Part 1: Planning and Ethics
In my first week of university, I contacted two 'volunteering for older adults' companies in attempt to get some volunteering hours to understand my audience. One was to be a companion at a care home in my area, and the other was to help older adults understand technology. I believe that work as a companion and/or tech teacher will improve my understanding of my project, as I can greater understand the thoughts, feelings, worries, and general lives of my audience. This relates specifically to the Discover stage of my methodology (shown in Figure 2) - a stage to understand my design's context and the user's associated behaviours. Only the companionship organisation replied and we set up a time for a call.
I had created a text-based timeline that had a few goals I wanted before the next check-in session. Then, over the weekend I reread the assignment content and reworked my text timeline into a template, adding space for the stages of my methodology and to-do lists.
Figure 1. My timeline from my Miro board, Own Work.
I completed the ethics modules and planned some information that would be useful to create an ethics application with. At this stage, I wanted to see where my planning and volunteer work would take me. However, I was positive I would need to apply as my co-design approach works best when I have room to work with my audience. I was still considering my options, however, I had the idea to post notices in care homes open to both employees and residents. These demographics could give me primary and secondary user feedback, with care home employees giving me more confidence in response rates. With this idea I had uncertainty about my position in a role of 'authority' if I post in the care home I volunteer in. I was also uncertain about where the interviews would take place, how they would be conducted, and how I would store the data, among other things. I considered alternative options, like posting on my local village notice board, or recruiting family members.
I revisited my methodology from my proposal to add it to my Miro board. It felt good to revisit what I had written to ensure it was up to date with my expectations for this course. I already knew I was going to work with a co-design approach, I decided to use the process outlined in Beyond Sticky Notes (2020) to flesh out my methodology. This is a book that I could potentially read, however, my book reading motivation isn't great. In my mind this isn't ideal for following the co-design thinking but I didn't have the justification in time or effort to pursue the book's content. I figured using the diagram with my toolkit was fine to understand where my mindset should be.
Figure 2. A Co-design Process. From What is co-design? An overview, by Beyond Sticky Notes, 2020 (https://www.beyondsticky-notes.com/what-is-codesign).
I also kept in mind the modules I was following from the Designing for Equity and Wellbeing Toolkit.
Part 2: Ethics Limitations
During the 302 class today (Monday 24th July) it was made clear that I would not be able to acquire ethics approvals. This initially made me exasperated, as my co-design process relied very heavily on the input from people that I can no longer get input from. However, now I feel a little bit of relief. I no longer have to write an ethics approval, which was a little bit daunting to me. I no longer have to coordinate feedback sessions with older adults that I don't know - which was crucial but it was now been taken out of my hands. I still have the backup experience of my volunteer opportunity, and I have been given the go-ahead to simulate a co-design approach, which means I don't need to re-think my methodology. I still feel annoyed at the university (not the lecturers!) that this is even a situation I'm in, and believe that it's more of an ethics risk to set a class full of design students loose on projects that include vulnerable, marginalised, at risk, etc. topics and audiences without the opportunity to collect primary data about these areas. There is a lot of room for stereotypes and tokenism and I am going to try my hardest to avoid it.
To reflect this and to practice my skills, I started making a plan to simulate co-design as closely as possible with what I have. My current plan involves:
Making an offer for peers to be on my co-design team.
I will make an effort to employ peers I don't know to avoid bias.
To exercise reciprocity participation will be voluntary, and I will offer my time in return.
I will be involving this team at every stage of the design process.
I will be using co-design methods like generative sessions.
This idea was informed by the information I learned while completing the ethics modules. In note of the last point, I want to have generative sessions to replicate the information presented in the book the Convivial Toolbox (2012), to know what the user feels on a deeper level. However, it is impossible for my peers to replicate what an older adult may feel without becoming disingenuous. I am still interested in simulating this session for the experience.
Figure 3. Model of a Social Needs Spectrum. From Convivial Toolbox by Sanders & Stappers, 2012, cited in FlowResulting, 2022 (https://www.flowresulting.nl/publication/convivial-toolbox)
There is now a higher value placed on the experiences I will have volunteering. I had an interview today with someone from the organisation, and organised the orientation for later this week. I'm excited to start so that I can plan the first three stages of my methodology with a better user understanding.
References
Beyond Sticky Notes. (2020, July 30). What is Co-design? An overview. https://www.beyondstickynotes.com/what-is-codesign
FlowResulting. (2022). Convivial Toolbox. https://www.flowresulting.nl/publication/convivial-toolbox