Leaving no one behind in education: A focus on children with disabilities
Globally, an estimated 15 percent of the population lives with a disability (WHO and World Bank, 2011); that is 1 in 7 persons. Among them, an estimated 93–150 million children, up to age 14, live with a disability. Generally, adults and children with disabilities face barriers that prevent them from accessing basic services, such as education, health, and employment on an equal basis with their peers. A 2016 report documented that 40 percent of children with disabilities are out of school at the primary level and 55 percent at the secondary level (Mizunoya et al., 2016). If they attend schools, they are often educated in poorly-resourced segregated schools with inadequate provisions for their learning.
The intersectionality between disability and other identities results in further marginalization of adults and children with disabilities, resulting in a gender disparity in the education of children with disabilities. The WHO and World Bank (2011) reported that 50 percent of males completed primary education, compared with 41.7 percent of females. A UNESCO report (Rousso, 2003) also documented a literacy level of 3 percent for adults with disabilities, while it is 1 percent for women with disabilities. Being a woman or a girl with a disability means double discrimination: gender and disability. Some girls with disabilities may not go to school for fear of their safety and protection by parents and caregivers (Clarke and Sawyer, 2014). They may experience higher exposure to bullying and sexual violence. Traditionally, in low- and middle-income countries, girls are assigned to domestic work or unpaid care (including girls with disabilities). Even though families may not send them to school because of the lower value placed on girls with disabilities, they still use them for domestic work and for unpaid care. Also, some girls with disabilities do not attend school due to inaccessible sanitation facilities.
Inclusive education of children with disabilities
Inclusive education is about an education system that includes all learners. It welcomes and supports them to learn irrespective of their identities and abilities (UNICEF, 2017). It is a school where all children learn together, without discrimination. Inclusive education goes beyond the physical accessibility of the school. It also entails active participation in the classroom activities and a student's ability to learn to achieve his or her potential in regard to education.
Therefore, inclusive education of learners with disabilities requires appropriate provisions for all learners. For example, teaching and curricula must be adapted to suit the needs of every learner to facilitate classroom participation and learning. Additionally, accessibility is very crucial. Accessible transportation will make it easier for learners with disabilities to get to school, while the school infrastructure, including classrooms, play areas, libraries, laboratories, and toilets must be physically accessible. Digital accessibility also plays a role. The availability of assistive technology opens up educational opportunities to children with disabilities.
In addition to infrastructure issues, public attitudes affect education for people with disabilities. Many people are skeptical about inclusive education. Some parents are afraid that children with disabilities are going to slow down the learning of the other children. But this is not true. When children learn together, they actually learn better because most of the strategies used in inclusive education classrooms are strategies that allow all children to learn more effectively (UNICEF, 2017). Inclusive education is also more cost-effective than segregated education. Furthermore, inclusive education fosters inclusive societies and equity. Free basic education is a constitutional right. Actually, education is a human right. Children with disabilities have the right to education, as enshrined in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN, 2006) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (UN, 1989). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education (UNESCO, 1994) emphasized that children with disabilities have the rights to be accommodated in regular schools. Sustainable Development Goal Number 4 sets the commitment to achieve inclusive and quality education (UN, 2015).
Barriers to inclusive education of children with disabilities
Barriers and challenges to education exist at multiple levels—home, community, school, and government. Stigma and discrimination are rife in families and communities. Children with disabilities may be stigmatized at home. Some parents prefer to hide their children with disabilities from public to avoid stigma coming from neighbors in the communities. At times, some parents see no reason for educating children with disabilities. And when the household has limited resources, a child with disability is more likely to bear the brunt of these limits than other children, including access to education. This is particularly true for girls with disabilities, who face double discrimination resulting from gender and disability. Children with disabilities may also be cut off from education due to non-availability or non-affordability of assistive technology and devices.
At the school level, teachers and other learners may discriminate against children with disabilities. Most often, accessible learning materials are not available to facilitate learning. Teachers may be untrained or inadequately trained in the basics and principles of inclusive education. Even in segregated schools, there is a dearth of special needs education teachers who may also be important resources for inclusive education. Assistive technology is often not available or not affordable for parents and caregivers of children with disabilities.
Additionally, teachers may not have the necessary skills to use assistive technology to teach the learners. Inaccessible school infrastructure and communication, inaccessible toilets, and inaccessible transportation present major barriers to the inclusive education of children with disabilities. Learners with disabilities also have limited access to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education due to attitudinal barriers of major stakeholders as well as inadequate assistive technology. STEM education has been known to open opportunities for high-paid employment.
In the recent COVID pandemic, children with disabilities were largely affected, as many of them did not have the opportunity to access remote learning like their peers without disabilities. Online learning materials, strategies, and platforms were inaccessible to learners with disabilities. In addition, services available through schools (social protection, nutrition, and health, including rehabilitation and support services) were put on hold due to movement restrictions, making it very difficult for a child with a disability to cope under these conditions.
A crucial challenge is the lack of disability data. In many countries, the education management information system does not disaggregate data by disability. Decision-makers lack statistics and information to plan for the inclusion of children with disabilities in education. This reflects in poorly inclusive polices and in inadequate funding for inclusive education.
