When designing, I would like to maintain these five values:
- Understanding – All participants and designers work to fully understand the extent and nuances of the problem being solved. This core value should exceed empathizing with individuals — still an important step — by understanding the larger systems at play that influence this problem space and communities within.
- Inclusion and Collaboration – Design should not be a privilege or have a barrier of entry. I believe in designing with meaning that everyone should be represented at the table. Similar to EquityXDesign’s value of radical inclusion, I want to recognize those traditionally removed from the process. I would like to maintain the thoughts of designing at the margins and ceding power.
- Accountability, Critiques and Growth – When creating, designers should always maintain accountability for their decisions and outputs and be willing to re-design, bring to light to rein in negative externalities. In order to do so, self-critique is an essential part to ask the questions: Does design solve this problem? What parts of my solution do I think are good/bad? Who has been included? Am I solving the right problem? Is my scope correct? What could go wrong? These critiques will keep people accountable throughout the process and require growth to maintain.
- Remove constraints – Throughout the design process, I would want people to remove some of the traditional constraints of design during the ideation phase such that they don’t limit themselves in creativity. This means challenge what may be industry norms, imagine what you could create if profit wasn’t an issue. The goal is to ask what would we create or do such that our output is right and just. Remove what constraints are in the way of solving for what is just and right, and see what solutions arise.
- Support – Designing for social issues is hard. We often get it wrong. Systems are hard to change. The work can be physically, mentally and emotionally tiring. For that reason, we should support each other through the process. Critique with love. Offer help. Be present for each other.
These ideals would be present at a hackathon surrounding climate change, particularly looking at how do we make urban spaces healthier for residents and the world. This event would be in collaboration with architects, scientist, engineers and community residents to start with inclusion. The initial portion of the event should be information sharing across all parties to get to understanding. Architects should share how architecture influence climate within urban environments, what problems they see now. Scientists and engineers should discuss what technology we have ready to use, the science behind climate change within urban environments. The residents would be asked to share what challenges they see from a day to day and how it impacts their live, including food deserts, high temperature, clean air/water/soil, the political climate, etc. Hopefully, this would generate a comprehensive view for all participants and begin building a community where support can be given. From there, they would go through the usual design steps keeping the aforementioned values in mind. I would add two steps to the design process. 1) Post ideation should be a critical check background to ask: Are we actually answering the question we sought to? How? Are we asking the right question? Who has been included? Who are we missing? 2) Post Prototyping there would be a stage to ask: how do we stay accountable and responsible for what we just created? How do we make sure this idea continues past this hackathon?
I am particularly struck by the value of radical inclusion. I am interested in how recognizing those typically excluded from conversations on climate change can help to change the discourse around it. Conferences on climate change in particular seem to consistently draw the same crowd of scientists and activists–those already interested and invested in the issue. Broader inclusion could help to break down barriers of implementation by understanding where regular lifestyles can accommodate change, and where changes might require more difficult cultural normative changes.
I would suggest specifying under “critique” that critique by the community is also crucial, not just self-reflection. This becomes a key part of the radical inclusion; opening the process of assessment and reassessment, even of the means and methods of the hackathon itself, to the broader public. It would take a lot of extra work to get feedback from people uninterested in the topic, but I think that would make the project even stronger–why is climate change so often considered an uninteresting or worn topic? How does the community reflect on and critique efforts to address it?
I see the hackathon as even including more stakeholders than previously mentioned. Consider not just home-owners, but those without homes. Consider a diversity of ages too. Maybe even broaden it to an ecological footprint–who built the resident’s homes? who cleans the streets? who produces their home products? who controls the shape of the city? who tries to control it? In the convening, I could be present and representative of certain groups, but I could also extend the work to my own networks of friends and colleagues. I see the hackathon as a huge event, breaking down barriers of entry by being outside, not limited by thresholds of walls, by being outside of typical work hours, by providing services for people who need them in order to attend (food, child care, etc). I could help with these things!