Workshop Outcomes

1. Workshop Title

Design for Social Impact Workshop

2. Please describe the workshop's actual process flow, including activities and methods used:

The workshop followed a carefully sequenced, full-day agenda designed to help participants move from foundational design mindsets to applied strategic framing in complex social impact contexts.

The day began with opening remarks from TDRI leadership and instructors from Stanford d.school, setting the context for social impact design and outlining the objectives of the workshop. The morning sessions focused on Human-Centered Design, introducing core design mindsets and demonstrating how these behaviors can support decision-making and collaboration. Through examples and guided exercises, participants practiced applying human-centered thinking at both the individual and organizational levels.

Midday sessions shifted toward understanding design processes within organizational complexity, preparing participants to consider how design can be embedded into existing structures and workflows.

In the afternoon, the workshop addressed designing for complex challenges, integrating systems thinking with strategic perspectives. Participants explored how work at different organizational levels is interconnected and discussed common challenges faced in mission-driven organizations. A hands-on session introduced Scopey, an AI-supported design tool, which participants used to clarify their problem scope and refine their project focus.

The workshop concluded with case sharing and facilitated discussion, encouraging reflection on how these methods could be adapted to participants' specific organizational and sectoral contexts.

3. Which part(s) were most effective in driving breakthrough outcomes or concrete results? Why?

The workshop followed a carefully sequenced, full-day agenda designed to help participants move from foundational design mindsets to applied strategic framing in complex social impact contexts.

The day began with opening remarks from TDRI leadership and instructors from Stanford d.school, setting the context for social impact design and outlining the objectives of the workshop. The morning sessions focused on Human-Centered Design, introducing core design mindsets and demonstrating how these behaviors can support decision-making and collaboration. Through examples and guided exercises, participants practiced applying human-centered thinking at both the individual and organizational levels.

Midday sessions shifted toward understanding design processes within organizational complexity, preparing participants to consider how design can be embedded into existing structures and workflows.

In the afternoon, the workshop addressed designing for complex challenges, integrating systems thinking with strategic perspectives. Participants explored how work at different organizational levels is interconnected and discussed common challenges faced in mission-driven organizations. A hands-on session introduced Scopey, an AI-supported design tool, which participants used to clarify their problem scope and refine their project focus.

The workshop concluded with case sharing and facilitated discussion, encouraging reflection on how these methods could be adapted to participants' specific organizational and sectoral contexts.

4. From the organizer's perspective, please provide a concrete description of the most valuable outputs or observations generated during the workshop.

From the organizer's perspective, the most valuable outcomes were not polished artifacts, but clear, actionable reframing of participants' real-world challenges. Many participants arrived with problems that were either too broad, too solution-driven, or constrained by existing organizational assumptions. By the end of the workshop, participants were able to articulate more precise problem statements, identify key system dynamics, and clarify the role design could realistically play within their context.

A particularly strong outcome was observing participants gain strategic confidence—moving from uncertainty or overwhelm to a clearer sense of direction and next steps. The use of Scopey supported this shift by acting as a reflective design coach, helping participants test assumptions and avoid premature solutioning.

Another key observation was the value of cross-sector dialogue. Participants from government, nonprofits, and mission-driven organizations frequently surfaced shared challenges around power dynamics, stakeholder alignment, and long-term impact. These exchanges revealed common patterns that transcend sector boundaries, suggesting strong potential for future comparative research or shared tool development.

5. During the discussions, what new issues, tensions, or research directions were revealed through this workshop?

Key tensions emerged around balancing systemic change with organizational constraints, particularly in public-sector and nonprofit contexts. Participants highlighted challenges related to decision-making authority, political cycles, and resource limitations.

A notable research direction involves how AI-supported tools like Scopey can responsibly support strategic framing without oversimplifying equity or power-related issues.

6. What new insight(s) or perspective shifts emerged in cross-disciplinary or cross-cultural exchange? Please provide some concrete examples:

Participants gained new appreciation for how similar social challenges manifest differently across sectors.

For example, government participants recognized parallels between policy constraints and nonprofit funding limitations, while nonprofit practitioners gained insight into the complexity of public-sector accountability. These exchanges shifted perspectives from "sector-specific problems" to shared systemic patterns, enabling more empathetic and collaborative thinking.

7. Could the outcomes be developed into a publication, toolkit, research project, or future collaborative initiative? If so, please explain the potential format and purpose:

The primary outcomes of this workshop were conceptual clarity and practical framing, rather than fully developed projects or research outputs. The workshop provided participants with templates, guiding questions, and design tools intended to help them clarify problem spaces, align strategy, and make more informed decisions about where and how to apply design methods.

While the workshop did not directly lead to defined follow-up projects, publications, or formal collaborations, the materials and tools introduced could serve as a foundation for future work. In particular, the templates and Scopey-supported exercises may be adapted for internal use within organizations, future training programs, or as supporting materials in subsequent workshops.

