Undercurrents Of Reframing

Abstract

Reframing is considered to be at the core of design practices. A frame is believed to be a cognitive map of how we make sense of a situation, shaping our goals, behaviours, and actions within that context. The process of reframing purposefully moves involved actors away from (pre-) existing ways of making sense of an (undesirable) situation, i.e., away from their existing frames. Consequently, developing novel frames opens up new design space for creating conceptual ideas and futures to change the existing situation into a more desirable one. In reframing literature, frame acceptance (i.e., the stage at which a novel frame is mutually comprehended and considered actionable) has received some scholarly attention, mainly as a landmark in designer-client reframing practices. However, this paper contends that achieving true impact in reframing processes requires more than just client acceptance of a frame; it necessitates absorption by the organisational actors who must alter their (often routine) behaviours to effectuate innovation. Although reframing is considered a socio-interactive practice, limited research exists on how social dynamics in reframing processes influence this absorption by involved actors. Therefore, this study explores how experienced designers read the social dynamics in reframing processes in organisational settings involving multiple organisational actors. Using a retrospective case-study approach, eight expert designers reflected on what they considered the key moments in these processes, how they perceived social dynamics to have influenced the adoption of novel frames and absorption of subsequent novel actions by involved actors over time, and what they perceived to have been relevant factors driving these dynamics. The findings show that three distinctive stages can be identified within reframing processes that organisational actors go through towards absorption of novel actions: 1) engagement in a designerly approach, 2) frame acceptance, and 3) frame engagement. Next, it details factors that are regarded as driving social dynamics in multi-actor reframing processes at each stage and categorises them as personal-, occupational-, and organisational factors. These factors are perceived to both cause and mitigate tensions in reframing processes. As such, this implies that strategising for impact with reframing processes in multi-actor organisational settings requires a deeper understanding of those factors driving involved actors towards the absorption of novel actions that may logically lead from the developed novel frames.