Heylighen, A., and Dong, A. (2019). To empathise or not to empathise? Empathy and its limits in design. Design Studies, 65, 107–124. 4 Conclusion In trying to contribute to informing the discussion about empathy in the design community, we have recruited insights from philosophy and cognitive science, and highlighted which aspects of these are particularly relevant in rela- tion to design. The outcome of our exercise suggests that research on empathy in design has taken a reflexive stance toward the positive side of empathy for end-users. Therefore, for those seeking a parsimonious explanation of the ef- fect of empathy on the quality of design outcomes, the answer is that it is only positive. The predominantly positive reports about empathy in design with a lack of emphasis on drawbacks raise the concern that empathy may have become a design ideology rather than a principle that is appropriate in some situations and inappropriate under other circumstances. From what started as an objective to ensure that designs meet user desires and needs (Jones, 1970; Kouprie & Visser, 2009; Moore & Conn, 1985) and an agenda to raise the prominence of user experience and emotions with regard to human interactions with designed objects (Mattelm€ aki, Vaajakallio, & Koskinen, 2014), empathy in design has grown into an approach to the prac- tice of design in which the objective is for the mental states and imagination of the designer to match those of end-users (Kouprie & Visser, 2009; Mattelm€ aki et al., 2014). In other words, empathy has become an end rather than a means, which is where the interest in empathy began. As such, empathy in design has opened itself to a type of quarantine failure (Goldman, 2013). This article advances the perspective that design scholars and designers tend to skip two important steps in the application of empathy to design. The first is an ethical step: the choice to apply methods to gain empathy with end-users is an ethical decision. The empathy a designer can or cannot gain for end-users and their situations will determine what solutions the designer will end up deeming valuable or not valuable on behalf of end-users (Lloyd, 2009). The presence or absence of the designer’s own values during the process of gaining empathy will determine trade-offs and therefore the social impact of the design (Le Dantec & Do, 2009). The second step is perspectival and relates to embodi- ment. In order to take the affective perspective of another, the designer must also take the bodily perspective of the other. The inclusion of embodiment in design means designers ‘should be aware of how they are being affected at a bodily level’ (Finlay, 2005, p. 277) and not just at a mental level. Our view is that there is much to be gained theoretically and practically from ac- counting for embodiment in the process of developing empathy. It would offer additional explanatory power in the suitability of empathy in design. The concept of embodiment rests on the hypothesis of the body and mind be- ing closely related and influencing each other in various non-trivial ways (Glenberg, 2010; K€ orner & Strack, 2018). Embodiment in empathy 118 Design Studies Vol 65 No. C November 2019 To empathise or not to empathise? Empathy and its limits in design Ann Heylighen, KU Leuven, Dept. of Architecture, Research[x]Design, BE 3001, Leuven, Belgium Andy Dong, Oregon State University, School of Mechanical, Industrial, and Manufacturing Engineering, Corvallis, OR, 97331-6001, USA In the 1980s, one of the values advanced to distinguish the field of design from the sciences and the humanities was empathy. Since then it has become an important theme in design practice, research, and education. Insights from philosophy and cognitive science, however, suggest that empathy has become a design ideology rather than a principle suitable for judging the value of design solutions in some situations e for some end-users and some aspects of their experience. When it is applied in design, two important steps tend to be skipped: an ethical and a perspectival one. Assessing its suitability, we hypothesise, has much to gain theoretically and practically from accounting for the role of embodiment in the process of developing empathy. Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: design cognition, empathy, ethics, psychology of design, user centred design Gaining empathy for end-users is generally considered a central task in design. In his 1982 article ‘Designerly ways of knowing’, Cross (1982) listed empathy as one of the ‘values’ that distinguish the e at that time e largely neglected ‘third culture’ of the field of design from the two already established ‘cultures’ of the sciences and the humanities, which had ‘long been recognised as dominating our social, cultural and educational systems’: ‘the values of each culture are. in the sciences: objectivity, rationality, neutrality, and a concern for “truth” in the humanities: subjectivity, imagination, commitment, and a concern for “justice” in design: practicality, ingenuity, empathy [emphasis added], and a concern for “appropriateness”.’ Corresponding author: Ann Heylighen ann.heylighen@ kuleuven.be www.elsevier.com/locate/destud 0142-694X Design Studies 65 (2019) 107e124 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2019.10.007 107 Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. More-Than-Human Centered Empathy · Design Research Society · June 27, 2024 Designers are re-examining empathy’s role in design.
cassininazir
fmlorg
imash
malwarilia
matleenalaakso
jdbedics
terasawat
yuko_yokouchi
sksat
mizuki_fujita
eileencodes
sferik
lynnandtonic
vanstee
philhawksworth
sachag
marcduiker
michaelherold
smashingmag
andyhume
trallard
