Design-Tensions Framework

• Design-Tensions Framework is an analytical approach that identifies and articulates conflicting user needs and ethical priorities within sociotechnical systems.
• By mapping bipolar axes and trilemmas, the framework guides the design of inclusive, context-sensitive solutions across domains such as mental health, family tech, and civic innovation.
• Empirical studies in HCI, CSCW, and civic technology demonstrate that embracing design tensions leads to more robust, equitable, and adaptable system configurations.

The Design-Tensions Framework refers to an analytical and prescriptive set of principles or axes that surface, make explicit, and help manage competing needs, values, or priorities encountered in the design of sociotechnical systems. Rather than seeking to “resolve” all frictions or synthesize a single optimal solution, the framework foregrounds tensions as inherent to complex domains—such as family life, mental health support, civic technology, and equity-focused healthcare—so that designers, researchers, and system implementers can make informed, context-sensitive trade-offs. Empirical evidence from HCI, CSCW, and civic technology research demonstrates that addressing design tensions with nuance leads to more robust, inclusive, and socially attuned systems (Wu et al., 10 Sep 2024, Sehgal et al., 11 Nov 2025, Jonassen et al., 21 Nov 2024, Poblet et al., 2017).

1. Fundamental Concepts: Tension, Discontent, and Trade-Off

The core of a Design-Tensions Framework is the identification and explicit articulation of paired or multi-axis conflicts that arise in the pursuit of divergent user needs, ethical imperatives, or systemic constraints. In domestic food-tech, Spencer et al. distinguish between generative discontents (routine interpersonal tensions, such as negotiation over meal healthiness) and systemic discontents (structural injustices, such as gendered labor), each mapping onto different classes of design tension (Wu et al., 10 Sep 2024). In adolescent mental-health chatbot design, Sehgal et al. identify seven bipolar axes (e.g., privacy vs. memory, direct advice vs. reflective prompting) as recurring tensions to structure the design process (Sehgal et al., 11 Nov 2025). Jonassen et al. apply the framework to uncover tensions with no unique optimal solution, calling for a paradox mindset that holds both poles in productive play (Jonassen et al., 21 Nov 2024). In civic tech, tensions among representation, participation, and deliberation are formalized as a trilemma (no process can maximize all three simultaneously) (Poblet et al., 2017).

2. Characterizing and Formalizing Design Tensions

Design tensions are most commonly represented either as explicit bipolar axes or as higher-order trilemmas in multidimensional design space. A typical axis is defined by two interpretive poles (e.g., “privacy” vs. “memory” in chatbots) and can be conceptualized as a scalar variable $x_i \in [0,1]$ indicating system stance along tension $i$ (Sehgal et al., 11 Nov 2025). When multiple tensions operate simultaneously, a system can be represented as a vector $\mathbf{x} \in [0,1]^n$. In complex domains such as civic engagement platforms, Poblet & Plaza introduce three axes: $R$ (representation), $P$ (participation), and $D$ (deliberation), and posit additive trade-off constraints (e.g., $R + \alpha_1 P \leq 1$), as well as a performance index $S(R,P,D) = (RPD)^{1/3}$ subject to these constraints (Poblet et al., 2017). In other domains, the lack of a formal metric is replaced with empirical “possible metrics” (e.g., percentage of users enabling history-saving), making the tension axes operationalizable as evaluation rubrics (Sehgal et al., 11 Nov 2025).

