Australia’s overseas aid program aims for inclusive development and projects are expected to adhere to principles of universal design. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) has an Accessibility Design Guidebased on universal design principles. The Guide was developed in 2009 but remains the key reference to inclusive development related to disability.
“This guide is a rich resource of ideas which development practitioners can consider when applying universal design. The aim is to support Australia’s aid program so it minimises barriers and becomes more accessible.”
The Guide supports the 2015-2020 Development for Allstrategy. The issue of gender is acknowledged in this publication and how this impacts women and girls. The importance of disability-inclusive development and how Australia can make a difference is part of the introduction.
The objectives
The objectives of disability inclusive development are to improve the quality of life of people with disability in developing countries. This will be achieved through:
enhancing participation as contributors, leaders and decision makers
reducing poverty
improving equality in all areas of public life, education and employment.
It is interesting to note that the Australian Government applies universal design thinking to projects in other countries, but not across Australian projects. Nevertheless, DFAT claims it “supports Australia’s own commitment to people with disability …”. Accessibility standards for the public domain are not universal design and insufficient to create an inclusive society..
The Guide remains on the DFAT website (November 2024) with links to more detailed documents. This includes a more recent brochure with a list of top 10 tipsto promote universal design. However, the thinking behind both documents is that universal design is only about people with disability. Of course the concepts have moved on to include the diversity of the population and intersectionality.
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.
The book is about being disabled in public and the privilege of having a private place to call home. It provides cross sectional views from colonialism to cycling, and from art to recycling. The style of writing is engaging and carries the reader through vibrant perspectives on disability justice and urban systems. Order from Coach House Books, or other booksellers.
This open access book of conference papers addresses age-friendly environments, disability, dementia, learning systems, clothing, digital media and more. Many really interesting papers from around the globe.
Flourish by Design is a book about designing for a better tomorrow. The book explores the difference that design can make for people, organisations, and the planet.
The editors are so keen for change they have made it open access.
Flourish by Design has 32 chapters covering a diversity of design ideas and issues. “Design impacts everyday life, shaping the way we engage with the world and those around us. This is not simply limited to the ‘us’ as human beings but also the many other species we share the planet with.”
Eliason shows the potential for new climate-adaptive ecodistricts that address housing shortages while simultaneously planning for climate change. Ecodistricts incorporate social housing, invest in open space, and have infrastructure that adapts to climate change. Eliason also looks at public health, livability, climate adaptation, and quality of life are interconnected. Full-color photos and illustrations show what is possible in ecodistricts around the world.
The media tends to look at the housing crisis from a middle class young-middle aged point of view. This is an ageist perspective because it leaves out everyone else not in this age bracket. Those left out include older people, young people in shared houses, and people with disability. These groups are always absent from the discussions and therefore remain invisible.
Melissa Marsden writes, “…this leads me to conclude that housing will continue to be placed within a discourse of ageism rather than a discourse of privilege. Where age or impairment are treated as unrelated issues, the crisis is only becoming more divisive.”
Marsden’s short article provides a perspective consistently missing from all housing debates in the media and in policy development.
Marsden uses the ABC TV’s Insiders discussion program to highlight some of the issues missing from the discussion. The age debate focuses on younger people being locked out of the housing market. These younger people are assumed to have good jobs and reasonable incomes. That’s not all younger people and especially not younger people with disability.
While not the largest group by number, women aged 55 plus are the fastest growing group experiencing homelessness. Not all older people are superannuated retirees owning their own home. And some older people are caring for adult children with disability. Where is this group in the debate?
Almost all people with disability live in private homes – not specialised homes – not any more. But the media (and governments) still have outdated ideas about the aspirations of people with disability. Of course they would love to own their own home and be independent.
There is more about housing, housing design, and the Livable Housing Standard in the Housing Design section of this website.
Much is discussed about older people and digital exclusion, but this ageist thinking leaves young people out of the discussion. Hence the stereotype of young people being more digitally literate than older cohorts. Not all young people or older people are all the same. Often they have more in common than not. Access to digital devices and digital news and information is a problem for both groups. It just depends on the individual, their background, culture, education and experiences, not their age.