At the government level, this is a major challenge: there is inadequate funding of general education in most developing countries contexts. This makes it difficult to achieve an effective inclusive education. Adequate funding of general education provides a solid foundation on which to build inclusive education. Lacking or poor implementation of inclusive education policy presents another challenge. Also, inclusive education does not thrive because of non-allocation of budgets, including teacher training. Lack of unreliable data on children with disabilities, coupled with lack of framework for monitoring of inclusion of children with disabilities in education present other barriers that are often overlooked by duty bearers. Lack of inter-ministerial coordination, for example, between the ministries of education, health, and social welfare can be very challenging in achieving inclusive education of children with disabilities.
Making it work: Inclusive education of children with disabilities
Inclusive education of children with disabilities requires a multi-sectoral approach: “Ensuring inclusive, equitable, and good quality education is often a collective enterprise, in which all actors make a concerted effort to meet their responsibilities” (GEM Report, 2017/2018) (UNESCO, 2017).
At the governmental level, this means ensuring that relevant ministries and agencies collaborate and that frameworks are established for monitoring inclusive education of children with disabilities. Good solutions include teacher training; disaggregation of education and socioeconomic data by disability, age, and gender; clear strategies for implementation of inclusive education policies and stigma-reduction strategies; prioritization of disability inclusion within social protection schemes; and making assistive technology available and affordable.
References
Clarke, D., & Sawyer, J. (2014). Girls, disabilities and school education in the South East Pacific region. UNGEI Draft Working Discussion Paper. http://www.ungei.org/EAP_UNGEI_Gender_Disabilities_and_School_Education_FINAL.pdf.
Mizunoya, S., Mitra, S., & Yamasaki, I. (2016). Towards inclusive education: the impact of disability on school attendance in developing countries. Office of Research – Innocenti Working Paper. https://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/IWP3 percent20-percent20Towards percent20Inclusive percent20Education.pdf.
Rousso, H. (2003). Education for all: A gender and disability perspective, CSW, Disabilities Unlimited.
UN. (1989). UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. https://www.unicef.org/child-rights-convention/convention-text#.
UN. (2006). UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. https://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/convention/convention_accessible_pdf.pdf.
UN. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030 perce nt20Agenda percent20for percent20Sustainable percent20Development percent 20web.pdf.
UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000098427.
UNESCO. (2017). Accountability in education: Meeting our commitments. Global education monitoring report, 2017–2018. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000259338.
UNICEF. (2017). Inclusive education – including children with disabilities in quality learning: what needs to be done? https://www.unicef.org/eca/sites/unicef.org.eca/files/IE_summary_accessible_220917_brief.pdf.
WHO & World Bank (2011). World report on disability. https://www.who.int/disabilities/world_report/2011/report.pdf.
Inclusive and community education for children with disabilities: Tools to combat discrimination and social inequality
Over time, “disability” has gone through different definitions and disciplinary approaches, from a vision based on assistance and charity, those focused on model medical rehabilitation processes, to the social model, which claims the rights of people with disabilities and makes visible the structural discrimination that violates the quality of life in this sector of the population. Gómez et al. (2018) point out that this has gone through different approaches: “The magical-religious, the medical or rehabilitative, the social and the biopsychosocial. However, in approaches to people with disabilities there has been a hegemony of the medical and social models” (Gómez et al., 2018, p. 2). As the authors point out, medicine has hegemonically tried to explain the biological causes that lead to disability, identifying illnesses, treatments, and care, while disciplines such as sociology, anthropology, psychology, and others have focused on the determinants of disability and on issues such as healthy environments, universal access, public policies, health systems, human rights, employment, quality of life, education, discrimination, and others.
In the case of studies on childhood and disability, we find works on access to health systems, health-disease processes, mental health, education, home care, poverty, marginalization, and discrimination processes. The most recent studies on childhood, disability, and education focus on the importance of generating models for the inclusion of children with disabilities in regular education: “It is about children with disabilities learning together with the rest of the children in regular schools and not creating special schools for their attention,” point out HINENI,1 the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF), and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (HINENI et al., 2001). A problem identified by these organizations is that models based on a clinical conception of disability predominate within schools, “focused on the deficit” (HINENI et al., 2001, p. 9) and not on the potentialities that children develop inside and outside the classrooms. A review of this research identifies the gaps and areas of opportunity both in research and in the design, execution, and monitoring of government policies, plans, and programs on topics such as: inclusive educational models, curricular adaptations, teacher education and training, modalities of evaluation, exchange of experiences and learning between schools, students, teachers and families, special educational needs, educational models based on the community, co-responsibility in care, support networks, care models centered on people, educational care with a perspective of gender, and more.
Children with disabilities, education and discrimination
Disability is diverse, complex, and closely related to geographic, economic, social, and cultural factors that affect the health and well-being of girls and boys around the planet. So, understanding disability among the population of children means understanding the social and environmental factors that promote and influence it: wars, exposure to nuclear weapons and radiation, organized crime, terrorism and drug trafficking, violence, epidemics, climate change, pollution of the air, seas, rivers, and land, deforestation of forests and jungles, malnutrition, social inequality, poverty, violence, unemployment and job insecurity, economic crises, and other social and public health problems.
Not only are the social factors that affect disability diverse but so are the child populations that experience it. UNICEF includes “children who were born with a genetic condition that affects their physical, mental or social development; those who sustained a serious injury, nutritional deficiency or infection that contributed to long-term functional difficulties; or those exposed to environmental toxins that resulted in developmental delays or learning disabilities. Children with disabilities also include those who developed anxiety or depression as a result of stressful life events” (UNICEF, 2021, p. 8). This diversity makes research and analysis complex. During the last decade, however, methodological instruments and strategies have been designed to include the majority of girls and boys with disabilities in research.
