2020-3676-AJA-PLA

1

Building “Working with, not for” into Design Studio 1

Curriculum 2

3 Are ethics naturally intrinsic to the discipline of design or do we as 4 instructors need to teach students how to enact it? David Gray notes that 5 standards of conduct and values have profound impact on both the 6 researcher and research subjects (2004 p.398), which raises the question as 7 to whether, or not the same can be applied to pedagogical practices? The 8 initial findings from a phased research project being conducted in 9 communities throughout Toronto, Canada, have demonstrated that 10 communities are still being left out of decision-making processes that 11 directly affect their collective values and living conditions. Undergraduate 12 students in design programs are required to work on assignments that mimic 13 “real-world” issues but are limited to their classroom/studio environs. Even 14 when the assignment is designed to be ethically and socially responsible 15 students lack access to the communities, social context, and insights for 16 which they are interpreting needs and preparing designs. This perpetuates 17 the idea that design is done “for” and not “with” communities. 18 Demonstrating social conscience is ethically desirable in design education 19 but if students are not given the tools required to work with communities 20 through respectful and collaborative processes then we are training the next 21 generation of designers to continue a form of hegemony in design practice 22 that is undesirable. Design Wo/ManifesT.O. 2020 is a Participatory Action 23 Research project currently underway is working with communities to 24 uncover stories of grassroots placemaking and community building that is 25 done through creative practice. An unexpected discovery during data 26 collection lead us to this ethics gap in design education. With the data 27 collected from community forums and by partnering with social justice 28 practitioners the research team has begun to create opportunities for youth 29 to work with community. This paper hopes to stimulate further discourse and 30 investigation into the development of community-based, co-design 31 curriculum for design students. 32

33

Keywords: design, research, ethics, curriculum, community 34

35

36

Introduction 37

38 While conducting a research project which continues to seek information 39

on grassroots strategies for placemaking through creative practice the authors 40

were simultaneously informed about an issue on the ground that need further 41

investigation. The issue that arose exposed very large gaps in the education of 42

designers in terms of values-based learning, design ethics, and informed 43

methods for working with communities. This paper investigates this 44

unexpected discovery in order to open dialogue for ways to implement the 45

“working with, not for” design mantra into curriculum — making it a theory in 46

use rather than espoused approach. 47

2020-3676-AJA-PLA

2

Design ethics here refers to the research protocols that are typically put 1

into place through institutions that are meant to protect human participants and 2

how these same measures need to be applied where community members, who 3

may or may not be participants in a research study, are directly affected by the 4

work that is being created. The research ethics protocols that institutions, such 5

as universities, adhere to claim that “all ethical issues can be accessed and 6

resolved ahead of time” (Sieber & Tolich, 2013 p. xvi). Yet how can anyone 7

predict what conflicts might arise or what might be a trigger to participants? 8

Most of the literature on community-based work discussed below point out the 9

unpredictable nature of human interaction. The inadequacies of an ethics 10

review is further described by Joan E. Sieber and Martin B.Tolich, authors of 11

Planning Ethically Responsible Research, who go on to say that institutional 12

research ethics reviews: 13

14

…provide a useful, one-time reading of ethical considerations before the 15

research begins, and that this is better than no review at all. It forces the 16

researcher to think through the project and to give dispassionate others the 17

chance to review the researcher’s ethical considerations. However, to 18

overcome the limitations of this abstract, one-time review, researchers 19

need to expand their knowledge of ethical considerations and to take more 20

personal responsibility for their ethical conduct in the field. This 21

responsibility must be planned for in advance, meaning that researchers 22

need to be competent, ethical problem solvers (2013 p.xvi). 23

24

This ethical responsibility that Sieber and Tolich are referencing must be 25

taught to students and naturalized into student behaviours, because in most 26

cases it is not an inherent skill. 27

Essentially, the key question explored here is how to successfully integrate 28

ethical and responsible protocols for working with communities into design 29

curriculum. By exploring the literature, the aforementioned research project, 30

and the youth workshop that was developed in response to the gap in ethical 31

training we will investigate this question. The importance of ethically 32

responsible methods of “working with, not for” is to begin to reverse the 33

hegemonic power structures of designer/client—researcher/community that 34

have prevailed in the past. 35

36

There is a requirement to explore new ways of configuring our educational 37

spaces in art and design – theoretically, practically and ethically — to 38

enable the development of critical citizenship. Creating democratic spaces 39

can help educators and learners to come together to develop ways of being 40

in the world — to contemplate, debate, interrogate, feel, connect, 41

reciprocate, create, problem-solve, feel appreciated and develop insights in 42

ways that allow the flourishing of selfhood and self-efficacy (Sclater, 2019 43

p.744). 44

2020-3676-AJA-PLA

3

This shift will help designers/researchers to see clients/communities as an 1

equal partner in collaborative creative processes (Bieling, et al., 2010) ), while 2

fostering an ‘evolving’ of the designer with ethical principles and practices. 3

4

5

The Gaps and Industry/Research Methods 6 7

Undergraduate students in design courses are required to work on 8

assignments that mimic “real-world” project briefs but are trapped within 9

classroom and studio environs. Even if assignments are designed to be ethically 10

and socially engaged (working on issues of homelessness, poverty, food 11

insecurity, health, gender, social justice…), students have limited access to the 12

communities that can give them key information on social context and human 13

insights that are necessary to be able to interpret needs. The Center for 14

Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE) wrote a tip sheet on 15

working with communities where they explain how top-down design processes 16

typically reinforce the cultural norms of dominant powers and tends to further 17

marginalize the communities that the design is aimed to support. Whereas a 18

more bottom-up process builds on the community’s assets and lived 19

experiences leading to more sustainable results (McCreedy, et al. 2018). 20

Without direct contact with communities, students will not be able to build 21

empathy or deep understanding of the community they are researching nor 22

develop skills to locate and/or allow for bottom-up strategies. It is also 23

necessary to activate the assets that the community members possess to truly 24

engage them in the developmental and/or making processes. 25

Working with community is usually discussed in a classroom setting as 26

being necessary in the “real world” but not actually done as part of coursework. 27

There are many legitimate reasons for why this is the norm. The main reason 28

being logistics: How do we get a class of 25–30 students to engage with 29

communities that are already overburdened. How do we find communities who 30

need the help we have to offer at the same time that classes and semesters start 31

and end? How do we find communities that have the capacity and willingness 32

to support student learning while also running their own organization? How 33

can we build trusting relationships within the brief timeframe of the semester? 34

