Empathy as a Design Methodology
Anthony Woodfield Acock, Cal Poly Pomona, United States of America
The success of a professional designer is intrinsically tied to their ability to empathize with the client or issue. In my
paper, I will discuss a methodology to best empathize with both sides of a polarizing issue in effort to holistically
understand the challenge, and grow as a professional.
Using an example from a class in which the students were to pick a controversial topic of their choice, and create a:
logo, poster, and website mockup. In this process they would write a short annotated research paper covering the issue
as passionately as possible.
Unbeknownst to them, once complete, they would then do the same task, for a new organization that was diametrically
opposed to the first. This proved challenging as the first topic was based off of their personal passions, now they had to
challenge those with equal vigor. The prolife students had to design for the prochoice community. The pro death
penalty students, had to design for the anti death penalty community.
In the end, they would write a third paper, outlining ways in which both sides can come together to find common
ground. They would then use design thinking to organize a conference in which both organizations would be present.
They were tasked with designing a poster, logo, website, and brochure for the conference. They were also challenged
with picking a logical location for the conference, as well as a selection of speakers, from both sides.
By requiring the students to start from a place of personal passion, and then counter design against their very being,
the class grew as a whole. The critiques ranged from political debate, to formal design conversations. In the end, the
students felt their empathy towards the opposition had grown, and in some cases, the students had major philosophical
changes on the issue.
Keywords: Graphic Design, Empathy, Debate, Polarizing Opinions, Opposites, Design for Advertising, University of
Central Missouri, Cal Poly Pomona, Non-Profit, Social Advocacy
Design for Advertising, Fall 2012
Introduction
here is a growing field of advocacy based design, and this is a fantastic opportunity for
students and design educators to explore. The idea of “cause” marketing has become the
primary source of philanthropic corporate dollars, and giving students the skillset to
navigate in this climate seems fundamental to the success of a junior designer in an ever
changing market place.
T
AIGA Connecting Dots
Each year, over 700 million dollars11 are spent on such efforts. As designers, we can use
social advocacy design to raise public awareness, and create outreach campaigns that serve as a
call to action for political or societal reform. I will, through this paper, encourage social
advocacy amongst students, in such a manner as to generate, pride building, humanization of
“others”, and empathy. However, to do so with only the similar minded, misses the greatest
opportunity for growth of an issue.
The key to effective advocacy is to listen to what the publics actually desire. The most well
intentioned project can fail miserably by the designer not fully understanding the personhood of
the community they are working with, representing, or targeting. An example of this can be
illustrated by looking at the Hearing For All project by Godisa Technologies Trust.
“Initially, we started with a body hearing aid, but deaf people everywhere prefer to not
be conspicuous and have a big gadget on their bodies, so we took the conventional
behind-the-ear hearing aid and used solar technology to recharge the battery”. 22
By actively collaborating with their public, Godisa Technologies Trust was able to better
understand the needs of people who are deaf, and in the case of this project, the environmental
implications of hearing devices, and how to keep them charged. This becomes more complicated
when dealing with a community that has an antithetical community geared against it, which
presumably, the deaf community does not.
Similar to graphic design challenges, in which the author of a design piece seeks to convey a
message, or counter an argument. How can we instill in students the ability to design with
empathy to those they are trying to persuade? To illustrate this challenge, I will use two
examples, Nike’s Major Threat Skateboard Tour, and Aim High Enough’s Down Syndrome
Awareness Poster Series. Two obviously different audiences, however in one case the designers
used deep empathy to allow their audience to communicate for themselves, and in the other, a
misguided nod turned into cultural appropriation.
Nike’s Major Threat Skateboard Tour from 2005 (Figure 1) sought to invite the punk rock
contingency of skateboard culture by repurposing the imagery from punk rock band, Minor
Threat’s EP. Nike changed the name on the graphic from ‘Minor Threat’ to, ‘Major Threat’, and
removed the emblematic combat boots, replacing them with Nike skate shoes. The intent was
relatively benign, however, by not understanding their target audience –those involved in punk
rock, and skateboarding, they managed to expose their ignorance in a fantastic manner.
