Design | Not Losing the Tree for the Forest

How starting on the local community level design can change the larger system

When you are tackling a large complex problem such as financial inequity, it could be overwhelming where to even begin. Or vise versa, when you are working with a small town for community-based design, you could become myopic by the unique challenges of the individual participants.

It is easy to lose the forest for the trees. But then, how do I not lose the trees for the forest, either?

As a young designer, I am often distracted by larger system-scale problems (it is abstracted, therefore, fun to think about). However, being on the ground, designing through action with the community is something I am looking forward to experiencing.

So how am I reconciling the details(tree) and systems(forest)? How can I bring in the big picture conversation into the minds of the participants? And why would a case study about participatory capital in small Alleghany county matter to solving bigger financial inequity?

Let us talk about the last question first.

Why would a case study about participatory capital in Pittsburgh matter to solving American financial inequity?

According to Donella Meadows, a complex system has ‘leverage points’ where a small shift in one thing can result in a big change. I think providing the options for local businesses to seek investment through their community inherently changes the power dynamics between the community and the existing financial structure.

I firmly believe that participatory capital is an influential leverage point. Through the design process and synthesis, I will farther investigate the characteristics of this leverage point. (*Meadows list 12 different places of leverage point. My guess is that this is a solution that is changing the flow of materials and minimalizing an undesirable feedback loop of poverty and discrimination. There might be other characteristics we could consider.)

This case study would provide an opportunity to find and test our hypothesis that participatory capital can be a leverage point for a problematic financial system. If successful, this case study can be a starting template for other community participatory capital projects, setting off a chain reaction change.

How can I bring in the big picture conversation into the minds of participants?

In order for our case study to be a template for other communities, our design’s participants should understand the larger system. Tackling some of the commonalities (aka. systematic problems) would make this case study useful to future adaptation.

So, how could we incorporate the bigger picture conversation into the community-based design process? How can we keep the process flexible and at the same time, unique to the local context? For example, sustainable might not be a big factor in our local community surrounded by rural green spaces, but if we are talking about designing a local participatory capital process for every town in America, we need to start thinking about how certain conversations such as circular economy should be prioritized.

However, the community I will be working with is a middle-to-low income community located in heart of old coal country. Many have fallen into poverty with the decline of coal and the discussion of the environment is political and emotional. (Read more about the community in my next post)

So where do we start? I think reframing should happen to guide us from a small picture to a big picture. For example, I believe that the big picture could come in as a spatial dimension, but also as a temporal dimension. What is their history and where do they want to go in the future? Relating to a far way neighbor might be difficult, but thinking about your grandchildren might bring new emotional investment.

Continuous reframing might help us situate ourselves in the bigger system, helping us design an outcome that can encompass both local and global values.