See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/307932419

Mapping Empathy and Ethics in the Design Process.

Conference Paper · September 2015

CITATIONS READS

6 2,840

2 authors:

Veronica Barnes Vikki Eriksson

Cape Peninsula University of Technology Design Factory at Aalto University
13 PUBLICATIONS 24 CITATIONS 21 PUBLICATIONS 191 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Vikki Eriksson on 18 March 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Editors
Amanda Breytenbach
Kate A Chmela-Jones

The conference proceedings is published by the Design Education Forum of Southern Africa (DEFSA)
on the following website: www.defsa.org.za.
The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily of DEFSA. Papers
are published as submitted by the authors, after they have considered and included
recommendations from peer reviewers.

ISBN 978-1-77012-137-9
Ethics and accountability in Design: Do they matter? - DEFSA Conference Proceedings

© 2015 Design Education Forum of Southern Africa

All rights reserved. The materials published in this Conference Proceedings may be reproduced for
instructional and non-commercial use, providing that proper reference to the source is
acknowledged. Any use for commercial purposes must be submitted to the chief-editors.

DEFSA contact details

Kate Chmela-Jones Amanda Breytenbach
DEFSA President (2015-2017) DEFSA Senate Member
[email protected] [email protected]

© Copyright 2015 by the Design Education Forum of Southern Africa (www.defsa.org.za) ii

 Mapping Empathy and Ethics in the Design Process
Veronica BARNES & Vikki DU PREEZ
Cape Peninsula University of Technology

Abstract
There is no doubt that the role of product designers has changed considerably, not least with the rise
of human-centred design. While Papanek’s 1971 “Design for the Real World: Human Ecology and
Social Change” seemed radical at the time, his ideas seem entirely at home in the 21st century,
including his call to adopt more social responsibility in design. These views are echoed in the
contemporary findings of professionals and researchers associated with ICSID, the International
Council of Societies of Industrial Design. The focus has shifted, from the designer as the expert to the
user, or community, as the expert in their own environment; and Co-design, Participatory design, and
Universal Design are but a few examples of such people-focussed design approaches. And, as design
is increasingly used as a tool for social development, the exposure of designers to vulnerable
individuals and communities has increased. While research fields such as the social sciences have a
long history of developing a code of ethics that is explicit, younger fields such as human-centred
design and design research do not. While design and design research have adopted many social
sciences methodologies (such as ethnography), the issue of ethics and accountability in design
remains largely undiscussed.
The increasing importance of understanding the user in the design process is a key feature of human-
centred design. Empathy is often described as “stepping into someone’s shoes”, however the full
value of this process is described in Empathic Design. This deep understanding of the user’s
circumstances is temporary, and the designer then steps back out, with an enriched understanding of
the user, enabling better design solutions. However, the interactions with the user - in order to gain
this deep understanding - can also raise ethical concerns at stages during the design process.
The aim of this position paper is to explore the interaction moments, between designer and user, or
designer and community within the design process. The Double Diamond design process will be
analysed with a view to looking at characteristic tools in each stage, in order to reveal activities that
require empathetic considerations. The contribution of this research will be an empathy map of the
double diamond design process, with ethical implications. The significance of the analysis will be to
highlight ethical concerns for individual designers, design researchers as well as those in Design
Education.
Keywords: Double diamond, design ethics; design process; empathy

Introduction
The Industrial Revolution resulted in a democratisation of access to products, with far more
previously unattainable goods becoming available to the public. Thus consumerism was born, or
simply – an unsustainable product-orientated culture (Manzini in Sotamaa, Salmi & Anusionwu,
2006:10). UNESCO granting ICSID (the International Council of Societies of Industrial Design) special
consultative status in 1963, in order “to engage design on numerous development projects for the
betterment of the human condition” (Smithsonian Institute 2013, p. 12), could be viewed as the
beginning of an awareness of the ethical role of the designer. Papanek’s call for an increase in social

