Equity in and through transdisciplinary design research: Towards a pluriversal ethics of engagement for transcultural collaborations

Abstract

Transdisciplinary design research can embed equity in and through its collaborative approaches by genuinely engaging communities and stakeholders in the context of Global North–Global South projects. However, such approaches can fail to address inequities prior to engagement, undermining oppressed groups’ agency and limiting researchers’ capacity for authentic transcultural collaboration, thereby risking tokenistic interventions. This research note contributes to debates on how equitable collaborations and mutual learning can be (co)designed to tackle the re-enactment of oppression in and through design research. The study draws on semi-structured interviews with 11 researchers experienced in transdisciplinary design research within Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) projects to identify challenges and best practices in transcultural collaborative processes, alongside a purposive literature review spanning decolonial design, cultural studies, critical pedagogy, social justice, and philosophy. Our findings outline a future agenda underpinned by a pluriversal ethics of engagement, which entails considerations for co-designing equitable engagement and mutual learning.

Introduction

Global North–South collaborations have been promoted by UK funding schemes aimed at tackling global challenges. Within these, Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) projects have attempted to engage local communities and stakeholders in Global South contexts through transdisciplinary design research. Despite being well-intentioned, Global North–South projects entail complex relationality and political challenges that still need to be addressed to promote equitable collaboration and mutual learning.

In this context, this research note aims to contribute to an agenda for addressing inequity challenges posed by these transcultural projects (e.g. Baha and Singh, 2024; Mazé, 2021; Singh Rathore, 2025; Tunstall, 2013). This agenda requires transforming the way designers and design researchers design and do design research as a collective act (Rincón Quijano et al., 2024; Taboada et al., 2024; Tunstall, 2013) that respects, acknowledges, and values non-Western worldviews (Abdulla et al., 2019; Gutiérrez Borrero, 2021; Smith et al., 2024; Tunstall, 2013).

Failing to address underlying power asymmetries risks reproducing imperialist design ideologies and generating tokenistic collaborations in Global South contexts. This research note, therefore, focuses on how equitable, non-extractive collaborations and mutual learning can be co-designed to prevent such re-enactments. It thus examines key considerations necessary for achieving genuinely equitable North–South partnerships in transdisciplinary and transcultural design research.

To do so, we reflect on insights gained from interviews with UK-based researchers experienced in transdisciplinary design research in Global South contexts. These participatory projects sought to engage diverse communities and stakeholders, revealing challenges, best practices, and limitations in WASH engagement, as well as difficulties in facilitating collaboration across differing disciplinary and cultural backgrounds.

The interviews were part of the WASHable project (2020–2022), a UK Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC)-funded initiative. The project sought to build sustained transdisciplinary collaboration with Francophone and Lusophone countries in sub-Saharan Africa, particularly Angola and Cameroon. The project aimed to strengthen the contribution that arts and humanities research, specifically community engagement and participatory approaches, can make to WASH research. WASHable constituted the first community-based WASH research network in these regions.

The project had three overarching aims: to advance understanding of how Arts- and Humanities-led participatory and community engagement methods can address WASH challenges; to strengthen community engagement and participatory design capacity and capabilities in Lusophone and Francophone African countries; and to establish a sustained transdisciplinary network enabling African and UK researchers to co-design culturally sensitive, community-centred projects aimed at delivering safe WASH services for Africa. As part of developing this network and understanding best practices in participatory approaches, we conducted interviews with purposively selected UK-funded researchers experienced in participatory WASH projects in Global South contexts, excluding members of the WASHable team.

Design research in WASH contexts is often transdisciplinary as it requires broader, cross-sectoral collaborations. Transdisciplinarity has various definitions and practices in design research (Zaga et al., 2024). Here, we understand transdisciplinarity as collaboration extending beyond academia, for example, including also industry, public and not-for-profit sectors, practitioners, and citizens. While interdisciplinary research integrates diverse knowledge areas around a shared interest, multidisciplinary research brings together different disciplines to address a common challenge while focusing on advancing their respective fields.

The transdisciplinary character of Global North–South WASH projects makes participatory approaches essential. Yet participatory work within research through design remains underexamined, warranting greater attention in the research through design literature (Boon et al., 2020: 147). Therefore, this research note also addresses discussions on participatory design by examining transdisciplinary WASH research.

