52716 Design Thinking for Social Innovation
Warning: The information on this page is indicative. The subject outline for a
particular session, location and mode of offering is the authoritative source
of all information about the subject for that offering. Required texts, recommended texts and references in particular are likely to change. Students will be provided with a subject outline once they enrol in the subject.
Subject handbook information prior to 2025 is available in the Archives.
Credit points: 6 cp
Result type: Grade and marks
Anti-requisite(s): 54096 Design Thinking for Social Innovation
Description
This subject uses design-thinking methodologies to empower students to lead social entrepreneurship and innovation movements using interdisciplinary perspectives. It introduces students to the process of design thinking (defining the problem, empathising, ideating and innovating) using experimentation, and facilitates solutions through radical cross-boundary thinking in order to effect social change using a human-centred approach. This subject helps students develop the essential design-thinking skills of observing, interviewing, listening, empathising, team building, communicating, and analysing in order to imagine and create innovative solutions to common social issues by approaching them at a community level. Students, in teams that mimic professional roles, collaboratively develop a design solution for a real-world scenario through the process of generating, iterating, and evolving an innovative project plan that they can add to their portfolios.
Subject learning objectives (SLOs)
a. | Apply a design thinking methodology to tackle a ‘big picture’ problem or a social justice issue in society through proposing a small but significant change at a local level. |
---|---|
b. | Engage in radical collaboration with students from across disciplines in the School of Communication and other Faculties, and mentors from both university and industry. |
c. | Empathise with users/clients in a specific domain, and from this, develop a point of view towards a chosen problem |
d. | Actively reflect on the processes and methodologies being used and be able to identify learning needs and seek answers independently. |
Content (topics)
This subject spans theoretical and intellectual insights from a number of disciplines including Communication, Design, Sociology, Anthropology, User Experience, Human Psychology, IT, and Digital Studies, all tied together through the Design Thinking approach. The subject draws heavily on Design Theory, Sensemaking Theory, Framing Theory, and Systems Theory. Content includes theoretical concepts around observations, interviews, listening, persona building, storytelling, empathy, and ethics in order to imagine and create innovative solutions to common social issues by approaching them at a community level. Students, in teams that mimic professional roles, collaboratively develop and design a solution space for a real-world problem space, using stakeholder analysis and system thinking.
Assessment
Assessment task 1: Problem Definition and Empathy Mapping
Objective(s): | b, c and d | ||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Weight: | 20% | ||||||||||||||||||||
Length: | Part 1: A 5-minute group presentation in class Part 2: A 1000-word report submitted online as a group. | ||||||||||||||||||||
Criteria linkages: |
SLOs: subject learning objectives CILOs: course intended learning outcomes |
Assessment task 2: Design Journal (individual task)
Objective(s): | a, c and d | ||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Weight: | 50% | ||||||||||||||||||||
Length: | The final word count of the journal should be approx. 1,500 plus visuals. This equates to an average of 250 words per fortnight over 12 weeks. Students may wish to do shorter weekly entries but they must provide evidence of continuous entries throughout the semester. | ||||||||||||||||||||
Criteria linkages: |
SLOs: subject learning objectives CILOs: course intended learning outcomes |
Assessment task 3: Final Project Report and Business Proposal
Objective(s): | a, b, c and d | ||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Weight: | 30% | ||||||||||||||||||||
Length: | A 10-minute presentation in class and a 1500-word report. | ||||||||||||||||||||
Criteria linkages: |
SLOs: subject learning objectives CILOs: course intended learning outcomes |
Required texts
- Barnard, D. (2017, November 10). 18 Ways to Make Your Presentation More Interactive. Virtualspeech.com.
- Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2009). Design Thinking for Social Innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 8(1), 31–35. https://doi.org/10.48558/58Z7-3J85
- Dalton, & Kahute, T. (2016). Why Empathy and Customer Closeness is Crucial for Design Thinking. Design Management Review, 27(2), 20–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/drev.12004
- Dam, R. F. & Teo, Y. S. (2019). Prototyping: Learn Eight Common Methods and Best Practices. The Interaction Design Foundation; UX courses.
- Dam, R. F., Teo, Y. S. (2019) ‘Introduction to the Essential Ideation Techniques which are the Heart of Design Thinking’. Interaction Design Foundation.
- Dam, R. F., Teo, Y. S. (2020) ‘Stage 2 in the Design Thinking Process: Define the Problem and Interpret the Results’, Interaction Design Foundation.
- Elsbach, K. D. (2003). How to pitch a brilliant idea. Harvard Business Review, 81(9), 117-134. https://hbr.org/2003/09/how-to-pitch-a-brilliant-idea
- Peters, B. G. (2017). What is so wicked about wicked problems? A conceptual analysis and a research program. Policy and Society, 36(3), 385–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2017.1361633
- Shuhalii, A. (2020). What is the difference between low and high fidelity prototypes? Medium.
- Sinha, V. (2021). Introduction to Storytelling and Pitching. Paper presented at Virtual Experience Series (VES)—October, 2020. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
- Turner, D. W. (2010). Qualitative Interview Design: A Practical Guide for Novice Investigators. The Qualitative Report, 15(3), 754-760. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2010.1178
Recommended texts
- Carlgren, L., Rauth, I., & Elmquist, M. (2016). Framing Design Thinking: The Concept in Idea and Enactment. Creativity and Innovation Management, 25(1), 38–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12153
- Dorst, K. (2011). The core of “design thinking” and its application. Design Studies, 32(6), 521–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.006
- Johansson-Sköldberg, U., Woodilla, J. & Çetinkaya, M. 2013, 'Design Thinking: Past, Present and Possible Futures', Creativity and Innovation Management, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 121-46.
- Johansson-Sköldberg, U., Woodilla, J., & Çetinkaya, M. (2013). Design Thinking: Past, Present and Possible Futures. Creativity and Innovation Management, 22(2), 121–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12023
- Manzini, E. (2007). Design Research for Sustainable Social Innovation. Design Research Now, 233–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7643-8472-2_14
- Manzini, E. (2010). Small, Local, Open, and Connected: Design for Social Innovation and Sustainability, Journal of Design Strategies, 4(1), 8-11. Accessible from http://www.ut-ie.com/articles/darwin-journal.pdf
- Ezio Manzini. (2015). Design, when everybody designs : an introduction to design for social innovation. Mit Press, Cop. (E-text available from UTS Library)
- Narayan, B. (2018). Using a co-experience approach to improve international students’ classroom experience: A practice report from within an Australian higher education setting. Opus.lib.uts.edu.au. http://hdl.handle.net/10453/132001
- van der Bijl-Brouwer, M., & Dorst, K. (2017). Advancing the strategic impact of human-centred design. Design Studies, 53, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2017.06.003