Codesigning with Kea?

Notes from my first MDes critique

This is an approximation of the narrative from my first MDes critique with Massey University’s College of Creative Arts Post-Grad program.

Volunteer Impact is the name I gave to my desire to work on a big complex problem of our time, when I began exploring the project in late 2013. Over the last 10 years, I’ve been involved in the environmental conservation sector in a number of roles, and am deeply passionate about the world we live in, and the life that inhabits it. I want to explain a little about the big picture of this Masters of Design, and why in fact I chose to do an MDes instead of say, an MBA like I probably would have been encouraged to 10 years ago — based on the fact I’d like to set up a social enterprise off the back of this research project.

The big complex problem which I’m addressing, is firstly one of Biodiversity loss. We are losing the fabric of life which has evolved over billions of years, and there’s little doubt about what’s causing those extinctions. I’ve seen too many landscapes denuded of the life which once inhabited it, and whether you’re interested in the intrinsic value of Life itself, or more of the self interest of the value it has for humans and it’s ability to sustain us, I believe this is one of the greatest challenges we face. If addressed properly, biodiversity gain has the potential to tackle climate change, mental health, food security and a number of other big complex problems we face in our lifetimes, and that of our children and their mokopuna (grandchildren).

The problem inside this problem which I’m interested in tackling is Anthropocentrism. Simply put, the world view that humans are important beyond all else. This dangerous, pervasive world view is driving our economies, our development agendas, our societies and our education systems. This world view is a contributing cause of the ongoing, systemic, seemingly intractable challenges which we face today — which is only increasing with the rapid rise in interconnectivity and speed at which the world is moving.

To understand my perspective on this problem, I need to talk to Complexity Science. I’ve recently been reading Jean Boulton’s book ‘Embracing Complexity’ which has been a useful primer on complexity, which has given me some perspectives on my own oncology. Complexity Science speaks to the kind of dynamic, ever changing systems which I have observed through my work in ecological conservation, but which can also be applied as a lens on society.

I’ve found this useful as it hints towards some design principles for strategically intervening in complex problems, as well as grounding my practice in a pre-defined (yet relatively young) discipline and body of work. This provides me some giants whose shoulders I can stand on.

I am also heavily influenced by my professional work on complex problems such as youth mental health, food-systems, and the work I’ve recently been (peripherally) involved in to tackle racial inequality in Chicago. The practice underpinning much of this work has come from the work of Zaid Hassan on what he calls ‘social labs’ which are platforms for the kind of cross-disciplinary collaboration which we need to work on these complex problems.

Recently I’ve started to ask questions about what kinds of design methods and processes are useful to use and build on. There’s been much buzz about human-centered design over the past 10 years or so, but I’m concerned that starting from this place is missing the part of fundamental question I’m posing — how do we break down Anthropocentric world views? So, as I explored wider, I obviously came across several design processes which are inspired or based on ‘nature’, such as Permaculture and Biomimicry. However from my research, I’ve found little in the Design space which directly seeks to generate positive outcomes for ‘ecology itself’.

So I find myself asking things like “how do we co-design with Kea?”.

Given that we know a tiny amount the complexity and functioning of ecology, how do we best design with it’s regeneration in mind?

Given that I’m calling out anthropocentrism, how is this not just another ‘god delusion’ which is giving the power to ‘us humans’ to ‘design for’ the rest of ecology?!

I guess my opinion is that we’re already designing systems and processes which affect Ecology every day. Often badly. So, if someone doesn’t ask these questions, then we’re just going to keep pushing that curve of extinctions higher.

Ok, so a little bit about my perspective of ‘Why Design?’.

I often say that I’m not trained in ‘traditional Design’. Part of that comes from the imposter syndrome which no one likes to talk about, but everyone seems to have. I’ve been following Mitch Goldstein (tutor at RIT) recently, and was particularly loving his twitter tirades about what Design is, and how to be a Designer.

What I’ve slowly realised over the last 2 months of my MDes, about my work in the Design space, is that I have come from the perspective of Strategic Design — the world of fuzzy “we need to get from A to F but don’t know how to get there” type briefs, inventing business models, and future visioning. I’ve noticed there has been a slow recognition (or perhaps re-recognition — I’m still learning the history) that Design can be a strategic practice, and that Strategic Design is a discipline much like Service Design or Interaction Design. I’ve lived in this world for the last 6 or 7 years, and I’m prepared to own that as my training.

I see the potential for Design as the glue which holds together these kinds of cross-disciplinary collaborations which are so needed in the world. Too many talk about collaboration, but provide no shared framework or mental models to do it well, no pointers on how to build collaborative capacity. I see healthy signs of this in Design however, so I’m excited about exploring this role of Design-As-Facilitator, rather than Design-As-Producer.