Our positionality

We acknowledge that our positionalities, one author from the Global South and the other from Southern Europe, both working in the United Kingdom, influence our research practices, the relations we form, and the biases we hold. This reflexive stance aligns with decolonial design (Baha and Singh, 2024; Noel, 2023; Singh Rathore, 2025; Tunstall, 2013) and social-justice-oriented (Levins Morales, 2019) phenomenological approaches, which emphasise recognising how lived experience influences an inquiry and its limitations.

Decolonising transdisciplinary design research for equity

Recognition of the need to decolonise design research for equity has increased over the past decade (Smith et al., 2024). Journals such as Diseña, which focuses on decolonising design (e.g. Ansari, 2024; Van Amstel, Freese Gonzatto and Noel, 2023; Van Amstel et al., 2022), and CoDesign (Smith et al., 2024) have significantly advanced this discourse by foregrounding decolonial perspectives. These highlight how Western epistemologies, universalising design methods, and the presumed transferability of Global North approaches to diverse contexts perpetuate inequity by reinforcing design’s universality.

In their Manifesto for Decolonising Design, Abdulla et al. (2019) argue that decolonising design for equity requires confronting the modern ideologies and institutional structures that reproduce colonial power over oppressed and marginalised peoples ‘in both the “developed” and “developing” world’ (Abdulla et al., 2019: 130). They explain that ‘to simply include a greater diversity of actors or perspectives’ (Abdulla et al., 2019: 130) is not enough; instead, transforming the Western ontological foundations that sustain power asymmetries, othering non-Anglo-European communities, and constraining their agency is imperative.

The othering of non-Western peoples emerges from colonial projects that denied the legitimacy of diverse ways of being, knowing, and living. Hall conceptualises the ‘Western’ or ‘modern’ not as a geographical location but as an ideology that privileges specific models of progress and rationality arising from post-feudal European histories. Western ideology defined a ‘system of global power relations’ and ‘a whole way of thinking and speaking’ (Hall 2019: 143). In Western discourse, knowledge is defined by power as ‘values shape all descriptions of the social world; therefore, most of our statements, however factual, have an ideological dimension’ (Hall 2019: 157). Hence, power rather than facts about reality makes things ‘true’ (Hall 2019: 157). Such discourse relies on binary oppositions that oversimplify difference and produce otherness, dehumanising non-Western peoples (Ferreira da Silva, 2015; Hall, 2019).

Freire (1973) argues that dehumanisation occurs within oppressive relations that arise when individuals lose their capacity to choose, becoming governed by externally prescribed decisions. The absence of critical agency prevents participation in cultural creation and social transformation, rendering people ‘adjusted’ and ‘domesticated’ (Freire, 1973: 8). These processes generate ‘hopelessness’ and ‘fear’ (Freire, 1973: 8), reducing the oppressed to objects rather than active subjects of societal change (Freire, 1973: 5) and prevent mutual learning (Freire, 1970). Hence, mutual learning arises from the liberation of oppression when people are free to exercise their critical agency in an equitable dialogue.

Colonial legacies persist beyond formal independence through Western imperialism, manifesting as economic exploitation, indirect control, dehumanisation, and othering (Ferreira da Silva, 2015; Hall, 2019; Tunstall, 2013) that continue to shape design research and practice (Abdulla et al., 2019; Gutiérrez Borrero, 2021; Mazé, 2021; Smith et al., 2024; Tunstall, 2013). Addressing imperialism in transdisciplinary design research requires recognising design otherwise by valuing non-Western creative traditions and capabilities as a foundation for equitable Global North–Global South collaboration and mutual learning (Mazé, 2021; Singh Rathore, 2025; Tunstall, 2013).

In this sense, decolonial design scholars have been challenging Western approaches in transdisciplinary design research through design research methodologies (Tunstall, 2013; Winschiers-Theophilus et al., 2025), methods (Baha and Singh, 2024; Noel, 2023; Singh Rathore, 2025), and reflecting on the need for alternatives to (Western) design that respect other peoples’ creative traditions (Gutiérrez Borrero, 2021; Singh Rathore, 2025; Tunstall, 2013) which are excluded and cannot fit in or exist in Western design.

