Content uploaded by Angus Donald Campbell
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Angus Donald Campbell on Feb 05, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
89
5
Angus Donald Campbell and Ivan Leroy Brown
Introduction
Renowned design thinker and educator Ezio Manzini (2010: 8) claims that “[t]he only sustainable
way to get out of the current worldwide financial and ecological crisis is to promote new
economic models, new production systems, and new ideas of well-being”. Many definitions of
design describe a goal-orientated process of “solving problems, meeting needs, improving situations,
or creating something new or useful” (Friedman, 2003: 507–508). Design is therefore well placed
to deal with the systemic crises Manzini describes; however, the practice of design is extensively
shaped by the way it is taught, which does not necessarily generate designers capable of dealing
with such systemic complexities. There is therefore a need for design education that provides
graduates with a critical mindset, methodologies, tools and skills for appropriate change making
embedded in complex contexts. Borrowing from Johnson and Morris’s (2010) framework for
critical citizenship education, we describe such graduates as critical citizen designers.
The context of South Africa provides a multitude of opportunities for student designers to use their
expertise to bring about appropriate change. However, in order to encourage positive outcomes,
an appropriate pedagogy, strengthened through praxis and grounded in economic, social and
environmental realities, is required to prepare students for critical and sustainable change making. This
chapter explores the education of industrial designers in South Africa utilising a ‘potential difference’
model for critical citizen design. This model attempts to consider stakeholder relationships through
a lens of power and love (Kahane, 2010) in order to increase people’s capabilities (Nussbaum, 2011;
Sen, 1999) through appropriate technology (Schumacher, 1975). This is contextualised through a
case study of the design and implementation of an appropriate technology beekeeping system
for urban farmers in Johannesburg. We begin the chapter with an exploration of critical citizen
design pedagogy.
A Potential Difference
Model for Educating Critical
Citizen Designers: The Case
Study of the Beegin
Appropriate Technology
Beekeeping System
Pre-Publication Draft
90
EDUCATING CITIZEN DESIGNERS IN SOUTH AFRICA
Critical citizen design pedagogy
The concept of citizenship tends to align with “the promotion of a common set of shared values
(e.g. tolerance, human rights and democracy), which prepare young people to live together in diverse
societies and which reject the divisive nature of national identities” (Johnson & Morris, 2010: 77–78).
The addition of the descriptor ‘critical’ to citizenship education points to the expectation of graduates
with a certain level of social understanding and obedience, but also a level of critical reflection and
creativity (Johnson & Morris, 2010). Both of these aspects are beneficial in enabling stable societies,
but also dynamic and innovative economies.
Such a duality is also evident in design education. The Eurocentric origin of design can be divided
between two ideologies: one more consumer-focused and the other more socially orientated.
Consumer-focused design has concerned itself with rapidly satisfying needs and wants, creating
jobs and opportunities for people to become wealthy while developing innovative technologies
that generally improve people’s quality of life. Social design has long been concerned with freeing
society from the ills that capitalism has brought to bear, which include rampant consumerism, selfish
and exclusionary practices, growing inequality and cultural deterioration. After over a century of
consumer-focused design and a few decades of socially responsible design, we need to reflect on the
ability of both these approaches to address the challenges of social, environmental and economic
unsustainability (Steen, 2011; UN, 1987; UNDP, 2014). In the global South, this reflection can be
expanded to also include the recognition of other forms of knowledge, as highlighted in the recent
call by South African ‘fallists’ to decolonise South African academic institutions.
Postcolonial theorist Achille Mbembe (2015: n.p.) explains as follows:
In order to set our institutions firmly on the path of future knowledges, we need to reinvent a classroom
without walls in which we are all co-learners; a university that is capable of convening various publics in
new forms of assemblies that become points of convergence of and platforms for the redistribution of
different kinds of knowledges.
Critical pedagogue Paulo Freire (2004) was clear in highlighting how uncritical education tends
to reproduce scholars who conform to a system of thinking as opposed to those who are free
in their ability to critique, engage with and transform their world. More recently, agriculturalist-
turned-economist Anil Gupta from the Indian Institute of Management and founder of the Honey
Bee Network questioned: “Why is it … that the designers of pedagogies and curricula, policies
and programmes the world over neglect the need for learning from knowledge rich-economically
poor people?” (2012: 29).
Social impact design has positively taken design education out of the classroom into the field; however,
although it is a burgeoning field in design education, it has too often favoured the designer’s expertise
over those being designed for (Campbell, 2017). This can result in a problematic development model
focused on handouts to divested beneficiaries (Bunch, 1991). Both consumer-focused and social design
tend to be based on the idea that needs and wants are universally similar, with design taking place
in a traditional producer–consumer relationship. Such top-down approaches have produced design
Pre-Publication Draft
91
A Potential Difference Model for Educating Critical Citizen Designers
solutions for the needs and wants of both the mainstream and the marginalised, but have failed to
significantly impact on social, environmental and economic issues (Lissenden, Maley & Mehta, 2015).
The design discipline has therefore mostly been concerned with design for the other 90%,1 but
after criticism of such power differentials (Baelden & Van Audenhove, 2015) it has more recently
been reorientated, breaking ties with the traditional producer–consumer approach, opting for a
more democratic design with the other 90%. Design pedagogy and praxis have therefore shifted
from more quantitative studies of ergonomics and technology-centric design (Krippendorff, 2006)
towards more qualitative human-centred or co-design (Steen, 2011). In this more inclusive approach,
design researchers recognise the knowledge that people have accumulated through their own lived
experiences and integrate this into the design process through empathic and participatory research
(Maguire, 2001). People are therefore partners in the development of solutions for their own
contexts, which develops an important aspect of ownership of the process and outcome, and hence
investment in the project (Campbell & Harrison, 2015). Contemporary social designers have realised
that impactful design cannot rely on far-removed or de-contextualised perspectives of what people
need, but requires the knowledge, input and investment of local experts.
It is widely accepted that designers have a role to play in developing interventions for marginalised
people, yet the ability to effect measurable impact through their philanthropic endeavours or to
make a career in responsible design is seldom achieved (Margolin, 2007). In developing countries
such as South Africa, emphasis is placed on designing for the needs of the marginalised majority
(Campbell, 2008), but at the same time emphasis is placed on design as a means of development.