1
Judith Schwartz, “Socially Responsible Advertising. Altruism or Exploitation?,” Citizen Designer. ed.
2
Smith, “Hearing For All”. Design for the Other 90%. (New York: Cooper-Hewit, 2007) 100.
Acock: Empathy as a Design Methodology
Figure 1: Minor Threat, EP, (left) Nike Major Threat (right)
Sources: Minor Threat, 1984, Nike, 2005
Ian Mckay’s response open letter to Nike exposes the root of their error, and a lack of
empathy from the part of Nike.
"What the hell were they thinking? …to set the record straight — Nike never contacted
Dischord, nor Minor Threat, to obtain permission to use this imagery, nor was any
permission granted. Simply put, Nike stole it and we're not happy about it… To
longtime fans and supporters of Minor Threat and Dischord, this must seem like just
another familiar example of mainstream corporations attempting to assimilate
underground culture to turn a buck, However, it is more disheartening to us to think that
Nike may be successful in using this imagery to fool kids, just beginning to become
familiar with skate culture, underground music and D.I.Y. ideals, into thinking that the
general ethos of this label, and Minor Threat in particular, can somehow be linked to
Nike's mission."33
The end result of this misguided attempt to court punk rock skaters ended with an open
apology from Nike, a whole lot of back tracking from Wieden and Kennedy, who evidently did
not design this particular Nike ad, and a whole sale obliteration of any evidence. Today, if you
try to Google this Nike Skateboard Tour, all you will find are articles criticizing how horrible the
design ideas behind it were.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, a great example of how design can reflect the
community it hopes to advocate for would be the subway poster campaign, Down Syndrome,
Aim High Enough. A series of posters designed to help raise awareness and illustrate similarities
between people with Down Syndrome to their typically abled peers.
3
“Nike Uses Minor Threat: Sneaker Outfit Apologizes For Borrowing Punks' Album Art” Rollingstones,
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/nike-uses-minor-threat-20050628, (June 28, 2005)
AIGA Connecting Dots
Design as a tool for advocacy –in particular for people with disabilities– is flooded with
well-crafted sympathy generating campaigns. While well intentioned, these types of campaigns
miss the mark and reinforce the concept of ‘otherness’. While working with the Kansas City
based non-profit organization, The HALO Foundation, I remember being curtly told, ‘No Sarah
McLaughlin’s”, generating pity does little to promote empathy or awareness.
In Aim High Enough’s People First Campaign, they embody the spirit of empathy in
communication. By allowing the participants in the photos to dictate who they are, they clearly
present themselves how they see themselves. “I am a breakdancer, I have Down Syndrome”.
This is not a sympathy generating campaign, rather a celebration of personhood and
individuality. Individuality of people who happen to have Down Syndrome. These posters were
hung in Japanese subways during disability awareness month, and are often cited as an example
of a great “people first” campaign.
Often when we think of advocacy-based design challenges, we think of rallying cries, and
illustrations of pride, which –while certainly valid– forget that at least half of their audience is
not rallying behind the cause. Often times, they are rallying against. For advocacy-based design
to truly be valid, we need to think how the message will be perceived by those who oppose the
cause. How will the prolife community respond to a prochoice campaign, and vice versa?
It’s easy, and perhaps comfortable to raise flags of solidarity, and share them with the like
minded, however, the effectiveness of that, from a messaging and social change perspective, falls
into question. How can we as design educators, get students and junior designers to design with
the counterpoint in mind.
The Design of a Fictional Non Profit Organization
Round One
“The graphic designer must have empathy for whom and what they are designing.
Building research into the design process avoids resultant design solutions serving only
to satisfy the designer or paint over the cracks of an issue”4
In the Fall of 2012, I was given the class, “Design for Advertising” at the University of Central
Missouri in Warrensburg Missouri where I was starting my very first tenure track teaching
position after completing my MFA at Pratt Institute in New York City. Advocacy based design
challenges are of a personal interest to me, and so I sought to find a way to interject this practice,
in conjunction with research, writing, and planning, into a Design for Advertising curriculum.
