Shuichiro Ogawa
日本語

Notes · updated 2026-07-09

How Design Encountered Social Science

Throughout the latter half of the twentieth century, design repeatedly absorbed methods and theories from the social sciences. This absorption was not a one-way borrowing. Each time design interrogated its own epistemological standing — what it knows and how it knows — adjacent social-scientific questions and methods were invited in and transformed into forms specific to design.

This note organizes the genealogy of these intersections along five axes: the epistemological turn (is design a science, or a distinct form of knowledge?), methodological importation (what did social-scientific inquiry bring to design?), theoretical importation (what did social-scientific theory illuminate in design?), bridging fields (HCI, design anthropology, STS), and contemporary developments (design justice, transition design).

The Epistemological Turn: What Kind of Knowledge Does Design Produce?

In The Sciences of the Artificial (1969), Herbert Simon defined design as the act of “devising courses of action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones.”1 This formulation was the first systematic attempt to separate design from the analytical sciences and position it as a discipline of synthesis. Simon’s problem-solving framework was grounded in cognitive science and decision theory, making the connection between design and social science explicit from that point onward.

Simon’s model, however, presupposed well-defined problems amenable to optimization. Rittel and Webber (1973), working in the context of urban planning, argued that social problems are inseparable from their formulation and termed them wicked problems.2 The concept originated in social planning theory, but when Buchanan (1992) connected it to a general theory of design thinking, it became part of the basic vocabulary of design research.3 The problems that design addresses do not admit “solutions” in the natural-scientific sense; they involve social and political judgment. This recognition pushed design into the problem domain of the social sciences.

Schon (1983) questioned professional knowledge from a different angle. Against technical rationality (applying theory to solve problems), Schon described the process by which professionals form judgments through a “conversation” with an uncertain situation, calling it reflective practice.4 This argument legitimated the practical knowledge of designers and provided an epistemological foundation that resonated with Dewey’s pragmatism and phenomenological sociology.

Cross (1982, 2006) went further, arguing that design possesses its own mode of knowing, distinct from both the natural sciences and the humanities: designerly ways of knowing.56 Inheriting Archer’s (1979) attempt to position design as an autonomous academic discipline, Cross articulated design’s distinctiveness across three layers: what it knows, how it knows, and the form its knowledge takes. This claim became a foundation for the independence of design research, yet it did not provide a reason to stop importing methods and theories from the social sciences. Possessing a distinctive epistemology and using tools from adjacent fields are not contradictory (the epistemological premises from wicked problems to abduction are organized in Epistemological Premises and Methodological Foundations of Design).

Methodological Importation: Social-Scientific Inquiry and Design

The most direct borrowings from the social sciences into design have been research methods (for a discussion of the epistemological foundations and selection criteria for these methods, see Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Design Research).

Ethnography and participant observation were introduced to design as methods from anthropology. Suchman (1987) observed copier use at Xerox PARC using ethnomethodological techniques and demonstrated that user behavior arises not from pre-formed plans but from interaction with the situation (situated action).7 This finding influenced not only HCI but design research as a whole, establishing the basic stance of “observing user behavior in its actual context.”

In industry, these methods were applied in accelerated forms. Salvador, Bell, and Anderson (1999) systematized design ethnography within Intel’s product development, condensing and concentrating anthropological fieldwork to embed cultural-contextual understanding into the design process.8 Beyer and Holtzblatt (1998) proposed contextual inquiry, formalizing a model in which the researcher understands user behavior at the work site through a master (user) and apprentice (researcher) relationship.9 Both represent practical transformations that incorporate anthropological fieldwork into the design process.

Participatory design emerged from the Nordic labor movement and its democratic traditions. Ehn (1988) argued for workers’ right to participate in the design of computer systems, framing design not as a space for technical decision-making but as a site of political negotiation.10 Greenbaum and Kyng (1991) introduced this tradition to the English-speaking world in Design at Work.11 Participatory design goes beyond the transfer of social-scientific methods: by raising the question of who gets to participate in design decision-making, it directly prefigures the design justice movement discussed below (the literature map of participation and collaboration is Participatory Design and the Design of Collaboration).

The practice of design “using” social-scientific methods has, however, drawn criticism. Dourish and Bell (2011) observed that ethnography in design research is often reduced to a rough understanding of “the user’s context,” stripping away the epistemological rigor that anthropology has refined over decades: reflexivity regarding the researcher’s positionality, long-term relationships with the field, and the politics of description.12 Their critique does not reject methodological borrowing per se; rather, it demands that borrowing entails accepting the method’s underlying assumptions.

Theoretical Importation: What Social-Scientific Theory Has Illuminated in Design

Design research has imported not only methods but also social-scientific theories as analytical frameworks.

