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.
3.
With
When we design WITH, we act collaboratively, designing side by side with the intended users. Designing WITH can be understood as a ‘Social Model’ of development, using approaches like co-design that are so familiar to many designers.
When we design WITH our users, we start to develop a two-way relationship based on a degree of mutual exchange and reciprocity. There’s a spectrum here: from engaging users in one or two co-creation workshops, through to working with them as equals at every stage of the process. Almost inevitably, there remains a power imbalance in this relationship. The designer has the final say in how the product or service turns out and, in the charitable sector, it’s often funders who set the brief and direction. On top of this, the output can lack sustainability, being reliant on external support for maintenance and support.
But there are many instances in which this approach to design is important and effective, especially when support from others outside the user community—who can bring specific skill sets, assets and connections—is valuable and necessary.
An example from my team at Shift is the work we’ve done to support UK housing associations to improve services for local residents, often at risk of or experiencing financial vulnerability. By holding space for user communities to share experiences and needs, and by encouraging empathy among those designing services, we’ve helped improve engagement and deepen ties. Another example we love in this mode is Heart n Soul at The Hub, an experimental research project at Wellcome Collection, led by people with and without learning disabilities and autistic people. The result is a website specifically designed to be accessible for users with a range of needs—like their ‘take a break’ option, which provides a respite from digital spaces that might be overwhelming or challenging for people with learning disabilities and autism.
When designing WITH our users, we should seek to design in ways that create new connections and share skills, knowledge and power. In doing so, we help nurture the conditions for the fourth and final design mode we’ll explore—design BY communities themselves.
4. By
When design is BY communities (i.e., the users or groups who stand to benefit from change or innovation) the process, end-to-end, is led from within. This is where the values of ABCD are fundamental. Skills, assets, knowledge and connections that already exist within the community are leveraged, shared and strengthened. Decisions about the shape, function and trade-offs of the output are made by those that use it. The chances of sustainability are enhanced because the necessary skills, resources and energy already exist within the community in which it is used.
The Mutual Aid response to Covid-19 is a recent example of design BY communities. Leveraging existing relationships, resources, energy and assets, we’ve seen communities band together over the past year to deliver support, develop new initiatives and achieve more than many thought possible. This activity was not dependent on external structures, processes or support. Instead, it was driven from within communities, allowing it to develop swiftly, adapt to emerging needs, and strengthen communities in the process. If you want to find out more about the community response to Covid, take a look at our Active Neighbours Field Guide.
Designers can put ethics front and centre in their practice by intentionally acting in ways that share power, knowledge and skills. Nurturing relationships can help expand design BY communities, where knowledge, power, ideas and resources flow.
These three questions sit at the heart of ABCD, so ask yourself before starting a new project:
- What is it that communities can best do? (Design BY)
- What do communities need help with? (Design WITH)
- What do communities need outside agencies to do for them? (Design FOR)
Doing so will help you avoid defaulting to designing TO or FOR. It’s always better to start by understanding what assets already exist, and what communities can do for themselves.
As we slowly unfurl from the pandemic, we face a fork in the road: to return to ‘normal’ or build a new, kinder, more equitable normal. Design can, and must, play a central role in driving this change.