Abstract
User-centred approaches to design stress the importance of the designer understanding the needs and experiences of the user when designing products (Sanders E, Dandavate U, Designing for experiencing: new tools. In Overbeeke CJ, Hekkert P, (eds) Proceedings of the first international conference on design and emotion, 3–5 November 1999, Delft University of Technology, Delft, pp 87–92, 1999). How designers and others involved in designing have understood these needs has evolved since Taylor’s seminal work in the early 1900s. One emerging and influential user-centred approach to design over the last decade has been inclusive design. Researchers working in this field have developed ways of working or ‘signature pedagogies’ that allow them to think critically and empathise with users, to understand their needs from their perspective and to use this understanding to critically inform their own actions when designing, as well as educating others in the practices of inclusive design. I will discuss these signature pedagogies, arguing that they are crucial for developing critical thinking dispositions and engendering empathy when designing and educating others. I will then discuss how the signature pedagogies of inclusive design were successfully introduced into high schools in a number of countries.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsBibliography
Alexander, R. (2008). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk (4th ed.). Cambridge, MA: Dialogos.
Anderman, E., & Maehr, L. (1994). Motivation and schooling in the middle grades. Review of Educational Research, 64(2), 287–309.
Baron-Cohen, S., & Wheelwright, S. (2004). The empathy quotient: An investigation of adults with asperger syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal sex differences. Journal of Autism and Development Disorders, 34(2), 163–175.
Battarbee, K., & Koskinen, I. (2005). Co-experience: User experience as interaction. CoDesign, 1, 5–15.
Baumgart, A., & Neuhausre, A. (2009). Scientific management in the operating room. Quality Safety Health Care. doi:10.1136/qshc.2009.032409.
Brown, J., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.
Buchanau, M., & Fulton-Suri, J. (2000). Experience prototyping. In D. Boyarski & W. Kellogg (Eds.), Proceedings of the conference on designing interactive systems: Processes, methods, and techniques (pp. 424–433). New York: ACM Press.
Cardoso, C., & Clarkson, P. (2012). Simulation in user-centred design: Helping designers to empathise with atypical users. Journal of Engineering Design, 23(1), 1–22.
Coleman, R., Lebbon, C., & Myserson, J. (2003). Design and empathy. In P. J. Clarkson, R.Coleman, S. Keates, & C. Lebbon (Eds.), Inclusive design: Design for the whole population (pp. 478–499). London: Springer.
Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (2000). Assessing the habits of mind. In A. L. Costa & B. Kallick (Eds.), Assessing and reporting on habits of mind (pp. 29–53). Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).
Cross, N. (1997). Descriptive models of creative design: Application to an example. Design Studies, 18(4), 427–440.
Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking. London: Bloomsbury.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 313–335). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York: Gosset/Putmam Press.
Davis, M. (1994). Empathy: A social psychological approach. Dubuque: Brown & Benchmark.
Dewey, J. (1938). Education and experience. Kappa Delta Pi lecture series. New York: Macmillan.
Dong, H., Nickpour, F. & McGinley, C. (2009). Designing ergonomic data tools for designers. In DS 58-8: Proceedings of ICED 09. The 17th International Conference on Engineering Design, Design Information and Knowledge 8: 53–64.
Dreyfuss, H. (1955). Designing for people. Re-released in paperback by Allworth Press (2004).
Ennis, R. (1996). Critical thinking dispositions: Their nature and assessability. Informal Logic, 18(2&3), 165–182.
Flavell, J. H. (1987). Speculations about the nature and development of metacognition. In F. E.Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation and understanding (pp. 21–29). Hillside: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gallo, D. (1982). Educating for empathy, reason and imagination. Journal of Creative Behavior, 23(2), 98–115.
Galton, M. (2007). Teaching and learning in the primary classroom. London: Sage.
Getzels, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1976). The creative vision. New York: Wiley.
Glaser, R. (1984). Education and thinking: The role of knowledge. American Psychologist, 39(2), 93–104.
Goodman-Deane, J., Waller, S., Latham, K., Price, H., Tenneti, R., & Clarkson, P. (2016). Differences in vision performance in different scenarios and implications for design. Applied Ergonomics, 55, 149–155.
Green, M. (2001). Variations on a blue guitar. New York: Teacher College Press.
Halpern, D. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: Dispositions, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 53(4), 449–455.
Harpaz, Y. (2007). Approaches to teaching thinking: Toward a conceptual mapping of the field. Teachers College Record, 109(8), 1845–1874.
Hickman, R. (2013). Empathy and art education. In B. White & T. Costantino (Eds.), Aesthetics, empathy and education (pp. 235–246). New York: Peter Lang.
Hosking, I., Waller, S., & Clarkson, J. (2010). It is normal to be different: Applying inclusive design in industry. Interacting with Computers, 22(6), 496–501.
