Design Research, Social Inclusion, and the Role of Co-Creation: An Interview with Maurice de Greef
In contemporary design research, the shift from object-centered approaches to socially engaged, human-centered practices has positioned researchers as intermediaries, facilitators, and advocates within complex societal systems. This transition is particularly evident in collaborations addressing illiteracy and social exclusion, where design intersects with educational theory and participatory methods. In this context, Maurice de Greef, UNESCO Chairholder in Adult Education and professor at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), offers valuable insights for design researchers navigating these evolving terrains.
De Greef is affiliated with the Research Centre for Innovation in Learning and Diversity at VUB. His work is grounded in the development of inclusive learning trajectories for vulnerable populations—including migrants, older adults, and people with low literacy or limited formal education. His book De laaggeletterde leert het ons [The Illiterate Teaches Us] (De Greef, 2021) encapsulates the principle that illiterate individuals are not merely passive recipients of help but active agents whose lived experiences can and should inform design and policy.
During our conversation, it became evident that while our strategies diverge—his rooted in education and mine in advocacy and participatory design—we share common goals: improving the visibility, dignity, and inclusion of individuals with limited literacy.
Co-Creation as a Shared Methodology
Both of our practices are grounded in co-creation. For de Greef, co-creation is essential to developing educational programs that resonate with real needs. He emphasizes that design and educational interventions must not be “for” vulnerable individuals, but “with” them—echoing the co-design ethics championed in European design research (Manzini, 2015; Bjögvinsson, Ehn, & Hillgren, 2012). This aligns with contemporary shifts in design research where practitioners act as facilitators of transformation rather than authoritative experts (Binder et al., 2011).
The “Familiar and Suitable” Model
A key contribution from de Greef’s work is his model for increasing participation in adult basic education, which identifies two essential preconditions: familiarity and suitability. For learning programs to be effective, participants must feel a personal connection (familiarity) and perceive the offering as immediately applicable to their lives (suitability). This echoes the notion of “situated learning” (Lave & Wenger, 1991), which holds that knowledge becomes meaningful when rooted in social context.
De Greef’s findings also stress the diversity of participants. Illiterate individuals do not constitute a homogenous group but rather encompass a range of socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds, with varied challenges and motivations. Design researchers must therefore resist overgeneralization and embrace pluralism in the co-creative process (Koskinen et al., 2011).
Addressing Participation Barriers
Another dimension of de Greef’s research is the emphasis on emotional and structural barriers. Shame, fear, and previous negative educational experiences can be more disabling than logistical challenges like time constraints or employment obligations. This understanding demands a trauma-informed and empathetic design posture—what Tonkinwise (2015) might describe as a “posture of care”—recognizing the affective dimensions of participation.
Impact on Design Research Practice
This interview prompted reflection on my own shifting roles as a design researcher. Initially, my work focused on translating bureaucratic texts into visual materials for illiterate individuals. However, de Greef’s insights reinforced the importance of psychological safety and relational trust in participatory initiatives. Consequently, I began adapting his “familiar and suitable” framework to guide early engagements with co-creation participants—prioritizing emotional readiness over project efficiency.
The shift also aligns with the transformation in European design research, wherein researchers increasingly engage as public intellectuals and policy advocates (Julier, 2017). While de Greef operates through the structures of adult education, my parallel path involves influencing civil servants and social institutions to address systemic literacy barriers. These dual approaches underscore the complementary nature of educational and design research strategies.
Conclusion
Design researchers are no longer confined to studios or labs. As this interview with Maurice de Greef illustrates, they are becoming co-learners, facilitators, and advocates within broader social ecosystems. In this evolving landscape, cross-pollination between educational research and design practice opens up new avenues for inclusion, responsiveness, and ethical engagement. Design research education must therefore equip students with the capacity to collaborate across disciplines and cultivate new forms of expertise that prioritize care, respect, and situated knowledge.
References
Binder, T., Brandt, E., Ehn, P., & Halse, J. Design things. MIT Press, (2011).
Bjögvinsson, E., Ehn, P., & Hillgren, P. A. Design things and design thinking: Contemporary participatory design challenges. Design Issues, 28(3), 101–116.(2012).
De Greef, M. De laaggeletterde leert het ons [The illiterate teaches us]. Arteduc, (July 2021)
Julier, G. Economies of design. Sage, (2017).
Koskinen, I., Zimmerman, J., Binder, T., Redström, J., & Wensveen, S. Design research through practice: From the lab, field, and showroom. Elsevier, (2011).
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press (1991).
Manzini, E. Design, when everybody designs: An introduction to design for social innovation. MIT Press, (2015).
Tonkinwise, C. Design for transitions—from and to what? Design Philosophy Papers, 13(1), 85–92, (2015).
Leave a Reply