Where Generalized Equitable Design Practice Meet Specific Indigenous Communities

Document Title

Where Generalized Equitable Design Practice Meets Specific Indigenous Communities

Document Information

• Subject Area: Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), Co-design, Cultural Technology Design
• Keywords: Co-design, Cultural Heritage/History, Design Methods, Methodology, Community Collaboration, Equitable Design

Research Background and Issues

• Problems and Challenges:

  • Many current co-design methodologies lack detailed guidance for equitable collaboration with specific Indigenous communities, often relying on the broad concept of "Indigenous communities" while neglecting the unique characteristics of different Indigenous cultures.
  • Even when Indigenous participants are included, the focus may be limited to diversity in recruitment and participation numbers, overlooking essential evaluations of design equity, such as the impact of specific practices and methodological alignment in technology development.
  • In some cases, designers may adopt popular practices broadly considered "Indigenized" without working based on the actual context of the community.

• Significance:

  • Historical colonization and oppression have led to the deprivation of many Indigenous cultures and sovereignties. Technology design must acknowledge these contexts and promote restorative practices.
  • The global diversity of Indigenous cultures underscores the importance of tailored design and evaluation frameworks for specific communities to preserve their cultural heritage.

• Research Motivation and Related Work:

  • Literature analysis reveals efforts emphasizing "local knowledge" and "world-building equity" in co-design, but existing frameworks require further refinement to better address the cultural needs of specific communities.
  • There is a call for design thinking and equity tools to transition toward more specific Indigenous-led design approaches, avoiding the limitations of generalized guidelines.

Solution

• Method and Framework:

  • The authors propose a framework called "Equitable Technical Co-design with Indigenous Communities," which is based on the cultural practices and knowledge of specific communities. It includes five core "waypoints": Positionality, Locality, Sovereignty, Responsibility, and Feedback.
  • Each waypoint represents a reflection and design metric within the design process and is implemented through corresponding steps in the Software Development Lifecycle (SDLC) (requirements, design, prototyping, testing).

• Innovative Aspects of the Framework:

  • Shifting to Indigenous-led design teams: The framework emphasizes respect for the knowledge systems and practices of specific communities, ensuring every step of technology development is rooted in Indigenous cultural contexts.
  • Providing dynamic adjustment tools: Through iterative navigation and feedback, design teams can flexibly adapt the framework during the technology development process.
  • Emphasizing cultural continuity: It explicitly supports the preservation of Indigenous cultural values, knowledge, and local community heritage in technology design and implementation.

• Implementation Steps and Key Techniques:

  • Establish core reflective questions at each step of the design process to ensure cultural alignment with design principles and content.
  • Incorporate localized practice tools, such as the "Triple Piko Analysis" method used by the Kanaka Maoli community, and the Pewa framework for guiding relationship restoration and equitable dialogue.
  • Collect and manage feedback from community partners, community members, and professional practitioners to adjust and refine the technology design.

Research Outcomes

• Specific Results:

  • Using the proposed framework, a co-design practice was developed for the Office of Indigenous Knowledge and Innovation (OIKI) at the University of Hawai‘i, centering on the cultural knowledge and needs of Kanaka Maoli (Native Hawaiians).
  • A case study was provided on the technical design practices of a spatial augmented reality (SAR) system.

• Advantages and Comparisons:

  • Compared to other general frameworks, this framework enables more detailed cultural intelligence design for specific Indigenous communities, avoiding the potential pitfalls of cultural homogenization.
  • It supports world-building equity, emphasizing empowerment of Indigenous communities rather than mere access to technology.

• Experimental or Evaluation Results:

  • The framework demonstrated high acceptance in community practice, being regarded as capable of fostering innovative collaboration, cultural heritage preservation, and student development.
  • Calibration indicators for collaborative approaches significantly enhanced the implementation effectiveness of the methodology.

• Limitations and Future Directions:

  • The framework has not yet been tested for adaptability in more complex design processes (e.g., design thinking), and its applicability in other community environments requires further exploration.
  • Future research will delve deeper into the long-term impact of specific practices and technological outputs on communities, while continuously optimizing the framework's generalizability and flexibility.