducted: One at a research institute for rehabilitation
engineering and design, and one within a Master’s programme in occupational therapy. The purpose of
this paper is to describe the process of adapting the critical design method as it is used in institutional
environments, such as hospitals and prisons, to various universal design contexts, and to discuss the
preliminary results. The paper also examines the question of whether critical design is an optimal
method of challenging and ultimately improving the field of universal design – and, if so, how to
proceed in order to achieve the best teaching and learning outcomes.
Keywords: Critical design, universal design, design methods, educational practises, workshops.
1 INTRODUCTION
Inclusion, access, and participation are three keywords that are commonly used to describe universal
design (UD). What if design educators turned these terms upside down (metaphorically speaking) by
implementing, early in the design process, a critical design method that makes it possible for students
to focus on what it means to design for a fundamental form of being human (existential designial
analysis; EDA) [1b], rather than what the thing we design is intended to do as we use it (functional
analysis)? Would students have a different learning outcome – perhaps even a deeper understanding of
what it means to be human in the physical environment? Moreover, can critical thinking and a certain
amount of provocation provide them with alternative starting points for creative thinking, and thus
more tools in their problem-solving toolboxes?
The EDA is, in short, a critical design method that has been developed and utilised as an alternative
way of thinking about design. While traditional design methods (those of Jones and Cross, for
example) merely address the function(s) of a product, service, system, and/or process, the critical
design method focuses on what impact it has on the user while they are using it. Furthermore,
employing it during the initial phases of a design process enables the designer to shift focus, from
“analysis of the functionality of a design in use, e.g. by performing a functional analysis, to analysis of
the form of being human that a design in use defines” [1c]. In so doing, they are able to open up the
design brief and examine it from perspectives which may otherwise be overlooked.
The primary advantage of employing this method in a design education programme is that students
learn how to think, analyse, and evaluate ideas, concepts, projects, and processes in a critical manner.
A secondary advantage is that students come to possess improved knowledge regarding designing
EPDE2017/1330
“products, environments, programmes and services to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent
possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design” [3], while at the same time obtaining
hands-on experience with the complications that may arise if this aspect of design – “the ‘dark side’ of
design thinking” [1d] – is ignored. The fact that, for example, by 2050 the world population of sixty-
year-olds will have doubled [4], and that nations such as Norway have made UD an explicit part of
national policy [5], bringing alternative methods into education – and eventually perhaps into other
professions’ ways of working – will likely help UD to develop as a discipline. This, in turn, implies
that future designers will be better equipped to meet the needs of all, desires of those with purchasing
power, and requirements of an ever-changing and increasingly complex market.
2 THE APPLICATION OF THE CRITICAL DESIGN METHOD TO EXTREME
ENVIRONMENTS
The critical design method is rooted in ‘critical design’, a term that builds on attitudes of Italian radical
design of the 1970s but was first coined by Dunne in 1999, which “rejects how things are now as
being the only possibility, [and] provides a critique of the prevailing situation through designs that
embody alternative social, cultural, technical or economic values” [6]. The purpose of critical design
is, in short, to make people think, and to thus raise awareness, spur debate, and provoke positive action
[8]. Critical design has been used over the years to examine social, political, economic,
and environmental issues in society (see for example those of Dunne & Raby, Auger & Loizeau,
Toran, Caccavale, etc.). In the context of the critical design method, however, the above way of
thinking is used to shed light on ‘extreme environments’: those which people are unable to leave –
regardless of whether the reason for this is physical or mental, and of whether the duration is
temporary or permanent – and which do not support what is considered to be a ‘normal’ state of
existence [1e], such as intensive care units (ICU) and remand prisons.
The critical design method has been used to create a three-step design methodology, which in turn is
presented as a functional design manual – ready for use. In order to test and exemplify the method, six
workshops, involving approximately eighty students, were conducted in various design schools in
Scandinavia in 2011 and 2012, the results of which – the ‘output’ of the students’ design processes –
were termed ‘critical design examples’ (CDEs) [1f]. A CDE – the function of which is, in brief, to
illuminate a problem – is intended to be applied to the problem-solving process, such as when
planning a new hospital or prison, in order to foster innovation, albeit in a rather dark way. The idea is
that all involved in the process are forced to leave their comfort zones, think outside of the box, and,
thus, find a better solution to the design problem(s).
