Designing for Collective Good: The Role of Social Imagination in Community-Centered Innovation

In this article, community is treated as the primary unit for evaluating the impact of innovative ideas. To ensure clarity, the following definitions establish the scope of key terms used throughout.

Innovation

Innovation is any systemic and lasting change in established methods of delivering value to people, driven by new technologies, services, or organizational models – spanning businesses and non-profit organizations. It yields meaningful improvements in how individuals live, work, interact, build relationships, and experience the world.

Community

A community is a group of individuals who reside near one another, rely on mutual support, and share a long-term commitment to maintaining relationships and regular face-to-face contact.

Impact

Impact encompasses measurable improvements in quality of life across any area of human experience, as well as the preservation, nurturing, or regeneration of individual and collective material, social, and cultural assets.

Social Imagination

Social imagination recognizes the community as a foundational unit of society – capable of thinking, feeling, problem-solving, and envisioning future states for the collective good. This shared cognition transcends individual self-interest, guided by an implicit understanding that personal goals are worthwhile only when aligned with collective values, morals, and ethics. Social imagination is shaped by historical and evolutionary influences, as well as contemporary events. The community’s aspirations are informed by prevailing discourses and narratives shaped by influential groups within society.

The Central Thesis

Designers and change makers are most effective when they gain access to – and are allowed to influence – the social imagination of a community. They excel not by imposing their own agenda, but by approaching their work with curiosity, empathy, and humility – prioritizing the collective interest of the community over any single stakeholder group.

This perspective has profound implications for design practice and the role of change makers in serving communities. The fact that a client compensates a designer does not mean the client’s objectives should supersede those of the broader community. In prevalent capitalist, market-driven, and investor-driven systems, designers may be uniquely positioned to challenge the beliefs, aspirations, and opportunities perceived by their clients. They act as intermediaries between client self-interest and the community’s collective well-being, facilitating public dialogue, fostering critical thinking, assessing trade-offs objectively, and working toward optimal solutions for harnessing intellectual and material resources.

A designer or catalyst for change must be prepared to question, challenge, and debate established beliefs and operational models, even those with a track record of success. Their persistence, congenial approach, and commitment to community interests earn respect; their measure of growth is success in helping clients understand and serve the community’s best interests. The participatory mindset is essential.

For participatory designers or catalysts of change, engagement with the community is their primary responsibility. Authentic dialogue is their most valuable tool.

A successful participatory designer or change agent builds trust not only by illuminating truth but by influencing the thinking, imagination, and behaviors of both clients and their customers, always in the best interest of the community and the client. Such professionals guide dialogue through the ambiguity, constant evolution, and inherent uncertainty of an emerging future.

Practice Example: Participatory Design in Turbulent Times

Recent seismic shifts, such as those from the COVID-19 pandemic, have dramatically altered relationships with work and life, causing widespread mental strain and dissatisfaction. The rapid emergence of artificial general intelligence has brought further ambiguity and chaos – both among tech companies driving innovation and within communities grappling with enthusiasm and apprehension about the future of work and society.

Investors and leaders, particularly in established technology sectors and startup ecosystems, often move too quickly to fully consider community interests. The prevailing “move fast, break things” mindset can be likened to driving at extreme speeds without regard for what lies ahead – rarely pausing to anticipate or plan for potential consequences.

Given these realities, my practice now fundamentally prioritizes serving community interests as a means of protecting broader societal well-being. Central to this is fostering dialogue within real-world communities and between community members and conscientious representatives from the tech sector. My approach prioritizes organic engagement – meeting people where natural gathering occurs, focusing on lived questions and concerns rather than validating hypotheses or extracting answers. Instead of scripted discussion guides, I employ open conversation, storytelling, and poetry as tools for deeper dialogue. Rather than returning insights to clients in isolation, I invite clients to witness community dialogue in real time, encouraging them to care, listen, and integrate these conversations within their organizations.

The need of the hour is to navigate ambiguity and chaos with mindfulness and responsibility toward communal and human well-being. To facilitate this, I have developed new tools for community conversation, such as a “Human Essence Deck of Cards” used in San Francisco to prompt dialogue on what it means to be human in the era of advancing artificial intelligence. Drawing on insights from more than 40 online and in-person community dialogues in recent years, the deck included cards representing distinct facets of human experience, grouped into nine categories. Introduced midway through a community event attended by over 60 designers, change makers, technologists, social scientists, and local residents, the deck provided structure for sharing lingering questions and concerns. The session was energetic and insightful – not about finding definitive answers but about voicing and exploring shared concerns.

Feedback from participants – especially those acting as catalysts in tech organizations – affirmed that the tool provided valuable entry points into social conversations, free from the pressure to produce reports or action items. It is clear that greater clarity and discomfort will both arise as humans adapt to superintelligent technologies, even as livelihoods and roles inevitably evolve.

This approach is intended to spark more such conversations – bringing clarity, courage, and responsibility to design practice in the service of community and humanity.