The challenge is to consider young people’s diverse backgrounds in digital design. Digital exclusion restricts social and democratic participation.
A literature review by three researchers in Portugal offer some insights and challenges to the digital media world. Digital media play an important role in young people’s development and learning processes. However, not all young people are the same and some media can also become sources of exclusion.
Gender, race, and socioeconomics intersect
Gender, race, and socioeconomic, cultural, and educational backgrounds intersect and interact leading to compound disadvantages. Too often younger people are seen as well-equipped to consume digital media without considering diversity. Not all young people have attributes that make them more tech-capable. But what is more important is how young people engage with media and how they connect with the world.
Links between young people, news and citizenship
The researchers focused on studies that link young people, news, and their digital citizenship. We need to know more about how young people think, behave and feel, and what they expect from news. Access to news is essential for understanding and participating in democracies. It is part of the quest for enhancing inclusive citizenship.
Researchers suggest there is an “academic urgency to study, both quantitatively and qualitatively, young people and their diversity profiles in media consumption and production in their daily contexts…”
Social and digital exclusion affects each individual’s life and social connection. Stigmatisation, and the gap between those with access to technology and education and those who lack digital citizenship competencies, is evident.
There is an urgent need for research to consider the particularities of the individuals who make up groups rather than focusing on assumed similarities. Diversity is broad and challenging, but focusing on it contributes to understanding the cultural, social, and ideological forces that shape society, its groups, and individuals. We are each all the better for understanding each other.
YouNDigital aims to study youth, their engagement with news, and digital citizenship dynamics. One of the core elements of the project is a digital newsroom, a space for meeting and exploring digital citizenship and news, considering the significant disparities that characterise individuals in this group.
To better understand the target groups and to support the decisions regarding the development of the youth‐led digital newsroom, the research team carried out a systematic literature review focused on youth, digital citizenship, diversity, and different methodological approaches.
We explore the outcomes of the systematic literature review, and delve into the data gathered in one of the subclusters (Diversities). Findings underscore the challenges of inclusivity and diversity. There is a need for tailored media and digital literacy interventions that consider cultural differences, socioeconomic factors, and evolving technological landscapes.
There are difficulties, as well as the positive results, in using digital tools and strategies to trigger learning and motivational processes for diverse audiences. Digital tools that rely on media creation, creativity, critical thinking, and collaboration can promote the empowerment and inclusion of youth from distinct backgrounds, bridging the gap between their realities and citizenship experiences.
The findings point out that involvement in collaborative, immersive, and participatory processes anchored on sustained literature review processes can encourage distancing preconceptions while bringing them closer to research participants. The article contributes to discussions regarding the potential and the challenges of considering youth’s diverse backgrounds through pillars such as co‐creation or inclusive design. Mitigating youth social and digital exclusion to enhance democratic participation is an urgent matter.
The benefits of holding the Olympic and Paralympic Games must be long lasting, and this aspect is key to being the winning bid to be the host city. So what kind of legacy can we expect from Brisbane 2032 Games? CUDA held a symposium to discuss the Games Legacy strategy which is titled, Elevate 2042.
The vision is to move to a more inclusive, sustainable and connected society with more opportunities for everyone. And to make the region better, sooner together through sport.
Elevate 2042, is the product of collective effort of the Games delivery partners. It is promoted as a guide to maintain a collective focus on society, economy, connectivity and environment.
The Games Legacy Strategy is not about benefits for a few, or ideas that have nothing to do with the Games. It is about making bigger things happen sooner for the benefit of as many communities as possible. The concept of universal design was mentioned once in the document and on the very last page.
The Olympic and Paralympic Games is a great opportunity to embed a universal design approach into all the work leading up to the event. This would drive the access and inclusion agenda for everyone in a coordinated way. The purpose of CUDA’s symposium was to find ways to embed universal design thinking into the implementation plan.
Symposium recommendations
Apanel of four speakers set the scene which fed into the workshop discussions with participants. Two key themes emerged from those discussions.
