Content uploaded by Angus Donald Campbell
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Angus Donald Campbell on Sep 28, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
DESIGNING FOR DEVELOPMENT IN AFRICA: A CRITICAL
EXPLORATION OF LITERATURE AND CASE STUDIES FROM THE
DISCIPLINES OF INDUSTRIAL DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT
STUDIES
Angus Campbell, University of Johannesburg, South Africa
As pressure to access African resources and explore new market opportunities
increases in light of a diminishing Western resource base, saturated markets and
troubled economies; it is a priority for African designers to gain a better
understanding of the broader and context specific issues of development. This
paper explores the disciplines of Development Studies and Industrial Design in
order to critically identify approaches to development best suited for African
design interventions. Academics and practitioners in Development Studies tend to
support one of two camps, the first, a highly critical post-Truman concept of
development as a Capitalist agenda to access new markets and the second a more
humanitarian approach to an equitable increase in quality of life for all. When
exploring industrial design, products regularly become too style focused and
fashionable, leading to increased redundancy while forgetting the ethical and
political implications of design. Additionally industrial designers have been
criticised for their take on development by creating products either designed with
a misguided sense of charity, or designed for those in need, but remotely and
without an understanding of cultural contexts. Similarly in recent conference
proceedings claims of “design trawling” were raised against designers working
for big corporates in impoverished communities highlighting possible hidden
“Imperialistic agendas”. This raises the question of how designers should balance
seemingly contradictory good intentions and commercial interests in order to
create a more democratic notion of design. Many of the critics of design do not
doubt its power to create positive social change and there are many documented
accounts of very successful products created for a more equitable society. This
paper firstly introduces a history of development and design and then utilises the
recent publication Design and Social Impact: A Cross-sectoral Agenda for Design
Education, Research and Practice (Smithsonian Institution, 2013) in order to
identify gaps and challenges in current approaches to social impact design. This
paper then specifically compares some of these issues under the banners of
participation, and monitoring and evaluation by utilising literature and case
studies drawn from the historically older discipline of Development Studies in
comparison to literature and case studies from the discipline of Industrial Design.
The aim of this is to identify approaches and methods for development best suited
for designers in Africa.
Keywords: Industrial Design; Development Studies; Social Impact Design,
Participation; Monitoring and Evaluation; and Africa
INTRODUCTION
I am an industrial design lecturer, researcher and practitioner working in South
Africa within a discipline traditionally focused on the design of products and
technologies for the wealthiest 10% of the population (Smithsonian Institution,
2007). Through my professional and academic development I have been involved
in a range of research projects that attempt to use the power of design for positive
social change. As I have explored this realm, I have been led down a
transdisciplinary path that links the field of Industrial Design to that of
Development Studies.
Development Studies is an interdisciplinary social science
investigating the fundamental changes in Africa, Asia and Latin
America as their citizens confront the challenges of extreme
inequality, violence, and value transformation in a new capitalist
world order. We examine the cultural, economic, environmental,
political and social realities in the increasingly differentiated ‘third
world’ to gain the critical analytical tools to understand – and
improve – its peoples’ lives.” (University of Johannesburg).
A definition of Development Studies such as the one above, highlights the
relevance of such a discipline for industrial design as it begins to shift away from
a purely capitalist agenda of gaining market share through product differentiation
into more democratic design interventions that attempt to bring about positive
social change (Smithsonian Institution, 2007 & 2013). Of particular relevance and
urgency to my research is the fact that I was born and live in a country with a
complex developed and developing divide. In fact, the World Bank indicates that
South Africa had a Gini coefficient of 0.63 in 1998-2002 (2012); this is a measure
of inequality where 0 represents perfect equality and 1 implies perfect inequality.