© Copyright 2015 by the Design Education Forum of Southern Africa (www.defsa.org.za) 1

responsibility among those in the design profession in “Design for the Real World: Human Ecology
and Social Change” followed soon after in 1971. More recently, advocates have called for designers
to evaluate their role in consumerism, but also highlighted the capacity of designers to make changes
in their practice - that would benefit their immediate community and society at large. User-Centred
Design1 (UCD), Universal design, co-design, design for social innovation, empathic design and
participatory design (among others) have all called for a change in focus from the designer as the
expert, to the user. While UCD has been criticised for being exploited for commercial gain (Keinonen
2010, p. 17), the main principles of involving the user in the identification, analysis, and iterative
development of solutions to their own issues are key, and form the basis of many other collaborative
forms of design.
Any collaboration presents an opportunity for exploitation of one or more parties. In order to
address this, there has been a growing focus on the role of ethics within the field of design. Ethics, as
defined by the UNESCO Office of Ethics are:
At the simplest, ethics is a system of moral principles. It affects how people make
decisions and lead their lives. It refers to well-founded standards of right and wrong
that prescribe what humans ought to do, usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits
to society, fairness, or specific virtues.
Ethics is also concerned with what is good for individuals and society. It should help us
to know how to live a respectful life, making use of the language of right and wrong, to
define our rights and responsibilities. (UNESCO 2011, p. 8)
Although ethics are related to an individual/ community’s moral code, countless codes of ethical
conduct exist. These are to provide an outline or guide as to how to make decisions within a specific
context. ICSID (2013) has a Code of Ethics for Designers, but it focuses largely on the ethics of design
as a business, as well as decisions related to manufacturing and development. Because of the focus
of ICSID on the changing role of design – towards more human-centred activities – the
underdeveloped nature of the ICSID Code of Ethics, as it relates to human interactions and social
innovation, is surprising.
Despite being aware of global trends such as design for social innovation, the pace of curriculum
change within industrial design education institutions may be much slower than desired. While there
are pockets of best practice, logistical constraints (such as budgets, transport, time management,
channels of communication, or community access) within organisations may hamper efforts to
engage the community in collaborative design projects.
“Designing products, processes and systems within a framework of sustainable
principles and outcomes is difficult; particularly when and where students have been
raised in a world where unsustainable practices have been their life. As international
agreements are created and globally responsible practices expected, students are
challenged to design within complex social, ethical and environmental contexts.”
(Fleming & Lynch cited in Sotamaa et al. 2006, p. 72)
Mindful of the trend towards collaborative design, and with community engagement being an area of
focus in many South African Universities, vulnerable individuals or communities are now far more
likely to face exposure to students. And while research fields such as the social sciences have a long
history of developing a code of ethics that is explicit, younger fields such as human-centred design
and design research do not. While design researchers have adopted many social sciences
methodologies (such as ethnography and observation), the issue of ethics remains unresolved.
University ethics forms may be generic and/or vague, and ethics review committees may be similarly
unaware as to the requirements of design researchers. In fact, the “dearth of accepted standards and

1
The term was first used in 1986, by Norman and Draper.

© Copyright 2015 by the Design Education Forum of Southern Africa (www.defsa.org.za) 2

ethical guidelines” has been identified as a worldwide obstacle to designing for social impact2
(Smithsonian Institute, 2013, p. 6). Within higher education, the student experience is also mediated
by the ethics policies of an institution. And thus, in many respects, the experience of the student is
not individual, but mediated by the educators.
The increasingly fluid identity of the designer leans further towards people-centred activities, which
impacts the need for ethical considerations. This paper aims to describe empathy and empathic
design, the Double diamond design process, and where they intersect. The intersections are the
points of ethical concern as they involve people interactions, and may have far reaching implications
for design students, educators and design industries that aim for a human-centred design approach.