In most cases this equates to the capitalisation of local or international consumer demands in order
to increase economic growth (Design Council, 2015). All projects, whether they are undertaken in
academia or in industry, have time and resource constraints. Great effort may be taken in developing
participatory design inter ventions, but this does not amount to positive benefit for intended users if
the solutions cannot be correctly implemented. In industry an ideological focus on commercialisation
results in the need for a product to be successfully rolled out in order to support the livelihood
of the designer or client, but often sacrifices social and environmental concerns. Academic design
research has the luxury of being able to spend extensive resources on social and environmental
design so long as research publication and/or qualification outputs are met. However, the focus on
academic outputs tends to result in limited and ineffectual outcomes and hence severely limits the
tangible benefit for those for whom the intervention was designed. When those participating in the
research do not receive equitable benefit, design research tends to take a problematic colonial turn
(Gupta, 2016; Smith, 1999).
Thus far we have described the concept of critical design pedagogy in terms of the ideologies,
methodologies and various knowledge(s) represented in design education. Johnson and Morris (2010)
describe critical citizens at the intersection of critical pedagogy and the more abstract concept of
critical thinking. Within this framework, Johnson and Morris present the concepts of “politics; society
and interaction; the self; and reflection, action, engagement and possibility” (2010: 92) as themes that
1 Where the 90% are the majority who cannot afford or benefit from ‘designer’ products intended for the wealthiest
10% of the population.
Pre-Publication Draft
92
EDUCATING CITIZEN DESIGNERS IN SOUTH AFRICA
need to interact with the knowledge, skills, values and disposition of people to encourage critical
citizenship. Such a framework provides a way to approach curriculum design in order to provide
students with the critical faculties to navigate the complex realities when they enter the ‘real’ world,
or when they straddle the world of academia and the world of the people with whom they are
designing. In our experience of educating critical citizen designers in South Africa we have found
two additional concepts that have proven useful for design students to navigate their positionality
and the impact of their work. The first is Adam Kahane’s lens of ‘power and love’ as a means to
navigate the complex relational dynamics in social design, and the second is Amartya Sen (1999)
and Martha Nussbaum’s (2011) ‘capability approach’ as a means to consider the effective impact of,
in the case of industrial designers, ‘appropriate technology’ (Schumacher, 1975). In combination we
describe this as the potential difference model for critical citizen design; we begin by exploring the
concepts of power and love.
Power and love
The famous line of the second president of IBM, Thomas Watson Jr, “Good design is good business”,
contrasts with the renowned graphic designer Milton Glaser’s equally famous line “Good design is
good citizenship” (Heller & Vienne, 2003: 1). They represent the dilemma of design classified under
the two binary headings of consumerism and humanitarianism, or competition versus cooperation.
Educators similarly face a dichotomy between didactic and dialogic education (Freire, 1970). These
binaries can generally be aligned to represent either of the concepts of ‘power’ or ‘love’. In 1967
Martin Luther King Jr (2002: 186) highlighted the interdependence of these two concepts in one of
his landmark speeches:
Power properly understood is nothing but the ability to achieve purpose. It is the strength required to
bring about social, political, and economic change. … And one of the great problems of history is that the
concepts of love and power have usually been contrasted as opposites – polar opposites – so that love
is identified with the resignation of power, and power with the denial of love. Now we’ve got to get this
thing right. What [we need to realise is] that power without love is reckless and abusive, and love without
power is sentimental and anaemic ... It is precisely this collision of immoral power with powerless morality
which constitutes the major crisis of our time.
Inspired by King Jr’s speech, change maker Adam Kahane (2010) explores power and love as a theory
and practice of social change. Kahane describes the two most common methods to solve social
problems as either violent aggression or endless negotiation and compromise; these two methods are
underpinned by the drive for power or love. Kahane (2010) describes power as resolute, orientated
towards business and productive activities and mostly aligned with self-serving agendas, and love
as empathic, orientated towards socially responsible activities and mostly aligned with collective
benefit. Kahane echoes King Jr in that both these approaches have to be combined in order to solve
complex problems. For example, in academic design research, much time and effort are taken to
collaborate towards outcomes; this is much more aligned towards love. Although the outcome may be
theoretically successful, the impact of the design may be limited due to constraints of implementation.
Timothy Prestero, chief executive officer of Design that Matters, explains that “compared to the
whole process that leads to implementation – which includes financing, manufacture and distribution,
training, and adoption – design is the least hard part” (Cooper-Hewitt, 2013: 24). The opposite is
Pre-Publication Draft
93
A Potential Difference Model for Educating Critical Citizen Designers
also possible. For example, a designer in industry may find him-/herself under the powerful watchful
eye of corporate clients who, due to time and financial constraints, find collaborative design methods
arduous and therefore forgo processes of defining appropriate purpose, participator y development,
testing and refinement in order to meet implementation deadlines. This results in a high probability
that the outcome does not fully meet the needs of those for whom the product was intended.
Power is particularly difficult to manage in participatory projects (Nelson & Wright, 1995) and even
more so when working in contexts where poorly considered community projects and complex
historical racial power hierarchies have perpetuated notions of “white as knowledgeable and black
as needy”(Biko, 2004: 23) (see also Costandius & Rosochaki, 2012). Projects that attempt to ‘do
good’ can unconsciously be focused more on making the initiators feel good about themselves
(helping behaviour), but do they truly empower participants to feel good about themselves so that
in the future they have the confidence to continue their own emancipation? In order for critical
citizen designers to bring about systemic and sustainable change, they need to become aware of the
complexities of maintaining equilibrium between the drives of power and love in their education.
Such critical minds will help uncover and mitigate the various requirements of self and society,
humanitarianism and consumerism. This can result in good design that does good (love/social/
citizenship) and makes good (power/self/business). However, in a context of strong power disparities,
an additional rudder is needed to help designers navigate the difference they have from those with
whom they are designing.
Capabilities and appropriate technology
Keeping the approach of power and love in the fore requires a level of intimacy between the various
participants in design research projects. Relationships are formed due to shared concerns, views and
interests, and through these relationships the worldview of all par ticipants is changed (Kasulis, 2002).
