Abstract
Despite the increasing prominence of participatory processes as mechanisms for the democratisation of decision-making, they perpetuate systemic power dynamics, inequalities, and exclusions. This article’s critical feminist perspective on co-design processes as a mechanism for participatory planning practice offers new understanding of how different actors’ intersectional positionalities influence their approaches to participation, across at three levels of intersectionality: intracategorical, anticategorical, and intercategorical. The study draws from 26 in-depth interviews with diverse participants in four case studies across Scotland. The findings show disparities persisting in the experience of participation, hinging on intersections of age, gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status despite narratives of co-design as an inclusive practice. Additional barriers encountered by women and individuals from underrepresented communities include implications of having a voice, different communication and reasoning styles, and methods of communication across differences. Through raising sensitivity awareness of subtle intersectional barriers, this article highlights the need for deliberate strategies to realise both the inclusion of diverse voices and acknowledging the diversity of intersectional positionalities embedded in participatory processes to enable transformative participation. This article advances a critical feminist perspective by revealing the ways in which co-design is challenged as a mechanism to promote inclusive planning practice.
- Abrams, J. A., Tabaac, A., Jung, S., & Else-Quest, N. M. (2020). Considerations for employing intersectionality in qualitative health research. Social Science & Medicine, 258, 113138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed. 2020.113138
- AlWaer, H., & Cooper, I. (2020). Changing the focus: Viewing design-led events within collaborative planning. Sustainability, 12(8), 3365. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083365
- Andres, L., & Natarajan, L. (2023). Towards a women-led urbanism: New agenda, new priorities. Built Environment, 49(4), 545–554. https://doi.org/10.2148/BENV.49.4.545
- Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 35(4), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225
- Atkinson, A. B., & Marlier, E. (2010). Analysing and measuring social inclusion in a global context. United Nations.
- Bassam, N. (2023). The gendered city: How cities keep failing women. Nourhan Bassam.
- Bauer, G. R., Churchill, S. M., Mahendran, M., Walwyn, C., Lizotte, D., & Villa-Rueda, A. A. (2021). Intersectionality in quantitative research: A systematic review of its emergence and applications of theory and methods. SSM - Population Health, 14, 100798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2021.100798
- Beebeejaun, Y. (2006). The participation trap: The limitations of participation for ethnic and racial groups. International Planning Studies, 11(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563470600935008
- Beebeejaun, Y. (2012). Including the excluded? Changing the understandings of ethnicity in contemporary English planning. Planning Theory & Practice, 13(4), 529–548. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2012.728005
- Beebeejaun, Y. (2017). Gender, urban space, and the right to everyday life. Journal of Urban Affairs, 39(3), 323–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2016.1255526
- Beebeejaun, Y. (2019). From participation to inclusion. Planning Theory & Practice, 20(5), 735–759. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/14649357.2019.1680165
- Beebeejaun, Y., & Grimshaw, L. (2010). Is the “new deal for communities” a new deal for equality? Getting women on board in neighbourhood governance. Urban Studies, 48(10), 1997–2011. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0042098010384518
- Beveridge, C., Biberbach, P., & Hamilton, J. (2016). Empowering planning to deliver great places: Independent review of the Scottish planning system. Scottish Government. https://www.gov.scot/publications/empowering-planning-to-deliver-great-places/
- Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
- Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Can I use TA? Should I use TA? Should I not use TA? Comparing reflexive thematic analysis and other pattern-based qualitative analytic approaches. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 21(1), 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1002/capr.12360
- Breitenbach, E. (2006). Developments in gender equality policies in Scotland since devolution. Scottish Affairs, 56(1), 10–21. https://doi.org/10.3366/scot.2006.0033
- Campion, C. (2019). 20/20 visions: Collaborative planning and placemaking. RIBA Publishing.
- CCQOL. (2024). Community consultation for quality of life in Scotland. https://www.gov.scot/policies/planning-architecture/
- Colomb, C., & Raco, M. (2018). Planning for diversity in an era of social change. In J. Ferm & J. Tomaney (Eds.), Planning practice: Critical perspectives from the UK (1st ed., pp. 174–188). Routledge. https://doi.org/ 10.4324/9781351203319
- Cornwall, A. (2003). Whose voices? Whose choices? Reflections on gender and participatory development. World Development, 31(8), 1325–1342. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(03)00086-X
- Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039
- D’Avolio, M. S. (2021). Feminist city: Claiming space in a man-made world [Book review]. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 24(2), 332–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616742.2021.2012220
- Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2013). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
- East, M. (2024). What if women designed the city?: 33 leverage points to make your city work better for women and girls (1st ed.). Triarchy Press.
