Feminist Design Cycle
Why re-imagine the Human-Centered Design Cycle?
Academia has contributed to systemic oppression by gatekeeping knowledge production.
Historically, thoughts, stories, and innovations have been assigned value by those holding power in academic spaces. As we examine the distribution of power in society through lenses of race, class, gender, and so on, we must reckon with academic knowledge as a product of such inequitable systems. In design, we must confront and diversify the perspectives centered and reflected in our methodologies.
The human-centered design cycle (HCD) is a tool to craft thoughtful, responsible, and intuitive experiences. My program at the University of Washington in Human-Centered Design & Engineering (HCDE) defined this process through five steps: empathize, ideate, design, prototype, test, and assess. In HCDE 300, my professor urged us to understand, critique, and challenge this framework.
My team of 3 decided to apply a feminist lens in order to propose an inclusive redesign of the HCD cycle. We referenced the Stanford d.school’s visualization to frame our own iteration of the process.
What does a feminist design cycle entail?
Fostering Mutuality
First, we wanted to question the foundation from which designers are empathizing by promoting self-reflection. This inspired a step zero: fostering mutuality. We referenced this concept from activist bell hooks in order to prompt designers to consider their own powers and privileges. This step urges designers to create space for historically marginalized perspectives, recognize the power of design as an institution for knowledge creation, and confront potential hierarchy and saviorship in the dynamic between designer and user. We regard Step Zero as an ongoing call for structural change among design as a discipline, and continue to reference it in the following steps.
Reciporcity
Next in our process is the alternative to Empathy. Our three main critiques investigate empathy as a practice that has been, and continues to be, rooted in assumption, power, and saviorship. The implications that designers are “empathizers” position those they design for as “the empathized.” This hierarchy is problematic when we realize that design is a discipline that has historically embodied the perspectives of white, upper class, able-bodied, heterosexual, cis men. To challenge this power dynamic, we once again reference bell hooks who writes that “with reciprocity all things do not need to be equal in order for acceptance and mutuality to thrive.”
Positioning & Mapping
We chose to substitute “defining” with “positioning and mapping.” This step is in response to a quote from author Sasha Constanza-Chock who writes that: “discriminatory design often operates through standardization.” When standardization plays a role in enforcing binaries, it can perpetuate discrimination against users who reject and exist beyond those binaries. With this step, we hope to encourage designers to reflect on their positionality within the matrix of domination in order to apply an intersectional, multi-axi, approach to defining the problem space at hand.
Extrapolate
Our final major revision spans the prototyping and testing stages. Extrapolation serves as a meta stage that is a reminder to consider how design interacts with individuals, communities, environments, and systems as a whole. One key concept from the original Prototype step that we challenged was “role play to understand context and key features.” Role Play is a design method that designers leverage to simulate the user experience for a product from the intended audience. We chose to remove this from our framework because trying to replicate someone’s identity can prove more harmful than not. Especially in the context of attempting to simulate disability, this method can create tangible consequences if it yields a product based entirely on assumption. Instead of simulating scenarios, we advocate for having these voices in the room and actively referenced throughout the design process.
Extrapolation is also rooted in the feminist act of Speculation. Imagining alternative realities can serve as a powerful tool to recognize the systems of oppression that exist within our own world. It serves as a way for designers to navigate the unfamiliar, consider potential unintended consequences, and mitigate them along the way.
The following artifacts provide more insight and rationale into each re-imaged step:
My minor in Gender, Women, & Sexuality Studies informed my motivation for this project. Many of my courses in this discipline were taught by Dr. Regina Yung Lee. During my senior year of undergrad, she invited me to present this framework to her students in GWSS 202: Introduction to Critical Feminist Data Studies. I designed the below presentation to summarize my team’s framework and create a dialogue around such mediums for radical imagination.
Why does it matter?
Design is a discipline that informs the worlds arounds us by reflecting and reproducing societal values. As designers, we are afforded both the privilege and responsibility of creating a just world. This process is streamlined when we begin by building inclusion into our discipline.
A Feminist HCD framework may not translate smoothly into industry as the original human-centered design process itself is often compromised in spaces that value capital over craft. It is not meant to be implemented easily. Systemic liberation requires time and effort. What I have shared lies in theory and imaginary. I invite you to join me in integrating these values into your practice— however you may see fit— to enact a vision for a radical future. I also welcome critique and discussion to continue generating and evolving our design methodologies.