Empathy
Empathy is a contentious topic within several fields, including science, medicine, psychology and
ethical theory. Oxley, in her exploration of empathy, The Moral dimensions of Empathy: Limits and
Applications in Ethical Theory and Practice, describes empathy as
“…feeling a congruent emotion with another person, in virtue of perceiving her emotion
with some mental process such as imitation, simulation, projection or imagination”
(Oxley 2011, p. 32).
Coplan describes empathy as a unique means for us to understand and thus experience what it is like
to be another person, but identifies the affective matching, other-orientated perspective-taking and
the ability to view oneself as separate as three key features of empathy (Coplan 2011, p. 6).
Empathic Design
Functional and emotional needs are both important for the design process, and the idea of empathic
design was proposed to best meet the real needs, as opposed to perceived needs, of the user (Wang
& Hwang 2010, p.2). For that reason, Leonard and Rayport (who first coined the phrase empathic
design) suggest that using empathic design techniques would “require unusual collaborative skills”
(1997, p. 104).
Thomas and McDonagh describe empathic research strategies as including the following:
shared language (finding a means for designer and user to understand each other,
especially when coming from differing contexts)
collaboration (co-operation between persons of different skills and abilities)
ethnography
empathy (the designer will be able to gain a deep and real understanding of the user/s’
context and issues, a critical feature of human-centred design)
(Thomas & McDonagh 2013, p. 3)

The Process of Design

The design process has become a specific area of focus for a number of disciplines. This interest is
aligned to the creative and non-linear characteristic of thinking associated with the design process –
referred to as design thinking. Brown (2008, p. 85) defines design thinking as a ‘discipline’, which
draws from the methods and responsiveness of design as a process. In this way design thinking
allows for the context-appropriate analysis of users, their needs and a resilient way of addressing
these - through physical and technological products, systems, services, interactions and
environments. The methods often referenced in discussion and practical workshop sessions, aim to
help designers, or facilitators, mediate interactions and guide the thought processes of user (or

2
At the Social Impact for Design summit, in New York, 2012, international representatives from academic programmes,
nonprofit and for-profit organisations, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and government structures were invited to
discuss the challenging issues and opportunities in the field globally.

© Copyright 2015 by the Design Education Forum of Southern Africa (www.defsa.org.za) 3

communities in the case of more socially driven projects) towards understanding and solution
development. The process of design has been mapped by various sources and professional agencies,
and generally refers to a series of steps grouped in three main phases: the analysis and exploration
phases, the understanding and generation phase, followed by the sense-making and reflection
phase. These phases often occur in iterative cycles.
During the analysis and exploration phase, the main goal is to gain an understanding of the user or
community. Their contexts, aspirations and culture are considered to gain a better understanding of
their needs and possible parameters, which any proposed intervention must acknowledge. During
the next phase, the designer and user work towards a shared understanding of the problem context
and collaboratively imagine and capture (document) possible solutions. In the final phase, a common
solution, or direction, is negotiated and the selected solution can be implemented and tested. Once
the solution has been evaluated, the suitability can be established – should the solution not speak to
the original expectations, changes are made, or another solution is developed for testing. Once a
design is finalised, Schön (1987) encourages reflection-on-action within design fields and beyond,
during which the process is evaluated as a whole and information on how to improve future projects
is collected.

Figure 1: Double Diamond Design Process (Design Council 2015)

The Design Councils’ Double Diamond model is an example of the design process: “Divided into four
distinct phases – Discover, Define, Develop and Deliver – the Double Diamond (DD) is a simple visual
map of the design process (figure 1). In all creative processes a number of possible ideas are created
(‘divergent thinking’) before refining and narrowing down to the best idea (‘convergent thinking’),
and a diamond shape can represent this. But the Double Diamond indicates that this happens twice –
“once to confirm the problem definition and once to create the solution” (Design Council 2015). The
concept of moving from abstract thought to concrete actualisation is mirrored in IDEO’s (2011)
Human Centered Design Toolkit model (figure 2).

© Copyright 2015 by the Design Education Forum of Southern Africa (www.defsa.org.za) 4

 Figure 2: IDEO Human Centred Design Model (IDEO, 2011)
The DD process takes participants through four stages, divided into two main sections. The stages
are: Discover (during which insights gathered in the various contexts are explored freely), Define
(during which sense is made of the information found in the first stage, by creating a clear design
brief that frames and describes the design challenge), Develop (during which many possible solutions
are conceptualised, created, prototyped, tested in an iterative manner) and Delivery (during which
the most appropriate solution is produced, implemented and launched). The focus on understanding
the contexts of participants (and end users of the design) requires from facilitators and designers the
ability to empathise throughout the design process (Ojasalo, Koskelo & Nousiainen 2015, p. 203). The
DD process is, when evaluated, similar to many other design process models, including IDEO’s Human
Centred Design process model (2015), Kimbell and Julier’s (2012) Social Design model and Moritz’s
(2005, p. 62) six-stage Service Design (SD) model. Many of the tools identified and described by these
authors rely on interaction with, understanding of, and compassion for participants’ context and
needs. “In order to get to new solutions, you have to get to know different people, different
scenarios, different places” ( Kolawole quoted in IDEO 2015, p. 22).