UNICEF (2021) and the Washington Group on Disability Statistics have developed the Child Functioning Module that includes children and adolescents between the ages of 2 and 17 and assesses difficulties in various domains of functioning, including difficulty seeing, hearing, walking, understanding, learning, playing, relating to other people, dressing, remembering, paying attention and concentrating, as well as problems related to behavior and emotional health. Thanks to this research, today we know that there are nearly 240 million children with disabilities in the world, representing 1 in 10 children on the planet (UNICEF, 2021). Most of these children are in South Asia (64.4 million), while the North American region has the fewest children with recorded disabilities (8.0 million) (UNICEF, 2021).
Regarding the issue of education, Aderemi-Ige (2021), based on data from the United Nations Development Programme, points out that of the total number of children with disabilities, 40 percent are out of school at the primary level and 55 percent in the secondary level, a situation that especially affects girls, since they are the ones who have less access to all educational levels. Other problems identified by Aderemi-Ige (2021) and UNICEF (2021) are: segregated schools; school curricula that are not adapted to the needs of children with disabilities; teachers who do not have the knowledge or skills to include children with disabilities and who develop negative perceptions about disability; inappropriate learning materials; infrastructure in schools and classrooms with insufficient resources; water, sanitation and hygiene facilities that do not meet the minimum accessibility conditions; and little or no access to information and communication technologies.
Thus, when families seek educational opportunities for their children, they often find schools and classrooms that are inaccessible and multiple social barriers that translate into conditions of inequality and discrimination. This situation worsened with the arrival of COVID-19, which confined children with disabilities in their homes, and limited their possibilities for entering, staying in, and leaving the classroom.
Local actions for global change: Inclusive and community education for children with disabilities
Children with disabilities and their families face a series of barriers to inclusion in regular schools and overcoming the social backwardness and the discrimination to which they are exposed. As Crosso points out: “The practice of separating students with disabilities can lead to their further social marginalization, a situation in which people with disabilities generally find themselves, and thereby entrench discrimination. On the other hand, inclusive education... promotes the overcoming of stereotypes, prejudices and, therefore, discrimination” (2010, p. 81).
The first step toward overcoming the conditions of discrimination to which children with disabilities are exposed inside and outside the classroom is to promote the inclusion of students with disabilities in regular schools from an early age. The horizon is that schools receive children and adolescents in their classrooms regardless of their sex, ethnicity, language, socioeconomic level, nationality, place of residence, and disability status, among other characteristics (UNICEF, 2021, p. 96), and thus promote inclusive intercultural education with a gender perspective.
As Aderemi-Ige (2021) points out, it is important to promote an inclusive education that incorporates all learners and welcomes and supports them to learn irrespective of their identities and abilities. It is a school where all children learn together, without discrimination. Inclusive education entails not only accessibility of the school but also teachers’ preparation, adapted curricula, and participation of the learner to achieve his or her potential.
Aderemi-Ige (2021) also indicates how there is a great need for a multisectoral policy approach to achieve inclusive education for children with disabilities. This means ensuring that ministerial agencies collaborate and that frameworks are in place to monitor inclusive education of children with disabilities. In addition, it is important to promote strategies and pedagogical approaches to the needs of the different groups of girls and boys. It is necessary to allocate budgets for the preparation and distribution of quality educational and didactic materials, to provide for the constant training of teaching and support staff (United Nations, 1993), as well as for community and school infrastructure in accordance with the principles of “Universal Design for Learning” (UNICEF, 2021, p. 96).
Regarding study plans and learning hours, these need to be flexible and adaptable, considering the new teaching and learning conditions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. It is also necessary to invest in information and education technologies (ICT) given the challenges imposed by the global world.
We must create awareness workshops among experts, school directors, teachers, parents, and students on disability and justice, human rights, health, mobility, accessibility, employment, public space, and other topics. From these spaces, it is necessary to establish a position of rejection of welfare policies and demand inclusive policies based on people that integrate a human rights perspective.
In these processes, the intervention of government institutions, civil society organizations, academics, cultural leaders, artists, technologists, and other social actors is key. It is also necessary to invest in research and production of statistical information on the condition of girls and boys with disabilities, since this is still incipient.
Another important aspect is the generation of models of education outside the classroom, including local, communities, and education for life, which promote social cohesion, community participation, organization, and the generation of networks at the family, school, community level and as society for the exchange of experiences and learning about disability.
Models and projects of these types have been promoted in Mexico by civil society organizations. In Oaxaca, a state in the south of the country, one finds some “integrated environments” (United Nations, 1993), such as “Proyecto Lupita,” which was created with the aim that children and adults with limited resources recover or acquire mobility and independence. Civil society also promotes community-based activities such as “Adapted Surfing,” through which children with disabilities develop skills and abilities to learn to be self-sufficient from an early age, facilitating integration into the community.
Another example is “Piña Palmera,” an organization with more than 30 years of existence, which promotes a rehabilitation project based “in and with the community” that seeks to generate independence and autonomy among people with disabilities. These projects are innovative because they move away from the welfare vision, they work with people, families, and communities, and they promote a human rights perspective. They also work with indigenous, rural, and Afro-descendant populations, and they include a gender perspective. Initiatives like these, which promote the construction of citizenship and direct and participatory democracy with a vision of human rights and fundamental freedoms, access to public space, the ethnic and gender perspective, the construction of community networks, and collaborative work with governments and with the sector private exist all over the world. They must be made visible and promoted.
