1. Introduction
Design education plays a central role in shaping how future practitioners understand human needs and translate them into responsible and meaningful solutions, and as programs evolve to address sustainability, technology, and rapidly shifting societal expectations, one of the field’s most essential responsibilities, designing for human diversity, remains unevenly integrated across curricula. Recent analyses of industrial design programs reveal a persistent imbalance: while sustainability has become structurally embedded through required courses and program-wide initiatives, Universal Design and broader inclusive design principles appear only intermittently and are often positioned as elective or supplemental content (Reference Oro and MalhotraOro & Malhotra, 2024). As a result, many students encounter inclusivity as a peripheral concern framed through compliance or accommodation rather than as a creative, ethical, and intellectual dimension of design practice. This gap limits students’ ability to engage with disability, aging, neurodiversity, and other forms of human variation that shape everyday interactions. At the same time, contemporary design challenges demand a more comprehensive and reflective engagement with diversity. Designers today must respond to complex social ecosystems, increasing visibility of marginalized communities, and growing expectations for equity and accessibility. These realities point to a need for pedagogical structures that integrate inclusive design throughout the entire development process, allowing students to practice empathy, recognize barriers, and collaborate with diverse users as part of their routine design work. Despite extensive theoretical scholarship on inclusive and Universal Design, there remains a lack of operational, studio-scalable pedagogical frameworks that translate these principles into repeatable, process-integrated design practices for undergraduate design education. This paper introduces the Designable Inclusive Design Methodology, a modular and practice-oriented framework created to address this need. “Designable” is used as a proper name identifying the branded toolkit and methodological framework, rather than as a descriptive modifier, signaling a specific, authored approach to translating inclusive design principles into studio-deployable methods. The methodology combines principles from Universal Design, participatory approaches, and empathic design to offer structured methods that can be applied across research, ideation, prototyping, and evaluation. Rather than requiring extensive curricular restructuring, it provides tools that can be embedded directly into existing studio courses, supporting both instructors and students in developing inclusive design thinking within their current educational environments. The sections that follow contextualize the methodology within current scholarship, describe its iterative development, and present early insights from classroom implementation. Together, they contribute to ongoing conversations about how design education can cultivate more equitable, reflective, and inclusive practices for the next generation of designers.
2. Background and rationale
Inclusive design has been discussed for several decades, yet its integration into design education remains uneven, even with the development of Universal Design (UD) principles in the 1990s, which emphasized equitable access to environments, products, and services (Reference Preiser and OstroffPreiser & Ostroff, 2001). Another important aspect to be understood is that UD is rarely embedded as a core component of industrial design curricula, even though it has the potential to reduce stigma, broaden markets, and support dignity if it were consistently adopted in pedagogy (Reference OroOro, 2025; Reference Phillips and ZhaoPhillips & Zhao, 1993; Reference VaesVaes, 2014). Several factors contribute to this gap in design education, primarily because inclusive design is often framed as a matter of compliance rather than a creative process, which limits students’ engagement with it as a generative design approach. Institutionally, faculty may lack training or face pressures that make it difficult to introduce new frameworks within established curricula (Reference Oro and MalhotraOro & Malhotra, 2024). These challenges result in a persistent disconnect between the ethical relevance of inclusion and the limited opportunities students have to practice it in a meaningful way.
