2.1 Research Philosophy & Strategy
There were many truths to the world, depending on the viewpoints of the observer; scientific laws were constructed by people to fit their view of the world (Easterby-Smith etc., 2012). The research to date has identified social integration as a multidimensional issue that different stakeholders had different perceptions about.
The ontology in this research was subjective and a social constructionist approach was adopted in this research to investigate the problem and understand the ways in which the world was constructed and given meaning by immigrants and locals. This led to a post-positivist stance, which has led to subjective research methods that encouraged active engagement of the researcher with those who were being researched (Holden & Lynch, 2004). The units of analysis were individuals of immigrant heritage, natives, industry practitioners and academics involved in the work of social integration.
Based on this research philosophy, the initial research strategy to investigate the use of experience design to achieve social integration involved two tactics:
· Outside in — Conducting interviews with users (immigrants, locals) and experts to discover the way they constructed their view of the world
· Inside out — Employing an action research approach through personal immersion and co-creation workshops to engage with immigrants and locals in-situ
2.2 An Overview of Research Approach into Social Integration
Given the interconnectedness of the social, economic, and political for integration to happen, more than one standalone intervention was most likely required. Jeannotte’s (2008) model on the elements of social integration showed the basic and enhanced levels of an individual’s needs to be fulfilled, the kinds of investments required, and the outcomes these investments would lead to.
As Alan Cooper (2015), founder of design studio, Cooper, said, “Trying to change a complex system with simple solutions always backfires.” For such complex issues as immigration, it might be easy for unintended consequences (Merton, 1936) to occur, be it due to ignorance, errors in analysis, overlooking long-term interests, or having a self-defeating prophecy. To avoid causing harm or delivering design solutions that had little or negative impact on users, the human-centered double diamond design process could be employed to discover user needs and develop solutions (Betts & Bloom, 2014).
Carnegie Mellon’s work on Transition Design (Impact Design Hub, 2015), provided some guidance on the design approach to take:
Recognising the duration of this research project might not allow for user engagement over periods of time long enough to achieve system-wide, radical change, a “design for social innovation” approach would perhaps be appropriate — to challenge existing paradigms of anti-immigrant sentiments pervasive in society. Co-design tools were once again recommended for empowering users with the necessary tools to advance social integration in society.
The research project’s duration would also most probably not allow for all aspects of integration depicted by Jeannotte (2008) to be tackled. Therefore focusing on coming up with key design principles would make this research useful for future design researchers when they working on social integration issues. What might be the key design principles required for social integration interventions to work?
