Co-Design and Cross-Cultural Collaboration as Engines for Social Transformation in Design Education

Introduction

Design education is undergoing a fundamental transformation. No longer confined to producing aesthetic solutions or responding to commercial market demands, contemporary design pedagogy increasingly embraces ethical responsibility, cultural sensitivity, and direct engagement with global communities. In particular, collaborative and co-design methodologies have become critical in shaping designers who are prepared to address the complexities of social inequity, environmental degradation, and cultural fragmentation. The Kitengela Glass Vocational School project, presents a compelling model for how collaborative design can enhance student learning while simultaneously facilitating a meaningful impact within marginalized communities.

1. The Necessity of Collaborative Paradigms in Design

Leading voices in design research, such as Papanek (1971, 1995, 2019) and Fuad-Luke (2009), have long argued that designers must move beyond producing consumer-driven, short-lived goods. Instead, they must address the needs of global populations, especially the “disadvantaged 80%” often excluded from mainstream design discourse.

Collaboration provides the structural foundation for such a shift. It enables:

• Shared authorship

• Context-driven insights

• Mutual learning

• Community engagement

• Ethical decision-making

Noel (2022) emphasizes the importance of humility and active listening as essential components of research collaboration, arguing that meaningful insights cannot emerge without a genuine partnership with communities.

The Kitengela project serves as a tangible manifestation of these theoretical concepts. It exemplifies a transformative approach, where students are not just recipients of design knowledge but active participants in its creation. This approach, which emphasizes collaboration and co-creation, is a departure from traditional design education paradigms.

2. The Roots of the Collaboration: Kibera Women’s Workshop

The author’s earlier research (2018) in Kibera, one of East Africa’s largest informal settlements, served as the conceptual and ethical driver for the 2023–2024 collaborative project. Through hands-on glassmaking workshops using recycled waste materials, women from Kibera engaged in:

• Creative brainstorming

• Traditional beadmaking

• Conceptual development

• Practical skills transfer

This process demonstrated the transformative power of creative agency, particularly for communities affected by poverty, limited educational access, and social marginalization.

The workshop validated key principles:

• Empathy-based teaching strengthens confidence

• Skill-sharing builds resilience

• Craft heritage preserves cultural identity

• Creative expression generates psychological empowerment

These insights were not merely inspirational, they informed the structure, objectives, and methodology of the postgraduate collaborative project.

3. Co-Design as a Framework for Shared Meaning-Making

Co-design is defined by Fuad-Luke (2009) as an approach in which design is developed with stakeholders rather than for them. In the Kitengela project, co-design shaped every stage:

• Problem identification

• Brainstorming

• Cultural analysis

• Interviews with community members

• Material testing

• Concept refinement

Students, community members, and artisanal practitioners became equal agents in the design process. This aligns with global scholarship on co-design, which positions collaboration as:

• A mechanism for democratizing design

• A tool for uncovering tacit cultural knowledge

• An approach for amplifying user agency

• A method for generating deeply contextual solutions

The co-design process led students to appreciate the emotional, cultural, and social dimensions of design, a shift that traditional studio projects rarely achieve.

4. Cultural Integration and Community Resilience

The collaborative project revealed the profound relationship between poverty, culture, and educational access in Kibera. Students engaged with:

• Local storytelling traditions (Tales by Moonlight)

• Communal practices

• Craft heritage

• Gender-based vulnerabilities

• Intergenerational trauma

• Educational barriers

Designing a vocational school was not merely an architectural exercise, it required understanding how space, materiality, and cultural identity interact to support psychological and socio-economic resilience.

Cultural integration influenced:

• Spatial planning

• Communal areas

• Material selection

• Colour theory

• Craft-based learning modules

• Community gathering spaces

This approach ensured that the design served not only functional needs but also cultural expression and emotional well-being.

5. Student Transformation Through Collaborative Research

Reflection from postgraduate students demonstrated how deeply collaboration transformed their understanding of design. Students described:

• A shift from “aesthetic thinking” to socially responsible thinking

• An expanded awareness of cultural sensitivity

• A deeper appreciation for craft as identity and heritage

• A strengthened belief in design as a tool for empowerment

• A new commitment to ethical, regenerative practices

In both testimonies, the project transcended the purely academic. Students felt personally changed, emotionally engaged, and motivated to pursue design that produces real social impact. The personal and emotional growth they experienced was profound and deeply connected them to the communities they worked with.

Conclusion

Collaborative and co-design methodologies represent a profound evolution in design education. They cultivate designers who understand cultural complexities, respect community knowledge, and prioritize social and environmental responsibility. The Kitengela Glass Vocational School project demonstrates how collaborative engagement can simultaneously strengthen student learning and empower marginalized global communities.

As design education navigates climate instability, social inequality, and global cultural shifts, collaboration emerges as a crucial tool for shaping purposeful, ethical, and resilient designers.

Julie Gretta ROSS

Academic Lead

Raffles Indonesia

References

Chick, A., & Micklethwaite, P. (2000). Design for sustainable change. AVA Publishing SA. Cole, R. (2011). Ecological design concepts.

Fuad-Luke, A. (2002). The eco-design handbook. Thames & Hudson.

Fuad-Luke, A. (2009). Design activism. Earthscan.

Gibbons, L. (2020). Regenerative design paradigm expansion.

Hardman, R. (2022). Recycled glass properties.

Helle, L., Tynjaia, P., & Olkinuora, E. (2006). Project-based learning in higher education.Ichioka, S., & Pawlyn, M. (2021). Flourish. Triarchy Press.

Khalili, N. (2023). Earth Bag architecture.

Lucas, D. (2011). Green design. Braun Publishing.

McClure, C. (2019). Sustainable green building.

McDonough, W. (2002). Cradle to cradle. North Point Press.

Muratovski, G. (2022). Research for designers. SAGE Publications.

 Papanek, V. (1971). Design ethics.

Papanek, V. (1995). The green imperative. Thames & Hudson.

Papanek, V. (2019). Design for the real world. Thames & Hudson.

Rodgers, P. (2019). Design research for change. Lancaster University.

Ross, J. G. (2024). Collaboration in design: How collaborative projects in design enhance the student learning experience to address the needs of global communities and environmental wellbeing. Cumulus 2024 Conference.