Moving beyond surface problems in design and social science
Design and social science increasingly emphasize moving beyond surface problems to uncover the structural factors that sustain issues. When social science researchers stress the importance of examining more than the visible symptoms of a problem, they aim to explore interconnected elements—such as power dynamics, cultural norms and historical legacies—that shape a problem’s context. This approach reveals structural elements like systemic inequalities, norms and policy frameworks, providing a more comprehensive understanding of the systems that perpetuate social issues. Such an exploration allows researchers to identify root causes and leverage points for effective intervention, helping to propose solutions that address a system’s underlying structures rather than treating its surface-level symptoms alone.
Levels of design practice for systemic impact
Design practices range from immediate, tangible solutions to deeply systemic approaches. This spectrum can be divided into three different levels.
First, there are surface-level design methods focused on symptoms. These concentrate on addressing immediate, visible manifestations, aiming to create easily implemented solutions for specific issues. Examples include redesigning a user interface to improve usability or developing a new product. Such solutions are usually short-term, linear technical fixes that treat symptoms without addressing the systemic root causes of problems.
At the next level are structural design methods focused on systems. Here, designers explore and address the broader social, economic, political and cultural systems that shape and sustain issues. The goal is to find leverage points within these systems to drive change. Solutions at this level require an understanding of system dynamics and often involve collaboration across stakeholders, disciplines and sectors.
The third level, meta-level design, involves questioning and challenging the beliefs and values underpinning these systems. Designers working at this level will reframe the problem space, challenging assumptions and exploring new perspectives to foster radical shifts in mindset and behavior, paving the way for transformational change.
The social body and structural understanding
In social sciences, the key concept of “social body” is closely related to the idea of social structure, as both examine how society organizes and influences individuals and groups. The social body serves as one of the most foundational concept in structural analysis, representing a collective entity shaped by social, cultural and political forces. Like social structure, it encompasses shared experiences, norms and practices that create a cohesive social fabric.
Yet, unlike a static structure, the social body is dynamic; it does not merely inherit norms but actively participates in reproducing and evolving them. This dynamic interaction reflects Pierre Bourdieu’s notion of habitus—the internalized set of dispositions shaped by social structures—which influences and is influenced by, the social body’s continuous interactions. According to Bourdieu, habitus operates within these structures to guide perceptions, thoughts and behaviors, ultimately reinforcing or transforming the social body’s norms over time.
As a collective, the social body embodies both cohesion and contradiction. It serves as a space of societal contradictions, oppositions and conflicts, shaped by power dynamics, struggles for recognition and hierarchies that structure social relations. Power and domination are embedded within the social body, leading to conflicts between social groups that, through their interactions, shape and sometimes reinforce social hierarchies. Yet, at the same time, the social body acts as a cohesive force, integrating individuals through socialization and shared norms, promoting stability and continuity.
The dual nature of the social body is expressed through institutions, cultural practices and collective representations, which not only set boundaries for behavior but also empower social action. Bourdieu’s concept of symbolic power is relevant here; institutions and practices both unify society and maintain distinctions, using culture to legitimize existing power structures. By shaping perceptions of legitimacy, symbolic power enables certain structures to persist unquestioned, while the social body both reproduces and at times, resists these norms. The social body, therefore, embodies the tension between forces of division and integration, a balance essential to the functioning and evolution of social structures.
Social structures and their influence on behavior
Social structures play a powerful role in shaping behavior, ideas and perceptions through the mechanisms of socialization, identity formation and social influence. From a young age, individuals internalize norms and beliefs through socialization, shaping attitudes and worldviews. As identity develops within these structures, affiliations based on factors like gender, race and socioeconomic status affect self-perception and social interactions. Social influence drives people to conform to group norms, creating pressures to adhere to the structures that dominate a given society. Power dynamics within these structures add another layer of influence, determining access to resources and opportunities while structures affect cognitive processes, selectively reinforcing beliefs that align with prevailing social views and limiting alternative perspectives. Market forces are a further influence, where consumerism, demand and supply continuously shape choices and behavior, reinforcing capitalist ideologies.
Ethical responsibility in addressing structural issues through design
Addressing structural issues instead of symptoms is both an ethical and practical responsibility within design. Design extends beyond aesthetics and function, taking on complex issues within existing systems. A superficial approach that overlooks structural factors can reduce design to mere symptom management activity, producing solutions that are often temporary or, worse, that inadvertently sustain the very problems they aim to solve. In socio-technical systems where issues like environmental degradation and inequality are deeply embedded, addressing only surface symptoms can perpetuate these problems or exacerbate their impact. By committing to examining underlying structures, designers can move beyond temporary solutions to address the foundational causes of problems.