Ultimately, such embedded design projects aim to improve the well-being of all those involved in
the project. However, well-being is a particularly difficult concept to define: Is it defined in terms
of happiness, or in terms of wealth? Neither of these is particularly appropriate, as our individual
concepts of happiness and wealth shift as our circumstances change. Hence we have found in
our design research projects that the capabilities approach developed by Amartya Sen (1999) and
Martha Nussbaum (2011) is a more appropriate means to help steer design projects towards valued
outcomes. Robeyns (2011: n.p.) describes the capability approach as follows:
The capability approach is a theoretical framework that entails two core normative claims: first, the claim
that the freedom to achieve well-being is of primary moral impor tance, and second, that freedom to
achieve well-being is to be understood in terms of people’s capabilities, that is, their real opportunities to
do and be what they have reason to value.
The freedom that people have to do and be, or not to do and be, is intrinsic to well-being
(Nussbaum, 2011). Sen is particularly interested in how people are able to participate in economic,
social and political action, both in terms of “functionings” (“what a person values doing and being”)
and “capabilities” (“the alternative combinations of functionings that are feasible for her to achieve”)
(1999: 75). Functionings are either realised or effectively possible based on the person’s opportunities
and freedoms (Oosterlaken, 2009, 2015). Nussbaum (2011) defines people’s functionings as created
Pre-Publication Draft
94
EDUCATING CITIZEN DESIGNERS IN SOUTH AFRICA
by their own abilities (internal) or the social, political and economic context (external). Nussbaum
defines ten “central human capabilities” for human flourishing, namely life; bodily health; bodily
integrity; senses, imagination and thought; emotions; practical reason; affiliation; other species; play;
and control over one’s political and material environment (2011: 33–34). The capabilities approach is
a means to assess quality of life and the effect things have on it (Robeyns, 2011). It is therefore well
positioned to act as a rudder in guiding design research projects, particularly in terms of how design
interventions can improve or hinder people’s capabilities.
In a paper exploring human dignity and the principles of human-centred design, Richard Buchanan
(2001) explains that designers should be sufficiently responsible and socially productive to provide
people with the capability to support themselves. One of the means that industrial designers have to
enhance people’s capabilities is through the development of appropriate technology (Oosterlaken,
2009). The concept of appropriate technology was developed by Fritz Schumacher (1975) in
order to offer an indirect method for easing poverty by developing products for/with marginalised
communities that support skills development and economic growth. Schumacher (1975) understood
that products should be developed in their context of use to provide a medium for local social
entrepreneurship, as opposed to typical development-based ‘all-round solutions’ or ‘aid’. In his paper
on the socio-economic development for Third World countries, Anthony Akubue (2000) indicates
that appropriate technologies are the most suitable tools to provide opportunities for development
and although these technologies are often simplified, they must be progressive, allow for future
advancement or create progress through innovation. Ian Smillie (2008: 91) defines appropriate
technology as meeting the following criteria:
- It meets the needs of the majority, not a small minority, of a community.
- It employs natural resources, capital and labour in proportion to their long-term
sustainable availability.
- It is ownable, controllable, operable and maintainable within the community it serves.
- It enhances the skills and dignity of those employed by it.
- It is non-violent both to the environment and to the people.
- It is socially, economically and environmentally sustainable.
Appropriate technology can therefore provide people with the means to extricate themselves from
poverty and satisfy their needs and wants simultaneously. The key lies in undertaking participatory
design research to determine the entrepreneurial desires of a community, assessing possibilities and
working together to realise a system that allows them to achieve what they value. We describe this
process as a potential difference model of critical citizen design (Figure 1), which balances power and
love to increase people’s capabilities through appropriate technology.
Pre-Publication Draft
95
A Potential Difference Model for Educating Critical Citizen Designers
Figure 1 The potential difference model for citizen industrial design
The model in Figure 1 is a diagrammatic representation of critical citizen design that utilises the
potential difference created by balancing the two ideological approaches to change, of love, which
drives to unite with others, and power, which aims at achieving individual purpose. This balance
enables the circuit to meet through engaged design praxis and results in an appropriate technological
outcome that has the potential to increase people’s capabilities. In the reduction of a complex
process, the model becomes a circuit diagram with an illuminated light bulb that represents a system
of appropriate technology, but what is not evident are the people involved in the process or the
complexities of facilitating participation to identify the value and need for light. In order to make this
model and process more tangible, we will now present a case study that explores the design of an
appropriate beekeeping system for urban farmers in Johannesburg. This project began as a BTech
(honours) project in 2015 and continued as an MTech (master’s) project into 2016–2017 in the
Department of Industrial Design at the University of Johannesburg.
Case study: The Beegin Appropriate Technology Beekeeping System
Pedagogy
The University of Johannesburg is “alive down to its African roots, and well-prepared for its role in
actualising the potential that higher education holds for the continent’s development” (2016: n.p.).
Within the university, the Depar tment of Industrial Design (2016) has four central principles that
drive the education on offer. These include social responsibility, sustainability, human-centeredness
and contextual relevance. Staff and students of the department engage in a number of community-
centred design projects and social development initiatives, including the Design Society Development
Pre-Publication Draft
96
EDUCATING CITIZEN DESIGNERS IN SOUTH AFRICA
(DSD) DESIS Lab (2016a), various postgraduate design research projects and the ser vice-learning
urban agriculture2 initiative “iZindaba Zokudla” (Conversations about Food) (Design Society
Development DESIS Lab, 2016b), which is a collaborative interdisciplinary project based at the
University of Johannesburg focused on systemic change in Johannesburg’s food system.
Social initiative background: Political ideology
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2015), in 2015
approximately 780 million people in low-income communities worldwide did not have access to
adequate food. Although food security has improved in recent years, issues regarding the sustainability
of modern agriculture are threatening food supplies worldwide (Allen, 2010; FAO, 2015). Commercial
agriculture is widely criticised for its detrimental effects on biodiversity, ecological systems and
natural resources (Thrupp, 2015). For people to achieve the central capabilities of bodily health, life
and bodily integrity, they need to have access to healthy food. In South Africa, the social, political and
economic contexts are such that many people do not have access to healthy food and are therefore
defined as ‘food insecure’.
