When we started this Ethics class, I was really thankful for the opportunity to explore not only existing ethical frameworks but also my own values. I’ve never taken space to really think about what I value as a person and how those values impact my decisions. I’m a logical reasoner and a gut-check verifier — so I definitely (over)think my decisions often, but those are mostly rooted in facts rather than values.
As a conflict-avoidant person, I also rarely debate issues and this class has challenged us to confront risks and challenges of ethical issues. It’s by recognizing this tension that I’ve been able to get more clarity on my stronger values and motivations.
Below I’m going to walk through the process of arriving at my ethical framework along with tools and resources that I regularly referenced.
Identifying My Values. Before we threw ourselves in the deep-end of ethics, we took the time to meditate on what matters most to us. Through a Personal Drivers exercise from Pivot (a delightful activity for an afternoon), I uncovered a few values that matter most to me: gratitude, growth, collaboration, courage, mindfulness, independence, and grit. These drivers served as a foundation for the rest of the course.
Understanding foundations. We also took the time to understand popular existing ethical frameworks and why those resonate. Understanding the basics of consequentialist, non-consequentialist, and agent-centered theories also primed us to understand both what a framework is and different modes of thinking about ethics.
Applied ethics. Over the last 6 weeks, we’ve continued to apply these existing ethical frameworks to issues of today. As we read about issues like dark patterns, privacy and consent, and technology addiction, I took note of the ethical questions that arose. For example, when reading about technology addiction, this quote from B.J. Fogg, the father of behavioral design, really stuck with me:
“What I always wanted to do was un-enslave people from technology.”
I asked myself: how can I work this into my framework? How can I ensure that as a designer I am fostering relationships, connection, and giving power to the user?
Synthesizing inspiration. With dozens of questions in the margins of my readings and notes from class, I tried to make sense of what ideas have been resonating with me over the past quarter.
I also referenced existing designer’s ethical frameworks to see if there were any blind spots in my thinking. Examples from Design Ethically, Artefact, and Kat Holmes provided inspiration and expanded my view to consider the system in which I operate as a designer, not just my personal values.
I paired down my questions to key ideas, affinitized those, and ultimately came up with a framework that leans on usage, power, and equity as the main 3 pillars with history and ecosystem as a foundation.
This graphic is a digestible abstraction of my ethical framework. Each of these themes has corresponding questions, and all of those questions are also considered through a lens of time and scale.
One of the core values reflected in my framework is the idea of promoting shared experiences. How can we create products and services that counteract filter bubbles, polarization, and disconnection?
With this foundation of connection in mind, my most important task moving forward is to be able to weave these ethical questions throughout my every day to help create a shared language with my network. I don’t want to be in a high castle of ethics. I want to make artifacts that can be easily shared and consumed to promote more of these conversations. I still feel like I’m at the peak of the complexity curve with my framework, so my challenge to my future self is to continue distilling these ideas into something I can quickly reference and share.
For a city with a culture so devoted to fitness and green spaces, Austin parks are surprisingly underfunded. APF attempts to bridge the gap between what park users need and what the city is able to provide through fundraising, volunteering, and events.
APF’s strategic vision includes increasing awareness of their organization in the community, diversifying funding streams, and improving the ranking of Austin parks nationally. We worked with them to develop design criteria that would support these goals in ways that were aligned with their mission, “People + Parks,” and supports their organizational commitment to equity.
Censorship is no longer a discussion of the prohibition of content. With the massive democratization of publishing platforms, the influx of content has created a new opportunity for censorship: information overload and attention redirection. 500 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute, The New York Times posts 250 pieces of content every day. Our president tweets over 4,000 times per year. It’s a lot to manage. The curation of content is the biggest threat to censorship.
Personalization of content creates filter bubbles that amplify existing biases and essentially forces us to live in different realities. This personalized reality decreases the quality of information we consume, lowers the likelihood that we will consider (or even hear) opposing viewpoints, and ultimately ruins civil discourse. After the 2016 presidential election, the polarization and manipulation of content have been widely discussed around the globe.
Curation of content is not simply a taste issue or an entertainment issue. The curation of content is at the core of a productive democracy. For something so important, we must ask: could we give users the power to curate the content they consume?
Ultimately, the goal of effective curation would be to develop an unbiased understanding of the world that is free of fractured realities or perspectives. Differences of opinion are welcome – but those conversations should be able to exist on the same plane. If curation continues to polarize, there will be no equal ground to stand on.
Risks and Benefits of User Curation
To first understand this question, I wanted to clearly debate the risks and benefits associated with user-controlled curation.
What are the risks associated with giving users the power to curate?
Users prefer echo chambers. These filter bubbles offer the reassurance of your opinion, reinforce existing biases, and keep you engaged with content that you’ve been proven to enjoy. This could worsen divides.
Curation requires prior knowledge. To truly curate a truly broad and representative view of a topic, proper knowledge is helpful. How can you represent multiple viewpoints on a topic if you don’t understand it?
Information overload could cause opt-out. If users aren’t fully empowered to curate content effectively, they could be overwhelmed and opt-out completely. Is biased information better than none at all?
Do they want power? If not given the proper tools to curate effectively, the cognitive load associated with decision-making could be too great. What if you don’t want to think?
Will misinformation worsen? Are users informed and engaged enough to fight social control and propaganda?
What are the benefits associated with giving users the power to curate?
Creates awareness of biases. By actively engaging in content curation to counteract bias, you will become more acutely aware of existing biases.
