Recently, I came across a fascinating strategy developed by Harvard University’s Technology and Public Purpose Project called Design From the Margins (DFM). This methodology focuses on designing technology with the most marginalized in mind, a concept that immediately resonated with me. At EdZola, we’ve always believed in user-centered design principles, where we create tech solutions that cater to the needs of our non-profit partners and the communities they serve. However, this article provided a fresh perspective on some of the key challenges we face when designing for marginalized populations.
While we’ve always known that addressing the needs of those at the margins can lead to better outcomes for all, this framework reiterated the importance of understanding the full context behind each solution. Here are a few key takeaways that I believe will be helpful for us all to reflect on, especially as we continue to design technology that seeks to bridge social gaps.
The Iceberg Metaphor: What Lies Beneath the Surface
One of the most impactful ideas from the DFM strategy is the iceberg metaphor. What we see on the surface—the needs of mainstream users—is often just a fraction of the real issues that lie beneath, particularly for marginalized communities. Below the waterline are the social, legal, and economic barriers faced by these groups, which often go unnoticed in traditional design processes.
This metaphor made me reflect on some of the projects we’ve taken on at EdZola. Non-profits might come to us requesting a WhatsApp chatbot, for instance, but after we dive deeper into the issue, we realize that many end users don’t even have access to smartphones. Or, in another case, we may develop a web application to streamline processes, only to discover that the communities where it will be used don’t have stable internet connectivity.
There are also cases where we're working with confidential data, such as Aadhaar information, but we quickly realize the serious implications of data privacy and security laws that need to be factored into the design. Like the iceberg, it’s clear that to truly serve these communities, we need to keep going deeper, understanding the full context, and designing technology that can meet the realities on the ground.
The Four Stages of Design from the Margins
The DFM strategy outlines four stages that I found particularly useful in reframing our approach at EdZola:
What tool, what context? : This first stage focuses on understanding the tool you’re building and the context in which it will be used. It encourages us to consult with local experts and consider the socio-political environment in which the technology will operate. For example, we might build an app for education, but if the local political climate is unstable, the tool’s utility may be compromised. This stage pushes us to consider the larger ecosystem before diving into development.
Zooming in on the Decentered : Here, the focus shifts to the most vulnerable users. By zooming in on the needs of marginalized communities—whether they’re refugees, rural students, or women in conflict zones—we begin to build solutions that are not just practical but transformative. This stage is about putting the most impacted people at the center of the design process, which is something we try to do at EdZola but can always improve upon.
Building for the Decentered : Once we’ve understood the specific challenges faced by these communities, the next step is to build the technology with them in mind. For us at EdZola, this could mean rethinking how we approach internet connectivity, data security, or user interfaces to ensure that the tech we’re developing is truly accessible. As the DFM method shows, building for the decentered requires patience, flexibility, and continuous consultation with the communities we’re designing for.
Regeneralizing for All Users : Finally, after building for the marginalized, the solutions can be generalized to serve a wider audience. But—and this is crucial—the needs of the most vulnerable should remain intact in the final product. For example, once we’ve built a secure system to protect vulnerable populations, that same system can benefit everyone by ensuring better data security for all users.
I believe that when we design with the margins in mind, we get closer to the root cause of many issues. This process doesn’t just solve problems for the majority—it addresses the needs of the most overlooked, which ultimately strengthens the technology as a whole.
The Reality We Face: Balancing Time, Cost, and Understanding
While these stages are effective in theory, reality often looks different. One of the challenges we see at EdZola is that non-profits rarely have the budget to spend extended time on user research or iterative design processes. Unfortunately, time is money, and the more time we spend designing, the more costly the solution becomes for the organizations we serve. There’s often a rush to complete things on time, and assumptions at the management level about user needs can sometimes be disconnected from ground-level realities.
This brings up an important question: How do we change this perspective? How can we ensure that funders and decision-makers are involved in the user research process? In many cases, what gets discussed in boardrooms is vastly different from what we encounter on the ground. To bridge this gap, we need to find ways to involve funders, philanthropists, and leadership teams in the process of user interviews and community engagement. Incentivizing better decision-making outcomes through deeper involvement can significantly improve the solutions we build.
Empowerment Over Control
Another key idea from the DFM strategy is the logic of empowerment. At EdZola, we’ve always believed that technology should empower communities, not control them. But how do we bring this into practice consistently? Rather than using tech to monitor or restrict, we need to focus on building tools that enable users to have agency and ownership over their data, their progress, and their outcomes. Building a community around the technology is just as important as the tech itself.
These are just a few of the thoughts I’ve had while reflecting on the DFM framework, and I’d love to hear from our partners as well. How has technology impacted your work on the ground? What challenges do you face when implementing tech solutions? Let’s continue this conversation, because the more we collaborate, the closer we’ll get to designing tech that truly makes a difference.
Comments