Co-Designing a Wiser World
Once upon a time (October 2021), I was invited to give a presentation at a digital innovation festival on ‘how to embed responsibility in your work’. This essay is the narrative version of that presentation, with a few updates that reflect how my thinking has evolved since then.
I started with a simple answer to the question ‘how to embed responsibility in your work’ — If your work is to innovate, and I assumed it was given I was speaking at a digital innovation festival, and innovations are designed, then the answer is: co-design.
Ideally, you would inform your co-design process with a suitable guiding framework, such as the ‘mechanisms and conditions framework’ by Jenny Davis (2020); ‘operationalising values in software engineering’ by Mojtaba Shahin et al. (2021), or a ‘framework for responsible innovation" by Jack Stilgoe et al. (2013).
But what do I mean by co-design, or even design for that matter? And what does any of this have to do with wisdom?
First, I should clarify what I mean by each of these terms. I’ll start with a simple one: innovation. I define innovation to be something new (i.e. it has a degree of novelty) that provides value to someone. As for design, I propose a definition based on the work of my supervisor, Andy Dong (2010), as "the capacity to envision a non-existent or undiscovered world to a level of complexity that is not obvious based on the local material environment, and then to realise that non-existent or undiscovered world in material or symbolic semiotic form” (Nichols, 2015, p. 43).
In other words, we can use design to create a better world through our innovations — if we do them responsibly. In fact, I propose that the anthropocene has arisen largely because of two main capabilities that humans possess to a far superior degree than any other species:
Language: a capability/tool for complex communication (and therefore collaboration); and
Design: a capability/tool for shaping our world.
For co-design, I like the definition provided by Zamenopoulos and Alexiou (2018): “Co-design means that people come together to conceptually develop and create things that respond to certain matters of concern and create a (better) future reality. People come together despite, or because of, their different agendas, needs, knowledge, and skills.” (p. 12)
Typically, In co-design there is mutual learning, decisions are made in a collaborative way, lived experience is recognised and valued, and there is some sort of making or prototyping (can be intangible). These qualities are what helps ensure that your innovations are more likely to be responsible, if they are co-designed. But more on that in a moment.
Moving onto probably the most difficult and controversial term to define: wisdom. Elsewhere I have prepared a draft 'manifesto for a wiser world’, which explores how we can make wiser decisions and embrace a collective purpose (as a species) to “keep everything alive”, including next steps to help promote a narrative of respectful connection to each other and our natural world, and to remind everyone that life is a dance or a song, not a race, and it needs to be enjoyed while the music is still playing.
This essay includes the following definition of wisdom by Jennifer Rowley (2006, p. 257): "The capacity to put into action the most appropriate behaviour, taking into account what is known (knowledge) and what does the most good (ethical and social considerations).”
I also discuss what it means to be responsible, based on a recent 'loop model of wisdom' proposed by Geoff Mulgan (2021). Indeed, based on this model I propose a definition of wisdom that is the combination of insightful knowledge plus responsibility, where responsibility includes ethical considerations (such as who will benefit, and who decides), taking a long-term view, and being present or engaged with the situation and/or people involved. I believe this definition is compatible with the one provided by Rowley above, but it elaborates a little on the ethical and social considerations. [Refer to the 'manifesto for a wiser world' for further discussion on this point.]
The valued novelty associated with innovations implies the generation or discovery of new knowledge. As such, if you are co-designing your innovations in a responsible way, then it can be argued that you are also helping to co-design a wiser world.
However, as I mentioned at the start of this essay, co-design is the simple answer to the question of ‘how to embed responsibility in your work’ — unfortunately, the world is not simple. Consider cultural diversity and design: culture is how you see the world, not just what (e.g. technological artefacts) you see. Therefore, everything is cultural, including science, mathematics, technology, engineering, and design. For example, consider these conceptual maps for a story (Bevan & Shillinglaw, 2010).
Table 1 shows that the meaning of the concept of ‘story’ is very different between Aboriginal cultures and Western cultures. The same is likely to be true for many other terms and concepts as well.
In the case of design, I propose that different cultural paradigms of design utilise different design processes, leading to the design of different artefacts and the stories that are told about those artefacts. However, Western design dominates the discourse no matter where in the world you practise, study, or research it. There are some examples of non-Western design paradigms — for example, in Indian design, "the designer is ‘only one element of a cultural team’ who helps steer the purpose of innovation to guide citizens towards the ultimate goal of realising the Brahman." (Das, 2005) Other examples include Islamic design (Chorbachi, 1989; Dabbour, 2012), Chinese design via Feng Shui (Mak & Ng, 2005, 2008; Mak & So, 2011), and Asian design generally (Ghose, 1989).
