Erica Dorn and Sofía Bosch Gómez argue that citizen disillusionment with democratic systems presents designers with an important opportunity. Moving beyond digital interfaces, relational design reimagines governance by prioritising equity, legitimacy, and collective care. Designers help shape who belongs, who decides, and the potential in participatory, inclusive, and systemic interventions
As design scholars, we examine how relational design practices can catalyse more active and participatory governance systems. Our research, presented in the Workshop Paradigms of Democracy Research at the 2025 ECPR Joint Sessions in Prague, explores how relational design can transform democratic governance.
Here, we share key ideas from a matrix and typology of participatory design approaches that we developed. We also offer examples of how designers are engaging with governance beyond the digital realm.
Design has long shaped how people interact with government, from the layout of ballots and bureaucratic forms to the urban planning of public spaces. Yet only in the past two decades has the design profession been explicitly integrated into governance as a strategic, participatory practice. This role, however, is often narrowly defined. Typically, it focuses on the improvement of digital services, especially through User Experience/User Interface (UX/UI) approaches in digital government spaces. Only in the past two decades has the design profession been explicitly integrated into governance as a strategic, participatory practice.
Dominant design innovation still often prioritises speed and simplicity, neglecting relational complexity
Design must move beyond the logic of the interface to reimagine the relational infrastructures that make governance possible.
Design has helped shake up institutional foundations without attending to the deeper democratic work of rebuilding legitimacy, equity, and trust. The power of design rests in its capacity to reimagine governance infrastructures through cross-sectoral, and often community-led engagements. Exploring non-digital applications of design in governance, we aim to surface the slower, more participatory, and systemic work of relational design. By so doing, we hope to rebuild civic capacity.
To help make sense of the broader relational design terrain, we developed a matrix that maps how five design approaches contribute to relational forms of governance. These practices help reframe design not just as a problem-solving method, but as a tool for shaping public life. Our matrix defines who belongs, who decides, and what futures are possible.
| Artefacts and everyday experiences | Participation and deliberation | Alternative governance models | Policymaking and implementation | Institutional transformation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ontological design Shaping ways of being and knowing | Civic metaphors (citizen as steward); reframing institutional narratives | Value mapping workshops; participatory inquiries into civic assumptions | Indigenous governance systems; pluriversal governance principles | Reframing public categories (defining safety as care) | Paradigm-shifting frameworks (Buen Vivir) |
| UX design Improving interfaces for access | Interactive visualisations of voting data; public service signage | Town halls and civic forums with optimised accessibility | Voting innovations (rank choice voting) | Real-time polling interfaces; simplified benefits portals | Plain-language initiatives in public forums |
| Service design Structuring holistic public encounters | Civic engagement toolkits; in-person case clinics; public service journey maps | Resident-led governance panels co-design workshops | Participatory budgeting with structure facilitation; (Bus Rapid Transit co-design) | Public benefit pilots; co-created service charters (Veterans' Affairs) | Behavioural nudges in regulatory forms; Portland charter reform via participatory design |
| Speculative design Imagining democratic futures | Embodied planning simulations; artefacts from future scenarios (climate adaptation roleplays) | Distributed public deliberation; provocation-based workshops (future council assemblies) | Community Bills of Rights; 'What if?' governance prototypes | Backcasting from preferred futures | Speculative constitutions; future scenario workshops for democracy |
| Systems transition Design reconfiguring systems over the longue durée | Decentralised service maps; templates for transition roadmaps; system archetypes | Institutional engagement frameworks; citizen assemblies; multi-level actor convenings | Bioregional governance structures (tribal sovereignty, land trusts) | Multi-stakeholder policy labs; systems of feedback and iteration | Long-term transformation blueprints for public institutions; circular economy governance |
As the chart details, design for governance can and, we argue, must engage the interplay between analogue and digital through a continuum of orientations. Analogue forms of participation, such as citizen assemblies, or iterative community dialogues, foreground slowness as a political act. They enable the emergence of shared meaning and deliberative capacity. They also encourage forms of co-authorship that are difficult to replicate in digital timeframes.
Digital tools may support access and scale. But the relational dimensions of democratic legitimacy are forged through practices of encounter, recognition, and ongoing negotiation. All these are processes that cannot be automated.
To highlight the connection between diverse areas of design and relational forms of governance, we offer two case studies. Portland, Oregon and the state of New Jersey involve citizens in participatory design at state and municipal levels of policymaking and governance.
Portland's historic city charter reform, approved in 2022, illustrates how participatory design can reconfigure municipal governance at a structural level. Through multilingual facilitation, distributed leadership, and deep community engagement, residents collaboratively redesigned the city’s council structure and adopted ranked choice voting.
Rather than relying on technocratic fixes, the process foregrounded lived experience, cultural inclusion, and shared authorship. The result was systemic reforms that are historically significant and rooted in community legitimacy.
In 2018, New Jersey established the Future of Work Task Force to address the transformative effects of technological advancements on the state’s workforce and economy. Its initiative was not merely a governmental endeavour; it embodied a collaborative approach that actively engaged residents to shape policies reflective of their lived experiences. The state harnessed digital tools such as All Our Ideas to collect citizens' input.
The success of the Task Force rested on relational governance through networks of labour organisations. Without the organising labour of these groups, it would not have been possible to generate such thorough recommendations to guide New Jersey’s roadmap for the future of work.
These examples show how administrations can mobilise relational design to co-produce state-level policies that are not only innovative, but democratically legitimate and shaped by those most affected.
Relational design reveals what is possible when institutions engage with communities not as users or clients, but as co-authors of public life. This means designing with, not for, and valuing slowness, deliberation, and difference over speed and standardisation.
Relational design transforms what is possible when institutions engage with communities as co-authors of public life
Relational design asks us to consider not just how services function, but what kinds of citizens, communities, and futures they cultivate. It challenges the dominance of efficiency in public discourse, offering instead an ethic of care, presence, and shared responsibility. Our aim is to make this work accessible to a broader audience interested in design, policy, and democratic innovation.
Design is more than functionality and visual appeal. When everyone designs, we can materialise the futures we collectively choose to cultivate.