Rebalances power dynamics. In the most extreme cases like content bans in China to nipple bans on Instagram, the ability to curate is the hands of the powerful. By giving control make to users, we can work to redistribute power.
Respects user autonomy. In addition to rebalancing power, giving control back to the user also respects their autonomy, intellect, and ability to choose.
Teaches to combat misinformation. This is an area that is becoming increasingly urgent. As deepfakes and AI-assisted content creation become more popular, it’s vital for citizens to continue to fine-tune their filters for real content and misinformation. Relying completely on platforms to filter content trains users to be complacent over time. We must continue to ask ourselves: is this a credible source? Is this content logical? Can I fact-check this before sharing?
Applying My Ethical Framework
With these benefits and risks clearly displayed, I ran this problem through my framework. With individual autonomy and respect as core tenants of my ethical framework, I strongly believe that we should design products and services to give users more power to curate their content. The strongest argument for me lies around teaching helplessness. If we never give users the power to curate, how will we ever learn how to identify biased, false, or misleading information?
This artifact helped me understand where existing platforms lie, and where there are areas for opportunity. Escape Your Bubble, ConsiderIt, and Balancer were all tools we read about to counteract bias and create a more informed user. Despite the effectiveness of these tools, most of our day-to-day consumption exists in the echo chamber section. Because these platforms are personalized, it gives us a false sense of control and showcases content that feels resonant. This false sense of control keeps us from seeking more autonomy and keeps us complacent with the content that is given to us.
How can we actually give users control while still keeping them engaged?
“Which leads to daily frustrations with countless usernames, forgotten passwords, ID documents and time wasted waiting to be verified and authenticated to complete a task such as gaining access to a building, boarding a plane, getting a job, etc.”
He also details the importance of a singular identity for humanitarian and legal reasons. In order to have a voice, “a verifiable and trusted identity is necessary to interact and transact with others.”
While I agree, I think we need to distinguish between identifying information like our birthdate, social security number, and nationality and more adaptable pieces of our identity like behaviors, values, interests, and emotions.
In many papers we’ve read, both aspects of identity are used somewhat interchangeably. As computers spread into everyday objects and consumer tracking continues to get sneakier, the potential for data misuse, manipulation, and power imbalances becomes greater. This is magnified if we are then also subject to one, singular identity that is connected to all of our interactions. Davos-Klosters recognizes this as a risk, and said we need “options for those not wanting to have a digital identity or those that want to share only parts of their identities (e.g. different personas in a different context) or only share relevant identity data for specific purposes must be considered.”
Moving forward in discussions about identity, I argue there should be a clearer distinction between fixed parts of identity (things that might go on an ID) and adaptable parts of our identity.
Until we have more control and transparency over our data, I don’t feel comfortable arguing for unified identities. I don’t trust that corporations won’t use a humanitarian angle to ID people as an opportunity to sneak in data tracking on more adaptable, personal parts of our identity.
Imagine a future where all aspects of your identity were observed, noted, and stored — forever. From the moment you’re born, every aspect of your physical presence, interests, relationship, use of language — everything — was captured and stored.
As ubiquitous computing and the Internet of Things (IoT) popularizes, this future is possible. Right now, our digital behavior is meticulously monitored and stored in connection with our device ID, email address, or social media login. Our nondigital actions are not far behind. The distinction between our physical and digital presence is waining.
Without control of our data, a fractured identity is one of the few protections we have.
Right now, it’s possible for me to sign into my YouTube account with one email and watch certain videos and switch to a different browser for others (something I do regularly when watching work-related content like tutorials vs. entertaining videos about food or cultures). I consciously keep those pieces of myself separate, because I want to stay in a different mindset. I want to target different sides of myself.
If I were to have only one unified identity across all services, I would lose this control. All of my actions could be cataloged and attributed to me.
I remember when I was younger and adults would threaten me not to make bad decisions because “they would go on my permanent record.” I now know that no such permanent record exists. But in a world with a single identity that is made up of your digital and real-life actions, that permanent record could be a reality. And systems could start gathering and attributing data to you before you even have the capacity to consent.
Imagine a day where every interaction you have is personalized to who the system thinks you are.
Your alarm wakes you up at just the right time with news articles that have been curated entirely for your interests, storefronts or vending machines could adapt to only show you things you’re interested in, your doctor could only give you recommendations based on previous behaviors from the system. Everything could be built around your singular identity of how the system views you.
But what if you wanted to make a change? Imagine trying to combat a world that has been entirely personalized for who you’ve been. You would rarely have challenges or catalysts to inspire change. Even if you did, you’d have to combat a lifetime of data that informs your current state. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the algorithm thinks you are this way, maybe you’ll just always be that way. And who gets to write the algorithm? (That’s a whirlwind question for a later date.)
This already happens on a certain level with media consumption and social media habits. We create an echo chamber that is nearly impossible to escape. The only way I can (somewhat) escape is by changing my email or signing up for a new account and retraining the system. But if we had a unified identity, we’d lose that control too.
Discrimination & Manipulation
Another concern of unifying our digital identities is the potential for misuse. While fixed pieces of our identity are subject to discrimination, adaptable pieces of our identity are subject to manipulation.
Right now one of the only safeguards I have to combat constant tracking is through a purposefully fractured identity.
And finally, even if we are given more agency, I am concerned that information avoidance will keep us from truly being in control of our digital identities. So while we continue on this thread of the importance of digital identities, let’s be careful to not lump in data that may only lead to misuse.
