Design Thinking, known by some as Dinking, was developed to systematize creative problem solving and innovation with the key tenet that everyone has creative capability and can use the methodology. Talk about creating a broad market.
The trouble comes in with Dinking’s next core principle: the methodology, usable by anyone, is appropriate to find solutions for any problem. This is a reckless oversimplification on numerous counts but especially regarding the background, perspectives, and skillset of a designer along with the context, significance, and complexity of the problem space. By framing creative problem solving as an innate right, we remove accountability from the designer and diminish the nuance of the problem at hand. Left unchecked, Dinking has the potential to empower vigilante designers who have been taught that their lack of subject matter expertise or lived experience is a super power and view critical feedback as negging from conventional thinkers.
While I certainly think that there is value in democratizing design by developing open-source frameworks and tools, the reality is that clout, means, and privilege are still key ingredients in developing influence as a designer. This means that those designers who hold positions of power may not only be more predisposed to have blindspots in regards to marginalized and underrepresented communities, the confidence instilled in them by Dinking makes them less likely to recognize these shortcomings.
Demonstrated in the out-of-touch, almost exploitative, IDEO prescription for further Dinking workshops in Gainesville, Florida, at its worst, this framework has the potential to exacerbate existing problems. To provide value in an equitable and meaningful way, this framework needs guardrails and inclusion, through clear standards of accountability and co-design that isn’t just performative.