Photography: Project Lupita Surfing Clinic. Huatulco Surfing Children's Festival. Oaxaca, Mexico, March 19 and 20, 2022.
Author: Patricia Rea Ángeles
Citation: Regions and Cohesion 12, 2; 10.3167/reco.2022.120205
Photography: Project Lupita Surfing Clinic. Huatulco Surfing Children's Festival. Oaxaca, Mexico, March 19 and 20, 2022.
Author: Patricia Rea Ángeles
Citation: Regions and Cohesion 12, 2; 10.3167/reco.2022.120205
Photography: Project Lupita Surfing Clinic. Huatulco Surfing Children's Festival. Oaxaca, Mexico, March 19 and 20, 2022.
Author: Patricia Rea Ángeles
Citation: Regions and Cohesion 12, 2; 10.3167/reco.2022.120205
Photography: Huatulco Surfing Children's Festival Oaxaca, Mexico, March 19 and 20, 2022.
Author: Patricia Rea Ángeles
Citation: Regions and Cohesion 12, 2; 10.3167/reco.2022.120205
Photography: Huatulco Surfing Children's Festival Oaxaca, Mexico, March 19 and 20, 2022.
Author: Patricia Rea Ángeles
Citation: Regions and Cohesion 12, 2; 10.3167/reco.2022.120205
Photography: Huatulco Surfing Children's Festival Oaxaca, Mexico, March 19 and 20, 2022.
Author: Patricia Rea Ángeles
Citation: Regions and Cohesion 12, 2; 10.3167/reco.2022.120205
In recent decades, international organizations have made clear statements about promoting equity and equality among all populations in the world. On the subject of childhood and disability, we find long-term international instruments: the Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNICEF, 1990), the Declaration of Salamanca (UNESCO, 1994), the Norms on Equal Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities (United Nations, 1994), Dakar Framework for Action: Education for All (UNESCO, 2000), Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (United Nations, 2008), and Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations, 2015). These regulations commit countries to respect the right of all girls and boys to non-discrimination and access to quality education. It is necessary for everyone to encourage their dissemination and compliance.
Notes
Fundación para la inclusión Hineni is a civil society organization in Chile dedicated to promoting and developing actions and initiatives aimed at realizing the right to social, cultural, educational, and labor inclusion of people with disabilities and special needs.
References
Aderemi-Ige, T. (2020, November 11). Leaving no one behind in education: A focus on children with disabilities. Kapuscinski Development Lectures, European Commission and United Nations.
Crosso, C. (2010). El derecho a la educación de personas con discapacidad: Impulsando el concepto de Educación Inclusiva. Revista Latinoamericana de Educación Inclusiva 4(2), 79–95.
Gómez Rua, N., Alveiro, D., Ganan, J., & Cardona, D. (2018). Disability from the rights and capabilities approach and its relationship with public health. Health Management and Policy Magazine 17(35), 1–18. http://www.scielo.org.co/pdf/rgps/v17n35/1657-7027-rgps-17-35-93.pdf.
HINENI, UNESCO, UNICEF. (2001). Inclusion of children with disabilities in regular schools, UNICEF. Online: https://www.unicef.cl/archivos_documento/47/debate8.pdf.
United Nations. (1993). Standard rules on the equalization of opportunities for persons with disabilities. https://www.ohchr.org/SP/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/PersonsWithDisabilities.aspx.
United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF). (2021). Seen, counted, included: Using data to shed light on the well-being of children with disabilities, UNICEF, New York. Online: https://data.unicef.org/resources/children-with-disabilities-report-2021/.
Leadership, education, and global social impact
This article is entitled “Leadership, education, and global social impact.” The focus goes beyond traditional development I would frame this as “Development 2.0: Global engagement,” with the explicit intent to focus on global social impact. Development 2.0, as global engagement, is deeply personal to me. Born in a small community in northern Sri Lanka, my journey took me from Sri Lanka to the United States and then around the world, to work with the United Nations, two US presidents, and global educational organizations. I have worked in over a hundred countries, and most importantly, I have engaged and partnered with many committed people all over the world and organizations driving societal impact.
Traditional development most often focuses on the economic and social development of nations and their peoples, the implementation of international aid, and development assistance. Global engagement—or what I'm calling “development 2.0”—is focused on equity, as we strive to uphold fairness and justice in our work and actions. Global engagement is about creating opportunities for one another. It is about inclusion. These are values that must inform our work every day. Recently, at World Education Services (WES)—which I lead—we articulated our values. They include opportunity, being enterprising, inclusion, equity, and also having expertise. Those are my organization's values today, and I would say those are the values that I have brought to my work in development and global engagement throughout my career. It is a privilege to share more about global engagement to drive global social impact.
When you begin your career, you often think that without resources, you cannot do much, you cannot drive impact. There is only some truth in this. Money is important and resources are important, but they are not everything. Over the years, I have worked on initiatives with extensive resources, yet what I learned is that what is truly important is investment in people, especially young people and what my colleagues and I call the “four C's” that are linked to the world's youth: competences, confidence, character, and connection to one another.
Education is equally important. I have invested liberally in education: my own education, continuing education, and the education of many others around the world. Education is truly transformative. Education is indeed the great equalizer. We can take people, especially young people, from dramatically different socioeconomic backgrounds, put them in classrooms together, give them the support they need to learn and to succeed, and their education, regardless of their personal background, provides the strongest bases for opportunities that follow in their lifetime. Investing in people is about investing in education and investing in the full potential of people. This is the strongest foundation for global engagement. This is global social impact. Investing in people, and in young people, goes to a higher level of impact when you invest in networks of extraordinary people.
