Why developing countries cannot afford generic, decontextualized design
Posted on December 6, 2016In his article, “Is Humanitarian Design the New Imperialism?” Bruce Nussbaum explores the notion of humanitarian design or design in the international development context, and asks whether “foreign”, primarily western designers, being flown in to create these designs are a type of imperialism. Emma Eriksson This article, written in 2010, the numerous written responses that have followed it, and the uncountable conversations that happen in design studios around the world are important opportunities for designers from every country to reflect on their own practice. How does a designer’s contextual knowledge add to, or detract from, their efficacy? And what can we as designers do to move towards truly contextual solutions?
I would describe myself as a strategist, or perhaps even a strategic designer. I would also be comfortable describing myself as Kenyan, and maybe even African (given my half Kenyan, half Swedish heritage). For the last 3 years I have been working in humanitarian design and strategy consulting in East Africa. I have primarily been working in the agriculture and access to finance sectors. What is important to note is that I could not describe myself as a farmer. I have also been working in Ethiopia, Tanzania and Rwanda, among other african countries and I could not describe myself as a citizen of any of those countries. Nussbaum’s musings on design imperialism should therefore extend beyond “western” (which in his article is often interchangeable with “foreign”) designers, flying into and out of developing countries, to “local” designers, designing for a population that is different from their own. We should not just talk about imperialism, but talk about contextual design and what all designers can and should do ground their designs in the local context.
I think it is also important to look beyond the role of the designer, to the role that development partners and other stakeholders play. In a traditional design setting (for example graphic design, product design etc.), the designer is creating a solution for a client who also represents the end user of the product. In a humanitarian design context, the designer is creating a solution for a client (normally a NGO, foundation, or other international organization) that is then serving a separate end user community. In these situations, which account for the majority of humanitarian design briefs, both the instigator of the project (the client) and the designer, are designing for a population that is different from their own. Exploring the power dynamics and spheres of influence found in these structures is important to understanding how we can better contextualize design.
Going back to humanitarian design; at its core it is a practice that develops solutions for lower income, marginalized, or vulnerable communities. These communities are typically incredibly resource constrained, not just financially and technologically, but sociopolitically (with limited access to the mechanisms required for change), and environmentally (often living in areas and working in sectors that are incredibly vulnerable to changes in the environment, such as agriculture). Purchasing decisions therefore have phenomenal impact on the users and their families. This is not a fast consumer culture, that is a luxury few can afford. For this reason, users in developing countries cannot afford generic, decontextualized design solutions. The solutions they purchase need to work for them, and be developed with them at the centre.
To begin to unpack some of the issues of contextual design, and explore some possible factors that enhance in, I look to my own design practice. I pull from a recent engagement with a notable international foundation, who commissioned my former firm to create a program that provided financial and informational services to 1 million smallholder farmers across 3 countries in East and Southern Africa. The parameters of the design brief and accompanying implementation strategy seemed very broad; 1) The solutions offered should be able to be delivered over some digital platform (preferable mobile phone based), 2) The foundation would support implementation over a 5 year lifecycle, 3) All solutions created should be delivered in partnership with existing local service providers, and 4) Program implementation should be evaluated using a innovative impact evaluation protocol that would be developed in tandem with the implementation strategy.
Looking back on this project, I realize that I was very lucky. Yes, the client did impose some parameters on the project. These parameters were based on some ingoing assumptions of what the client assumed the end user would want and need. However, the parameters set were based on significant research into smallholder farming communities at a macro level. There is evidence to support the need for financial and informational services for smallholder farmers in general – as these services are found to have greatest increases in economic and social mobility for farmers. Our experiences speaking to farmers in context confirmed this, however they revealed some nuances that altered the client’s ingoing assumption. They had assumed that financial services, particularly loans would be highly valued by the community as a means to obtaining agricultural inputs (improved seed, animal feed, fertilizer, pesticide etc.) that could be used to grow their business. We knew that loans were available to farmers, but the requirements for obtaining them were often insurmountable (requirements included having almost a matching amount of savings), as farmers rarely had physical collateral that financial institutions deemed sufficient. What we found is that farmers would primarily take loans for non farming related purchases; the most common loans were to finance school fees for children. The farmers would instead procure agricultural inputs through the cooperatives that they sell too, taking them as an advance against future income. These insights ultimately shaped one of the service we designed, which involved creating a mobile application to improve and deepen the services offered through the cooperative advance system.