The changing role of the future designer

The need for greater user interaction and collaborative creative practice has reshaped the definition
of a ‘designer’. The ‘Designs of the Time’ project (Dott07), by the Design Council, yielded an in-depth
overview of roles fulfilled by professional designers. Besides the traditional skills and roles associated
with a product designer, the project found that designers were active within various roles that
required empathetic interaction, including, as Tan (2009) notes:
• Co-creator: co-designing with people, rather than for them.
• Capability builder: building design-led skills among people to address challenges
themselves.
• Researcher: using design research to bring people-centred perspectives to product and
service development.
• Facilitator: Bringing together communities using design-led tools to act upon issues.
The roles described by Tan (2009) and Dott07 reflect a shift, not only in design as a practice, but as a
profession. A more holistic view of the role of users and communities before and during the design
process has yielded multiple design approaches including (but not limited to): user-centered design,
participatory design, human-centered design, universal design, design for social innovation, and
community-driven co-design. The shift in design, from frequently artifact- or spatially-driven design,
to that of process-driven design for addressing complex societal and environmental problems,
echoes the increased need of designers to master (or at least have competent) collaboration and

© Copyright 2015 by the Design Education Forum of Southern Africa (www.defsa.org.za) 5

interpersonal skills.
…design offers problem solvers of any stripe a chance to design with communities, to deeply
understand the people they’re looking to serve, to dream up scores of ideas, and to create
innovative new solutions rooted in people’s actual needs. (IDEO 2015, p. 9)
In order to explore the depth of empathic practice required within current (and future) product and
service design practice, a selection of tools and methods were interrogated. To select these tools and
methods from the myriad of those available, the ones common to all of the three reviewed authors’
design process models, were collated in table 1.

Moritz’s Service IDEO Human Centred Kimbell and Julier’s Shared Tools/ Methods
3
Design Model Field Guide Social Design
1. SD Understanding: 1. Inspiration 1. Exploring Immersed Fieldwork,
Finding out and (Iterative) exploration, shadowing
learning Ethnography
Context mapping/ analysis
Interviews/ Conversations
Observation

2. SD Thinking: 2. Ideation 2. Making Sense Affinity diagrams

Giving strategic (Iterative) Brainstorming
direction Co-creation
3. SD Generating: 3. Proposing Role Playing (Bodystorming)
Developing concepts (Iterative)
4. SD Filtering:
Selecting the best
5. SD Explaining: 3. Implementation Personas
Enabling Scenarios
understanding Live prototyping (experience)
4
Empathy tools
6. SD Realising: Monitor and evaluate
Making it happen Scenario testing
Table 1: Phases of design processes and shared model and tools (Moritz 2005; Kimbell and Julier 2012; IDEO
2015)

Empathy and design tools

Krznaric (2014) identifies ways in which one can cultivate personal empathy by focusing on various
personal habits, including:
The development of personal curiosity about strangers, which allows one to listen and gain
the ability to understand another person.
Challenge personal assumptions, prejudices and be open to discover commonalities.
Immersing oneself in another’s life to gain a fuller, more complete understanding of
another person.
Listen actively and communicate openly without any personal agenda.
Aim to inspire action at a societal level and encourage social change.
Develop your imagination to gain an understanding of individuals from all walks of life.
While empathic design aims to mine a deep understanding by activating empathy for the user, in

3
In Kimbell and Julier’s Social Design framework Iteration is placed as a fourth phase, but is described as an action that
permeates the other phases. Their model acknowledges the non-linear implementation of the design process.
4
Empathy tools can be described as physical products/ experiences of products or services being used, to allow designers
to experience a sense of what users (including differently-abled users) would experience in a particular context.