… However difficult the logistics are, by not involving community, educators 35

are perpetuating the idea that design is done “for” and not “with” 36

communities—and, on a more practical level, students are not taught how to 37

work with communities in a collaborative and equitable manner. 38

Furthermore, communities differ greatly from each other. To say that all 39

folks with Type 2 Diabetes are the same and can be studied as such does not 40

account for economic status, gender, race…. An example of this happened 41

recently during the COVID 19 Pandemic when New York Gov. Andrew M. 42

Cuomo, posted a Tweet on March 31 that read “this virus is the great 43

equalizer”. The comment was well-intentioned and indicated that the virus 44

affects all of us without prejudice. However, as the virus spread it became 45

apparent that due to many other factors the number of those affected by the 46

2020-3676-AJA-PLA

4

Coronavirus were higher in the Black and Latin communities (Jones & Jones , 1

2020) due to numerous and varied factors. This is a reminder of how easy and 2

hazardous it is to make assumptions. Arlene Goldbard, author of New Creative 3

Community explains that “Community is understood as dynamic, always in the 4

process of becoming, never static or complete” (2006, p. 141). Thus, framing 5

community as something that is constant and can be studied from afar is 6

dangerously misleading to anyone involved in community-based work. 7

8

Industry and Research Methods 9

10

There is much scholarship on how collaborative design can affect society 11

— “design has been acknowledged by public agencies and NGOs as one of the 12

tools to tackle the complexity of social issues” (Emilson, et al. 2011) — and 13

there is much literature on the theories and methods that can be used to engage 14

in design-lead change. These methods and theories include but are not limited 15

to: Participatory Design (Smith & Iversen, 2018) (Inguva, et al., 2018) 16

(Salgado & Galanakis, 2014) (Racadio, Rose, & Kolko, 2014) (Amatullo, 17

2020), Participatory Action Research and Critical Participatory Action 18

Research (Baum, MacDougall, & Smith, 2006) (Sandwick, et al., 2018), 19

Community Cultural Development (Arlene Goldbard, 2006) (Sonn & Quayle, 20

2014), Design for Social Innovation and Sustainability (Manzini & Meroni, 21

Emerging User Demands for Sustainable Solutiuons EMUDE, 2007) 22

(Margolin, 2002) (Chick, 2012), Inclusive Design/Universal Design (Altay & 23

Demirkan, 2014) (Day, 2003) , as well as Community Placemaking 24

(Schneekloth & Shibley, 1995) (Zitcer, 2018) (Toolis, 2017). 25

The Participatory Design (PD) movement aims to democratize decisions 26

made in the design process by involving non-designers in co-designing 27

practices. “The main approach to innovation in PD research has been to 28

organize projects with identifiable stakeholders within an organization, paying 29

attention to power relations and the empowerment of resources to weak and 30

marginalized groups” (Björgvinsson, et al. 2012). It began as an effort to 31

equalize the workplace environment but has since shifted to a broader stage, 32

reaching beyond the workplace and into public realms. 33

Participatory Action Research (PAR) and Critical Participatory Action 34

Research (CPAR) focuses on research whose purpose is to enable action and 35

change through the collaboration between researchers and participants with an 36

understanding that the knowledge held by all involved is essential to the 37

process. The criticality lies in the need for dialogue and disagreement in order 38

to create generative outcomes that challenge the prevailing power along with 39

the historical and structural inequities that exist (Sandwick, et al., 2018 p.475). 40

Social Innovation and Sustainability focuses on the need for humanity to 41

live better in order to improve both our ecological and social health. It requires 42

us to rethink unsustainable behaviours and to engage in “radical social 43

innovation” through the use of “diversified forms of knowledge” and the 44

mobilization of “organizational capabilities” (Manzini & Meroni, 2007 P.161). 45

Social Innovation and Sustainability can manifest itself in various diverse ways 46

2020-3676-AJA-PLA

5

including: “a principle, an idea, a piece of legislation, a social movement, an 1

intervention, or some combination of them. The key aspect is their capacity to 2

simultaneously meet social needs and create new social relations” 3

(Björgvinsson, et al. 2012, 131). Social Innovation and Sustainability relies 4

heavily on grassroots creative communities as the initiator of the changes but 5

these efforts need to transition into a more formal organization in order to 6

“exist and be effective in the long term” (Manzini & Meroni, 2007 p.178). 7

Inclusive Design/Universal Design looks at ways to develop designed 8

objects that are usable by a majority of users, able bodied and otherwise, and is 9

proportionally appropriate for use by varied body types without fatigue. These 10

products must also account for diverse sensory communication methods 11

(Giraudy, et al. 2011). The Inclusive Design Research Centre (IDRC) at OCAD 12

University describe three necessary aspects of inclusive design: 13

14

1) To recognize the need to move beyond the “hypothetical average” to 15

include those at the margins and to acknowledge that most individuals 16

deviate from the average in varied and multi-dimensional ways. 17

2) To include a diverse pool of participants — “the design and 18

development tools should become as accessible and usable as possible”. 19

3) To be cognizant of the “interconnectedness of users and systems” and 20

how objects and their use extend beyond the intent of the producer 21

(Treviranus, n.d.). 22

23

Inclusive/Universal design “reframes disability within the design context” 24

(Treviranus, n.d.) and works with varied individuals to create outcomes that are 25

accessible to the broadest possible range of users. 26

Community Cultural Development is a specific practice that relies heavily 27

on the efforts of artist-organizers and communities to stimulate social change. 28