In Africa, rapid population growth and urban migration, coupled with slow economic development,
have resulted in widespread urban poverty (Crush, Hovorka & Tevera, 2011). The growing demand
for food in cities has placed strain on agricultural production (Allen, 2010). The food impor ted into
the cities comes at high costs financially and environmentally. In reaction to the structural and systemic
problem of food insecurity, some cities have begun to move towards localised food production
through small-scale urban farming (Carpenter & Rosenthal, 2011). In the FAO publication exploring
the state of food insecurity, they clearly indicate that “[e]conomic growth is a key success factor for
reducing undernourishment, but it has to be inclusive and provide opportunities for improving the
livelihoods of the poor. Enhancing the productivity and incomes of smallholder family farmers is key
to progress” (2015: ii).
As part of the City of Johannesburg’s flagship programme, “A city where none go hungry” (2012) and
the Integrated Development Plan (2013), urban agriculture has been implemented as a local food
security strategy. Izindaba Zokudla aims to promote urban agriculture in low-income communities to
increase access to food and income generation (Malan & Campbell, 2014). Izindaba Zokudla focuses
on the creation of farmers’ markets, participatory technology development, skills enhancement,
school gardens, security of tenure and a farmer’s school in Johannesburg’s southwestern township
(Soweto) (Malan & Campbell, 2014). In addition, Izindaba Zokudla develops research opportunities
and interdisciplinary projects that emanate from the University of Johannesburg and intend to
form sustainable food systems for the community stakeholders (farmers, retailers and customers/
recipients) (Malan & Campbell, 2014). The Department of Industrial Design, working in conjunction
with Izindaba Zokudla, has produced a variety of products with the aim to increase urban farmer
2“[Urban agriculture] is an industry located within (intraurban) or on the fringe (peri-urban) of a town, a city or
a metropolis, which grows and raises, processes and distributes a diversity of food and non-food products, (re-)
using largely human and material resources, products and services found in and around that urban area, and in turn
supplying human and material resources, products and services largely to that urban area” (Mougeot, 2001: 10).
Pre-Publication Draft
97
A Potential Difference Model for Educating Critical Citizen Designers
productivity in order to improve their livelihoods (Campbell, 2013: 12). Some of the products have
been more successful than others (Malan, Campbell, Sibeko, Van Zyl & Benecke, 2015), but the
greatest hurdle has been to feasibly implement technology developed as part of a design curriculum
back into the communities that co-designed it, to their benefit. This is where the Beegin3 Appropriate
Technology Beekeeping System for emergent farmers has made significant strides.
Beegin: Industrial design project
Beegin (Figure 2) is an ongoing participator y design research project that aims to use a long-term,
human-centred design process to develop and implement an appropriate technology system for
emergent beekeepers. The research goals are to assist urban farmers, promote apiculture and help
ensure the ongoing survival of the honeybee. The project engages with food insecurity in two ways:
indirectly, by bringing additional income to marginalised, small-scale farming communities; and directly,
by protecting the pollination source of 70% of food crops (cf. UNEP, 2010).
Figure 2 Entry-level cardboard and permanent concrete beehives developed and used in the
Beegin project; project supporters to the right.
Although the success of urban agriculture has been called into question with concerns regarding
income generation, food production and social interest (Crush et al., 2011; Frayne, McCordie &
Shilomboleni, 2014), the Beegin project began with a search for opportunities to increase the
income capabilities of urban farmers through either bettering existing crop yields or the benefit of an
additional high-value crop to sell (honey). To mitigate some of the concerns about the efficacy of urban
agriculture, we found examples of the implementation of apiculture (agricultural beekeeping) projects
in rural Ethiopian, South African, Tanzanian, Nigerian and Kenyan communities that had successfully
created socio-economic growth by increasing crop yields and providing additional sources of income
(Girma, Ballo, Tegegne, Alemayehu & Belayhun, 2008; Illgner, Nel & Robertson, 1998; UNEP, 2010).
3 Beegin is the name of the project, derived from ‘beginning’ ‘beekeeping’.
Pre-Publication Draft
98
EDUCATING CITIZEN DESIGNERS IN SOUTH AFRICA
The additional income generated from beekeeping can be significant, with South African beekeepers
earning between R2 000 and R40 000 per hive annually (Johannsmeier, 2001; TTA, 2008).
In interviews with local urban farmers (Figure 3), their studious and entrepreneurial spirit was noted,
along with their concern for environmental sustainability. As a key foundation to the intervention,
urban farmers were identified to participate in the project based on a desire to keep bees due to
their pre-existing knowledge of the value of having bees on a farm (Figure 4). However, it became
apparent that they had not yet been able to easily take up beekeeping, mostly due to a lack of access to
skills and equipment. The farmers therefore indicated an understanding of the benefit of beekeeping
to their farming system, but lacked the ‘power’ to sustainably initiate beekeeping endeavours. We
then interviewed exper t beekeepers to determine the power factors (skills, knowledge and capital)
involved in making a successful beekeeping business. It was clear from the exper t beekeepers that
they also possessed an underlying ‘love’ in their beekeeping practice (innovation, bee appreciation
and environmental sustainability). An additional unexpected finding was the serious problem that the
South African beekeeping industry faces from theft, vandalism (Figure 5), fires, diseases and pests,
resulting in 30% asset (equipment, hives and colonies) losses annually. This was a power factor out
of their control.
Leading South African bee expert Martin Johannsmeier (2001: 5) indicates that “with available natural
resources, the industry could expand twice or three times its present size”; however, the beekeeping
industry has been declining annually for the past two decades. In addition, the wor ld is facing a “pollinator
crisis”, or a global decline in insect pollinator species, par ticularly the honeybee (UNEP, 2010:1). A
recent Harvard study indicated that up to 56% of the population in developing nations is at risk of
becoming food insecure as a result of this pollinator crisis (Ellis, Myers & Ricketts, 2015). It is also clear
that modern apiculture and mass agriculture practices are contributing directly to the demise of the
honeybee (Ellis et al., 2015; UNEP, 2010).