Recent scholarship underscores the need to shift from isolated inclusive design assignments toward more embedded and process-oriented models. (Reference Clarkson, Coleman, Keates and LebbonClarkson et al., 2013) argue that human diversity should be treated as a fundamental design parameter rather than a specialized concern, while (Reference Altay and DemirkanAltay & Demirkan, 2014) similarly call for educational approaches that support reflexivity, empathy, and critical awareness across the full design process. These perspectives underscore the importance of pedagogical structures that enable students to apply inclusive principles iteratively, rather than encountering them only as additions to existing projects. Participatory and co-design traditions provide one such pathway, as Sanders and Stappers (Reference Sanders and StappersSanders & Stappers, 2014) describe how toolkits, probes, and prototypes can facilitate dialogue and support active participation, enabling learners to engage in collaborative exploration rather than passive problem-solving. This framing positions structured tools as starting points for conversation, experimentation, and shared interpretation. Empathic design extends this further by cultivating sensitivity to the lived experiences of others. Reference Mattelmäki, Vaajakallio and KoskinenMattelmäki et al. (2014) argue that empathy must be practiced through situated, interpretive engagement rather than assumed as an inherent trait, an aspect that if placed in educational contexts, means offering students opportunities to simulate constraints, analyze affective narratives, and reflect on diverse perspectives as part of their design work. The methodology developed in this study builds upon these theoretical threads by offering a structured approach to translating inclusive principles into classroom practice and rather than mandate specific outcomes, it seeks to support inclusive mindsets that can guide diverse projects and contexts. The methods developed in this project emerged through curricular audits, a literature review, and iterative classroom use, with students playing an active role in refining both the content and format. Card-based toolkits are a well-established format for translating design principles into actionable studio and workshop activities. Reviews of design card decks show that most tools either support creative ideation, human-centred methods, or domain-specific guidance, and that many are evaluated through classroom or practice deployment rather than independent controlled trials (Reference Roy and WarrenRoy & Warren, 2019). Within inclusive design specifically, Microsoft’s Inclusive Design Activity Cards provide a known used example of phase-based activities paired with support cards that help teams identify mismatches and explore capability across permanent, temporary, and situational limitations (Microsoft Inclusive Design, n.d.). The Designable Inclusive Design Methodology builds on this broader tradition, but differs in intent and structure: it is designed as a curriculum-embedded scaffold for studio teaching, with a larger phase model aligned to studio rhythms, method cards that combine steps with reflective challenges, and an explicit focus on repeatable learning outcomes rather than single-session workshops. The rationale behind the methodology is therefore twofold. First, it addresses the need for pedagogical structures that enable students to practice inclusion through tangible activities. Second, it aims to offer an approach that is feasible within existing institutional constraints, acknowledging that large-scale curriculum reform is slow while smaller modular interventions can create more immediate opportunities for change. Through the merge of UD principles, participatory learning, and empathic engagement, the methodology positions inclusion not as a separate topic but as an integral part of design practice from the outset. The following section details the research-through-design process through which DIDM was developed and iteratively refined in studio settings.
3. Methodology
This paper presents the Designable Inclusive Design Methodology (DIDM) as a structured framework for introducing inclusive practices into design curricula. The methodology was implemented across two consecutive semesters in a junior and senior level industrial design studio. A total of 35 students participated (12 in semester one, 23 in semester two). The course was led by the instructor-researcher, with structured feedback provided by 6 external reviewers during critique sessions. Evaluation data included end-of-semester surveys (n = 22 respondents), classroom observations, and student artefacts such as process books and presentations, collected under IRB protocol 24-505-00. Rather than evaluating project outcomes, the paper focuses on the rationale behind the methodology and the process through which it was developed. The methodology operates simultaneously as a pedagogical intervention and a research artifact, shaped through iterative use in classroom settings. The framework emerged through a research-through-design approach in which inquiry and making proceeded together (Reference Zimmerman, Forlizzi and EvensonZimmerman et al., 2007). This approach positioned the classroom as an active site of knowledge generation. Over two semesters in a junior/senior-level industrial design studio, students, instructors, and external reviewers contributed feedback that informed successive refinements. Through this collaborative process, the methods evolved in response to actual classroom conditions rather than predetermined assumptions. The methodology was additionally applied in a company-sponsored toy design studio developed through a collaboration between an academic program and an industry partner over the course of two semesters. During this time, students utilized the methodology to guide the development of inclusive toy concepts (Figure 1). This collaboration provided an opportunity to examine how modular methods function within an industry-engaged project, particularly in relation to participatory activities, prototyping, and play testing. The toy design case study addressed inclusive play as a broad design challenge rather than a diagnosis-specific therapeutic intervention. Students were encouraged to consider variability across physical, sensory, cognitive, and communicative abilities, and to justify design decisions through observed barriers, play contexts, and interaction patterns. This framing positioned the studio as an educational exploration of inclusive reasoning in toy design, rather than as a clinical or rehabilitative design exercise.
Design students developing toy concepts in the toy studio
Figure 1 Long description
A group of design students working on toy concepts in a studio setting. There are six students visible, all engaged in various activities. One student is working on a laptop, another is sketching on paper, and others are discussing ideas or working on physical prototypes. The studio is filled with various tools, materials, and sketches pinned to the walls. The students are seated around a large table covered with design materials, laptops, and prototypes.
