title: Design, Meet Gender Violence
tags: gender, violence, VAW
Design, meet Gender violence
// This is a work in progress //
In this essay, I propose that “design thinking” can be very useful in framing a response to the challenge we face in India and elsewhere, of the violence against women (VAW) . In India in particular, VAW continues to be a vicious problem (often referred to as “wicked problem” due to its nature and something that is so hard to solve) that confronts a young, emergent nation. Considering the age and demographics of India, we are an emergent yet a nation that have largely young population. What are the causes? There is no single answer to this that can be addressed and a response can thus be framed around it. While the causes may be many and not all of them well explained, two related problems exist. First, we need careful yet novel systematic research to find out the root causes and second, address the issue at the same time. Finally, as time is of the essence here, it is also necessary to take urgent action to protect the lives and dignity of thousands of women. An approach that combines the power of systematic inquiry and possiblity of action is essential and is quite possible. This is the promise of design thinking.
Any approach to solving this problem requires an “out of the box” approach. In this essay, I’d like to briefly introduce how designers think and share ideas as to how we might address the issue of gender violence from a designer’s perspective. In the next few paragraphs, I’d like to briefly introduce the concepts of design thinking, and describe a few scenarios as to how we may address gender violence.
What is Design Thinking? What does it mean?
Design thinking refers to a human-centred, hands-on, pragmatic approach (the principle being “show, don’t tell”) to frame a response to a defined problem. This term and the concept is borrowed from how expert designers work through a problem from the users’ perspective, but the usage is almost universal, as it is possible to apply the concepts of design thinking to bear on any problem, including societal problems to address them. The core element in design thinking is centred around humans and human lives. This appproach consistes of the following five elements: (1) define the problem, (2) develop empathy and insights from deeper understanding from the perspectives of people involved in the problem or challenge, (3) generate and ideate lots of solutions – some on paper, (4) build prototypes to address the key issues around the problem, and (5) finally test the solutions in real world and modify as needed. The five elements are detailed below.
// Insert here a diagram of design thinking
What are the Elements of Design Thinking? What is Human centricity?
As written above, at the heart of design thinking is human-centredness, so that human beings and their needs take the centre stage. The processes typically flow along the five stages – starting with defining the problem from different angles. The second stage is to generate deep insights and empathy building from the perspective of the stakeholders and key players. Typically, this takes the form of mapping the journey of a person who undergoes the experience of the problem that we are trying to address here – putting ourselves in the same situation of the person who is undergoing the experience and mapping the emotional states at various stages of the experience. There are other techniques as well but essentially all of them involve some form of experiential content sharing with the design team. The hard facts that are obtained from other sources and the emotional contents that are collected as part of the journey mapping and indeed other forms of inquiry (it could be in the form of actually the design team experiencing the situation, or using videography, or audio recording, or in depth interviews, indeed the creative ways to explore the emotional states is endless but all of these are highly qualitative inquiry mixed with the play of numbers) then lead the designers to devise one or other forms of prototypes of solutions. These prototypes are different forms of artefacts, or at times, these are metaphors of the solutions themselves. These metaphors are then modified and more or varied or a range of solutions in the form of prototypes are prepared. In the final stages, these prototypes or one or more preferred prototypes in collaboration with the “clients” are put into actually actionable projects or “testable solutions” and put into field tests to see how they work. This is an iterative process, meaning that these can be repeated till a point is reached where the designers working with the “clients” can reach a workable solution to the satisfaction of everyone and can successfully address the problem at hand.
What do we know about gender violence in India and what elements are missing?
Putting these concepts to the problem at hand, that of gender violence, we see that there are several pieces of information that are valuable, and at the same time, there are elements that are missing from the jigsaw puzzle.
We know the statistics of violence against women (some states are worse, perhaps some areas are worse than others, time trends and rising trends). We have documented evidence of the insensitivity of a certain class of people. We also know that there are situations where some social positions make some vulnerable to violence.
