05 Margolins

11/8/02

6:43 PM

Page 24

A Social Model of Design:

Issues of Practice and Research
Victor Margolin and Sylvia Margolin

24

Victor Papanek, Design for the Real

World; Human Ecology and Social
Change, 2nd ed. (Chicago: Academy
Chicago, 1985), ix. We have used
Papaneks 1985 revised edition rather
than the original one of 1972 because he
made a number of changes from one
edition to another, and we wanted to
draw on his most current thinking. For a
discussion of Papaneks concept of
socially responsible design, see Nigel
Whiteley, Design for Society (London:
Reaktion Books, 1993), 103115.
See, for example, Julian Bicknell and Liz
McQuiston, eds., Design for Need; The
Social Contribution of Design (Oxford:
Pergamon Press, 1977). This volume is a
collection of papers from a conference of
the same name held at the Royal College
of Art in April 1976.
There is an extensive literature on appropriate technology. For a critical introduction to the subject, see Witold
Rybczynski, Paper Heroes; A Review of
Appropriate Technology (Garden City, NY:
Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1980).

Introduction
When most people think of product design, they envision products
for the market, generated by a manufacturer and directed to a consumer. Since the Industrial Revolution, the dominant design paradigm has been one of design for the market, and alternatives have
received little attention. In 1972, Victor Papanek, an industrial
designer and, at the time, Dean of Design at the California Institute
of the Arts, published his polemical book Design for the Real World in
which he made the famous declaration that [t]here are professions
more harmful than industrial design, but only a very few of them.1
The book, initially published in Swedish two years earlier, quickly
gained worldwide popularity with its call for a new social agenda
for designers. Since Design for the Real World appeared, others have
responded to Papaneks call and sought to develop programs of
design for social need ranging from the needs of developing countries to the special needs of the aged, the poor, and the disabled.2
These efforts have provided evidence that an alternative to
product design for the market is possible, but they have not led to a
new model of social practice. Compared to the market model,
there has been little theorizing about a model of product design for
social need. Theory about design for the market is extremely well
developed. It cuts across many fields from design methods to management studies and the semiotics of marketing. The rich and vast
literature of market design has contributed to its continued success
and its ability to adapt to new technologies, political and social
circumstances, and organizational structures and processes. Conversely, little thought has been given to the structures, methods, and
objectives of social design. Concerning design for development,
some ideas have been borrowed from the intermediate or alternative technology movement, which has promoted low-cost technological solutions for problems in developing countries, but regarding the broader understanding of how design for social need might
be commissioned, supported, and implemented, little has been
accomplished.3 Nor has attention been given to changes in the
education of product designers that might prepare them to design
for populations in need rather than for the market alone.
The field of environmental psychology has attempted to
respond to the environmental needs of the vulnerable. Those work Copyright 2002 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Design Issues: Volume 18, Number 4 Autumn 2002

05 Margolins

11/8/02

6:43 PM

Page 25

ing in this field use an interdisciplinary approach to research, and

implement solutions that create better living spaces for such populations as the mentally ill, the homeless, and the aged.4 Architects,
psychologists, social workers, occupational therapists, and others
have worked together to explore the intersection of peoples psychological needs and the landscapes, communities, neighborhoods,
housing, and interior space that increase feelings of pleasantness,
arousal, excitement, and relaxation, and decrease feelings of fear
and stress.5 There has not been a similar effort in the field of product
design.

The intellectual histories of thirteen firstgeneration thinkers in environment and

behavior studies are presented in
Environment and Behavior Studies:
Emergence of Intellectual Traditions,
Irwin Altman and Kathleen Christensen,
eds. (New York and London: Plenum
Press, 1990).
See Jack L. Nasar, The Evaluative Image
of Places in Person-Environment
Psychology: New Directions and
Perspectives, 2nd ed., W. Bruce Walsh,
Kenneth H. Crain, and Richard H. Price,
eds. (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, 2000).
This same perspective is used in environmental psychology.