The development process aligns with design-based research as described by Barab and Squire (Reference Barab and SquireBarab & Squire, 2004), which emphasizes iterative refinement in authentic learning environments. Each semester acted as a design experiment in which the structure and content of the cards were tested as scaffolds for student engagement with inclusive principles and the insights gathered from these iterations shaped the evolving balance between research, ideation, and making.
Reference MunariMunari’s (2018)methodological perspective also influenced the framework as the author’s view of design as a coherent progression across multiple layers of activity rather than a process dominated by isolated analytical or technical concerns. This perspective supported the aim of consistently embedding inclusive thinking from early discovery through final testing, thereby reinforcing the integration of inclusivity across the entire design process.
The methodology’s development further drew on interpretive and critical perspectives in design research. Reference LunenfeldLunenfeld (2003) argue that design inquiry requires reflective interpretation, while Reference SchoenSchoen’s (2017) notion of reflection-in-action provides a foundation for understanding the studio as a site where learning unfolds through iteration. These perspectives informed the structure of the methods, making analysis, creation, and reflection intertwined activities.
The content of individual method cards was developed through a combination of Universal Design literature, inclusive design practices, curriculum audits, and iterative testing.
Each card was created to address specific pedagogical needs, such as supporting empathic insight, prompting the recognition of barriers, or offering guided steps toward accessible outcomes. In total, the methodology consists of ninety-six cards organized into six phases of the design process: Dive Into Discovery, Define the Challenge, Fuel Inspiration, Supercharge Thinking, Bring Ideas to Life and Learn Through Testing.
The methods included in the cards were derived from established design approaches, including Universal Design principles, participatory design practices, empathic design methods, and commonly taught studio techniques. During development, overlapping or conceptually redundant methods were deliberately consolidated, as prior classroom observation showed that excessive methodological choice often led to student confusion and superficial application. Selection focused on methods that most effectively supported a design development process centered on inclusivity. The resulting methods were adapted into concise, action-oriented prompts and operationalized into a consistent card structure to balance guidance and flexibility, addressing known challenges of card-based tools such as information overload and ambiguity.
Each card includes a method name, a brief rationale, implementation steps, an example, and a reflective challenge. Students were encouraged to use cards sequentially or selectively according to project needs, aligning with the flexibility often required in studio learning environments. A number of the methods build upon well-established design techniques, which were reinterpreted to centre inclusivity and ensure their relevance for diverse users and contexts.
Developing the methodology involved attention to clarity, usability, and engagement. Classroom observation, informal interviews, and survey feedback shaped iterative adjustments to card content and visual design. These insights supported the refinement of both the conceptual framing and practical application of the methods.
Survey data collected across two semesters provided additional insight into student readiness for inclusive design. Of 42 respondents, 78% reported limited confidence in their ability to design inclusively at the start of the course, a fact that emphasized the need for structured tools that could translate abstract principles into concrete practices and reinforced the value of positioning inclusivity as a learnable and repeatable process.
Physical cards served as both pedagogical and research instruments as they enabled students to externalize their reasoning, compare approaches, and collaborate more easily while also capturing how learners interpreted inclusive design through their use. In this sense, the methodology aligns with Reference Zimmerman, Forlizzi and EvensonZimmerman et al.’s (2007) assertion that research-through-design produces knowledge by developing and testing artifacts within real-world contexts.
Finally, because the cards function as modular tools, educators can introduce inclusive practices without having to restructure an entire curricula. This flexibility responds directly to constraints identified in curriculum audits, which indicate that integrating UD across programs remains a challenge. The methodology is therefore intended to support incremental adoption, providing structured entry points for embedding inclusion into studio-based learning.
The aim of this paper is to present the structure and development of the methodology, rather than to report formal impact measures, which will be part of future publications once the broader dataset is fully analysed.
4. Description of the designable inclusive design methodology
The DIDM is a structured toolkit intended to help educators and students incorporate inclusive thinking throughout the design process. Rather than replacing existing curricular structures, the methodology offers adaptable methods that can be integrated into studio teaching with minimal disruption. The cards act as concise prompts that encourage designers to approach empathy, diversity, and accessibility through practical, hands-on activities. Each card provides a name, rationale, implementation steps, an illustrative example, and a reflective challenge to encourage situated learning (Figure 2).
