Power asymmetries in co-design: How decision-making hierarchies undermine participatory trust-building
Original framing: “Co-design with the community? Study provides insights on building trust” — Phys.org
Marginalized communities—especially those historically excluded from decision-making—often experience co-design as *performative*. For example, in *Detroit’s* participatory budgeting, Black residents reported feeling 'consulted to death' while city hall ignored their demands for housing and jobs. Similarly, in *India’s* 'Jan Sunwai' (people’s hearings), Dalit and Adivasi communities have been sidelined when corporate interests hijack the process. The study’s lack of direct quotes from these groups obscures how 'trust' is not just a feeling but a *political* act—one that requires confronting who benefits from the status quo. Without centering these voices, co-design remains a tool of the powerful.
The study’s framing of co-design as a *technical* problem of 'trust-building' obscures its role as a *site of power struggle*—where institutions use participation to legitimize control while avoiding accountability.
The restored dimensions reveal that genuine co-design requires *three radical shifts*: (1) **Redistributing power** (not just including voices), as seen in Indigenous sovereignty models and Porto Alegre’s budgeting; (2) **Centering marginalized sovereignty**, where participation is tied to survival (e.g., Zapatista autonomy or Māori guardianship); and (3) **Disrupting the illusion of neutrality**, as trickster figures like Coyote or Erasmus expose when 'participation' becomes a smokescreen for extraction. The solution pathways—legal mandates, anti-co-optation protocols, and Indigenous data sovereignty—demonstrate that co-design can only be transformative when it is *armed with structural change*, not just better engagement tactics. The study’s omission of these elements reveals a deeper complicity with power structures that treat participation as a *tool of governance* rather than a *challenge to it*.