Elsevier

Futures

Volume 139, May 2022, 102952
Futures

Empowering change for future-making: Developing agency by framing wicked problems through design

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2022.102952Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Due to increasing complexity, students need to develop a more nuanced approached for navigating desirable futures.

  • Design has been perceived as a means to drive societal and environmental change.

  • Yet we know little about how students learn to autonomously apply design.

  • Visual learning diaries were analyzed on how students engage in future-oriented problem framing.

  • A framework that illustrates how agency emerges through the intersection of design and futures studies is presented.

Abstract

As the world and its challenges are becoming more complex, students and practitioners alike need to develop a more nuanced understanding of how to navigate problems today for envisioning desirable futures. Design’s inherent focus on future-making and dealing with ill-defined problems has been identified as a potential way forward. Yet, there is a paucity of studies looking at what elements support (or hinder) students developing agency when it comes to framing and identifying problems. By taking the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals as an example of ill-defined problems, we studied a multidisciplinary student body in a higher education institution attending a three-week intensive course focusing on how design can serve as a catalyst for social and environmental change. Our findings suggest future-oriented problem framing is dependent on the following aspects: combining theory and practice, engaging with the world and its complexities, reciprocal trust in design teams, self-reflection, changing perspectives, and emotional investment. Based on the findings, a model is crafted to illustrate how agency for future-making can emerge and be developed by engaging with real-life problems through design. Implications for research and practice point towards a more balanced relationship between skill development and ways of engaging with the surrounding world.

Introduction

As the world and its challenges are becoming more complex (or wicked, as per (Rittel & Webber, 1973), several higher education institutions (HEIs) have been transforming their curricula in order to prepare their students to live and operate in a world that is constantly in flux (Austen, 2012, García-Morales et al., 2020, Hermann and Bossle, 2020, Tasdemir and Gazo, 2020). For instance, HEIs can sign the SDG Accord (n.d.) to commit to addressing the Sustainable Development Goals, and similarly the RRBM network (n.d.) encourages business schools to support responsible research.

In their editorial, Király and Géring (2019) go even further by advocating for a more holistic transformation of higher education institutions towards more active agency in the surrounding society. Similarly, Rieckmann (2012) calls for a more future-oriented attitude in higher education that provides students with tools and capabilities to tackle wicked problems. Echoing these calls to transform higher education, the undertone seems to be that higher education should prepare students to ask the right questions instead of finding answers to existing questions (see also (Björklund, 2013; Liu & Maas, 2021; Osborne et al., 2021); namely, to develop their competency for systemic thinking as well as dealing with complexity (in line with Rieckmann (2012)).

As we are dealing with multiple potential futures with often conflicting interests, students and practitioners alike need to develop a more nuanced understanding of how to identify problems today for a more emancipatory future-making (Garcia & Gaziulusoy, 2021). Against this backdrop, design has been identified as a potential vehicle for equipping the students with a future-making mindset and a shared problem-solving logic. This leverages on design’s innate qualities that are human-centered, collaborative, and future-oriented (Bason, 2010, Hyvärinen et al., 2015, Junginger and Sangiorgi, 2009, Lee et al., 2018). Given that future is not something given but actively created, design’s inherent focus on discovering problems and dealing with ambiguity (Dunne & Martin, 2006) has been identified as a potential means for instilling students with an agentic relationship towards their surroundings as focus shifts from following educators’ instructions and exploring well-defined problems to creating opportunities (see e.g., (Garbuio et al., 2018; Sarooghi et al., 2019). However, whilst design education is gaining currency in higher education institutions as a means to proposing pathways for solving major societal and environmental challenges (Buhl et al., 2019, Kimbell, 2011), we need to develop greater insight on how design contributes towards individuals developing capacities for envisioning potential futures through problem framing.

To bridge this gap, and in line with Björklund (2013) concerns regarding students’ passiveness, this paper looks at elements that support (or hinder) students developing active agency when it comes to framing and identifying problems. By taking the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals as an example of wicked or ill-defined problems in a business school context (in line with Hill (1998), this paper explores how a multidisciplinary student body utilized design-driven methodologies to frame complex problems and offer initial pathways forward during a three-week intensive course (c.f. (Sarooghi et al., 2019). Therefore, we ask the following research questions:

How do students draw on design to frame problems in today’s society?