I have had the opportunity to be connected to some phenomenal global networks of people. Echoing Green is a remarkable organization that includes nearly a thousand social innovators who've been brought together from around the world for over 35 years. Atlas Corps is another impressive global organization of people. They include about a thousand civil society leaders in a network from a hundred countries. Further, under President Obama, I had a chance to run the US Peace Corps, which includes Americans serving over 27 months in remote “last mile”communities around the world. About 250,000 people have served over 60 years. Those Americans, for the most part, went on to careers focused on global affairs. They also became corporate CEOs and entered many other professions. Clearly, “development 2.0” requires that we invest in individuals and networks of people. Organizations are likewise critical.
I have invested my time in organizations that drive impact; organizations that are directly focused on driving a mission. These organizations are enterprising, agile, entrepreneurial, with the ability to move fast. They are deeply integrous. The focus on organizations is about building organizational capacity and leadership. It's about strengthening their effectiveness, their access to resources, meaningful partnerships, and, ultimately, their organizational impact. Similar to the investment in people, investment in organizations goes to a whole higher level of effectiveness and global social impact when you invest in networks of organizations. Investing in networks of people and networks of organizations drives positive social change.
It has been a privilege in my career to work with several organizations that were also global networks. For example, the International Youth Foundation, which is 30 years old, brings together leading organizations from around the globe focused on youth development, supporting youth leaders in solving the problems of today and tomorrow. Laureate International Universities is an organization that brought together 70 universities from around the world for mutual learning. My current organization, WES, has developed national networks across the United States and Canada. These are networks of organizations focused on educational and economic opportunities for international students, immigrants, and refugees. There is incredible power in investing in these networks of organizations and supporting them in building capacity to drive their mission and drive it for real impact. Development 2.0, global engagement, is about investing in people, networks of impact, and powerful organizations. If you invest in mission-driven organizations, you drive systemic change globally and you drive global social impact.
In America, we often speak about where we give our time, our talent, and our money; I can say for certain that investing my time, my talent, and my money in promising people, promising young people, promising organizations, and promising networks is what helped me to drive systemic change and social impact. In global engagement, it has been important for me to connect the dots and to see the connections. With each year of my career, I see more connections, more opportunities to connect the dots, to build linkages, and to build the potential of people, networks, and movements. I would point further to design thinking, now a field of study, a way of working, and a practice. It is a way of thinking: a human-centered and solutions-based approach that I appreciate so much. For me, the more I connect people and organizations and human-centered innovative solutions, the more I can drive impact.
As I was fortunate to work in additional countries over the years, I remember my roots in Sri Lanka and the early days of my career. I first departed Sri Lanka for the US when I was seven years old and returned to the States again at the age of 13. I began my career in the United Nations. I started out with limited exposure, and that exposure expanded over time. This is what happens to most young people. The more countries, continents, and regions of the world—including more sub-regions—that I worked in, the more connections I started to see and the more solutions I experienced. Countries and regions are interconnected. It is imperative to understand local history and context. We must understand the geopolitics of nations and regions, and learning from colleagues, students, the young people I was around, taught me about the local context, the country context, and key aspects of geopolitics. It all connected. Thus, in your career you may choose one country or one region for the focus of your work, but what we cannot do is lose sight of the local or the global context. It is too interconnected for us to lose sight of either.
There is more interconnectedness, so let me go deeper. Programmatic areas of work are interconnected. Our professors ask us to take an interdisciplinary approach to our studies, take classes in different departments, and learn about different fields of study. That approach doesn't end at university. You have to keep that in mind as you enter the world of work.
We have this view that we need to become experts in specific arenas of education and economic development, agriculture, health, gender, energy, environment, and so on. We want to go deep and develop expertise, and that's important. Some of you will develop deep expertise and some will be generalists. What I learned in my career is that these programmatic areas in development are all interconnected. A singular lens isn't effective; even when we become experts in one area, we have to connect the dots. Our world is truly interdisciplinary, and interconnected. This approach is the application of design thinking to development 2.0—to global engagement—to drive global social impact.
Development 2.0 need to go further by addressing tri-sector impact across government, business, and nonprofit or civil society organizations. A tri-sector perspective stands for that which drives, constrains, and limits each sector. How can you influence individuals from each sector? How can you drive systems change from each sector? What are the opportunities and constraints in each sector?
While working in government, I understood politics beyond seeing it on the news. I understood how government works at the highest levels, across its branches, and I understood the convening power of governments, including the ability of certain governments to convene other governments. International organizations such as the United Nations and others are an extension of our governments. Working in the public sector, I learned when it is best to work bilaterally through your own government and when it is optimal to work multilaterally through international organizations. I then spent another third of my career in business. There, I honed another set of skills: understanding strategy and planning, management and operational effectiveness, excellence in execution, and a focus on achieving financial and other results. Working in business is important to understanding how you can access and mobilize private capital for development sectors, particularly areas such as education and health.
The other third of my career was in nonprofits and civil society. I learned a valuable set of skills there: partnerships, local, regional, and global, multi-sector engagement, advocacy, grassroots mobilization, fundraising, and resource mobilization. Perhaps you choose to work in one sector, but you still learn how to engage with the other sectors, what they have to offer, and how they can help you drive the impact that you plan to achieve.