Figure 3
Urban farm on the grounds of a
primary school in Soweto
Figure 4
Urban farmer harvesting
honey from a wild swarm living
under a rock near his farm in
Orange Farm, Johannesburg
Figure 5
Vandalised beehives collected from
a commercial beekeeper’s apiaries
in South Africa
Pre-Publication Draft
99
A Potential Difference Model for Educating Critical Citizen Designers
The culmination of centuries of apiculture has led to a general universal system of beekeeping that
relies on beehives (to house a swarm of bees), gear (to protect the beekeeper while working with
the hive), know-how (skills, knowledge, practices and techniques for beekeeping) and extraction
equipment (to process and package the bee products). The beehive tends to define the other
three, as different beehive designs require different gear, knowledge and extraction processes. Two
contemporary systems dominate the practice: the top-bar beehive (R600) and the Hoffman frame
beehive (R900). The former is more suited to marginalised communities through its lower cost,
simplicity and emphasis on harvesting the entire honeycomb. The latter is more suited to commercial
apiculture through its efficiency, standardisation and emphasis on high-production output. Although
effective in bringing beekeeping to two different markets, the distinction has also widened the
gap between the two groups and both have proved ineffective at mitigating the losses currently
experienced as a result of theft, vandalism, fire, pests and disease.
Theoretical framework: Capabilities
Three distinct groups of stakeholders were identified as participants in the Beegin project, namely
industry (exper t beekeepers), society (emerging urban farmers) and academia (the design
researcher). This triangle of relationships was initially defined in terms of their position in the spectrum
of power and love. A sustainable, appropriate beekeeping system has the potential to greatly benefit
the beekeeping and small-scale farming industries (love). Existing beekeepers are well versed in
the commercial aspects of profiting from long-term beekeeping (power). Small-scale farmers are
motivated to become beekeepers to escape poverty and become food secure (power). The design
researcher understands the requirements for successful appropriate technology interventions as an
academic endeavour (love), but is also motivated to complete a degree (power) and implement the
system as a potential career opportunity to the benefit of all stakeholders (power and love). These
relationships are captured in Figure 6 below.
Figure 6 Diagram of participatory research towards increasing capabilities
Pre-Publication Draft
100
EDUCATING CITIZEN DESIGNERS IN SOUTH AFRICA
It was recognised that it was the desire of the design researcher to affect meaningful change. The
expert beekeepers and the farmers had the desire to easily and sustainably keep bees and everyone
had a basic need for food security. The Beegin project therefore aimed to enhance the various
stakeholders’ capabilities towards these ends. The current lack of an appropriate technology system
for local beekeeping contributes to an unsustainable industry and limits economic opportunities
for emergent farmers. By way of a collaborative research effort between the three groups, the
intention was to create an accessible and sustainable system. The envisioned system would need to
be adoptable by expert beekeepers for its appropriateness to industry, accessible and operable by
urban farmers, and implementable by the design researcher.
Practical application: Balancing power and love
Beegin started as a BTech Industrial Design final project in 2015 with the development a series
of beehives. Through participator y research (interviews, site visits and discussions) with expert
beekeepers and urban farmers, beehive design criteria were identified that would benefit both
the human users and the bees. These criteria were then used to develop new beehive designs
and low-tech,4 community-driven production mechanisms for new hives. The iterative design and
production process resulted in low-cost, durable, easy-to-make, highly insulated and easy-to-use
beehives. The product outcomes were an entry-level cardboard beehive (retail R275), a permanent
concrete beehive (retail R800), the mould and die production equipment for each of the hives
(retail R3 400 for the concrete hive) and a mini-dissertation documenting the design process
(Brown, 2015). All of these catered to a conceptual, staggered initiation process, conceived to help
low-income novices learn to keep bees and set up sustainable apiaries (Figure 7).
Figure 7 Business model for the Beegin Appropriate Technology Beekeeping System
4‘Low-tech’, short for ‘low technology’, is a term used to describe technologies that can be produced and delivered
with minimal capital investment, specialisation or compartmentalisation (Wikipedia, 2017).
Pre-Publication Draft
101
A Potential Difference Model for Educating Critical Citizen Designers
The narrative on the initiation process and business model (Figure 7) was developed, in conjunction
with the participants, to balance love (the societal benefits) and power (the ability to administer the
system) in the most viable manner. The concept centred on the designer producing the production
tools and distributing them to beekeepers or farmers interested in manufacturing their own hives
without electricity or expensive machinery. The farmers needed to be sufficiently established (capital
and resources) to undertake training and purchase ancillary equipment and tools. They would
become a point of access for other farmers to acquire hives, training and equipment within the
community. Low-income farmers could easily incorporate the entry-level cardboard beehive due to
its low cost. Using the entry-level hive to house a swarm of bees for up to two years, the farmers
would become acquainted with the practice and begin harvesting honey, which could be sold in
order to raise money to invest in permanent beehives, gear and equipment.
Central to the accessibility and implementability of the Beegin system was the localised, community-
based production of the beehives, and potentially other ancillary products. Instead of the design
researcher setting up a business to retail the products directly to the community, the low-tech
production tools could be sponsored or subsidised through sales to existing beekeepers. It can also
be sold to individuals who could become an access point for others in their community and this can
create additional community-driven businesses. This would allow the design researcher the flexibility
to move on and scale the system rapidly in other places. If further design research was necessary,
at least the tools and skills would be owned by the urban farmers, immediately benefiting their
participation in the project.
Praxis: Test, refine, scale and repeat
The concept hives were initially tested by the design researcher, who became certified as a licensed
beekeeper during the course of the project, to verify their basic functioning (their ability to keep
bees and yield honey). The majority of academic design research projects end at this point, with an
initial, potentially viable, solution. In industr y, the solution would generally be rolled out immediately
without batch testing in different contexts to ensure the validity of the solution. However, initial
implementation usually presents complications that require further iterations of the solution
(IDEO, 2011). In line with the human-centred design process, further user testing, development and
refinement needed to be undertaken to determine the actual appropriateness (function, usability,
commercial viability and accessibility) of the Beegin system.
The next phase of the Beegin project was undertaken as the main focus of a two-year MTech
Industrial Design degree and the phase was midway at the time of writing this chapter. This phase of
Beegin was particularly focused on refining implementation5 through the small-scale field testing6 of
the products and trial running the initiation process. This is often referred to as ‘second-tier research
and development’ through the production of a batch of the products to be intensively field-tested
5 Implementation refers to the commercial roll-out, or commercialisation, of the solution, requiring a system that can
be scaled to provide different markets with access to the technology through a sustainable business or businesses.