Embed universal design principles in all procurement processes including pre-procurement to develop appropriate scopes of works.
Embed co-design at the beginning of all decision-making processes at all levels and make the process mandatory.
Universal design is a unifying concept
Universal design is three things: an ethical principle for inclusion of diversity; a vision of an inclusive society; and a unifying approach to policy and perspectives. It’s this last point that is of greatest value to the implementation of the Games Legacy Strategy.
With so many government departments and stakeholders involved, an abstract concept such as inclusion can fall between the cracks. Taking universal design approach across the development of all activities keeps inclusion at the forefront in transport, housing, planning, employment, communications, services, and tourism to name a few.
The draft recommendationsare open for comment until 30 July. They cover active transport, planning and infrastructure, housing, tourism, and co-design.
Embedding a universal design approach at the concept stage of any undertaking using co-design methods, and continuing the concept through to completion, will add support to a sustainable and successful legacy for the Brisbane 2032 Games.
Steinfeld and Maisel devised the 8 Goals of Universal Design in 2012 as a way of making the 7 Principles more practical. That was more than 10 years ago. The concepts of universal design are evolving so it’s time to take another look.
A group of five passionate universal design campaigners in Poland have a great page on their website with their version of the goals of universal design.
Everyone constantly interacts with the space around them and relies on their senses. Our senses and physical abilities change, affecting the way we perceive, use and interact with the environment around us.
Sight – what do we see?
Hearing – what do we hear?
Touch – what do we touch?
Cognition – What do we understand?
Movement – how do we move our body?
A group of five passionate universal design campaigners in Poland have a great page on their website with their version of the goals of universal design. You might have to activate Google translate to get the page in English.
8 Goals refined
Here are the slight tweaks to the wording in Magdalena Storozhenko-Polak’s version compared to the original.
Magdalena Version
Body adaptation: takes into account the different body sizes and abilities of users.
Comfort: reduces the effort needed to use the product or space.
Readability : ensures that the most important information is easy and accessible to everyone to understand.
Intuitive: makes project operation logical and easy to learn.
Well-being: promotes health and prevents disease and injury.
Social inclusion : ensures that all groups have the opportunity to use spaces and activities.
Personalization : gives users the ability to tailor the design to their individual needs and preferences.
Taking into account cultural diversity: designs solutions appropriate for a given cultural circle, respecting its values and socio-environmental context.
Original Version
Body fit: accommodating a wide range of body sizes and abilities
Comfort: keeping demands within desirable limits of body function and perception
Awareness: ensuring that critical information for use is easily perceived
Understanding: making methods of operation and use intuitive, clear and unambiguous.
Wellness: contributing to health promotion, avoidance of disease and protection from hazards.
Social integration: treating all groups with dignity and respect.
Personalization: incorporating opportunities for choice and the expression of individual preferences.
Cultural appropriateness: respecting and reinforcing cultural values and the social and environmental context of any design project.
(Steinfeld, Maisel, 2012)
Magdalena’s websiteexplains each of the goals in more detail with photographic examples. There is a lot of other useful information on this website in blog posts. Check for Google translate.
However the goals and principles are devised and written, they should be taken in context of co-design and co-creation processes with users. They are a guide, rather than a checklist for designers.
Adapting the goals
The Everyone Can Play guide is a good example of adapting the goals to suit the context of the project, in this case, playspaces.
The six guiding design principles are: Find, Fit, Choose, Join In, Thrive, and Belong
The panel session speakers gave participants plenty to think about at CUDA’s Brisbane Symposium focused on legacy planning for the 2032 Games. There were four topics of discussion: Housing, Transport, Tourism, and Local Government.
The aim of the symposium was to find ways to embed universal design thinking into the Implementation Plan for the Games Legacy Planning. Four speakers set the scene: Malcolm Middleton, Kevin Cocks, Melissa James and Rebecca Arnaud. You can access their biographies in the links below.
Thanks to live captioning every word was captured in a transcript. This gave plenty of material for the edited highlights which follow after the bios below.
