With Participatory Design of Technology for Inclusive Education: A Case Study I got to extrapolate some strategies on how to involve various groups of people in the design process, along with some interesting terminology I was not aware of such as the Wizzard of Oz technique in HCI. I also referred to the paper cited as part of the PD process used here, where there was an outline of creating a Third Space or “hybrid experiences – that is, practices that take place neither in the users’ domain, nor in the technology developers’ domain, but in an “in-between” region that shares attributes of both spaces”
This study reminded me of the video on designing a shopping cart with IDEO where a group of designers from various backgrounds came up with their ideas and the final design was a culmination of all the best features of those ideas. This also relates to the reading from last week where Rethinking Design Thinking challenged the notion of who the designer should be. I cannot think of anyone better than the SES teachers who have direct experience working with students with disabilities who could provide a better insight into what they need, and what problems they consistently face. It was also insightful to learn that while the SES teachers who participated initially felt that the researchers were speaking another technical language, it took over a year for the program to effectively achieve the codesign outcomes it hoped for.
My thoughts on Sasha Costanza-Chock’s “Nothing about us without us”
Dominant technology infrastructures have evolved around a certain demographic and as it spread its roots throughout the world, we became used to the idea that we have to adapt to it. It is clear that we as a society are now trying to position disenfranchised communities on an equal level by publicly calling out the systemic injustices that target women, trans folks, B/I/PoC, disabled people, and other marginalized communities. With this new wave, we are questioning the culture of the tech industry to consistently build on that flawed blueprint of design that ultimately frames its users to the cis white male profile.
It is hard to keep hearing about these instances of diverse groups getting left out of the credits and having their perspectives devalued. Furthermore, even with all the spotlight towards diversity and inclusion in tech, stakeholders and especially management will influence designers to shed marginalized communities throughout its iterations until it lands on the more profitable consumer bases. For me this also meant growing up in a different culture, having foreign technology design dominate the market forced us to conform to its rules. If we could not, we were left out. I think it is important that we empower communities to come up with their own design schools. The author also noted, “the vast majority of innovation in any given technological field is performed not by governments or formal research and development branches of corporations, but by technology end users themselves”. That is why the resources to bring a design to life shouldn’t just be left alone to organizations with capital.
I related the argument of the author about how tech design defaults to demographics that the designer can empathize with or to John Oliver’s segment on monkeypox in Last Week Tonight. He pointed out that when covid-19 initially spread across the globe the response to it spurred billion-dollar industries and governments to come up with research and tech to tackle it. However, this process was not given the same urgency for monkeypox largely due to the communities it was affecting which were primarily among the gay and bisexual communities. This goes to show how the big industries and institutions of power still lend disproportionately less authority to representatives from diverse communities.
Final thoughts:
After all the readings, I wonder if I can find documentation and transparency on technical design research being done in developing countries. Most of the affordable technology I saw in my country came with the tag “made in China” or “made in India”. I found that while most of the advanced designs have western or European origins, developing countries found a way to cost-effectively manufacture them through modified designs. There may be more questions about the ethics in those production processes but it would be helpful to know how to replicate these ideas for under resourced communities in least-developed countries. Rather than just focusing on fixing established systems, can we try to provide the tools and resources to communities and invest in their design practices in the meantime?