At AC4D, we’re constantly being challenged to push ourselves. In Quarter 1, we started honing our presentation skills. In Quarter 2, our Ethics in Design class challenged us to facilitate. As designers, it’s a vital skill to be able to engage team members (both fellow designers and non-designers alike) in discussions about the ethical implications of our design decisions. We need to be able to spark a thought-provoking conversation that opens minds and allows for nuanced introspection while also staying focused and action-oriented.
Privacy & Consent in Practice
In this section, we are discussing privacy and identity — two quickly evolving issues that will undoubtedly affect us as working designers. From more top-of-mind issues like the Cambridge Analytica scandal to more niche discussions around using blockchain to decentralize identity, we got a whirlwind view of the biggest issues affecting the privacy sector today.
“There is a widespread intuition that people are inconsistent about protecting their privacy. People are angry about corporations collecting their data but often do not change simple default settings in their apps.” – Svirsky
But why? Svirsky suggested participants were behaving inconsistently in part because of “information avoidance” and that when it comes to privacy, “some people might be willing to spend some money to avoid thinking about it in the first place.”
With this in mind, I wanted to dive deeper into information avoidance, our relationship with privacy, and the consequences of information avoidance for my 30-minute facilitation.
We started with a simple prompt: what information are you currently avoiding? I asked my classmates to silently write one item per post-it, then present their topics to the group and we collectively grouped them. Immediately, trends emerged around finances (401k, savings), health (insurance, longevity), global inequalities, and even our cars (maintenance, what?).
This free flow of ideas we avoid helped set the stage for the next exercise — a quiz that asked you to consider “how much would you pay to avoid knowing certain information?”. When researching information avoidance, this prompt came up as an exercise to help identify if you are “ostriching” — or sticking your head in the sand to regularly avoid information.
While there was no unanimous agreement on everything, we all generally agreed we like to avoid information about our health, finances, and future state — especially if they are outside of our control. (Like the day we die, the balance of our 401k after a market crash.) From that prompt, we talked about trends in our information avoidance and tried to recognize patterns within ourselves.
Now that we had a thoughtful grasp on information avoidance, I asked everyone if there was a time when they had transitioned away from information avoidance. Are there things you use to avoid that you now can handle? What changed for you? How did you make that switch?
I tried to follow that thread and see if there were any ways that we could apply those previous learnings to how we relate to privacy. Are there universal coping mechanisms or tricks we could apply to bring privacy to the forefront?
Ultimately, we all agreed that information that was out of our control or that could not be changed were things we were more likely to avoid. Information like how much money we’ve spent on alcohol in our lifetimes or how many animals we’ve eaten were things I thought folks might want to avoid, but there was some interest in knowing because that information could help shape future behavior.
With control and agency being a key component in not practicing information avoidance, how can we better integrate this into how we talk about privacy? What control do we have currently?
Ultimately, we did not come to one singular conclusion, but there was more space to follow a thread of information avoidance and start to see patterns in ourselves.
This was a great learning experience for me, as I’ve never facilitated a group discussion like this before.
What went well? It was helpful to start the group with a solo thinking exercise and then transition to a group discussion to allow for individual ideas. Getting folks out of their seats always helps with energy, and having a balance of limited activities allowed for deeper discussion.
What would I modify? If I were to recreate the information avoidance worksheet, I would have made a sliding scale of 0-10 (0 being information you’d want to know, 10 being information you’d never want to find out) because applying a monetary number was abstract and differed greatly from person to person.
Most importantly, I would set a very clear agenda from the start with a clear goal. There were times when I was trying to lead a conversation and I would have liked to have been able to point to a whiteboard or presentation and remind folks of the goals of the conversation.
Since August, our team (Kyle, Michelle, Laura) has been working with Austin Parks Foundation (APF) to help them better understand the feelings of ownership over green spaces; specifically how those feelings of ownership can develop and drive behavior.
WHERE WE ARE IN THE DESIGN PROCESS
Through contextual inquiry and the sense-making process of theme-finding and service slice creation, we’ve developed a better understanding of how Austinites at multiple levels interact with the park system. Up until now, we’ve been in observation mode — interviewing participants, finding patterns in behavior, and mapping complex systems.
Earlier this month, we presented our themes and service slices to APF, which sparked a deep conversation around these themes and behaviors. While APF has a deep understanding of their stakeholders, presenting this data in a way that was both new and visual helped open communication around their blind spots of the problem space. As specialists in the arena, they were also able to help guide our insights by providing additional context and allowed us to gain empathy with their unique challenges.
Now we start to apply a critical lens to develop insights and a problem statement that will be the foundation for our design criteria.
WHAT ARE INSIGHTS?
An insight is a definitive, provocative statement of truth about human behavior. It is a bridge between research and design. An insight should include both an inferred observation and a provocation — a “should” statement. Good insights reflect our data (it should be true) while also sparking conversation (it can be debated).
To get to an insight we:
Start with a theme.
Rewrite our theme as a “why” statement.
Individually, we each create a provocative, definitive and complete answer to this “why” question.
Then together, we review each answer and combine into a single statement — and dial up the provocation. The more provocative, the more unique (and challenging) our design ideas can be.
We applied this process to 64 themes and created 119 why statements. With such a high volume, we gravitated towards insights that continued to spark conversation and provocation and chose those as our primary focus. From here, we developed a core problem statement.
WHAT IS A PROBLEM STATEMENT?
