Design for complexity:
Co-designing to address food insecurity with campus collaborators
By Ali Place and Dajana Nedic
Photographs by Aki Yoko
Design for complexity means to design within tremendous uncertainty during events requiring one to shift and pivot continually. Teaching under such conditions can be unnerving for educators and overwhelming for students. Focusing on the wicked problem of Food Insecurity, senior-level undergraduate students taking the studio course Design for Complexity in the Graphic Design program at the University of Arkansas addressed this complex issue both on campus and in Northwest Arkansas. Partnering with the Jane B. Gearheart Full Circle Food Pantry on campus, students conducted research and created design interventions suggesting possible solutions. Throughout the semester, they interviewed stakeholders and volunteered with several community organizations that address food insecurity at various levels. These organizations include a community farm, an organization focusing on food accessibility, and a waste management organization.
While inquiring how design students can partner mindfully with non-designers across campus and in the community, they can embrace complex design problems to create artifacts and foster communication, understanding, and mutually beneficial outcomes. During the course, the food pantry staff and our students collaboratively participated in design charrettes and prototype tests where they relied on the stakeholder’s expertise and experiences to guide the outcomes. As students grappled with the complexity of food cycles, economic disparity, and inequitable systems, they questioned the complexity of their relationships with multiple collaborators. Through documentation and feedback from students and their collaborators, I aim to demonstrate the potential for service-learning, interdisciplinary collaboration, and co-design, serving to enhance learning outcomes and prepare students to confront complex problems in the world.
REFLECTION 1:
Embrace Complexity
During the planning phase of this course, we avoided setting strict rules and focused on a more responsive approach. We designed the course to allow for some murkiness—some complexity!—and for our students to embrace unknown factors that come with experiencing uncertainty and discomfort. We constructed this course around the research and making process of human-centered design, while leaving space for flexibility, pivoting, and critical reflection. During the course, we anticipated obstacles like poor communication with collaborators and mismanagement of multiple stakeholders; however, we did not expect a global pandemic. We later joked that the universe was handing us exactly what we deserved for creating a course called Design for Complexity. After all, this course was an opportunity for students to apply what they were learning and respond to significant shifts in real-time. This experience was also an opportunity for us as instructors to take stock and change in meaningful ways. Staying present within this moment was a reminder that, as educators, we should not shy away from addressing complex social, political, economical issues in our design courses. We should continually evaluate our approaches in relation to current events, especially in times of crisis.
Given that all design problems are complex problems, we need to address them systemically by acknowledging the overlapping systems and their roots. To simplify or clean up these problems for students is a real disservice—it undermines their critical thinking skills and does not prepare them for what they will encounter in their daily lives. In design, we tend to focus on solving problems by providing solutions. However, when dealing with complex social, economic, and cultural issues, we must focus on responding to those problems and provide flexible interventions. Throughout this course, we channeled the thought of not knowing what is at the end of the path before starting the journey. We minimized the sense of control during the research and making process by observing, asking questions, and consciously responding to new information. In her critical feminist design manifesto, Marie Louise Juul Søndergaard calls this “Staying with trouble.”
“As solutionism either invents problems or ignores the complexity of problems, and since today’s solutions will be tomorrow’s problems, the critical-feminist designer should not design solutions but rather respond to trouble. Responding to trouble includes caring for the other, shifting perspectives, and engaging in negotiations and argumentations. It includes not giving answers to open questions but engaging in conflict and conversations.”
As active participants in these conversations that are often rooted in complex economic, political, and social systems, we are better equipped to ask questions and unpack overarching concepts. The topic of food insecurity is one with many questions but few answers. In Northwest Arkansas, the rate of those who are food insecure is somewhere between 11 and 18%. On the University of Arkansas campus, that rate is over 30%. Rather than assigning students the impossible task of resolving the crisis, we positioned their role as investigators and advocates. Working in small groups, they developed “how might we” questions serving as the foundation for their research and investigation. We asked them to focus on the systemic origins of the problem, and most importantly, the human impact. No matter how complex a problem is, the most critical takeaway for students is that they can still intervene to impact people's lives positively. Allowing students to take on complex design problems enables them to see the importance of small, incremental change when working within complex systems, and to develop relationships that encourage them to keep going when the process gets messy.