3 WORKSHOP SERIES #1 – BRINGING THEORY INTO PRACTICE
3.1 Structure
Although the length of the workshops varied between one and four days, the overall structure – the
order of the activities and the amount of time spent on Steps 1-4 – remained the same, aside from Step
1 during those workshops which had a large number of students. Lunch breaks and so on were agreed
upon following discussion with each class. Consent forms were signed and handed in before the end of
the workshop – with participants able to withdraw their consent at any time – so that the data collected
(pictures, sketches, quotations, etc.) would be available for use later in the project. The following
example (Table 1) is from a one-day workshop.
Table 1. Workshop structure
Time
Activity
Step
09:00-
09:30
Welcome and introduction by the organiser, followed by brief student
introductions and an overview of the workshop
1
09:30-
09:40
Introduction to functional analysis and the critical design method, as well as a brief
run-through of the differences and similarities between these two approaches to
design
2
09:40-
10:25
Presentation of four fictional scenarios, along with a demonstration of using the
critical design method by applying the three steps
3
EPDE2017/1330
10:25-
11:00
Discussion and presentation of CDEs, including visual material from the field of
critical design for inspiration
4
11:00-
15:45
Presentation of the assignment, with the students being divided into groups (with a
maximum of five in each), and the beginning of the group work
5
15:45-
16:30
Presentation of the final concept(s) – the CDE(s) – followed by a discussion and
summing-up of the workshop
6
3.2 Participants
All of the participants were students of some form of design; some were working towards a degree in
textile design, while others possessed a strong background in industrial design. The participants came
from both the BA and MA levels, and both genders were represented.
3.3 Procedure
From a starting point that utilised the three-step critical design method, the students developed CDE(s)
in response to a given problem. Half of the students developed curtains, prison jumpsuits, bedding, or
door handles for remand prison cells, while the other half created clothing, bedding, room dividers, or
bedside lamps for ICU patient rooms. The creative process for tackling this assignment generally
unfolded as follows: discuss, sketch, drink coffee or tea, discuss, decide on a concept to develop
further into CDE(s), eat lunch, more sketching, possibly create one or more prototypes, discuss, and,
finally, present the outcome. Most of the groups made more than one CDE, but all had to select one to
present. The students were, for the most part, surprised by what they had achieved by the end of the
day; to quote some of them: “But this is like upside down?!”, “I’m not that into critical design – at
least not until now, but I sure like this way of working with fiction to prove a point”, and “Actually,
I’m a bit ashamed that we came up with this…” [1g]
Figure 1. Students’ work. From left to right: ICU bedding made out of metal sheets, to –
quite literally – anchor the patient to their bed; a prison jumpsuit to cover the inmate’s body,
including the head, while leaving their buttocks exposed; a door handle for a remand prison
cell that is designed so that the cell shrinks every time the prisoner tries to open the door
3.4 Trends and reflections
During the workshops, the students discussed different aspects of the ICU and remand prison
environments. The students created CDEs to examine everything from how being strapped down in
bed in an ICU makes the individual feel naked, fragile and exposed to violence, sexual abuse, and
torture in remand prison. This ‘dark’ way of thinking evoked both reflections and emotions; one
student, whose grandmother happened to be in an ICU at that time, understandably felt appalled at the
prospect of causing “harm” to a bedridden person by developing CDEs. However, the same student
arrived the next day and was heard to say, among other things, “So we’re not supposed to be ‘nice’?!
and “Yesterday I felt sick. Today it’s just fun!” [Ibidi].
The CDEs were presented through black and white sketches, detailed scenario descriptions, short
films, verbal presentations, and role-play. Without doubt, however, the learning outcome was much
more important than any physical results produced, and the discussions at the end of each workshop
revealed that most of the students felt that this way of thinking design was liberating in relation to their
world of problem-solving. Moreover, it seemed that the students (mostly) had fun developing CDEs:
“This is like bad and fun at the same time” [Ibidh]; “It’s fun to be a bit artsy…” [Ibidi].
