Advertisement

Designing Urban Women’s Safety: An Empirical Study of Inclusive Innovation Through a Gender Transformation Lens

  • Anke Schwittay
Original Article

Abstract

This article analyzes the use of human-centered design to make urban areas safer for marginalized women. Through an empirical investigation of Amplify, the UK Department for International Development’s (DFID) flagship innovation program, I ask to what extent design as a particular inclusive innovation strategy can result in gender-transformative urban safety development. I argue that, on the one hand, the projects supported by Amplify reinforced instrumentalized notions of women’s economic empowerment, while on the other they enabled forward-looking approaches such as the inclusion of men in antiviolence programs. Ultimately, Amplify’s support for mainly small-scale, individualized and technical solutions, which resulted from its use of human-center design, prevented more transformative changes to emerge. At the same time, there are opportunities to “design in” spaces for more structural interventions.

Keywords

Inclusive innovation Gender transformation Design DFID Urban safety 

Résumé

Cet article analyse l'utilisation d'une design centrée sur l'homme pour rendre les zones urbaines plus sûres pour les femmes marginalisées. En menant une enquête empirique sur Amplify, le programme d’innovation phare du Département Britannique pour le Développement (DFID), j’explore dans quelle mesure la conception en tant que stratégie d’innovation inclusive peut aboutir à un développement de la sécurité urbaine transformant le genre. Je soutiens que, d’une part, les projets soutenus par Amplify renforçaient les notions instrumentalisées de l’autonomisation économique des femmes, tandis que, de l’autre, ils permettaient des approches prospectives telles que l’inclusion des hommes dans les programmes de lutte contre la violence. Finalement, le soutien d’Amplify aux solutions principalement individuelles, techniques et de taille limitée, résultant de l’utilisation de la design centrée sur l’être humain, a empêché l’apparition de changements plus transformateurs. En même temps, il existe des possibilités de «concevoir des espaces» pour des interventions plus structurelles.

