Co-creating course material and teaching practices with students is essential in courses such as social work. How can a student social worker understand equity and inclusion if they experience discriminatory approaches to the subject and teaching practices?
“As courses transitioned to online learning, it became clear that course syllabi are not neutral documents; rigid policies, deficit-based language, and unconscious biases disproportionately impacted students from historically marginalized backgrounds.”
Four approaches for re-designing course material are explored as a means of achieving student engagement: universal design, human-centered design, the liquid syllabus, and anti-racist pedagogy materials. We also offer examples from our own anti-oppressive teaching practices. We conclude with our shared experiences and a reflection from a former student.
From the abstract
The social work profession continues to prioritize diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility within curricula and the classroom. Consequently, instructors must consider the syllabus as a foundational element. Often overlooked in discussions of power and oppression, the syllabus not only sets the tone for the course but also establishes the policies and practices that influence student engagement with both instructors and course content.
This article explores the approaches to teaching and co-creating course material and design. It focuses on the importance of language and tone, and the process of cocreating course content, assignments, and grading schemas with students. We conclude by sharing lessons learned and implications for both instructors and students. We hope to encourage ongoing dialogue on fostering classroom inclusion through syllabus redesign and a reflexive examination of the power dynamics that exist within the classroom.
Action-based research and participatory methods are long-standing academic research practices. These methods are now more widespread and more usually known as co-design and co-creation. The same principles apply to both: ask the people, listen, and work together. Nevertheless, university researchers bring their particular skill-set to co-designing inclusive communities.
“By exploring perspectives on inclusive and accessible public and private spaces, this work builds on a multi-year effort to foster community led change.” Image of the front cover of the report.
The University of Technology Sydney (UTS) focused on inner suburbs of Sydney for their research project. It was carried out in partnership with local community members who shared their time and stories. The resulting report highlights the best experiences of inclusive and accessible spaces. These stories provide a strong basis for building on what already exists to create even more of these places.
Co-designing places and spaces expands the skills of individuals and builds on the strengths within the community. It is so much more than creating a “nice” building or park.
Key points for policy and practice
The project found that loneliness and isolation was a community priority and that programs and initiatives should have this as a focus. A sense of belonging for all citizens is therefore the main aim. Briefly the key take-aways from the project are:
increased investment in free and low-cost community spaces and events
prioritising social infrastructure in urban planning; improving public transport and walkability
embedding co-design and participatory decision making in policy development
strengthening social inclusion policies for diverse and marginalised group
prioritising funding for safe and livable housing
funding for place-based organisations
Co-designing inclusion
The project was grounded in an asset-based framework which explores the strengths held in the community. These are the skills, knowledge, and community networks and organisations.
By embedding community leadership throughout the process participants gain a significant sense of ownership and long-term commitment that is often missing from both academic and professional initiatives. Image from the report.
By focusing on community strengths, an asset-based approach captures people’s visions of ‘the best of what is’. It also mobilises existing networks and resources to create opportunities for social change.
The report explains the underpinning concepts for the co-design method which covered nine-month’s of work. The iterative cycle included finding out what is good now and upskilling community members to make change. Co-designing real-world community driven projects was another essential element of the process.
The UTS media team provide an overview of the project and some of the outcomes. Local developers, building managers and community organisations are using the findings to advocate for the community.
The UTS Centre for Social Justice and Inclusion is focused on suburbs surrounding UTS.
The example of Frank Lloyd Wright designing a home with and for a wheelchair user is sometimes used as an example of accessible design. But Nicole Karidis writes about the Laurent House built in 1952 as an example of the power of co-design. She describes how Wright worked with Kenneth Laurent on every feature of the home. But can this process be applied to buildings that have many users?
“Every morning for 60 years, I would come out of my bedroom and pause in the doorway, … I’d take in the beauty that Wright designed, seeing both the indoors and outdoors … That scene allowed me to forget about my disabilities and focus on my capabilities.” Kenneth Laurent
The more important question is “what will happen if we don’t use co-design processes?” Karidis uses an example where building users were left out of the design process. The Hunters Point Library, Queens, New York is an infamous case that continues to cost millions of dollars to rectify.