On the first day of this project, I asked students to think of polarizing issues they cared
about. At first, the ideas were slow to trickle out into the public forum. People mentioned budget
deficits, and generic concepts of ‘the economy’, as polarizing, with little understanding of how
the economy is an “issue” and how it can be divided into pro and con communities scenario.
After a few minutes, one student raised her hand and said she was adamantly prochoice.
Perfect, now we were getting somewhere. After a few consensual nods, I asked the class who
Mike Bond, “Approaching + Reacting to Research. Design is About Understanding, ”A Designers Research Manual:
Succeed in Design by Knowing Your Clients and What They Really Need. ed. Jennifer and Ken Visocky O’Grady
(Singapore: Rockport Publishers, 2009) 109-111.
4
Acock: Empathy as a Design Methodology
was prolife. No one raised their hand, or said a word. After a moment of awkward silence, I
brought up the fact that, statistically, at least 49% of the class was likely somewhat prolife, even
if they didn’t want to admit it publically. And with that, the floodgates opened.
Soon, students were debating Roe vs Wade, concepts of consent, sexual reproduction, what
it meant to be a ‘slut’, Planned Parenthood. This lead seamlessly into other topics. Military
Funding, Gay Marriage, Pirating Music, and Software. Everyone had passionate opinions on
every topic. From that moment on, the majority of class that day, resembled more of a debate
lecture, than an art class.
To start the project, the students were tasked with finding a gap in the non-profit landscape
of their issue, and creating a fictional non-profit group to fill it. To do so, they would need to
name the organization, design a logo, a poster, and a website for the group. While doing this,
they were to write a research paper –not on advocacy based design, but rather on the issue that
their group was advocating for.
For example, the adamantly prochoice student was now to write a research paper on why
abortion should be legal. The prolife student was to write a research paper on why abortion
should be illegal.
The designed results, the logo, poster, and website, for this phase of the project were
relatively predictable. Those who felt attached to certain issues had clear preconceived notions as
to what the visual language of these communities should look like, resulting in work that passed
through the critique with comments such as, “it looks like a real logo” whatever that means.
The Design of a Fictional Non Profit Organization
Round Two
After phase one of the project was complete, the second phase, and the idea that the semester was
going to be engulfed in this project came to light. The students were tasked with the challenge of
doing the same thing, this time however, for the opposite end of the spectrum.
Students who had previously designed for the prochoice communities had to now do the
same body of work for the prolife community. Those who had passionately written research
papers defending a woman’s right to abortion, now had to write equally passionate research
papers about the sanctity of life and how abortion should be illegal.
This created obviously tense moments during the project brief period. On the other hand,
however, it forced students who had previously viewed each other as philosophical adversaries,
now as allies. Students against capital punishment had to sit down with students for capital
punishment, and –with empathy– listen to why that student felt America needed capital
punishment.
For many it seemed as if this was the first time they had not only considered the opposition,
but empathetically engaged in it’s premise. Arguments were sparked, and friendships were made.
The class dynamics shifted radically as students actively sought opinions that were counter their
own.
AIGA Connecting Dots
Students were required to check out books from the library that supported their new forced
thesis’ and form convincing arguments that were antithetical to their original projects.
The final design pieces, without exception, were exponentially better, more unique, and
more refined than the originals. It seems that by requiring students to investigate and research
areas that they are not familiar with, they do so more honestly, with more empathy, and when it
comes to hitting the drawing table, they do so less instinctually, and more carefully.
This created moments where students were critical of their own work, and certainly critical
of their previous work. Instead of designing logos that ‘looked like real logos’ they were
designing conceptual pieces that hit key factors of the issues’ fundamentals.
Along with formal critiques, students asked those diametrically opposed to themselves if
their final pieces effectively communicated what the other felt. “Is this really how the pro gun
control community feels like”? One student even commented that, much to their disappointment,
upon research, the other side had a much better argument.