A Social Model of Design Practice

In this paper, we want to begin a new discussion of design for social
need by proposing a social model of product design practice and
suggesting a research agenda that would examine and develop it in
the same way that comparable research has supported design for
the market and environmental psychology. Although many design
activities can be considered as socially responsible designsustainable product design, affordable housing, and the redesign of government tax and immigration forms, for examplewe will limit this
paper to a discussion of product design within a process of social
service intervention. Although we base our discussion on the intervention model used by social workers, a similar model could also be
applied to collaborations with health care professionals in hospitals
and other health care settings, as well as to joint projects with teachers and educational administrators in school settings. The model
could work as well with teams of experts engaged in projects in
developing countries.
The primary purpose of design for the market is creating
products for sale. Conversely, the foremost intent of social design is
the satisfaction of human needs. However, we dont propose the
market model and the social model as binary opposites, but instead view them as two poles of a continuum. The difference is
defined by the priorities of the commission rather than by a method
of production or distribution. Many products designed for the
market also meet a social need but we argue that the market does
not, and probably cannot, take care of all social needs, as some
relate to populations who do not constitute a class of consumers in
the market sense. We refer here to people with low incomes or
special needs due to age, health, or disability.
To develop a social model, we will draw on the literature
of social work, a practice whose principal objective is to meet the
needs of underserved or marginalized populations. Central to social
work theory is the ecological perspective.6 Social workers assess the
transaction that occurs between their client system (a person, family,
group, organization, or community) and the domains within the
environment with which the client system interacts. Various domains that impact human functioning are the biological, psychologDesign Issues: Volume 18, Number 4 Autumn 2002

25

05 Margolins

26

11/8/02

6:43 PM

Page 26

See L. Allen Furr, Exploring Human

Behavior and the Social Environment
(Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1997), 312
and C.B. Germain and A. Gitterman, The
Life Model Approach to Social Work
Practice Revisited in Social Work
Treatment: Interlocking Theoretical
Approaches, Francis J. Turner, ed. (New
York: The Free Press, 1986), 618643.
Aspects of the client system/social
worker relationship are also evident in
participatory design but, in this relationship more authority is assigned to the
designer whose professional knowledge
differentiates his or her ability to conduct
a design project from the users or clients,
no matter how involved the latter are in
the planning process.

ical, cultural, social, natural, and physical/spatial.7 The physical/

spatial domain, which concerns us in this paper, is comprised of all
things created by humans such as objects, buildings, streets, and
transportation systems. Inadequate or inferior physical surroundings and products can affect the safety, social opportunity, stress
level, sense of belonging, self-esteem, or even physical health of a
person or persons in a community. A poor fit with one or more key
domains may be at the root of the client systems problem, thus
creating a human need.
For example, some preschool children are misbehaving. An
initial diagnosis blames their parents for having poor child-rearing
skills. A social worker is asked to organize the parents into a group
in order to teach them better child-rearing practices. The assumption here is that the parents will apply these skills, and their childrens behavior will improve. When the group meets, the social
worker learns that the parents are under tremendous stress due to
multiple problems: lack of money because of the inability to find a
job; low wages in available jobs; scarce transportation to get to work
in distant places; unsafe surroundings; broken playground equipment on a cement lot; and inadequate and unsafe elevators in their
apartment buildings. It is clear that the issues with which the
parents are dealing go beyond poor child-rearing skills, thus requiring that other factors, including those in the physical/spatial
domain, be addressed.
Social workers tend to follow a model of generalist practice,
a six-step problem-solving process that includes engagement,
assessment, planning, implementation, evaluation, and termination.
The entire process is conducted in a collaborative manner with the
client system. Other human service professionals may be brought in
as part of the intervention. In the engagement phase, the social
worker listens to the client system and gets a sense of the presenting
problem. In the next phase, assessment, the social worker looks
holistically at the client systems interaction within the various environmental domains. The aim of an assessment is not to take a problem at face value but to look more deeply and more broadly at the
client system in the total environment to get at the roots of the problem. The outcome of the assessment phase is a list of different needs
to be addressed. In the third phase, planning, the social worker
collaborates with the client system to prioritize the needs, trying to
determine what is most pressing. Then the social worker and the
client system brainstorm in order to devise different solutions. They
talk about various ideas and collaboratively decide what will work
best. Together, the client system and the social worker make a list of
goals and objectives and decide who will do what by when.8 In the
implementation phase, the intervention is guided by the goals and
objectives that have already been agreed upon.
In settings such as hospitals or schools, social workers are
members of teams that include other professionals. Among these
Design Issues: Volume 18, Number 4 Autumn 2002