REFLECTION 2:
Engage with people, not problems
To gain insight into food insecurity at a broader scale, students in the course briefly conducted secondary research. Our partnership with the Jane B. Gearheart Full Circle Food Pantry on the University of Arkansas campus served as a vital resource during the semester. Initially, students relied on their expertise and experience to understand the issue on the University of Arkansas’s campus, and later partnered with them as co-designers to create impactful interventions for their patrons. In their initial meeting with the food pantry representatives, students worked to identify the food pantry’s primary obstacles and pain points. Location and eligibility were top concerns as most students, staff, and faculty were not familiar with its presence or visitor requirements on campus. Other concerns stemmed from the stigma of frequenting a food pantry and fitting the definition of someone who is food insecure. In addition to research, much of the student’s investigation centered on the relationships they built with community members. We invited several community organizations into these conversations to learn about the actions taken to combating food insecurity at the local level. We were fortunate to collaborate with organizations such as Food Loops; a food waste management company, Seeds That Feed; an organization that brings excess produce to communities in need, and Tri Cycle Farms; a community farm that focuses on food education and food recovery.
One of the primary ethical concerns raised in service-learning is that classes that engage with communities for one short semester seem to leave as quickly as they arrive. So how can students build trust and lasting relationships in one semester? The short answer is—they can’t. However, as educators, we can structure projects and design interactions that allow for deeper engagement that fosters trust, no matter how limited we may be in our opportunities to do so. A key consideration for students to build sustainable relationships with community members is cultural competence—the ability to communicate and interact with people across different cultures. Many universities offer courses relating to cultural competence, and some even require it before students can engage in service-learning. While the University of Arkansas does not, we created space where students can develop their cultural competence through an ad hoc approach to discussions and self-reflection. Cultural competence requires more than just becoming culturally aware or practicing tolerance. It requires students to unpack their privilege and power, understand the histories, cultures, languages, and traditions of a community; and engage in ongoing reflection relating to their worldview. Without cultural competence, service-learning can be profoundly harmful and disrespectful to communities. It has the power to perpetuate the white savior stereotype where designers swoop into a community as the hero problem-solvers and then leave without returning. Building trust and lasting relationships mean entering communities with humility and grace, centering community members’ experiences and voices, creating shared goals and mutually beneficial outcomes, and staying committed throughout the process.
REFLECTION 3:
Get out of the studio (as much as possible)
When investigating complex systems, it’s difficult for students to comprehend the myriad of nuanced experiences people have within those systems. While students are sitting in a white-walled studio full of cork boards and projectors, they can only make educated guesses about how one might “solve” a problem. Real and lasting learning occurs at points of connection, where one can observe and build knowledge from personal experience, whether it be with people, in specific places, or in our case, among chickens. In collaboration with local community members, we spent a day volunteering at Tri Cycle Farms, cleaning up the property, digging irrigation ditches, and feeding chickens. Students had the opportunity to walk the grounds, understand the history of the farm, and contribute to the daily tasks of upkeep on this small farm. This experience gave students an immersive connection to their surroundings, and it was a great motivator for them to serve their community.
Taking on complexity as an overarching topic requires that you exit the comfort of your personal space, the studio, and your assumptions, to explore the specific systems that operate within that complexity. This exploration offers students critical points of reference, allowing them to connect the dots of complex issues personally and tangibly. When dealing with complexity, it is all too easy to get stuck in the realm of big picture ideas and abstractions. These immersive experiences helped students conduct their primary research and develop prototype tests. Through interviews and online surveys with campus stakeholders and food pantry clients, students observed daily activities at the food pantry and gained insights about various viewpoints across campus. With this information, they developed and administered prototype tests with target audience participants and the food pantry representatives. Getting out of the studio and immersing within the complex system serves to make the abstract tangible and the universal personal.
