PHILOSOPHY & CHALLENGES OF INCLUSIVITY
- Kirsty Gardner
- Mar 20
- 7 min read
Updated: Apr 30
The highlights (TL;DR)
Evolution explains why people feel happier and find it easier to be part of homogenous groups.
Research informs us diverse teams deliver better project outcomes than homogenous teams.
For diversity and inclusion to succeed, DEIB initiatives need to be inclusive for all, not just those who are disadvantaged, whilst also acknowledging our personal privileges.
Critical-thinking and curiosity are the most valuable skills for developing empathy and understanding alternative perspectives; To facilitate real & valuable inclusivity.
INTRODUCTION: HUMAN RESISTANCE
One of my favourite quotes comes from one of the most unlikely of sources: a woman on a first date.
The date turned into a disaster, despite the guy apparently fulfilling the woman's long-list of predefined “criteria”. As she disappears to the restaurant bathroom, calling her friend to share how it's all gone horribly wrong, she blurts out; “He’s like a really wanky version of me.”
The scenario perfectly summarise how our default patterns to seek people ‘like us’ can so easily fail us.
Before we are able to consider the design element of inclusive design, there is first a need to explore the reasoning behind inclusivity and diversity in real life. Without diversity, our world becomes as inclusive as a frat'-party; fun for the odd occasion perhaps yet probably unsustainable without causing damage and an unhealthy perspective in the long-run. And yet (much as a pendulum swings from one side to another before it can find a suitable place to rest), in today's world observing recent global affairs and changing policies, it's starkly clear that the words “diversity” and “inclusion” are interpreted as unwelcome language for some. For this cohort, there is a belief commercial success suffers in the name of hiring less-talented individuals, where excuses are made all for the sake of "diversity".
One example of diversity can be found in the benefits of financial diversification. An investment strategy theory which many people readily accept, embrace, and can often leave people feeling empowered when understood and put into practice. Research reveals our comfort with team diversity however can be far more challenging, even if the benefits reveal rather similar patterns.
If the thought of engaging in a diverse team makes you feel awkward or uncomfortable, don’t worry, you’re not alone.
Although studies have repeatedly revealed diverse teams to be more productive and successful, paradoxically, similar studies also observe we typically feel happier and more comfortable in homogenous social environments. It’s understandable and not particularly surprising perhaps. If we’re surrounded by people who share our experiences, values, and beliefs, everyone seems to agree with our perspective; what’s not to like about that, right?
However, research is also clear that diverse collaboration can be far more innovative and successful, provided we’re willing to explore and respect conflicting opinions. Unfortunately, as we progress through life, our curiosity often declines; we assume we already know what we need to know, which can often prevent us from learning and embracing new perspectives.
Defining inclusivity through its philosophy
The critical point is that diversity and inclusivity apply to everyone.
Inclusivity fails the loudest when it’s approached as an apology or a patronising effort to somehow accommodate "the others.” Unfortunately, this can sometimes be how the concept of DEIB (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging) gets misunderstood.
For DEIB initiatives to be fair and successful they can’t be defined exclusively as able-bodied people making considerations for those with disabilities, men making allowances for women, heterosexuals considering the LGBTQ+ community, or Caucasians considering racial minority groups. Successful inclusivity is a wide network of everyone considering and welcoming everyone else; By respecting alternative perspectives and backgrounds, we exist in harmony. Yet such an objective does not begin from an even playing field. Inclusive initiatives cannot succeed unless we are prepared to acknowledge each individual starts from a different degree of privilege. Similarly, is it fair to judge others purely for having, or not-having privilege, as determined by a culture that has previously existed?
Personally, I’m curious and inspired by people’s differences. Online, I intentionally follow a significant number of perspectives and values I fundamentally disagree with, or reference topics which hold little personal resonance for me. Admittedly, it’s not always comfortable, but, I highly recommend it to develop critical thinking and mitigate being drawn into an algorithmic echo chamber of bias. Tolerating, acknowledging and listening to a broader audience can help understand other people’s perspectives and support positive sustainable outcomes.
These are the core foundations of inclusive design.
Bridging differences through critical thinking
If you’ve ever found yourself silently screaming, “How can they not see how wrong they are?” when confronted with someone else’s moral beliefs, it may help to explore how moral beliefs are formed.
Our morality is shaped by our personal experiences: the culture we’re raised in, the repetitive messages we hear, the lessons we learn from cause-and-effect, and how the external world responds to our individual reactions. This complex network of experiences is tightly woven into our belief systems and entirely unique to each individual.