In running organizations and driving impact, one cannot just be “a finance person” or “a program person”; and if you choose to be, you really have to understand how to work with people from different parts of the organization, who specialize in different skill sets. You must be a leader; you must be programmatic and operational. You must have basic financial skills, and superior financial skills the most valuable asset. You have to understand data, as well as communication, branding, organizational design, and execution. You have to know how to drive impact from government, business, and civil society sectors. This is how we realize the full potential of our contributions to realize long-term social change. You can pick an issue, a region, or a sector, but you cannot make the choice to not understand the other arenas. I believe in working as a connector every day, a connector of people, organizations, networks, resources, ideas, and solutions.
You have unlimited potential to drive impact in this world. You are a generation unlike any previous generation. You are a generation committed to equity, inclusion, and improving opportunity for all people. Your generation innately understands development 2.0 as global engagement and social impact. Global engagement is about using your career trajectory to invest in people and organizations. We do not need to reinvent what works. What works exists in many places already. How do we replicate and scale ideas that work? How do we develop innovative solutions for pressing problems? A design thinking approach works: human-centered and solutions-oriented, nothing is one-dimensional. It's always multi-country, multi-sectoral, multi-regional, involving the intersection of programmatic areas. It is truly interdisciplinary and draws on a wide variety of skill sets that you can develop for your world vision, your career, and what you want to contribute to society.
Let us rethink our approach to development and take it to the next level, always starting with the individual, then thinking about the interconnectedness of people, organizations, sectors, and programmatic areas. Apply the same thinking to your own career. Learn to engage key actors and drive impact from many different vantage points. This is how you will realize the greatest impact. To drive holistic, long-term, effective social change, we need to think about global engagement and global social impact. This is leadership and development at its next level, and this is social justice for the next generation.
Pensamiento de diseño para la complejidad socioecosistémica
La conferencia Kapuscinski de Esther Benjamin invita a profundizar en varios conceptos y temáticas nodales en una agenda de compromisos globales para un desarrollo con equidad, justicia y sustentabilidad. En este artículo retomo el planteamiento del potencial de construir soluciones innovadoras a través de enfoques como el design thinking, pensamiento de diseño centrado en las personas; lo cual generaría impactos con un visión interdisciplinar, multifactorial, multiescalar y multisectorial (con las empresas, gobierno y sociedad civil).
Este enfoque de innovación centrado en las personas ha ganado creciente popularidad en la agenda del desarrollo; si bien sus orígenes se encuentran en el sector tecnológico y empresarial, propone tener múltiples ámbitos de aplicación y generar soluciones creativas ante problemáticas y desafíos complejos. Transferir o adaptar un enfoque, surgido desde un ámbito del conocimiento, a otra escala y área de influencia, requiere una reflexión crítica.
Este escrito inicia con una breve revisión de la propuesta teórica de la innovación social y del pensamiento de diseño centrado en las personas (human-centered design, HCD por sus siglas en inglés). En la segunda parte, reflexiono sobre algunos retos y oportunidades del enfoque para generar soluciones ante problemáticas socioecológicas complejas y contribuir en la agenda global del desarrollo.
Innovación social y el pensamiento de diseño
La innovación social es un término polisémico con antecedentes históricos que se remontan a la obra de Schumpeter, que sugiere una “destrucción creativa” que da paso al desarrollo económico a partir de la competencia entre empresas y la creación de nuevos procesos de producción tecnológica. Desde el ámbito tecnológico y empresarial han evolucionado modelos de innovación que articulan más elementos y actores, como la academia, el estado y la sociedad civil. A partir de ello, mejorar los procesos y productos rebasó los beneficios económicos al incluir tipos de desarrollo social; generándose una distinción entre una innovación basada en la tecnología (innovación tecnológica) y otra en el bien social (innovación social) (Córdoba Cely, et al., 2014).
La innovación social puede plantearse como un modo de producción y un modo de desarrollo, como alternativa participativa, ciudadana, creativa y crítica en el contexto de sociedades de conocimiento y de la información (Castells, 1996, en Córdoba Cely, et al., 2014). Las tecnologías de la información y comunicación, el internet, los datos masivos, etc., plantean—según Benjamin—grandes posibilidades, al igual que retos.
La innovación como ejercicio de creatividad social se entrelaza naturalmente con la disciplina del diseño. Teóricos de esta disciplina conciben que todas nuestras actividades como humanos necesitan del diseño; más allá de crear productos, la importancia parte de la responsabilidad social y de la sustentabilidad ecológica (Papanek 1984, en Córdoba Cely, et al., 2014).
Los libros de Tim Brown (IDEO) y de Roger Martin (Rotman School of Management de Toronto), introdujeron en 2009 el concepto de pensamiento de diseño para el emprendimiento social, un diseño centrado en las personas (Blyth et al., 2011). El HCD retoma, adapta y acualiza conceptos y elementos teórico-metodológicos históricos de los 1960 y 1970, como el diseño participativo.1 Bajo este enfoque, el diseño constituye una serie de técnicas y procedimientos sintetizados en marcos replicables sencillos, para generar empatía con la comunidad y proponer soluciones a problemas específicos con un trabajo colaborativo y el análisis de la sostenibilidad del proyecto (Baker & Moukhliss, 2020; Córdoba Cely, et al., 2014). Estás características se presentan en una variedad de modelos que ponen a las personas en el centro y que involucran una serie de niveles, son iterativos y con enfoque no-lineal o circular2 (Baker & Moukhliss, 2020; Zoltowski et al., 2012).
