Sacred Service Design and the Theatrical Function of Design Artefacts

Wednesday, August 24th, 2022 · 16 min read

Introduction: From Concepts to Rituals

In my previous posts, I examined conceptual modelling as design method and explored competing accounts of what concepts are across information systems, cognitive science, and social theory. In the latter post, I drew on Giesen's Durkheimian analysis of performance and the sacred to suggest that some concepts function not as technical definitions but as representations invested with collective meaning that transcends their instrumental content.

This post develops that thread further by engaging with Ted Matthews' (2021) doctoral thesis Exploring Sacred Service Design. Matthews' work offers a framework for understanding how services can be designed to produce meaningful, even sacred, experiences - drawing on anthropological theories of ritual, myth, and collective identity. His thesis has implications both for how we think about service design practice and for understanding the dynamics I have observed in the SCÖ/ADAPT project.

More specifically, I want to explore how Matthews' framework - together with Giesen's theory of social performance - might illuminate two related questions:

What is the function of design artefacts like concept maps when they operate in institutional contexts? Are they primarily cognitive tools, or do they serve theatrical and symbolic functions?
How might we understand the aspirational, even irrational, way that technology projects like ADAPT discuss "data science" and "machine learning" for occupational rehabilitation? Is this merely poor communication, or does it serve deeper social and institutional functions?

Matthews' Framework: Sacred Service Design

The Sacred as Meaningful Experience

Matthews' thesis addresses a gap in service design literature: while the field emphasises "experience", it has developed few theoretical tools for understanding what makes experiences meaningful rather than merely satisfactory. His solution is to draw on Durkheim's sociological theory of the sacred.

Durkheim argued that the sacred is not primarily about gods or supernatural beings but about social solidarity - the experience of collective identity and shared values. As Matthews summarises, "I see Durkheim's (1912/2001) understanding of the sacred as definable through its opposition to the mundane to describe the sacred experience". The sacred marks experiences that transcend everyday functionality, that connect us to something larger than individual utility.

Matthews synthesises characteristics of sacred experience from the literature: Belk, Sherry and colleagues describe it as "ecstatic", "existential", "joy", "outside of self" - experiences that produce heightened emotional states and a sense of transcendence. Crucially, "Durkheim's core argument is that the sacred is the expression of the community. Where the sacred experienced by the group is not external but is the group itself" (p.242). Sacred experiences are fundamentally collective - they express and reinforce communal identity.

This construction suggests that "sacred and meaningful experiences are generated from groups that might identify themselves as communities, expressed through myths, rituals and symbols". The theoretical apparatus includes:

Myth: A symbolic narrative that reflects underlying truths about the community it represents. "The community exists as part of the myth, and the myth is a symbolic representation of community".
Ritual: Performance of myth. "For many theorists, ritual is the performance of myth (Bell, 1997, pp. 3–12) and as such the performance of the collective self and its values". Rituals are "cultural performances that express inward emotion and values whilst strengthening these convictions through their enactment".
Symbols: Representations of community identity. "Symbols are seen as symbolic representations of a community and its solidarity and as parts of the community's cultural identity".

The Tripartite Structure of Ritual

Drawing on Van Gennep (1909/1960) and Turner (1969), Matthews identifies a tripartite structure common to all rituals:

Separation: Leaving behind the everyday, the profane. "The separation phase has the purpose of using Meaningful Service Encounters that reinforce the sense of leaving behind the everyday, or profane".
Transition (Liminality): A threshold state outside normal social structure. Turner "describes heightened emotional states during the transitional phases of those experiences that separate us from the mundane of everyday life". During this liminal phase, "the subject is in a 'non-status', a form of limbo".
Reincorporation: Return to everyday life, transformed. The transition is completed through "celebration with food and recognition of achievement".

Matthews observes that "whilst rituals are performances of the myth of the community, they also act as passageways creating emotional transformations". Ritual is not merely expressive but transformative - it changes participants.