© Copyright 2015 by the Design Education Forum of Southern Africa (www.defsa.org.za) 6

order to best design to meet their real needs, this approach has been seen as most worthwhile in the
first phases of design research (Postma, Zwartkruis-Pelgrim, Daemen & Du, 2012, p. 59). In their
article, Challenges of Doing Empathic Design: Experiences from Industry, Postma et al describe case
studies in their analysis of empathic design in practice. Their overall view was that while it is an
extremely valuable human-centred approach, the gap exists between the theory and application of
empathic design principles in an industry context (2012, p. 69). In addition, Wang and Hwang assert
that empathic design can vary in different global contexts (2010, p. 4). For this reason, we have
chosen to evaluate our design activities in the DD with the more general habits of empathy (as
described by Krznaric) in order to allow for the broadest range of analytical possibilities.
The habits identified by Krznaric could be viewed as a basic set of points that evaluate the need for
empathy (or not) in the design tools and methods identified as shared within design process models
explored (table 2). The evaluation is not meant as a definitive analysis, but merely an indication of
the possible empathy requirements that can be found within prominent design tools and methods.

exploration, shadowing

Monitor and evaluate

Immersed Fieldwork,

Context mapping/

Affinity diagrams

Live prototyping

Scenario testing
(Bodystorming)

Empathy tools
Conversations

Brainstorming
Ethnography

(experience)
Observation

Role Playing
Co-creation
Interviews/

Scenarios
Personas
analysis

Empathetic Design Activity

Habit
Curiosity Wanting to know
more about people
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
and understand their
lives.
Challenge Listen and participate
assumptions openly, without
X X X X X X X X X X X X
preconceived ideas
to establish the
user’s real needs and
context.
Immersion Experience another
person’s life to
X X X X X X X X X
establish the user’s
real needs and
context.
Listen actively, Listen openly,
communicate without
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
openly preconceived ideas
to establish the
user’s real needs and
context.
Inspire action Gain understanding,
conceptualise
X X X X X X X X X X X X X
solutions within a
group and global
perspective.
Imagination Think creatively and
imagine multiple
X X X X X X X X X
solutions.
Table 2: Tools and methods compared to Krznaric’s empathetic habits

© Copyright 2015 by the Design Education Forum of Southern Africa (www.defsa.org.za) 7

It has to be noted that possibly not all design methods and tools require the level of empathy as
those indicated above. The case to be made is merely that varying levels of empathy permeate many
activities and methods within the design process.

The designer-user interaction

Figure 3: The complex realm of designer/user interaction (Du Preez 2014)

The interaction between designer and user (or community participant) is complex and dependent on
a number of factors (figure 3). Some of these may be controllable, or adaptable, but others are
imbedded in the context, experiences, values and behaviour of the individual. This means that
personal bias, assumptions, negative impressions (or overwhelmingly positive impressions), as well
as other factors can affect both designer and participant. Adding to the complexity of these
interactions could be the nature of the engagement (and the level of friction or disagreement among
participants or community members) and the space in which it happens. Therefore, simply focusing
on the process and tools of design may not be enough.
Instead, the process of design, as outlined in the Double Diamond for example, can be mapped from
two different perspectives: the one is focused on reframing purely process-driven phases (and tasks),
the other to more empathic and inclusive tools. The goal is still to creatively explore the problem
context, and through active collaboration with users, to define and develop what solutions may look
like. However, the shift is from a process that includes users to inclusive exploration, facilitated by the
process. The focus is then not only on the process but the impact, experience and growth of all
participants in the process – designer and user (or community) alike. When the Double Diamond is
viewed through this lens, one is able to map the design phases in terms of Krznaric’s empathy-
cultivating habits, over the process to yield a human-focused design process.

© Copyright 2015 by the Design Education Forum of Southern Africa (www.defsa.org.za) 8

It has to be noted that possibly not all design methods and tools require the level of empathy as
those indicated above. The case to be made is merely that varying levels of empathy permeate many
activities and methods within the design process.