As Karidis says, co-design ensures diverse perspectives are considered, particularly those with lived experiences. This leads to more inclusive, user-centred designs that better meet the actual needs and preferences of all users. It also reduces the risk of costly redesigns.
The real power of co-design is in continuity
However, co-design processes are sometimes recognised during the design phase, only to be erased or diminished in later stages. Or users are consulted when the final product or structure is released. Feedback is not consistently incorporated into the final design decisions, leading to a building or product that does not work for everyone.
The title of the article is, Building Together: The Hidden Power of Co-Design. Frank Lloyd Wright’s work was also discussed in a conference paper in terms of measuring quality rather than quantity.
Architecture, aesthetics and universal design
Frank Lloyd Wright considered aesthetics in architecture
The principles and goals of universal design have no criteria for aesthetics. It’s focus is on functional requirements rather than sensory experiences. It doesn’t help when architects and planners continue to associate universal design with regulations and standards and leave aesthetics out. But the key to designing environments for everyone is to draw together architecture, aesthetics and universal design.
Carolyn Ahmer’s paper discusses universal design in the context of renowned architects. She explains how their designs include inclusive elements together with aesthetics. For example, Frank Lloyd Wright’s work which includes the famous Guggenheim Museum. The article covers visual and non-visual information and movement through space.
The aim of the paper is to highlight the qualities of design essential to creating buildings that stimulate our senses. One source of inspiration is in our architectural history.
She concludes that inclusive architecture should be based on qualitative and quantitative measures. Quantitative assessments are based on controllable data and standardised specifications. Qualitative assessments focus on sensory experiences of an architectural project. These are features that cannot be measured but should not be discounted.
Perceptions of safety in public space impact on the way women and girls carry out everyday activities. If women (or men) feel unsafe or stressed in public space, it can outweigh the benefit of being there. Plus it impacts on activities such as employment, education and access to health services.
One of the targets for the gender equality goal (SDG #5) is “the elimination of all forms of violence against all women and girls in public and private spheres”.
The issue of gendered violence is rarely out of the news. The UN’s Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) number 5 is about gender equity. This is not just a human right, but a foundation of a peaceful world. In 2025, globally, we are clearly a long way from this.
Researchers at Monash University used a crowd mapping system to understand women’s equity and access to public space. Two case studies were carried out – one in Victoria and the other in New South Wales. The name of the project was YourGround.
The Victorian project surveyed women undertaking exercise and recreation activities. The New South Wales study included engagement by women and gender diverse people. This one looked at any type of activity in public spaces – streets, parks and transport hubs.
Voices of marginalised people
Digital technology and smart phones enable researchers to collect information about the real lives of individuals. It is a good way to overcome the standard data-gathering techniques that have left marginalised voices unheard.
YourGround was web‐based, accessible by digital/smart devices, and designed to reduce the barriers to engagement by using interactivity and visuals. Easy access to the survey and anonymity was critical for harvesting the stories and concerns of as wide a range of women as possible.
While this method relies on access to smart phones, the usage in Australia is extensive, although noted there are some internet gaps in rural and regional areas.
Women scan and read the environment
Women learn to ‘read’ public spaces for clues relating to the risk of being there. They read both physical and social aspect for these clues. Women look for lighting, space conditions, amenities and facilities. They check out what others are doing in the space and how many there are. This scanning is often in the context of the personal history of each woman.
Women are sensitive to the ‘vibe’ of a location and concerned with visibility. Along with gender-diverse people, women experience feeling of being unsafe and excluded in public space. They need a strong sense of belonging to exercise their right to be free of the threat of violence from men.
Women limit their engagement with public space
Public spaces that encourage longer stays and diverse activities received positive reviews from participants. In contrast, unsafe places were predominantly used for a single activity, suggesting that these locations were far less welcoming.
If a place felt unsafe, participants were reluctant to do anything there but pass through. Some noted that they did so as fast as possible if they were unable to avoid the location. Participants also avoided some places if they could, or only go with someone else. Tunnels and underpasses felt particularly unsafe along with poorly maintained pathways.
Current estimates indicate the world will not achieve the United Nations SDG goal of gender equality by 2030. It’s more likely to take another 70 years. The number of global crises bring a sharp focus to gender disparities. The issues of unequal access and opportunity are more stark. Prioritisation of gender equality is imperative to the sustainable development of cities, regions, and rural communities.