It is a highly collaborative process that “simultaneously builds individual 29

mastery and collective cultural capacity while contributing to positive social 30

change” (Goldbard, 2006 p.20). It can be seen as a form of activism — cultural 31

action to empower and to develop critical consciousness. 32

33

Community Cultural Development is grounded in reciprocity and authentic 34

sharing. When parties in conflict are more or less equal in social power, 35

Community Cultural Development methods can evoke and illuminate 36

multiple coexisting realities, overcoming stereotyping, objectification and 37

other polarizing habits of mind. Appreciation for valuable distinctions and 38

deep commonalities can merge from reciprocal communication through 39

arts media, as participants begin to perceive common interests and possible 40

compromises where they previously saw only intractable 41

differences (Goldbard, 2006. P.146). 42

43

Whereas Community Cultural Development is heavily arts related the 44

methodologies and ideologies of this practice is easily transferrable to design 45

practitioners. 46

2020-3676-AJA-PLA

6

Placemaking is a way for communities to turn spaces (public areas that are 1

ill-used, forgotten, or inappropriate for that community) into places where 2

community feels at home, welcome, and part of a whole. Placemaking usually 3

happens at the individual and/or grassroots level, but more and more 4

placemaking is becoming an area where creatives feel that they can make 5

positive change. 6

7

Without our attention, our places are endangered. And when our places are 8

endangered, as revealed in the current ruins of our inner cities, our 9

poisoned rivers, our inhospitable offices, and our dilapidated houses, we 10

are at risk. To decide to be someplace as members of a community 11

demands that we become active placemakers again, that we participate 12

with others in our communities in thoughtful, careful, responsible action. 13

At times, this may indeed require the decision to leave some places, 14

abandoning them as uninhabitable, at least in the short term. But more 15

often it means starting where we are with the people of our communities 16

and attending to our places through placemaking activities (Schneekloth & 17

Shibley, 1995 18). 18

19

Placemaking is a powerful tool that can foster community-building along 20

with having a positive effect on the social and economic standing of that 21

community. At the core of Placemaking and all of the other methods and 22

theories mentioned above is the concept of employing a community’s strengths 23

and creativity to reflect its unique identity in the public realm (Stewart, 2018). 24

Another two key aspects of the above methods and theories is the need to 25

build trust and for reciprocity. This is not only something that can be found in 26

the literature but it is something that came up repeatedly in our community 27

forums. One of the story sharers at our project’s first forum talked about how 28

patience is needed when working with communities because trust takes time to 29

build. This same story sharer remarked on how authenticity and genuine 30

engagement is a necessary ingredient for trust to occur. Reciprocity is 31

necessary to continue trust in perpetuity. If the relationship is not reciprocal 32

and trust is not earned the next invitation will require that trust to be rebuilt, if 33

the invitation is even accepted. One notion of reciprocity is that the learning 34

that is shared in a collaboration is in itself a reciprocal process — where each 35

participant is benefitting and learning from the other (Lawton, 2014. P. 425). 36

However, many times in research projects the benefits to the researchers far 37

outweigh the benefits to the community thus rendering an imbalance of 38

advancement. This perpetuates the discrepancy of power many of these 39

communities are all too familiar with. 40

The various theories and methods for collaborative community-based 41

design all require multiple voices at the table and an open, equal balance of 42

those voices throughout the process. In many cases community assets (skills 43

found within the community) are utilized giving the community members not 44

only a voice but also active, physical engagement with the project. All of this 45

requires skills in relationship building and the understanding of personal 46

2020-3676-AJA-PLA

7

biases. Through critically reflecting on the assumptions underlying our 1

intentions we can begin to understand our biases and only then can 2

transformational learning take place. Transformative learning is when the 3

behaviours of the learner shifts (Mezirow, 1997). “The problem of 4

irresponsible action is not usually a problem of method but of attitude in 5

intention. The selection of ways of working and the ways in which methods are 6

employed are always rooted in basic assumptions about human beings and the 7

ultimate aims…” (Schneekloth & Shibley, 1995 p. 17). In order to be open to, 8

and respectful of, the expertise and lived-experiences of others one must reflect 9

on their own biases. Landscape architect Lynda H. Schneekloth and architect 10

and planner Robert G. Shibley explain: 11

12

The purpose of engaging in critical theory is to deconstruct, and thereby 13

reveal, socially constructed worldviews. Because the practice of 14

placemaking is contained in particular socially constructed realities, all 15

actions either maintain existing worldviews or challenge them (1995 p13). 16

17

The university environment is a safe and fertile ground for questioning 18

one’s worldview but this only happens when curriculum is designed to allow 19

for this to happen. 20

Some schools and organizations have created ways to try and get students 21

to engage with communities in order to develop some of these skillsets. Many 22

post-secondary schools offer internships, co-ops and/or community service 23

learning (CSL) courses, while other organizations offer informal education 24

opportunities where students can learn alongside communities in an extra-25

curricular setting. There are also institutions that offer social innovation/design 26

programs such as ArtCenter College of Design and The Maryland Institute 27

College of Art who work with partner organizations to achieve human-centred, 28

inclusive, and collaborative learning environments, and OCAD University’s 29

Masters of Inclusive Design that has students ‘Questioning and Unlearning’ 30

and orients students to an intellectual framing of co-design processes. But this 31

is not the norm, especially for undergraduate studies. All of these learning 32

opportunities are potential ways to get students outside of the classroom 33

environment and working with communities but each fail to meet the level of 34

engagement required to prepare students for real community-based work. In 35

the case of internships or co-op courses there is little to no oversight of faculty 36

and many internships involve a basic introduction to industry and are not 37

generally seen as community-based learning opportunities. CSL courses are 38

much more community-centred and offer “real-world” experiences for students 39

to work for/with communities. However, “service” is in the name of this type 40

of learning, which demonstrates a lack of understanding about collaboration, 41

relationship building, and facilitating discourse that includes conflict and 42

discordance. However, the CSL format is fertile ground for students to engage 43

with community. 44

As part of our larger research project our team developed an informal 45

educational opportunity for youth which was free for all participants and, in 46

2020-3676-AJA-PLA

8

fact, paid the participants (demonstrating immediate reciprocity). The informal 1

educational opportunity took the form of a Creative Practice as Protest (CPP) 2

workshop for youth. The CPP workshop was part of our larger placemaking 3

research project Design Wo/ManifesT.O. 2020 (DW/M), which is where these 4

gaps in how to work with community were discovered. 5

6

7

The Project – Design Wo/ManifesT.O. 2020 (DW/M) 8 9

DW/M asks how we learn from successful initiatives to foster new 10

placemaking solutions. The project has engaged with over 100 citizens to 11

date—including seniors, students, art practitioners, grassroots groups and 12

design activists. We adopted the PAR approach to work and talk with 13

community members via community forums (see Figure 1). Narrative inquiry, 14

where shared stories of participant actions is the main source of research data, 15

is conducted in respectful, ethical, equitable, and reciprocal ways. (It would be 16

remiss to not acknowledge that narrative inquiry or story sharing is an 17

indigenous method for passing on knowledge.) Our community forums are 18

open to the public and invite individuals into a local community space in which 19

ideas for placemaking can be supported by invited story sharers (those who 20

have succeeded in community placemaking efforts). Through these forums we 21

are able to gather rich qualitative data on placemaking activities but also 22

empower and support participants to continue or start their own projects. 23

24

Figure 1. Participatory Action Research with Community Members at a Local 25

Forum 26

27 28

The Unexpected Discovery 29

30

The qualitative data collected from the research project lead to unexpected 31

discoveries due to comments from the participants about past experiences with 32

research and co-design projects. Participants in various sessions commented on 33

how researchers and collaborators had come before, had asked questions, 34

proposed ideas, and/or collected data, and then left with no follow up. This 35

leaves a community wary of “outsiders” and trust becomes harder to build 36

when actions like this happen. Designers, artists, and researchers who go into 37

