Misunderstanding Social Design: What Isn’t Social Design?
Social design is becoming increasingly visible across design research and practice. Yet the more we talk about it, the less certain it seems that we are talking about the same thing.
Many common understandings of social design still rely on outdated or overly simplified assumptions. Some equate it with designing for vulnerable groups; others see it as socially responsible design, participatory workshops, or simply “design for good”. But are these really social design?
In this article, I unpack some of the most common misunderstandings of social design — what they are, where they come from, and why they matter.
1. Social Design = Socially Responsible Design?
While socially responsible design is the foundation of social design, they are not the same. This diagram is something I created for the Social Design SIG at ImaginationLancaster to outline the development of social design.
In the early stages of modern design, social design mainly came from utopian ideas, focusing on how design can create a better and more ideal society. After the war, especially in the 1960s, social design shifted its focus to the negative impact of consumerism on the environment and reflected on decolonization in developing countries. Designers like Victor Papanek led this movement, and this approach is called socially responsible design.
After 2000, the academic and business worlds wanted to balance social and commercial aspects of design, which led to the emergence of social innovation design. Unlike the earlier, more critical approach, this shift sought to harmonize these two sides.
Around 2010, people began to question whether designers should be fully responsible for all the consequences of their designs and whether design could really solve social problems directly. With increasing globalization and population movements, the challenges of social design have become more complex, involving bigger, multi-layered issues that require long-term thinking and ongoing efforts. So, perhaps we cannot quickly “solve” such wicked problems. Instead, we must continuously respond to them and develop temporary solutions within a certain timeframe. This approach is called socially responsive design.
2. Social Design = Only Design for Marginalized Groups?
Many people think social design is mainly about serving marginalized groups, with a strong focus on charity work, similar to inclusive design, such as designing for the elderly or people with disabilities. Of course, advocating for vulnerable groups is important, but this view might limit the goals and scope of social design. It may also not match the interests and resources of all social designers.
We need to rethink who the marginalized groups are. Many ordinary people can be considered “hidden” marginalized individuals, such as those with mental health issues, which we often overlook. So, the scope of social design should be broader, serving the majority of people who are outside of privileged classes and social systems.
There is a noticeable gap between the “hardware” and “software” provided by government/market — like infrastructure, public services, and policy support — and the actual needs of communities and everyday life. This gap exists globally and isn’t just a problem for developed countries like China.
Social design addresses a wide range of issues and topics, including social capital, broader citizen empowerment, and the well-being of marginalized groups. Therefore, social design is not just about empathy or focusing on the problems of society’s lowest levels. It involves broader and more diverse goals.
3. Social Design = Human-Centered Design?
Another way people explain social design is by comparing it to human-centered design. At first glance, this makes sense — of course, design should focus on people. My early research also started from a human-centered perspective, such as believing that spaces should be adaptable and movable based on users’ needs.
However, if we dig deeper, human-centered design actually focuses on individual needs, behaviors, and experiences. For example, service design, user research, and user experience design all emphasize individual needs. These methods often rely on fields like market research, cognitive psychology, and ethnographic observation, but they rarely address broader social and group levels.
We can think of society as having three levels: micro, meso, and macro. The micro level focuses on individual cognition and behavior, the meso level deals with group interactions and community relationships, and the macro level involves social institutions and culture. Human-centered design mainly sits between the micro and meso levels, studying personal experiences, informal social relationships①, and interpersonal interactions.
Therefore, human-centered design can be seen as a micro-level social design but doesn’t cover the full scope of social design. I divide social design into three categories: micro social design, which focuses on changing individual cognition and interpersonal relationships; meso social design, which deals with more complex relationships and social situations; and macro social design, which involves building systems and cultural norms②.
4. Social Design = Design “Project”?
Another debated concept is the idea of social design “projects.” Can we run a few days of workshops, do some activities, make some noise, and then claim we’ve changed society? I used to enjoy this approach when I was younger, especially as a student. But later, I realized that while these projects create something for a short period, they often don’t lead to further development. In reality, the positive impact of design on society is usually minimal.
If we want to make a real difference, especially in the meso level of social contexts and issues, we need to invest a lot of time and energy — often at least one or two years with multiple, ongoing projects. This kind of long-term but flexible approach can be challenging for traditional designers to adapt to. So, social design isn’t about avoiding short-term activities, but it’s important to focus on a specific place or issue and continue working on it over time.
At the same time, ongoing involvement reflects different timeframes. In the short term, we address urgent issues and provide quick, temporary solutions. In the mid-term, we grow alongside the community, becoming part of it as empowered institutions, individuals, or experts. Long-term work involves creating new possibilities, like new living environments or ways of life, which might include speculative design③.
5. Social Design = Design for Someone?
Designer often say they are “design for” someone. This is somewhat outdated mindset, rooted in elitism and heroism. It makes it sound like designers are in control of others’ lives, acting as experts who guide people’s decisions. But I know I am not qualified for that role.
A humbler approach might be to show strong empathy, considering others’ feelings, and working alongside people to improve their needs. This attitude is similar to a mother’s care, emphasizing “designing with” others. However, in this relationship, the designer still holds the dominant position, gently guiding and influencing others.
Get Linfu Zhang’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
An equal approach, though, would fully respect the autonomy and power of others. This means giving up the constant professional privilege in the design process and instead trusting in the creativity of the stakeholders themselves④. Just as they can lead their own lives, with our support, they can also lead the design that affects their lives (“design by”).