This article presents a case study of the YourGround project using an interactive, geolocative digital crowd‐mapping platform. This is a participatory method for gathering insights into perceptions of safety among women and gender‐diverse people in public spaces in Victoria and New South Wales, Australia.
The YourGround method of data collection and feminist co‐design democratises the research process. It amplifies marginalised voices, and avoids the hazards of the technology controlling the methods.
The findings underscore the nuanced and context‐specific nature of gender inequality in public spaces. They highlight the pervasive impact of social and environmental factors on safety perceptions and access in both urban contexts and rural areas.
The YourGround project provides city planners, urban designers, and community members, with a gender‐sensitive lens developed by the expertise of people from the community.
Pictures, photos, infographics, icons – they all convey messages. It is often said that images say more than words. A bar graph gives a visual representation of statistics making it easier to understand. A photo of a landscape in a tourist brochure piques interest in a place. Readily recognised icons send instant messages, such as this is a train station or this is a toilet. But it needs to be accessible graphic design.
Graphic design is an essential element of all communication.
The way text is presented also sends messages. For example, a tiny faint font sends the message to people with low vision that they are not included. A busy page with tightly compressed text is readable but uncomfortable.
When graphic designers consider accessibility and inclusivity in their work, the result is a better experience for all…
Woolley’s research explores how graphic designers learn about, interpret and implement accessibility standards into practice. She used participatory research methods, often referred to as co-design. The outcome is a framework and a set of recommendations for supporting the graphic design industry in Canada.
The thesis discusses many aspects of accessible and inclusive design, and it’s role in equitable access to public information. Woolley has three main pillars of discussion.
Understanding the importance of access – the moral angle
Understanding industry standards and guidelines – the responsibility angle
Understanding accessibility legislation – the legal angle
The framework and recommendations were designed through a collaborative process with participants and represent a collective need for industry support.
Handbook for accessible graphic design
Download this free practical handbook for accessible graphic design from Canada. The text covers typography, digital media, web accessibility, Office documents, accessible PDFs, print design, environmental graphic design, colour selection and more. It’s relatively easy to read and has a logical structure. At the end is a list of publications, links to websites and tools to help.
Staying connected is an important part of designing for access and inclusion, but how do you engage with socially isolated people to find out the cause of their loneliness? They are disconnected to community and not willing to share their state of loneliness. But there is a way to co-design a solution for late-life loneliness without close contact.
Newspaper articles deemed as human interest stories elicit most letters from readers. So, is there a way to turn this into a method for finding out about loneliness in the community? The COVID pandemic created a wave of isolation resulting loneliness for a lot of people. But how can you engage isolated people in research? – they are after all, isolated and disconnected. The newspaper turned out to be a really good way to engage hard-to-reach people.
This paper presents a comprehensive reference for an innovative low-contact co-design approach, aimed at mitigating sample bias commonly found in traditional co-design workshops for eHealth technologies. By partnering with a regional newspaper (134 000 readers), we engaged the broader public in the co-design process, to tackle the issue of late-life loneliness. We employed co-design fiction, dilemma-driven, and empathic design methods, integrating these within journalistic content to prompt the reader responses. This initiative attracted 77 responses, including 34 from older adults (65+ years), 27 of whom shared personal experiences with loneliness. Our findings highlight the potential of low-contact, co-design via newspapers to foster inclusive participation, overcoming the limitations of conventional workshops, and enabling engagement with a more representative population sample.
Talking about co-design and stakeholder engagement is one thing. Knowing how to do it is another. While organisations and universities like to make engagement central to their work, institutional practices are not keeping pace. Institutional policies, publishing pressures, and additional time needed stand in the way. Building capacity for engaged research is more than knowing how to run a focus group.
Engaged research embeds stakeholder views throughout the life of the research project. It encourages creation, and active collaboration with policy makers, practitioners and communities.
A workshop was held mid 2024 to bring together research leaders with hands-on experiences. These are people who are keen to see their research improve things for society and individuals. They see this as a timely opportunity for key people to coordinate their efforts. The result is a large volume published by the National Academies Presscontaining the workshop discussions and ideas.
Partnering with communities, policy makers and others is challenging. Measuring the impact of such research requires a suitable evaluation system.
