Empower the Future: The Inside Story of Building Creative Space for Sub-urban Kampong’s Children
Imagine design as generator. Throughout our practice of empowerment we believed that design should be the champion of generating change within the community, thus we based our thinking and action under what we called DAG (Design as Generator). We then developed design-research-action methodology for DAG and to put design in the front line of empowerment practice. It combined PAR (Participatory Action Research) and DT (Design Thinking) under the MMR’s (Mixed Methods Research) Sequential Embedded Experimental model. These complex processes resulted on three strategic themes that DAG developed for empowering community called ‘Memory’, ‘Hope’ and ‘Sense’. The paper will focus on discussing ‘Hope’ as it aimed on constituting the future, in which DAG believes that the children will be the leading role shaping it within the community. The paper will tell the story on how it would be done through a community design project, initiated by DAG called ‘KaKiKuKeKo’ project (‘Creative and Collaborative Gathering for Our Kampong’) held at suburban kampong in Southern Tangerang, Banten, Indonesia. It aimed on activating the children creativity through their playing and improvement of their reading activities. It then would be translated and designed into space, in which in its process it would be an active collaboration and participation with the children itself. This paper is about their hope and story glancing creatively into the future.
KeywordsDAG (Design as Generator) ‘Hope’ Children Creativity Participatory design
DAG team would like to acknowledge: RCUS and Ford Foundation in its Citizen Urbanism project, daun foundation, lecturer and students from Interior Design Dept., Visual Communication Design Dept. and Psychology Dept. of Universitas Pelita Harapan (UPH); and all the community members of Kampong Pondok Pucung, especially the children.
- 1.Valencia, P., Katoppo, M.: Taki, the community (sustainable) sensory garden. In: Chakrabarti, A. (Ed.) ICoRD’ 2015—Research into Design Across Boundaries, vol. 2, Springer, New Delhi (2015)Google Scholar
- 3.Berg, B.L., Lune, H.: Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences, 8th edn. Pearson Education, Inc., New York (2012)Google Scholar
- 4.Brown, T.: Design thinking. Harvard Bus. Rev. 1–9 (2008)Google Scholar
- 5.Brown, T., Katz, B.: Change by Design. HarperCollins Publishers, New York (2009)Google Scholar
- 6.Brown, T., Wyatt, J.: Design thinking for social innovation. Stanford Soc. Innov. Rev. 29–35 (2010)Google Scholar
- 7.IDEO team, IDE, Heifer international and ICRW. Human Centered Design (HCD) Toolkit: Design Thinking Toolkit for Social Innovation Project 2nd Ed., funded by Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Licensed under The Creative Commons Attribution, Non Commercial, Share A-Like 3.0 Unported License (2013)Google Scholar
- 8.Creswell, J.W., Clark, V.L.P.: Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Sage Publication, London (2007)Google Scholar
- 10.Jones, P.B., Petrescu, D., Till, J. (eds.).: Architecture and Participation. Spon Press, New York (2005)Google Scholar