19/07/2026
One question has been following me around this week. I'm in the middle of rethinking my PhD research, and we're also approaching a major milestone in an AI-for-good programme I'm helping deliver. Both worlds have brought me back to the same question.
If the communities most affected by a technology had the power to define the problem from the beginning, would we still build the same solutions?
One of the frameworks I've been exploring is Design Justice. It argues that the people most affected by design decisions should have meaningful power in shaping them. It shifts the conversation away from what we build and towards who gets to decide what is built, for whom, and on whose terms.
That shift leaves me with questions like these:
• Who decided this was the problem worth solving?
• Whose knowledge shaped the solution, and whose didn't?
• Who was (and wasn't) in the room?
• Who benefits if this succeeds? Who bears the risks if it doesn't?
• Are communities genuinely shaping decisions, or are they only invited to validate ideas that already exist?
These are strategic design decisions. They influence what gets funded, what gets built, whose voices become visible and, ultimately, the kinds of technological futures we create.
Design Justice is just one of the frameworks I'm exploring in my PhD, alongside systems thinking, participatory design, care ethics and responsible innovation, to better understand how we might build more equitable technologies.
If you're building products, services or organisations, what helps you navigate decisions like these? Do you draw on frameworks such as Design Justice, systems thinking, participatory design, responsible AI or lived experience? Or do you approach these decisions differently?
I'm building an open collection of design and innovation frameworks through my PhD to translate ideas like these into practical tools for innovators, designers and organisations.
What theory, framework or design approach would help you build more responsible technologies, AI or innovation?