You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

Connected Learning Alliance Logo
  • About Connected Learning
  • Who we are
  • Resources
  • Publications
  • Blog
  • Get Connected
May 23, 2022

Equity Is Not Justice: Designing for the Struggle

Categories: Civic Engagement, Connected Learning, Critical Perspectives, Digital Learning, Educational Practice, Equity, Featured, Research
A large crowd with signs protests outside. A tan building is in the background.

The CLL community, a vital center of creative work in HCI, games, and other kinds of learning technologies for nearly twenty years, has consistently countered illusory promises of the democratizing influence of technology with a real commitment to equity. As CLL Director Dr. Mimi Ito and co-author Dr. Justin Reich write, “apps, software, and devices are put in the service of existing structures and systems, rather than rearranging them.” In other words, technologies do not disrupt the ubiquitous, powerful social hierarchies that structure everyday life; they are part of them. But the CLL community has also held that the design of digital technologies, when rooted in authentic community partnership, can highlight, rearrange, or critique power. As Dr. Lyndsay Grant wrote in this space over ten years ago, design practices “provide a good way for thinking about the process of change necessary in a movement towards social justice.” 

How might educators, researchers, technologists, and the public connect work in design to contemporary struggles for justice without engaging in saviorism or, worse, ignoring our own contributions to the multiple, interlocking structural oppressions that shape public life ?1 The risks here are acute, especially given the way the design workforce and the institutions of education that feed it are marked by many intersecting forms of privilege and exclusion.2 For example, my own research shows how an interest in providing working-class Black and Latinx students access to learning technologies in the name of social justice leads to invasive surveillance and extractive data capture.3 

Some recent work in HCI questions the relationship between structural oppression (chiefly in the context of the United States) and design work. While these works do not claim to correct, cure, or solve structural oppression, they do offer ways to (re)connect the work of design to conversations among activists and critical scholars who call for the dismantling of race-, gender-, class-, caste-, and disability-based hierarchies, especially with respect to the design of digital technologies. 

What follows is meant to briefly sketch some of the connections between a commitment to equity in the design of learning tools, platforms, and games, and the broader interest of researchers and activists engaged in the “constant struggle” of naming and resisting oppression in all areas of public life.4 As Dr. Sheena Erete5 writes, for many researchers, especially those who come from minoritized communities or work in Black and/or feminist intellectual traditions, such resistance is a central, motivating part of research and design. However, she also characterizes design as bound up with “intersecting systems of power that attend to and center whiteness, capitalism, individualism, and innovation.” Design is important and valuable work, but it is not innocent. 

 

Equity Is Not Justice 

While justice can be an ambiguous concept, one tacked on to a seemingly endless succession of projects (e.g., social justice, data justice, research justice, et al.), design justice is an emerging framework that centers “the ways that design reproduces, is reproduced by, and/or challenges the matrix of domination (white supremacy, heteropatriarchy, capitalism, and settler colonialism).”6 As Sasha Costanza-Chock is quick to remind readers, design justice draws entirely from the work of organizers and activists as articulated by the Principles of Design Justice and cannot be used as a clinical term for classification or diagnosis. Simply put, the moment we flatten the work of activists, researchers, and vulnerable Others into “implications for design,” we risk appropriating the struggle of those harmed by overlapping systems of oppression7 and misunderstanding important descriptive and theoretical insight.8 Costanza-Chock’s work insists that the design of digital technologies neither causes nor solves structural inequality, but is itself deeply embedded in power dynamics that benefit dominant classes at the expense of everyone else. The starting point of design justice is the partial, negotiated, tentative steps that designers and their intended beneficiaries take to acknowledge and work through these troublesome relations. 

 

Professional Reflexivity

Scholars in fields including education, journalism, social work, law, medicine, and librarianship (to name but a few) have developed a robust literature on professional reflexivity, the way that practitioners whose work touches the public sector must attend to their ethical imperatives as a matter of everyday work life. As Kelvin White and Anne Gilliland argue, such reflexivity—“identifying, critiquing, and addressing the shifting social, cultural, philosophical, and political” conditions where professional practice unfolds—links professional life to social change. This explicit call to question how our work embodies, upholds, and potentially challenges structural oppression also means that superficial commitments to general principles cannot take the place of deliberate, situated consideration of the power dynamics that suffuse professional life. For example, design projects with an explicit interest in equity frequently rely on participatory research and design methods. Harrington et al. show how participatory design methods, when deployed without sufficient reflexivity, can themselves tax and burden the putative beneficiaries of even the most equity-minded projects.9 A commitment to reflexivity demands that we scrutinize our own position in the social hierarchy and allow those who we wish to help to do likewise, always recognizing that professional practice, like technology itself, tends to support the status quo. 

 

Collective Action

Finally, researchers, practitioners, educators, citizens, students, and the general public must recognize the truism that individual action is a limited form of fostering social change, one that cannot substitute for organized, collective action. Social movements succeed, when they succeed, over a period of years or even decades.10 This success depends on everyday people deciding that structural oppression is real and that a movement’s goals are actionable: this is what inspires people to join, donate, support, sabotage, or pressure powerful authorities to produce more just conditions of public life. As Dean Spade writes, the current moment calls for “supporting survival, building new infrastructure, and mobilizing large numbers of people to work and fight for a new world.”11 A more lasting form of equity then might be found in design that nurtures these capacities, and in so doing, counters the oppression that produces inequity in the first place. Design can certainly contribute to more just futures, especially when it helps us to imagine other ways of life or to make visible the structural oppression that frequently passes unnoticed, but design can never take the place of coordinated action and meaningful solidarity. 