Image shows the captioner in the foreground with the speaker panel in the background.
Malcolm Middleton, OAM, former Queensland Government Architect, addressed the topic of housing.
Kevin CocksAM, Department of Transport and Main Roads addressed the topic of transport.
Melissa James, Inclusive Tourism Australia addressed the topic of tourism.
Rebecca Arnaud, Brisbane City Council’s Manager, Legacy and Games Planning took a local government perspective.
Malcolm Middleton, OAM
Malcolm Middleton discussed the importance of good governance, because without it nothing gets done in government. So what is governance? It’s a mix of politics and management and trying to “influence different people at different times in different settings to do the right thing”.
Malcolm spoke about his role when Queensland was getting ready to adopt the Livable Housing Design Standard and how having the right person in the room at the right time made a difference to the outcome. His advice was that if you want something done, or to change, you have to be determined, political and plan the way to get governance in place.
Read more of what Malcolm had to say in the edited transcript about Queensland adopting the Livable Housing Standard and his thoughts on governance in government.
Kevin Cocks, AM
Kevin began with comments about the exclusion of people who are deemed inferior and the structural and institutional challenges posed by governments and their policies which continue this injustice. Governments have control of three major areas of our lives that are fundamental for citizens to build the platform for self-determination. They are transport, housing and education. These three areas have the power to include or exclude.
Kevin made the point that bringing about change when everyone wants business as usual is not limited to government. People revert to old behaviours and practices – the ones they are comfortable with. Working towards an inclusive society includes working towards an inclusive workforce – that’s part of change management.
Taking a universal design approach also means using co-design methods and Kevin explained TMR’s relationship with Queenslanders with Disability Network (QDN). TMR also worked with QUT to develop a universally designed AV people mover. TMR have developed an Access and Inclusion Strategy, and at its core is universal design. The outcome is to build an inclusive workplace and produce inclusive products, goods and services for staff and customers.
Read more of what Kevin had to say about his role at Transport and Main Roads and his thoughts on privilege and the exclusion of people deemed inferior.
Melissa James
Melissa began with the issue of disability not being an attractive proposition to tourism operators. She supported this comment by pointing out that advertisements very rarely show people with lived experience of disability. She added that even when disability is addressed by operators, their concept of ‘accessible’ is often misleading. That’s why her initial idea of having a website of accessible accommodation and attractions wasn’t going to work.
In her work as a consultant she found that operators didn’t think there was a ‘disability market’ to explore. However, when the Queensland Government offered funding, some people became interested. The Commonwealth Games provided opportunities for education and workshops to build capacity within the tourism industry. The outcome of course, is that if you make a place accessible for visitors, you make it accessible for locals.
It requires several things to get more accessible places and experiences: government funding and backing, education of operators, and building capacity. Some operators don’t know they have accessible features because they don’t know what accessibility is. Providing ongoing support to businesses to improve accessibility will help make it happen.
You can read more from Melissa’s edited transcript about her personal experiences.
Rebecca Arnaud
Rebecca’s background is in urban planning, and she emphasised the role of local government as the place where the action happens, albeit quietly. She spoke about her role as Manager of Legacy and Games Planning. She explained that the host city has to demonstrate that any new buildings or sports venues are needed for the community, not because of the Games.
Most events will be held in existing venues because new venues are not encouraged . However, this brings its own problems for accessibility because you don’t have a brand new venue to work with.
Image shows Rebecca Arnaud speaking with her words captured on the captioning screen.
Rebecca explained that the Games Legacy Plan, Elevate 2042, was devised by several stakeholders with their own interests. However, the next phase of Elevate 2042 is to pull together the first-generation implementation plan and there is an opportunity to contribute to this. Rebecca encouraged feedback and constructive ideas for the implementation plan.
How do we solve big problems such as pandemics, climate change, and unemployment? Linear step by step processes are no longer the way to address these complex challenges. Something else is needed. Jan Auernhammer discusses the issues in his latest article, Design in Strategy and Strategy in Design.