Although no more recent data are available, South Africa is still currently ranked
with the highest Gini coefficient, and hence highest inequality, in the world. The
latest South African census data (Statistics South Africa, 2012) only makes more
obvious these glaringly inequalities. However, one should not completely despair
since desperation has at times encouraged some innovative, creative, low-cost and
practical solutions to attempt to answer some of these inequalities (AfriGadget;
Maker Faire Africa; Design Indaba). Of additional relevance to this paper is the
fact that design history has been documented from a predominantly Western
perspective and considering its underdevelopment as a discipline in Africa
(Campbell, 2008) there is an opportunity to explore design and its relevance to
development at a grassroots level on the continent. This paper firstly introduces a
history of development and design and then utilises the recent publication Design
and Social Impact: A Cross-sectoral Agenda for Design Education, Research and
Practice (Smithsonian Institution, 2013) in order to identify gaps and challenges
in current approaches to social impact design. This paper then specifically
compares some of these issues under the banners of participation, and monitoring
and evaluation by utilising literature and case studies drawn from the historically
older discipline of Development Studies in comparison to literature and case
studies from the discipline of Industrial Design. The aim of this is to identify
approaches and methods for development best suited for designers in Africa.
DEVELOPMENT & DESIGN
It is generally accepted that the term ‘developed’ or rather it’s antithesis
‘underdeveloped’ was first made popular after the Second World War in
American President Harry S. Truman’s inaugural address to the nation (1949):
…we must embark on a bold new program for making the benefits of
our scientific advances and industrial progress available for the
improvement and growth of underdeveloped areas..
President Truman went on to define a virtual divide between the ‘developed’
North and the ‘undeveloped’ South and how the technologies and production
capabilities of the North should be used to “…relieve the suffering of these
people” (Truman, 1949). It was a cleverly framed call to further the mission the
American founding fathers had left to the nation (Sachs, 2010, p. xv). For this
very reason the term ‘development’ is contentious and has been extensively
interrogated in literature. There are however two distinct camps that tend to
underpin the concept of development as a post-Truman concept (Esteva, 2010):
on the one hand there is the critical tradition that stretches from Karl Marx to
Arturo Escobar (Sachs, 2010), and on the other there are the humanitarians and
the growth theorists, who have a more positive outlook on development, although
not uncritical; both Amartya Sen (1999) and Robert Chambers (2008) would fall
into this camp.
Rist (1999, p. 13), who could be classified as a member of the first more critical
camp, defines development in his seminal book The History of Development as:
…a set of practices, sometimes appearing to conflict with one another,
which require – for the reproduction of society – the general
transformation and destruction of the natural environment and of
social relations. Its aim is to increase the production of commodities
(goods and services) geared, by way of exchange, to effective demand.
He then terms this a “scandalous definition” (Ibid. p. 19) due to its seeming
contradiction to the commonly held belief of development as being focused on the
equality of humanity. Rist explains this discrepancy by metaphorically equating
religion to development and how a “social phenomenon inevitably appears in a
different light from that in which it is experienced by the participant” (Ibid. p. 21).
Roland Bunch from the non-profit organisation World Neighbours, which
operates in Asia, Africa and Latin America, has a far more practical and
empowering definition of development, which he describes as:
… a process whereby people learn to take charge of their own lives
and solve their own problems. Development is occurring where
people are gaining the self-confidence, motivation, character traits
and knowledge needed to tackle and solve the problems they have by
actually tackling and solving those problems. (1991, p. 30).
Rist’s definition of development could easily be interchanged for a description of
traditional mass-produced industrial design and Bunch’s for more socially
orientated design. This discrepancy exists in the discipline of design due to the
origin of the discipline being purely linked to a capitalist agenda of product
differentiation versus the more contemporary ideals of design for social impact
(Smithsonian Institution, 2013). Richard Buchanan explores these ideals in an
article on the topic of human dignity, human rights and the principles of human-
centred design (2001). After attending a South African design conference
presentation by Dr. Kader Asmal, then South African Minister of Education,
Buchanan was inspired to recognise how “design… finds its purpose and true
beginnings in the values and constitutional life of a country and its peoples” (Ibid.
p. 36). Buchanan goes on to highlight that design regularly discusses principles of
form, composition, aesthetics, usability, market economics, business operations,
or mechanical and technological principles that underpin products, forgetting the
primary principle of the ethical and political implications of design (Ibid. pp. 36-
37). A purely capitalist design agenda moves away from this considered problem
solving to a more style-focused, fashionable and therefore quickly obsolete design
of mass-produced products (Bonsiepe, 2006, p. 28). Both Buchanan’s and Gui
Bonsiepe’s positions build on the seminal works of Victor Papanek’s Design for
the Real World (1984), written in reaction to the conspicuous consumption
evidenced in post-industrial American society, and Nigel Whiteley’s Design for
Society (1997). More recently, both Bonsiepe (2006) and Victor Margolin (2012)
explore the link between Design and Democracy in a paper and lecture
respectively. Both explore design beyond the artefact to the creation of systems
that promote positive social agendas; this approach to design for social impact
could be ideologically linked to Sen’s capabilities approach (1999) and
Chambers’ (2008) participatory approach to development.
