Search

Paternalism is an instance of someone making a decision on behalf of someone else. A professional designer can exhibit paternalism through conceptualizing, defining, and selecting current or preferable situations or while finalizing outcomes for stakeholders. Paternalism is thus, a critical ethical dimension related to the design profession. The design academy and community must theorize paternalism if we are to avoid or reduce it. Paternalism may be present at three critical junctures of design decision making. Our three-layer framework examines paternalism as it relates to design process decisions, decisions about participation in design, and normative framework decisions. The circular model represents the hierarchy of paternalistic decision making: any effort to overcome paternalism at the (inner) design level or (middle) participatory level will be ineffective if it is present in the (outer) normative layer. We discuss the extent of possible exhibitions of paternalism and the challenges to avoiding it in decisions at each layer, and contrast these briefly with overtly paternalistic design approaches, such as design for behavior change. We find that design may be inherently paternalistic, at times may need to be that way (in certain contexts especially, where expertise is required for decisions to be made accurately), and that it is up to the individual designer whether they exhibit paternalism in their design decisions or not., open access

Paternalism is an instance of someone making a decision on behalf of someone else. A professional designer can exhibit paternalism through conceptualizing, defining, and selecting current or preferable situations or while finalizing outcomes for stakeholders. Paternalism is thus, a critical ethical dimension related to the design profession. The design academy and community must theorize paternalism if we are to avoid or reduce it. Paternalism may be present at three critical junctures of design decision making. Our three-layer framework examines paternalism as it relates to design process decisions, decisions about participation in design, and normative framework decisions. The circular model represents the hierarchy of paternalistic decision making: any effort to overcome paternalism at the (inner) design level or (middle) participatory level will be ineffective if it is present in the (outer) normative layer. We discuss the extent of possible exhibitions of paternalism and the challenges to avoiding it in decisions at each layer, and contrast these briefly with overtly paternalistic design approaches, such as design for behavior change. We find that design may be inherently paternalistic, at times may need to be that way (in certain contexts especially, where expertise is required for decisions to be made accurately), and that it is up to the individual designer whether they exhibit paternalism in their design decisions or not., open access

Paternalism is an instance of someone making a decision on behalf of someone else. A professional designer can exhibit paternalism through conceptualizing, defining, and selecting current or preferable situations or while finalizing outcomes for stakeholders. Paternalism is thus, a critical ethical dimension related to the design profession. The design academy and community must theorize paternalism if we are to avoid or reduce it. Paternalism may be present at three critical junctures of design decision making. Our three-layer framework examines paternalism as it relates to design process decisions, decisions about participation in design, and normative framework decisions. The circular model represents the hierarchy of paternalistic decision making: any effort to overcome paternalism at the (inner) design level or (middle) participatory level will be ineffective if it is present in the (outer) normative layer. We discuss the extent of possible exhibitions of paternalism and the challenges to avoiding it in decisions at each layer, and contrast these briefly with overtly paternalistic design approaches, such as design for behavior change. We find that design may be inherently paternalistic, at times may need to be that way (in certain contexts especially, where expertise is required for decisions to be made accurately), and that it is up to the individual designer whether they exhibit paternalism in their design decisions or not., open access

Paternalism is an instance of someone making a decision on behalf of someone else. A professional designer can exhibit paternalism through conceptualizing, defining, and selecting current or preferable situations or while finalizing outcomes for stakeholders. Paternalism is thus, a critical ethical dimension related to the design profession. The design academy and community must theorize paternalism if we are to avoid or reduce it. Paternalism may be present at three critical junctures of design decision making. Our three-layer framework examines paternalism as it relates to design process decisions, decisions about participation in design, and normative framework decisions. The circular model represents the hierarchy of paternalistic decision making: any effort to overcome paternalism at the (inner) design level or (middle) participatory level will be ineffective if it is present in the (outer) normative layer. We discuss the extent of possible exhibitions of paternalism and the challenges to avoiding it in decisions at each layer, and contrast these briefly with overtly paternalistic design approaches, such as design for behavior change. We find that design may be inherently paternalistic, at times may need to be that way (in certain contexts especially, where expertise is required for decisions to be made accurately), and that it is up to the individual designer whether they exhibit paternalism in their design decisions or not., open access

Paternalism is an instance of someone making a decision on behalf of someone else. A professional designer can exhibit paternalism through conceptualizing, defining, and selecting current or preferable situations or while finalizing outcomes for stakeholders. Paternalism is thus, a critical ethical dimension related to the design profession. The design academy and community must theorize paternalism if we are to avoid or reduce it. Paternalism may be present at three critical junctures of design decision making. Our three-layer framework examines paternalism as it relates to design process decisions, decisions about participation in design, and normative framework decisions. The circular model represents the hierarchy of paternalistic decision making: any effort to overcome paternalism at the (inner) design level or (middle) participatory level will be ineffective if it is present in the (outer) normative layer. We discuss the extent of possible exhibitions of paternalism and the challenges to avoiding it in decisions at each layer, and contrast these briefly with overtly paternalistic design approaches, such as design for behavior change. We find that design may be inherently paternalistic, at times may need to be that way (in certain contexts especially, where expertise is required for decisions to be made accurately), and that it is up to the individual designer whether they exhibit paternalism in their design decisions or not., open access

