Abstract
Lara is excited about joining her campus’ year-long Emerging Leaders program. She applies and is chosen as one of 20 students for the program. As a Native American woman, she has trouble when she looks at the topics covered in the program: power and influence, how to be a persuasive speaker, creating a vision, and building relationships for impact. None of these seem to reflect how she has been raised to think about leadership, and their certainly seems to be no consideration of indigenous ways of knowing. Throughout the semester, the sense of isolation is reinforced through the competitive ways that individuals interact. By the second semester, she decides to drop out of the program.
Juan has a different experience in his leadership program—an off-campus, weeklong leadership retreat. Ahead of the program, he is sent a questionnaire that asks about his prior leadership experience and identity, his understanding of leadership, and his incoming hopes and expectations. He is also sent an overview of the program with a note that asks for his feedback on the program as written. Juan considers how important community building is to his understanding of leadership and believes that it is missing from the curriculum. He expresses his concerns in an email reply and sets up a meeting with the coordinator of the retreat to offer up some of his ideas. At the end of the retreat, the coordinator shares that all of the participants will be invited to serve on a committee to better the program for the following year. For Juan, the leadership program is transformational, and he is eager to serve on the committee. Ahead of the program, he [Juan] is sent a questionnaire that asks about his prior leadership experience and identity, his understanding of leadership, and his incoming hopes and expectations.
Lara and Juan have very different experiences in their leadership development programs. Lara encounters a set curriculum that does not reflect her experience and ultimately feels that her identity and voice are discarded. For Juan, the curriculum also initially does not include some significant factors to his identity and understanding of leadership, but he is provided the opportunity to impact and shape the program he will participate in. Certainly, in student affairs, the notion of including student voice is paramount—truly one of the foundational principles, as emphasized by Marcia Baxter Magolda (2003) and Nessa Kleinglass (2005). Yet, too often, when programs are designed, we depend on the expertise of the staff to know the multiple identities and experiences of students and somehow uncover what they want and need from the program. This can be extremely problematic as no one individual is able to compartmentalize the gamut of identities and experiences of students across identities. Even a diverse staff made up of several different individuals may be unable to address this challenge. Student affairs professionals have often relied on the professional development of staff rather than innovative design approaches to fulfill the challenge of creating programs, services, and activities that serve today's global and multicultural students. While we highlight leadership development programs in our opening examples, the approach to designing programs applies to any student development program, service, or activity. Yet, too often, when programs are designed, we depend on the expertise of the staff to know the multiple identities and experiences of students and somehow uncover what they want and need from the program.
In this paper, we will introduce Liberatory Design Thinking (LDT) as a conceptual frame for student affairs educators to design programs that reflect students’ dynamic and changing lived experience. This article relies on the idea that ensuring students have a voice and an agentic experience is imperative and beneficial for students’ development. This article is a relevant contribution to our collective understanding of the power and relevance of student voice. In 2020, the Student Body President at the University of Minnesota, Jael Kerandi, led the charge for the institution to divest from the Minnesota Police Department (Bloomquist, 2020). In addition, Sydnee Gonzalez (2020), a reporter for The Daily Universe, a student-led newspaper at Bingham Young University (BYU), ran a story about a recent Change.org petition to make a race and ethnicity course requirement for BYU students. Kennedy Madrid-Mena, a senior at BYU, created the petition “not [to] punish a certain group of students, but to educate everyone” (Gonzalez, 2020, para. 5). Since the petition launched, a number of students and faculty have engaged in discourse and the petition now has upwards of 17,000 signatures. Given the increased frequency of students using their voices in our current climate, it is worthwhile for higher education and student affairs educators and administrators to take a step back and listen to students’ wants, needs, and desires to create a more student-centered and student-driven campus. We believe that if you design and build programs with a participatory tool, not only will students come, but they will walk away with an understanding that a commitment exists to evolve programming to reflect the changing needs and desires of students.
Given the increased frequency of students using their voices in our current climate, it is worthwhile for higher education and student affairs educators and administrators to take a step back and listen to students’ wants, needs, and desires to create a more student-centered and student-driven campus.
Liberatory Design Thinking
The National Equity Project and the Stanford d. school (2020) describe LDT as an extension of human design-thinking with the primary goal to explore how power and oppression reproduce inequalities and inequities. In adopting LDT, designers engage in a more equitable and purposeful design process that, in turn, creates a more thoughtful product. LDT suggests that if designers are not aware of the biases brought to design, they run the risk of reproducing damaging power relationships and inequities. Central to LDT is creating equity-centered designers who must grapple with how their identities, biases, and experiences help or hinder the creation of a new product. LDT also helps to break institutional norms and practices that may be oppressive or harmful. Thus, the design thinking process becomes equitable, inclusive, and cocreative, as do the products. LDT suggests that if designers are not aware of the biases brought to design, they run the risk of reproducing damaging power relationships and inequities.