Example cards illustrating phases and methods within the designable toolkit
Each phase corresponds to a stage of practice-oriented design development and is intended to embed inclusive awareness into familiar design activities. The phases were grounded in the view that inclusive outcomes develop through ongoing iteration and reflection rather than isolated actions (Reference Clarkson, Coleman, Keates and LebbonClarkson et al., 2013), the phases create structured opportunities to consider diverse users throughout the design process. Each phase is shaped as an intentional stage that complements conventional design development practices:
-
1. Dive Into Discovery: This phase focuses on uncovering barriers, unmet needs, and contextual factors that shape user experiences by examining how people interact with products, environments, and systems designers can identify usability gaps, accessibility challenges, and emotional responses that may influence design directions. Field observation, mapping, and engagement techniques support evidence-based insight gathering to form a foundation for inclusive decision-making at this phase (Figure 3).
Card spread example – dive into discovery phase
-
2. Define the Challenge: Define the Challenge supports framing the problem space through critical analysis of user needs and systemic barriers. In this phase, designers map relationships, explore root causes, and identify patterns that reveal opportunities for inclusion and accessibility. This phase helps clarify assumptions, constraints, and goals, ensuring that design briefs are anchored in insight rather than intuition.
-
3. Fuel Inspiration: Fuel Inspiration helps deepen empathy by inviting designers to engage with users’ lived experiences through narrative exercises, embodied simulations, and behavioral observation. The methods inside this phase prompt how people adapt, navigate, and interact in diverse contexts. These activities serve as stimuli for creative exploration, helping ideas resonate both emotionally and functionally with the intended user.
-
4. Supercharge Thinking: This phase introduces techniques that encourage divergent exploration and challenge habitual thought patterns by questioning biases and exploring alternative perspectives. The cards support the generation of inclusive concepts that balance creativity with real-world usability, with structured prompts and creative constraints that support ideation that moves beyond default assumptions (Figure 4).
Inclusive design methods supporting perception and usability analysis
-
5. Bring Ideas to Life: This phase emphasizes early prototyping and iterative refinement with a focus on usability, accessibility, and emotional resonance. Collaborative critique and user engagement identify weaknesses and overlooked needs, supporting the development of solutions that are both functional and inclusive.
-
6. Learn Through Testing: Learn Through Testing examines how prototypes perform for users with different needs and perspectives. Through observation, feedback, and iterative refinement, designers identify barriers and ergonomic or experiential challenges in a phase where testing is treated as a reflective process that informs continuous improvement, supporting outcomes that align with intuitive and accessible user experiences.
Each phase was informed by challenges observed in classroom settings and supported by literature in inclusive design, participatory research, and design pedagogy. The cards employ bright, high-contrast colors and consistent visual elements to support legibility. Iconography aids quick reference, and digital and physical versions allow flexible adoption.
During the developing of the framework, the naming of phases and methods was deliberately considered, as classroom observations revealed that many undergraduate students express hesitation toward terminology associated with formal academic processes, particularly words such as research or analysis. In order to support engagement, the methodology uses action-oriented language that reflects the exploratory and iterative nature of design practice. Terms such as Dive Into Discovery and Fuel Inspiration were selected to encourage participation, curiosity, and agency, aligning with how students naturally approach creative work.
The methodology’s modular structure enables flexible adoption across different teaching contexts, allowing educators to integrate individual methods into short projects or sequence multiple phases across longer assignments. This adaptability allows inclusive thinking to be embedded within existing curricula rather than introduced as an isolated topic.
The toolkit has been implemented for multiple semesters at Iowa State University and is currently in use at the University of Twente, the University of Western Australia, Univali University, and Leeds University. Ongoing data collection at these institutions will support comparative analysis of how the methods function across diverse cultural and institutional contexts.
5. Discussion
The DIDM addresses a widespread gap in design education: the absence of practical, scalable tools that embed inclusivity into everyday design work, and rather than proposing sweeping curricular reform, often constrained by institutional systems, the methodology offers a grounded and hands-on alternative, though its modular format to enable instructors to introduce inclusive thinking through guided activities that fit naturally into existing studio structures.