- Elkin, L. (2017). Flâneuse: Women walk the city in Paris, New York, Tokyo, Venice, and London. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
- Escobar, O., Faulkner, W., & Rea, H. J. (2014). Building capacity for dialogue facilitation in public engagement around research. Journal of Dialogue Studies, 2(1), 87–111. https://www.research.ed.ac.uk/en/publications/ building-capacity-for-dialogue-facilitation-in-public-engagement-
- Fainstein, S. S. (2009). Planning and the just city. In Searching for the just city (pp. 19–39). Routledge. https://doi.org/ 10.4324/9780203878835-10
- Forester, J. (1999). The deliberative practitioner: Encouraging participatory planning processes. MIT Press.
- Fusch, P., Fusch, G. E., & Ness, L. R. (2018). Denzin’s paradigm shift: Revisiting triangulation in qualitative research. Journal of Sustainable Social Change, 10(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.5590/JOSC.2018.10.1.02
- Gorjanicyn, K., Zwart, I., Brackertz, N., & Meredyth, D. (2008). Community consultation and the ‘hard to reach’ City of Boroondara: Case study report Camberwell and Kew structure plans (Research Report). Swinburne University of Technology, Research Bank. https://doi.org/10.25916/sut.26261027
- Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066
- Healey, P. (2006). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies (2nd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.
- Hendler, S. (2005). Towards a feminist code of planning ethics. Planning Theory & Practice, 6(1), 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/1464935042000334967
- Hesse-Biber, S. (2012). Feminist approaches to triangulation: Uncovering subjugated knowledge and fostering social change in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 137–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689812437184
- Hillier, J. (1997). Values, images, identities: Cultural influences in public participation. In Geography Research Forum (pp. 18–36). Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press.
- Hillier, J. (1998). Beyond confused noise: Ideas toward communicative procedural justice. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 18(1), 14–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X9801800102
- Innes, J. E. (1995). Planning theory’s emerging paradigm: Communicative action and interactive practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14(3), 183–189. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X9501400307
- Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2004). Reframing public participation: Strategies for the 21st century. Planning Theory & Practice, 5(4), 419–436. https://doi.org/10.1080/1464935042000293170
- Jagtap, S. (2022). Co-design with marginalised people: Designers’ perceptions of barriers and enablers. CoDesign, 18(3), 279–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2021.1883065
- Karpowitz, C. F., Mendelberg, T., & Shaker, L. (2012). Gender inequality in deliberative participation. American Political Science Review, 106(3), 533–547. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055412000329
- Kelleher, C., Seymour, M., & Halpenny, A. M. (2014). Promoting the participation of seldom heard young people: A review of the literature on best practice principles. Dublin Institute of Technology. https://doi.org/10.21427/D7GF69
- Kelly, J. (2019). Towards ethical principles for participatory design practice. CoDesign, 15(4), 329–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2018.1502324
- Kern, L. (2020). Feminist city: Claiming space in a man-made world (1st ed.). Verso.
- Lafrance, M. N., & Wigginton, B. (2019). Doing critical feminist research: A Feminism & Psychology reader. Feminism & Psychology, 29(4), 534–552. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353519863075
- Lennon, F. (2023). Gender mainstreaming in urban planning. RTPI. https://www.rtpi.org.uk/blog/2023/june/ frances-lennon-gender-mainstreaming-in-urban-planning/
- Lightbody, R. (2017). Hard to reach or easy to ignore? Promoting equality in community engagement. What Works Scotland. http://whatworksscotland.ac.uk/publications/hard-to-reach-or-easy-to-ignore-promoting-equality-in-community-engagement-evidence-review/
- Lightbody, R., & Escobar, O. (2021). Equality in community engagement: A scoping review of evidence from research and practice in Scotland. Scottish Affairs, 30(3), 355–380. https://doi.org/10.3366/scot.2021.0374
- Mansbridge, J. J. (1983). Beyond adversary democracy. University of Chicago Press.