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank everybody at DFID, IDEO and Amplify organizations who participated in this research and made this article possible. I also thank Beth Mills, Paul Braund and Andrea Cornwall for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper. Able research assistance was provided by Sarah Sweeney and Susan Xi. All errors are mine.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The author states that there are no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. AI—Amnesty International. 2010. Insecurity and indignity: Women’s experiences in the slums of Nairobi, Kenya. London: Amnesty International Publications.Google Scholar
  2. Amplify. 2013. Business Plan. https://devtracker.dfid.gov.uk/projects/GB-1-203798/documents. Accessed 4 Dec 2017.
  3. Amplify. 2014. Women’s safety challenge. https://challenges.openideo.com/challenge/womens-safety/brief.html. Accessed 24 Nov 2017.
  4. Amplify. 2015. Annual review august 2015. https://devtracker.dfid.gov.uk/projects/GB-1-203798/documents. Accessed 3 Jan 2019.
  5. Amplify. 2016. Annual report. https://devtracker.dfid.gov.uk/projects/GB-1-203798/documents. Accessed 4 Dec 2017.
  6. Banks, N. 2013. Female employment in Dhaka, Bangladesh: Participation, perceptions and pressures. Environment and Urbanization 25 (1): 95–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barker, G. 2014. A radical agenda for men’s caregiving. IDS Bulletin 45 (1): 85–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bessant, J., B. Ramalingam, H. Rush, N. Marshall, K. Hoffman, and B. Gray. 2014. Innovation management, innovation ecosystems and humanitarian innovation: A literature review for the humanitarian innovation ecosystems research project. London: DFID.Google Scholar
  9. Brabham, D.C. 2013. Crowdsourcing. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  10. Brown, T. 2008. Design thinking. Harvard Business Review. June.Google Scholar
  11. Calkin, S. 2015. “Tapping” women for post-crisis capitalism: Evidence from the 2012 World development report. International Feminist Journal of Politics 17 (4): 611–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Calkin, S. 2017. Disputing disempowerment: Feminism, co-optation, and the privatised governance of gender and development. New Formations 91: 69–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Casey, E., J. Carlson, S. Two Bulls, and A. Yager. 2018. Gender transformative approaches to engaging men in gender-based violence prevention: A review and conceptual model. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 19 (2): 231–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chant, S. 2012. The disappearing of ‘smart economics’? The World Development Report 2012 on Gender Equality: Some concerns about the preparatory process and the prospects for paradigm change. Global Social Policy 12 (2): 198–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chant, S. 2013. Cities through a “gender lens”: A golden “urban age” for women in the global South? Environment and Urbanization 25 (1): 9–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chant, S., and K. Datu. 2015. Women in cities: Prosperity or poverty? A need for multi-dimensional and multi-spatial analysis. In The city in urban poverty, ed. S. Chant and K. Datu, 39–63. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chant, S., and C. McIlwaine. 2016. Cities, slums and gender in the global south: Towards a feminised urban future. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Cornwall, A., and A.M. Rivas. 2015. From ‘gender equality and women’s empowerment’ to global justice: Reclaiming a transformative agenda for gender and development. Third World Quarterly 36 (2): 396–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. de Madariaga, I.S. 2016. Mobility of care: Introducing new concepts in urban transport. In Fair shared cities, ed. I.S. de Madariaga and M. Robert, 51–66. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Donaldson, K. 2008. Why to be wary of “design for developing countries”. Ambidextrous 9: 35–37.Google Scholar
  21. Elyachar, J. 2002. Empowerment money: The World Bank, non-governmental organizations, and the value of culture in Egypt. Public Culture 14 (3): 493–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Escobar, A. 2017. Designs for the pluriverse: Radical interdependence, autonomy, and the making of worlds. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Foster, C., and R. Heeks. 2013. Innovation and scaling of ICT for the bottom-of-the-pyramid. Journal of Information Technology 28 (4): 296–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fraser, N. 2005. Mapping the feminist imagination: From redistribution to recognition to representation. Constellations 12 (3): 295–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Greed, C. 2016. Taking women’s bodily functions into account in urban planning and policy: Public toilets and menstruation. Town Planning Review 87 (5): 505–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gupta, G.R. 2000. Gender, sexuality, and HIV/AIDS: The what, the why, and the how. Canadian HIV/AIDS Policy Law Review 5 (4): 86–93.Google Scholar
  27. Heeks, R., C. Foster, and Y. Nugroho. 2014. New models of inclusive innovation for development. Innovation and Development 4 (2): 175–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hughes, K., and E. Wickeri. 2011. A home in the city: Women’s struggle to secure adequate housing in urban Tanzania. Fordham International Law Journal 34 (4): 788–929.Google Scholar
  29. IDEO.org. n.d. Design kit. http://www.designkit.org/human-centered-design. Accessed 6 Mar 2017.
