Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Machine‐learning algorithms and big data analytics, popularly known as ‘artificial intelligence’ (AI), are being developed and taken up globally. Patient and public involvement (PPI) in the transition to AI‐assisted health care is essential for design justice based on diverse patient needs. Objective To inform the future development of PPI in AI‐assisted health care by exploring public engagement in the conceptualization, design, development, testing, implementation, use and evaluation of AI technologies for mental health. Methods Systematic scoping review drawing on design justice principles, and (i) structured searches of Web of Science (all databases) and Ovid (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Global Health and Embase); (ii) handsearching (reference and citation tracking); (iii) grey literature; and (iv) inductive thematic analysis, tested at a workshop with health researchers. Results The review identified 144 articles that met inclusion criteria. Three main themes reflect the challenges and opportunities associated with PPI in AI‐assisted mental health care: (a) applications of AI technologies in mental health care; (b) ethics of public engagement in AI‐assisted care; and (c) public engagement in the planning, development, implementation, evaluation and diffusion of AI technologies. Conclusion The new data‐rich health landscape creates multiple ethical issues and opportunities for the development of PPI in relation to AI technologies. Further research is needed to understand effective modes of public engagement in the context of AI technologies, to examine pressing ethical and safety issues and to develop new methods of PPI at every stage, from concept design to the final review of technology in practice. Principles of design justice can guide this agenda.

Outside of community-led design projects, most participatory design processes initiated by a company or organisation maintain or even strengthen power imbalances between the design organisation and the community on whose purported behalf they are designing, further increasing the absencing experience. Radical participatory design (RPD) is a radically relational answer to the coloniality inherent in participatory design where the community members’ disappointment is greater due to the greater expectations and presencing potential of a ‘participatory design’ process. We introduce the term RPD to show how research and design processes can be truly participatory to the root or core. Instead of treating participatory design as a method, a way of conducting a method, or a methodology, we introduce RPD as a meta-methodology, a way of doing any methodology. We explicitly describe what participation means and compare and contrast design processes based on the amount of participation, creating a typology of participation. We introduce ‘designer as community member’, ‘community member as designer,’ and ‘community member as facilitator’ models and provide characteristics for the meta-methodology of RPD.

The purpose of this article is to investigate how to use a strengths-based lens that is highly contextualized, in an ecology (i.e., online graduate course) that shows the value of the socio-emotional interactions or climate. I used an autoethnographic approach to problematize myself so that I could ask contemplative questions as a result of reflection. My data collection process drew upon personal narrative, reflection, and anecdotes, which I analyzed in a graduate-level online learning context with a strengths-based lens to shed light on broader U.S. higher education online learning cultural and theoretical concepts such as organizational justice theory, connectivism, digital learning ecosystems, inclusive design, design justice, and strengths-based learning approaches. Three key cultural phenomena are revealed in this autoethnography. Finally, I discuss this study’s limitations, some implications for faculty, IDs, and SMEs, and suggest areas for further research.

Moving into the social and public sector, service design is becoming both more complex and more participatory. This is reflected in the greater diversity and interrelatedness of stakeholders and the wicked problems being addressed. However, although many service designers working in the social and public domains bring into their design practice the intention to make design more participatory and equitable, they may lack an in-depth understanding of power, privilege, and the social structures (norms, roles, rules, assumptions, and beliefs) that uphold structural inequality. In this paper we present findings from seven interviews with service designers to investigate the challenges they face when addressing power issues in design, and their experiences of how power shows up in their design process. By drawing from understandings of power in social theory, as well as the interviewees’ perspectives on how power manifests in design practice, we outline a framework for power literacy in service design. The framework comprises five forms of power found in design practice: privilege, access power, goal power, role power, and rule power. We conclude by suggesting that service design practices that make use of reflexivity to develop power literacy may contribute to more socially just, decolonial, and democratic design practices.

This paper is a contribution to the collective work of imagining better universities. It starts from Raewyn Connell’s account of the good university, and develops four main ideas. Connell’s insistence on thinking about universities as real workplaces, with real workforces doing real work that has real consequences, provides a disciplining foundation. On this basis, we must acknowledge that although changes are often set in motion outside a university, their realisation always depends on the work of university staff and students. Secondly, research on learning and teaching and the spaces in which they unfold can contribute to real change by providing stronger concepts and clearer language in which to imagine, discuss and plan. Thirdly, course and curriculum redesign, oriented to the great challenges that our students will be tackling in the next few decades, would benefit from an infusion of practices and values from the fields of social innovation and participatory design, and that design for social innovation needs a grounding in design justice. Finally, I outline some of the implications that we can infer for better learning spaces — understood from both a postdigital and a postcritical perspective. A connecting theme within this exploration is the realisation of care as thoughtful work.