To use an ecological metaphor, I hope to use Design as the means to enable a diverse range of people to swarm on complex problems.

In this sense, I expect my MDes to span three discreet phases of Design practice — starting in the Strategic domain, moving more towards Service as a direction emerges more, and then heading into Interaction more as the solution becomes more feature focused.

So digging into the ‘what’s been happening in my MDes so far’, as well as tuning back into the project fully, I’ve been outlining my approach as well as that more philosophical piece.

Going back to the context of ‘working on complex problems’, my approach to this project has been heavily influenced by both Snowden’s Cynefin Framework which touches on sensemaking and acting on complex problems, Boulton’s work on Embracing Complexity, and Hassan’s work on Social Labs. All of this point to some core ways to respond to complex problems, which I boil down to three things:

1. Prototype. In the face of complexity, one of the worst things you can do is plan long term and stick to that plan regardless. That is to say if you’re planning 6 months or more, your plan is probably likely to be inadequate if you’re tackling a complex problem, because things change. More analysis isn’t the answer, prototyping-driven exploration and adaptation is.
2. Participate. When you’re dealing with complex problems, it always feels like you’re missing data, or haven’t read the latest report. We crave certainty, but you’ll never get it. So the best approach is to be involve the people who are affected by the challenge (or better yet, support them to design, themselves). So I’ve been delving into participatory methods outlined by Liz Sanders, Penny Hagen and more, to explore how I can maximise participation in this project.
3. Percolate. Change doesn’t always happen fast, but it happens irregularly. Considering I’m focused on ecological and social factors in this project, the impact I’m looking to have may not fit neatly into a 2 year MDes. That said, prototyping can support rapid iterations and learning, so I’m leaning on Kahneman’s work on ‘Thinking Fast & Slow’, to create myself a structure of prototype-driven design research, which also has time built in for slower sensemaking about the broader strategic goals of the project.

Finally, this brings me to defining some starting points for further investigation. I’ve found that focusing on what we want to learn — or inquiry — is the best way to nurture the kind of curiosity needed for this project.

These aren’t the meta narratives of the whole project, but they’re starting points which will lead to other questions.

“How can design allow Rangers more time and build their capability to create better experiences for volunteers?”

This is digging into a theory I have about ecological conservation currently needing human energy to address the problems we ourselves are creating. If this is the case, community-led conservation isn’t going away, and indeed it’s on the increase in New Zealand. If this is the case, I believe the co-ordinators, activators and servant leaders of this movement (“Rangers”) are the acupuncture point — if we can increase their capacity and make their lives easier, then we can make more money and energy flow into the environmental sector, which is systemically underfunded.

It also touches on my thinking about the potential for experience design to make a huge impact in the environmental sector. I know very few people who are thinking in this way, or using these methods, in the sector, and I believe small amounts of capacity building could have huge effects on the quality and outcomes for people & planet.

Last of all, I’m asking:

“How can design create feedback loops for volunteers to increase understanding of their impact, and increase their motivation and commitment to environmental volunteering over time?”

This is starting to look at my early inclines that the positive and negative feedback loops for volunteers in the environmental space are mostly implicit. I believe that making the feedback loops — such as project progress, or change in air quality — more explicit, could be a key to increasing long term involvement. Pretty much all Rangers wish for long term volunteers who they don’t have to search for, train, and explain everything to each time an event happens. But volunteers have got to want to be there, and loyalty to one particular project is less important (in the big picture of conservation) than long term involvement in a range of environmental projects — where they would still build up a range of skills and abilities, and be valuable volunteers.

So practically, I might be looking at feedback loops such as data visualisation or media collection, or even storytelling. My research project will work that out, I hope!

Thanks for getting this far!

If you’re interested in the direction of this MDes, then please do follow this collection or feel free to get in touch on Twitter. You can also check out the project as it evolves as an offering at http://volunteerimpact.co

References from this talk:

1. Boulton, J. G., Allen, P. M., & Bowman, C. (2015). Embracing Complexity. Oxford University Press. http://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199565252.001.0001
2. Hassan, Z. (2014). The Social Labs Revolution A New Approach to Solving Our Most Complex Challenges. (T. Grove, Ed.) (1st ed.). Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. https://www.bkconnection.com/books/title/the-social-labs-revolution
3. Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4(1), 5–18. http://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068
4. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking Fast and Slow (1st ed.). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. http://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2
5. Snowden, D. (2007). Cynefin Framework. Retrieved from http://cognitive-edge.com/
6. Holmgren, D. (n.d.). Permaculture Design Principles. Retrieved from https://permacultureprinciples.com/principles/
7. Benyus, J. (n.d.). Biomimicry Thinking. Retrieved from http://biomimicry.net/about/biomimicry/biomimicry-designlens/biomimicry-thinking/