2020-3676-AJA-PLA

9

communities all need to understand the ethical dilemma of these types of 1

actions. 2

These negative situations are supposed to be curtailed by the research 3

ethics of the academics’/researchers’ organization. Research ethics within the 4

creative arts and beyond is about protecting institution/organization and the 5

participants—doing no harm (physical or emotional). Academics and 6

researchers need to understand the risks involved, and how to mitigate those 7

risks—they must have their project reviewed and approved before starting so 8

that problems are avoided. Research ethics can be tricky when thinking about 9

emotional harm and what could potentially trigger an emotional response or 10

put a participant at risk especially prior to working with particular groups. But, 11

what about the designer who goes into a community? Designers do not have 12

ethics protocols. Nor do they have review boards to scrutinize their intentions 13

and processes prior to starting a project. Who is holding them accountable? 14

With little to no experiential training in ethically responsible co-design 15

practices and no accountability the designer is ill-equipped to successfully 16

work with communities in an equitable manner. 17

Another requirement of research ethics protocol is that the participants in 18

the project must gain some kind of benefit from engaging. Sieber and Tolich 19

explain how providing benefits to participants is especially important in field 20

research and is seen as the duty of the researchers. This is due to the intrusive 21

nature of field research where the time and lives of the participants are required 22

for the project. Sieber and Tolich weigh the benefit to risk ratio and state that 23

“without benefit, no risk is permitted”. However, they further explain how this 24

is difficult to evaluate and nothing is easily predictable: 25

26

Even though degree of risk can never be known for sure, and many hoped 27

for benefits may not be produced by the research, we can never the less 28

consider what constitutes a favourable if somewhat metaphorical risk to 29

benefit ratio (2013 p.26). 30

31

If some project benefits do not materialize for the participants then how 32

are they benefitting from the project and how are their efforts being 33

reciprocated? What measures are put into place to monitor that the risks and 34

benefits are indeed what the researchers state and are then followed through 35

on? If there is no monitoring of this aspect of a project how are communities 36

being protected by the research ethics agreement? 37

In the first of our project’s story sharing forums two participants raised the 38

issue of researchers not following through with the perceived benefits. The 39

participant comments included the following statements: 40

41

A lot of times people are not invested and tend to exploit the 42

community. Institutions and organizations require and pay their 43

employees for their research efforts while the communities being 44

studied are once again negated. Communities should not be seen as 45

2020-3676-AJA-PLA

10

research subjects and researchers need to understand what is needed, 1

not what they think the community needs. 2

3

And, 4

5

Researchers must build trust, must listen, and have authenticity. The 6

research projects must have the support needed to continue before starting 7

so that they can follow through on their intended projections. (Transcribed 8

from observers’ notes). 9

10

These lived experiences of community members who have been exposed 11

to previous studies, expresses how researchers and collaborators can indeed do 12

harm—even if their intentions are good. In the book Ethics in Design and 13

Communication, Mariana Amatullo states that “the technical expertise of the 14

design teams in these cases appears at times as a secondary skillset compared 15

to the mediator role that they play in navigating fluid circumstances with 16

community stakeholders and project partners (Amatullo, 2020 p.166). 17

All of these examples demonstrate the need for students to have first-hand 18

experience with communities to develop the required skills for collaboration 19

without causing unintentional harm. Being educators, the authors had known 20

from the beginning that we wanted to include some form of student 21

engagement as part of the research project. We began to see that these 22

discoveries and findings could be integrated into this event. 23

24

25

The Creative Practice as Protest Workshop 26

27 Our initial thoughts were to conduct a workshop culminating in a student 28

competition. We were unsure of the best approach and following our own 29

mantra we sought advice from participant and partners about how we should 30

approach the event. In order to be more inclusive we opened up the 31

competition to youth rather than framing it around students. We also began to 32

see how holding a competition wouldn’t work in our context and, in fact, 33

pushed against what we were trying to achieve. We needed to breakdown the 34

traditional model of having students (youth) compete against each other for 35

ideas rather than working together. The idea of assessment by expert judges to 36

establish winners and losers was not inclusive in nature—yet another 37

hierarchical and colonial model of design engagement. Thus, we agreed to host 38

a workshop. 39

2020-3676-AJA-PLA

11

Figure 2. Open Invitation to the CPP Workshop Sent to Youth in Toronto via 1

Social Media, Email, and Poster Printouts 2

3 4

The Participants 5

6

The CPP Workshop (see Figure 2) aimed to gather youth, community 7

mentors, and placemaking leaders into a space where they could work and 8

learn together. We partnered with design justice expert Bryan C. Lee Jr., 9

founder of Colloqate.org in New Orleans to run the first half of the workshop 10

in order to establish what co-design and social justice can be. Youth from 11

around Toronto were invited to participate in the 12-hour workshop that would 12

address placemaking issues which emerged from the collected data—the lived 13

experiences and group discussions from the DW/M forums. The invite was 14

made public and participants were chosen on a first-come, first-served basis. 15

We invited seven creative mentors all of whom agreed to participate—one 16

declined the day of the event due to sickness. Three of the mentors were 17

chosen from the pool of story-sharers who participated in the forums including: 18