SOCIAL IMPACT DESIGN
It is clear that social impact design has become a burgeoning field from the
professionalization of socially responsible design through programmes such as at
Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s D-Lab and Design Matters at the Art
Centre College of Design in Pasadena, California (Smithsonian Institution, 2013,
pp. 32-34) which build on a history of literature that explores socially orientated
design interventions (Pilloton, 2009; Whiteley, 1997; Papanek, 1984). Of great
interest to this paper is a recent publication titled Design and Social Impact: A
Cross–Sectoral Agenda for Design Education, Research, and Practice by the
Smithsonian Institution (2013). It was the outcome from the Social Impact Design
Summit held at the Rockefeller Foundation headquarters in New York on the 27
Feb 2012. People representing academic programmes, government agencies, and
non-governmental organizations were brought together to discuss the progress of
design focused on social good and the various issues faced by practitioners in
such an arena (Smithsonian Institution, 2013). Documenting a 50 year history of
social impact design through a timeline of various seminal publications;
conferences and exhibitions (Ibid. pp. 12-18); exploring the development of
educational offerings focused on socially orientated design (Ibid. pp. 33-35); and
explaining various models and methods (Ibid. pp. 26-31), this publication is a
crucial stepping stone in the development of “a holistic and systems approach into
existing disciplines that are involved in socially responsible design” (Ibid p. 32).
Of particular interest to this paper are the various gaps and challenges in social
impact design that were raised by the various summit attendees. These issues
include: a lack of a clear definition (Smithsonian Institution, 2013, pp. 20-21); the
need for better knowledge sharing (Ibid pp. 21-22); a lack of standards and ethics
(Ibid p. 22); issues of cultural bias (Ibid pp. 22-23); long-term sustainability (Ibid
p. 23); implementation issues (Ibid p.24); and the measurability of value and
impact (Ibid pp. 24-25). Why these issues are of interest to this paper are the
similarities and overlap of many of them with problems that have been grappled
with by practitioners in the field of Development Studies over its slightly older
90-year history. For the purpose of this paper I will specifically focus on
participation, and monitoring and evaluation through an exploration of literature
and case studies.
Participation
There are instances of what Klaus Krippendorff describes as technology-centred
design where the designer or client decide what improvements are required for a
product with no client consultation (2006, pp. 31-32). However, the majority of
both the capitalist and socially responsible paradigms of design have greatly
influenced design research methods, ironically in similar ways. Capitalist-focused
design tends to use participatory and observational methods (Clarke, 2011;
Ireland, 2003; Plowman, 2003) to better understand target markets in order to
design products to gain market share. Methods utilised by designers for social
change are also typically participatory such as Universal Design (Lidwell,
Holden, & Butler, 2010) and Human-Centred Design (Buchanan, 2001;
Krippendorff, 2006, pp.31-32). These are utilised to better understand the
problems of the people for whom the product is being designed in order to design
solutions with them that will broadly be adopted. The method of human-centred
design, described under many guises, is aimed at trying to surmount many of the
issues identified by the 2012 Design For Social Impact Summit attendees but
tends to be used as a textbook panacea for all design in a developmental context.
