abcd
As designers, we can learn lessons from the world of community development, and especially from the sub-discipline of asset based community development (ABCD)—especially when it comes to designing for relationships.
Building from the belief that communities are best situated to design and lead change by ‘identifying and mobilizing existing, but often unrecognised assets’, ABCD offers a more sustainable, democratic and ethical approach to design.
Here, I’ve adapted a framework originally published by Nurture Development to explore how we can apply the ABCD approach and ethic to design, guiding us to a more relationship-centred approach. By working within this framework, we’ll discover four modes of design and examine how relationships grow and power flows through each: designing TO, FOR, WITH and BY.
These four approaches are more or less relevant depending on what you’re trying to achieve as a designer. Some things, like refuse collection, are well suited to services that are designed FOR. Others, like social care, can only be effective when designed WITH users, and are most effective and sustainable when designed BY communities themselves.
1. To
When we do design TO others, we do not include them in the design process. We—as designers—wield our power in order to achieve an impact or outcome that has been defined by those outside the community of users who need or will use the design.
Nurture Development describes this as the ‘Medical Model’: decisions made on behalf of and interventions done unto. In this mode, power and knowledge flow in one direction. Relationships—where they exist—are transactional, unequal and hierarchical. Power is guarded, preserved, held tight.
Examples from the world of behavioral insights / nudge theory often adapt this approach. For example, designing letters, texts and online choice architecture in a way that nudges the user towards a desired behavior. Among our projects at Shift, we’re working with a community development finance initiative to promote better borrowing with an online loan calculator.
Though relevant and effective in some settings, this mode of design isn’t the best at putting ethics front and centre.
2. For
When we design FOR we are taking into account and designing for our understanding of user experience, preference, need and priority.
Usually based on good intentions, this mode is akin to the ‘Charity Model’ of development. Relationships are formed between designer and user, but they are temporary, transactional and unequal. Power is still held and maintained by the designer. Information passes through the filter of the designer’s beliefs, biases and experiences.
Designing FOR can be effective. A common example is the food bank system we see operating across the UK and beyond, where donated food is provided to communities in need. Clearly user needs are the fundamental driver of this format. However, users don’t usually have agency in the design process, or indeed much choice when it comes to accessing the service—such as what types of food are available. While primary needs may be met, this model can have unintended consequences (like provision that is not culturally relevant) and discourage other community-based alternatives. Despite some positive impact, designing FOR in this way doesn’t disrupt existing hierarchies, nor does it serve to multiply or share power.