This approach aligns with Reference KolbKolb’s (2014) theory of experiential learning, which emphasizes learning through concrete experience, reflection, conceptualization, and experimentation. Each phase of the methodology mirrors this cycle: students begin by immersing themselves in user realities, reflect on biases, conceptualize inclusive possibilities, and test them through iterative making. In doing so, the methodology transforms inclusive design from an abstract ethical principle into a lived pedagogical experience.
The reflective stance embedded in the methodology also resonates with Schoen’s (Reference SchoenSchoen, 2017) concept of the reflective practitioner, where each card’s challenge encourages students to engage in reflection-in-action thinking critically while designing rather than only after completing their work (see Figure 5). This approach fosters what Schoen’s calls professional artistry: the ability to navigate uncertainty through inquiry and reflection.
Cards with methods and challenges
For novice designers, the cards offer structured entry points to engage with users on a deeper level, fostering genuine empathy, and for advanced students, they serve as catalysts for critical debate and creative experimentation. This adaptability supports Reference KolbKolb’s (2014) idea of cyclical learning and aligns with Reference GonenGonen (2019) view that design thinking thrives when it bridges analysis and action. Based on this concepts, the DIDM situates inclusivity as a driver of creativity rather than compliance by offering tangible and repeatable processes.
As Reference Tan, Kocsis and BurryTan et al. (2023) and Reference KolkoKolko (2010) note, design learning increasingly depends on frameworks that guide reflection without prescribing outcomes. Instructors have used the cards flexibly, with some integrating individual methods to enrich short-term projects, while others sequence entire phases across longer assignments. This adaptability allows inclusive design to coexist with existing curricula instead of competing with them.
Classroom implementation revealed the dual role of the cards in building both skills and values. Students learned to conduct fieldwork, prototype for dexterity differences, and map cognitive barriers while developing a deeper awareness of who design serves. These insights appeared in critiques, process books, and presentations, where students described how inclusive methods reshaped their design decisions and priorities. Through this process, inclusion became an active, embodied practice rather than a rhetorical ideal.
Student reflections collected through end-of-semester surveys and interviews reinforced these observations. Several students described the toolkit as something they would continue to use beyond the course. One wrote, “The methods gave me a structure I can take into any project. I plan to use them again when developing future products because they help me see users I would have otherwise overlooked.” Another noted, “The cards changed the way I approach ideation. They pushed me to think beyond my first ideas and explore solutions from perspectives I had not considered.” Others valued the toolkit’s flexibility: “I liked being able to choose which cards fit my project. It made the process feel my own but still guided.” Collectively, these statements suggest that the DIDM encouraged deeper thinking and practical transferability, helping students internalize inclusion as a habitual design mindset.
The emotional and motivational dimensions of the toolkit also emerged as significant by situating inclusion within tangible acts of making and testing, as the cards lowered the threshold for engagement while fostering creative ownership. Reference GonenGonen (2019) describe this as the power of “change by design,” the capacity to inspire transformation through participation and iteration. The methodology reflects this principle as a distributed method that evolves through use and adaptation rather than as a fixed curriculum.
While the toolkit facilitates immediate integration of inclusive methods, it does not replace the need for institutional change. Its value lies in its ability to seed inclusive practices across courses and disciplines, building momentum for broader reform. As educators observe the benefits of hands-on inclusion, the methodology provides both evidence and infrastructure to support long-term pedagogical shifts.
In addition to academic deployment, the toolkit was shared with designers at Philips headquarters in Amsterdam as part of an exploratory review. Designers engaged with the cards during early-stage concept discussions and provided informal feedback on clarity, relevance, and applicability to professional workflows. This engagement did not constitute formal evaluation, but offered expert perspective on how the methods align with industry practice and informed ongoing refinement of the toolkit.
Future development will focus on expanding digital access, enabling customization by discipline or project type. Additional scaffolding will support varying depths of engagement, from introductory exercises to advanced provocations for graduate and professional contexts.
In summary, the DIDM exemplifies how inclusive design education can evolve through small and intentional interventions, shifting attention from what should be taught to how designers can act inclusively, starting with the tools they already use and the questions they are encouraged to ask. Through its experiential, reflective, and participatory structure, it demonstrates that inclusion is not a constraint on creativity but one of its most powerful engines.