Jay Wall, founder of Rally Rally, a design studio dedicated to social change 19

(see Figure 3); Jaicyea Smith, Founder of Toronto Skate Stop and Her Buddah 20

Belly; and Sean Lee, artistic director of Tangled Art + Disability. Three other 21

mentors included Melanie Printup-Hope, a faculty member from OCAD U 22

with expertise in graphic design, Indigenous visual culture, digital futures and 23

interactive installations; Marcela Cordero, an Interdisciplinary Design Strategy 24

masters graduate; and Adwua Afful, an advocate for Black Futures Now, 25

working on the Mapping Black Futures Project. Many community leaders from 26

a diverse range of organizations were invited to participate with only four 27

community leaders confirming—one declined the day of the event due to 28

scheduling conflicts. The community Leaders included: Benjamin Bongolan, 29

the coordinator of Newcomer Family Settlement Services at The 519, an 30

LGBTQ2S organization; Abba Wie-Addo, the senior program leader with the 31

Rexdale Youth Mentorship Program; and Cheryll Case, the Founder and 32

Principal Urban Planner of CP Planning and an Urban Design Coordinator 33

within the City of Brampton’s Urban Design team. Both the mentors and 34

community leaders’ duties were to support youth participants with the creative 35

2020-3676-AJA-PLA

12

exercises in order to generate new ideas or practical outcomes to what they 1

determined were the key issues for exclusion and lack of empowerment in city 2

planning and design processes. We were able to accommodate 30 youth 3

participants between the age of 18–25. On the day of the workshop 26 youth 4

showed up—42 youth were on a waiting list. DW/M and the CPP workshop 5

were approved by OCAD U’s Research Ethics board. Youth participants, 6

community leaders and mentors all signed an informed consent form and have 7

thus agreed to the use of their name, image, and ideas in this paper. 8

9

Figure 3. Youth Participant Pirathajini Chandrakumar and Mentor Jay Wall 10

Proposing a Poster Campaign for the Safety of Pedestrian and Cyclists Travel 11

in Toronto 12

13 14

The Workshop 15

16

The informal education workshop (not part of a course’s curriculum) 17

sought to introduce youth to collaborative and respectful processes and to 18

explore how this type of collaboration might work if expanded. Bryan C. Lee 19

Jr. started the workshop by introducing students to concepts of power 20

structures, social justice, design justice, and collaboration methods (see Figure 21

4). Students were asked to discuss issues that arose from DW/M as well as 22

issues that were important to them outside of the research findings. By the end 23

of the morning session students identified ten issues that they felt were 24

important in terms of placemaking. 25

2020-3676-AJA-PLA

13

Figure 4. Design Justive Expert Bryan C Lee Junior from colloqate.org 1

Speaking to the Youth Participants at the CPP Workshop 2

3 4

Each group listed priorities and strategies for community collaborations — 5

a few of the notes on the brainstorming sheets included the following: 6

7

- Co-design (ask people what they need) 8

- Provide opportunities for feedback 9

- Transparency on what the barriers are 10

- Giving those with little/no access a platform (a “voice” or “place at 11

the table”) 12

- Going to the spaces where the community lives/exists 13

- Making communities part of the planning process 14

- Autonomy and choice. face-to-face 15

- Community presentations 16

- Building trust + relationships — canvassing 17

- Vulnerable communities getting support + solidarity from “stronger” 18

communities. (Not just performative solidarity) 19

- Invite veteran researchers — who understand IRB (ethics and giving 20

back) 21

- Seek community-led approval 22

23

Youth reflection on the morning exercise seen in the list above 24

demonstrates their understanding of the need for equality and justice and how 25

they are trying to locate ways to shift power dynamics and to give voice to all 26

involved. The student desire to shift power dynamics is further supported by a 27

youth participant who acknowledged that their group became aware of the need 28

to work with community members — they wrote in the follow up survey: “I 29

appreciate that our discussion drove us to an unexpected but important place 30

(i.e. methods of getting community input before creating community 31

programming).” In their “What Does Working ‘With’(not ‘For’) Our 32

2020-3676-AJA-PLA

14

Communities Look Like?” pamphlet, McCreedy et al. have composed a list of 1

recommendations when working with communities: 2

3

- Identify and work with allies and brokers to build relationships and 4

new understandings 5

- Hold meetings at all partner settings 6

- Formally articulate each partner’s values and goals to clarify 7

expectations 8

- Set up leadership and governance models 9

- Commit people, resources, and time towards a long-term co-design 10

process 11

- Learn the cultural protocols of the communities you wish to partner 12

with (McCreedy, Maryboy, Litts, Streit, & Jafri, 2018). 13

14

If we compare the youth participant list above to the recommendations 15

made here, we can see a lot of similarities in terms of giving voice to all 16

people, the need for building relationships, transparency…. However, the 17

youth participant list does not indicate that they recognize community strengths 18

beyond voices that can be leveraged and, if leveraged, can involve the 19

community on a much deeper level—the fifth point in the list by McCreedy et 20

al.). Community members have knowledge, skills, and assets that they can 21

bring to the table and to development processes (Anderson & Milbrandt, 2005). 22

One youth participant hinted at an understanding of this when they stated in the 23

follow up survey that “working with my team was great because I got to see 24

the different leadership skills each of us brought to the table, and the ideas.” 25

This individual acknowledges that their team of youth participants had diverse 26

skills and ideas which strengthened their group. This omission by the youth 27

participants may be a product of not having community members present. 28

Over the lunch break we invited Randall Adjei, award-winning founder of 29

R.I.S.E (Reaching Intelligent Souls Everywhere) Edutainment and spoken 30

word artist, to perform and speak with the youth participants. The intention was 31

to introduce students to how placemaking through creative practice can happen 32

in unexpected ways and how Randall is an embodiment of this practice. 33

The afternoon session gave youth participants a chance to work on the 34

issues that they had pulled out of the morning session with the support of 35

community leaders and mentors. The results of this exercise were inspired and 36

ranged from a mobile “home” for shelter seekers that would provide resources 37

about existing neighbourhood services and facilities (see Figure 5), an online 38

resource for BIPOC (black, indigenous, people of colour) community to share 39

resources, an interactive art installation game for voicing community needs 40

based on borough, a campaign for cyclist safety in the city, BIPOC and 41

LGBTQ2+ film festival to shift white cis-gender dominance in the film 42

industry, and the generation of a manifesto for community governance…. In 43

the follow-up survey students were happy to have had a chance to work 44

together with autonomy: “(the morning session) was an interesting and novel 45

way to frame out conversation for the rest of the day, in a way that was led by 46

