Design, democracy and public policy: Opportunities for transformation

Prof Lucy Kimbell – Central Saint Martins, University of the Arts London.

For over two decades, citizens, researchers, policy makers and social innovators have turned to design to help innovate in the face of democratic challenges. There are now many examples of projects, teams and resources in governments, civil society and universities around the world drawing on approaches, methods and tools associated with design to bring new thinking and new practices to democracy and public policy. Examples include:

Workshops, e.g., the GovJam network of self-organised workshops bringing people together in collaborative design;
Tools and toolkits, e.g., the OECD Office for Public Sector Innovation;
New teams and organisations in governmentⁱ;
Public challenges, e.g. the Challenge Works programme working with partners to set up challenge prizes to encourage input from across society;
Citizen-led place-making, e.g. projects by Dark Matter Labs;
‘Mission’ oriented innovation, e.g. Vinnova’s handbook.

Terms such as ‘design’ and ‘co-design’ now appear regularly in discussions on democracy. On the one hand, some people advocate more attention being paid to design. For example, in democratic theory, Michael Saward proposed design as having potential to solve problems associated with democracy, saying “Democracy’ is not exhausted by describing or advocating this or that model or set of institutions; rather, it is a design challenge.”ⁱⁱ But on the other hand, design is sometimes just seen as a tool, with specific, but limited utilityⁱⁱⁱ. For example, a report by the UK think tank Demos argued that co-design does not have the potential for strategic, upstream issues^iv.

It is therefore worth clarifying what approaches associated with design bring to engaging citizens, imagining futures, co-creating options and social learning in contexts of uncertainty, turbulence and complexity. Looking across the research base, there is evidence of contributions in at least three areas where democratic procedures, institutions and processes need new ideas and better ways of doing things. Synthesising across studies of design and political science^v, we can identify six practices central to design being mobilised to address social, public and democratic issues.

A focus on people’s experiences of and relations to systems and institutions
Visualisation and materialisation
Co-design with citizens
Collaboration across departments/expertise
Synthesising, reframing and integrating
An iterative process of open ended inquiry

The first contribution of using these practices is the emphasis in design on making things visible and tangible and paying attention to aesthetics and forms. Deliberative democracy emphasises ‘reasoned debate’ and ‘rational speech’; citizens are invited in to talk, but their fears, hopes, dreams and passions are kept out, or at least boxed in. As is now clear, from the results of many electoral processes around the world, and from popular protests and activism, citizens’ voices will be heard, in ways that may disrupt or exceed existing societal formats. The design of deliberative formats such as mini-publics can exclude or marginalise some communities and miss opportunities for re-imagination. Here, practices from design provide a powerful way to bring in and mobilise lived experience in relation to issues and dilemmas – not simply through hearing stories, but through an ongoing purposeful orientation to people’s experiences and relations to the forms of objects, organisations and systems. For example, visualisations of ‘user jouneys’ articulate how people experience current services and institutions, revealing gaps and issues^vi.

A second contribution addresses the need for anticipation in designing new democratic processes and institutions. While the future is unknowable, approaches from design can make future uncertainties graspable, accessible and explorable. Here, practices such as visualising aspects of futures, made specific and tangible in objects, graphics, animations and films, bring possibilities to life. They elaborate aspects of these possible futures, from the point of view of what it would be like for people – turning abstractions into specifics. Choices about aesthetics add nuance and open up opportunities for interpretation and discussion about meaning. For example, films and installations by design group Superflux give form to future possibilities and their implications^vii.

A third contribution from design to ways of doing democracy differently is iterative learning. A mini-public such as a citizen jury or citizen assembly can allow a ‘deep dive’ or collective exploration of a topic. It can convene and hear from different perspectives and synthesise information into opinions, assessments, proposals and recommendations. But learning about potential solutions in context, is not usually enabled by such formats. Here, practices such as prototyping associated with design have strong roots in learning in context and exploring problems by creating potential ‘solutions’.

To conclude, the power of design lies in its capacities to mediate between what is and what could be. Between current ways of being and doing things, and future ways of being and doing things, in which there is uncertainty, ambiguity and contestation. This is well-understood for the realisation of objects, spaces or digital interfaces. But thinking about ‘what could be’ is also part of making strategies, developing policies or creating new institutions, all of which are central to the work of public administrations and leaders. Thinking purposefully and creatively about ‘what could be’ is also relevant to citizens themselves – as we collectively look around at ‘what is’ and imagine and demand alternatives.

It would be naïve to think that design practices work well for every democratic challenge. But this brief discussion suggests the potential of design to use this expertise in enabling democratic innovation.

You can download the text of Lucy Kimbell’s keynote presentation here.