Although future-oriented and utopian perspectives can act as catalysts for social equity (Carey, 2024; Noel, 2023), recognising the significance of the past and the present (and their implications for future(s)), especially those erased within Western worldviews, is essential for countering coloniality in design research and practice (Baha and Singh, 2024; Gutiérrez Borrero, 2021; Mazé, 2021; Singh Rathore, 2025; Tunstall, 2013; Winschiers-Theophilus et al., 2025). We expand on the latter, focusing on Global North–Global South transcultural collaborations.

Gutiérrez Borrero (2021) explains that the Global North–South dichotomy oversimplifies cultural complexity and obscures the plurality of the South, which cannot be translated into the English language and its meanings, marginalising other design cultures through linguistic generalisation and concealing sustainable ways of living and designing. Decolonising design, therefore, requires alternatives to design, recognising indigenous practices on their own terms, rather than alternative designs (Gutiérrez Borrero, 2021). Other decolonial design scholars argue for design otherwise, emphasising the need to recognise and integrate diverse worldviews, values, and methodologies (Abdulla et al., 2019; Baha and Singh, 2024; Singh Rathore, 2025; Smith et al., 2024; Tunstall, 2013; Winschiers-Theophilus et al., 2025).

Advancing these agendas requires shifting from safe to brave spaces as the idea of safety removes difficulty and discomfort inherent to thorny social justice and diversity topics and does not enable the choice of oppressed peoples of how they want to confront the topic; in this way, it re-enacts privilege and oppressive relations in itself rather than dismantling it (Arao and Clemens, 2013).

Design innovation for social impact can reproduce imperialist dynamics in Global North–Global South collaborations, as Tunstall (2013) notices. Tunstall (2013) explains that the Western design thinking framework positions Global North designers as process leaders, relegating Global South partners to guided recipients under a ‘capacity building’ intention. This marginalises local knowledge and creative traditions, reinforcing power imbalance. In response, Tunstall proposes design anthropology as a methodology, grounded in the theory of transculturation, to support decolonising design innovation by recognising the negotiated and unequal conditions of cultural exchange. Central to Tunstall’s approach is cultivating compassion through respectful design, acknowledging the intrinsic dignity of all living beings, and establishing ‘clear principles of respectful engagement with people’s values, the translation of them through processes of inclusive codesign, and the evaluation of their effects on people’s experiences from the perspective of the most vulnerable’ (Tunstall, 2013: 246).

Mazé (2021) also addresses the politics of design dynamics by analysing the Violence Prevention through Urban Upgrading project in Cape Town’s 2014 World Design Capital, problematising its neoliberal, Western design foundations. This framework is ill-suited to deeply unequal South African contexts and constrains genuine bottom-up decision-making. Hence, participatory and co-design processes utilised inadequately represent local communities, reproducing power imbalances, generating conflict, undermining community cohesion, and failing to recognise the sociohistorical stigma faced by indigenous peoples and their lived experiences (Mazé, 2021).

In this sense, design can be understood as a language comprising tools, practices, and relational processes that require decolonisation to enable authentic local engagement (Singh Rathore, 2025). In the context of Mexico–United States migration, Singh Rathore (2025) uses faldas (skirts) as a storytelling canvas in Mexico, arguing that local cultural practices support genuine expression of indigenous experiences and strengthen participant agency. Singh Rathore’s methodology includes an acclimation phase that familiarises researchers with local cultures before prototyping, fostering more equitable and contextually grounded design processes.

Baha and Singh (2024) critique the Global North–South dichotomy in decolonising transcultural design collaborations, arguing that it oversimplifies contexts and fosters tokenistic practices that restrict mutual learning. Analysing energy-poor contexts, they argue that the deeper challenge lies in pervasive colonial and neoliberal ideologies that shape design practices globally. Hence, advancing equitable collaboration requires unlearning dominant Western assumptions and recognising Global South worldviews, including creative adaptations of Western technologies (Baha and Singh, 2024).

