Equity can be defined as a process of addressing imbalances to attain fairness and justice (cf. Barnabe, et al., 2023). Indeed, this is a process to provide resources “according to the need to help diverse populations achieve their highest state of health and other functioning” (American Psychological Association, 2021a). More specifically, it can be defined as an ongoing process of assessing needs, correcting historical inequities, and creating conditions for optimal outcomes by members of all social identity groups” (American Psychological Association, 2021b).
The World Health Organization (WHO) (n.d.) describes equity as the “absence of unfair, avoidable or remediable differences among groups of people, whether those groups are defined socially, economically, demographically, or geographically or by other dimensions of inequality (e.g. sex, gender, ethnicity, disability, or sexual orientation)”. Indeed, once “disproportionality and disparity do not exist” equity can be considered as reached, basically by also recognizing the different needs of people and their suffered discrimination and inequity (Choi, et al., 2022). In the DesIA project, we refer to equity to understand how it relates to design. Consequently, we assume this term to describe a process for understanding how to focus on solutions that can create “fairness in the treatment of people in terms of both opportunity and outcome” (Arsel, et al., 2022; and cf. Ferraro, et al., 2023).
Some contributions also underline the difference between equality and equity, as there is the risk they are considered interchangeably, even if the meanings are different. For instance, Minow (2021) presents these differences and underlines that ‘equity’ focuses on “each individual’s unique needs or design group-based reforms”, while equality calls for “uniformity or identical treatment, regardless of individual circumstances”.
Designing for equity, or the “design for equity”, the “equity design”, or even the “equity-centred design thinking” (e.g. see Bazzano, et al., 2023) should focus on addressing oppressive systems through designers that create collaborative connections among and with “people on the front-lines of oppression so that power, creativity, and equitable outcomes can be built and shared by many” (Kramer, et al., 2019). According to Choi, et al. (2022) designing for equity “requires us to understand and address the systemic problems that create disparities”. Indeed, developing an equity design means addressing a creative process “to dismantle systems of oppression and (re)design towards liberation and healing by centering the power of communities historically impacted by the oppressive systems being (re)designed” (Equity Design Collaborative, n.d.). Creating a collaborative multidisciplinary process is crucial for understanding how to reach fair outcomes in the design for equity process (cf. Jones, et al., 2012; Durall, et al., 2021). Preconditions for designing for equity in an organization are (adapted from Bopaiah, 2021), (i) recognizing and valorizing the differences between individuals and groups; (ii) recognizing how systems influence opportunities for others; (iii) recognizing the need to create more opportunities for everyone to thrive for their differences.
References
American Psychological Association (2021a). Inclusive language guidelines. https://www.apa.org/about/apa/equity-diversity-inclusion/language-guidelines.pdf
American Psychological Association (2021b). Equity, diversity, and inclusion framework. https://www.apa.org/about/apa/equity-diversity-inclusion/equity-division-inclusion-framework.pdf
Arsel, Z., Crockett, D., & Scott, M. L. (2022). Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the Journal of Consumer Research: A curation and research agenda. Journal of Consumer Research, 48(5), 920-933.
Barnabe, C., Osei-Tutu, K., Maniate, J. M., Razack, S., Wong, B. M., Thoma, B., & Duchesne, N. (2023). Equity, diversity, inclusion, and social justice in CanMEDS 2025. Canadian Medical Education Journal, 14(1), 27.
Bazzano, A. N., Noel, L. A., Patel, T., Dominique, C. C., Haywood, C., Moore, S., Mantsios, A., & Davis, P. A. (2023). Improving the engagement of underrepresented people in health research through equity-centered design thinking: qualitative study and process evaluation for the development of the grounding health research in design toolkit. JMIR Formative Research, 7, e43101.
Bopaiah, M. (2021). Equity: How to design organizations where everyone thrives. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Choi, J., Davis, M. M., Deveneau, L. K., Freeman, T., Humphreys, J., McKnight, M., Rotner, J., & Ward, D. (2022). Designing for Equity Starter Guide. MITRE Social Justice Platform. https://sjp.mitre.org/insights/designing-for-equity-starter-guide
Durall, E., Perry, S., Hurley, M., Kapros, E. & Leinonen, T. (2021). Co-Designing for Equity in Informal Science Learning: A Proof-of-Concept Study of Design Principles. Front. Educ. 6:675325. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2021.675325
Equity Design Collaborative (n.d.). Language. https://equitydesigncollaborative.com/language
Ferraro, C., Hemsley, A., & Sands, S. (2023). Embracing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI): Considerations and opportunities for brand managers. Business Horizons, 66(4), 463-479.
Jones, C. R., Cardoso, R. B., Hüttner, E., Oliveira, H. W., dos Santos, M. A., Helena Itaqui Lopes, M., & Russomano, T. (2012). Towards designing for equity: active citizen participation in eHealth. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 6(4), 333-344.
Kramer, J., Kong, J., Staton, B., & Gordon, P. (2019). Applying Equity Design to Address Oakland‘s Homelessness Human Rights Crisis. In: E. Bohemia, G. Gemser, N. Fain, C. de Bont, & R. Assoreira Almendra, Conference proceedings of the Academy for Design Innovation Management 2019 – Research Perspectives In the era of Transformations, London 19–21 June 2019.
Minow, M. (2021). Equality vs. equity. American Journal of Law and Equality, 1, 167-193.
World Health Organization (WHO) (n.d.). Health equity. https://www.who.int/health-topics/health-equity#tab=tab_1