6 Field testing refers to the production of a small batch of products to be tested in the environment or context in
which they are to be used.
Pre-Publication Draft
102
EDUCATING CITIZEN DESIGNERS IN SOUTH AFRICA
over an appropriate period to gather data for further refinement. The cyclical human-centred
design process, as per IDEO’s model, ends with implementation; however, if further cycles are
undertaken, each preceding cycle begins with implementation (IDEO, 2011). Figure 8 illustrates
the cyclical human-centred design process that was adopted in the Beegin project and indicates
continual refinement and scaling built into the design process. At each stage we referred back to the
capabilities of the urban farmers to determine whether the project direction was still true to their
values. In addition, we worked towards balancing the drives of power (the delivery of the solution)
and love (the societal benefit) in order to arrive at a sustainable system.
Figure 8 Cyclical testing, refinement and scaling process for citizen design projects
(based on IDEO, 2011)
In keeping with the qualitative nature of the project, an appropriately sized, and varied, group of
participants were identified. This group consisted of five expert beekeepers and five urban farmers
who all indicated a distinct understanding of the value of beekeeping. In the spring of 2016 the expert
beekeepers were tasked with integrating the Beegin beehives into their existing operations and
comparatively measuring their function against their existing hives (wooden, Hoffman-frame beehives).
The urban farmers were provided with an entry-level cardboard beehive, complete with a swarm
of bees, to test the initiation process (see Figures 10 and 11). The expert beekeepers operated
autonomously, while the urban farmers were assisted by the design researcher to inspect, document
and keep their hives through monthly site visits. Ongoing self-testing took place with the design
researcher’s own concrete and cardboard hives to further inform opportunities for refinement. The
initial batch production of the beehives used in the testing provided useful insights into more efficient
community production out of the control of the design researcher (Figure 9). During the roll-out of
the hives, one of the urban farmers additionally volunteered to test the concrete hive production
tools, and will become an important access point for skills and knowledge for the other urban farmer
participants and any future beekeepers in the area.
Within three months of testing the hives, the beekeepers have already begun harvesting honey,
leading to requests for additional hives, as well as enquiries about the purchase of the hive production
tools. One of the expert beekeepers simultaneously placed new swarms in a pre-existing empty
Pre-Publication Draft
103
A Potential Difference Model for Educating Critical Citizen Designers
wooden hive, as well as the Beegin concrete hive. He was very surprised to witness a 40% increase
in productivity in the concrete hive. This equates to almost half the time needed to fill the hive to
capacity with honey. We consider this increase in bee productivity as due to the insulating properties
of the concrete hive, which means the bees spend less time regulating hive temperatures, particularly
in the very hot weather Johannesburg experiences in summer. It is presumed that this will also
extend hive productivity in winter.
Although the testing is still underway, not everything went to plan. Three of the farmers voiced their
concerns about the cardboard entry-level beehive at the start of the testing. They did not see the
benefit of buying a low-cost temporary cardboard in the long run, indicating they would prefer to
purchase permanent concrete hives outright. The expert beekeepers were also vocal about their
issues with the longevity of the cardboard hive, highlighting that unless it is kept under cover and dry,
it would become damaged too quickly, as they found with existing cardboard catch boxes. As testing
progresses, concerns for longevity of the cardboard may be exacerbated even further, with evidence
of some of the bees ‘eating’ the cardboard hives in places. It is clear from this that good design
intentions do not supersede the realities of those being designed with, whether human or animal.
The business model for the Beegin system has been reliant on limited funding for materials, equipment
and other expenses necessary to under take the field testing. The social development orientation of
the project enabled support to be leveraged through the University of Johannesburg Research
Committee and the National Research Foundation (NRF) of South Africa. It is clear through the
initial field testing of the Beegin hives that the expert beekeepers see value in the concrete hive.
Further testing and buying from the urban farmers and exper t beekeepers will be required to form
a sustainable decentralised business for the Beegin project, but the progress thus far has already
provided significant benefit to those who participated in its conceptualisation.
Figure 9
Producing concrete beehives
Figure 10
Testing cardboard beehive with
urban farmer
Figure 11
Testing concrete beehive with
urban farmer
With regard to the other ancillary items on which the Beegin system relies (gear, know-how
and equipment) (cf. Brown, 2015), the development of a low-cost honey-extraction system, a
booklet on beekeeping information and different frame-production methods have already been
Pre-Publication Draft
104
EDUCATING CITIZEN DESIGNERS IN SOUTH AFRICA
undertaken. Other systemic considerations of training, protective clothing, harvesting equipment,
apiary construction, colonies of bees, networking media, record keeping, sponsorships and
expanding community-based production will still need to be explored in the coming year in order to
complete a sustainable and resilient system that can be refined and scaled to different communities
of urban farmers.
Conclusion
Critical citizen designers need to be provided with the opportunity to discover that good design
does good and makes good. This can be encouraged through the exploration of relational tools
such as the potential difference model as a means to achieve a sustainable equilibrium between
power and love, while developing appropriate technologies that enhance all stakeholder capabilities.
Although the model is a simplification of the complexity of participator y design interventions, it is a
useful educational tool for the design researcher to keep in mind and manage power and love, both
of which are required for sustainable change. The education of critical citizen designers therefore
requires appropriate pedagogies that balance the didactic (teaching skills and theories) and dialogic
(providing a platform to question and reform those theories). Critical citizen design pedagogy also
needs to balance the theoretical and practical experience of students. Such praxis needs to move
from the studio into the field. The complex task for design educators is to ensure that all those
involved in social design projects, including the students, the university, community stakeholders and
experts, benefit equally from such design research. It is this complexity that encouraged the potential
difference model and a focus on people’s capabilities as a means to evaluate both the improvement
and the impact in participator y projects.