REFLECTION 4:
Design with, not for
Service-learning that is ethical and mutually beneficial must inherently be rooted in principles and methods of co-design. Co-design is a natural antithesis to the so-called "designer as expert" problem. We may be experts in our craft, but as outsiders to a community, we can never be experts in someone else’s experience. To center their voices and their experiences, community members must have agency and ownership in the design process. Early on in the process, we invited employees and student volunteers from the campus food pantry to participate in design charrettes with the students' small groups. Students led the charrettes, selecting research methods that supported their “how might we” research questions or designed their own methods in some cases.
The design charrettes achieved two essential objectives. First, they allowed students to listen. They engaged in deep and meaningful conversations with community stakeholders about how best to serve their target audiences and received critical feedback regarding their ideas. And second, they allowed students to explore the space where speculative design intersects with feasible design. Speculative design is a natural ally to designing for complexity because intervening in complex systems requires planning for both present and future conditions. But for speculative design to be meaningful in service-learning, it must also be rooted in outcomes that are feasible for community members to adopt.
In addition to co-designing, designing for complexity requires methods that address the unpredictability and messiness of complex systems. In this course, we relied on traditional design and research methods, such as affinity diagramming and stakeholder mapping, as well as some new and non-traditional methods. Upon identifying a target audience, students created a spectrum of user personas based on David Rose’s Audience Receptivity Gradient. This gradient identifies audiences along a spectrum from not ready to know, not ready to hold an opinion, ready to hold an opinion, ready to act, and ready to advocate. This method allows students to see nuances in their target audience and to design for them with more precision and empathy. Students also developed Dual Journey Maps where they outlined two opposing user journeys, one in which their design outcome was successful, and one in which it failed. This practice allowed students to anticipate problems that could arise and develop responsive interventions.
REFLECTION 5:
Pause and reflect
Another critical component of service-learning is the essential act of self-reflection. Designing for complex systems means you must continuously be zooming in and out, bouncing from individual experiences to structural realities. In this course, zooming out also meant looking backward, forward, and inward. Students paused for reflection twice during the semester—once at the mid-point after conducting the design charrettes, and once at the end of the semester, after pitching their final design interventions. The midpoint reflection opened up space for students to pivot if they gained new knowledge through the design charettes and wished to implement it. We found that some students who decided early on to utilize a specific approach, ultimately reconsidered their strategy once they stopped to inquire about their process and the information gathered before moving forward. The end-of-semester reflection asked students to examine their assumptions about the project, opportunities for growth, and the impact of their work. Many reported this experience as eye-opening, confusing, and realistic to how they might encounter problems outside of the studio. We also asked our client to participate in this opportunity for reflection, to solicit feedback and learn what we could do better next time. They expressed their gratitude for the collaborative experience and were impressed by the various approaches presented by the students.
REFLECTION 6:
Be ready to pivot and adapt
Finally, our last reflection relates to the complexities of service-learning and the challenges that arose in March 2020. When the university shut down due to COVID-19, our courses went fully remote. We had to cancel our plan for ending the semester with an in-person exhibition of the students’ projects. As we pivoted, the students’ ideas for displaying their design prototypes and presenting their interventions had to change. What resulted was a shift towards showcasing their research on their portfolio websites. While this was not a preferable outcome, it allowed students to showcase their research and interventions in a more accessible format.
Global pandemic or not, co-designing with communities is not a linear process. What we continually reminded our students throughout the process is: when things get messy, keep going. Despite their confusion, frustration, and overwhelm, they stayed committed to their clients’ needs and were responsive to the challenges that arose. By allowing them to practice resiliency, curiosity, and commitment in a classroom environment, we hoped to inspire them to take on messy and complicated social issues in their careers, rather than shy away from them because they feel ill-equipped. By pairing service learning with human-centered design in this course, students leveraged experiential learning to engage with complexity in their processes and outcomes and demonstrate their resilience as collaborators and creatives.