All of this sensemaking and insight development culminates with a problem statement — a succinct statement that describes the core opportunity area.
Oftentimes businesses jump right to an assumed problem. They focus on the same metric or the same process or goals — when the biggest problem area is yet to be uncovered. Simply put, they can’t see the forest for the trees. That’s where design research comes in. It allows us to take a step back, revisit the system with fresh eyes, and find latent needs or unmet expectations.
A problem statement is a succinct description of the issue that’s worth solving. It provides a foundation for ideation. For APF, our problem statement is:
People need Austin Parks Foundation to provide leadership, not just create consensus.
LACK OF DEFINITION RESTRICTS ACCESS
In many ways, APF acts as an extension of the city. Where Austin Parks and Rec Department (PARD) lacks funding and manpower, APF seeks to fill that gap. Because of APF’s close ties with PARD and the city, they use many of the same community-focused initiatives to come to a consensus among park adopters, visitors, neighborhood associations, conservancies, city departments, and their own goals as a nonprofit. All of these groups look to the community to drive their strategy — rather than one leading the charge.
While, in theory, this community-led strategy should encourage access and opportunity for all, we found that often this lack of focus creates confusion and, paradoxically, feelings of being left out or ignored when an opinion is expressed, but not brought to life. We also saw that despite massive investments of time and energy in communicating with the public, most park users didn’t have awareness of those efforts. The rarified few that were aware were small politically connected subsets of the population such as leaders of neighborhood organizations or people active in non-profit work. To those not involved, these processes do not seem inclusive or transparent.
This is seen clearly among the largest, yet least engaged stakeholder group for Austin Parks Foundation — park visitors — which leads us to our first insight:
Not defining how a park should be used leads to assumptions about who belongs in a park. APF should actively foster interactions across geography and demography to reduce negative judgments between users.
We heard many times from park leaders that there’s no “right way” to use a park — parks are for everyone. Yet park users did feel there were “right ways” to use a park — and oftentimes those “right ways” are conflicting.
Amanda, a new eastside resident, enjoys when families from outside of her neighborhood use her park throw events. In direct opposition is Daniel, a longtime park advocate, who felt that his neighborhood park was for his neighbors — and expressed judgment about outside visitors throwing events in his park. Because “ideal park behavior” has not been defined, visitors create their own expectations which lead to conflict.
We saw this pattern across park users of different types (cyclists versus dog walkers), with each group making negative assumptions about the impacts of the wrong types of use. Most glaringly we saw this problem manifest in attitudes and behaviors about park users perceived to be homeless.
This misunderstanding continues to the next most engaged cohort, park volunteers. We saw a wide range of volunteerism in our interviews, from physical labor to park advocacy to community organizing and event planning. All manifestations of the Austin Parks Foundation mission, People + Parks. We also heard from people who had talents and passions they wanted to share, such as web development, outdoor activity instruction or environmental education, but either didn’t believe that there was support for their contributions, were unaware of the entry points to volunteering, or even perceived parks as a hostile environment for their type of volunteerism. APF has not clearly defined and supported roles for the myriad types of volunteerism that park users feel inspired by. This led us to our second insight:
People believe that volunteering in parks must be physical, which limits the potential impact of volunteer efforts and restricts APF’s ability to engage the community. APF should diversify its support for volunteer engagement beyond current programming.
Sally, a retired disability advocate and active forager, values her neighborhood preserve and wants to help maintain it but her back injury has kept her from volunteering. She told us “You know what I would love to do? Organize neighborhood cleanups or put up signs to identify trees.” She also wanted to lead nature hikes and teach ethnobotany, but given her current understanding of park volunteerism, she didn’t believe it was possible.
INEQUITIES MUST BE CONFRONTED MORE DIRECTLY
Several park visitors and adopters felt that their park was underserved and blamed this on funds being diverted elsewhere. This tension was most often seen as a battle of “old Austin versus new Austin” or an “East versus West” mentality. Because park users felt funds weren’t being divvied correctly, it made them less likely to contribute at all.
Park users want to hoard resources for their park rather than contribute equitably to funding parks across Austin. APF needs to build more robust safeguards into their systems to counteract this tendency.
Wes, a regular user of Austin basketball courts, wanted to improve his park rather than Austin parks as a whole.
“I really want to know: how can I make a difference? Does my money … really make a difference where I want it to? Is that me being selfish by wanting to improve one park that’s close to me versus improving the parks in Austin as a whole?”
While APF and the city want to see all parks improve and park users shared this sentiment in theory, ultimately park users want to see their park improve the most. This was seen at a heightened level among park adopters.
The Park Adopter program amplifies existing inequities by matching highly privileged adopters to parks in their own affluent neighborhoods. APF should proactively manage this program to deconcentrate existing social capital and ensure equal access to funding and support.
The Park Adopter program turns citizens into advocates for their parks, so it’s a logical step that they would feel their park is most deserving of limited resources, whether from APF, the City of Austin or other grant-making organizations. But in this scenario, educated, wealthy and well-connected park adopters in affluent neighborhoods have the time, experience and access to divert funds to their park in creative ways.
10+ year park adopter Daniel skillfully maneuvers using his neighborhood association, city representative and lobbying methods to get funds for his neighborhood. Meanwhile, new park adopter Rico has less time, funds and access, which leads to his park receiving less over time.