Co-creation for effective and contextually relevant solutions
Traditionally, design has often relied on top-down approaches, where experts develop solutions with minimal input from the communities affected. While polished, these solutions frequently lack contextual relevance, which limits their effectiveness over time. Co-creation has emerged as a response to these limitations, promoting equity and empathy and allowing for more grounded and practical solutions. Individuals with firsthand experience navigating systemic challenges offer valuable insights that can inform more meaningful design outcomes. In this participatory approach, designers work with communities rather than designing solutions for them, valuing local knowledge as essential expertise. Co-creation therefore allows designers to incorporate perspectives that might otherwise be overlooked in traditional, top-down models, ultimately leading to solutions that are more relevant and sustainable.
Moving from symptoms to system-oriented design
Transitioning from symptom-focused to system-oriented design requires a shift in approach. Designers must move toward collaborative sense-making, creating spaces for dialogue among diverse stakeholders. By thoroughly investigating the specific realities and contexts of those they serve, designers can draw on methodologies from social sciences, such as ethnography and anthropology, to uncover complex dynamics that influence the problem space. This approach yields insights that help avoid common pitfalls of a top-down perspective, leading to more contextually appropriate solutions.
Systems thinking as a framework for design
Systems thinking supports designers in recognizing interconnections within systems, which enables them to identify leverage points for more comprehensive interventions. Design researchers bridge abstract systemic structures with actionable, concrete solutions for stakeholders, shifting the focus from isolated issues to dynamic, interwoven systems. This adaptive approach positions design as an ongoing process that responds to system shifts, allowing it to adapt over time.
Donella Meadows’ work in systems thinking provides immensely valuable guidance for understanding complexity, uncertainty and interconnectedness. By focusing on root causes instead of surface-level symptoms, designers can identify meaningful leverage points for lasting change. Through an iterative and learning-centered approach, Meadows’ principles help designers recognize the behaviors and feedback loops within systems, challenging them to develop solutions that are responsive to broader system dynamics.
Addressing power dynamics within design processes
Designers working to create transformative impact must also address the power dynamics embedded within systems. Effective design requires understanding who holds power, how it operates and how it affects decision-making. Recognizing these dynamics allows designers to identify dominant narratives and question biases that might otherwise sustain systemic issues, creating space for alternative pathways that address structural challenges in a more meaningful way.
Paradigm-oriented design and challenging assumptions
Paradigm-oriented design offers an intriguing approach that draws on the insights of Edgar Morin and Donella Meadows. This method involves a deep, critical examination of the underlying beliefs, assumptions and mental models that shape systemic challenges, aiming for transformation at the foundational level.
Morin’s Complex Thought encourages designers to adopt transdisciplinary perspectives, breaking free from narrow fields of study to foster a more comprehensive understanding of interconnected systems. This openness allows designers to trace problems across disciplinary boundaries, revealing connections and complexities that might otherwise remain hidden. As Meadows recommends, “defy disciplines” and follow a system wherever it leads, encouraging designers to see systems as cohesive wholes rather than isolated parts.
In this context, paradigms become powerful leverage points—sources from which a system’s goals, structures and behaviors arise. Changing the paradigm itself is one of the highest leverage actions for systemic transformation. This requires designers to question dominant worldviews actively and repeatedly, as Meadows suggests:
“Just question it. Observe what comes back at you, and question it some more.”
This iterative questioning process not only exposes assumptions to critique but also invites a broader perspective that includes others in reshaping the system’s guiding principles.
By shifting a system’s underlying goals and focusing on the well-being of the entire system rather than optimizing individual parts, paradigm-oriented design aligns with Meadows’ call to “go for the good of the whole.” This approach invites designers to expand their focus, creating transformative change that is sustainable and deeply integrated into the fabric of the system.
Building a socially impactful design approach
In applying system-oriented and paradigm-based methods, designers can strengthen their approach by integrating strategies for lasting impact: adopting a holistic perspective, embracing complexity, identifying leverage points, engaging in co-creation with diverse stakeholders and questioning assumptions that reinforce systemic barriers. This broader view moves design beyond traditional aesthetic and functional constraints, positioning it as a socially impactful and transformative practice. By revealing and challenging the structures that uphold conservative and capitalist ideologies, a systemic approach to design empowers practitioners to address multifaceted social issues, craft solutions that are equitable and sustainable and ultimately engage deeply with social transformation.
These insights, rooted in critical social science, position design as a powerful tool for change, evolving from treating visible symptoms to understanding and reshaping the structures that sustain complex systems.