How does problem framing contribute to students’ agency in envisioning desirable futures?

With this study, we contribute to a crucial body of knowledge that weaves together design and futures studies (e.g., (Ceschin & Gaziulusoy, 2016; Garcia & Gaziulusoy, 2021) by focusing on the problem-finding and concept development phases of a design process (e.g., (Dorst & Cross, 2001). More specifically, findings from this study provide a complementary standpoint to futures consciousness (e.g., (Ahvenharju et al., 2018; Ahvenharju et al., 2021) by looking at how designerly ways of exploring problems here-now can help in transitioning from linear problem-solving to navigating ambiguous, ill-defined problems and solutions that bridge the present and the future. We investigate how a multidisciplinary student body utilizes design to frame problems in the surrounding society and proposes future-oriented solutions to them. To this end, we draw on agency theory (Bandura, 2006, Emirbayer and Mische, 1998, Meyer and Jepperson, 2000) to theorize how agency to envision futures develops through engaging in problem framing. The purpose in this paper is not to evaluate the outcomes of problem framing per se, but instead to understand how students explore and frame problems with future implications in mind.

The rest of this paper is structured as follows: we will review relevant literature on agency and futures and design education, after which we introduce the methodology devised for this paper. Findings will be presented and discussed afterwards, and we conclude by summarizing the findings, discussing the limitations, as well as offering avenues for future research.

Section snippets

Literature review: Design agency and competencies

Drawing on agency theory (Bandura, 2006, Emirbayer and Mische, 1998, Meyer and Jepperson, 2000), our aim in this paper is to contribute to discussions on how design is being utilized to frame problems with future implications (e.g., (Björklund, 2013; Dorst & Cross, 2001; Kim & Strimel, 2020). Acknowledging that there are numerous branches and sub-disciplines of design (e.g., (Buchanan, 1992), in this paper we loosely follow Dunne and Raby (2013) speculative design that emphasizes design as

Research context

IDBM Challenge was a three-week intensive course offered at Aalto University’s multidisciplinary International Design Business Management graduate program. Bringing together graduate students from design, business, technology, and humanities; learning outcomes for this course were two-fold: first, to help the students understand how to work in interdisciplinary teams, and second, to provide the students with a basic understanding on how design can act as a catalyst for social change. Each team

Findings: The six aspects of emerging agency

Design is an activity aimed at improving or transmuting the world (Dunne and Raby, 2013, Simon, 1969) and that entails a continuous dialog between thinking and doing (Schön, 1983). Our findings suggest that future-oriented problem framing is dependent on the following aspects: combining theory and practice, engaging with the world and its complexities, reciprocal trust in design teams, self-reflection, changing perspectives, and emotional investment. These aspects form a model where agency,

Synthesizing the aspects: Design and agency intertwined

During the course of this paper, we have explored how a multidisciplinary student body frames societal and environmental problems through design and with a focus on future implications. Through the model and its six aspects discussed above, the findings reported in this study contribute to discussions on how design can serve as a catalyst in promoting students’ development of agency in envisioning desirable futures (see also (Kemp, 2017). As Kemp (2017) posits, design can be understood as “the

Conclusion: Developing future-oriented design pedagogies for the new world

Our point of departure in this paper has been how a multidisciplinary student body moves from replicating design towards autonomously applying it to frame societal and environmental problems with future implications in mind. This framing is in line with Jonassen et al. (2006) and Björklund (2013) who call for changes in design (engineering) education to better prepare the students to enter working life, and with Alexiou and Zamenopoulos (2008) and Celaschi and Celi (2015) who have explored

Funding

This work was financially supported by the Aalto Online Learning Strategic Initiative, Finland.

References (119)

  • K. Dorst et al.

    Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution

    Design Studies

    (2001)
  • P. Gayá et al.

    Carpe the academy: Dismantling higher education and prefiguring critical utopias through action research

    Futures

    (2017)
  • R.R. Hermann et al.

    Bringing an entrepreneurial focus to sustainability education: A teaching framework based on content analysis

    Journal of Cleaner Production

    (2020)
  • S. Kemp

    Design museum futures: Catalysts for education

    Futures

    (2017)
  • G. Király et al.