2020-3676-AJA-PLA

15

the participants rather than the facilitator”. Probably one of the most 1

unexpected comment from the follow up survey stated that: “the workshop 2

definitely had a little bit of a more intersectional approach than I imaged.” 3

Most, if not all of the youth participants were BIPOC. This statement resonated 4

with the research team as it speaks to the lack of intersectional opportunities 5

for youth. 6

7

Figure 5. Photos from CPP Workshop. Left to right: Notes from Morning Ice-8

Breaker Exercise. Floor Plan for “Welcome Home” a Mobile Resource Centre 9

for Home-Insecure Individuals by Youth Participants: Rahul Bagdai and Neela 10

Imani, and Mentors: Adwua Afful and Marcela Cordero. Notes from Morning 11

Brainstorm Session 12

13 14

15

Assumptions, Limitations, and Questions 16

17 The research team is continually learning as we move through the various 18

stages of this project. The CPP workshop was a success in many ways and yet 19

more could have been done in terms of community input and our own 20

assumptions. While developing the workshop we consulted some of our 21

participants about how best to organize the day but these conversations were 22

informal and unstructured. The suggestions that we received from these 23

conversations were extremely relevant and helped to shape the day but in 24

hindsight a more formal discussion with community input might have been 25

more productive in terms of framing the events, the parties involved, the 26

subjects covered, and the activities worked on. 27

We also assumed that partnering with colloqate.org would strengthen the 28

day and provide a bigger draw for students to attend. Bryan’s session was 29

greatly enjoyed by all the participants and challenged them in new and unique 30

ways, but was there somebody in Toronto that could have brought a more 31

locally-informed perspective to the discussion? Bryan was brought in due to 32

his experience and expertise in design justice and to draw in youth participants 33

but might not have been the best choice in terms of the Toronto context and 34

communities. Would a local speaker have been enough to pique the interest of 35

the youth participants? 36

The other draw for youth at the event were the mentors and community 37

leaders. The research team understands that community leaders are not the 38

same as involving a more diverse representation of community members. 39

2020-3676-AJA-PLA

16

However, targeting a community in advance did not align with the youth-1

driven aspect of the workshop. It was impossible for us to foresee which 2

communities the youth would be interested in working with in advance. This 3

might have been prevented had we engaged a more community-driven 4

planning of the even as discussed above. Social innovation and sustainability 5

researchers Bieling, Joost, and Müller explain how: 6

7

Design always deals with people and their experience in individual 8

contexts. Therefore, designers have to know how to connect to people—9

considering individual differences, social and cultural background, gender, 10

age, and more (2010). 11

12

Participatory research into community requires understanding of “cultural 13

conditions and challenges … (collecting) many sources and types of testimony 14

and evidence to construct a multi-layered, nuanced account of cultural life and 15

conditions” (Goldbard, 2006. P 145 ). The CPP workshop demonstrates that 16

having a community leader work with youth is not the same as working with a 17

community as it does not provide the input and exchange of multiple voices 18

and how to navigate those types of discussions and data. However, the youth 19

participants did have to create relationships quickly — between themselves, the 20

community leaders, and mentors as most of them did not know each other — 21

they were required to work together and pool their resources to build an idea in 22

a very limited timeframe. Candida Gillis, author of The Community as 23

Classroom, has students research the community they plan on working with 24

through readings, guest speakers, and visits into the community. Gillis also 25

expresses the need to examine and reflect on the personal biases, fears, 26

stereotypes and assumptions of the students about the community (1992). 27

These types of exercises are perhaps more aligned to a semester length course 28

than a 12-hour workshop but are relevant suggestions that might alleviate the 29

weight this kind of curriculum might place onto a community. 30

Nevertheless, it was challenging enough to get community leaders 31

involved. The research team sent out multiple invitations — only four agreed 32

to participate and only three showed up. Some of the responses from the 33

community leaders we received in response to our invite indicate that they 34

were either too busy or that the honorarium was too small. This brings us back 35

to one of the main logistical issues with this type of education — many 36

communities are already overburdened and cannot take on more tasks. As well, 37

certain people who represent certain communities are repeatedly asked to 38

embody or speak on behalf of their communities and are no longer willing to 39

do so without appropriate compensation. 40

As mentioned above, another limitation of the workshop was the 41

condensed 12-hour timeframe. It is arguable that the brevity of the event 42

required too much of the participants and did not give them enough time to 43

fully engage in the day’s activities with intention and purpose. In the follow-up 44

survey one youth stated that “the day was too long. I had a hard time 45

2020-3676-AJA-PLA

17

concentrating on the afternoon presentations”. It is important to note here that 1

the timing of the workshop was determined by financial restrictions. 2

The CPP workshop was a costly endeavor. Bringing in the guest speaker 3

and his assistant from New Orleans would not have been possible without the 4

Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council – Partnership Engagement 5

Grant that we received. All participants, mentors and community leaders 6

received a small monetary honorarium; were fed three meals, snacks, coffee, 7

tea, and juice; and all youth participants were given a gift bag on top of their 8

honorarium — this was our research ethics benefit to risk commitment. We 9

hired a Graduate Research Assistant, Lena Phillips, to help with community 10

outreach; one student monitor to help with the day’s activities; security guards 11

for the building we used; a photographer; and AV support personnel. If this 12

were to become part of curriculum where would funding come from to support 13

similar activities? Would the outcome of the collaboration be sufficient 14

compensation for the communities? What if the outcome is not successful or 15

simply not usable by the community? How then will community respond? Will 16

this skew the benefit to risk ratio and create friction between the school and 17

community? There is also the broader question of compensation for 18

participants and community members engaged in any collaborative effort to 19

solve and address issues for community-building, whether or not through the 20

mechanism of research, planning and/or development, or as part of educational 21

engagement. 22

The lived-experiences found in this section remind us that we all make 23

assumptions, even those of us working in the field with communities. It 24

demonstrates the need to constantly reflect on our actions and the decisions that 25

we make and to continually check in with those around us in order to receive 26

outside perspectives. Even though our assumptions here did not necessarily 27

cause harm, they nevertheless hindered activities and experiences that might 28

have occurred had those assumptions not been made. 29

30

31

The End Results/Outcomes of the DW/M 32

33 Although the research project is ongoing, we are beginning to formulate an 34

outcome. When we started, the team had notions of what the outcome might be 35

but this has evolved over the process of data collection, the CPP workshop, and 36

