Previously in this space, I shared some facets of my personal equity journey, which has included learning about human-centered design, and participating in a training workshop with the National Equity Project (NEP) on how this design process can be applied to address both internal and external organizational equity challenges. Specifically, I introduced the NEP’s Liberatory Design model, which is an approach to address equity challenges and change efforts in complex systems. 

The Liberatory Design Model is a process and practice to:

• Create designs that help interrupt inequity and increase opportunity for those most impacted by oppression;
• Transform power by shifting the relationships between those who hold power to design and those impacted by these designs; and 
• Generate critical learning and increased agency for those involved in the design work. 

To better enhance my understanding of the applications and practice of LIberatory Design, I sat down with the NEP’s Tom Malarkey. 

Tom is a Director with the National Equity Project, a non-profit based in Oakland and focused on equity-centered change work in public school systems and other youth-serving organizations. He is a facilitator, presenter, and coach supporting leadership development around racial equity, team development, and complex systems change and a lead developer of the NEP’s Liberatory Design and Learning Partnerships services. Tom has been with the NEP since 1996. Prior to that he taught high school English and first grade, and directed the Summerbridge program, a national model for academic empowerment and young teacher development. Tom holds an M.A. in international development education from Stanford University, and did doctoral work in Education at UC Berkeley. He has published several articles and book chapters on working towards equity in education.

Johnisha Levi: What are the origins of Liberatory Design?

Tom Malarkey: National Equity Project got onto design thinking and human-centered design about 12 years ago. We could immediately see the relevance and the connections to building equity. I specifically mean the importance of centering the folks that you are serving, doing deep and humanizing listening work, and bringing a sense of creativity into equity work — since equity work can be  heavy, fraught, and complex, and it doesn’t always get you where you’re hoping  to go. 

We began incorporating aspects of human-centered design into our work. We wanted to do more, but we weren’t designers. We had a relationship with several people at Stanford University’s Design Program (the d.school’s K-12 Lab) – Susie Wise, David Clifford, and Tania Anaissie. They were sitting in a white dominant culture in Silicon Valley, and they saw that the way design thinking often manifested in the world was very oriented towards white dominant cultural norms. So they wanted to strengthen the equity dimension of their work. We both felt we needed to go beyond our own boundaries, so we started talking. We realized that we brought complementary strengths – and also complementary needs — and that something was possible here. 

We could feel there was a lot of synchronicity, and that, in the spirit of design, we needed to be making something together. Over time, we came to this idea of creating an equity- and complexity-centered version of design thinking that was grounded in the NEP’s Leading for Equity Framework and began prototyping a set of cards. 

JL:  For those of our readers who haven’t seen it, the Liberatory Design model is presented as a deck of cards that consist of mindsets (beliefs, values, and stances) and modes (practices). Some examples of the mindsets are (1) work to transform power, (2) practice self-awareness, and (3) recognize oppression; some examples of the modes are (1) see the system, (2) empathize, and (3) inquire. Can you describe the role the modes and the minsets play in the process? And examples of how people have worked with the deck? 

TM : It may be helpful to think of the modes and mindsets as two halves of a whole or more like a yin and yang, if you will. A simple way that I think about them is that the mindsets are ways of being, and the modes are ways of doing for equity leaders, and they’re kind of inseparable. 

There’s no set way to work with the design deck. It is a kind of process container, rather than a “strategy.” The deck is a resource that can be drawn upon to support equity work on a daily, ongoing basis. Oftentimes the mindsets are a more accessible starting place for folks, especially people who don’t have any knowledge of human centered-design or design thinking. They’re not a substitute for more foundational equity learning, but they name oppression and open up more liberatory ways of working with each other. 

Let’s take one of the mindsets, “transforming power.” There are predictable types of power dynamics because of people’s roles and identities who are in a space together. But what happens when we shift the ways that that power tends to play out, and people who have had less power feel they have more? Specifically the power to be who they are and the power to bring their ideas forward and feel heard and the power to be in relationship with folks differently. Then, folks who traditionally sit in seats of power with more decision-making authority begin to see what it is like if they let go of some of that power. It can be liberating for them in a different way. 