 

References

  1. The Combahee River Collective. (1977, 2014). A Black feminist statement. Women’s Studies Quarterly, 42(3/4), 271–280.
  2. McGee, E. O. (2020). Interrogating Structural racism in STEM higher education. Educational Researcher, 49(9), 633–644. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20972718
  3. Crooks, R. (2019). Cat-and-mouse games: Dataveillance and performativity in urban schools. Surveillance & Society, 17(3/4), 484–498. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v17i3/4.7098
  4. Davis, A. Y., & Barat, F. (2016). Freedom is a constant struggle: Ferguson, Palestine, and the foundations of a movement. Haymarket Books.
  5. Erete, S. (2021). Using black feminist epistemologies and activist frameworks to counter structural racism in design. ACM Interactions, 28(5), 56–59. https://doi.org/10.1145/3479981
  6. Costanza-Chock, S. (2018, June 28). Design Justice: Towards an intersectional feminist framework for design theory and practice. Design Research Society Conference 2018. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2018.679
  7. Crooks, R. (2020, October). Between communication and violence. ACM Interactions, 27(5), 60–65.
  8. Dourish, P. (2006). Implications for design. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 541–550. https://doi.org/10.1145/1124772.1124855
  9. Harrington, C., Erete, S., & Piper, A. M. (2019). Deconstructing community-based collaborative design: Towards more equitable participatory design engagements. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 3(CSCW), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359318
  10. Meyer, D. S. (2021). How social movements (sometimes) matter. Polity.
  11. Spade, D. (2020). Solidarity not charity. Social Text, 38(1), 131–151. https://doi.org/10.1215/01642472-7971139

Blog post by Roderic Crooks, Assistant Professor of Informatics, UCI

Related Posts

July 27, 2022 Power On!: Why CS Education Can No Longer Pretend to Be “Neutral” 

The words "Connected Learning Summit, July 27-29, 2022 appear below colorful illustrated images of a globe, books and a phone, a laptop, and a robot

July 20, 2022 Join the Conversation in CLS2022 Meetups – STEAM Learning and Inclusion, Community Driven R&D, and Game-Based & Online Learning

A row of illustrated POC educators and scientists against a brightly colored background

July 19, 2022 Building Race-Conscious and Justice-Oriented STEM Spaces: Learning from Women of Color Educators

Categories

  • Civic Engagement
  • Connected Learning
  • Critical Perspectives
  • Digital Citizenship
  • Digital Learning
  • Edtech
  • Educational Practice
  • Equity
  • Featured
  • New Trends
  • Research

Blog Archive

  • 2022
    • January 2022
    • February 2022
    • April 2022
    • May 2022
    • June 2022
    • July 2022
  • 2021
    • January 2021
    • February 2021
    • March 2021
    • April 2021
    • May 2021
    • June 2021
    • July 2021
    • August 2021
    • September 2021
    • October 2021
    • November 2021
    • December 2021
  • 2020
    • January 2020
    • February 2020
    • March 2020
    • April 2020
    • May 2020
    • June 2020
    • July 2020
    • August 2020
    • September 2020
    • October 2020
    • November 2020
    • December 2020
  • 2019
    • January 2019
    • February 2019
    • March 2019
    • April 2019
    • May 2019
    • June 2019
    • July 2019
    • August 2019
    • September 2019
    • October 2019
    • November 2019
    • December 2019
  • 2018
    • January 2018
    • February 2018
    • March 2018
    • April 2018
    • May 2018
    • June 2018
    • July 2018
    • August 2018
    • September 2018
    • October 2018
    • November 2018
    • December 2018
  • 2017
    • January 2017
    • February 2017
    • March 2017
    • April 2017
    • May 2017
    • June 2017
    • July 2017
    • August 2017
    • September 2017
    • October 2017
    • November 2017
    • December 2017
  • 2016
    • January 2016
    • February 2016
    • March 2016
    • April 2016
    • May 2016
    • June 2016
    • July 2016
    • August 2016
    • September 2016
    • October 2016
    • November 2016
    • December 2016
  • 2015
    • January 2015
    • February 2015
    • March 2015
    • April 2015
    • May 2015
    • June 2015
    • July 2015
    • August 2015
    • September 2015
    • October 2015
    • November 2015
    • December 2015
  • 2014
    • January 2014
    • February 2014
    • March 2014
    • April 2014
    • May 2014
    • June 2014
    • July 2014
    • August 2014
    • September 2014
    • October 2014
    • November 2014
    • December 2014
  • 2013
    • January 2013
    • February 2013
    • March 2013
    • April 2013
    • May 2013
    • June 2013
    • July 2013
    • August 2013
    • September 2013
    • October 2013
    • November 2013
    • December 2013
  • 2012
    • January 2012
    • February 2012
    • March 2012
    • April 2012
    • May 2012
    • June 2012
    • July 2012
    • August 2012
    • September 2012
    • October 2012
    • November 2012
    • December 2012
  • 2011
    • January 2011
    • February 2011
    • March 2011
    • April 2011
    • May 2011
    • June 2011
    • July 2011
    • August 2011
    • September 2011
    • October 2011
    • November 2011
    • December 2011
  • 2010
    • January 2010
    • February 2010
    • March 2010
    • April 2010
    • May 2010
    • June 2010
    • July 2010
    • August 2010
    • September 2010
    • October 2010
    • November 2010
    • December 2010
  • 2009
    • October 2009
    • November 2009
    • December 2009

Subscribe to our newsletter to stay up-to-date with our latest news and information.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
  • Connected Learning in Teaching Practice
  • Connected Learning in Libraries
  • Connected Educators
  • Connected Courses
  • Connected Civics
  • Institute of Play

  • Contact
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • Work With Us
  • Media
  • Write for Us
  • People
  • Newsletter
  • CL Summit
  • CL Lab