The success, thus far, of the Beegin project has been the fact that it has extended from a final fourth-
year project into a master’s research project, enabling the continuation of the iterative human-
centred design cycle while constantly refining the technological system. The time span of the project
has also allowed for meaningful relationships to be built between the triangle of stakeholders, which
brings with it more authentic trust and honesty in feedback, which is particularly important in
iterative projects. No promises have been made that could not be met and even if the project does
not roll out into a fully-fledged business, all stakeholders have benefited to some extent from being
involved. The student benefitted through the real-world design experience, potential enterprise and
qualification he will ultimately be awarded with. The urban farmers on the other hand benefitted
through the co-creation, use and ownership of new technologies that potentially allowed them
the opportunity to improve their livelihoods. Lastly the exper t beekeepers benefitted from a new
technology that enabled them to increase their productivity and expand their existing businesses.
Along the way, the student has learnt to navigate the dynamics of power and love by utilising the
potential difference model to reflect on his position in the design research process. This is the core
of social design and yet it cannot be taught – it can only be learnt through getting one’s design hands
dirty through projects such as Beegin.
Pre-Publication Draft
105
A Potential Difference Model for Educating Critical Citizen Designers
Acknowledgements
This work is based on the research supported in part by NRF for Thuthuka grant no. 88030 held by
Angus D. Campbell, titled Designing development: An exploration of technology innovation by small-scale
urban farmers in Johannesburg. Any opinion, finding and conclusion or recommendation expressed in
this material are those of the authors and the NRF does not accept any liability in this regard.
References
Akubue, A. 2000. Appropriate technology for socioeconomic development in Third World
countries. The Journal of Technology Studies, 26(1), 33–43.
https://doi.org/10.21061/jots.v26i1.a.6
Allen, P. 2010. Realising justice in local food systems. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and
Society, 3, 295–308. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsq015
Baelden, D. & Van Audenhove, L. 2015. Participative ICT4D and living lab research: The case study
of a mobile social media application in a rural Tanzanian university setting. Telemacs and
Informacs, 32, 842–852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2015.04.012
Biko, S. 2004. I write what I like. Johannesburg: Picador Africa.
Brown, I. 2015. An improved beehive design to support local urban agriculture. BTech
mini-dissertation. Johannesburg: University of Johannesburg.
Buchanan, R. 2001. Human dignity and human rights: Thoughts on the principles of human-centered
design. Design Issues, 17(3), 35–39. https://doi.org/10.1162/074793601750357178
Bunch, R. 1991. People-centred agricultural improvement. In: B. Haverkort, J. van de Kamp &
A. Waters-Bayer (Eds.). Joining farmers’ experiments: Experiences in parcipatory
technology development. London: Intermediate Technology Publications, 23–48.
Campbell, A.D. 2008. Industrial design education and South African imperatives. Image & Text:
A Journal for Design, 14, 89–99.
Campbell, A.D. 2013. Participatory technology design for urban agriculture in South Africa. In:
P. Lyle, J.H.-J. Choi, S. Lawson, C. Lueg, A. Chamberlain, M. Foth, A. Meroni & M. Brereton
(Eds.). Proceedings of the Urban Agriculture: A Growing Field of Research Workshop
at INTERACT 2013 – 14th IFIP TC13 Conference on Human-Computer Interacon.
Cape Town: INTERACT, 8–16.
Campbell, A.D. 2017. Lay designers: Grassroots innovation for appropriate change. Design Issues,
33(1), 30–47. https://doi.org/10.1162/DESI_a_00424
Campbell, A.D. & Harrison, P.H. 2015. A framework for socio-technical innovation: The case of
a human-powered shredder. In: L. Collina, L. Galluzzo & A. Meroni (Eds.). Proceedings
of the Cumulus Conference, Milano 2015: The Virtuous Circle: Design Culture and
Experimentaon. Milan: McGraw Hill, 211–230.
Carpenter, N. & Rosenthal, W. 2011. The essenal urban farmer. London: Penguin Books.
City of Johannesburg. 2012. A city where none go hungry: Operaonal strategy document.
Johannesburg: Johannesburg Metropolitan Council.
City of Johannesburg. 2013. 2013–2016 Integrated Development Plan (IDP): Implemenng the
Joburg 2040 strategy. Available at http://www.joburg.org.za/images/stories/2013/March/
March2/2013-16%20IDP.pdf [Accessed 10 June 2016].
Pre-Publication Draft
106
EDUCATING CITIZEN DESIGNERS IN SOUTH AFRICA
Cooper-Hewitt. 2013. Design and social impact: A cross-sectoral agenda for design educaon,
research and pracce. New York, NY: Cooper-Hewitt, National Design Museum,
Smithsonian Institution.
Costandius, E. & Rosochacki, S. 2012. Educating for a plural democracy and citizenship: A report on
practice. Perspecves in Educaon, 30(3), 13–20.
Crush, J.; Hovorka, A. & Tevera, D. 2011. Food security in southern African cities: The place of urban
agriculture. Progress in Development Studies, 2(4), 285–305.
https://doi.org/10.1177/146499341001100402
Department of Industrial Design. 2016. About. Available at http://www.uj.ac.za/industrial
[Accessed 3 October 2016].
Design Council. 2015. The design economy: The value of design to the UK: Executive summary.
Available at http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/asset/document/The%20
Design%20Economy%20executive%20summary_0.pdf [Accessed 10 November 2016].
Design Society Development DESIS Lab. 2016a. About. Available at http://www.
designsocietydevelopment.org [Accessed 5 August 2016].
Design Society Development DESIS Lab. 2016b. iZindaba Zokudla (Conversaons about Food).
Available at http://www.designsocietydevelopment.org/project/izindaba-zokudla
[Accessed 20 November 2016].
Ellis, A.; Myers, S. & Ricketts, T. 2015. Do pollinators contribute to nutritional health? PLoS ONE,
10(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0114805
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2015. The state of food insecurity in the world: Meeting
the 2015 international hunger targets – taking stock of uneven progress. Rome.
Frayne, B.; McCordie, C. & Shilomboleni, H. 2014. Growing out of poverty: Does urban agriculture
contribute to household food security in SA cities? Urban Forum, 25(2), 177–189.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12132-014-9219-3
Freire, P. 1970. Pedagogy of the oppressed. Los Angeles, CA: Penguin.
Freire, P. 2004. Pedagogy of indignaon. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
Friedman, K. 2003. Theor y construction in design research: Criteria, approaches, and methods.