The book of proceedings has 8 chapters:
Introduction
Importance of engaged researach
Challenges and solutions: synthesising two landscape reviews
Promising approaches for addressing key tensions in community engaged research
Aligning mission and incentives: valuing and prioritizing engaged research
The complex challenges facing society today call for new ways of doing research that bring researchers, policy makers, community leaders and members, industry stakeholders, and others together. The aim is to identify evidence needs, contribute different kinds of knowledge and expertise, and use evidence to accomplish shared goals.
Although momentum is building toward a research enterprise that more routinely enables and rewards this type of collaboration, the development of institutional capacities to support diverse forms of engaged research have not kept pace with the need for them.
Asking mobility device users to come to a focus group or co-design event about transport tells the story of inaccessibility immediately. They need transport to get there. Even when it is possible, it is more inconvenient, difficult, and time consuming than for other transport users. So remote focus groups offer a solution.
The objective of the study was to pilot test an inclusive design approach to obtain information from users often excluded in the design process due to transportation challenges.
The remote focus group participants were users of wheeled mobility devices. The researchers devised a method that worked for users and for the research study. Nine users were each asked to participate in one of two different focus group sessions. One discussed 1 to 7 passenger vehicle transportation systems. The other discussed 8 to 12 passenger vehicle transportation systems. Each participant attended two sessions making four sessions in total.
Each participant was visible on Zoom in the same way as they would in a face to face discussion. However, being remote, they could remain anonymous by using a nickname or a fictitious name. This personalised the sessions and encouraged users to contribute. Video demonstrations of small (1-7 passengers) and midsized (8-12 passengers) vehicles were shown to users.
The researchers asked user’s preferences about various elements of the journey. They included planning, vehicle identification, boarding and alighting, and riding location.
Stable online connections are a must
All participants had access to the technology, but sometimes lack of robust connections happened through the sessions for some participants. This is a potential barrier for individuals who lack sufficient access to the necessary technology.
The researchers conclude that well-designed remote focus groups provide a powerful tool for inclusive and qualitative research. However, there is room to refine the methodology so that participation and data quality are improved.
This study examines the use of remote focus groups to obtain user’s ideas on wheeled mobility devices and Shared Autonomous Vehicles (SAVs). Inclusive design is essential for accessible transportation. Over four virtual sessions we collected statements from nine wheeled mobility device users. They told us about their design preferences, needs, and challenges with SAVs.
The findings highlighted the diverse needs and preferences of participants. This emphasises the importance of collecting information from users early in the design process. Well-planned remote focus groups can be an effective tool to gather design information from user populations that face transportation barriers.
Shared driverless vehicle design
A related research paper from the Intelligent Mobility Design Centre in the UK looks at engaging users in the design process. The key issue of the study is the preparedness to share vehicles on a broad scale.
On-demand shared transportation is a major new mobility innovation and potentially the main mode of transport in coming decades. Studies show that driverless vehicles have potential to accelerate uptake of shared vehicles at scale. People perceive sharing positively but do not necessarily translate perception into action, with desire for personal space a major reason for unwillingness to share vehicles.
Design research is a powerful tool when creating methods and processes to anticipate future possibilities by visualising detailed features of proposed products. We present a set of design research methods engaging end users in a variety of empathy activities and a design process to translate their needs into visual concepts for future shared driverless vehicles that are attractive and more likely to be adopted.
Student voices are important in the design of health and wellbeing infrastructure. Being young does not automatically mean being fit and healthy especially in low socio-economic areas. The ability to share public space and support services is essential to wellbeing at any age. Co-designing with young people provides opportunities to include their perspectives.
Infrastructure development is increasingly being used as a way to support the wide-ranging health and wellbeing needs of target communities. But few projects directly involve children and young people with other stakeholders as key contributors to decision-making.
Children and young people have increasingly complex health and wellbeing needs and there are insufficient spaces and services to meet demand. Researchers at Queensland University of Technology tackle this issue by involving children and young people in the design of a wellbeing infrastructure project.
Place-based approaches refer to connecting infrastructure decision-making with the needs of a local community. It takes a cross-sectoral view of the interrelated infrastructure and amenity needs of a place, and identifies how these should be delivered.
Community hubs
Community hubs are typically multipurpose places that often include health and other community services. In most cases this is both appropriate and cost-efficient. However, few projects directly involve children and young people in the design process.