Furthermore, Participatory Design should avoid extractive inclusion of Global South approaches and traditions and instead contribute to ‘emancipation, liberation and independence of the oppressed people’, departing from its political position within the decolonising movement (Winschiers-Theophilus et al., 2025: 128). Winschiers-Theophilus et al. (2025) define four strands of decoloniality in Participatory Design: anticolonial, postcolonial, decolonial, and pluriversal, each shaped by distinct historical and political orientations. Anticolonial approaches align with social justice activism, while postcolonial critiques address the persistence of Western ideologies after formal independence. Decolonial perspectives conceptualise coloniality as an enduring structural condition and foreground the complex conviviality among diverse peoples and dominant groups. The pluriversal strand draws on the Zapatista principle of ‘a world where many worlds fit’, emphasising relational ecologies.

Methodology

We adopted a qualitative, interpretative, and phenomenological approach aimed at naturalistic generalisation, where the readers associate their experiences with the cases being told, adding, subtracting, and reshaping the knowledge ‘in ways that leave it differently connected and more likely to be personally useful’ (Stake, 2000: 442-443). We detail our purposive literature review and semi-structured interviews in the following sub-sections.

Literature review approach

Our literature review followed a purposive selection strategy rather than a systematic scoping review, given our focus on specific conceptual domains. We selected literature from the following  areas: design studies concerned with decolonisation and equity, particularly decolonial and participatory design scholarship focusing on Global North–South inequity issues; cultural studies, critical pedagogy, social justice, and philosophy addressing power relations and historical devaluation of non-Western peoples. Sources were identified through database searches, citation tracking, and author expertise. This approach enabled us to draw on established theoretical frameworks while remaining responsive to emerging scholarship in these rapidly developing fields.

Interview design and interviewee selection

The interviews were conducted as part of the WASHable project’s first phase, which aimed to map participatory approaches and community engagement practices in WASH-related research. We employed purposive sampling to recruit researchers with direct experience of conducting participatory design research in Global South contexts through UK-funded projects.

Participants were selected based on (1) having led or co-led UK Research and Innovation (UKRI)-funded projects employing participatory or community engagement methods; (2) having conducted research in Global South contexts, particularly sub-Saharan Africa or South/Southeast Asia; and (3) representing diverse disciplinary backgrounds relevant to transdisciplinary WASH research.

Interviewee demographics and collaborating communities

We interviewed 11 researchers (coded Participant A through K) between May and June 2021. All participants were based at UK higher education institutions at the time of interview. Academic positions ranged from Research Associate to Professor, representing varied levels of experience in transdisciplinary research. Table 1 details the demographics of our interviewees.

Table 1.

Interviewees.

Code	Role/position	Disciplinary background	Project contexts
Interviewee A	Lecturer	Environmental Sciences	Sub-Saharan Africa
Interviewee B	Senior Lecturer	Design	Sub-Saharan Africa
Interviewee C	Research Fellow	Global Sustainability	Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia
Interviewee D	Associate Professor	International Health	Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia
Interviewee E	Professor	Medical Anthropology	Sub-Saharan Africa
Interviewee F	Professor	Mental Health	South Asia
Interviewee G	Associate Professor	Built Environment	Southeast Asia
Interviewee H	Lecturer	Electronic Engineering	Sub-Saharan Africa
Interviewee I	Senior Research Fellow	Architecture/Built Environment	Sub-Saharan Africa
Interviewee J	Senior Lecturer	Architecture/Planning	Sub-Saharan Africa
Interviewee K	Research Associate	Environmental Sciences	Sub-Saharan Africa

The projects discussed were conducted with communities across Africa and Asia, predominantly in sub-Saharan Africa (including Ghana, Nigeria, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe) and Southeast Asia (including Malaysia, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Nepal, and India). Research participants in these projects included diverse groups, such as NGO representatives, low-income communities, urban informal settlement residents, peri-urban and rural populations, farmers, older adults, internal migrants, indigenous communities, and refugees.

Data collection procedure

Semi-structured interviews were conducted online via video conferencing (Zoom/Teams) between May and June 2021, lasting 20–30 minutes each. Interviews followed a topic guide covering: project context and aims; communities and stakeholders engaged; participatory methods employed; best practices challenges encountered; and lessons learned. We used collaborative online boards (Miro) during interviews to visually map project contexts, methods, and outcomes (see Figure 1). This visual mapping approach supported real-time documentation and enabled participants to clarify and elaborate on their responses.