Practice theory developed through Bourdieu’s habitus, Giddens’s structuration theory, and Schatzki’s (2002) nexus of practices, before Reckwitz (2002) synthesized it as a “practice turn” in social theory.13 Shove, Pantzar, and Watson (2012) connected this framework to design, arguing that products and services do not hold meaning in isolation but function only as components of “practices” — assemblages of materials, competences, and meanings.14 This perspective extended the object of design from “things” to “the transformation of practices.”

Actor-network theory (ANT) was developed by Latour and Callon in the context of science and technology studies (STS). It treats human and non-human actors (technological artifacts, institutions, texts) symmetrically, positing that their associations (networks) constitute social order.15 In a 2008 lecture on the intersection of design and ANT, Latour himself argued that design is an act that “reconfigures the ontology of problems — what exists.”16 Yaneva (2009) described the architectural design process through ANT, showing that design decisions are formed through interactions with material objects (models, drawings, material samples).17

Activity theory, rooted in the traditions of Vygotsky and Leontiev, was extended by Engestrom (1987) into a framework that analyzes human activity as a system of six elements: subject, tool, object, rules, community, and division of labor. Kaptelinin and Nardi (2006) connected this theory to interaction design, reformulating it as a method for analyzing how technological artifacts are situated within the user’s entire activity system.18

The importation from phenomenology has also been substantial. Dourish (2001) brought Heidegger’s tool analysis and Merleau-Ponty’s bodily knowing into HCI, reconceptualizing how humans engage with computers as embodied interaction.19 Users are not performing abstract information processing; they are engaging with their environment through their bodies. This argument became the theoretical foundation for tangible interaction and social computing.

Bridging Fields: HCI, Design Anthropology, and STS

The intersection of design and social science has given rise to distinct bridging fields.

HCI (human-computer interaction) is commonly described in terms of three waves: the first wave (1980s, cognitive science-based usability), the second wave (1990s, incorporating social-scientific methods — CSCW, ethnography, participatory design), and the third wave (2000s onward, a phenomenological and cultural turn toward experience, meaning, and values).2021 From the second wave onward, HCI has systematically incorporated social-scientific methods and theories, functioning as the largest arena of intersection between design research and the social sciences.

Design anthropology has been proposed not merely as anthropologists participating in design processes, but as a new practice in which anthropology and design are methodologically fused. Gunn, Otto, and Smith (2013) positioned design anthropology as “fieldwork that envisions the future,” seeking to join anthropology’s descriptive methods with design’s projective methods.22 Where conventional anthropology “describes what is,” design anthropology “describes in order to envision what does not yet exist.” Aalto University has established a professorship in Design Anthropology, institutionally advancing the integration of social science into design education.

STS (Science and Technology Studies) analyzes not the impact of technology on society but the process by which technology and society are co-produced. Jasanoff’s (2004) concept of co-production, Winner’s (1980) question “Do artifacts have politics?”, and Bijker, Hughes, and Pinch’s (1987) SCOT (Social Construction of Technology) framework all reveal the mechanisms through which designed artifacts embody and reinforce social order.2324 Design research and STS share the question of how social order is generated through artifacts, and in recent years, researchers from both fields increasingly participate in the same conferences (4S/EASST, DRS).

Contemporary Developments: Social Justice, Transitions, and Beyond the Human

Since the 2010s, the intersection of design and social science has expanded in new directions.

Design justice is a framework systematized by Costanza-Chock (2020) that analyzes asymmetries of power in the design process using intersectionality, the social model of disability, and community organizing theory.25 It inherits the Nordic tradition of participatory design while asking how design is complicit in the intersections of race, gender, class, and disability. It represents a case in which the critical theories of the social sciences have been directly connected to normative principles of design practice.

Transition design is a framework proposed by Irwin, Kossoff, and Tonkinwise (2015) at CMU that takes sustainability “transitions” (sociotechnical transitions) as the object of design.26 Drawing directly on theories from the sustainability transitions literature — Geels’s (2002) multi-level perspective (MLP) and Meadows’s systems thinking — it extends the scope of design from products and services to the transformation of sociotechnical systems.

More-than-human design is a movement to extend design’s subjects and objects beyond anthropocentrism. Forlano (2017) reconsidered design from a posthumanist perspective, proposing that relationships with non-human actors (animals, ecosystems, technological artifacts, algorithms) be placed at the center of design.27 Escobar (2018), writing from a decolonial standpoint, questioned the Western modern ontology of the “one-world world” and argued for design that enables the coexistence of multiple worlds (designs for the pluriverse).28 Both bring social-scientific debates (postcolonial studies, feminist STS, multispecies anthropology) into the ontology of design.