the numerous lessons learned and stories heard. As this project is utilizing PAR 37

methods as well as grounded theory for data analysis the outcome will be built 38

based on community input and determined by expressed needs. Ideas for the 39

outcome will be proposed back to the participants who were involved in the 40

process. If the research team adapts the second, third, and fifth of the five 41

constraints that Ballantine et al. developed in reference to creating an 42

environment for ideal communication in which moral dialogue might occur, 43

and apply them to the evaluation and dialogue around project outcomes, we 44

may begin to find a way to produce results that the community will deem 45

valuable. The three constraints of interest include: 46

2020-3676-AJA-PLA

18

1 1) The autonomous evaluation constraint: participants must be allowed 2

to introduce and challenge any assertions and any interests stated. 3

2) The role taking constraint: participants must give equal weight to the 4

interests of others alongside their own interests. 5

3) The transparency constraint: participants must openly declare their 6

goals and intentions, so they may be considered alongside everyone 7

else's (2000 p. 234). Adapted from Kettner, 1993. 8

9

Through applying the constraints on an outcome prior to release it will 10

need to go through community screening, the researchers/designers will need 11

to clearly articulate the purpose, the intention, and all other pertinent details 12

about the work so that community members can respond to all facets of the 13

outcome. The researcher/designer too must weigh in and feel comfortable to 14

defend decisions and negotiate responses. David E. Gray, Author of Doing 15

Research in the Real World, states that: 16

17

The principles of validity, reliability and objectivity apply as much to 18

evaluation as they do to many other aspects of research … Evaluation that 19

fails to take into account ethical issues will often be doomed to failure. 20

Ethical approaches include a focus on the individual needs of people rather 21

than the goals of organizations, on making the purpose of the evaluation 22

transparent to those being evaluated, and encouraging participation in the 23

evaluation process (2004 p. 181). 24

25

The evaluation process is not a new concept to the design 26

student/researcher. Evaluative dialogue happens in the critique phase of an 27

assignment where instructor and peers are commenting, making suggestions, 28

and questioning design decisions. To not take offence or become defensive, to 29

be open to these comments and try to hear what is being said, is a very difficult 30

skill to develop. It is a skill that takes time, is part of the design 31

student/researcher’s education, and is exercised on a daily basis. It is what 32

designers refer to as “growing thick skin”. Feedback from outside parties help 33

strengthen outcomes and ownership of ideas has little place in the community 34

co-design process. 35

DW/M has taught the research team to listen, to be able to let go of 36

assumed ideas, and to continually rethink processes and outcomes. We are 37

currently building ways to organize further community forums and ways to 38

generate an appropriate, purposeful, and adaptable outcome for their use and 39

for the use of future generations of placemakers. 40

41

42

Conclusions 43 44

The research team acknowledges that this paper has potentially posed 45

more questions than provide answers but it is with great optimism that the 46

arguments posed will support further discourse and investigation into pedagogy 47

2020-3676-AJA-PLA

19

that supports ethical, community-based curriculum that involves respectful 1

methods of collaboration. Not all responses to these issues need to be 2

revolutionary. Many methods that have high impact are small scale and can 3

happen immediately in any design course. One example is that of critical self-4

reflection, a method developed by M.I.T social scientist Donald Schön, is 5

already used by many design faculty (Schön, 1983). By crafting reflective 6

exercises that have students question their assumptions and by building those 7

exercises into design curriculum faculty can help establish an educational 8

environment that begins to break down stigma and bias, leading the way to less 9

hegemony in the practice of design and design research. Before a student can 10

start “working with, not for” community, they must question their own biases 11

and assumptions and because of this will become more socially and politically 12

aware citizens. 13

Other disciplines have created resources to help with equitable 14

community-based work. Organizations such as The Research + Practice 15

Collaboratory (researchandpractice.org) is experimenting with ways to support 16

mutual cultural exchange between communities in STEM education. They 17

recognize that: 18

19

too frequently, educational research is conceived and designed in isolation 20

from practice. We need more collaborative approaches that engage formal 21

and informal educators, researchers, and students to jointly discuss and 22

design opportunities for improving STEM education (Clark, 2015). 23

24

The Collaboratory even has a free toolkit that educators can download for 25

use. Design communities need to find ways to build these same kinds of 26

resources for design students, educators, institutions, and researchers. Students 27

that aspire to be experts in their field must be taught that community-based 28

work is collaborative and is strongest when all involved are acknowledged for 29

their own expertise and engaged in the creation of the outcome. Educational 30

institutions can also reach out to local communities and build reciprocal 31

relationships where students and communities benefit equally from the 32

exchange. This leads to questioning whether the communities themselves 33

should develop their own protocols that designers and researchers must abide 34

by? 35

Finally, should design communities build their own ethics protocols that 36

specifically define responsible behavior for design — much like the 37

Hippocratic Oath (Taylor & Dempsey, 2020)? The development of a values-38

based “ethical” framework for inclusive community-engaged design that 39

ensures multiple stakeholders, including the education sector, may be needed to 40

guide future community-building. In this way, lived-experience research, 41

experiential learning, as well as inclusive design practices are continuously 42

working with communities as a natural alignment in city-building. 43

2020-3676-AJA-PLA

20

References 1

2 Altay, B., & Demirkan, H. 2014. Inclusive design: developing students’ knowledge 3

and attitude through empathic modelling. International Journal of Inclusive 4 Education, 8, 2, 196–217. 5

Amatullo, M. (2020). Caring for what we leave behind: Ethical considerations in 6 social innovation pedagogy. In L. Scherling, & A. DeRosa, Ethics in Design and 7 Communication: Critical Perspectives (pp. 165–176). London: Bloomsbury. 8

Anderson, T., & Milbrandt, M. 2005. Art for Life: Authentic Instruction in Art. New 9 York: McGraw-Hill. 10

Ballantine, J., Levy, M., Martin, A., Munro, I., & Powell, P. 2000. An ethical 11 perspective on information systems evaluation. International Journal of Agile 12 Management Systems, 2, 3, 23–3241. 13

Baum, F., MacDougall, C., & Smith, D. 2006. Glossary: Participatory action research. 14 Journal of Epidemiol Community Health, 60, 854–857. 15

