Conference Agenda

The use of ‘live’ briefs and project-based learning models have been widely adopted in design education and are often presented “as best practices in design education” (Noel, 2021:256). DiSalvo (2021) warns us that the uncritical application of design methods to address societal issues risks “reproducing and re-asserting structures of power over [the] communities we work with” (Potter et al., 2025: 2). This conversation seeks to bring together design educators and researchers to discuss the risk of extractive pedagogies in such learning models and explore how these risks might be managed. In particular, it will ask: Can ‘live’ student projects deliver true reciprocity with the communities with whom they partner?

‘Ethical regime’, a concept introduced by Radin and Kowal (2015) within that scholarship, articulates that underpinning supposedly ‘universal’ ethical principles there are specifically and historically situated moral, political and economic stakes. Examples of ethical regimes include US and Australian scientific research ethics with roots in post-war responses to the atrocities of Nazi science and other infamous medical experiments. Importantly, they highlight ethical regimes critical of Western research, for example alternatives emerging since the 1980s from pan-indigenous rights movements in Australia.

Alternative ethical regimes are also evolving elsewhere, with notable examples including frameworks for research involving indigenous peoples and/or their land. For example, in New Zealand, ‘Te Ara Tika’ is well-recognized (despite uneven progress, Smith 2021). Canadian examples are seen as possible models across Sápmi (Drugge 2016) - while the Nordic countries have various stringent and advanced ethical research guidelines, the Sami perspectives is missing. While the UN-backed principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) is widespread, it has never been ratified in countries such as Brazil and Colombia (but can be part of challenges brought by the indigenous peoples’ organization APIB to the International Criminal Court in the Hague).

Design researchers have engaged critically and creatively with ethical regimes. Critical studies trace design within medical science ethics abuses of colonial subjects and women (e.g. Prado 2015). This conversation will engage critically and creatively with diverse ‘ethical regimes’, specifically our universities’ ethical regulation of research in relation to principles developed with/within indigenous contexts.

As design researchers increasingly adopt generative AI tools across the research lifecycle, questions about when and how to trust these tools have become increasingly urgent to explore and address. From planning studies and generating tasks to analysing qualitative data and communicating findings, AI systems are now integrated into many aspects of design research work. However, these tools are frequently used based more on institutional demands, tool availability, and efficiency perceptions rather than on clear methodological or ethical considerations. This Conversation explores trust as a context-dependent judgment influenced by specific situations, tasks, and associated risks.

Although concerns about AI's reliability and ethics are valid, the increasing interest in these tools is understandable. Many researchers are drawn to AI for its ability to streamline labour-intensive tasks, accelerate workflows, generate new insights, or support accessibility. For instance, transcription tools, automated tagging, and language generation systems are already embedded in research workflows and often seen as low-risk or beneficial. These perceived strengths raise important questions: What value do these tools offer? Under what conditions are they helpful? And when might apparent benefits obscure potential risks?

This Conversation invites participants to examine how trust in AI is experienced, questioned, or withheld across the design research process. Rather than assuming AI tools either clearly belong in research practice or should be rejected outright, we ask where, when, and under what conditions they can play a role, and where they should not.