- Massey, D. (1991). The political place of locality studies. Environment and Planning A, 23(2), 267–281. http://doi.org/10.1068/a230267
- Matthews, P., Netto, G., & Besemer, K. (2012). “Hard to reach” or “easy to ignore”? A rapid review of place-based policies and equality. http://dspace.stir.ac.uk/handle/1893/25969
- McCall, L. (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 30(3), 1771–1800. https://doi.org/10.1086/426800
- Sandercock, L. (1998). Towards cosmopolis: Planning for multicultural cities. Wiley. https://search.worldcat. org/title/37443533
- Sandercock, L. (2000). When strangers become neighbours: Managing cities of difference. Planning Theory & Practice, 1(1), 13–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649350050135176
- Sandercock, L. (2003). Out of the closet: The importance of stories and storytelling in planning practice. Planning Theory & Practice, 4(1), 11–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/1464935032000057209
- Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068
- Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2012). Convivial toolbox: Generative research for the front end of design. BIS Publishers.
- Sanders, L. M. (1997). Against deliberation. Political Theory, 25(3), 347–376. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0090591797025003002
- Sandin, G. (2020). Lack of participatory effort: On the ethics of communicating urban planning. Urban Planning, 5(4), 227–237. https://www.cogitatiopress.com/urbanplanning/article/view/3445
- Seawright, J., & Gerring, J. (2008). Case selection techniques in case study research. American Political Science Review, 61(2), 294–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912907313077
- Sendra, P. (2023). The ethics of co-design. Journal of Urban Design, 1–19. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/ 10.1080/13574809.2023.2171856
- Seydel, H., & Huning, S. (2022). Mobilising situated local knowledge for participatory urban planning through storytelling. Urban Planning, 7(3), 242–253. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v7i3.5378
- Short, J. R. (2021). Social inclusion in cities. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities. https://doi.org/10.3389/ frsc.2021.684572
- Sisimayi, T. P., Muperi, J. T., & Nyathi, V. S. (2026). Barriers to women’s political participation in Zimbabwe: Analysing structural challenges and pathways to gender equality between 2013 and 2023. Feminist Encounters: A Journal of Critical Studies in Culture and Politics, 10(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.20897/FEMENC/17932
- Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage Publications.
- Terraza, H., Orlando, M. B., Lakovits, C., Lopes Janik, V., & Kalashyan, A. (2020). Handbook for gender-inclusive urban planning and design. The World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/33197
- Windsong, E. A. (2018). Incorporating intersectionality into research design: An example using qualitative interviews. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 21(2), 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13645579.2016.1268361
- Wood, J. T. (2009). Feminist standpoint theory. In Encyclopedia of Communication Theory (pp. 397–399). SAGE.
- Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
- Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
- Young, I. M. (1996). Communication and the other: Beyond deliberative democracy. In S. Benhabib (Ed.), Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political (pp. 120–136). Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691234168-007/HTML
- Young, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and democracy. Oxford University Press
APA 7th edition
In-text citation: (Mahmoudnejad et al., 2026)
Reference: Mahmoudnejad, F., Santos, S. C., & Moyo, D. (2026). A critical feminist perspective on participation in do-design for planning practice.
Feminist Encounters: A Journal of Critical Studies in Culture and Politics, 10(2), Article 16.
https://doi.org/10.20897/femenc/19064
AMA 10th edition
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Mahmoudnejad F, Santos SC, Moyo D. A critical feminist perspective on participation in do-design for planning practice.
Feminist Encounters: A Journal of Critical Studies in Culture and Politics. 2026;10(2), 16.
https://doi.org/10.20897/femenc/19064
Chicago
In-text citation: (Mahmoudnejad et al., 2026)
Reference: Mahmoudnejad, Fatemeh, Sandra Costa Santos, and Dumiso Moyo. "A critical feminist perspective on participation in do-design for planning practice".
Feminist Encounters: A Journal of Critical Studies in Culture and Politics 2026 10 no. 2 (2026): 16.
https://doi.org/10.20897/femenc/19064
Harvard
In-text citation: (Mahmoudnejad et al., 2026)
Reference: Mahmoudnejad, F., Santos, S. C., and Moyo, D. (2026). A critical feminist perspective on participation in do-design for planning practice.
Feminist Encounters: A Journal of Critical Studies in Culture and Politics, 10(2), 16.
https://doi.org/10.20897/femenc/19064
MLA
In-text citation: (Mahmoudnejad et al., 2026)
Reference: Mahmoudnejad, Fatemeh et al. "A critical feminist perspective on participation in do-design for planning practice".
Feminist Encounters: A Journal of Critical Studies in Culture and Politics, vol. 10, no. 2, 2026, 16.
https://doi.org/10.20897/femenc/19064
Vancouver
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Mahmoudnejad F, Santos SC, Moyo D. A critical feminist perspective on participation in do-design for planning practice. Feminist Encounters: A Journal of Critical Studies in Culture and Politics. 2026;10(2):16.
https://doi.org/10.20897/femenc/19064