The Design of a Fictional Non Profit Organization
Round Three. The Common Ground Conference
Now that the students had a more holistic grasp on both sides of their issue, I introduced the
concept of Design Thinking into the classroom in effort to help prepare the students for their next
task.
Design thinking, as defined by CEO and President of IDEO is,
“…a human-centered approach to innovation that draws from the designer’s toolkit to
integrate the needs of people, the possibilities of technology, and the requirements for
business success”. 5
The third, and final phase of the project would use Design Thinking to create a “Common
Ground Conference” that would bring together both sides of the issue, in effort to bridge the
divide.
Students were tasked with: designing a logo (figure 2 and 3), a poster (figure 4), a brochure
(figure 5), and a website (figure 6), as well as naming the conference, strategically choosing it’s
location, selecting a group of speakers from both sides of the issue, and what those speakers
would be speaking about.
5
“About IDEO” IDEO, http://www.ideo.com/about/, (accessed: February 15, 2014)
Acock: Empathy as a Design Methodology
Figure 2: PRO 2012 Conference Logo
Sources: Roxann Elder, 2012
Figure 3: Universal Animal Conference 2012
Source: Samantha Maschman, 2012
AIGA Connecting Dots
Figure 4: Future of Defense Conference
Source: Jason McClintock, 2012
Acock: Empathy as a Design Methodology
Figure 5: Future of Defense Conference
Source: Jason McClintock, 2012
Figure 6: Future of Defense Conference
Source: Jason McClintock, 2012
AIGA Connecting Dots
During phase three, students who had paired up with opposition best, were now suited to
once again collaborate. How can Prochoice America, and the Right to Life Foundation agree on
anything? Who is best equipped to speak on the issue from both sides of the story? What is the
most logical location for the conference? When will it be? How many days? There were so many
moving pieces at this point that the students had no choice but to collaborate with one another to
best create not only graphic design pieces, but design whole systems.
The Design of a Fictional Non Profit Organization
Post Mortem
Upon reflection, the project was a success. Students created a body of work that had practical
implications for their portfolios. Students were able to say, here is a website I designed, here is a
logo I designed, here is a brochure I designed. In the long view however, the implications are
much greater.
Students learned to defend their design choices, as well as defend and respect their moral
and philosophical differences. Students learned better ways to research, to write, to collaborate.
More importantly, at the end, they learned to more empathetically relate to, and design for, target
audience, which may in fact be the opposition.
Acknowledgement
This paper is made possible through the support of my partner Lourdes, and her ability to
endlessly push and inspire me while wrangling two kids. Todo para la familia.
I would like to thank Cal Poly Pomona, Pratt Institute, and every graphic design student I have
ever had the opportunity to work with, in particular, those from the Design for Advertising class,
especially, Jason McClintock, Roxann Elder, and Samantha Maschman.
I would like to thank Professor Clint Orr, and Dr. Mick Luehrman from the University of Central
Missouri for their help, patience, and guidance at the beginning of my career in academia. You
are some of the good guys, it does not go unnoticed.
REFERENCES
“About IDEO,” IDEO. Accessed February 15, 2014, http://www.ideo.com/about/
Mike Bond, “Approaching + Reacting to Research. Design is About Understanding,” A
Designers Research Manual: Succeed in Design by Knowing Your Clients and What
They Really Need. ed. Jennifer and Ken Visocky O’Grady (Singapore: Rockport
Publishers, 2009) 109-111.
“Nike Uses Minor Threat Sneaker: Outfit Apologizes For Borrowing Punks' album art,” Rolling
Stones, accessed February 15, 2014, http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/nikeuses-minor-threat-20050628
Acock: Empathy as a Design Methodology
Judith Schwartz, “Socially Responsible Advertising. Altruism or Exploitation?,” in Citizen
Designer. ed. Steven Heller, Veronique Vienne et al. (Allworth Press, 2003) Pages 8085.
Smith, “Hearing For All”. Design for the Other 90%. (New York: Cooper-Hewit, 2007) 100.