It is presented under the brand names of large international design consultancies
or educational institutions such as IDEOS’s Human-Centred Toolkit (IDEO),
Stanford d.school’s Bootcamp Bootleg (Stanford d.school), and frog’s Design for
Social Impact (Frog Design), ironically all institutions based in the North. Some
of the socially orientated work that has emanated from these organisations has
been criticised as being undertaken with ulterior economic motives under the
banner of charity (Arad, 2012). This can result in the target population
denouncing what they consider a new form of imperialism through design
(Nussbaum, 2010). And although human-centred design models seem to highlight
user participation as a priority, many of these methods propose relatively fast
turnaround from concept to solution, by designers who come from distinctly
different social-cultural backgrounds, to ‘solve’ the problems of local
‘underdeveloped’ communities through design. Many of these methods
encourage, although not necessarily intentionally, the distinct separation or ‘user’
and ‘designer’. More focused ethnographic methods of long-term community
integration may be more productive in attempting to overcome cultural bias and
breaking down this expert/user divide by truly integrating the designer into the
issue at hand while building trust and breaking down power structures (Nelson &
Wright, 1995). In Development Studies there are two distinct pathways identified
for community development:
The first, which begins by focusing on a community’s needs,
deficiencies and problems, is still by far the most traveled, and
commands the vast majority of our financial and human resources. By
comparison with the second path, which insists on beginning with a
clear commitment to discovering a community’s capacities and
assets…, the first and more traditional path is more like an eight lane
superhighway. (Kretzmann & McKnight, 1993, p. 1)
The second more emancipatory method is termed Assets Based Community
Development (ABCD) and is aimed at identifying local opportunities in a
community as opposed to presenting preconceived notions of what is needed
(Kretzmann & McKnight, 1993). This approach aims to uncover the assets and
strengths in a community as a means for sustainable development, but
additionally empowers the community to make changes as opposed to the
disempowering approach of external ‘experts’ identifying a need and then
communally exploring a solution.
With a focus on people-centred agricultural improvement, Roland Bunch provides
a very focused and considered approach to development under the banner of
Participatory Technology Development (Bunch, 1991). Bunch is highly critical of
any project or programme that offers any free equipment or incentive to
communities in the name of development; in a design intervention this could be
extended to the promise of a product that results from a human-centred design
process. As an example Bunch uses the first project undertaken by the non-profit
organisation World Neighbours, whom he worked for in Colombia in 1965. When
returning to the community twenty years later, all that was left as evidence of their
project was discarded, broken and in some cases completely unused farming
equipment and an empty co-operative building. As one reason for the failure of
give-aways Bunch refers to the phrase echoed in many different cultures, that
people don’t care for things they never needed to work for (Ibid. p. 25). In my
opinion he goes on to explain how the complexity of human nature and working
with people makes developmental projects so difficult. Bunch identifies how the
promise of give-aways may indicate an enthusiasm, but inevitably without the
intention to adopt a single innovation (Ibid.). Bunch further explores a much more
harmful side to give-aways, where communities become dependant on outside
‘help’ which creates a feeling of incapability to do anything themselves (Ibid.).
Additionally by focusing on those most in need, divisions can be created within
communties through the jealousy of those who did not receive something. But one
of the most harmful effects of give-aways are their ability to “divert people’s
attention from the underlying demographic, institutional or political problems
that, sooner or later, they must face if permanent progress is to be made.” (Ibid.).
Also drawing from the field of agriculture, Dr. Paul Richards in his book
Indigenous Agriculture Revolution (1985), demonstrates through multiple case
studies how many of the most successful innovations in food-crop production in
the 20th Century had had indigenous roots. “There should be less emphasis on
‘teaching’ farmers how to farm and supplying ‘improved’ inputs, and more
emphasis on how to foster and support local adaptation and inventiveness”
(Richards, 1985, p. 194). This highlights the importance of local knowledge and
input to answer local problems. Richards, does not however negate the benefit of
outside input or research, but rather proposes a more thorough understand of the
ecology of a context in order to augment local trends and interest (1985, p. 14).
Returning to Bunch, he provides a variety of methods to overcome the many
hurdles of a developmental project. The driving force behind development, he
identifies as enthusiasm (Bunch, 1991, p. 27) and the source of enthusiasm
through recognisable success (Ibid. 28). Bunch defines a recognisable success as
“the solution of a felt need with results that are both readily observable and
desirable according to a cultures own value system.” (Ibid.). In order to achieve
this, designers need to consider projects on a scale that is achievable, both
practically and financially. By biting off small chunks, achieving recognisable
success can be evidenced quickly, as opposed to long drawn out projects, and
hence breed enthusiasm in a community for a project. In Nabeel Hamdi’s seminal
book on urban participatory development titled Small Change (2004), he
describes case studies where planners and designers create opportunities for
development or emergence, as he prefers to describe it, to take place (Ibid. pp.