The research project involved high school students, teachers and other stakeholders in designing a new community hub. This hub is to be co-located at a high school in a community with high health and wellbeing needs.
Co-design and participation
Inclusive co-design with and for children and young people requires support to participate and keep them interested. There are four key factors: Space, Voice, Audience, and Influence:
Provide safe and inclusive spaces for views to be expressed
Give support and information for expressing views
Those in authority must listen to the views shared
Views must be taken seriously and acted upon by those with the power to influence or make decisions.
The article outlines the methods and provides illustrative examples of the students’ views and ideas. Feeling connected to the space was the overarching concept agreed by all stakeholder groups. The diagram taken from the research paper shows the four functions of the hub: community, health, social, and preventative health.
The co-design process revealed the essential nature of the social function – something not previously considered by the organisations involved. The process also provided an opportunity to “flesh out” what the social function might entail.
This research involved working with high school students, teachers, Guidance officers/School Counsellors, and other stakeholders. The project involved co-designing a new Community Hub co-located at a high school in a high-priority community .
We describe the co-design processes for engaging children and young people and adult stakeholders in the ideation and design phase of infrastructure and service development. The object is to support the health and wellbeing of a high priority community with high health needs.
The key insights pointed a way forward for the next stages of infrastructure and service delivery development. it also led to the development of several visual depictions of the complexities of stakeholder interests. Meaningful engagement of potential future users of place-based integrated health and wellbeing services enables responsive infrastructure designs that meet future needs of both target communities and service providers.
Young people and co-design
The views and experiences of young people are often left on the sidelines. Yet they have most to lose or gain in the way society evolves. So perhaps they should be the ones to craft strategies and approaches for creating the futures they want. Co-design methods are clearly the way to get young people participating in social change processes in their local area.
A study focusing on young people creating social change using co-creation techniques provides some useful insights. The aim of the researcher’s exploratory framework was to capture the explicit and implicit aspirations of young individuals. This approach also serves to increase our understanding of how to engage with young people.
The paper explains the methodology of ‘now-wow-how’ phases. This method was selected for accessibility and relevance in facilitating conversations with people unfamiliar with design skills. The co-design process used different tools at different stages.
A section of the paper is devoted to a critical reflection on what could have worked better. For example the author feels the school-based venue potentially limited explorative inquiries.
The study showed that exploratory co-creative sessions with young people can yield innovative insights to inform more direct change. Such sessions require tools that resonate with young peoples’ experiences while also stimulating both critical and creative thinking.
This paper provides details of the project’s structure, methodologies, and outcomes. In so doing, it provides insights into the processes of co-creation within community development and the empowerment of youth.
This study presents an inclusive research approach aimed at cultivating inclusivity and co-creating future living environments that resonate with young peoples’ needs and aspirations.
Through co-creative activities, the project captured insights into the lived experiences and future ambitions of young participants. The findings identify some of the entrenched norms and activities that spurred empathy and inclusive thinking through making and enactment.
The project contributes to the initiatives, strategies and methods for young people to shape the future of their hometown. The ‘Young 2.0’ project serves as a microcosm of the potential inherent in co-design to serve as a conduit for youth to express and enact their visions for a more inclusive society.
Participatory research in the health sector is fraught with obstacles. In particular, choosing appropriate methods to involve the heterogeneous stakeholders in the health system can be difficult. Not only are time constraints and hierarchies between professional (and non-professional) healthcare actors a challenge, but also dealing with patients who may have different physical and psychological limitations.
Accordingly, not all qualitative methods are applicable to all stakeholder groups. Limitations such as speech or visual impairments can make it difficult to participate in focus groups or design workshops. With a workshop at the European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work in 2024, we discussed experiences and lessons learned with participatory methods in the health sector. The workshop showed how different challenges were dealt with and thus opened up a space for reflection on participatory projects.
Other articles in this issue look at using visual metaphors, ideation, and challenges in participation of vulnerable groups in design processes.
Co-design is a term that emerged in the field of accessible and inclusive design. But co-design methods have been around for a long time in one form or another. Academics will recognise this as Participatory Action Research. Citizen science is a version of co-design that has its roots in environmental monitoring. This method is now used in urban planning and design.