If our life experiences differ greatly (or even slightly), it’s natural that our everyday moralities may also differ; there is no universal “better” or “worse,” “right” or “wrong.” There are simply people with different experiences, which shape different opinions, values, and beliefs.
If you’re curious to dig deeper into how morality is shaped, you might be interested to explore the following:
1. Haidt (2008) The Moral Roots of Liberals and Conservatives (TED Talk, 18m)
2. Harris (2010) Science Can Answer Moral Questions (TED Talk, 23m)
3. Bloom (2015) The Origins of Morality: How Biology and Culture Shape Us (Lecture, 1h04m)
4. Westacott (2018) Would You Kill One Person to Save Five? (article)
Applying different ways of thinking
Consider two colleagues who approach challenges in completely different ways.
One person lives by a philosophy of convenience and efficiency, often quoting Bill Gates; "I choose a lazy person to do a hard job, because a lazy person will find an easy way to do it.”. They will often seek the quickest, least labour-intensive solutions because effort seems unnecessary. Meanwhile, the other colleague thrives on the benefits and joys of the process itself, more so than the destination. They embrace each step as an opportunity for growth, learning and reflection to enable creativity in future projects. At first glance, especially to the individuals themselves, it may seem one approach must be “right” and the other “wrong”, yet, when these two work together, their contrasting perspectives lead to more creative problem-solving and better outcomes than either would have achieved alone.
The so-called “lazy” mindset can spur innovative shortcuts and streamlined processes, while a more exploratory approach can uncover deeper insights and ensure quality sustainable outcomes. Although the differences between these two styles may cause frustrations at times, they also highlight how respecting alternative viewpoints fosters a richer, more effective collaboration. Ultimately, “different” is not inherently “wrong”; rather, it is an invitation to discover new methods, balance competing priorities, and reach solutions that benefit from a wider range of experiences.
Applying these insights to work and design
If we accept that different perspectives lead to better outcomes, acknowledge our natural inclination to socialise with those similar to us, and respect that a “different” opinion is not necessarily “wrong,” how can we apply this thinking to our work, and specifically to design?
Improving inclusivity, whether among teams or within our technologies, depends on expanding our knowledge, broadening our experiences, and challenging our biases. When we do this, we are more likely to design products, services, and policies that are genuinely inclusive and sustainable.
In the words of philosopher and writer, William Hazlitt: “Prejudice is the child of ignorance".
UP NEXT
Following on these thoughts, I explore how overlooking inclusive design has previously raised challenges that we can either learn from or watch magnify in our evolving era of AI/ML.
Ultimately, humans, and the systems we create, learn by examples and experiences; So will people continue to design technology for people, or will we allow technology to shape and design us?
References
Bloom, P. (2015). The origins of morality: How biology and culture shape us [Lecture, 1h04m].
Brun, Y., & Meliou, A. (2018, October). Software fairness. In Proceedings of the 2018 26th ACM joint meeting on European software engineering conference and symposium on the foundations of software engineering (pp. 754–759). https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3236024.3264838
Crisp, R. J., & Turner, R. N. (2011). Cognitive adaptation to the experience of social and cultural diversity. Psychological Bulletin, 137(2), 242–266.
Haidt, J. (2008). The moral roots of liberals and conservatives [TED Talk, 18m].
Harford, T. (2016). Messy: The power of disorder to transform our lives. Riverhead Books.
Harris, S. (2010). Science can answer moral questions [TED Talk, 23m].
Furnham, A. (2008) Personality and Intelligence at Work. Routledge.
Johansson, F., & Hastwell, C. (2023). Why diverse and inclusive teams are the engines of innovation. Great Place to Work. https://www.greatplacetowork.com
Kovaleva, Y., Happonen, A., & Kindsiko, E. (2022). Designing gender-neutral software engineering programs: Stereotypes, social pressure, and current attitudes based on recent studies. In Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Gender Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion in Software Engineering (pp. 43–50). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3524501.3527600
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444.
Page, S. E. (2007). The difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies. Princeton University Press.
Rock, D., Grant, H., & Grey, J. (2016). Diverse teams feel less comfortable, that’s why they perform better. Harvard Business Review, 22 September. https://hbr.org
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.
Westacott, E. (2018). Would you kill one person to save five? [Article].
Zhang, J. M., & Harman, M. (2021). “Ignorance and prejudice” in software fairness. 2021 IEEE/ACM 43rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), 1436–1447. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9402057