The liberatory design process begins with two modes of thinking:
Who am I? Who are we? Where does decision-making authority relative to our design focus sit? Whose voice is missing or overrepresented? What is the current state of our design situation? In the reflect mode, designers are urged to pause the process and take note of individual and collective action, impact, emotions, and relationships in an effort to adjust intentions, direction, and presence as needed.
These questions should serve as checks and balances throughout the design process.
In terms of phases, it starts with seeing the system and ends with testing; we review the six phases next:
Questions to ask in this phase include: How is technocracy playing out in our system? How do we know? Whose voice holds power in our system, and why? Designers are also encouraged to think about issues of power, oppression, and racism and how they have historically silenced certain voices and hauled progression towards more equitable policies and practices.
There are a number of important questions that designers must consider in this phase: How does my identity and role in this project affect how and what people share with me? What do people in this community identify as their needs? How do systemic oppression and/or privilege affect this community, and how does that relate to this design project? How do I maintain awareness of my biases and challenge them in order to see this community in an authentic light? Is it enough to hear the experiences of this community once, or do they need to have a seat at the design table? The empathize phase is essential to liberatory design thinking because it pushes designers to reach out to the consumer and learn and understand their wants, needs, and desires.
How can we ensure we are reaching a point of view that is authentic and not distorted by biases? What is the broader ecosystem in which our project focus lives? What influences it? Designers in this phase [define] search for patterns or insights from interactions with community members that reveal the community's deeper needs
What assumptions are we making that we want to be tested in this prototype? How can we quickly build a representation of our idea that does not require a lot of explanation? Prototypes are meant to be imperfect, less costly artifacts that get designers to think about their products beyond the abstract.
How are we creating the right environment so that it is indeed safe to fail? Have we included all the voices and identities necessary in the room to receive feedback?
LDT is a dense process. It requires designers to look inward and adopt mindsets that can help them to create more equitable and inclusive design processes and products. It is a mindset that, once adopted, can be used with greater ease in the future. For student affairs educators charged to create programs, every step of LDT requires them to take note of and reflect upon their emotions, actions, insights, and the very system they are operating within, which will become a habit over time and embedded into practice. For student affairs educators charged to create programs, every step of Liberatory Design Thinking requires them to take note of and reflect upon their emotions, actions, insights, and the very system they are operating within, which will become habit over time and embedded into practice.
Using LDT to Design a Program
How do we use these principles to design programs for college students that reflect their backgrounds, experiences, and needs? We provide a fictive example to demonstrate how LDT can be used on our campuses to improve programming.
Free speech and student activism are known to be two of the most cherished values at the University of California, Berkeley. Current and aspiring student activists do not believe that the leadership development programs on campus are successfully centering these values. Therefore, a group of student activists approached members from the Leadership, Engagement, Advising, & Development (LEAD) Center to create a program specifically for student activists with an emphasis on free speech and activism. The LEAD Center Director works to assemble a committee of student activists, faculty, and staff from a variety of racial backgrounds and life experiences to assess whether the program is feasible. Upon assessment, they begin working on a curriculum.
In early committee gatherings, the LEAD Director introduced the LDT framework as a way to approach the creation of a new program. First and foremost, the LEAD Director required committee members to journal for a week during their daily meetings. Each day was a different prompt asking them to look inward and reflect on media messages about activists, what identities each committee member holds, and how their identities and biases may affect the design of a program for student activists. After journaling, the committee members were able to share their journal entries with a partner and the large group if they felt compelled. This preliminary work was a way for committee members to reflect, and as the process went on, committee members would have this journal to check their identities and biases alongside the progression of the curriculum design and LDT process. It was also a chance for the committee to develop meaningful relationships as they all worked toward becoming equity-centered designers. First and foremost, the LEAD Director required committee members to journal for a week during their daily meetings.
After doing the work of checking and identifying biases and identities, the LEAD Director moved the committee into the See the System phase. The LEAD Director made it a priority for the group to grapple with the question: If free speech and student activism are labeled as cherished values at the University of California, Berkeley, Why didn’t this program exist? Additionally, the director asks: What speech is privileged in free speech, and whose voice is amplified or diminished? The LEAD Director also encouraged the group to grapple with issues of racism, power, and oppression to effectively answer some of these questions. The director believes that the program cannot be effectively designed without wrestling with these questions about the system. These conversations were ongoing, and many of the initial meetings were spent grappling with these two questions from a variety of vantage points.