Hosking, I., Cornish, K., Bradley, M., & Clarkson, P. (2015). Empathic engineering: Helping deliver dignity through design. Journal of Medical Engineering & Technology, 39(7), 388–394.
Katz, L. (1993). Dispositions: Definitions and implications for early childhood practice. ERIC #211. Retrieved from http://ceep.crc.uiuc.edu/eecearchive/books/disposit.html
Keates, S., & Clarkson, P. (2003). Countering design exclusion: An introduction to inclusive design. London: Springer.
Koskinen, I., Batterbee, K., & Mattelmaki, T. (2003). Empathic design, user experience in product design. Helsinki: IT Press.
Kouprie, M., & Visser, F. (2009). A framework for empathy in design: Stepping into and out of the user’s life. Journal of Engineering Design, 20(5), 437–448.
KunyK, D., & Olson, J. (2001). Clarification of conceptualisations of empathy. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 35(3), 317–325.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Lawrence, E., Shaw, P., Baker, D., Baron-Cohen, S., & David, A. (2004). Measuring empathy: Reliability and validity of the empathy quotient. Psychological Medicine, 34, 911–924.
Lawson, B. (2001). How designers think: The design process demystified (3rd ed.). Boston: Architectural Press.
Lucas, B., Hanson, J., & Claxton, G. (2014). Thinking like and engineer. London: Royal Academy of Engineering.
McCormick, R. (2004). Issues of learning and knowledge in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14, 21–44.
McDonagh, D., & Thomas, J. (2011). Design + empathy=intuitive design outcomes. The Design Journal, 14(2), 147–150.
McDonagh-Philp, D., & Denton, H. (1999). Using focus groups to support the designer in the evaluation of existing products: A case study. The Design Journal, 2(2), 20–21.
McGinley, C., & Dong, H. (2011). Designing with information and empathy: Delivering human information to designers. The Design Journal, 14(2), 187–206.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Nicholl, B., McLellan, R., & Kotob, W. (2008). Understanding creativity for creative understanding, Research report. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Nicholl, B., Hosking, I., Elton, E., Lee, Y., Bell, J., & Clarkson, P. (2013). Inclusive design in the Key Stage 3 classroom: An investigation of teachers’ understanding and implementation of user-centred design principles in design and technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(4), 921–938.
Nicholl, B., Flutter, J., Hosking, I., & Clarkson, J. (2014). Joining up the DOTs: Authentic teaching and learning in Design and Technology education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43(4), 435–450.
Passmoor, J. (1967). On teaching to be critical. In R. S. Peters (Ed.), The concept of education. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Paul, R. (1995). Critical thinking: How to prepare students for a rapidly changing world. Cheltenham: Hawker Brownlow Education.
Perkins, D., Jay, E., & Tishman, S. (1993). Beyond abilities: A dispositional theory of thinking. The Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39(1), 1–21.
Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgement of the child. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner.
Pollard, A. (2002). Reflective teaching in schools. London: Continuum.
Porter, C., & Porter, J. (1999). Designing for usability: Input of ergonomics information at an appropriate point, and appropriate form, in the design process. In W. Green & P. Jordan (Eds.), Human factors in product design: Current practice and future trends (pp. 26–36). London: Taylor & Francis.
Rogers, C. (1975). Empathic: An unappreciated way of being. The Counseling Psychologist, 5(2), 2–10.
Sanders, E., & Dandavate, U. (1999). Designing for experiencing: New tools. In C. J. Overbeeke & P. Hekkert (Eds.), Proceedings of the first international conference on design and emotion (pp. 87–92). Delft: Delft University of Technology.
Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
Scriven, M. & Paul, R. (2003). Defining critical thinking. Available online at www.criticalthinking.org. Accessed Mar 3rd 2015.
Shulman, L. (2005). Pedagogies. Liberal Education, 91(2), 18–25.
Sutherland, J. (1993). The nature and evolution of phenomenological empathy in nursing: An historical treatment. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 7, 369–376.
Tichener, E. (1909). Elementary psychology of the thought processes. New York: Macmillan.
United Nations. (2009). World population aging: 1950–2050. New York: United Nations.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Ward, T., Smith, S., & Vaid, J. (1997). Conceptual structures and processes in creative thought. In T. Ward, S. Smith, & J. Vaid (Eds.), Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes (pp. 1–17). Washington, DC: American Psychologist Association.
Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100.
Acknowledgement
I would like to acknowledge and thank my work colleagues, Ian Hosking, Julia Flutter and Katie Klavenes for their valuable contributions they have made in the wider work that has informed this chapter.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Nicholl, B. (2017). Empathy as an Aspect of Critical Thought and Action in Design and Technology. In: Williams, P., Stables, K. (eds) Critique in Design and Technology Education. Contemporary Issues in Technology Education. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3106-9_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3106-9_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-3104-5
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-3106-9
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)