While APF wants to serve historically underserved areas of North, South, and East Austin — the “Eastern Crescent”, they still have adopters and systems that have been in place for nearly a decade that continue to reinforce power for the already powerful. Everyone feels they deserve more, and the current model for grant approval favors the squeakiest wheels. And the folks with the most time to squeak are often the most privileged.
Now that we have a clearer focus of the problem area, we will work to provide recommendations and design criteria. These design criteria should empower Austin Parks Foundation to be able to develop its own programs, services, or even products that truly answer the problem area we uncovered.
Initially, our focus was simply to look at how gig economy workers are making financial decisions with fluctuating income streams. After a few initial interviews and feedback from our team, we’ve shifted our focus to better understand how the gig economy is supporting a new “American Dream” — one that values flexibility and freedom over stability.
Why the Gig Economy?
The gig economy is experiencing incredible turmoil as lawmakers, unions, workers, and companies all struggle to find common ground. Despite nearly a decade of growth in the on-demand economy, few unions exist and labor classifications are largely still in a traditional 1099 vs W2 model.
While the gig economy offers a low barrier to entry and access to fast cash, it is also ripe for worker exploitation. Less than 5% of on-demand gig economy workers use apps as their primary source of income and retention rates among platforms are low, which leads to a highly transient workforce that is difficult to mobilize.
Despite these pitfalls, the gig economy continues to grow as Americans search for ways to supplement their income, pay debts, or meet earnings goals.
Assumptions to Guide Research
With all of this in mind, we started our project with assumptions that helped guide our script and exercises.
We believe that on-demand gig workers largely overestimate what they receive from platforms — money, freedom, and control.
We believe that on-demand workers will be more likely to cut corners and assume greater risks to achieve their goals, like not purchasing commercial auto insurance or preparing for taxes in advance.
Because of quick access to cash that is difficult to track, we believe that on-demand workers will likely consider their goals in terms of time (hours, days, months) rather than clear dollar amounts. For example, a worker may set goals to work 3 hours a day, 5 days a week rather than setting a strict dollar amount goal.
As a result of this easy access to “instant cash”, we also anticipate that gig-economy workers will loosely budget resources in the short term (days/weeks) rather than long-term (months/years).
We talked to 14 on-demand gig economy workers with current and previous experience with Uber, Lyft, Shipt, Instacart, Favor, Postmates, Amazon, Task Rabbit, Bird, and Rover. Roughly half of our participants used the gig economy as their main source of income with the other half using the gig economy to supplement their primary job.
With our focus statement and assumptions in mind, we developed a script and exercises to help guide our research.
First, we start the interview to get a foundational understanding of our participants’ backgrounds and involvement with the gig economy. Then, we ask participants to engage in a series of activities designed to uncover the mindset and behaviors people have related to gig work, decision making, and personal value systems.
We give participants cards with words commonly used to describe work like flexible, money, community, on-the-job training, and more. Then, we ask participants to organize these cards in a way that is meaningful to them to help us uncover what aspects of work are important and affect their decision-making.
Nando, an Amazon worker and previous Favor Runner, ordered cards from most important to least important. He placed most of his emphasis on a fulfilling, stable career with strong growth potential.
To help us consider how participants consider their current or future potential, we had them map out a dream web. Starting with them in the center, they mapped specific goals and we probed on if they had timelines or clear paths towards achieving those goals.
Brittany, a single mom of 4, drew that her main goals were to own a home, put her children through college, get married, and start a nonprofit. She was very focused on providing a better future for her children and her community, so they don’t have to overcome the same difficulties she went through as a single parent.
Stressed vs Stable Timeline
Next, we had participants map out a recent time in their life when they were feeling financially stressed or stable. This exercise helped us understand how participants have navigated moments of financial stress or stability. We also were able to better understand what specifically made certain situations stressful or stable and what strategies were employed in either state.
Holly, an ex-software developer and Lyft driver, mapped out the last year of her life — starting with getting laid off in January until now. A major theme we saw was that stressed periods are not always a result of finances. In Holly’s case, one of her strongest periods was when she was not working at all.
Why contextual research?
You may be asking: why sit with people and map their dreams when you could send out a survey? Why start with people at all? Oftentimes, we think we understand the problem space and spend the majority of our time on solutions. But our method forces us to take a step back and first look for the right problem.
By spending time with the people we seek to help, we can get a better idea of their values, needs, and behaviors. Surveys often point you to what people already know they want. Through contextual research and probing, we are able to find latent needs: problem areas that our users may not be aware of yet.
By the end of this quarter, we hope to present JUST with a succinct problem statement so they can move forward — confident that their solution solves the right problem.
Now that we’ve compiled all of our interview data, we are in synthesis mode — making sense of this data by finding themes and creating visual representations of the system (service slices and concept maps). From there, we’ll use those themes as the foundation for insights — which will help lead us to our primary problem statement. This problem statement will ultimately serve as the catalyst for all of our design ideas in Quarter 3 and Quarter 4.
Have questions about our research? Are you in the gig economy and want to design with us? Email us at firstname.lastname@example.org with details.
For the next 8 weeks, our group (Allison, Michelle, and Laura) will be working with Austin-based nonprofit JUST to help them better understand financial decision-making among gig economy workers.
Historically, barriers such as credit scores, collateral, and track record have excluded people from starting and growing a business. The JUST program is designed to unlock resources for entrepreneurs to thrive.
What is JUST?
Founded by Steve Wanta (formerly the director of Whole Planet Foundation), JUST aims to build resilient communities through capital, coaching, and community. JUST provides loans exclusively based on trust (not collateral or credit score) to female, Spanish-speaking entrepreneurs.