Critique of Mainstream Service Design

Matthews positions his framework as addressing limitations in mainstream service design practice:

"Much of current service design is based upon blueprints, customer journeys, and the orchestration of touchpoints within, but these concepts focus greatly on the tangible functionality of the service. In the service blueprint described by Bitner, Ostrom et al. (2008) the customer and employee actions are considered, but these still address the functional element of, in this case, booking into a hotel. What it doesn’t do however, is speak of those actions that are non-functional, communications of inner emotional needs, maybe rituals or interactions that have an everyday ritualized form. Many have micro rituals on arriving in hotel rooms that offer transitional passageways that allow us to take ownership of the room, these forms of needs are not addressed in the current blueprint model. Nor does the Blueprint offer a dramaturgy that can enable a sense of emotional movement through the service experience". , p. 273)

The customer journey concept, he notes, "does not explicitly consider the design of shared intersubjective experiences". Its heritage is "inherently process and delivery based and as such gives a predominantly functional process framing to the service experience". The tools emphasise interactions and transactions rather than meaningful collective experiences.

"Service design, whilst aggregating personal sociocultural experiences through tools such as the cultural probe, has yet to systematically take into account the socio-cultural dimensions in service delivery and design".

Matthews proposes expanding service design practice to "include the broader socio-cultural sphere where service designers would have to shift and broaden their perspective". If service design "is to truly engage with questions of the 'sociology and culture of human beings', then it must expand its current practice".

Design Artefacts as Theatrical Performances

The Symbolic Function of Representations

Matthews' framework invites us to reconsider the function of design artefacts like concept maps, journey maps, and service blueprints. In my previous posts, I treated concept maps primarily as cognitive tools - devices for making explicit the implicit conceptual structures that different stakeholders hold. But Matthews' and Giesen's work suggests another dimension: design artefacts may also function as symbolic representations that perform social and institutional functions.

Consider Giesen's typology from Social Performance:

Symbolic or iconic art "refers to the collective identity, the history or the sacred items of a particular community: totems, gods, demons, historical heroes". It draws on "given structures of meaning which are accessible to all members of a community".

Illusionary art creates "a perfect and seamless duplication of the scene". But "in order to be successful, the illusion has to hide the fact that it is just an illusion".

Expressive art "centers, however, not on illusion but on authenticity" - the question becomes whether the representation expresses genuine values or inner states.

Moral drama involves actors who "claim that their acting is - to a certain degree at least - an expression of their true inner feelings irrespective of the purpose of their staging". Audiences demand both performance and authenticity.

Design artefacts can be understood through all these lenses:

A concept map of an organisation's service delivery may function as symbolic representation - a totemic object that signifies the organisation's commitment to user-centred design, regardless of whether it actually informs decisions.
A service blueprint may function as illusionary art - creating a seamless representation of how service should work, concealing the gaps and contradictions in actual delivery.
A design presentation may function as moral drama - where designers perform authenticity ("we talked to users", "this reflects real needs") while audiences assess whether the performance is genuine.

Holmlid and Evenson on Dramaturgic Methods

This theatrical dimension is we discussed in the service design literature, with service design's archetypal and metaphorical distinctions of "front stage" and "back stage". Holmlid and Evenson (2008) explicitly invoke dramaturgic methods:

"Working with dramaturgic methods allows designers and users to enact or perform service experiences before they have been established in an organisation... Letting users look at, try out and act out different suggestions for a solution provides input on details as well as overall design decisions".

Here, performance is instrumentalised - it becomes a method for generating input and testing solutions. But Matthews' and Giesen's frameworks suggest performance may also be constitutive. The act of representing - of staging a vision of the service - may itself create social realities, shape collective understandings, and invest projects with meaning that exceeds their instrumental content.

The SCÖ/ADAPT Context: Data Science as Sacred Promise

Technology as Magical Imaginary

The SCÖ/ADAPT project promises to apply machine learning and data science to occupational rehabilitation in Swedish vocational welfare services. Yet, as I have documented elsewhere, the project operates, presently, without the data infrastructure, technical expertise, or organisational conditions that would make such application possible.

How should we understand the persistence of these promises despite their material impossibility?

Wastell's concept of technomagic is directly relevant here: the idea that technology is invoked as a magical solution that deflects attention from the substantive organisational work genuine improvement requires. Campolo and Crawford (2020) develop a similar argument about "enchanted determinism" - AI presented as simultaneously magical and scientifically inevitable, a dual framing that deflects scrutiny and diffuses responsibility. Elish and Boyd (2018) argue that the rhetoric of "magic" around big data and AI actively shapes institutional expectations, generating excitement while obscuring the mundane material conditions on which any real application depends.

Yet Matthews' and Giesen's frameworks suggest something deeper may be at work. The promise of "AI for rehabilitation" may function not primarily as a technical claim but as a sacred representation - a myth that expresses collective aspirations, creates communal identity among project participants, and invests the work with significance beyond instrumental outcomes.