Manzini (2015) discussed design for social innovation as an endeavor in which not only professional designers but also citizens participate.29 This argument sits at the juncture of sociology (social innovation theory) and design (the literature map of democratization and ontological designing is Design Democratization and Ontological Designing).

Where Does Design’s Distinctiveness Lie?

The fact that design has extensively absorbed social-scientific methods and theories does not mean that design is merely an applied branch of social science.

Krippendorff (2006) argued that the object of design is “meaning” and that designers construct the meaning that artifacts hold for stakeholders (making sense of things).30 Kimbell (2011) critically examined the “design thinking” discourse and argued that design knowledge is not an individual cognitive ability but a collective practice embedded in materials and situations.31 Both locate design’s distinctiveness in a mode of knowing that differs from social science.

Social science analyzes “what is.” Design envisions “what does not yet exist.” Ethnography describes the present, practice theory elucidates the structure of action, and ANT traces the composition of networks. Design integrates these insights and proposes artifacts or interventions that do not yet exist.

It is the character of this integrative judgment that distinguishes design from social science. Design absorbs social-scientific methods and theories not for the purpose of analysis but to sharpen the precision of its envisioning. The borrowing of methods and theories is a means, not an end; design’s distinctiveness lies in its integration and projection.

  • Agentic Experience and Design Synthesis — Contrasts academic (36 sources) and industry (73 sources) perspectives on the intersection of AX and design
  • ai-economics-and-design — Economic analysis of AI’s impact on the design labor market
  • the theoretical analysis of design and craft — Analyzes the relationship between design and craft through Pye’s “workmanship of risk” and Polanyi’s tacit knowledge
  • the literature map on exploration and the sociology of evaluation — A literature map organizing seven genealogies of design as exploration and the sociology of evaluation, with a timeline

References

  • Archer, B. (1979). Design as a Discipline. Design Studies, 1(1), 17–20.
  • Beyer, H., & Holtzblatt, K. (1998). Contextual Design: Defining Customer-Centered Systems. Morgan Kaufmann.
  • Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., & Pinch, T. (Eds.). (1987). The Social Construction of Technological Systems. MIT Press.
  • Bødker, S. (2006). When Second Wave HCI Meets Third Wave Challenges. In Proceedings of NordiCHI 2006, 1–8.
  • Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked Problems in Design Thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511637
  • Costanza-Chock, S. (2020). Design Justice: Community-Led Practices to Build the Worlds We Need. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/12255.001.0001
  • Cross, N. (1982). Designerly Ways of Knowing. Design Studies, 3(4), 221–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(82)90040-0
  • Cross, N. (2006). Designerly Ways of Knowing. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-84628-301-9
  • Dourish, P. (2001). Where the Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction. MIT Press.
  • Dourish, P., & Bell, G. (2011). Divining a Digital Future: Mess and Mythology in Ubiquitous Computing. MIT Press.
  • Ehn, P. (1988). Work-Oriented Design of Computer Artifacts. Arbetslivscentrum.
  • Escobar, A. (2018). Designs for the Pluriverse: Radical Interdependence, Autonomy, and the Making of Worlds. Duke University Press.
  • Forlano, L. (2017). Posthumanism and Design. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 3(1), 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2017.08.001
  • Fulton Suri, J., & Gibbs Howard, S. (2006). Going Deeper, Seeing Further: Enhancing Ethnographic Interpretations to Reveal More Meaningful Opportunities for Design. Journal of Advertising Research, 46(3), 246–250.
  • Greenbaum, J., & Kyng, M. (Eds.). (1991). Design at Work: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Gunn, W., Otto, T., & Smith, R. C. (Eds.). (2013). Design Anthropology: Theory and Practice. Bloomsbury.
  • Harrison, S., Tatar, D., & Sengers, P. (2007). The Three Paradigms of HCI. In alt.chi 2007.
  • Irwin, T. (2015). Transition Design: A Proposal for a New Area of Design Practice, Study, and Research. Design and Culture, 7(2), 229–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/17547075.2015.1051829
  • Jasanoff, S. (Ed.). (2004). States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and the Social Order. Routledge.
  • Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. A. (2006). Acting with Technology: Activity Theory and Interaction Design. MIT Press.
  • Kimbell, L. (2011). Rethinking Design Thinking: Part I. Design and Culture, 3(3), 285–306. https://doi.org/10.2752/175470811X13071166525216
  • Krippendorff, K. (2006). The Semantic Turn: A New Foundation for Design. CRC Press.
  • Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford University Press.
  • Latour, B. (2008). A Cautious Prometheus? A Few Steps Toward a Philosophy of Design. In F. Hackne, J. Glynne, & V. Minto (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2008 Annual International Conference of the Design History Society. Universal Publishers, 2–10.
  • Manzini, E. (2015). Design, When Everybody Designs: An Introduction to Design for Social Innovation. MIT Press.
  • Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a Theory of Social Practices. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684310222225432
  • Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730
  • Salvador, T., Bell, G., & Anderson, K. (1999). Design Ethnography. Design Management Journal, 10(4), 35–41.
  • Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books.
  • Shove, E., Pantzar, M., & Watson, M. (2012). The Dynamics of Social Practice: Everyday Life and How It Changes. SAGE.
  • Simon, H. A. (1969/1996). The Sciences of the Artificial (3rd ed.). MIT Press.
  • Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication. Cambridge University Press. (2nd ed. 2007)
  • Winner, L. (1980). Do Artifacts Have Politics? Daedalus, 109(1), 121–136.
  • Yaneva, A. (2009). Making the Social Hold: Towards an Actor-Network Theory of Design. Design and Culture, 1(3), 273–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/17547075.2009.11643291