Design Studies, 24(6), 507–522. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(03)00039-5
Girma, M.; Ballo, S.; Tegegne, A.; Alemayehu, N. & Belayhun, L. 2008. Approaches, methods and
processes for innovative apiculture development: Experiences from Ada’a-Liben Woreda
Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia. IPMS Working Paper 8. Kenia: ILRI.
Gupta, A.K. 2012. Innovations by the poor for the poor. International Journal of Technological
Learning, Innovation and Development, 5(1/2), 28–39.
Gupta, A.K. 2016. Grassroots innovation: Minds on the margin are not marginal minds. Haryana:
Penguin Books India.
Heller, S. & Vienne, V. 2003. Cizen designer: Perspecves on design responsibility. New Yor k,
NY: Skyhorse.
IDEO. 2011. Human-Centered Design Toolkit. Second edition. San Francisco, CA.
Illgner, P.M.; Nel, E.L. & Robertson, M.P. 1998. Beekeeping and local self-reliance in rural southern
Africa. The Geographical Review, 88(3), 349–362. https://doi.org/10.2307/216014
Pre-Publication Draft
107
A Potential Difference Model for Educating Critical Citizen Designers
Johannsmeier, M.F. (Ed.). 2001. Beekeeping in South Africa: Plant Protection Research Institute
handbook no 14. Pretoria: Agricultural Research Council.
Johnson, L. & Morris, P. 2010. Towards a framework for critical citizenship education. The Curriculum
Journal, 21(1), 77–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585170903560444
Kahane, A. 2010. Power and love: A theory and pracce of social change. San Francisco, CA:
Berrett-Koehler.
Kasulis, T. 2002. Inmacy or integrity: Philosophy and cultural dierence. Honolulu: University of
Hawaii Press.
King, M.L. Jr. 2002. Where do we go from here? In: C. Carson & K. Shepherd (Eds.). A call to
conscience: The landmark speeches of Dr Marn Luther King, Jr. New York, NY: Grand
Central Publishing, 165–200.
Krippendorf, K. 2006. The semanc turn: A new foundaon for design. Boca Raton, FL:
Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203299951
Lissenden, J.; Maley, S. & Mehta, K. 2015. An era of appropriate technology: Evolutions, oversights
and opportunities. Journal of Humanitarian Engineering, 3(1), 24–35.
Maguire, M. 2001. Methods to support human-centered design. Internaonal Journal of
Human‑Computer Studies, 55, 587–634. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.2001.0503
Malan, N. & Campbell, A.D. 2014. Design, social change and development: A social methodology.
In: Design with the Other 90%: Cumulus Johannesburg Conference Proceedings.
Johannesburg: Cumulus Johannesburg, 94–101.
Malan, N., Campbell, A.D.; Sibeko, J.; Van Zyl, C. & Benecke, R. 2015. Service learning for food
security: The Izindaba Zokudla experience. Paper presented at The Fourth Conference of
the South African Development Studies Associaon (2015): Development in Troubled
Times, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, Port Elizabeth.
Manzini, E. 2010. Small, local, open, and connected: Design for social innovation and sustainability.
Journal of Design Strategies, 4(1)(Spring), 8–11.
Margolin, V. 2007. Design, the future and the human spirit. Design Issues, 23(3), 4–14.
https://doi.org/10.1162/desi.2007.23.3.4
Mbembe, A. 2015. Decolonizing knowledge and the queson of the archive. Available at
https://africaisacountry.atavist.com/decolonizing-knowledge-and-the-question-of-
thearchive [Accessed 25 May 2016].
Mougeot, L.J.A. 2001. Urban agriculture: Denions, presence, potenals and risks. In: N. Bakker,
M. Dubbeling, S. Gündel, U. Sabel-Koschella & H. de Zeeuw (Eds.). Growing cies,
growing food: Urban agriculture on the policy agenda: A reader on urban agriculture.
Feldafing: German Foundation for International Development, 1–43.
Nelson, N. & Wright, S. 1995. Power and parcipatory development: Theory and pracce. Rugby:
Practical Action. https://doi.org/10.3362/9781780445649
Nussbaum, M. 2011. Creang capabilies: The human development approach. London: Harvard
University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674061200
Oosterlaken, I. 2009. Design for development: A capability approach. Design Issues, 29(4), 91–102.
https://doi.org/10.1162/desi.2009.25.4.91
Oosterlaken, I. 2015. Technology and human development. London: Earthscan.
Pre-Publication Draft
108
EDUCATING CITIZEN DESIGNERS IN SOUTH AFRICA
Robeyns, I. 2011. The capability approach. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2011/entries/capability-approach/
[Accessed 17 April 2016].
Schumacher, E.F. 1975. Small is beauful: Economics as if people maered. New York, NY:
Harper Perennial.
Sen, A.K. 1999. Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smillie, I. 2008. Mastering the machine revisited: Poverty, aid and technology. Rugby: Practical Action.
Smith, L.T. 1999. Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. London:
Zed Books.
Steen, M. 2011. Tensions in human-centred design. CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in
Design and the Arts, 7(1), 45–60.
Thrupp, L.A. 2015. Linking agricultural biodiversity and food security: The valuable role of
agrobiodiversity for sustainable agriculture. Internaonal Aairs, 76(2), 265–281.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.00133
TTA (Total Transformation Agribusiness). 2008. Situation analysis of beekeeping industry: Situation
analysis of the beekeeping industry in Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, South
Africa, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Available at http://www.apiservices.biz/
documents/articles-en/beekeeping_regional_situational-analysis.pdf
[Accessed 17 April 2016].
UN (United Nations). 1987. Towards sustainable development. In: Our common future: Report of
the World Commission on Environment and Development. Geneva: U
nited Nations, 41–58.
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2014. Human Development Report 2014.
Sustaining Human Progress: Reducing Vulnerabilies and Building Resilience.
New Yor k, NY.
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 2010. Annual report 2010. Nairobi.
University of Johannesburg. 2016. About. Available at https://www.uj.ac.za/about
[Accessed 30 November 2016].
Wikipedia. 2017. Low technology. Available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_technology
[Accessed 9 March 2017].
Pre-Publication Draft