xvii-xviii, p. 73). He explores this through many small design interventions that,
as per Bunch’s description, create enthusiasm through quickly recognisable
success. One of the examples Hamdi uses is how by simply moving a bus stop
they were able to catalyse community emergence. Initially the decision to move
the bus stop was based on the need of members of a community, particularly
fishermen, to access transport to get to city markets. But, through prior
observation Hamdi had also noticed “the density of life and commerce which
clusters around places where buses stop.” (Ibid. p.74). By moving the bus stop, a
cheap, quick, useful and visible intervention, not only was access to market
improved for those that needed it, but through a process of emergence,
entrepreneurship flourished and brought with it the benefits employment brings to
a struggling community (Ibid. pp. 73-76). Where social impact design may need
retrospection, is in the designer’s ability to accept that sometimes what is required
for positive social change in communities is something very small and not
necessarily a mass-produced highly technological product.
Again returning to Bunch, he further explores how although enthusiasm is the
driving force of development, increasing participation should be the goal of any
programme or design project. By working with enthusiastic community
participants when a project ends at least there will be people left in the community
with intimate knowledge that will ensure a sense of permanence for the
intervention (Bunch, 1991, p. 29). Additionally by actively working through a
community-identified problem with community participants, they are exposed to a
process that may be utilised by the community in the future without the need for
external input. Bunch however does identify another side to participation, that of
destructive participation; examples include a single leader whom overpowers
other community members; communal inability to deal with dishonesty amongst
community leaders, and limited experience in making communal decisions (Ibid.
p. 30). Bunch highlights the fact that constructive participation is a gradually
learnt skill and that this is where outside expertise is necessary in guiding projects
while consciously avoiding suffocating paternalism (Ibid. pp. 31-32). He
reiterates “early recognisable success is a crucial ingredient in making
participation constructive.” (Ibid. p. 32). For those interested in a detailed
unpacking of the evolution of participatory methods and practice in development,
a thorough exploration is provided in Revolutions in Development Inquiry (2008)
by Robert Chambers, research associate at the Institute for Development Studies,
University of Sussex. Chambers identifies a pervasive paradigmatic shift from
things to people and “how theories of chaos, complexity and emergence resonate
with, shed light on and underpin the evolution and spread of PMs [participatory
methodologies]” (Chambers, 2008, p. 167).
Participation by encouraging enthusiasm through visible success has been
identified as an important consideration for design practitioners. The utilisation of
some of the participatory methodologies from the field of Development Studies
could impact on some of the issues identified in the Social Impact Design
Summit, these include: a better awareness of cultural bias, a better understanding
of standards and ethics; and increased long-term sustainability. The next gaps and
challenges identified in the Social Impact Design summit that will be focused on
are implementation; the measurability of value and impact; and dissemination,
through an exploration of Monitoring and Evaluation.
Monitoring and Evaluation
Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) is relevant to and can directly impact these last
three issues. In the Social Impact Design Summit Benjamin de la Peña, Associate
Director for Urban Development at the Rockefeller Foundation, used the field of:
public health, as a historic example of an undervalued emerging
discipline that had proved its worth and as a result gained credence
and authority. Public heath had done so, he said, by demonstrating
the economic costs of not having public health programs or policies:
“What is the cost of so many people dying of malaria every year in
terms of the national productivity? What are the costs of
undernourishment in terms of economic growth?...What may be
missing – and I don’t know if you will find it – is the question of what
are the social costs of lack of or bad design? Until you come up with
that, then you are stuck with objects and processes that have no way
of capturing the imagination of ever solving anything big”.
(Smithsonian Institution, 2013, p. 25).
de la Peña’s challenge, as per his qualifier, is almost impossible to undertake prior
to the fact. However in it lies a very important point for design, this links back to
participation and the lack of recognisable success by the broader scientific
community of the impact of design. In order to make more impact visible, one
needs to use the methods of science created to validate any ‘truth’. By quantifying
the results through empirical data, such as a measurement in economic terms of
the success of advertising campaigns, design interventions for social impact can
quantify their impact and hence build a reputation as a valid method for social
change. This is something that takes time, and requires designers to build M&E
into all design for social impact projects. Additionally this is very relevant to
accessing funding for implementation since the majority of Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR) and large funded projects are expected to answer
requirements of M&E. This enables funders to ‘quantify’ the outcomes of their
donations and to validate the impact of projects. Again the field of Development
Studies has had to jump this hurdle a little earlier than the field of design. The UK
Institute of Development Studies (IDS) explains how participation can not only be
used in the planning stage in a project, but also whilst monitoring progress and
after a programme/project has ended (Institute of Development Studies, 2013).