While statistics, expert based consensus, and speculations are widespread and perhaps easily available, there are other missing pieces. First, we do not know or there is not enough deep understanding how do women who have undergone violence have felt or detailed maps of their journey through the system starting before, through, and after the acts of violence against them. This mapping is not easy for a number of reasons, and there are significant ethical and difficult emotional and humanistic and legal issues around those situations. Third, we do not know the emotional states of people who perpetrate the crimes beyond knowing the crime statistics and perhaps getting a snapshot of the demographics and to some extent the mental make up of these individuals. From a human centred perspective, men who are the perpetrators of those crimes if you will have not been mapped and there is a need to understand to levels of depth as to what happens during those states only if the aim is to prevent or deter in future.
Where can we bring in the five elements of design thinking for addressing gender violence?
Each of the five elements – the definition of the problem, in-depth understanding of the empathy building process where women who have undergone in the past, where women who are at risk of gender based violence now, and possible perpetrators or the demographics that are comparable to those who have perpetrated the crimes in the past whether they undergo criminal charges and therefore imprisonment or not, there is a need to view the problem from their perspective as well. These facts and figures and emotional states will in turn lead to identification of patterns that will emerge and those, that, in turn will lead to generation of simulations or models or prototypes in the form of either metaphors or toy examples that can be built to test in artificial situations how we can prevent violence against women. Will these work? That is the million dollar question but something worth asking and field testing. If there are formative elements of workable models from the prototypes that will help or at least in the social laboratory settings, then these elements are worth keeping; else, there is a case to go back to the drawing board, or perhaps a step back to reformulate the prototype and design again.
Where to from here?
The future is not certain. As far as we know, a design approach to tackle the issue of violence against women has not been put to test in India. It is time that we put together programmes and ideas to test and see how we can collectively bring together the power of design and address this social problem.
Interesting graphic staying health
QuickStats: Use of Health Information Technology* Among Adults Aged ≥18 Years — National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), United States, 2009 and 2011†
‘ + reportTitle + ”; textOut += ‘‘ + reportDate + ‘ ‘; document.write(textOut); // –>
* Based on responses to the following question in 2009: “Have you ever used computers for any of the following? …Looked up health information on the Internet …Refilled a prescription on the Internet …Scheduled an appointment with a health-care provider using the Internet …Communicated with a health-care provider over e-mail” and “Have you ever used online chat groups to learn about health topics.” Each question was followed by an additional question asking if the respondent had performed the particular activity in the past 12 months. In a supplement to the 2011 NHIS, the questions were slightly reworded to combine the measure and period (“DURING THE PAST 12 MONTHS, have you ever used computers for any of the following …Look up health information on the Internet …Fill a prescription …Schedule an appointment with a health-care provider …Communicate with a health-care provider by e-mail …Use online chat groups to learn about health topics.”).
† Estimates are based on household interviews of a sample of the 2009 and 2011 civilian, noninstitutionalized U.S. adult populations. Denominators for each percentage exclude adults who refused to answer or did not know.
§ 95% confidence interval.
From 2009 to 2011, increases were noted in the proportion of adults aged ≥18 years who used the Internet to fill a prescription (5.9% to 7.1%), schedule an appointment with a health-care provider (2.6% to 4.5%), and communicate with a health-care provider by e-mail (4.6% to 5.5%). The use of online chat groups to learn about health topics also increased (3.3% to 3.7%). The percentage of adults who looked up health information on the Internet did not change significantly from 2009 (45.5%) to 2011 (46.5%), but in both years, looking up health information on the Internet was seven to 14 times as likely to occur as each of the other four activities.
Source: National Health Interview Survey, 2009 and 2011 Sample Adult access to health care and utilization supplemental components.
Reported by: Robin A. Cohen, PhD, firstname.lastname@example.org, 301-458-4152; Patricia F. Adams.