Since 2016, JUST has loaned over $3.5 million to 2,000+ loans — with a 99.3% repayment rate.
JUST deeply understands the community they serve — Spanish-speaking, female entrepreneurs — and have proven their model to be successful within this group. As JUST looks to expand their mission and future offerings, they want to better understand the financial behaviors of a wider audience.
That’s where we come in. JUST has partnered with Austin Center for Design students to research new communities and our team is working with an ever-evolving community: gig-economy workers.
Through interviews, activities, and observation, we hope to better understand how workers in the on-demand gig economy are making financial decisions and how they navigate decision making with fluctuating income streams.
We hope to talk with:
Full-time gig economy workers
Workers who use the gig-economy to supplement their income (entrepreneurs, hourly wage)
Students who use the gig-economy to provide income for basic needs
We hope to spend 1-2 hours with each person observing them while they work and then doing activities to dig further into financial decision-making. All interviews will be anonymized and this data will be used for research purposes only.
We Need Your Help!
If you are working in the gig economy and would be willing to help us with our research, please email us at email@example.com to get started. Your perspective is incredibly valuable to better understanding and ultimately designing solutions for this unique group of workers.
As students working with a nonprofit, we appreciate your willingness to help both us and our community.
Austin Center for Design Austin Center for Design (AC4D) is an educational program uniquely focused on applying design principles to address social and humanitarian problems. Explore more of our philosophy and approach here.
As we finish our first quarter at AC4D, we continue to ask fundamental questions: What is a design? What makes design unique from other domains? Can a computer design? What’s a design problem?
What is design?
I started this program with a semi-cogent definition of what design is and why I wanted to be a designer: I wanted to make things. I wanted to help people.
Right now, I’m at the peak of the complexity curve. I’ve gathered so much new information, and haven’t had enough time to internalize it and simplify it. With more information than ever, I’m also more confused than ever.
So this section as we discussed design thinking, process, and what it means to be a designer — I kept coming back to intuition. Sure, I can absorb information; tell you the difference between an ill-structured problem and a well-structured problem, regurgitate the 10 principles of wicked problems, or teach you a creative exercise using random words. But when presented with a truly wicked problem, can I trust my intuition to know where to start? Can I find my voice as a designer to feel comfortable experimenting with creative problems?
To help me illustrate this internal tension, I started thinking about the idea of programming these learnings to create a robot design assistant. If you can program something, then you must truly understand it, right?
In 1973, Harold Cohen created AARON, a computer program designed to produce art autonomously.
Cohen trained AARON to create drawings through iterative design progress — evaluating the output and then modifying the program to reflect his own aesthetic. AARON cannot learn on its own, it needs input from Cohen. AARON has received a lot of attention as a feat of engineering and artistic effort — but Cohen is cautious to say AARON is creative.
It is Cohen who codes his process — he provides the rules. AARON is also incredibly prolific, sometimes making 50 images in an evening. But is it Cohen who chooses from this massive collection of work. He curates the experience. It’s the act of deciding what to teach AARON and curating his paintings that is truly the creative process.
So even if I could codify all principles of design and internalize them perfectly, when do I apply them? What’s the problem I’m trying to solve?
Distilling Principles of Design
In my comic, my character seeks to do just that — with the help of our lastest seven authors aka The Design Council. I start by trying to identify distinct design abilities. Pacione, Cross, and deBono have all identified key skills of a designer.
Pacione says design skills can not only be codified, but they can also be taught. Cross insists that a designer must be able to:
“Produce novel, unexpected solutions
Tolerate uncertainty, working with incomplete information
Apply imagination and constructive forethought to practical problems
Use drawings and other modeling media as means of problem-solving”
And deBono feels that serious creativity can be taught — through concepts as simple as his 6-thinking hat system.
While deBono and Pacione’s perspectives are encouraging for making a design robot, Cross forces my character to start to ask questions. How can a program work in uncertainty? Likewise, when do I, as a designer, know when to tolerate uncertainty or when should I dig further?
Despite this setback, my character moves forward with what I know. D, the robot design assistant, can now draw and share deBono’s creative prompts.
Then I move onto Wyatt and Buchanan. While Wyatt has a seemingly simple process for design thinking: Inspiration, Ideation, and Implementation; each process is incredibly nuanced. Buchanan starts to confuse me even further. He says that design can be applied to any area in the human experience.
If that’s true, then what is a design problem? How can I teach my design assistant (or myself) where to focus?
Again, I move forward with the tangible and my robot can now test prototypes and regurgitate the 3 I’s: Inspiration, Ideation, and Implementation.
My character is starting to understand design abilities and frameworks but is stuck on this idea of problem finding. I talk to Simon and Rittel in hopes of gaining clarity.
Simon has identified the differences between well-structured problems and ill-structured problems. What a great place to start! But unfortunately for my robot — almost all problems are ill-structured.
Rittel pushes this confusion further, saying:
“In the absence of an overriding social theory or an overriding social ethic, there is no gainsaying which group is right and which should have its ends served.” – Rittel & Webber
So not only are problems complex and difficult to find, they are everywhere, and there is no unified social order for which problems to prioritize.
Ultimately, my robot ends up spewing out quotes from deBono, Cross, and constantly asking “Why.” While these are all valid contributions to being a designer, it’s vital to know when to apply these tools. You must develop your designerly intuition.