En los últimos veinte años, el enfoque se popularizó, principalmente a partir de la difusión de renombradas firmas y organizaciones que lo han promovido a nivel mundial.3 Ello ha trasladado la aplicación a un gran espectro de ámbitos, sectores, países y problemáticas—desde la tecnología, negocios, educación, escasez del agua, desarme, combate a la pobreza y otros—Baker & Moukhliss, 2020; Blyth et al., 2011; Friedland & Yamauchi, 2014)
Esta “moda” ha generado cierto grado de mistificación del enfoque, que puede llevar a la aplicación de modelos sin perspectiva crítica o con fundamentos teórico-metodológicos frágiles. Existen visiones reduccionistas de un “design process in a box,” un paquete o conjunto de prácticas de diseño simplificadas, listo para usarse en la resolución de cualquier tipo de problema o desafío (Baker & Moukhliss, 2020). Estos riesgos pueden ser aún más evidentes cuando se abordan problemáticas no solamente sociales, sino socioecológicas complejas; por ello, planteo algunas reflexiones que puedan contribuir hacia futuras discusiones e investigaciones.
De las soluciones tecnológicas a la complejidad socioecológica
La primera reflexión retoma los retos al pasar de las soluciones tecnológicas, organizacionales o empresariales, hacia la aplicación en el sector público y de la sociedad civil. Los problemas sociales no son llamados así por afectar a muchas personas, sino porque su forma y características se construyen e involucran la construcción del mundo en el que vivimos; representan espacios de poder y también son específicos en un tiempo y lugar determinados (Blyth et al., 2011).
Los problemas sociales requieren mayor profundidad en el análisis del contexto histórico, político, cultural y ecológico. En los sistemas sociales, una de las primeras consideraciones parte del análisis de las condiciones del entorno en donde se quiera apuntalar el proceso de innovación, ya que existen ambientes propicios o que dificulten su desarrollo—por ejemplo, en contextos de exclusión, marginación y violencia de género—(Córdoba Cely, et al., 2014).
En este ensayo, propongo la necesidad de ampliar la perspectiva hacia la complejidad socioecológica, donde se interconectan los sistemas humanos y ecológicos. La sustentabilidad es un eje principal en el pensamiento de diseño y para un abordaje más integral en contextos socioecológicos, es necesario replantear hacia un diseño centrado en las personas y en los ecosistemas, que conciba ampliamente la complejidad de las relaciones humano-naturaleza y no se limite a las estructuras sociales.
Existe un cuerpo de literatura sustancial del enfoque de pensamiento de diseño y de casos de estudio de su aplicación, los cuales pueden servir de referencia al emprender procesos de innovación en diversos contextos (Baker & Moukhliss, 2020; Zoltowski et al., 2012). Es necesario impulsar el desarrollo teórico-metodológico del enfoque; además, es importante generar espacios de colaboración desde la interdisciplina—o la transdisciplina—, retomar aportaciones de enfoques robustos que pueden aportar al proceso de innovación. El pensamiento de diseño no es substitutivo, es complementario con otras áreas, por ejemplo, con las metodologías de cambio y transformación social, los movimientos sociales, la ecología, tecnología e inteligencia artificial. Existen así diferentes oportunidades para expandir o reenfocar el pensamiento de diseño ante las problemáticas socioecológicas (Blyth et al., 2011).
Mi segunda reflexión gira en torno al impacto del diseño de soluciones, considerar no solo el producto, artefacto o proceso que se diseña, sino abordar lo que pueda resultar a partir de ello. En muchas ocasiones el diseño se enfoca en la parte el proceso de “hacer” o elaborar, y no en “lo que hace”—lo que se detona—. El enfoque de pensamiento de diseño busca generar diseños con perspectiva holística, pensar en las consecuencias, entender a las personas que serán afectadas, considerar si un proyecto se puede extender, reproducir o ampliar (Baker & Moukhliss, 2020; Blyth et al., 2011; Zoltowski et al., 2012), incluir los impactos en los ecosistemas y su biodiversidad. Esto conlleva a una reflexión desde la ética y la bioética de los procesos de diseño, que podría profundizarse desde la filosofía (Baker & Moukhliss, 2020).
Buchanan (2001) reconoció que sin la comprensión del contenido significativo de los productos que se crean, el diseño tendría pocas consecuencias o incluso podría causar daños en un mundo complejo. Ante ello, se necesita una exploración cuidadosa para lograr que el diseño se base en la dignidad y los derechos humanos. El teórico advertía de los peligros de reducir las consideraciones de un diseño centrado en las personas—human-centered design—hacia aspectos limitados o circunscritos a la usabilidad, como un diseño centrado en el usuario—user-centered design—; si bien la usabilidad es un aspecto relevante, desde el pensamiento de diseño, la labor no termina en la ergonomía, se debe dar centralidad a la dignidad humana. El diseño de soluciones debe buscar continuamente fortalecer la dignidad de los seres humanos en sus vidas cotidianas, sustentado en la diversidad de circunstancias sociales, económicas, políticas y culturales (Buchanan, 2001).
Cuando el diseño aborda temas de la agenda de desarrollo y sustentabilidad, puede afectar las vidas, los valores culturales, los ecosistemas y la biodiversidad. El diseño es una forma de crear artefactos y comunicaciones para atender las necesidades humanas y para facilitar el intercambio de información e ideas (Buchanan, 2001).