The designer-user interaction

Figure 3: The complex realm of designer/user interaction (Du Preez 2014)

The interaction between designer and user (or community participant) is complex and dependent on
a number of factors (figure 3). Some of these may be controllable, or adaptable, but others are
imbedded in the context, experiences, values and behaviour of the individual. This means that
personal bias, assumptions, negative impressions (or overwhelmingly positive impressions), as well
as other factors can affect both designer and participant. Adding to the complexity of these
interactions could be the nature of the engagement (and the level of friction or disagreement among
participants or community members) and the space in which it happens. Therefore, simply focusing
on the process and tools of design may not be enough.
Instead, the process of design, as outlined in the Double Diamond for example, can be mapped from
two different perspectives: the one is focused on reframing purely process-driven phases (and tasks),
the other to more empathic and inclusive tools. The goal is still to creatively explore the problem
context, and through active collaboration with users, to define and develop what solutions may look
like. However, the shift is from a process that includes users to inclusive exploration, facilitated by the
process. The focus is then not only on the process but the impact, experience and growth of all
participants in the process – designer and user (or community) alike. When the Double Diamond is
viewed through this lens, one is able to map the design phases in terms of Krznaric’s empathy-
cultivating habits, over the process to yield a human-focused design process.

© Copyright 2015 by the Design Education Forum of Southern Africa (www.defsa.org.za) 8

 Figure 4: Double Diamond adapted with focus on empathy development
The result is a process, which places the focus not on what users and community members can add
to the design process (and resulting design), but rather an indication of activities and behaviours that
support the creative exploration of a problem context. This perspective is linked specifically to design
projects and processes where a continued and intense user and community input is required, such as
participatory design, co-design, user centered design, human centered design and design for social
innovation. The adapted process (figure 4) model is split into two streams of development; the first
includes activities, which drive the exploration of the design problem context, while the second
speaks directly to the emotional, behavioural and personal growth that should occur through the
process. As the designer (and participants) move through the phases the development of personal
curiosity and the ability to challenge personal assumption to identify commonality becomes the
preface for honestly being able to acknowledge the input of participants. This acknowledgment of
users and the need for personal reflection are additions to the original list proposed by Krznaric
(2014). Schön (1987) encourages reflection-on-action, during which the design process is evaluated
as a whole, and information on how to improve future projects is collected. This can also be linked to
‘feedback loops’, often used in economics, management and systems theory, where, upon reflection
on the process and final result, adjustments are made to achieve a more effective result. It is,
however, important that the development of the self in the process is considered. In order to
answer, “how has this project influenced me?” requires personal reflection. Reflection-on-action in
this sense, moves from an evaluation of the process and project (as it is often practiced), to include
reflection on one’s own methods, behaviour, beliefs and development.

Conclusion
Given the possible future roles of designers, the growing complexity of developing heterogeneous
communities worldwide, and their associated issues, the importance of authentic user input cannot
be understated. Currently, design processes are the focus of design education and professional
practice, and the emphasis is on ethical behaviour within a reasonably traditional design approach
and process. This, however, can be viewed as a “tick box” approach – once forms are signed and
approved by ethics committees or communities representatives - there is no change to the design
process followed. Processes may be user-focused, but not necessarily user-driven.

© Copyright 2015 by the Design Education Forum of Southern Africa (www.defsa.org.za) 9

Essentially, without a concentrated development of personal empathy, or an expansion of a
designer’s personal empathy horizons, the principles of ethics and accountability will be meaningless.
Ethics becomes an operational/ logistical hurdle in the planning process of a design project, and
accountability is not with the users/community, but rather with the educators (or client) in terms of
design success. Whether or not this trait of empathy is nurtured, or even acknowledged, within
higher education institutions is unclear, but would need attention for the projected growth of
collaboration-focused design projects in the future. Reflecting back upon ICSID’s Code of Ethics
(2013), referring to the benefits to the user:
Designers recognise their contributions to the social, individual and material well-being
of the general public, particularly with regards to health and safety, and will not
consciously act in a manner harmful or contradictory to this well-being. Industrial
designers shall advocate and thoughtfully consider the needs of all potential users,
including those with different abilities such as the elderly and the physically
challenged. In this respect, designers will think of the whole value chain, from
production to sales and use of the product. Designers realise that the humanisation of
technology, the idea, usability and even the enjoyment of the product are part of their
responsibility (ICSID, 2013).
The code clearly defines the role of a designer as one that does not harm or contradict the wellbeing
of a user, however, without a deep understanding of the user this is impossible. To understand what
‘harm’ or ‘benefit’ means, one has to understand the person, thus, without empathy, any code of
ethics may remain dependent upon designers’ superficial assumptions.