Figure 1.

Example of online boards utilised for data collection.

Data analysis

Interview data were analysed using thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006). First, interview notes and Miro board contents were reviewed to familiarise with the data. Second, we conducted a cross-case analysis, systematically comparing responses across the interview topics to identify recurring patterns (Figures 2 and 3). Third, we generated initial codes relating to community engagement challenges, effective practices, and equity barriers. Fourth, codes were reviewed and organised into themes through iterative discussion between the authors.

Figure 2.

Review and initial cross-analysis of best practices.

Figure 3.

Review and initial cross-analysis of engagement challenges.

This analytical approach aligns with research through design’s emphasis on iterative reflection and knowledge generation through practice-based inquiry (Krogh and Koskinen, 2022). Rather than seeking statistical generalisability, our analysis aimed to surface transferable insights that could inform equity-conscious approaches to transdisciplinary design research.

Community engagement and participatory methods in WASH

This section synthesises our interpretation of interviewees’ views as accurately as possible. Our account is necessarily partial, as it reflects discussions shaped by our questions and relies on notes recorded by both researchers and participants using the online templates. It provides an overview rather than a detailed account, aligning with the interviews’ aim of identifying engagement challenges and best practices, and considering the limited time available in each session, which constrained the ability to expand on the topics.

Collaborative design approaches were used to engage diverse groups with local WASH challenges, supporting understanding of local contexts and challenges, and evaluation of proposed interventions. Interviewees described numerous creative methods, including oral storytelling, participatory and co-created videos, future-envisioning activities, dance, mandalas, murals, poetry, songs, theatre, children’s puppetry, and workshops for stakeholder mapping, water-system mapping (utilising community-produced pictures), and co-creation. Additionally, conversations were used as a means of engagement and mutual learning. Informal conversations paved the way for formal meetings. Community dialogues and focus groups were also employed in this context.

Mixed methods were also used. For example, quantitative methods, such as future scenario modelling of water and weather by natural scientists, were combined with qualitative methods, such as institutional mapping (stakeholder mapping) and participatory mapping, to identify sources of water, water use, and WASH behaviour.

Challenges of community engagement

The challenge areas in community engagement identified through our interviews are summarised below.

Bringing people from different knowledge areas and backgrounds together to tackle WASH problems required careful management of different perspectives, research approaches, and methods throughout project development, as teams comprise people with very different epistemological positions.

Negative prior experiences of local communities with research projects affected research by hampering trust and relationship-building with local communities, and requiring more dedicated efforts from researchers to mitigate this impact.

Western methods were unsuitable for fostering the active participation of disadvantaged groups in the sociocultural contexts of the projects. For instance, researchers noted that playful methods that often work in Global North contexts (e.g. theatre, icebreaking) were not effective at tackling power imbalances related to social class and sociocultural biases (e.g. gender and work relations in organisations). We expand on challenges related to sociocultural values that influenced the active engagement in the activities and decision-making processes.

Interviewees highlighted sociocultural barriers affecting participation, particularly gendered norms that marginalised women’s participation in activities and decision-making, despite their central roles in daily WASH practices. A female researcher also reported challenges working in contexts where women face structural oppression. Religious beliefs further shaped engagement, with some participants adopting a passive stance, described as a ‘God will decide’ attitude, which limited active participation in project activities.

Communication challenges, such as variations in language, vocabulary, and meanings, were also reported. These often led to divergent interpretations of the same terms. Interviewees also noted that WASH projects usually operate as one-year pilots, making it difficult to develop community engagement approaches that are both scalable and sustainable within such limited timeframes, presenting a persistent challenge across initiatives.

Additional challenges were identified, including the wide geographical distribution of communities and difficulties screening volunteers, particularly where unemployment influenced levels of commitment. Interviewees also mentioned challenges related to internal community dynamics, the inability to conduct in-person engagement during COVID-19, limited technological access in Global South settings, the attentive management of stakeholder and community expectations, and constraints on facilitators’ capacity to communicate complex topics clearly to diverse audiences.

Best practices

Researchers also shared best practices that helped with the challenges mentioned, including potential ways to address threats to the active participation of disadvantaged groups and key stakeholders engaged in their projects. We explain these as follows.