Although human-centered design (HCD), or user-centered design (UCD), is a foundational approach in a wide range of fields, sometimes HCD can lead to “designed injustice”—where products or systems facilitate unjust outcomes in society. Here, we present a new method, Persona Multiplication (PM), which helps designers avoid some of the dangers implicit in traditional HCD. PM helps guide designers through an evaluation of the implicit (or potential) designed injustice early in the design process. Our approach is grounded in traditional HCD methods as currently applied across a wide range of fields, including Product Design (PD), Human Factors Engineering (HFE), User Experience Design (UX), and Human–Computer Interaction (HCI). PM involves adding a new “multiplication and evaluation” step in the design process—just after standard persona-development. This step helps ensure that the design space includes a broader set of personas and use-cases to help avoid designed injustice. Through a series of case studies, we demonstrate how the method can be applied across a range of design domains. We hope to inspire further development of additional tools, methods, systems, and processes to help ensure designed injustice occurs less frequently over time.

Design justice is an emerging framework that centers marginalized communities in the design of systems and technologies. Originating from the intersection of design, technology, and social justice movements, design justice challenges traditional design practices that often reinforce societal inequities. When applied to online education, it prompts critical examination of who benefits from digital learning environments and whose needs are overlooked. The framework operates on the principle that those most affected by a system should have a central role in designing it, going beyond accessible or universal design to fundamentally alter power structures within the design process itself. This entry introduces the principles of design justice and explores their relevance to online education and instructional design, arguing that seemingly neutral elements of course design—such as assessment modes, interface layout, or content formats can perpetuate inequities if created without attention to learners’ diverse contexts.

To redress systemically biased approaches to health interventions and service design, it is critical that public health researchers employ frameworks that are intentional in their approach to recognizing and working against existing power structures to advance equity in public health. Design Justice represents an approach to design which centers marginalized people and uses collaborative design processes to address community needs and challenges. The purpose of this paper is to describe our process for applying a Design Justice framework to Project XX. Project XX is a study funded by XX designed to develop and test an eHealth-enhanced peer navigation intervention to improve engagement in substance use and HIV-related services for young adults with recent carceral system involvement. We situate the project within the theoretical foundation of Design Justice and community-engaged research, describe its development and implementation, and analyze the application of Design Justice principles from an implementation science perspective by overlaying them with Stanford University’s Center for Dissemination and Implementation’s five key dimensions of dissemination and implementation methods. We highlight successes, challenges, and lessons learned, offering recommendations to guide more equitable and inclusive approaches for future research and practice.

An inclusive mindset is essential for designing for inclusion. However, without a clear understanding of what an inclusive mindset entails, design educators and practitioners may find it difficult to cultivate. This study clarifies what constitutes an inclusive mindset and how it can be fostered in the design field. Through a scoping review of 47 studies, we systematically analysed research domains, types of inclusivity, definitions, associated attributes and factors influencing an inclusive mindset. The outcome is the development of an inclusive mindset model that outlines the core constructs of an inclusive mindset, its determinants and its translation into inclusive behaviour. The model was further refined and validated through interviews with 23 stakeholders in design and engineering education. Together, these insights provide a nuanced understanding of inclusivity and offer an empirically informed framework for advancing inclusion in design research, education and practice.

Dementia disrupts communication not only as a cognitive process but as a relational practice, leaving people living with dementia (PLwD) at risk of exclusion when language fragments. This study examines how communication closeness, the felt sense of being understood, emotionally attuned, and socially connected, might be supported through Research in and through Design (Ri&tD). Drawing on formative mixed-reality studies and a participatory co-design workshop with PLwD, caregivers, and stakeholders, we iteratively developed a series of playful artifacts culminating in Neighbourly, a tactile board game designed to support relational interaction through rule-based, multimodal play. Across this design genealogy, prototypes were treated as Living Counter-Maps: participatory mappings that made patterns of gesture, rhythm, shared attention, and material engagement visible and discussable. Through iterative interpretation and synthesis, the study identifies three guiding principles for designing for communication closeness: supporting co-regulation rather than correction, enabling multimodal reciprocity, and providing a shared material focus for joint agency. The paper consolidates these insights in the Living Counter-Maps Framework, which integrates counter-mapping and Ri&tD as a methodological approach for studying and designing relational communication in dementia care.