So just as AARON creates artwork for Cohen, it’s up to Cohen to determine what to teach AARON, and ultimately, which pieces are truly creative.
I could create a design robot based on the fundamentals of these readings, but it is only through the act of designing that I can start to develop my own voice and intuition.
This is Part Two in a Service Design Project for Austin Parks Foundation. For Part One: Stories from the Field, go here.
Since August, our team (Kyle, Michelle, Laura) has been working with Austin Parks Foundation to help them better understand the feelings of ownership over green spaces; specifically how those feelings of ownership can develop and drive behavior.
OUR DESIGN PROCESS
As students, we are segmenting the design process into small, digestible pieces. In most practical applications, these processes can happen concurrently and are less isolated, but for the sake of learning, we’ve broken the design process down into five clear steps:
After 16 interviews with 19 participants, we developed 3,031 utterances. To help us make sense of this data, we make it physical. The act of hanging our utterances up on a wall helps in many ways:
We start to develop a mental map of where things are physically hung in the space. This type of spatial connection cannot happen in a spreadsheet with 3,000 rows.
The focus is on the idea, not the person. Many of our utterances were hung randomly, rather than organized by participant. As we read through the wall, we start to develop new connections with these utterances that abstract them from the person and allow us to focus on the behavior.
As we find connections, we physically move an utterance from one side of the room to another, next to other like-minded utterances. We then use this pool of utterances to develop themes.
The goal is to find emergent patterns among this mass of data that we can ultimately use to derive insights, problem statements, and design ideas. Here’s a sampling of five themes we uncovered as related to us by our interview participants (names and identifying information have been changed):
A SENSE OF OWNERSHIP DRIVES IRRATIONAL BEHAVIORS.
Park space is public. Austin Parks Foundation doesn’t own it. Park Adopters don’t own it. No one person owns it, yet we observed many actions that may have been appropriate for private spaces, such as someone’s own backyard, but were downright irrational in the context of a public park.
Madeline told us how ownership can manifest irrationally in Austin community gardens. A large tree that shaded part of the garden was growing even larger. Planning ahead, they realized they would either need to cut limbs off the tree or shift the location of garden plots that soon wouldn’t get enough sunlight. The response from an impacted gardener couldn’t have been more emphatic: “Limb up the tree! I cannot move” (Line 126). She described the attachment of people to their plots saying, “People have a huge sense of ownership because they’ve been cultivating it. I think that’s almost biblical in a way. You’ve been working the soil, there is a lot of energy and ownership that comes out of that” (Line 127).
Another participant, Jim, has spent the last 10 years helping maintain a preserve that is 25 minutes from his house. “For a while, I was coming here every day” (Line 2). He told us he “never goes anywhere without a weeder and a handsaw” (Line 152) — just in case he spots the #1 thing on his “shit list” — an invasive tree, Ligustrum. Although he admits that this battle against the invasive tree is never going to be won, he tirelessly persists in working to restore a more natural balance of native species to this space.
Robert lives adjacent to a neighborhood park that has recurring issues with waste left by park users including biohazards like hypodermic needles or condoms. Rather than choosing other places for himself and his family to recreate, he visits his park regularly, often twice a day, and frequently with his son. While we were visiting the park with him, he picked up a needle abandoned in the grass. He’s acutely aware of the risks, telling us, “You don’t know what’s on the other end. One wrong prick and you’re dead…Don’t laugh but I went out and bought welding gloves” (Line 135). Yet he continues to help maintain the park, even getting his son and other neighbors involved. Showing off the results of a recent park clean-up he had organized he told us, “The children are remarkably good [at helping with park clean-ups]. We told them, just don’t touch a needle or a condom. You’ll be fine. Look at this work – it’s great” (Line 80).
PEOPLE DON’T BELIEVE THEY RECEIVE THE SUPPORT THEY DESERVE.
Despite the city and Austin Park Foundation’s efforts to engage with the community, park-goers regularly expressed a feeling of being forgotten, ignored, and lacking support. Daniel, a lawyer, is concerned about the growth of Austin and the reallocation of funds away from his central neighborhood. “You know, a lot of money it’s been going to this sort of donut around the outskirts of town and trying to get them to spend money in existing parks when there’s new needs and new constituents. It’s always been a competition” (Line 72). He was one of several people who conveyed concern or curiosity about the way that resources were being allocated to parks by the city.
THERE ARE BATTLES BETWEEN ‘OLD AUSTIN’ AND ‘NEW AUSTIN.’
Most of the people we talked to had an awareness of Austin experiencing unprecedented growth. Different people were grappling with the changes in their own ways. Anders, a GIS analyst and East Austin resident, felt growth was positively impacting the parks, but honed in on sustainability and transportation as a problem that Austin was ill-equipped to address as it grows. He blamed newcomers in the suburbs for blocking the spending that needs to happen to improve transportation infrastructure in the city center. “Because the suburbs are only growing…the suburbs are growing faster than everything else and the suburbs are always going to vote against spending on the inner city” (Line 129).
Robert, a long-time Austin resident told us aggressive conflicts between developers and current residents. He explained, “Because we’re sort of in the thick of new development in Austin. Just trying to make sure developers don’t run rampant over the neighbors” (Line 54). He told us about the transition of his neighborhood park from a privately owned parcel to public land. In the process, a developer owned the land, but was stymied by the presence of protected heritage oaks that kept him from being able to convert the lot to a dense residential development. “He tried to poison these trees. Rumor is [company redacted] did it. But that I can’t stand up in court with that. Sprayed it with pesticides to try and kill the trees, then it rained hard, that washed the rain down the hill, and there’s a pond behind you. So it killed off the pond, but saved the trees” (Lines 8-9). While good luck and the right weather kept the developer from getting his way, Robert sees it as the responsibility of Austinites to be proactive in protecting their communities from developers.