Paternalism is an instance of someone making a decision on behalf of someone else. A professional designer can exhibit paternalism through conceptualizing, defining, and selecting current or preferable situations or while finalizing outcomes for stakeholders. Paternalism is thus, a critical ethical dimension related to the design profession. The design academy and community must theorize paternalism if we are to avoid or reduce it. Paternalism may be present at three critical junctures of design decision making. Our three-layer framework examines paternalism as it relates to design process decisions, decisions about participation in design, and normative framework decisions. The circular model represents the hierarchy of paternalistic decision making: any effort to overcome paternalism at the (inner) design level or (middle) participatory level will be ineffective if it is present in the (outer) normative layer. We discuss the extent of possible exhibitions of paternalism and the challenges to avoiding it in decisions at each layer, and contrast these briefly with overtly paternalistic design approaches, such as design for behavior change. We find that design may be inherently paternalistic, at times may need to be that way (in certain contexts especially, where expertise is required for decisions to be made accurately), and that it is up to the individual designer whether they exhibit paternalism in their design decisions or not., open access

Behavioural design has emerged as a critical new area of research and practice. However, despite the development of extensive lists of possible problem features and suggested solution principles there is little guidance on how these should be connected. Therefore, in this work we systematically examine interactions between major problem features and solution principles, based on an analysis of 218 behavioural design interventions drawn from 139 cases across design domains and foci. This forms the basis for a number of contributions. First, we bring together behavioural and designerly perspectives on problem characterisation via two proposed problem features: change demand and behavioural constraint, related in a two-by-two framework. Second, we synthesised recommendations from across domains and foci to operationalise a list of 23 solution principles relevant to designers. Third, we link these insights in a proposed Behavioural Problem/Solution (BPS) matrix. Further, we identify a number of potential systemic challenges in the reporting and evidencing of behavioural design interventions. Together, these insights substantially extend both theory and practice surrounding problem-solution mapping in behavioural design, and form a foundation for further theory development and synthesis in this area., Design, Organisation and Strategy

Behavioural design has emerged as a critical new area of research and practice. However, despite the development of extensive lists of possible problem features and suggested solution principles there is little guidance on how these should be connected. Therefore, in this work we systematically examine interactions between major problem features and solution principles, based on an analysis of 218 behavioural design interventions drawn from 139 cases across design domains and foci. This forms the basis for a number of contributions. First, we bring together behavioural and designerly perspectives on problem characterisation via two proposed problem features: change demand and behavioural constraint, related in a two-by-two framework. Second, we synthesised recommendations from across domains and foci to operationalise a list of 23 solution principles relevant to designers. Third, we link these insights in a proposed Behavioural Problem/Solution (BPS) matrix. Further, we identify a number of potential systemic challenges in the reporting and evidencing of behavioural design interventions. Together, these insights substantially extend both theory and practice surrounding problem-solution mapping in behavioural design, and form a foundation for further theory development and synthesis in this area., Responsible Marketing and Consumer Behavior, Design, Organisation and Strategy

Behavioural design has emerged as an important domain of design research and practice. However, there is a need to better distinguish behavioural design and subsequently map its unique features and challenges. In answer to this need, this work examines the evolving role of behaviour in design and contrasts this with eleven in-depth behavioural design cases. This has resulted in our identification of behavioural design as a new paradigm of design, with a number of unique characteristics. Based on this, we propose a model of behavioural design. Furthermore, we identify three critical barriers to behavioural design in practice, and suggest ten mitigating enablers. Together these findings provide implications for further development of theory, practice, and education in behavioural design.

Behavioural design has emerged as a critical new area of research and practice. However, despite the development of extensive lists of possible problem features and suggested solution principles there is little guidance on how these should be connected. Therefore, in this work we systematically examine interactions between major problem features and solution principles, based on an analysis of 218 behavioural design interventions drawn from 139 cases across design domains and foci. This forms the basis for a number of contributions. First, we bring together behavioural and designerly perspectives on problem characterisation via two proposed problem features: change demand and behavioural constraint, related in a two-by-two framework. Second, we synthesised recommendations from across domains and foci to operationalise a list of 23 solution principles relevant to designers. Third, we link these insights in a proposed Behavioural Problem/Solution (BPS) matrix. Further, we identify a number of potential systemic challenges in the reporting and evidencing of behavioural design interventions. Together, these insights substantially extend both theory and practice surrounding problem-solution mapping in behavioural design, and form a foundation for further theory development and synthesis in this area.

Behavioural design has emerged as an important domain of design practice and research due to its ability to deliver the desired outcomes beyond technical designs. Research on behavioural design is not successful in discerning it from other design domains, which is important for theory building. This paper discerns the unique characters of behavioural design by tracing the emergence of behaviour in design. Twelve interviews from six behaviour design cases belonging to four firms has been used to further discern the unique characteristics resulting into the conceptual model of behavioural design.

Behavioural design is a crucial research area due to its potential in leveraging the positive outcomes of traditional design. Current need for theory building requires discerning the unique characteristics and challenges of behavioural design. To contribute towards this goal, the paper structures the conceptual and operational uniqueness of the behavioural design using the process and cognitive perspective. Process model uses the basic design cycle to discern the tasks and stages of behavioural design. Cognitive perspective uses dual process theory and cognitive strategies used by designers. Integrated model of process and cognitive perspective is the crucial contribution of this paper. A case study involving interview of lead designers from five behavioural design consultancies has been used to present and elaborate the usefulness of the integrated model of behavioural design. Integrated perspective links the process characters like incomplete analysis, simulation and evaluation stages, over reliance on the prescriptive methods, and unequal emphasis to multiple disciplines, with incomplete analytical process, and solution and knowledge driven strategy along cognitive perspective.

The base (BOP) and the top (TOP) of the world income pyramid represent the poor people and the people from developed countries, respectively. The design of products for the BOP is an important ingredient of the poverty reduction approach that combines business development with poverty alleviation. However, the current understanding of the design for the BOP is limited. This study, using a protocol analysis, compared design processes for the BOP and TOP markets. The results indicate the difference between the design processes for these markets in terms of the design strategy employed by the designers (i.e. problem driven, solution driven strategy), their requirements handling behaviour, and their information behaviour. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.