Any development into a publication, toolkit, or research initiative would require additional facilitation, longitudinal engagement, or structured follow-up beyond the scope of this single workshop.

8. Overall, did this workshop successfully deliver or represent its research and design objectives? Why or why not?

Yes. The workshop successfully delivered its objectives by equipping participants with integrated methods to navigate complexity, clarify strategy, and move from insight to action. Rather than offering isolated tools, it demonstrated how design, systems thinking, strategy, and equity can work together—accurately reflecting the research foundations and applied intent of the Integrative Design approach.

1. Workshop Title

Critical Participatory Co-Design: Exploring Critical Themes for the Future of Design Research.

2. Please describe the workshop's actual process flow, including activities and methods used:

The workshop is structured around Critical Participatory Co-Design, a method combining paper prototyping and genAI to facilitate the speculative, collaborative exploration of the "not-yet-known".

3. Which part(s) were most effective in driving breakthrough outcomes or concrete results? Why?

Paper prototyping builds shared language; reflexive questioning synthesizes; AI interaction enables participants to raise critical issues and voice perspectives they'd hesitate to express.

4. From the organizer's perspective, please provide a concrete description of the most valuable outputs or observations generated during the workshop.

The workshop generated two primary categories of outputs: the research questions formulated by each group and their concluding reflections. Three groups engaged with distinct design research themes. The first group investigated aging in rural Japan, asking: How can design contribute to more comfortable and less lonely aging experiences for elderly populations left behind in rural areas? Their visual explorations integrated community spaces, plant-based interventions, and speculative technology-driven pods.

The second group examined the environmental and social implications of vegan meat production in Taiwan, posing: Where and how will humans and previously exploited farm animals coexist, and how can design facilitate harmonious co-living? The third group explored a global sustainability scenario, questioning: If rising UV indices force human migration underground, what implications does this hold for quality of life, environmental justice, and access to escape? Collectively, these outputs reveal how the workshop successfully prompted participants to move beyond isolated design problems toward systemic, speculative inquiries that integrate social, environmental, and technological dimensions.

5. During the discussions, what new issues, tensions, or research directions were revealed through this workshop?

The workshop revealed participants' critical reflexivity through the formulation of wicked problems across all three scenarios. Each group engaged with complex environmental and social issues that resist straightforward solutions. The scenarios addressed interconnected challenges spanning aging demographics, food systems and animal welfare, and climate-driven displacement - issues that implicate multiple stakeholders and competing values.

While some participants moved deliberately away from solution-oriented framing, embracing the ambiguity and complexity inherent to these problems instead, others found this reorientation challenging. This tension itself proved instructive, highlighting the difficulty of shifting from instrumental design thinking toward speculative, problem-posing approaches. Nevertheless, all three scenarios demonstrated relevance and forward-looking perspectives that warrant sustained attention in future design research. The workshop thus surfaced not only substantive research directions but also methodological insights regarding how designers can productively engage with irreducible complexity.

6. What new insight(s) or perspective shifts emerged in cross-disciplinary or cross-cultural exchange? Please provide some concrete examples.

The generative AI method, previously used in German-speaking contexts, was now utilized by a predominantly East Asian participant group. A key insight emerged: participants from both backgrounds appreciated being able to outsource critique to an external entity. This allowed the group to openly discuss potential problems and failures without having to express criticism directly to each other. The generative AI functioned as a biased intermediary, making it easier for participants from diverse cultural backgrounds to engage in candid dialogue about potential pitfalls in the future of design research.

7. Could the outcomes be developed into a publication, toolkit, research project, or future collaborative initiative? If so, please explain the potential format and purpose:

The workshop outcomes will be developed further through continued refinement of the fully open-source tangibleAI machine, which has demonstrated the capacity to enable critical-reflective engagement with large-scale transformations across diverse contexts. Results from this workshop are being considered for publication at the next IASDR conference, providing an opportunity to share methodological insights and empirical findings with the broader design research community.

8. Overall, did this workshop successfully deliver or represent its research and design objectives? Why or why not?

The workshop successfully delivered on its dual objectives. First, it provided a reflexive method for exploring Design Next through creative and critical tools, enabling participants to collectively examine how their practice may evolve in response to emerging challenges. Second, participants gained hands-on experience with the Critical Participatory Co-Design method, an accessible approach for navigating complex, wicked problems. The workshop thus fostered both methodological insight and practical inspiration, creating a productive exchange between research and practice.

However, participant fluctuation presented a notable limitation. Delayed start times due to waiting for additional participants, combined with mid-workshop departures for concurrent sessions, disrupted continuity and made it difficult to maintain coherent scenario development across all groups. This instability affected the depth of engagement and the coherence of outcomes, suggesting that future iterations would benefit from more structured scheduling and confirmed participant commitment.