References
Brown, T 2008, Design Thinking. Harvard Business Review June, pp. 84-92.
Coplan, A & Goldie, P (eds) 2011, Empathy: Philosophical and Psychological Perspectives. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Design Council 2015, The Design Process: What is the Double Diamond?, viewed 1 June 2015,
<http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/news-opinion/design-process-what-double-diamond>.
Du Preez, V 2014, Adding value: Exploring user contexts in service design tools, in A Breytenbach & K
Pope (eds), Proceedings of the Cumulus Conference: Design with the Other 90%: Changing the World
by Design. Johannesburg, South Africa, 22 – 23 September
IDEO 2014, Human-Centered Design Toolkit, viewed 2 August 2015, <http://www.ideo.com/
images/uploads/hcd_toolkit/IDEO_HCD_ToolKit.pdf>.
IDEO 2015, Field Guide to Human Centered Design. San Francisco: IDEO
Keinonen, T 2010, Protect and Appreciate – Notes on the justification of user-centered design.
International Journal of Design, 4(1), pp. 17-27.
Kimbell, L & Julier, J 2012, The Social Design Methods Menu. London: Fieldstudio Ltd
Kouprie, M, & Visser, FS 2009, A framework for empathy in design: stepping into and out of the
user’s life. Journal of Engineering Design, 20(5), pp. 437–448.
Krznaric, R 2014, Empathy: Why It Matters, and How to Get It. New York: Perigee Books
Leonard, D & Rayport, JF 1997, Spark Innovation through Empathic Design. Harvard Business Review
75, no. 6 Nov-Dec, 1997, pp. 102–113.
Moritz, S 2012, Service Design: Practical access to an evolving field. MSc thesis: Köln International
School of Design

© Copyright 2015 by the Design Education Forum of Southern Africa (www.defsa.org.za) 10

 Ojasalo, K, Koskelo, M & Nousiainen, A 2015, Foresight and Service Design Boosting Dynamic
Capabilities in Service Innovation, in Agarwal, R, Selen, W, Roos, G & Green, R. (eds). The Handbook
of Service Innovation. Springer, pp. 193-212
Oxley, JC 2011, The Moral Dimensions of Empathy: Limits and Applications in Ethical Theory and
Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan
Papanek, V 1971, Design for the Real World: Human Ecology and Social Change. New York, Pantheon
Books
Postma, CE, Zwartkruis-Pelgrim E, Daemen, E, & Du, J 2012, Challenges of doing empathic design:
Experiences from industry. International Journal of Design, 6(1), pp. 59-70.
Sotamaa, Y, Salmi, E & Anusionwu, L (eds), 2006, Nantes Cumulus Working Papers: Design, Ethics and
Humanism. University of Art and Design Helsinki
Schön, D 1987, Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco: Jossy-Bass
Smithsonian Institute 2013, Design and social impact: A cross-sectoral agenda for design education,
research and practice. New York, NY: The Smithsonian’s Cooper-Hewitt, National Design Museum.
Retrieved 31 July 2015, from http://www.cooperhewitt.org/publications/design-and-social-impact/
Tan, L 2009, Perspectives on the changing role of the designer: Now and to the future. Paper
presented at the ICSID (The International Council of Societies of Industrial Design) World Design
Congress Education Conference: Design Education 2050, Temasek Polytechnic, 22 November 2009 in
Singapore.
Thomas, J, & Mcdonagh, D 2013, Empathic design : Research strategies. Australasian Medical
Journal, 6(1), pp. 1–6.
UNESCO 2011, Annual Report. The ethics office, viewed 31 July 2015, <http://www.unesco.org/new
/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/ETHICS/images/Ethics%20Office%20Annual%20Report%202011.pdf>.

© Copyright 2015 by the Design Education Forum of Southern Africa (www.defsa.org.za) 11

View publication stats