Why Integral Design is Important

Before I get back to the questions I posed in my last entry, I’d like to tell you a little about why I think building a framework for Integral Design is important.

Recently I’ve been reading the writing of a theorist named Ken Wilber. Ken has developed a really nice framework for examining the ways in which we can approach a given practice, such as medicine or design[1]. Ken’s framework urges us to think explicitly about a given problem or idea from a variety of perspectives and viewpoints.

Wilber says that the best approach to carrying out a practice is to consider it through the lens of each of the four quadrants of his framework. By practicing design in a way that integrates considerations from all four quadrants, we’ll end up with a more holistic, or integral, way of doing design.[2]

So, if Wilber is right, then by adopting a more integral approach to design, our solutions will, in turn, be more holistic. He also contends that by using an integral approach, it’s more likely that our designs will be successful. This seems reasonable, since the more factors we consider regarding a design problem, the more likely it is that our solutions will be successful.

Sounds like a laudable goal, yes? Wasn’t this what we wanted to do with experience design before terms like “user experience” were co-opted by organizations that were focused more on PR campaigns than on delivering holistically designed solutions to peoples’ problems?

I think most of us can agree that a more integral approach to design would be a good thing – especially if we can realize a way to actually put it into practice.

Ever since I first became interested in design and began practicing user-centered design, I’ve wondered what was next. How do we improve the practice of design beyond the user-centered methods we use now?

The idea of considering the behaviors, motivations, and contexts of people during the design process is one idea that’s gaining more traction lately. This is important work as we begin to build a framework for Integral Design, but simply adding those concerns on top of the concerns of user-centered design will only cover two of Wilber’s four quadrants.

User-centered design, which I believe is fundamentally concerned with tasks, states and goals, seems to map to the upper-left quadrant of Wilber’s model. This quadrant is focused on the interior of the individual or, to put it another way, the subjective mind.

Design (we don’t have a name for it yet) that focuses more deeply on behaviors, motivations, and contexts seems to map quite nicely to the lower-left quadrant of Wilber’s model. This quadrant is focused on the interior of the collective or, to put it another way, it’s focused on intersubjective culture.

For now, we’re still a long way from being able to practice Integral Design, but I think building a framework and describing it is an important first step towards getting there.

I want my designs to help create a future that’s more sustainable, more caring and even more deeply-ethical. For now, Integral Design is the best way I can think of to get there.

[1] In his writing, Wilber describes many uses for the model, though he never directly discusses design. I’m just using design as an example of a practice that could be approached in an integral way.
[2] I’ll do a proper introduction of Wilber’s framework in a future entry, but in the meantime, you may want to take a look at the AQAL entry on Wikipedia. You could also Google it yourself, but I should warn you that the top Google result only covers Wilber up to 2001. I believe Wilber’s framework has been refined quite a bit since then.

Rethinking Designing for Experience

A few months ago, a friend of mine, Todd Wilkens, posted some provocative thoughts on the Adaptive Path blog. Essentially, Todd says:

  1. Instead of a framework focused on tasks, goals, and states, designers should use a framework focused on behaviors, motivations, and contexts.
  2. A new framework is needed because the framework based on tasks, goals, and states doesn’t explicitly account for behaviors, motivations and context. Because of this, it’s difficult to account for those concerns in our designs. That is, we fail to realize certain solutions because our framework for thinking about the problem actually prevents us from considering some solutions.

I agree with Todd. A better understanding of peoples’ behaviors related to, motivations with regard to and contexts of use concerning our designs will lead to better designs.

But why stop there? Why not move even further, toward an integral framework for design? The more considerations we can integrate into our framework for design, the better our resulting solutions should be, yes?

Why not consider an even higher calling? What if, for example, our designs could help people become better people?

Imagine the level of integration into someone’s life your design would need to have for someone to say, “That [service] has my back,” or “My [product] actually cares for me.”

Now, when I say caring, I’m not simply talking about displaying kindness and concern for others. I’m talking about something deeper than that. I’m talking about having a relationship that facilitates self-actualization.

Self-actualization is probably not a word you use every day, but the concept is simple. Self-actualization is the fulfillment of one’s talents and potentialities. Self-actualization is about becoming the best “you” that you can be.

What I’m talking about are designs that are deeply ethical, not only in terms of environmental sustainability and social responsibility, but also in terms of caring.

I think few will argue that this is a bad idea, but all we have so far is an interesting thought experiment. In my mind, there are several important questions that remain:

  1. Can a system be designed such that it can actually have a relationship with a person?
  2. Are the concerns that go into designing such a system really that different from the concerns that go into user-centered design as we practice it today?
  3. In practice, how do we go about understanding these concerns?
  4. What would an integral framework for design look like?

What are your thoughts? Are there other questions I should be answering?

NeuroEthics: Science, Ethics, and Law

Hi there.

I just attended the weekly Symbolic Systems Forum at Stanford. This week’s talk, NeuroEthics: Science, Ethics, and Law, was given by Hank Greely of the Stanford Law School. Here’s the abstract:

“Neuroscience is in the midst of a revolution that is transforming our knowledge of the human brain and how it works. Our ability to predict future mental illness, neurological disease, or personality characteristics is expanding dramatically. We seem likely to be able to use devices to “read minds,” by directly detecting brain activity that is correlated with various mental states. And drugs and devices, developed to help the injured or ill, hold out the possibility of “enhancing” human brains with unprecedented powers. This talk will describe those advances and the legal, ethical, and social issues they pose.”

The ethical issues related to this technology are very interesting to me, mainly because they are so deeply intertwined with design. This technology, in as little as a few years, will begin to force the entire design community to consider the ethics of situations that simply haven’t existed before.

What happens when we as designers have the ability to know things about the users of our services that they don’t know about themselves?

At the beginning of his talk, Hank outlined the 3 major areas of neuro-ethics:

  1. Research ethics, or what is the ethical thing to do with the information you gain about the subjects of, say, a study employing Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (FMRI) technology?
  2. Neuro-economics, or what happens in the brain when we make decisions?
  3. Social implications, which is the most interesting area for both Professor Greely and myself. This area deals with topcis like prediction of behavior, mind reading and body enhancement.

A particularly interesting subtopic in the area of mind reading is that of reading emotions. How exciting! Imagine the accuracy with which you could design a service to elicit a certain emotion if we could read the users’ emotions directly from their brain?

Of course, this is currently completely impractical, but only because of the rapidly vanishing constraints of, for example, getting people into an FMRI machine and forcing them to work on tasks they’d probably never do otherwise. During his talk, Hank outlined several new technologies that could be used for the purpose of lie detection – some of them could even be administered without the knowledge of the subject!

As a group of people who pride ourselves on believing that we are a force for contributing positive change to the world, I have to think that there are others out there who care about the ethics of our profession. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem like there’s anyone doing much talking about it.

Anyone have any pointers for me?

Serendipity: As I sat here outside a cafe on University Avenue in Palo Alto, Brian Knutson walked past me and into a restaurant a few doors down. If you’re unfamiliar, Brian’s primary research interest is in the neural basis of emotion.

Erik Davis on Experience Design

Erik Davis’ Experience Design And the Design of Experience is the single best piece I’ve read on the subject.

Not only does he offer a sublime definition of experience:

“…let’s just think of human experience as the phenomenal unfolding of awareness in real time”

…but he also touches on some powerful, related topics such as recreational drug use, spirituality and also scary shit like the manipulation of desire for the purpose of advertising.

Additionally, much of what he writes suggests an increasing need for Design Ethicists—a topic in which I’m surprised to find myself very interested.