Three Tensions Behavioral Design Must Navigate
Design’s development from buzzy hotshot to established practice offers insight into the path behavioral design could take and the choices it will face along the way.
Ruth Schmidt is an associate professor at the Institute of Design (ID) at the Illinois Institute of Technology. Her work sits at the intersection of behavioral science and humanity-centered design, combining strategic design methodologies and behavioral insights to inform effective, ethical solutions for complex system challenges. Prior to this she was a senior leader at Doblin, an innovation consultancy within Deloitte, where she led teams in applying behavioral and design methodologies to help clients solve challenges and embed innovation processes more effectively within their organizations. She has a Masters in Design Strategy from the Institute of Design.
Design’s development from buzzy hotshot to established practice offers insight into the path behavioral design could take and the choices it will face along the way.
Behavioral science is still learning how to grapple with complexity. What does it lose when it overlooks complexity and what it could gain addressing it in a more strategic way?
Statistical noise is nearly universally considered an impediment to sound decision-making. But what seems like noise to those shaping the rules may actually be critically important to those on the receiving end.
How might our sense about what we should solve, or even what qualifies as a problem worth solving, be biased by how we think about what we can solve?
To what extent are we inadvertently limiting the range of problems for behavioral science’s attention?