05 Margolins

11/8/02

6:43 PM

Page 27

M. Powell Lawton, An Environmental

Psychologist Ages in Environment and
Behavior Studies: Emergence of
Intellectual Traditions, 357358. A
research study on the spatial needs of
the elderly in Hong Kong was conducted
by the Research Group on Urban Space
and Culture, School of Design, Hong
Kong Polytechnic University, in conjunction with a social service team at St.
James Settlement. Using the Wan Chai
district as the research site, the group,
which was comprised of designers rather
than architects, proposed a number of
new spatial arrangements to help elderly
people function better in cramped apartments. See Kwok Yan-chi Jackie, ed.,
Ageing in the Community: A Research on
the Designing of Everyday Life
Environment for the Elderly (Hong Kong:
Hong Kong Polytechnic University and St.
James Settlement, 1999).

might be psychologists, speech therapists, occupational therapists,

and probation officers. The team works collaboratively to assess a
problem and different team members intervene as needed. The
ways in which product designers could participate in a team process with human service professionals are yet to be explored particularly the designers involvement in the physical/spatial domain.
Lawton describes a research project for the elderly that
sought to learn about the deficiencies in the home environment and
the way people cope with them. A social worker, an architect, a
psychologist, and an occupational therapist visited the homes of
fifty highly impaired older people who were managing to live
alone. One of the teams findings was that many of the people they
observed had set up control centers in an area of their living room
that allowed them to view the front door and, through a window,
the street. The nearby placement of a telephone, radio, and television also enabled them to have social contact with the outside
world. Additionally, on a table within reach were medicine, food,
reading material, and other items of use. If a product designer had
been on this intervention team, he or she would no doubt have been
stimulated to create products that could serve the low-mobility
needs of this older population.9
To advance the discussion of how the product designer
might collaborate with an intervention team, we would like to
suggest several options. During the assessment phase, the designer,
either as a member of an intervention team or as a consultant, might
be able to identify factors that contribute to a problem. In the planning phase, a designer could develop intervention strategies related
to the physical environment. During implementation, the designer
could create a needed product or work with the client system to
design one.
These strategies differ from Papaneks proposals for social
action in Design for the Real World. Papanek pits socially responsible
designers against a commercial market that thrives on the production of excessive and useless products. By harshly criticizing the
market economy, he limits the options for a social designer. Papanek
argues that socially responsible designers must organize their own
interventions outside the mainstream market, yet he gives little
guidance as to how this might be done. We believe that many
professionals share the goals of designers who want to do socially
responsible work, and therefore we propose that both designers and
helping professionals find ways to work together. In short, we
believe that designers will find many more allies in professions
related to health, education, social work, aging, and crime prevention than are evident in Papaneks analysis.
Nonetheless, Papaneks book is extremely helpful in describing the kinds of social products designers might create. Using as a
framework a socially-oriented design office, Papanek provides long
lists of products that address social needs. Among these are teachDesign Issues: Volume 18, Number 4 Autumn 2002

27

05 Margolins

11/8/02

6:43 PM

Page 28

ing aids of all kinds including aids to transfer knowledge and skills
to those with learning difficulties and physical disabilities; training
aids for poor people who are trying to move into the work force;
medical diagnostic devices, hospital equipment, and dental tools;
equipment and furnishings for mental hospitals; safety devices for
home and work; and devices that address pollution problems.10
Some of these products, particularly medical and hospital equipment, are already produced for the market, but there are certainly
many that are not manufactured because a market cannot be identified for them.

10 Papanek, Design for the Real World, 6368.

11 There are some exceptions among
museum exhibits such as the CooperHewitt National Design Museums exhibit
on Universal Design, Unlimited by
Design, held at the museum between
November 1988 and March 1999.
12 As an example, the February 2001 issue
of I.D. magazine edited by Christopher
Mount, presented profiles of forty
socially conscious designers and architects.
13 In Design for the Real World, Papanek
provides numerous illustrations of
socially responsible projects that
students designed under his supervision.