My research has explored First Australian and Korean design paradigms. I found that First Australian design should be understood as a process of experiential, reflective, respectful, relational discovery, rather than creation (Nichols, 2015). And Korean design is centred around the Korean concepts of inhwa, kibun, and nunchi, summarised as Design for Harmony, to help shape a world that has more harmony and social cohesion (Nichols & Man, Forthcoming).
This leads to the question: How do you co-design with people who have different understandings of design?
I propose that it requires co-design at the Cultural Interface (CI) (Nakata, 2007) — something I also describe as ‘co-designing the co-design’ (because everyone loves to get meta). The CI was introduced by Torres Strait academic Martin Nakata (2007) to describe the challenges faced by many First Australians in navigating the space of intersecting, and often highly contested, knowledge systems. Nakata proposed a form of Indigenous Standpoint Theory to help navigate the complexities of the CI, which starts with knowing who you are — i.e. your identities — and how you see the world. It is only once you understand yourself and how you see the world that you can start to engage with others at the CI to co-design your (combined) approach to co-design.
The next stage involves reflecting on the guiding principles (e.g. balance, harmony, sustainability, profitability) and knowledge systems (e.g. conceptual maps like the one we saw for a ’story’ above) that inform your design paradigm, as well as how decisions are made about what should be designed (e.g. should they be market driven or based on more ethical considerations?).
Once you have a reasonable grasp on each of these, you can then discuss how they might interact at the CI, with people whose understandings of design is derived from a different paradigm. There will be tensions to be managed, but doing so can provide a source of innovation. The key to doing so is being able to simultaneously celebrate our commonalities and diversity, which requires respect for diverse ways of knowing, doing, and being. The end result will be a mutually agreed design paradigm that incorporates elements from each, from within which an acceptable approach to co-design can take place.
'Co-designing the co-design’, or co-designing at the CI, is more complex than co-design when everyone understands design from the same paradigm, but the extra effort will be worthwhile and will help guide us in our efforts to shape a wiser world.
References
Bevan (Kija/Nyulnyul), C., & Shillinglaw, D. (2010). Bigges Mob Mirlimirli - Teaching Two Way: Codeswitching Cultures and Dialects. Literacy Learning: the Middle Years, 18(2), 11-17.
Chorbachi, W. K. (1989). In the Tower of Babel: Beyond symmetry in islamic design. Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 17(4-6), 751–789. doi: 10.1016/0898- 1221(89)90260-5
Dabbour, L. M. (2012). Geometric proportions: The underlying structure of design process for Islamic geometric patterns. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 1, 380-391. doi: 10.1016/j.foar.2012.08.005
Das, L. K. (2005). Culture as the Designer. Design Issues, 21(4), 41-53.
Davis, J. L. (2020). How artifacts afford: The power and politics of everyday things. MIT Press.
Dong, A. (2010). Biological first principles for design competence. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing (AI EDAM), 24(4), 455-466.
Ghose, R. (1989). Design, Development, Culture, and Cultural Legacies in Asia. Design Issues, 31-48.
Mak, M. Y., & Ng, S. T. (2005). The art and science of Feng Shui—a study on architects’ perception. Building and Environment, 40(3), 427–434. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2004.07.016
Mak, M. Y., & Ng, S. T. (2008). Feng shui: an alternative framework for complexity in design. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 40(1), 58-72. doi: 10.3763/aedm.2008.S307
Mak, M. Y., & So, A. T.-p. (2011). Scientific Feng Shui for the Built Environment: Fundamentals and Case Studies. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong Press.
Mulgan, G. (2021). Loops for Wisdom: How to bridge the wisdom gaps in the life of citizens, governments and societies. Demos Helsinki. https://demoshelsinki.fi/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Loops-for-Wisdom.pdf
Nakata, M. (2007). The Cultural Interface. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 36, 7-14.
Nichols, C. D. (2015). Discovering Design: Enhancing the Capability to Design at the Cultural Interface Between First Australian and Western Design Paradigms. PhD Thesis. The University of Sydney. https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/13361
Nichols, C. and Mah, K. (Forthcoming) Design for Harmony: Towards a Korean Design Paradigm.
Rowley, J. (2006) Where is the wisdom that we have lost in knowledge? Journal of Documentation. 62 (2) pp. 251–70.
Shahin, M., Hussain, W., Nurwidyantoro, A., Perera, H., Shams, R.A., Grundy, J.C., & Whittle, J. (2021). Operationalizing Human Values in Software Engineering: A Survey. ArXiv, abs/2108.05624.
Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy. Volume 42, Issue 9, pp. 1568-1580. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008
Zamenopoulos, T. and Alexiou, K. (2018) ‘Co-Design as Collaborative Research’ in Facer, K and Dunleavy, K. (eds.) Connected Communities Foundation Series. Bristol: University of Bristol/ AHRC Connected Communities Programme.