  30. Jewkes, R., R. Morrell, J. Hearn, E. Lundqvist, D. Blackbeard, G. Lindegger, and L. Gottzén. 2015. Hegemonic masculinity: Combining theory and practice in gender interventions. Culture, Health & Sexuality 17 (2): 112–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Johnson, C.G. 2011. The urban precariat, neoliberalization, and the soft power of humanitarian design. Journal of Developing Societies 27 (3–4): 445–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kabeer, N. 2013. The rise of the female breadwinner: Reconfigurations of marriage, motherhood and masculinity in the global economy. In New frontiers in feminist political economy, ed. S. Rai and G. Waylen, 62–84. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Kinyanjui, M.N. 2014. Women and the informal economy in urban Africa: From the margins to the centre. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  34. Kivoi, D. 2014. Factors impeding political participation and representation of women in Kenya. Humanities and Social Sciences 2 (6): 173–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Koskela, H., and R. Pain. 2000. Revisiting fear and place: Women’s fear of attack and the built environment. Geoforum 31 (2): 269–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Latour, B. (2008) A cautious Prometheus? A few steps toward a philosophy of design (with special attention to Peter Sloterdijk). In Proceedings of the 2008 annual international conference of the design history society (pp. 2–10).Google Scholar
  37. McIlwaine, C. 2013. Urbanization and gender-based violence: Exploring the paradoxes in the global South. Environment and Urbanization 25 (1): 65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Molyneux, M. 1985. Mobilization without emancipation? Women’s interests, the state, and revolution in Nicaragua. Feminist Studies 11 (2): 227–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Moser, C.O. 1989. Gender planning in the Third World: Meeting practical and strategic gender needs. World Development 17 (11): 1799–1825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Moser, C.O. 2016. Gender transformation in a new global urban agenda: Challenges for Habitat III and beyond. Environment and Urbanization 29 (1): 221–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Murphy, K. 2016. Design and anthropology. Annual Review of Anthropology 45: 433–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nussbaum, B. 2010. Is humanitarian design the new imperialism? Fast Company, 3.Google Scholar
  43. Ortiz Escalante, S., and B. Gutiérrez Valdivia. 2015. Planning from below: Using feminist participatory methods to increase women’s participation in urban planning. Gender & Development 23 (1): 113–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pease, B., and M. Flood. 2008. Rethinking the significance of attitudes in preventing men’s violence against women. Australian Journal of Social Issues 43 (4): 547–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Redfield, P. 2012. Bioexpectations: Life technologies as humanitarian goods. Public Culture 24 (166): 157–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Redfield, P. 2016. Fluid technologies: The Bush Pump, the LifeStraw® and microworlds of humanitarian design. Social Studies of Science 46 (2): 159–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rothschild, J., and V. Rosner. 1999. Feminisms and design: Review essay. In Design and feminism: Re-visioning spaces, places, and everyday things, ed. A. Cheng, 7–34. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Sandvik, K.B. 2014. Humanitarian innovation, humanitarian renewal? Forced Migration Review, 25–27.Google Scholar
  49. Schwittay, A. 2014. Designing development: humanitarian design in the financial inclusion assemblage. PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review 37 (1): 29–47.Google Scholar
  50. Schwittay, A., and P. Braund. 2018. Iterate, experiment, prototype. LIMN 9.Google Scholar
  51. Schwittay, A., and P. Braund. 2019. Participation 2.0? Crowdsourcing Participatory Development @ DFID. Information Technology and International Develoment 15: 1–15.Google Scholar
  52. Scott-Smith, T. 2016. Humanitarian neophilia: The ‘innovation turn’ and its implications. Third World Quarterly 37 (12): 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sweet, E.L., and S. Ortiz Escalante. 2015. Bringing bodies into planning: Visceral methods, fear and gender violence. Urban Studies 52 (10): 1826–1845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tacoli, C., and D. Satterthwaite. 2013. Gender and urban change. Environment and Urbanization 25 (1): 3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Viswanath, K., and S.T. Mehrotra. 2007. “Shall we go out?” Women’s safety in public spaces in Delhi. Economic and Political Weekly 42 (17): 1542–1548.Google Scholar
  56. Vossenberg, S. 2018. Frugal innovation through a gender lens: Towards an analytical framework. The European Journal of Development Research 30 (1): 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Whitzman, C., C. Andrew, and K. Viswanath. 2014. Partnerships for women’s safety in the city: “Four legs for a good table”. Environment and Urbanization 26 (2): 443–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wilson, K. 2015. Towards a radical re-appropriation: Gender, development and neoliberal feminism. Development and Change 46 (4): 803–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wong, J. 2016. From Britannica to Wikipedia: How traditional development players are catalysing collaboration for innovation. In Innovation for international development: Navigating the paths and pitfalls, ed. B. Ramalingam and K. Bound, 120–130. London: NESTA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Global StudiesUniversity of SussexBrightonUK

Personalised recommendations