Alternate Figure: The figure above shows use of health information technology among adults aged ≥18 years in the United States, during 2009 and 2011. Between 2009 and 2011, increases were noted in the proportion of adults aged ≥18 years who used the Internet to fill a prescription (5.9% to 7.1%), schedule an appointment with a health-care provider (2.6% to 4.5%), and communicate with a health-care provider by e-mail (4.6% to 5.5%). The use of online chat groups to learn about health topics also increased (3.3% to 3.7%). The percentage of adults who looked up health information on the Internet did not change significantly between 2009 (45.5%) and 2011 (46.5%), but in both years, looking up health information on the Internet was seven to 14 times as likely to occur as each of the other four activities.
Use of trade names and commercial sources is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.References to non-CDC sites on the Internet are provided as a service to MMWR readers and do not constitute or imply endorsement of these organizations or their programs by CDC or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. CDC is not responsible for the content of pages found at these sites. URL addresses listed in MMWR were current as of the date of publication.
All MMWR HTML versions of articles are electronic conversions from typeset documents. This conversion might result in character translation or format errors in the HTML version. Users are referred to the electronic PDF version (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr) and/or the original MMWR paper copy for printable versions of official text, figures, and tables. An original paper copy of this issue can be obtained from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), Washington, DC 20402-9371; telephone: (202) 512-1800. Contact GPO for current prices.**Questions or messages regarding errors in formatting should be addressed to email@example.com.
File Formats Help:
- Page last reviewed: August 17, 2012
- Page last updated: August 17, 2012
- Content source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
800-CDC-INFO (800-232-4636) TTY: (888) 232-6348 – firstname.lastname@example.org
11/08/12 10:30 PM Alice *Featured Arts & Leisure Classics & Archaeology Humanities Sports Ancient Greeks Caprus of Elis David Potter Euthymus Hercules Leonidas of Rhodes london 2012 Michael Phelps Milo of Croton Olympic Games Polites Summer Olympics Theagenes Timesitheus usain bolt milo milo’s pancration phelps greatness theagenes euthymus olympic
By David Potter
In a year when Michael Phelps became the most decorated Olympian of all time with 22 medals, and Usain Bolt became the first man to win the 200 meters twice, it’s worth asking: What does ‘great’ mean in sports? We might gain perspective by considering how the Ancient Greeks determined greatness in athletes. Then and now, true greatness is as defined not by a single moment, but by the ability to build a record of extraordinary achievement.
From a few years ago:
Both the papers sent to me appear to have strong research results. Now that the research has been done, I’d recommend rewriting both articles from scratch, using the following template:
1. Start with the conclusions. Write a couple pages on what you’ve found and what you recommend. In writing these conclusions, you should also be writing some of the introduction, in that you’ll need to give enough background so that general readers can understand what you’re talking about and why they should care. But you want to start with the conclusions, because that will determine what sort of background information you’ll need to give.
2. Now step back. What is the principal evidence for your conclusions? Make some graphs and pull out some key numbers that represent your research findings which back up your claims.
3. Back one more step, now. What are the methods and data you used to obtain your research findings.
4. Now go back and write the literature review and the introduction.
5. Moving forward one last time: go to your results and conclusions and give alternative explanations. Why might you be wrong? What are the limits of applicability of your findings? What future research would be appropriate to follow up on these loose ends?
6. Write the abstract. An easy way to start is to take the first sentence from each of the first five paragraphs of the article. This probably won’t be quite right, but I bet it will be close to what you need.
7. Give the article to a friend, ask him or her to spend 15 minutes looking at it, then ask what they think your message was, and what evidence you have for it. Your friend should read the article as a potential consumer, not as a critic. You can find typos on your own time, but you need somebody else’s eyes to get a sense of the message you’re sending.
(a) Don’t write something unless you expect people to read it.
(b) This principle holds for tables and figures as well.
More at the above link.