    Editorial: Introduction to ‘futures of higher education’ special issue

    Futures

    (2019)
  • S. Lasky

    A sociological approach to understanding teacher identity, agency and vulnerability in a context of secondary school reform

    Teaching and Teacher Education

    (2005)
  • A. Nousheen et al.

    Education for sustainable development (ESD): Effects of sustainability education on pre-service teachers’ attitude towards sustainable development (SD)

    Journal of Cleaner Production

    (2020)
  • R. Oxman

    Think-maps: Teaching design thinking in design education

    Design Studies

    (2004)
  • M. Rieckmann

    Future-oriented higher education: Which key competencies should be fostered through university teaching and learning?

    Futures

    (2012)
  • D.A. Schön

    Problems, frames and perspectives on designing

    Design Studies

    (1984)
  • S. Ahvenharju et al.

    Individual futures consciousness: Psychology behind the five-dimensional futures consciousness scale

    Futures

    (2021)
  • H. Austen

    The open mind: Letting go of single-answer certainty

    Rotman Magazine Winter

    (2012)
  • D.F. Baker

    When moral awareness isn’t enough: Teaching our students to recognize social influence

    Journal of Management Education

    (2014)
  • A. Bandura

    Toward a psychology of human agency

    Perspectives on Psychological Science

    (2006)
  • R. Barnett

    Learning for an unknown future

    Higher Education Research & Development

    (2012)
  • C. Bason

    Leading public sector innovation: Co-creating for a better society

    (2010)
  • S. Bowen et al.

    How was it for you? Experiences of participatory design in the UK health service

    CoDesign

    (2013)
  • S.L. Bradfield

    The value of sustainability education

    Journal of Management Education

    (2009)
  • P. Bryans et al.

    Visual images: A technique to surface conceptions of research and researchers

    Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal

    (2006)
  • M. Brydon-Miller

    Participatory action research: Psychology and social change

    Journal of Social Issues

    (1997)
  • M. Brydon-Miller

    Covenental ethics and action research: Exploring a common foundation for social research

  • M. Brydon-Miller et al.

    Why action research?

    Action Research

    (2003)
  • R. Buchanan

    Wicked problems in design thinking

    Design Issues

    (1992)
  • G. Çeviker-Çınar et al.

    Design thinking: A new road map in business education

    The Design Journal

    (2017)
  • L. Chandler et al.

    Immersed in design: Using an immersive teaching space to visualise design solutions

    International Journal of Artelor and Design Education

    (2019)
  • D.A. Chen et al.

    Balancing complex social and technical aspects of design: Exposing engineering students to homelessness issues

    Sustainability

    (2020)
  • L.J. Christensen et al.

    Ethics, CSR, and sustainability education in the financial times top 50 global business schools: Baseline data and future research directions

    Journal of Business Ethics

    (2007)
  • E. Coleman et al.

    Design thinking among first‐year and senior engineering students: a cross‐sectional, national study measuring perceived ability

    Journal of Engineering Education

    (2020)
  • A.T. Cox et al.

    A model for developing a university business partnership

    Journal of Management Education

    (1995)
  • A.L. Cunliffe

    On becoming a critically reflexive practitioner

    Journal of Management Education

    (2004)
  • C. Dell’Era et al.

    Four kinds of design thinking: From ideating to making, engaging, and criticizing

    Creativity and Innovation Management

    (2020)
  • J. Dewey

    Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education

    (1930)
  • J. Dewey

    Experience and education

    (1938)
  • A. Dumas et al.

    Managing design designing management

    Design Management Journal

    (1989)
  • A. Dunne et al.

    Speculative everything: Design, fiction, and social dreaming

    (2013)
  • D. Dunne et al.

    Design thinking and how it will change management education: An interview and discussion

    Academy of Management Learning and Education

    (2006)
  • C.L. Dym et al.

    Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning

    Journal of Engineering Education

    (2005)
  • S. Ejsing-Duun et al.

    Design as a mode of inquiry in design pedagogy and design thinking

    International Journal of Artelor and Design Education

    (2019)
  • K.D. Elsbach et al.

    Design thinking and organizational culture: A review and framework for future research

    Journal of Management

    (2018)
  • M. Emirbayer et al.

    What is agency?

    American Journal of Sociology

    (1998)
  • View full text