Bieling, T., Joost, G., & Müller, A. (2010, Accessed 15 04 2020). Collaborative 16 Potential: Designing Coexistence in Urban Context. Retrieved from VIRUS: 17 http://www.nomads.usp.br/virus/virus04/?sec=4&item=2&lang=en 18

Björgvinsson, E., Pelle, E., & Per-Anders, H. (2012, June–September). Agonistic 19 participatory design: working with marginalised social movements. CoDesign, 8, 20 2–3, 127–144. 21

Chick, A. 2012. Design for social innovation: Emerging principles and approaches. 22 Iridescent, 2, 1, 52–64. 23

Clark, H. 2015. What We Do. (University of Washington Institute for Science + Math 24 Education.) Retrieved January 2020, from Research + Practice Collaboratory: 25 http://researchandpractice.org/ 26

Day, C. 2003. Consensus design: Socially inclusive process. Burlington, MA: 27 Architectural Press. 28

Edizioni, M., & Manzini, E. 2008. Collaborative services: Social innovation and 29 design for sustainability. Milan: Edizioni POLI.design. 30

Emilson, A., Seravalli , A., & Hillgren, P.-A. 2011. Dealing with dilemmas: 31 Participatory approaches in Design for Social Innovation. Swedish Design 32 Research Journal, 23–29. 33

Estêvão, S. V. 2020. Freedom and communication design: An ethical approach. In L. 34 Scherling, & A. DeRosa, Ethics In Design And Communication: Critical 35 Perspectives (pp. 102–110). London: Bloomsbury. 36

Gillis, C. 1992. The Community as Classroom: Integrating School and Community 37 through Language Arts. Portsmouth: Boyton/Cook. 38

Giraudy, C., & Billark, A. 2011. Inclusive Wayfinding in the Social Housing Context. 39 Toronto: OCAD University. 40

Goldbard, A. 2006. New Creative Community: The Art of Cultural Development. 41 Oakland: New Village press. 42

Gray, D. E. 2004. Doing Research in the Real World. London: Sage. 43 Hulchanski, J. D. 2007. Three Cities Within Toronto: Income Polarization Among 44

Toronto’s neighbourhoods, 1970–2005. Toronto: University of Toronto. 45 Inguva, P., Lee-Lane, D., Teck, A., Anabaraonye, B., Chen, W., Shah, U. V., & 46

Brechtelsbauer, C. 2018. Advancing experiential learning through participatory 47 design. Education for Chemical Engineers, 25, 16-21. 48

2020-3676-AJA-PLA

21

Jones, B. L., & Jones , J. S. (2020, April 5). Gov. Cuomo is wrong, covid-19 is 1 anything but an equalizer The pandemic will strike the poor harder around the 2 globe. The Washington Post. 3

Kretzmann, J. P., & McKnight, J. L. 1993. Building Communities from the Inside Out: 4 A Path Toward Finding and Mobilizing a Community’s Assets. Evanston: 5 Institute for Policy Research. 6

Lawton, P. H. 2014. The role of art education in cultivating community and leadership 7 through creative collaboration. Visual Inquiry: Learning & Teaching Art. 3, 3, 8 421–436. 9

Manzini, E., & Meroni, A. 2007. Emerging user demands for sustainable solutiuons 10 EMUDE. In W. d. Ralf Michel, Design Research Now: Essays and Selected 11 Projects. ProQuest. 12

Margolin, V. M. 2002. A “social model” of design: Issues of practice and research. 13 Design Issues, 18, 4, 24–30. 14

Mezirow, J. 1997. Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for 15 Adult and Continuing Education, 74. 16

McCreedy, D., Maryboy, N., Litts, B., Streit, T., & Jafri, J. 2018. What Does Working 17 “With” (not “For”) Our Communities Look Like? informalscience.org/broade 18 ning-perspectives: Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education. 19

Racadio, R., Rose, E. J., & Kolko, B. E. (2014, October 06 - 10). Research at the 20 Margin: Participatory Design and Community Based Participatory Research. 21 PDC ‘14 Companion(http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2662155.2662188). 22

Salgado, M., & Galanakis, M. (2014, October 06 - 10). ...So What?. Limitations of 23 Participatory Design on Decision-making in Urban Planning. PDC ‘14 24 Companion(http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2662155.2662177). 25

Sandwick, T., Fine, M., Cory Greene, A., Stoudt, B. G., Torre, M., & Patel, L. 2018. 26 Promise and Provocation: Humble reflections on critical participatory action 27 research for social policy. Urban Education, 53, 4, 473–502. 28

Schön, D. A.1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think In Action. 29 New York: Basic. 30

Schneekloth, L. H., & Shibley, R. G. 1995. Placemaking: The Art and Practice of 31 Building Communities. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 32

Sclater, M. (2019). Editorial: Creating spaces: Inclusivity, ethics and participation in 33 art and design education. International Journal of Art and Design Education, 34 744–746. 35

Sieber, J. E., & Tolich, M. B. 2013. Planning Ethically Responsible Research. Los 36 Angeles: SAGE. 37

Smith, R. C., & Iversen, O. 2018. Participatory design for sustainable social change. 38 Design Studies, 59 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2018.05.005), 9–36. 39

Sonn, C. C., & Quayle, A. F. 2014. Community cultural development for social 40 change: Developing critical praxis. Journal for Social Action in Counseling and 41 Psychology, 42 6, 1, 16–35. 43

Stewart, S. 2018. Canadian Relationships and Reconciliation for Indigenous Identity 44 and Space. Retrieved January 2020, from Future Cities Canada: https://www. 45 futurecitiescanada.ca 46

Taylor, C., & Dempsey, S. 2020. Designing ethics tools for self-reflection, 47 collaboration, and facilitation. In L. Scherling, & A. DeRosa, Ethics in Design 48 and Communication (pp. 143–147). London: Bloomsbury. 49

Toolis, E. E. 2017. Theorizing critical placemaking as a tool for reclaiming public 50 space. American Journal Community Psychology, 59, 184–199. 51

2020-3676-AJA-PLA

22

Treviranus, J. (n.d.). Inclusive Design Research Centre: OCAD University. (I. O. 1 University, Producer) Retrieved January 2020, from What do we mean by 2 Inclusive Design: https://idrc.ocadu.ca/resources/idrc-online/49-articles-and-3 papers/443-whatisinclusivedesign 4

Zitcer, A. 2018. Making up creative placemaking. Journal of Planning Education and 5 Research, 1, 11. 6