3. Empirical Manifestations and Illustrative Cases

Empirical deployment of the framework reveals how tensions are manifest phase-wise and across stakeholders:

Domain	Example Tension	Illustrative Case
Family Meal Technologies	Generative discontent	Parents dispute over healthy meals [Spencer F2]
Family Meal Technologies	Systemic discontent	Gendered meal labor [Chen F9]
Mental Health Chatbots	Privacy vs. memory	Teens desire anonymity yet want chat history
RPM in Healthcare	Heard vs. exploited	Marginalized patients feel overburdened by sharing
Civic Technologies	R–P–D trilemma	Mexico City Constitution process, see (Poblet et al., 2017)

In family-meal contexts, the framework distinguishes between “everyday friction” that can be channeled for bonding (generative) and “structural harm” (systemic) that design should never reinforce (Wu et al., 10 Sep 2024). Chatbot design for Indian adolescents surfaces privacy/memory, advice/reflectivity, and curation/link-dumping as actionable axes (Sehgal et al., 11 Nov 2025). In remote patient monitoring for health equity, core emotional tensions are mapped, and paradox-embracing mindsets recommended (Jonassen et al., 21 Nov 2024).

4. Practical Guidelines for Managing Tensions

The framework catalyzes a shift from seeking resolution to active, reflective management of irreducible trade-offs. Across domains, recommendations include:

• Scaffold routine interpersonal tensions: Design for articulation and negotiation rather than erasure (e.g., apps for expressing differing preferences prior to dinner) (Wu et al., 10 Sep 2024).
• Surface and value invisible labor: Visualizations and micro-appreciations to acknowledge care work, counteracting its social invisibility (Wu et al., 10 Sep 2024).
• Expose configuration spaces: Allow users to select or tune modes (e.g., advice/reflection chips, persona selectors) and transparently communicate trade-offs (Sehgal et al., 11 Nov 2025).
• Prototype multiple parallel solutions: “Both-and” approaches, such as offering both personalized and standardized workflows in healthcare (Jonassen et al., 21 Nov 2024).
• Critical stance on automation and equity: Explicitly examine whether features reinforce systemic disadvantage (gender, class, resource divides) (Wu et al., 10 Sep 2024).
• Publish explicit metrics and afford A/B testing: Encourage measurement along axes, iterative adjustment, and comparison of system variants (Sehgal et al., 11 Nov 2025).

The paradox mindset entails accepting and iteratively balancing tensions, never fully eliminating either pole, recognizing that certain stakeholder needs will always be in productive or conflictual opposition (Jonassen et al., 21 Nov 2024).

5. Theoretical Underpinnings and Domain Generalization

Design-Tensions Frameworks are grounded in boundary object theory, interpretive flexibility, and, in some applications, paradox theory. The “boundary object” lens positions system artifacts (e.g., chatbots, family meal tools) as mediators across multiple interpretive communities with differing values and expectations (Sehgal et al., 11 Nov 2025). “Sensitizing concepts” serve as points of departure for reflexive design, as opposed to prescriptive taxonomies or equations (Wu et al., 10 Sep 2024). Formal models appear mainly in civic technology, where multi-axis, constraint-based representations are tractable (Poblet et al., 2017).

Generalization is achieved by identifying domain-specific tensions via qualitative or pluralist inquiry, mapping them to axes, and operationalizing “both-and” heuristics. This approach is applicable to collaborative AI, urban sensing, educational technology, and other socio-technical systems characterized by multi-stakeholder, value-laden design contexts (Jonassen et al., 21 Nov 2024).

6. Impact on Research, Evaluation, and System Design

By foregrounding irreducible, empirically grounded design tensions, the framework reorients evaluation and comparison around transparency, reflexivity, and stakeholder-aligned trade-offs. Designers can use the axes to:

• Specify and rationalize design decisions in published system descriptions.
• Identify where a given system configuration may systematically underserve or alienate certain groups.
• Track shifts in system configuration as stakeholder demands, resources, or organizational context change.
• Evaluate system performance not only by functional metrics but by its ability to productively surface, scaffold, or mitigate core tensions.

This structuring supports a more nuanced, critical, and sustainable approach to sociotechnical innovation, underlining that enduring success is contingent upon active navigation and management of persistent tensions (Wu et al., 10 Sep 2024, Sehgal et al., 11 Nov 2025, Jonassen et al., 21 Nov 2024, Poblet et al., 2017).