Co-designing culture: ethics and complexity for a more accessible museum

by Miriam Mandosi

In recent years there has been much talk about cultural accessibility, inclusion, and participation. Words that have found space in institutional documents, calls for proposals, and conferences, but that sometimes risk becoming repeated formulas without full awareness. Yet, behind these concepts something profound is moving: the transformation of an idea of culture that is not limited to being enjoyed, but is built together, becoming a common good and an instrument of social well-being.

In this context, co-design is not just a methodology, but a way of understanding cultural processes. It is an approach that questions the very way we think about museums, cultural spaces, and their relationship with people. Co-design means building projects starting from real dialogue among different subjects, bearers of different experiences, skills, and expectations. It means sitting around a table – physically or metaphorically – and deciding together what to do, how to do it, for whom, and with whom.

In the museum field, this approach can generate profound transformations, especially when addressing the theme of accessibility. To open the doors of a museum is not enough to say it is 'for everyone'. Accessibility is not only a matter of physical barriers or technological tools: it is a cultural and social perspective, a way of rethinking the museum experience so that it is meaningful for anyone who enters. It means asking: can people, with their peculiarities, experience a museum as a livable space? Can they feel like protagonists of the narrative?

In this phase, the one preceding the definition of paths and the production of materials, it becomes crucial to translate the principles of Design for All into concrete practices through co-design. As emphasized by the Design for All Italy Association, to design means creating solutions «for the real individual, inclusive and holistic, which enhance everyone's specificities». The Design for All Manifesto reiterates that «design for all does not limit creativity: on the contrary, it stimulates it» and that «accessibility is not only physical but also perceptual, sensory, and cultural». This call reinforces the idea that the design phase is not just a technical moment, but an ethical commitment: designing museums, spaces, and paths according to the Design for All paradigm means making culture truly accessible, participatory, and generative of well-being.

Avril Accolla, in her volume Design for All. The project for the real individual, describes inclusive design as a process articulated in phases, ranging from needs analysis, concept definition, to prototyping and solution verification. This model reminds us that accessible design is not a single or linear act, but a continuous process of listening, comparing, and adjusting, in which ideas are tested, discussed, and improved together with those who will actually use them.

In practice, it means starting with a shared analysis of needs, involving users, communities, educators, technicians, and museum operators. Co-design workshops and laboratories become precious moments of dialogue, where participants' experiences and expectations turn into concrete indications for the project. It is an opportunity to bring to light critical issues and opportunities that would otherwise remain invisible. This is followed by inclusive design of spaces, languages, and paths, where Universal Design becomes the heart of the creative process. Here accessibility is not a postponed addition, but a lens through which to observe and rethink the entire project: from exhibition routes to communication, from multimedia supports to educational materials. Finally, the phase of iteration and participatory prototyping allows testing solutions, collecting feedback, and refining them together with participants. In this way, accessibility ceases to be an ‘extra’ and becomes an integral part of the design itself, able to enrich everyone's experience.

This design phase is never only technical: it is ethical, strategic, and reflective. Integrating the co-presence of voices and skills from the beginning means recognizing that every contribution can transform the museum, making it more welcoming, alive, and in dialogue with the communities that inhabit it. It is in this encounter between designers and visitors, institutions and people, that the museum truly becomes a shared space, capable of expanding culture, participation, and social well-being.

So far, museums have traditionally spoken to an audience similar to those who manage them. Co-design breaks this symmetry, inviting those who usually remain on the margins to participate in the creation of contents, paths, and languages.

Here the link also opens with cultural welfare: an accessible and co-designed museum is not only more inclusive, but becomes a tool of well-being, social cohesion, and learning. Cultural projects assume value not only aesthetic or educational, but also social: they contribute to strengthening networks, creating communities, and generating a sense of belonging and active participation.

Accessible co-design is born from listening to and valuing each person involved. Diversity becomes a resource, an engine of creativity and innovation, able to generate new languages and ways of experiencing culture. Processes must be transparent and inclusive, clear at every stage from ideation to evaluation. Transparency is not only a requirement, but an ethical choice that builds trust and awareness. Co-design is based on relationships of trust and shared responsibility, requires time, care, and attention, and recognizes that accessibility is not a set of rules or tools, but a cultural and social value. It is also a shared learning process, based on experimentation and constructive error, which enriches participants and institutions. The knowledge produced must be returned and shared, nurturing a culture of accessibility that spreads and renews over time.

Accessible co-design does not end with the realization of a project; on the contrary, it continues and enriches itself over time through many and complex practices of verification, evaluation, impact analysis, and building sustainability. These constitute the moment when design intentions are confronted with reality, where what was conceived is observed, questioned, and perfected in the light of the concrete experiences of those who enjoy the museum.

Verification takes the form of constant and attentive listening: it does not simply check that everything works according to a pre-established plan, but observes how people participate, how they interact with spaces, paths, and contents, what obstacles they encounter and what opportunities emerge. Verification becomes therefore an act of care and responsibility towards the communities involved: it is a way to understand whether the museum, as designed, really responds to the needs and expectations of those who inhabit it.

Evaluation, seen from a participatory perspective, amplifies this outlook. It is not only about measuring numerical indicators or concrete results, but about creating a space for collective dialogue. Involving users, operators, educators, and stakeholders means recognizing the results achieved, discussing critical issues, reflecting on mistakes, and imagining possible improvements together. In this sense, evaluation becomes a moment of shared growth, in which not only the effectiveness of the project but also the quality of relationships established, the degree of participation, and the collective learning that derives from it are measured.

The impact of an accessible project extends far beyond numbers or recorded attendance. It is above all a cultural and social change: it implies the transformation of perspectives, languages, institutional practices, and, more generally, the perception of accessibility as a common value. A project has a real impact when it contributes to generating collective well-being, strengthening social cohesion and opening new learning opportunities, making people feel active protagonists of the museum’s cultural life.

Sustainability, finally, represents the ability to make what has been built last over time. It is not limited to the economic dimension but is measured in the durability of relationships, the solidity of collaboration networks, the possibility of replicating tools, practices, and paths, and the dissemination of acquired skills. It is social and cultural sustainability that allows the museum to maintain a live relationship with communities, to transform co-design into a continuous practice, not episodic, and to consolidate the culture of inclusion as a lasting and shared value.

To achieve these goals, a paradigm shift is necessary: stop thinking of the museum ‘for everyone’ and start thinking of it ‘with everyone’. The difference is subtle but profoundly significant: in the first case, the starting point is a project conceived by few to be enjoyed by many; in the second, the starting point is listening, dialogue, and the conviction that culture is a collective construction, where differences do not represent an obstacle but a resource to be valued.

Accessible co-design remains a complex and fragile path, which requires care, dedication and continuous training, but precisely for this reason it is one of the most promising ways to radically transform the way culture is made, experienced, and transmitted. In this context, every person can feel not only welcomed but competent, heard, and involved, contributing to building museums that are truly open, inclusive, and generators of social well-being.