Consider the characteristics:

Community formation: The project brings together actors from different institutional domains - welfare agencies, research institutions, technology vendors - around a shared vision. This coalition may be constituted by the shared myth more than by shared technical understanding.
Transcendence: The promise of "machine learning" invokes possibilities beyond current capabilities - a future state where technology would solve intractable problems of welfare delivery. This transcendent quality is characteristic of sacred representations.
Ritual performance: Project meetings, workshops, and presentations function as rituals that reinforce collective commitment. Participants perform belief in the project's possibility, regardless of technical assessments.
Symbolic objects: Prototypes, diagrams, and specifications serve as symbolic representations of the promised future - totemic objects that signify innovation and progress.

The Ritual Structure of Technology Projects

Van Gennep and Turner's tripartite structure may also illuminate the project's dynamics:

Separation: The project narrative positions participants as leaving behind "traditional" approaches to welfare - the mundane, profane world of paper forms and caseworker judgment. We are entering a new space of data-driven decision support.

Transition (Liminality): The project exists in a prolonged liminal state - no longer traditional welfare, not yet functioning AI system. This betwixt-and-between state is characteristic of liminality, which Turner associated with heightened emotional intensity and suspension of normal rules. Perhaps this explains why obvious impossibilities go unremarked: in liminal space, normal assessment criteria are suspended.

Reincorporation (Uncertain): The ritual should culminate in return to everyday life, transformed. But without functional technology, it is unclear how reincorporation would be possible. The project may only be able to sustain itself through perpetual liminality - maintaining the transition phase indefinitely through successive promises and deferrals.

If this analysis holds, the question of whether the project "succeeds" or "fails" may need reframing. A project can succeed perfectly as ritual - constituting community, performing shared values, producing sacred experiences of collective aspiration - while failing entirely as technical implementation.

Implications for Service Design Practice in the Public Sector

Matthews reflects on implications for practice:

"The process has implications for practice on a top level, as service designers would have to shift and broaden their perspective... In practical terms, the process would see service designers shifting the focus of their insight work to include the broader socio-cultural sphere".

But what are the implications when designers recognise that design artefacts function theatrically and that projects may serve ritual rather than instrumental purposes?

The Designer as Dramaturg or Critic?

If design artefacts are theatrical performances, the designer's role becomes ambiguous. Holmlid and Evenson suggest designers can function as dramaturgs - staging performances that enable productive exploration. But there is another possibility: the designer as critic - one who reveals the theatrical nature of performances that claim to be something else.

In the SCÖ context, my concept maps are intended to function cognitively - to expose gaps between promised capabilities and material conditions. But they may be received as rival performances - attempts to disrupt the project's sacred narrative with profane technical analysis.

This suggests a structural tension for service designers in public sector contexts. Projects may require sacred representations to mobilise commitment and secure resources. Yet design practice - with its emphasis on evidence, iteration, and user needs - tends toward profane analysis that can undermine sacred narratives.

The Ethics of Participation

Matthews raises questions about "the ethics of designed persuasion". If designers understand that artefacts serve ritual and symbolic functions, what are the ethics of participating in - or disrupting - those functions?

Several positions are possible:

Naïve instrumentalism: Treat design artefacts as purely cognitive/functional tools, ignore their theatrical dimensions. This position is increasingly untenable as we understand how representations shape social reality.
Cynical complicity: Recognise the theatrical function but participate strategically, using sacred rhetoric to advance substantive goals. This risks becoming indistinguishable from manipulation.
Critical exposure: Use design methods to reveal the theatrical nature of organisational performances, exposing gaps between representation and reality. This is what my concept maps attempt - but it may simply produce marginalisation.
Reflexive practice: Acknowledge that all design practice involves performance and representation, and work explicitly with these dimensions rather than pretending they don't exist.

Matthews' framework suggests something like option 4: designing for meaningful experience rather than pretending design is purely instrumental. But this requires expanded competencies:

"As a whole, the process offers an abstraction for the existing process of service design that is located far more within cultural practice... Teaching this approach would require a broader communication of service design's role in service development. [It] also would require designers to understand better their role in service innovation and broaden their focus from the user-service interaction space".

Sacred Services in Health and Public Sector

Matthews explicitly identifies "Sacred Services in health services and the public sector" as an area for further research. This is directly relevant to my context:

"Indeed, such research should not be limited to just the health sector, and other applications of the approach should be investigated in other public service contexts".