Benjamin plantea el potencial del pensamiento de diseño para innovar y avanzar hacia un desarrollo 2.0, basado en la equidad y justicia social en un mundo interconectado. La agenda de desarrollo y sustentabilidad abarca problemáticas socioecológicas globales que nos competen como especie humana. Temas como el calentamiento global incluyen importantes retos para adaptar métodos de innovación que incluyan los factores multiescalar, multifactorial, multiactoral, interdisciplinar e intergeneracional; además de requerir nuestra atención eficaz de manera urgente.
La sociedad civil tiene el potencial de buscar formas creativas de influir en la agenda de desarrollo global para la sustentabilidad, equidad y justicia (Anheier, 2017; Sholte, 2002). Las posibilidades del pensamiento de diseño podrían iniciar generando capacidades consistentes con el sector de la sociedad civil en el contexto de la política internacional para el desarrollo y la sustentabilidad. Es necesario generar estrategias de formación integrales y comprehensivas, que permitan “aprender a pensar,” “pensar” el pensamiento de diseño y aplicaciones prácticas que fortalezcan las capacidades y habilidades del sector.
Conclusiones
La innovación y enfoques como el pensamiento de diseño han trascendido las fronteras de su disciplina o ámbito de aplicación de origen, en este caso del desarrollo tecnológico y empresarial. Esto genera oportunidades hacia otras áreas del conocimiento y de aplicación; sin embargo, es necesario reflexionar y problematizar los retos y oportunidades del enfoque para su implementación en nuevos ámbitos y escalas. Considerando lo anterior, pasar del diseño de productos a la resolución de problemas en contextos de complejidad socioecológica, requiere de colaboraciones, alianzas y sinergias mucho más amplias (interdisciplinarias, intersectoriales y multiescalares). Especialmente, propongo replantear la visión hacia un diseño centrado en las personas y en los ecosistemas, al ser sistemas interconectados.
Además, es importante generar más investigación teórico-metodológica y filosófica para prevenir los usos y aplicaciones simplificadas y reduccionistas de los enfoques de innovación desde el pensamiento de diseño. También sugiero seguir analizando cómo y dónde se usan los métodos de pensamiento de diseño, los procesos de adaptación de las herramientas, evaluar la efectividad de las aplicaciones en casos específicos y sus impactos (directos y potenciales). Esto es importante para brindar mayor claridad sobre la aplicación de los métodos en diferentes problemáticas, escalas y contextos socioecológicos.
El enfoque de pensamiento de diseño puede convertirse en una herramienta para la sociedad civil que contribuya a avanzar en la agenda de desarrollo y sustentabilidad. Para ello, hay que generar las capacidades desde un enfoque integral y coherente con las necesidades del sector.
Existe un gran espacio para profundizar en los planteamientos de Benjamin y en las reflexiones de este ensayo. Los avances teórico-metodológicos del pensamiento de diseño pueden contribuir a generar procesos innovadores robustos para la sustentabilidad con justicia y equidad.
Notas
Nace desde la década de 1970 en los Países Bajos como “enfoque colectivo de recursos,” posteriormente trascendió hacia el desarrollo de software libre y otras propuestas TIC de código abierto (Córdoba Cely, et al., 2014).
Propuesta de siete niveles: (1) definir, (2) investigar, (3) idear, (4) prototipar, (5) seleccionar, (6) implementar, y (7) aprender. Otra de las propuestas más conocidas es el modelo de IDEO (2019) que engloba estos niveles en tres pasos: (1) inspirar, (2) idear, y (3) implementar (véase Baker & Moukhliss, 2020).
Entre estas firmas se puede mencionar a: IDEO, Chicago's Public Policy Lab, the European Commission's Policy Lab, entre otros (véase Baker & Moukhliss, 2020).
Referencias
Anheier, H. K. (2017). Civil society challenged: Towards an enabling policy environment. Economics 11(1). https://doi.org/10.5018/ECONOMICS-EJOURNAL.JA.2017-29/DOWNLOADASSET/SUPPL/JOURNALARTICLES_2017-29-SM1.PDF.
Baker, F. W., & Moukhliss, S. (2020). Concretising design thinking: A content analysis of systematic and extended literature reviews on design thinking and human-centered design. Review of Education 8(1), 305–333. https://doi.org/10.1002/REV3.3186.
Blyth, S., Kimbell, A.L., & Haig, T.H. (2011). Design Thinking and the Big Society: solving personal troubles to designing social problems, an essay exploring what design can offer those working on social problems and how it needs to change. Actant. https://www.governanceinstitute.edu.au/magma/media/upload/ckeditor/files/designthinkingandthebigsociety-1.pdf.
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.
Córdoba Cely, C., Villamarín Martínez, F. J., & Bonilla, H. (2014). Innovación social: Aproximación a un marco teórico desde las disciplinas creativas del diseño y las ciencias sociales. Tendencias 15(2), 30–44. https://doi.org/10.22267/RTEND.141502.41.
Friedland, B., & Yamauchi, Y. (2011). Reflexive design thinking. Interactions 18(2), 66–71. https://doi.org/10.1145/1925820.1925835.
Scholte, J. A. (2002). Civil society and democracy in global governance. Global Governance 8(3), 281–304. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27800346.
Zoltowski, C. B., Oakes, W. C., & Cardella, A. E. (2012). Students’ ways of experiencing human-centered design. Journal of Engineering Education 101(1), 28–59. https://doi.org/10.1002/J.2168-9830.2012.TB00040.