The Empathize phase was particularly important if the LEAD center takes on a program of this magnitude. Instead of surveying student activists, the LEAD Director and committee members decided to invite the same student activists that rallied for this type of program to the design table. Student activists were asked about their experiences with activism both at Berkeley and in the outside community along with their visions for a student activism and free speech program. The LEAD Director also asked committee members to compile journal articles, op-eds, videos, and newspaper clippings so that the committee could really begin to empathize and understand student activists. The student activists who shared their experiences and vision with the committee were invited to stay on the committee if desired. Instead of surveying student activists, the LEAD Director and committee members decided to invite the same student activists that rallied for this type of program to the design table.
After the meeting, the committee moved into the Define phase and articulated the new student activism program's aims and goals. Two of the most significant and surprising findings from the Empathize phase were that student activists feel as though the university fails to adequately leverage partnerships with the outside community. Additionally, student activists did not feel knowledgable about the campus' free speech policies. Student activists felt that it would be beneficial to learn from activists that do work in surrounding communities and learn about the campus's free speech policies. It was in this phase that the committee switched to the Reflect mindset and began to realize that they knew very little about student activism and could not build a curriculum for student activists off of their collective knowledge alone. Accordingly, the committee worked overtime to conduct outreach to activists and nonprofit organizations to receive guidance for curriculum development and, hopefully, have those same community members and organizations teach current and aspiring student activists in the program. The committee felt it was essential to utilize campus–community partnerships in this phase. They also invited a member from the President's Office to a meeting to properly educate them on the free speech policies. The committee felt it was essential to utilize campus-community partnerships in this phase.
In the Probe phase, the committee brainstormed small, “safe to fail” options that would give them more insight into the needs and desires of student activists for a free speech and student activism program within the LEAD Center. The committee decided to sponsor and host an hour-long session with a nonprofit organization around how to organize and mobilize for social change. The program was for students who wanted to learn more about organizing and mobilizing strategies from activists already working in the broader community. The student activists that served on the committee were in attendance, and the LEAD Director wanted them to return to the committee with observations and assessment data. They received overwhelmingly positive feedback about the experience, with 95% of students expressing their satisfaction with the session. This “safe to fail” option required minimal financial support, and it served as an opportunity to see whether or not a campus–community partnership would work for the program they set out to design.
After sifting through the data from the probing phase, the LEAD Director moved the committee into the next phase, prototyping. In the Prototype phase, the committee decided to move forward with the student activism and free speech program, which they named Rise Up: Berkeley. To best meet the needs of all students, they decided to design a hybrid, five-week program that met both in-person and online through a video-conferencing platform on alternating weeks. To maximize participation, the committee decided to offer two cohorts of participants. The faculty and staff learned from the student activists on the committee that requiring in-person participation is a barrier to access. Therefore, the committee, along with the nonprofit organization and activists they were working with, decided to try a hybrid delivery method with one cohort meeting during the week and another cohort meeting during the weekend. The program focused on collective action, shaping an activist identity, interpreting and interrogating Berkeley's free speech policies, and organizing and mobilizing, a topic they probed in the previous phase of LDT. Participants were also sent a shared brainstorming document where they were able to go in and add topics they were interested to learn about anonymously. The committee also recognized the importance of community building and planned community mixers where the two cohorts were able to mingle with each other and the community members leading the program. The committee decided to assign the Coordinator for Leadership Development and Community Engagement to attend all sessions, and they hired two student coordinators, one for each cohort. The faculty and staff learned from the student activists on the committee that requiring in-person participation is a barrier to access.
In the Test phase, the curriculum was implemented. The committee wanted to see how the program was received, if the campus–community partnership was significant, and if the hybrid delivery method was useful. The program yielded 45 participants, 18 for the weekday session, and 27 for the weekend session. The LEAD Center Director called an all-day retreat two weeks after the final session. The Coordinator for Leadership Development and Community Engagement, the two student coordinators, and the community members who had a hand in facilitating the program presented their observations and assessment of the program. In addition, students who participated in the program were invited to attend the retreat for the latter half to share their experiences with the pilot program. The community members expressed their satisfaction with the program. They wanted to offer more intimate sessions for students in the following semester to keep the connection with students in the first two cohorts of the program. The Coordinator for Leadership Development and Community Engagement and the two student coordinators felt that students enjoyed the program, but they themselves wanted more involvement in subsequent cohorts. They also noted that involving community members and organizations in this type of program had substantial benefits for the student activists’ learning and development. The program participants also shared positive messages regarding their time in the program and much appreciated the hybrid format. They also benefited from learning more about Berkeley's free speech policies; a policy most were unfamiliar with. Similar to the opening vignette, the students who participated in the program were invited to be a part of the committee for the following year. They also noted that involving community members and organizations in this type of program had substantial benefits for the student activists’ learning and development.