Whereas conventional M&E caters for donors to account for their spending:
Participatory M&E [PM&E] seeks to account to people. It shifts the
focus from upward to downward accountability. The intended
beneficiaries of programmes themselves set the indicators for
progress and success. They discuss and decide how a programme
brought about change. They will tell the development actors whether
it improved their lives. A PM&E process helps to ensure responsible
and accountable aid. (Institute of Development Studies, 2013)
Chambers explains how PM&E empowers communities by including them in the
process of evaluation and allowing them to be able to share the evidence of their
success (Chambers, 2008, p. 120). Chambers also notes that it is very rare that
communities use numbers for PM&E, he attributes this to the fact that numbers
are not necessary to ‘prove’ success in communities (Ibid. pp. 121-122). The
difficulty is trying to balance the requirements of funders against measurement
systems that are not too complex for community members and not too data rich,
and hence too time consuming for assessment by design practitioners. A method
that meets these requirements is described by Chambers as Participatory Action
Learning System (PALS) pioneered by Linda Mayoux as a PM&E approach that
uses simple, easily learnt diagrams which balances “people gaining confidence
and learning on the one hand, and standardization and making a difference with
higher-level decision-makers on the other” (Ibid. p. 122).
As per the final proposals from the Social Impact Summit, building a culture of
evaluation and “the need for better tools to demonstrate the long-term impact of
design projects and initiatives” (Smithsonian Institution, 2013, p. 37),
Development Studies may provide a range of participatory measurement and
evaluation tools that can be used as methods to validate the impact of Design for
Social Impact for communities, designers, researchers, funders and the broader
public.
CONCLUSION
This paper attempts to link an almost twice as old historical documentation of the
field of Development Studies to the currently burgeoning field of social impact
design. What is evident is that many of the issues identified by practitioners and
academics operating in the realm of design for social good have previously
required substantial exploration from the field of Development Studies. And
although impossible to explore in any great depth in this paper, an
acknowledgment of the overlap between these two fields will allow designers the
opportunity to possibly leapfrog some of the mistakes development practitioners
and theorists made. This is relevant, not through some form of hierarchic
importance of either of the fields, but rather to provide the best knowledge and
possible methods for designers to approach development in an attempt to equalise
the distinct inequalities of current society and more specifically in Africa.
References
AfriGadget. (n.d.). Solving Everday Problems with African Ingenuity. (E.
Hersman, S. Mugiri, J. Chebet, Eichholz, P. Kahumbu, & F. van Bree, Editors)
Retrieved February 05, 2012, from AfriGadget: http://www.afrigadget.com/
Arad, S. (2012). Do Designers Actually Exploit the Poor While Trying to do
Good? Jan Chipchase Resonds. Retrieved Feb 02, 2012, from Co.Design:
http://www.fastcodesign.com/1665635/do-designers-actually-exploit-the-poor-
while-trying-to-do-good-jan-chipchase-responds
Bonsiepe, G. (2006). Design and Democracy. Design Issues , 22 (2), 27-34.
Buchanan, R. (2001). Human Dignity and Human Rights: Thoughts on the
Principles of Human-Centred Design. Design Issues , 17 (3), 35-39.
Bunch, R. (1991). People-Centred Agricultural Improvement. In B. Haverkort, J.
Van de Kamp, & A. Waters-Bayer, Joining Farmers' Experiments: Experiences in
Participatory Technology Development (pp. 23-48). London: Intermediate
Technology Publications.
Campbell, A. D. (2008). Industrial Design Education and South African
Imperatives. Image & Text: A Journal for Design (14), 82-99.
Chambers, R. (2008). Revolutions in Development Inquiry. London: Earthscan.
Clarke, A. J. (Ed.). (2011). Design Anthropology: Object Culture in the 21st
Century. NewYork: Springer-Verlag/Wien.
Design Indaba. (n.d.). Design Indaba. Retrieved September 05, 2012, from
Design Indaba: www.designindaba.com
Esteva, G. (2010). Development. In W. Sachs (Ed.), The Development Dictionary:
A Guide to Knowledge as Power (Second ed., pp. 1-23). New York: Zed Books.
