Neocolonialism in Design for Development

Abstract

"…until designers step back and re-examine the profession’s language in terms of its neo-colonialist memes, they can talk all they want about saving the world and never get it right.” [1]

David Stairs, founder of Designers Without Borders, recently wrote a provocative article titled It’s in the language dummy. The article suggests that design professionals working with international development agendas, when explaining what it is they do, are revealing much more about their world view and unarticulated presuppositions, than the language may at first appear to betray. Stairs’ closing comment, above, is the point of departure for this paper, which reads between the lines of the “design biz-speak” being used, to examine the real agenda of much of what we call Design for Development. Using discourse analysis as a method of analysis, set against existing written histories of Design for Development and United Nations commissions, this paper investigates the “hegemonic language” identified by Stairs in designers’ accounts of their practice.

Bruce Nussbaum sparked a lively debate in 2011, when he asked if the good-willed intentions of self-styled humanitarian designers could actually be seen negatively, “through post-colonial eyes, as colonialism?” [2] In 2013, Stairs critiques an address by Tim Brown (Chief Executive and President of IDEO; see ideo.com, ideo.org, openideo.com) to the 2012 Clinton Global Initiative, finding that the language used reveals a worldview more entrenched in our colonial past than has commonly been acknowledged. We can analyse the language of Brown and others through various lenses - that of C.K Prahalad (the cultivation of strategic business relationships with those in ‘developing’ nations); that of Edward Said (the Western paternalism identified in his classic Orientalism (1978). We find a language suggesting a dominant power having the expertise to save the lesser from the undesirable fate that otherwise awaits them.

Some within the design sector are now questioning the terminology used in this mode of design. Design and Development is proposed by Krista Donaldson of Stanford University, who also questions whether ‘developing country’ is appropriate when referring to the lives of collective real people. Jeremy Nicholls of the Social Return on Investment (SROI) Network, more recently questioned the design profession’s use of the word impact, suggesting it actually reinforces the “inequality of power” [3] that we are seeking to redress.

This paper presents critical analysis of the promotional and public discourse of commercial design agencies and non-profit social enterprises working in this space, and identifies clear differences in the language typically used by each. It argues that this divergence in language reflects real differences in how these organisations actually operate in practice on the ground.

Finally, the paper presents case studies from emerging communities such as User Centred Design for International Development (UCD4D) and Human Computer Interface for Development (HCD4D), to examine the new conversations taking place around the inheritance, or avoidance, of post-colonial frameworks by designers seeking to work productively in the international development arena post-Papanek.

[1] David Stairs, ‘It’s in the language dummy’, Design Altruism Project, (11 April 2013) <http://design-altruism-project.org/2013/04/11/its-the-language-dummy/> [accessed 23 May 2013].

[2] Bruce Nussbaum, ‘Is Humanitarian Design the New Imperialism?’ Fast Company, (2010) <http://www.fastcodesign.com/1661859/is-humanitarian-design-the-new-imperialism> [accessed 23 May 2013]

[3] Jeremy Nicholls, ‘Impact, impact, impact’, Pioneers Post, (1 May 2013) <http://www.pioneerspost.com/dealspace/20130501/impact-impact-impact> [accessed 23 May 2013]