In conclusion, the committee was satisfied with the results of the Test phase. Operating under a liberatory design framework enabled these higher education and student affairs educators and administrators to develop a new identity: equity-minded designer. Through LDT, they were able to envision and design a new program for student activists’ that centered student voice and the evolving needs of students. In the process, the committee was able to engage the Reflect and Notice modes as they considered their identities, experiences, and biases to create a program that focused on equity, empathy, and openness to change. In using this framework, the committee pledged their dedication to ongoing reflection, prototyping, and testing to ensure the new program evolves with the needs and desires of the changing student body. The success of the program made the LEAD Center rethink the ways they advocated for student development and provided a new framework for transforming their existing programs and office practices. Now, they can move with intentionality to ensure student voice centers all initiatives and programs that come out of the LEAD Center. The success of the program made the LEAD Center rethink the ways they advocated for student development and provided a new framework for transforming their existing programs and office practices.
Implications
If LDT was not used in our example of the Rise Up: Berkeley program, the curriculum would have unlikely included community partners in the design and facilitation or knowledge of the history and policies related to free speech. If the committee at Berkeley bypassed the LDT process, the curriculum would have been plagued with biases and assumptions that went unchecked (e.g., negative perceptions of student activists and assumptions that free speech and hate speech are synonymous), and perhaps a curriculum that did not meet the present day needs of current and aspiring student activists. If the program designers waited until the end of the pilot year to conduct an assessment of the program without probes and student input, they would have had to spend more time parsing through the curriculum and making sweeping changes. These sweeping changes may have cost the committee more time, money, and resources. This would have created more labor for the committee and perhaps even an unpleasant experience for students. In utilizing LDT to develop and enhance student programs, the committee was able to do ample work to ensure a gratifying experience for students through an unbiased, informed, and collaborative approach. So while student affairs practitioners might think this process sounds labor-intensive, research from LDT shows that it creates less work in the long run by creating better designs upfront. Even if students may be too busy to engage with a program committee in meetings, they can provide feedback from a distance through a variety of online platforms (e.g., Google Docs, Email exchange, and DropBox).
Beyond our example, LDT can help with many student affairs challenges and issues. First, student affairs practitioners need to understand that the population of students changes year after year. Every year, students come to the institution with different identities, experiences, and different developmental needs. If college student development is truly the hallmark of student affairs practice, programs must change on an ongoing basis to align with the change of students. In the same vein, changing programs on an ongoing basis is a reflective practice that helps student affairs practitioners continuously learn and expand their understanding of students’ needs. If college student development is truly the hallmark of student affairs practice, programs must change on an ongoing basis to align with the change of students.
LDT also addresses the inclusion of complex, multicultural, and dynamic student voices. The process in itself warrants inclusion, meaning student affairs practitioners are not seen as the only experts. Instead, they are encouraged to step back, notice, and reflect while asking vital questions to themselves and to the students that use their services and programs. Relying on professional knowledge and expertise may not always support student success and may harm the student.
Equally important, LDT stretches student affairs practitioners in their thinking about assessment. Student affairs practitioners often believe that they are incorporating student voice when they take into account end-of-program/activity surveys in program/activity review and redesign. While on the surface, this is true, LDT involves students in every step of the process. It goes beyond a survey. It allows students to converse with those who have the power to make and shape programmatic efforts. In the opening vignette, Juan was able to provide the leadership retreat team feedback on the program overview. Thus, before he got there, he was able to insert his voice, and he was acknowledged as a vital stakeholder before even participating in the program in its entirety. LDT labels students as designers and not as an afterthought. Assessment does not come at the end of the program. Assessment happens at every step of the way when LDT is activated. Students serve as checks and balances in the liberatory design process since their liberation is seen as paramount. Liberatory Design Thinking labels students as designers and not an afterthought.
Conclusion
In sum, this article has identified LDT as a framework that provides educational practitioners with a multistep process to inspire positive institutional change––change that uplifts student voices within colleges and universities. Though the LDT process requires dedicated and iterative applications and reapplications to achieve the desired result of equity and liberation (Culver et al., 2022), this article also identified that the institutional and social benefits that LDT offers make the process worthwhile. As illustrated by our examples, it can take higher education and student affairs professionals’ time to see the fruits of their labor and to affect change. However, in the end, the social and institutional change that LDT provides fundamentally reconfigures the academic environments that students occupy, making them feel part of their community by lifting and allowing their voices to democratically influence how they engage in the multitude of extra and cocurricular opportunities on their respective campuses.
While higher education and student affairs professionals have been best served by a plethora of student development theories and research, and significant professional experience, they must acknowledge the changing wants, needs, and narratives of the students we purport to serve because they too can teach us something. Students’ development and their liberation are important and should drive the work. We hope you will use this tool to redesign programs on your campuses that illuminate students’ dynamic and lived experiences. There is a great deal of reciprocal learning that can happen at the design table, and students should always have a seat. Students’ development, their liberation, is important and should drive the work.
