I created a new framework influenced by my research and informed by my design experiences. Specifically influential was Sasha Costanza-Chock’s point of view in their book, Design Justice.

Sasha Costanza-Chock connects the theory of the matrix of domination, developed by Patricia Hill Collins, with design as a basis for the principles of Design Justice. Costanza-Chock notes that “Design justice urges us to explore the ways that design relates to domination and resistance at each of these three levels: personal, community, and institutional.” (21)  This idea influenced the framework that I propose for Design for Social Impact with vulnerable communities. 

I propose that Design for Social Impact with disadvantaged communities emphasizes the power dynamics between society, mission-driven organizations, and disadvantaged communities. As these levels reach the center of the diagram (disadvantaged community), the expertise and knowledge increase; however, the power dynamics and ethical considerations also become more impactful. My framework shows that it is important for designers to know their position within the social context of a project while acknowledging the tensions and imbalances inherent in that work.

After I chose to design within my volunteer work with refugee resettlement, I realized that there would be many implications that I needed to consider. Design does not exist in a vacuum. Designers work within a larger social context and bring with them many ethical considerations and influences. I wanted to explore,

How does the design field approach Design for Social Impact?

What are the frameworks and tools to use when working with a social issue?

I took a deep dive into Design for Social Impact or Human-Centered Design toolkits and then went through IRB training. I used this research to create a series of questions for a designer to ask themselves throughout the design process. After many iterations, these questions were whittled down into who, what, where, when, why and how categories and took the form of cards in order to be interactive, quickly considered and portable.

Many designers approach social issues by working with an organization that works directly with disadvantaged communities. This seems to be an ethical way to approach using human-centered design methods; however, there is tension in the fact that this is designing while removed from the affected community. 

To explore design at the organization level, I decided to work with fellow volunteers. I hosted a workshop, during which we used a journey map activity to locate the pain points of the volunteer experience. I used insights from the workshop to design a toolkit that would help with volunteer connections, improve retention, create community and help with group communication.

The toolkit is part of a larger system for volunteer engagement and training. I prototyped a toolkit that would include three parts:

1. Understanding the Issue helps volunteers understand the refugee resettlement process in the US and the current political issues affecting the community.

2. Building Relationships engages volunteers in group strengthening activities that are creative and interactive.

3. Ongoing Support explains resources in the community that can assist the refugee community and encourages volunteers to support refugee-owned businesses.

The second section of the toolkit, “Building Relationships”, includes a co-design activity that offers discussion and interactive creativity to the volunteer group. The activity leads volunteers through creating patterns for textiles, symbolizing togetherness, interconnectedness and welcoming.

The activities are led by prompts that create discussion among volunteers about motivation, commitment, and available resources. While discussing, volunteers each create a patch that then contributes to a larger textile. During testing, I found that the collaborative workshop experience encourages discussion and reflection. The resulting textile also becomes a visualization of each of the participants’ thoughts and motivations, which are then combined as a representation of the group.

The COVID-19 Pandemic started to loom in March 2020 and once Illinois declared a mandated shelter in place, everything changed. The inequalities that brought me into my volunteer work in the first place were suddenly exacerbated. As much as ethics and volunteer support is valuable, in a time of crisis those designs seemed to speak so much more to designers than to the community itself.

The direct level is the most desirable and effective place to co-design when designing for social impact, however, it is also the place with the most ethical considerations. Because I was already involved with the community I want to design with, I was in the right position to be a facilitator of an innovative idea that began within the refugee community itself.

My good friend, Emma, and I had been talking about starting an informational YouTube channel for some time. Emma was resettled in Chicago in 2017, we met in 2018 and became fast friends. When the pandemic hit, we realized this channel might be urgent, but it also might look quite different. We thought, how might we present accessible and trusted information about COVID-19 and relevant resources through informational videos?

The WordOut Channel is a living and continuously iterating project. We strongly believe that it is not meant to be static or owned. We hope that others will use this idea and start a channel in their own communities.

While my experience and proposed framework is a call to recognize and rectify the issues in Design for Social Impact, it is not an answer to the problems of this field of design. In order to truly make designing with disadvantaged communities safe and effective, I believe that there is a need to develop more standardized ethical codes, training, protections for users and designers, as well as assessments for the long-lasting impact of design interventions. Without these standards, I fear that designers will do more harm than good in the social sector, and communities will grow tired of designers’ empty promises. 

That being said, I conclude the following:

• Designing at the direct level with the community is preferred when done ethically with trust and clarity.

• Co-design is always best in Design for Social Impact. Though Human-Centered Design centers around practicing empathy, empathy will never be equivalent to lived experience.

• Community-Centered Design is more effective than Human-Centered Design when working with disadvantaged communities because Community-Centered Design takes into consideration the dynamics of the larger sociotechnical system. (Norman and Spencer, “Community-Based, Human-Centered Design”)

• Designers need to be much more aware of ethical considerations.

• Designers might be best suited to work within communities and/or organizations serving communities rather than working in firms or consultancies. The short time frame of design projects are not conducive to the long-term trust and relationship building necessary in social sectors.