Interviewees described best practices that responded to the unsuitability of Western approaches and methods. This involved learning from Global South partners, for instance, with the adoption of integrated project approaches that allow for improvisation instead of rigid Global North work-package structures. Successful engagement in WASH-related projects was described as dependent on researchers or programme managers who act as activists, working across disciplines with a genuine interest, and investing in long-term trust-building with local communities by spending time with them, showing curiosity and care for community problems.

Countering coloniality, interviewees also emphasised the importance of adapting technologies to local contexts, developing culturally appropriate methods, language, and vocabulary, and ensuring accessible and engaging content for different audiences. Involving motivated and committed partners and community members and recognising everyone’s contribution were further identified as essential for strengthening participation and supporting more equitable collaborative processes.

Interviewees further emphasised essential trust-building aspects for effective community engagement. They highlighted the need to invest time in planning methods that foster positive relationships with local communities and stakeholders, noting that mutual trust enables deeper collaboration. Interviewees also stressed the importance of communicating and advocating community needs to decision-makers, sharing research findings with communities, and adopting an activist stance that prioritises community needs and wellbeing.

Researchers addressed sociocultural challenges in community engagement utilising varied strategies. The importance of involving local researchers and community ambassadors, whose knowledge and relationships facilitated meaningful participation, was highlighted. Establishing regular conversations with local people was described as vital for understanding contextual dynamics. Researchers also highlighted the need to collaborate with different community members to co-develop appropriate methods and outputs, ensuring that diverse age and gender groups were actively included. Adapting community engagement and participatory methods to make participants feel comfortable expressing their ideas, particularly in contexts where power relations and social hierarchies influenced interactions, was a strategy included in the activity plan to address power imbalances. Finally, interviewees stressed the value of researchers’ openness and willingness to learn from communities.

Several practices were considered key to establishing effective communication in WASH projects. Interviewees mentioned the importance of involving local researchers and community ambassadors, whose knowledge helped develop a shared understanding. The use of visual tools, such as pictures and images, helped to build a shared language and vocabulary, while storytelling and narrative techniques helped explain data in more accessible ways. Co-creating community-based solutions through dialogue and creative methods, including participatory video, games, and quizzes, was also considered a valuable way of making information accessible. Adapting communication style and content to the needs of different audiences was also considered essential, as expectations varied across NGOs, ministries, and community groups. Active listening was further described as central to fostering meaningful engagement.

Towards a pluriversal ethics of engagement for transcultural collaborations

Differences in research, cultural, and socioeconomic backgrounds in Global South contexts become evident during engagement fieldwork, reflecting the dominance of Western design traditions and worldviews in transdisciplinary design research, as recognised in the decolonial design literature approached in this research note. To advance equity, these Global North–Global South projects should critically examine how Western frameworks shape engagement, thereby limiting authentic local participation in Global South contexts.

The interviews revealed efforts in tackling coloniality and inequity by investing time in communities, adopting a locally integrated project approach, and practising active listening. Researchers adapted and co-developed methods, language, and technologies to align with Global South contexts, fostering culturally appropriated practices that countered the limitations of Western design methodologies and methods.

In respecting interviewees’ time and focusing our inquiry on identifying best practices and engagement challenges in Global South settings, we did not extend the interviews to examine further the ethical dimensions underpinning these practices. Hence, the findings offer an overview of challenges and best practices based on researchers’ accounts, which inform a future research agenda. Therefore, our discussion focuses on considerations for advancing equitable collaborations and mutual learning (Freire, 1970, 1973), drawing on this initial dataset and our literature review. We argue that developing a pluriversal ethics of engagement is essential moving forward, serving as a foundational principle that entails, but is not limited to, the considerations outlined below.

Creating conditions for brave spaces

Rather than a brave space that can support difficult and honest conversations on challenging and sensitive topics, recommendations focus on providing research participants with a safe space. This can lead to the re-enactment of oppressive relations (Arao and Clemens, 2013), producing tokenistic interventions (Baha and Singh, 2024; Mazé, 2021; Tunstall 2013) by failing to recognise the silenced political aspects of these local contexts. Hence, addressing thorny topics entails creating conditions for brave spaces that can also help identify and honestly address contextual power imbalances that would not arise in a safe space.