I was talking with a leader in Washington State who is a woman of color in the early learning and early childhood space. She uses the mindsets as personal resources for herself as she navigates the often oppressive spaces that she’s working within. She shared how they support her in maintaining a sense of agency, and remind her how she wants to be when she goes into meetings and certain spaces. The mindsets help her set her intentions and decide how she wants to show up. She uses them as little nudges and invitations and reminders in the way that she works with folks. 

As for the modes, they’re organized like a flower. The modes of “notice” and “reflect” sit at the center of the petals. These two modes help us stay grounded in self-awareness (like a mirror) and situational awareness (like a window). We keep coming back to Notice and Reflect in a process, and connecting to the mindsets. And then determining which other modes, or petals, we need to engage in next, like further listening (empathy) or learning (inquire) or prototyping.

JL: Are there a couple pieces of advice that you would give organizations embarking on their efforts to create more equitable teams, organizations, and systems?

TM: First, I think it’s really important to create conditions that allow people to build their own relationship with this approach so that they feel that it doesn’t just exist as part of some external authority. Then they can ask themselves: How do the cards speak to you? How do they connect with things that you already do or ways that you already think? Where do they feel like they stretch you? What do they make you feel? What ideas do they give you? That way you can really promote a sense of kind of ownership. People tend to have  mental models of processes that have components and sequences, and must be practiced with fidelity — these models generally don’t feel liberatory and work against feeling this kind of ownership.

And because equity work is complex and risky, another piece of advice is to create safer ways to fail when experimenting with Liberatory Design. I would suggest practicing first in a low-stakes context, e.g. with a few trusted colleagues in your own organization, so you can learn and build confidence and creativity to keep going further in more complex situations. 

One example of less safe failure in a higher stakes, more complex context would be  the process of co-designing strategies for greater equity with young people in an educational setting. It takes more than just inviting students to the table – the adults need to pay attention to how adultism manifests and how students experience even well-intended adults tokenizing or marginalizing the young people in the room, rather than working in ways that would bring forward their perspectives and potential power. The Liberatory Design mindsets and modes can support complex work like this. We’ve developed a set of resources that support co-design partnership work with youth and adults. 

JL: What advice do you have specifically for people who are not formal organizational leaders that want to introduce Liberatory Design principles in their workplace? 

TM :  It is important to recognize that everybody has a sphere of influence, regardless of where they are in an organization. We’ve seen Liberatory Design take root in very different starting conditions. 

In some instances, it starts with leadership. The strength of that approach is that from the get-go, there is an intention that this will become an organizational way of thinking and working.

We’ve also seen instances where it has been introduced from the bottom or middle up, where folks get onto it and realize it’s really helpful in their particular realms of the organization and then they go to their leadership to ask them to help create conditions for further practice of Liberatory Design. 

There are a few things that you can try within your sphere of influence if you are not a part of organizational leadership. For instance, you can share the Liberatory Design mindsets with team members and what you’ve learned about using them, how they have helped you, and how they may view them. You can also start to guide your group in a way that is informed by the modes, e.g. “What if we did some listening with the people we’re designing for to inform our work?” or “What if we share a rough prototype to get feedback before we implement?” or “What if we paused to set some intentions about how we want to be working together before we jump into our agenda?” In that way, you can become increasingly explicit or transparent about some things you’re trying.  

People generally experience so many constraints that shape their work, and so there’s something empowering about getting their hands on an approach that allows them to imagine different ways of working with each other and with those they serve. And then they can start to experiment with being in different relationships with the people that they serve, even if they’re just starting with listening more intentionally. My advice is to just get started — and try things, learn, and move forward!

Interested in learning more about how Liberatory Design has been applied within an organization? Check out our prior blog Liberatory Design Part 1: An Equity Learning Journey for examples. Also be sure to watch this space for resources on ethical storytelling in the coming months. 

About the Author:

Johnisha Levi