6. Social Design = User-Participatory Design?
Stakeholders’ autonomy in practice involves specific organizational issues, such as the depth of participation. While participatory design has become more accepted — where involving target users in the design process makes it more suitable and legitimate — simply bringing users in during the middle or later stages of a project is not enough for social design. This approach is still based on informal social relationships or shallow participation. Designers often appear briefly in a community without developing stronger, lasting public relationships. As a result, “participation” becomes superficial, hiding the fact that the work can actually be exploitative of social resources.
Genuine participation requires public legitimacy, meaning it needs authorization and support from both the public⑤ and institutions. Many people resist or avoid this⑥, thinking that existing systems and public authorities restrict social design work. But why should designers have the authority to break through established frameworks and systems? And why should they be allowed to use valuable social resources on behalf of others?
So, to be honest, real social designers need to “dance with shackles on.” We should think about how to work within local communities and public sectors (or government agencies) to gain more stakeholder support and find relatively safe and flexible opportunities for bigger changes.
7. Social Design = Design based on Ethnographic Research?
When it comes to social design research methods, many people think that a few interviews, surveys, or some observations in a community can lead to effective design solutions. In reality, social research methods are very diverse, and the right approach depends on the specific social problem and context. There isn’t a one-size-fits-all method.
For example, in anthropology, participatory observation and ethnographic research are not the same. Participatory observation can be either covert or open, and ethnographic research comes in many forms, like multi-sited ethnography, auto-ethnography, and collaborative ethnography, each with different goals. Recently, participatory action research (PAR) has become popular in social design, but it has a different focus from traditional action research. Similarly, when studying space and social relationships, methods like social network analysis and mapping may be needed.
This means that social designers must have a very specific understanding of research methods and the ability to combine multiple approaches. The reality is that mainstream design education rarely covers these complex methods, and it’s difficult for students to master them quickly on their own. Unless they pursue further study in related fields or gain experience through projects and teamwork in a company, they may need to seek guidance from experts in other fields.
8. Social Design = Just One Type of Design?
I’ve often heard the view that public service design is almost the same as social design, or that a single product design can complete a social design project. It’s hard for me to imagine how a single design approach can handle the complex and changing social contexts and the different stages of development.
For example, in health design, the initial stage might involve using symbols and visual language to raise awareness of healthy behaviors. Then, when we want to change people’s health behaviors and experiences, we need to consider product and interaction design. If we aim for long-term sustainable healthy lifestyles, we may also need to design at the spatial and systems level.
We need a variety of design approaches to tackle different social challenges and meet diverse needs. Additionally, each stage of design requires different social resources. Designers must be adaptable and flexible, rather than relying on a single approach like I once did — where I used visual design for everything, creating posters, interfaces, and toolkits to respond to problems. Being stuck in one approach is too limiting.
9. Social Design = Designing a “Good Story”?
In social design, it’s important for people to see and understand the impact it creates, and a “good story” has often become the measure of a successful designer. This approach is known in the field as “narrative analysis.” However, as Byung-Chul Han mentions in The Crisis of Narration, storytelling is losing its original purpose of connecting people and building community. Instead, it has turned into “storyselling,” where complex information is simplified to fit the needs of quick information consumption.
Many social design stories end with the optimistic message that “design is a miracle cure,” like how design brings people together or creates unique communication opportunities. But in reality, other activities can achieve the same results. Few people talk about design failures, group ignorance, or institutional rigidity. This kind of storytelling can worsen social injustice, turning into a formulaic marketing tool. On the other hand, we can use methods like critical discourse analysis to reflect on design’s role in society, including its potential negative impacts.
In addition, social impact of design can also be evaluated using quantitative methods. The focus should be on whether the design has achieved specific social goals, like improving mental health or aging adaptation, rather than just its appearance and functionality. Designers need to identify key issues, set benchmarks, and compare data before and after the design to ensure continuous evaluation and improvement. This approach can clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of design and help present the results to public sectors or communities.
10. Social Design = ?
What do you think social design is — or isn’t?
Share your thoughts in the comments👇.
① Informal social relationships are flexible connections formed based on personal feelings and trust, like family, neighbors, and friends. Formal social relationships are structured connections built through clear rules and systems, like work relationships in companies, government agencies, and schools.
② There is also a more macro-level version called utopian social design, which aims to create a perfect human society and planetary ecosystem. However, this is too grand and long-term to be actionable in our lifetime, so it’s not discussed in this article.
③ Speculative design can inspire thought and explore future possibilities, but without deep research into local social and cultural contexts, and without the ability to interact with the community or mobilize social resources, “speculation” can easily become just brainstorming without practical results.
④ In Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s book Creativity, he explains that creativity is a universal human ability. Anyone can show creativity under the right environment and conditions, not just artists or designers.
⑤ The public is not just a specific target group. According to Dewey’s theory, the public is formed through communication and interaction between members of society and their collective action to address social issues, requiring the efforts of different people and the involvement of public institutions.
⑥ From a social psychology perspective, when an individual’s freedom (such as a designer’s creative freedom) feels restricted, they tend to resist this limitation. This type of defiance is known as “reactance,” where they deliberately go in the opposite direction.
Author: Linfu Zhang is a PhD researcher in Social Design at ImaginationLancaster and a member of the Social Design Network, with a background in social psychology and trans-disciplinary design. His research focuses on the re-socialisation of social design, the institutioning of co-design, and improving the well-being of vulnerable groups.