EPDE2017/1330
Figure 2. CDEs that were created during Workshop Series #1. From left to right: Prison
curtains that slowly block the view of the inmate; transparent bedding for use in an ICU ward
to fully expose the patient; hospital bed dividers to put the patient ‘in the spotlight’, rather
than acting as protection
4 APPLYING A CRITICAL DESIGN APPROACH TO UNIVERSAL DESIGN
The physical environment, which includes housing, products, transportation systems, buildings, and so
on is mostly designed for the able-bodied; as Norwegian Design and Architecture states on its website,
“Most products and services are generally designed for the average user – a typically healthy, right-
handed, white, young male” [9]. Thus, those who have difficulty walking or suffer from colour
blindness, cognitive disabilities, and even incontinence fall outside this definition. Originally applied
in the field of architecture in the early 1960s (Goldsmith), then thirty years later in relation to
commercial products and information technology, for example (Mace), UD is a relatively new concept
in design education. Strong methods of teaching have, however, been established [10, 11], but as
Denizou states, teaching UD requires a foundation of design methods that are based on, among other
things, creation and simulation exercises [12], which is why the critical design method should be a
welcome contribution to the field.
5 WORKSHOP SERIES #2 – BRINGING THEORY INTO PRACTICE
5.1 Structure
The second workshop series consisted of two half-day workshops, both of which shared the same
overall structure, i.e. the order of activities as well as the time spent on each part, and were identical to
those of Series #1 as regards administrative aspects.
Table 2. Workshop structure
Time
Activity
Step
12:30-
12:45
Welcome and introduction by the organiser, followed by brief student
introductions and an overview of the workshop
1
12:45-
13:15
Introduction to the critical design method, including a brief explanation of how to
apply it during the design process and a discussion and presentation of CDEs
2
13:15-
15:45
Presentation of the assignment, with the students being divided into groups, and
the beginning of the group work
3
15:45-
16:30
Presentation of the final concept(s) – the CDE(s) – followed by a discussion and
summing-up of the workshop
4
5.2 Participants
The eight participants in the first workshop were researchers from a rehabilitation engineering and
design research institute, while the twelve of the second workshop were occupational therapy Master’s
students.
5.3 Procedure
As in the previous workshops, the participants developed CDE(s) to solve a given problem, creating
speculative design proposals for staircases, headphones, entrance door, smartphones, and E-textiles.
The scenarios included: “Caroline (67 years old) has lost her peripheral vision and has poor depth
perception, making crossing the road and going down stairs very difficult” (design task: staircase);
“Tom (37 years old) was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis 12 years ago, and has poor balance and
EPDE2017/1330
some difficulties in walking, and finds that he bumps into things every now and then” (design task:
door entrance).
The two groups had different ways of solving problems, with the researchers performing a miniature
version of a traditional problem-solving process, featuring ideation and concept development towards
a result, while the students quickly decided upon a solution. In addition, the students had a tendency to
create CDEs that featured an element of cliché and pastiche, rather than letting the viewer, in the
words of Dunne and Raby [8], “experience a dilemma, [and so decide for themselves;] is it serious or
not? Real or not?” Whether this was due to a lack of design method background, general product
development skills, or speculative design approaches, to the fact that time was very limited, or to a
combination of these is difficult to say. It should be noted that all of the groups had conducted relevant
discussions, both within each group and with the organiser.
Figure 3. A visual impression of the workshops
5.4 Trends and reflections
The participants worked diligently throughout the workshop, and the topics that were discussed ranged
from the extent to which our environments drive and direct our possibilities and actions to how the
CDEs could be used to fuel a design process. The CDEs were generally more ‘half-baked’ than those
produced during Workshop Series #1, which is to be expected due to the differing backgrounds of the
participants and the limited time available. The ways in which the CDEs were presented, furthermore,
varied from simple sketches to more detailed concept drawings and verbal presentations. It should be
noted that the researchers were more refined in their visualisations, whereas the students presented
sketches that were generally relatively simple, but this is to be expected due to the differences between
the two disciplines. Just as in the Series #1 workshops, the participants were positive regarding their
experiences, aside from one who felt that this way of working was childish and a waste of time. To
quote some of the participants: “This is like anti-universal design”; “What a great way to kickstart a
project!”; “The critical design examples remind me of ‘design probes’ [Gaver] and ‘provotypes’
[Dunne and Raby]”.