Auernhammer proposes that complex problems require collaborative processes and capabilities. People with diverse perspectives work on solutions together to come up with the best possible solutions. In other words, co-design processes work best.
Auernhammer first clarifies the vocabulary that’s needed to make sure everyone is talking about the same thing. He then presents three perspectives. First, is a method that uses tools, models and plans. Second, is learning through collective reflection from intent and action. Third, where design and strategy emerge from creative and collaborative processes.
Put simply, the first perspective follows established logic, the second is where designers think about it, and the third is co-design. The third perspective is about deep engagement in a psychologically safe and free environment. This might be in the design studio itself with other designers, or with stakeholders in a community engagement process.
From the summary
“Integrating Strategy and Design requires building collaborative and comprehensive design capabilities. These collective capabilities have the potential to respond to emerging complex challenges with strategic intent and through sophisticated design capabilities enacted in everyday practice.”
This article outlines the evolution of Design in Strategy and Strategy in Design and discusses the differences and similarities. Examination of the evolutions reveals three different perspectives on integrating Strategy and Design in both fields.
The article provides a nuanced understanding of Strategic Design by purposefully establishing the vocabulary of each perspective.
The first perspective is a planning practice containing strategic tools and design methods to create conceptual models and plans. The second perspective is a learning practice through collective reflection from intent and action.
The last perspective is the enablement of a comprehensive design practice in which tangible design and strategy emerge from the messiness of creative and collaborative design practice.
These three Strategic Design practices require different organization and design capabilities and produce distinctive outcomes. The integration of Design and Strategy is becoming increasingly imperative as there is the need to address the more complex, interrelated socio-technological and economic-environmental challenges.
People with disability are often left out at the beginning of the research process when organisations want research done quickly. This reduces the level of power they have as members of the research team. To be effective, people with disability must be in decision-making positions before research proposals are developed.
People with disability are expected to be involved as researchers and decision-makers in research projects. But co-design methods require respect for the process from the outset.
Researchers have to navigate tensions inherent within research institutions when involving people with disability from the beginning of the process. Improving the quality of the research is one of the aims of co-designing with people with disability. It also gives an opportunity to employ people who might not otherwise find a job.
A research team led by Flinders University use a case study to show how to engage with prospective co-designers. They looked at the different factors or conditions that enable or constrain co-design work, and how they relate to each other. The funding of commissioned work has an effect on the internal dynamics and relations within the team. They also found that authority and power can shift and change depending on how these components interact.
Clearly there is more to simply gathering a group of people with disability within a research team and thinking co-design will just happen. Factors such as institutional requirements, and authoritarian hierarchies can have a significant impact on co-design processes.
People with and without disability need to work together to overcome resistance when co-design work is not treated with respect by people or systems.
From the abstract
This paper explores tensions navigated by researchers and project leaders when involving people with disability as experts in co-design and in the core team.
Structural conditions of funding and institutional support were foundational to the co-design. These included accessible practices, core roles for people with disability and resolving ableist conditions.
Power shifts were easily undermined by institutionalised norms that disrespected the co-design contributions. The value of co-designing research was centre to articulating key issues, methodology and analysis.
Building capacity for engaged research
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.
Co-research with Experts with Disability
The following abstract is from a paper that requires institutional access for a free read.
Existing co-research methods often limit participation and perpetuate exclusion of highly diverse populations. This chapter introduces an approach to co-design research that is inclusive and supports full participation of individuals with unique or diverse needs.
Co-research has moved from the “design for” perspective to the “design with” perspective, and more recently to the “design by” perspective. Design by means the population most impacted by the design is supported in creating the design.
Inclusive co-design is a mindset that is applied in three ways: appreciating, scaffolding, and keeping (the ASK approach). Appreciating involves recognition of co-researchers as experts in their lived experience.
Keeping gives ownership and builds capacity within the co-researchers and their communities in the research process and outcomes. We build on our own experience from over one hundred inclusive co-design research activities, to provide guidance and approaches to other researchers who want to engage in inclusive co-design research.