6. Limitations
Several limitations shape the scope and interpretation of this study and the first is that the methodology has primarily been developed and refined within studio courses at one institution, with external implementations at partnering universities still in early stages. Although these collaborations provide valuable comparative contexts, the methodology has not yet been tested across a broader range of programs, disciplines, or pedagogical models and as a result, its adaptability to other institutional environments remains an open question.
Second, a large set of empirical data has already been collected at all participating institutions, including surveys, interviews, student artifacts, and observational records. Early analysis of the dataset is ongoing, and the material is currently being synthesized. Although a full cross-site comparison is not yet complete, emerging patterns indicate that the methodology is generating meaningful engagement with inclusive principles across different classroom contexts. Preliminary observations point to increased student confidence, more structured consideration of diverse users, and deeper reflection during critiques. These early signals suggest strong potential, but a complete analysis is still required before drawing conclusions about broader effectiveness or long-term learning outcomes.
Third, because the cards were designed and tested by an instructor who is also the primary researcher, issues of positionality and potential bias must be acknowledged. Students may have responded positively due to course dynamics, assessment structures, or perceptions of instructor expectations. While iterative refinement incorporated student feedback, the dual role of instructor and researcher may have influenced both data collection and interpretation.
Fourth, the study centers on physical method cards and studio-based learning, which may not fully represent how students approach inclusive design in digital contexts, collaborative remote environments, or non-studio courses. Planned development of a digital platform may address this limitation, but at this stage the methodology’s application remains largely situated within traditional studio settings.
Finally, although the methodology offers a modular approach that can be adopted without full curriculum reform, it cannot alone shift institutional structures or overcome deeper systemic constraints. Its effectiveness depends on instructor facilitation, course alignment, and institutional support, all of which vary widely across design programs.
Together, these limitations highlight the need for continued empirical analysis, broader implementation, and long-term evaluation as the methodology evolves.
7. Conclusion
The DIDM demonstrates that advancing inclusion in design education does not depend on radical reform but on small, deliberate shifts in pedagogy that can be enacted immediately. By translating Universal Design principles into modular, experiential, and reflective methods, the framework bridges the persistent gap between awareness and practice. It enables educators and students to approach inclusivity as both an ethical responsibility and a creative opportunity, embedding empathy and accessibility into the heart of design learning.
This methodology aligns with ongoing calls for transformation within design education. As Reference Taylor and DempseyTaylor anb Dempsey (2020) urges a move “away from solutions” toward design as an ethical process of reflection, and as Reference Oro and MalhotraOro and Malhotra (2024) emphasize the need of structural integration of inclusion into pedagogy, the DIDM responds with a tangible framework capable of enactment in real classrooms by reframing inclusivity not as a specialized topic but as a universal design learned through making, reflection, and collaboration.
The current research phase extends beyond Iowa State University, with the toolkit now in active use at the University of Twente, the University of Western Australia, and Leeds University. A full set of cards is also under informal exploration by design teams at Philips headquarters in Amsterdam, contributing an industry perspective to the broader evaluation of the methodology. Ongoing data collection across these sites will provide comparative insights into how modular inclusive methods adapt to different educational and cultural contexts. These collaborations represent a significant step toward establishing an international evidence base for inclusive design pedagogy.
The next goal is to develop a digital platform and mobile application that will make the methodology globally accessible, featuring interactive cards, adaptive search tools, and customizable modules for various disciplines. In parallel, a complementary framework is under development focusing on inclusive design in UI and UX applications, broadening the reach of the approach into digital design domains where accessibility remains a critical and evolving frontier.
As changing entire curricula across universities may take decades, this work aims to offer an immediate spark, one capable of igniting change from within the classroom. Design education cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the past, when users were segregated or excluded from equal access to products, services, and environments. Instead of waiting for reform to arrive from above, this study invites educators and students to begin transforming design practice today. If inclusion is to become the default condition of design, it will be through a generation of designers who see diversity not as an exception to accommodate but as the foundation for innovation and with this spark, we may yet accelerate the shift toward an academic culture where designing for everyone is no longer aspirational, it is simply how design is done.
Acknowledgement
The authors thanks Hape Holding for sponsoring the studio and supporting the development of inclusive toy design projects. Sincere appreciation is extended to the students whose participation and feedback shaped the iterative refinement of the methodology. The authors also acknowledges ChildServe for their workshops and educational support, which contributed valuable insights to this work.
Open access
