Last Night Aiga London (American Institute of Graphic Arts) held a thoroughly engaging and useful debate, that explored the potential of design and social policy, stimulated by Hilary's wining of Designer of the year and the work of RED and the Design Council. The discussion marked a broadening of scope for the monthly disscussions of Aiga.

Speaking were Ben Rogers of the think tank ippr - who worked with RED on the Touching the State Project (He cited it as being the most enjoyable project he's ever done), Richard Eisermann - director of Design at Design Council and James Woudhuysen, Professor of Forecasting and Innovation, De Montfort University who was happy, as ever, to act protagonist.

Nico Macdonald, chairing the event had set questions for the panel to answer and the audience to discuss:

Do design methods offer a new approach to social policy?
What skills do designer have that are relevant to social policy?
Why design in social policy now? Is it just in vogue?
Who's asking for it, public or politicians or designers?
Does the public want co-design?

Ben, leader of the democracy team at ippr, thinks that we are making a poor job of public institutions in the UK - people come out of the criminal justice system more disposed to criminal activity than when they first went in, people come out of hospitals less healthy than when then were first emitted. He saw the greatest value in design in the space of social policy was as a 'democratic research process' that could helping to improve these institutions by putting the user as the centre.

However he warned that design was not the only way to create great public policy innovation - citing examples of US court centre innovation and community policing in Chicago were analogous techniques were used (prototypes were called pilots, visioning - open space workshops.)

His closing points were for designers to be cautious in this territory - and not to appear as the saviours of public policy. Quoting Oscar Wilde "Only superficial people don't judge things by appearances" he also reminded designers not be scared of the elements on which their profession is founded which don't directly address social policy.

For Richard Eisermann, saying design was a new approach to social policy was a case of 'old wine in new bottles.' Citing the Swedish social democrats of the 30's and design movements in Italy he illustrated a long standing connection between design and politics. The question for him was: is it a good thing. Of course being director at the Design Council he had to say yes but as a passionate industrial designer it was clear that he shared thoughts with Andrea Cooper, Head of design knowledge at Design Council who later, from the floor, would warn that designers should not move into new territory at the expense of the old. As Microsoft might say we should 'embrace and extend'.

For Richard it was the rise of the individual, and the increasing complexity of society that gave design the edge in social policy, as design has the ability to look from the perspective of the individual and to rapidly turn these insights into practical products, environments and services. He did not see this as an authoritarian approach 'Designers do not have all the answers - but they do have all the questions'.

He was clearly concerned that design would become management idea of the month, given recent issues of Fast Company focussing on design and the visibility of 'design led' companies such as Nokia, and Procter and Gamble. This he thought might lead to the design agenda being taken out of the hands of designers.

James Woudhuysen, made the case that design couldn't transform, social policy - this was something that could only be done by proper political movements. He saw the design of social policy as authoritarian and utopian and encouraged designers not to be moral guardians but to be - good designers from nine to five and save the politics for after work. To illustrate what he clearly sees as designs tendency to bite of more than it can chew he quoted from a Design Council pamphlet, by Hilary that says 'this {new} school furniture can deliver the national curriculum' - does it come out of the top or the sides? he asked. He did not deny that a better designed class room would encourage better learning and less truancy - but only if it was part of a bigger picture of a better funded and better organised school.

Later James would challenge the floor on the right of designers to shape people's behaviour, Ben Rogers would respond by pointing out that in part the role of any decent government is to do just that, to shape individual behaviour and encourage social norms and values that are beneficial to society - he cited the need to address behavioural issues such as binge drinking, diabetes and noisy neighbours.

After the panellists had presented their point of view the debate was opened out to the floor:

Lousie Ferguson of Design for Democracy made the point that even if designers aren't involved in the design of social policy it is being designed anyway. In her experience she'd seen that voting forms were in fact designed by lawyers with little attention to information design. Making use of designers was just about making the design better.

In response to the question what can design offer social policy I put forward the 4 things that have shaken out of this last years work at RED
1 Design is a process that can be used to develop innovative practical solutions - it's not the only process but it is one.
2 Design looks from the perspective of the individual - particularly relevant when many of the big issues we face such as citizenship, obesity, diabetes, energy all come down at one level to individual behaviour and lifestyle.
3 Design makes things visual - probably the only thing unique to design and valuable if working with complex systems or multiple stakeholders
4 Design prototypes things in context - both physical and social prototypes, quick and dirty.

Ben would come back on these points - for him the value of design to social policy was clearly in the ability to connect with the experience of the individual and to bring together multiple stakeholders to create practical solutions.

The debate will no doubt be continued this evening at the Design Museum...

CATEGORY: TRANSFORMATION DESIGN