Figure 4. Examples of the CDEs that were created during Workshop Series #2. From left to
right: A staircase, with a mandatory ‘spinning drum stop’ in front, so that every person
entering the building is equally off-balance; various ‘orientation-devices’ to make users walk
in circles; a doorway that punishes those who do not walk straight when passing through it
6 DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATIONS
This paper has presented the critical design method, and discussed how it can be implemented in the
design process to expose assumptions, generate interesting questions, and discover new ideas.
Incorporating this way of thinking into design education programmes would provide students with
EPDE2017/1330
greater insight into what it means to be human in the physical environment, and what may happen if
they – the next generation of designers – do not take into account this aspect of designing.
Furthermore, critical design methodologies, be they in the form of the three-step approach used in
Workshop Series #1 or the fictional scenarios of Workshop Series #2, encourage students (and, on one
occasion, a group of researchers) to think outside the box – to not simply engage in ‘affirmative
design’, i.e. design that “reinforces how things are now, [how] it conforms to cultural, social,
technical, and economic expectations” [6]. As Einstein once allegedly stated: “The significant
problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them”
[7]. Hence, the critical design method is likely a good contribution to the field of UD, as both a
method of teaching and learning and as a means of practicing UD further down the road – when
students have stepped into the real world and will have to deal with UD at some point in their careers.
Before this point, however, more workshops in educational contexts, primarily within creative
disciplines such as design, architecture, and engineering, need to be held in order to see the whole
picture. The discussions in plenum that followed after the workshops of Series #2 revealed that some
of the scenarios that were set were experienced as too specific, making it difficult to truly ‘design for
all’ rather than for a specific individual (this was particularly true for those scenarios that involved
personal assistive technologies). This was extremely useful feedback as regards revising the content
and structure of future workshops. To further develop these, participants could first spend time
creating fictional scenarios and then develop suitable CDE(s), in so doing gaining valuable experience
of both aspects. Another idea is to take one step back, implementing the EDA and the critical design
method of Workshop Series #1 as well. However, the experiences of the participants of the eight
workshops show that – regardless of the backgrounds of the participants, be they textile, industrial
design, or occupational therapy students or researchers seeking new inspiration – there is indeed
something to learn from the ‘dark side’ of design thinking, particularly as regards the ways that it
challenges assumptions and preconceived ideas about the role of the physical environment, be that
housing, products, transportation systems, or parks, in people’s everyday lives.
REFERENCES
[1] Torkildsby, A.B., Existential design – Revisiting the “dark side” of design thinking, 2014, pp.
22a; 24-28b; 7c; 20-21d; 22e; 21f; 270g; 216h; 246i (Responstryck AB, Borås).
[2] Mace, R.L., Hardie, G.J., & Place, J.P., Accessible environments: Toward universal design, 1991,
pp. 2 (Barrier Free Environments Inc. Raleigh, NC).
[3] UNs Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Article 2 – Definitions. Available:
https://tinyurl.com/lxzmlxt [Accessed 2017, 12 May].
[4] WHO. Facts about ageing. Available: https://tinyurl.com/qxyw8rx [Accessed 2017, 12 May].
[5] Norwegian Ministry of Children and Equality. Norway universally designed by 2025. Available:
https://tinyurl.com/nxt8uxl [Accessed 2017, 12 May].
[6] Dunne, A. & Raby, F., Design Noir - The Secret Life of Electronic Objects, 2001, pp. 58 (August
Media Ltd., London).
[7] Nolet, V., Educating for Sustainability: Principles and Practices for Teachers, 2016, pp. 80
(Routledge, NY).
[8] Dunne & Raby. Critical Design FAQ. Available:
https://tinyurl.com/d5wzdc [Accessed 2017, 12 May].
[9] Norwegian Design and Architecture. Knowing your customer. Available:
https://tinyurl.com/l6rqkjo [Accessed 2017, 12 May].
[10] Clarkson, P.J., Coleman, R., Hoskin, I., Waller, S., Inclusive Design Toolkit, 2007 (Cambridge
Engineering Design Centre, Cambridge).
[11] Vavik, T., Strategies for teaching Universal design. Proceedings of the 13th International
conference on engineering and product design education, London, September 2011, pp. 360-365
(The Design Society).
[12] Denizou, K., Universal Design as a Booster for Housing Quality and Architectural Practice.
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Universal Design (UD 2016), York, August
2016, pp. 111-120 (IOS Press).