28

An Agenda for Social Design

Design is most often understood by the public as an artistic practice
that produces dazzling lamps, furniture, and automobiles. This is
how it is generally presented by the media and the museums.11 One
reason why there is not more support for social design services is
the lack of research to demonstrate what a designer can contribute
to human welfare.
A broad research agenda for social design must begin by
addressing a number of questions. What role can a designer play in
a collaborative process of social intervention? What is currently
being done in this regard and what might be done? How might the
publics perception of designers be changed in order to present an
image of a socially responsible designer? How can agencies that
fund social welfare projects and research gain a stronger perception
of design as a socially responsible activity? What kinds of products
meet the needs of vulnerable populations?
A multifaceted approach can be taken to explore these and
other questions. Survey research and interviews with human service
professionals, designers, and agency administrators can be conducted to gather information on perceptions and attitudes, and to
solicit suggestions for change. Content analysis of archival data
such as journals, periodicals, and newspapers can be used to gain
insight into how the media report on issues of social design.12
Another research method is participant observation. This
entails designers entering social settings, either as part of a multidisciplinary team or alone, to observe and document social needs
that can be satisfied with design interventions. For example, this
was done in the research project conducted by Lawton that we
described earlier, except that an architect rather than a product
designer was on the investigative team.
Research that centers on the development and evaluation of
socially responsible products is also important. To create new products, designers have to conduct research on how to translate their
ideas into finished designs. They are obligated to evaluate these
products in actual situations to test their effectiveness.13 A good
example of socially-oriented product design research is MITs

Design Issues: Volume 18, Number 4 Autumn 2002

05 Margolins

11/8/02

6:43 PM

Page 29

AgeLab, where Joseph Coughlin, a professor of engineering, and a

team of colleagues and graduate students are testing and analyzing
new technologies to improve life for the elderly. Although some of
the research involves technology that can help the elderly drive
more safely and possibly at an older age, much of the investigation
relates to the home where such products as an in-home health
center and a transit system that would allow people to schedule
rides are being considered. Finally, the social design field should
have a compendium of case studies such as AgeLab that document
examples of relevant practice.
The combined research methods we have outlined are intended to explore questions that range from the broad social context
within which designers work to the specifics of developing a product for a particular client system. The scope of research for social
design includes public and agency perceptions of designers, the
economics of social interventions, the value of design in improving
the lives of underserved populations, a taxonomy of new product
typologies, the economics of manufacturing socially responsible
products, and the way that such products and services are received
by populations in need. Until now, the social interventions of
designers have been hit-or-miss, with few successes to point the
way towards social support for more of the same.

14 Archeworks: An Alternative Design

School, 2002/200. (Chicago: Archeworks,
n.d.). For an overview of Archeworks, see
the schools website
www.archeworks.org.

The Education of Social Designers

Design skills cut across all situations, but skills in relating to vulnerable or marginalized populations rather than to a brief from a manufacturer need to be developed by future social designers. Students
of social design will have to learn more about social needs and how
they are currently addressed by helping professionals. They might
do an internship with a clinical team in a psychiatric hospital, a
community agency, or a residential facility for the elderly. They
would also need a stronger background in sociology, psychology,
and public policy. As far as we are aware, no university programs
specifically train social designers. We can, however, cite as a good
beginning the one-year certificate program of Archeworks, a private
educational institution in Chicago, founded in 1994 by Stanley
Tigerman and Eva L. Maddox, that is dedicated to advancing a
socially responsible design agenda. Each year, Archeworks introduces a small interdisciplinary group of students with varied intellectual backgrounds to a process of social design that has resulted in
a number of projects and studies including a device for people with
Alzheimers Disease to facilitate their getting into an automobile, a
head-pointer designed for people with cerebral palsy, and a new
model office environment for the Illinois Department of Human
Services. In most cases, projects have been conducted in collaboration with social service organizations or agencies, and many have
been funded by grants from public and private sources.14

Design Issues: Volume 18, Number 4 Autumn 2002

29

05 Margolins

11/8/02

6:43 PM

Page 30

Conclusion
Our purpose has been to describe a new social model of design
practice and to suggest a research agenda through which important
questions related to the emergence of such a practice can be addressed. A social model of design practice is needed more than
ever, and we are hopeful that concerned designers, design researchers, helping professionals, and design educators will find
ways to bring it about.