Frog Design. (n.d.). Design for Social Impact. Retrieved May 12, 2013, from Frog
Design: http://www.frogdesign.com/services/expertise/social-innovation.html
Hamdi, N. (2004). Small Change: About The Art of Practice and the Limits of
Planning in Cities. Oxon: Earthscan.
IDEO. (n.d.). Human-Centred Design Toolkit. Retrieved May 12, 2013, from
IDEO: http://www.ideo.com/work/human-centered-design-toolkit/
Institute of Development Studies. (2013). Plan, Monitor and Evaluate. Retrieved
06 01, 2013, from Participatory Methods: People Working Together Around the
World to Generate Ideas and Action for Social Change:
http://www.participatorymethods.org/task/plan-monitor-and-evaluate
Ireland, C. (2003). Qualitative Methods: From Boring to Brilliant. In B. Laurel
(Ed.), Design Research: Methods and Perspective (pp. 22-29). Cambridge: MIT
Press.
Kretzmann, J. P., & McKnight, J. L. (1993). Building Communities from the
Inside Out: A Path Toward Finding and Mobilizing a Community's Assets.
Illinois: The Asset-Based Community Development Institute, School of Education
and Social Policy, Northwestern University.
Krippendorff, K. (2006). The Semantic Turn: A New Foundation for Design. Boca
Raton: Taylor & Francis.
Lidwell, W., Holden, K., & Butler, J. (2010). Universal Principles of Design. (2.
Edition, Ed.) Beverly: Rockport Publishers.
Maker Faire Africa. (n.d.). Maker Faire Africa. Retrieved January 04, 2012, from
Maker Faire Africa: http://makerfaireafrica.com/
Margolin, V. (2012). Design and Democracy in a Troubled World. Pittsburgh.
Nelson, N., & Wright, S. (1995). Power and Participatory Development: Theory
and Practice. Rugby: Practical Action Publishing.
Nussbaum, B. (2010). Is Humanitarian Design the New Imperialism? Retrieved
July 12, 2011, from Co.Design: www.fastcodesign.com/1661859/is-humanitarian-
design-the-new-imperialsim
Papanek, V. (1984). Design for the Real World: Human Ecology and Social
Change. London: Thames & Hudson.
Pilloton, E. (2009). Design Revolution: 100 Products That Are Changing People's
Lives. London: Thames & Hudson.
Plowman, T. (2003). Ethnography and Critical Design Practice. In B. Laurel
(Ed.), Design Research: Methods and Perspectives (pp. 30-38). Cambridge: The
MIT Press.
Richards, P. (1985). Indigenous Agricultural Revolution. London: Hutchinson.
Rist, G. (1999). The History of Development: from Western Origins to Global
Faith. (P. Camiller, Trans.) Cape Town: University of Cape Town Press.
Sachs, W. (Ed.). (2010). The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as
Power (Second Edition ed.). London: Zed Books.
Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smithsonian Institution. (2007). Design for the Other 90%. New York: Cooper-
Hewitt, National Design Museum.
Smithsonian Institution. (2013). Design and Social Impact: A Cross-Sectoral
Agenda for Design Education, Research, and Practice. Cooper-Hewitt, National
Design Museum. New York: The Smithsonian's Cooper-Hewitt, National Design
Museum.
Stanford d.school. (n.d.). Use Our Methods. Retrieved May 12, 2013, from
Stanford d.school: http://dschool.stanford.edu/use-our-methods/
Statistics South Africa. (2012). South African Statistics, 2012. Pretoria: Statistics
South Africa.
The World Bank. (2012). GINI Index. Retrieved February 10, 2013, from The
World Bank: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI
Truman, H. S. (1949, January 20). Inaugral Address. Retrieved 12 05, 2012, from
The American Presidency Project:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=13282
University of Johannesburg. (n.d.). What is Development Studies? Retrieved 12
10, 2011, from Department of Anthropology and Development Studies:
http://www.uj.ac.za/EN/FACULTIES/HUMANITIES/DEPARTMENTS/ANTHR
ODEV/Pages/default.aspx.za/EN/FACULTIES/HUMANITIES/DEPARTMENTS
/ANTHRODEV/Pages/default.aspx
Whiteley, N. (1997). Design for Society. London: Reaktion Books.