It is important to note that our client was flexible in many regards; as a foundation they were not politically motivated as some bilateral and multilateral donors, and other NGOs are. If we came to them with compelling evidence, they were willing to move away from some of their ingoing hypotheses and reevaluate parameters. The client also came out into the field with us a lot which meant that they were often convinced by the end user directly. In total we probably spent at least 4 months over a 6 month period in the field conducting the initial research that would go into one country implementation strategy, for one community. A representative of the client team was with us at least 70% of the time. Very few design briefs are built with this amount of in context research, it is both expensive and labor intensive, and as such is sometimes deemed unnecessary.
A further freedom was that the client allowed us to identify the communities that we would be designing for. Would we try and co-create a service for farmers growing crops (eg. maize and tomatoes) or for farmers engaged in livestock production (eg. dairy and chickens)? Were we targeting people producing staple crops that have typically been consumed for subsistence, or commercial crops? The freedom to seek the answers to these questions meant that we could engage with representatives (including cooperative and association leaders, and more than a hundred individual farmers) from these various communities and find out if they needed something that fit within the broad parameters of our design brief. The ability for the end user community to have this level of agency is a rarity in the international development context, where a design brief typically takes the form; “develop a mobile based credit product for maize farmers in Rwanda that could be expanded or replicated in neighboring countries”.
Finally, the client imposed an additional parameter that the solutions created must be delivered in partnership with existing local service providers. This local service provider – in many cases a mobile network operator or app developer – created additional constraints to the design process. It stands to reason that the more parameters that are added, the less creative freedom the designers have, but more importantly, the less agency the end users have; everyone now must live in this clearly defined box. While this was certainly true, a major benefit of forcing partnership with a local implementor is the probability of long term sustainability. Internationally funded social impact projects are famous in their ability to be amazing for a few years, and then when funding peters out, services also die an uneventful death. This partnership model ensured that the majority of the costs and risks of early implementation were borne by the foundation, rather than the private sector company, this allowed them to address a lower income population they may usually overlook. The long term implementation of the project however, would be in the hands of the private sector company, whose success was dependent on the uptake and use of the service. Ultimately this empowers the end user.
How does all of this tie back to the question of contextualized design? The example I have provided above is interesting in several ways: 1) the design team was primarily east african in origin, 2) the local partner’s existing services were well known and widely used by the end user communities targeted for the new intervention, 3) the top down design brief was broad and flexible, and perhaps most importantly 4) the client had budgeted for significant in context research. The intricacies of implementation I have highlighted above, allowed us (within the constraints already mentioned) to co-create solutions with the end user population; the solutions were therefore both locally created and locally held. However, the designers and strategists, as well as the client and the mobile network operator benefitted from deep and sustained engagement with the end user community – engagement that continues to this day. None of us were farmers, many of us had significant experience working in agriculture, or creating financial and informational services, but ultimately the local community were the experts of their own context and the team worked hard to ensure the designs represented them.
So, going back to the title of this blog, given that developing countries cannot afford generic, decontextualized design, what can we as designers do? In the long term, we must increase access to design education, a discipline that is not found in many developing country learning institutions, deepening “local” design expertise. But this does not solve every problem, as “local” in the country context, is not “local” in every situation, therefore there are steps that can be taken to ensure local contextualization. Firstly, designing humanitarian solutions often starts before designers are engaged, therefore clients and other funders need to be thoughtful and flexible about how they write design briefs. Secondly, establishing deep local partnerships is vital; these local representatives are more able to identify and build trust within the end user communities. Thirdly, committing to continuous and sustained interaction, over a significant period of time, with the end user community is a must. Continuous engagement is the only way to begin to understand the local context, it is also the best way to learn and iterate, ensuring the quality of service provision is sustained over time. Finally, leaving all ego and preconceptions behind, and always elevating the importance of the local populations insight in favor of your own is key. In some ways, the design team should become a conduit through which the local community can manifest their needs and aspirations. These are lofty targets, and require designers, funders, and other stakeholders, including myself to be patient, self critical, and deeply empathetic.
– Emma Eriksson