Addressing the politics of design research

Addressing design politics in transcultural collaborations requires more than including Global South researchers; it demands prior recognition of sociocultural differences, local design capabilities, and political contexts to prevent inequitable dynamics. Without this groundwork, transdisciplinary projects risk reproducing imperialist design practices, as noted in critiques of Western-centred methodologies that overlook locally embedded forms of knowledge and agency (Abdulla et al., 2019; Mazé, 2021; Tunstall, 2013).

Co-designing ground rules for engagement with local creative cultures and capabilities

Interviews highlighted the importance of openness, care, and genuine interest from Global North researchers in Global South values, creative traditions, and design capabilities. Such commitments underpin culturally sensitive methods and the adoption of Southern approaches. Scholars emphasise that equitable transcultural collaboration requires recognising and valuing non-Western cultures and creative practices (Gutiérrez Borrero, 2021; Singh Rathore, 2025; Tunstall, 2013). Tunstall’s principles in design anthropology are particularly illuminating, especially her emphasis on negotiating ground rules for engagement and analysing what may be gained, lost, or newly created through transcultural exchanges. Complementing this, concerns about extractivism (Winschiers-Theophilus et al., 2025) underline the need to address unequal conditions and ensure reciprocity. Together, these insights point to the value of co-designing pluriversal ethics of engagement that meaningfully respond to diverse cultural contexts.

Learning local values, creative cultures, and capabilities

Although researchers emphasised learning from Global South partners through active listening, trust-building, and long-term engagement, many transdisciplinary design projects operate as short one-year pilots, limiting opportunities for a pre-design phase that familiarises researchers with local values and cultures. Singh Rathore (2025) proposal of an acclimation phase offers a constructive means of informing the co-design of pluriversal ethics of engagement by grounding collaboration in contextual understanding. Time invested in relationship-building must also avoid extractive practices, ensuring that communities benefit according to their own values and that social cohesion is preserved, as highlighted by Tunstall (2013) and Mazé (2021). Developing equitable collaborations and mutual learning, therefore, requires researchers’ genuine interest in understanding local traditions and capabilities, rather than relying on externally driven design logics.

Language and vocabulary

Recognising all contributors emerged as a best practice. We argue that researchers should authentically value Global South contributions by acknowledging the diversity of Southern creative cultures (Singh Rathore, 2025; Tunstall, 2013) and language in their own terms as advocated by Gutiérrez Borrero (2021). This requires developing pluriversal vocabularies that do not impose shared meanings but instead create space for Global South partners to influence paradigm shifts in design research. Such vocabularies would enable communities to participate meaningfully in shaping transformative approaches rather than being positioned within externally defined frameworks.

We do not exhaust the considerations for creating a pluriversal ethics of engagement for equitable collaborations and mutual learning in transcultural projects. Rather, we aim to contribute to ongoing debates on equity in design research. Advancing this work requires those shaped by colonised design education, research, and practice to be open to respectfully and courageously exploring what remains unseen with those rendered invisible within Western design research and practice.

Limitations

We identified the following limitations that should be acknowledged when interpreting our findings.

We recognise that our positionality, shaped by Western design education and practice, influenced the study. As our interview questions did not articulate engagement ethics, our ‘best practice’ framing elicited Western-oriented responses, as our questions did not specifically approach the political dimensions underlying these interventions.

Our UK-based interview sample brings insights into equity through Global North perspectives. While these researchers have extensive experience working with Global South communities and partners, their accounts necessarily reflect their positionality as external researchers rather than the lived experiences of community members or Global South-based researchers themselves. Future research should centre Global South researchers and community participants to provide a more complete picture of equity challenges in transdisciplinary design research. Moreover, our purposive sampling included only UK-funded researchers within our networks, potentially excluding those with different experiences or those outside formal funding structures and contexts.

The interviews were conducted in 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic, which limited in-person opportunities and may have influenced interviewees’ reflections on community engagement challenges. Additionally, the relatively brief interview duration (20–30 minutes) constrained the depth of exploration possible for each topic.

Although visual mapping supported factual accuracy and interviewees had the link to access the online board with their replies, the absence of member-checking or supplementary triangulation limits the verification and robustness of our interpretations.