30

Design Issues: Volume 18, Number 4 Autumn 2002

This article has been cited by:

1. Stella BoessDesign Participation in Sustainable Renovation and Living 205-226. [CrossRef]
2. Yoori Koo, Rachel Cooper. 2016. What Drives Socially Responsible Design in Organizations?: Empirical Evidence from South
Korea. The Design Journal 19:6, 879-901. [CrossRef]
3. Marc Steen. 2016. Organizing Design-for-Wellbeing Projects: Using the Capability Approach. Design Issues 32:4, 4-15. [Abstract]
[PDF] [PDF Plus]
4. Haim Yacobi, Jonathan Ventura, Sharon Danzig. 2016. Walls, enclaves and the (counter) politics of design. Journal of Urban Design
21:4, 481-494. [CrossRef]
5. Stefano BussolonThe X Factor 15-24. [CrossRef]
6. Ming-Ying Yang. 2015. Industrial Design Students Design for Social Innovation: Case Study in a Taiwanese Village. Design and
Culture 7:3, 451-464. [CrossRef]
7. Naiara Altuna, Anna Maria Contri, Claudio Dell'Era, Federico Frattini, Paolo Maccarrone. 2015. Managing social innovation in
for-profit organizations: the case of Intesa Sanpaolo. European Journal of Innovation Management 18:2, 258-280. [CrossRef]
8. Alexander J. Moseson, Lewis Lama, James Tangorra. 2015. Development by Technology Seeding. Journal of International
Development 27:4, 489-503. [CrossRef]
9. Yingying Lee, Manlai You, Ming-Ying Yang. 2015. A Survey of Student Opinions on Ethical Design Standards in Taiwan. Science
and Engineering Ethics 21:2, 505-530. [CrossRef]
10. Dennis Doordan. 2015. Professional skills and local engagement: the challenge of Transition Design. Design Philosophy Papers
13:1, 63-67. [CrossRef]
11. Christophe Abrassart, Philippe Gauthier, Sbastien Proulx, Marie D. Martel. 2015. Le design social : une sociologie des
associations par le design? Le cas de deux dmarches de codesign dans des projets de rnovation des bibliothques de la Ville de
Montral. Lien social et Politiques :73, 117. [CrossRef]
12. Louis Jacob, Fabien Desage. 2015. Prsentation. Lien social et Politiques :73, 3. [CrossRef]
13. Lianne Simonse. 2014. Modeling Business Models. Design Issues 30:4, 67-82. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
14. Susana Nascimento, Alexandre Plvora. 2013. Opening Up Technologies to the Social: Between Interdisciplinarity and Citizen
Participation. Design Issues 29:4, 31-40. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
15. Marc Steen. 2012. Virtues in Participatory Design: Cooperation, Curiosity, Creativity, Empowerment and Reflexivity. Science and
Engineering Ethics . [CrossRef]
16. Lia Buarque de Macedo Guimares. 2012. Sociotechnical design for a sustainable world. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science
13:2, 240-269. [CrossRef]
17. Carl DiSalvo, Thomas Lodato, Laura Fries, Beth Schechter, Thomas Barnwell. 2011. The collective articulation of issues as
design practice. CoDesign 7:3-4, 185-197. [CrossRef]
18. Gavin Melles, Ian de Vere, Vanja Misic. 2011. Socially responsible design: thinking beyond the triple bottom line to socially
responsive and sustainable product design. CoDesign 7:3-4, 143-154. [CrossRef]
19. Julio Fras. 2010. Designing a National Design Policy for Mexico. Design Management Review 21:4, 32-37. [CrossRef]
20. Kin Wai, Michael Siu. 2010. Postgraduate design research: serving the society and the industry. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences 2:2, 5706-5714. [CrossRef]
21. Ilse Oosterlaken. 2009. Design for Development: A Capability Approach. Design Issues 25:4, 91-102. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
22. Turkka Keinonen. 2009. Immediate and Remote Design of Complex Environments. Design Issues 25:2, 62-74. [Citation] [PDF]
[PDF Plus]
23. Hannah Rose Mendoza. 2009. The WikiID: An Alternative Approach to the Body of Knowledge. Journal of Interior Design 34:2,
1-18. [CrossRef]
24. Anna Hickey-Moody, Denise Wood. 2008. Virtually sustainable: Deleuze and desiring differenciation in Second Life. Continuum
22:6, 805-816. [CrossRef]
25. A. Woodcock, D. Georgiou. 2007. Project Spectrum; evoking, focusing and demanding action. CoDesign 3:3, 145-157. [CrossRef]
26. Kin Wai Michael Siu. 2003. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 13:3, 243-254. [CrossRef]