The implications are profound. Public services - welfare, health, education - are often sites of profound personal transition. The tripartite structure (separation-transition-reincorporation) maps onto experiences like hospitalisation, rehabilitation, education. These services deal with transformation of identity and status.

Yet public sector service design typically emphasises efficiency, access, and satisfaction - profane metrics that may miss the deeper significance of what these services do. Matthews' framework suggests attending to how services create (or fail to create) conditions for meaningful collective experience.

At the same time, the ADAPT case suggests caution. Sacred rhetoric about technology transformation may serve institutional purposes (securing funding, performing innovation) while failing to produce substantive improvements in service delivery. The question is whether "sacred service design" can be distinguished from mere mystification.

Conclusion: Between the Sacred and the Profane

Matthews' thesis, read alongside Giesen's theory of social performance, offers resources for understanding dynamics that purely instrumental accounts of design practice cannot explain.

Design artefacts function theatrically - as symbolic representations, as ritual objects, as performances of collective identity. This is not a corruption of their "true" cognitive function but an inherent dimension of how representations work in social contexts.

Technology projects may function ritually - constituting communities, investing work with transcendent meaning, sustaining participants through liminal states. This explains persistence in the face of technical impossibility: the project succeeds as ritual even when it fails as implementation.

For service designers in the public sector, this creates difficult questions. How do we work with the sacred dimensions of services that involve fundamental human transitions? How do we distinguish productive ritual from mystification? When should we participate in collective performances, and when should we expose their theatrical nature?

My emerging experience in the SCÖ context suggests that exposure - making visible the gaps between sacred promises and material realities - may be necessary but not sufficient. The concept maps are revealing contradictions, but it is not yet clear that revelation alone produces change. Perhaps what is needed is not just critical exposure but alternative sacred narratives - visions of service transformation grounded in achievable possibilities rather than magical thinking about technology.

Matthews' framework points toward this possibility: designing services that are genuinely meaningful, that support collective identity and transformative experience, without relying on illusory promises about technological capabilities. Whether this is achievable in the institutional conditions of contemporary public sector governance remains an open question.

References

Alexander, J.C., Giesen, B. & Mast, J.L. (Eds.) (2006). Social Performance: Symbolic Action, Cultural Pragmatics, and Ritual. Cambridge University Press.

Bell, C. (1997). Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions. Oxford University Press.

Durkheim, E. (1912/2001). The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. Oxford University Press.

Giesen, B. (2006). Performing the Sacred: A Durkheimian Perspective on the Performative Turn in the Social Sciences. In Alexander, J.C., Giesen, B. & Mast, J.L. (Eds.), Social Performance (pp. 325-367). Cambridge University Press.

Holmlid, S. & Evenson, S. (2008). Bringing Service Design to Service Sciences, Management and Engineering. In Hefley, B. & Murphy, W. (Eds.), Service Science, Management and Engineering Education for the 21st Century. Springer.

Campolo, A. & Crawford, K. (2020). Enchanted Determinism: Power without Responsibility in Artificial Intelligence. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society, 6, 1-19.

Elish, M.C. & Boyd, D. (2018). Situating Methods in the Magic of Big Data and AI. Communication Monographs, 85(1), 57-80.

Wastell, D. (2011). Managers as Designers in the Public Services: Beyond Technomagic. Triarchy Press.

Matthews, T. (2021). Exploring Sacred Service Design. PhD thesis, The Oslo School of Architecture and Design.

Turner, V. (1969). The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. Aldine.

Van Gennep, A. (1909/1960). The Rites of Passage. University of Chicago Press.

Revision Note: This post reflects reading and reflection from the early months of doctoral work (2022), engaging with Matthews' thesis alongside the social theory materials examined in the previous post.

The questions raised here - about the theatrical function of design artefacts and the ritual dimensions of technology projects - would become central to the doctoral research. The analysis of the SCÖ/ADAPT project as functioning ritually rather than instrumentally proved generative for understanding why exposure of contradictions failed to produce change.

What I would later develop as "techno-limerence" and "the limits of making visible" emerges in nascent form here: the recognition that projects can succeed as collective performances while failing as technical implementations, and that design's critical function may be structurally incompatible with the sacred narratives that sustain institutional commitment.

The Matthews reference is to his 2021 PhD thesis from AHO.