Footnotes

  1. Simon, H. A. (1969/1996). The Sciences of the Artificial (3rd ed.). MIT Press. ↩

  2. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. ↩

  3. Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked Problems in Design Thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21. ↩

  4. Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books. ↩

  5. Cross, N. (1982). Designerly Ways of Knowing. Design Studies, 3(4), 221–227. ↩

  6. Cross, N. (2006). Designerly Ways of Knowing. Springer. ↩

  7. Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication. Cambridge University Press. (2nd ed. 2007, retitled Human-Machine Reconfigurations) ↩

  8. Salvador, T., Bell, G., & Anderson, K. (1999). Design Ethnography. Design Management Journal, 10(4), 35–41. ↩

  9. Beyer, H., & Holtzblatt, K. (1998). Contextual Design: Defining Customer-Centered Systems. Morgan Kaufmann. ↩

  10. Ehn, P. (1988). Work-Oriented Design of Computer Artifacts. Arbetslivscentrum. ↩

  11. Greenbaum, J., & Kyng, M. (Eds.). (1991). Design at Work: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ↩

  12. Dourish, P., & Bell, G. (2011). Divining a Digital Future: Mess and Mythology in Ubiquitous Computing. MIT Press. ↩

  13. Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a Theory of Social Practices: A Development in Culturalist Theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243–263. ↩

  14. Shove, E., Pantzar, M., & Watson, M. (2012). The Dynamics of Social Practice: Everyday Life and How It Changes. SAGE. ↩

  15. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford University Press. ↩

  16. Latour, B. (2008). A Cautious Prometheus? A Few Steps Toward a Philosophy of Design (with an Eye toward Latour). In F. Hackne, J. Glynne, & V. Minto (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2008 Annual International Conference of the Design History Society. Universal Publishers, 2–10. ↩

  17. Yaneva, A. (2009). Making the Social Hold: Towards an Actor-Network Theory of Design. Design and Culture, 1(3), 273–288. ↩

  18. Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. A. (2006). Acting with Technology: Activity Theory and Interaction Design. MIT Press. ↩

  19. Dourish, P. (2001). Where the Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction. MIT Press. ↩

  20. Bødker, S. (2006). When Second Wave HCI Meets Third Wave Challenges. In Proceedings of NordiCHI 2006, 1–8. ↩

  21. Harrison, S., Tatar, D., & Sengers, P. (2007). The Three Paradigms of HCI. In alt.chi 2007. ↩

  22. Gunn, W., Otto, T., & Smith, R. C. (Eds.). (2013). Design Anthropology: Theory and Practice. Bloomsbury. ↩

  23. Jasanoff, S. (Ed.). (2004). States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and the Social Order. Routledge. ↩

  24. Winner, L. (1980). Do Artifacts Have Politics? Daedalus, 109(1), 121–136. ↩

  25. Costanza-Chock, S. (2020). Design Justice: Community-Led Practices to Build the Worlds We Need. MIT Press. ↩

  26. Irwin, T. (2015). Transition Design: A Proposal for a New Area of Design Practice, Study, and Research. Design and Culture, 7(2), 229–246. ↩

  27. Forlano, L. (2017). Posthumanism and Design. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 3(1), 16–29. ↩

  28. Escobar, A. (2018). Designs for the Pluriverse: Radical Interdependence, Autonomy, and the Making of Worlds. Duke University Press. ↩

  29. Manzini, E. (2015). Design, When Everybody Designs: An Introduction to Design for Social Innovation. MIT Press. ↩

  30. Krippendorff, K. (2006). The Semantic Turn: A New Foundation for Design. CRC Press. ↩

  31. Kimbell, L. (2011). Rethinking Design Thinking: Part I. Design and Culture, 3(3), 285–306. ↩

← All Notes · Home