Co-design and citizen science have similar principles. The common theme is being inclusive – that the people affected by design decisions help to shape them.
Is citizen science the same as co-design?
Citizen science, participatory action research, and co-design methods are all basically the same, but have roots in different disciplines.
Co-design strategies vary according to the context and complexity of the project as do citizen science projects. The Fifth Estate has an article that discusses citizen science as a method of community engagement in planning. It explains citizen science as a type of research that actively involves members of the public in the research process. Regardless, it makes sense to involve users in the process of the design. This is something the universal design movement has been advocating for some time.
“Citizen science has a long history in conservation and environmental monitoring, but has grown in momentum in recent years across a range of disciplines, including planning and urban design.”
Walkability in Tasmania
A citizen science approach was used in Tasmania. Residents audited the the local environment for barriers to walking. They identified priorities by using a walkability assessment tool taking photos, and participating in workshops. The information gathered was not only useful at a local level, but at state and national levels as well.
“Our use of citizen science is enabling researchers, policy makers and community members to work together to generate data and establish priorities to support walkability that reflects community needs.”
Citizen design science is a synthesis of citizen science and design science that uses a bottom-up approach. The transformation of a car park into a multifunctional public space is the subject of a citizen science paper from Turkey. The authors explain the project and how they went about engaging with citizens. The co-design process relies on communication between designers, residents, visitors and the local authority.
An additional outcome of the project was to establish a Citizen Participation Unit within the municipal authority to facilitate citizen coordination.
A key element of successful co-design is finding ways to design with non-designers through every stage of the project. Establishing a common language is essential for understanding the needs and thoughts of all participants. The authors break down the process into three parts:
Citizen science – type of data collected from participation
Citizen design – citizens actively design
Design science – translation of citizens’ ideas into designs by expert designers
The study showed that people without prior design knowledge are able to work constructively with professional designers.
Citizen Design Science is a co-design strategy for urban and architectural systems that uses design tools for citizens’ observation, experience, and local knowledge. The strategy improves the planning, design, and management of cities, urban habitats, and architectural structures.
This study is about the transformation of Atakent Car Park Area into a public space using a co-design process. Using design science data, two conceptual urban design projects were prepared. This included 178 local citizens’ wishes, needs, and suggestions about the area. Participating citizens were asked to vote for their preferred project and the selected conceptual design was implemented. Laypersons without prior design knowledge were able to establish a common language with a professional designer.
Age-friendly green space by citizen science
In many cities at least a quarter of the population will be over the age of 65 years by 2030. Adelaide in South Australia has one of the oldest populations at 37% over the age of 50. So this is a good place to run a citizen science pilot with older residents.
The method involved the use of smart phones to collect data, and the development of audit tools. The participants were encouraged to go about their daily lives so that the data reflected their natural life.
While the data were not the main focus of the project, several important design elements emerged. In order of importance they were: seating, street trees, natural bushland, park trees and lakes/river/ocean. The researchers noted that public green spaces in local neighbourhoods may be seen as “green corridors” – a conduit to everyday life rather than destinations in themselves. They conclude that citizen science methods are a good way to implement age-friendly urban design at a detailed level.
The quality of public green spaces is mostly measured through expert assessments by planners, designers and developers. A disadvantage of this expert-determined approach is that it often does not consider the appraisals or perceptions of residents. Daily experience, often over long periods of time, means older residents have acquired insider knowledge of their neighbourhood, and thus, may be more qualified to assess these spaces, including measuring what makes a valued or quality public green space.
Age-friendly university with citizen science
And a university campus provides a neat environment for a case study. Researchers at the University of Manitoba went about examining the age-friendliness of their campus using specific citizen science techniques. This is all documented in their article,Exploring University Age-Friendliness Using Collaborative Citizen Science.
The main aim was to test the method, but the data collected were useful as well. The data revealed physical accessibility, signage, and transportation as being the most important for improving overall age-friendliness.
The age-friendly university initiative began in Ireland at the Dublin City University and has turned into a global network. Academic institutions looking to complete assessments of their age-friendliness, particularly those exploring physical barriers and supports, could benefit from incorporating older citizen scientists into the process of collecting, analyzing, and mobilizing findings. You can read more about this global movement in a Forbes article.