An APF employee admitted that these concerns are commonly expressed to them when they are working on east side park improvements: “[Eastside residents said] ‘if you do something then it will be nice, and then everybody will want to move here. And then we’ll be priced out.’ I mean, it’s not an irrational fear” (Line 132). Many people we spoke to were acutely aware of decades of unfair treatment of and disregard for existing communities, especially in redlined neighborhoods. These residents are justifiably skeptical about “improvements” happening in their parks.
THE AVENUES FOR AFFECTING CHANGE IN PARKS ARE CUMBERSOME, SLOW, AND OPAQUE EVEN FOR INSIDERS.
In pursuing threads connected to feelings of ownership, we talked to many people whose sense of ownership sparked them to take action. Consistently we heard that the experience was cumbersome, slow and opaque. Even Daniel, who had considerable experience navigating local government told us:
“We have folks come out to join us for the meeting, or we’ll send a delegation down, a committee that come and meet with our council members. But, it’s also working your reps, saying you’re unhappy, moaning and groaning. It seems to work, but it’s pretty slow” (Line 99). His naivete about which of his many actions actually produced the intended result was common, as was the approach of trying as many things as possible in hopes that one will actually be effective. Even at the end of navigating the process, people were still not sure what worked, how they arrived at the final outcome, or why the city or APF supported their vision for the park.
When Bryan was trying to plan a free cycling event in a park, he felt the hurdles were too great and opted out. “The person who was directing it told me about the amount of paperwork he had to fill out just for a free event with no money tied to it in any form or fashion…When he told me what he had to go through I thought, ‘No, sorry, no’” (Line 53). This story was one of many missed opportunities of people who tried to improve the experience of park users, either through physical improvements or community programming but were thwarted by the bureaucratic dimensions of the process. Within the organizational structure of PARD and APF we found even more “black boxes,” processes that were so complex and opaque that employees could not explain them to us and that slowed or undermined their ability to do their jobs.
PEOPLE HAVE JUDGEMENTS ABOUT WHO BELONGS IN THEIR PARK SPACES.
There were substantially differing opinions about what is acceptable park behavior — and who are acceptable park users. Park users conveyed complicated hierarchies about who belonged using criteria like class, geography, ethnicity, and age. These were often hard to tease out, as people were generally aware of not wanting to make sweeping generalizations about groups of people in front of a live microphone. People were less shy about telling us about behavioral criteria. Behaviors like bike riding, car driving, dog walking, drug use, and drinking, and unauthorized camping had both vocal supporters and detractors.
Daniel told us that he feels his park is being “usurped” by outsiders. “Because of the size of this park, it’s considered a local neighborhood park. It’s not like Zilker, a citywide park. But the people who really love it don’t live here.They tend to be Hispanic. They have grown-up parties in the ballfield, and kid birthday parties down here. Year after year, the same kids come back and have their pinatas.” (Line 131)
He was certain these visitors were not from the neighborhood because his neighbors mostly drive “European cars”, whereas these other park visitors “drive trucks and minivans”. Changes that he was advocating for in the park would reduce parking, and make his park less accessible to people from outside the neighborhood. He said, “I don’t want to be harsh about it, but we pay our taxes. We chose to live here because of the parks. We should have some sort of first dibs on what happens in those parks.”
Amongst those considering behavioral criteria, by far the most common concerns were about homeless people living in parks. People generally felt strongly about the issue–either in favor of making parks safe and inclusive for all people, especially vulnerable populations like those experiencing homelessness; or convinced that the use of parks by homeless people is incompatible in most or all circumstances with other park use and can’t be prioritized.
Park Adopter Rico is concerned about their impact: “There are homeless people here and they’re chopping down trees. And I’m like, ‘Heck No!’ The one that was hoarding–remember I told you about all that trash–not only was he hoarding, but he was drug dealing. Zero tolerance when it comes to stuff like that.” (Line 128) He and many others made negative assumptions about the actions of those they perceived to be homeless or poor, with or without evidence, and felt that “normal” park use should take precedence.
On the other end of the spectrum, PARD employee Oliver felt that all are welcome in parks – even homeless park users.“Another thing that I think people really don’t accept on a subconscious level in Austin, is that homeless park users are part of the community of users. There is no right way to enjoy a park.” (Line 137)
As Austinites grapple with the issue of homelessness in parks and beyond, many have come to understand homelessness as a state that many are at risk of experiencing, not a lifestyle choice or the natural consequence of poor decision-making. This more nuanced understanding leads to a view that park use can be judged primarily by the impact of the use and in the context of the users’ needs. Parks can meet the needs of housed and unhoused users. The stereotyping of users based on appearances leads to behaviors that make the lives of homeless people even more difficult. Oliver explained compassionate approaches to support those who have nowhere else to stay in ways that honor that person’s humanity and also provide them opportunities to lessen their environmental impact in parks.
These five themes are just a sampling of the patterns we uncovered. We’ll continue to use this data to make sense of our problem space. Over the next three weeks, we’ll reference the same interviews to help us get a “birds-eye view” of the entire park system to develop service slices. Stay tuned! Want a deeper look at our interview process and stories from the field? Go here.