In April 2018, the Trump Administration enacted a policy of separating migrant families taken into federal custody at the U.S.-Mexico border. The policy, created to discourage future migrants from crossing into the United States, forced adult parents to separate from young childrenâmany less than four years old. At the time of separation, authorities handed parents a document titled âNext Steps for Familiesâ that provided information to parents on how to reunite with their children.Â
But the âNext Steps for Familiesâ document gave circuitous instructions and was difficult to use. As Hofstra professor Joseph Bartoletta argues, the document was so poorly designed that it was not only unhelpful to families, but further served to oppress migrants already in a stressful, traumatizing experience. For example, the first step in the document isnât even a step, because it doesnât include an action to be taken. Instead, it informs the reader that they are âcurrently in the custody of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Customs and Border Protection (CBP). You have been charged with the crime of illegal entry into the United States.â
Bartolotta wondered if the âNext Steps for Familiesâ document had been user-tested to determine if it effectively conveyed instruction for reuniting families and whether such a document could be user tested ethically at all. He raises that very question in his article, âUsability Testing for Oppression,â published in âCommunication Design Quarterlyâ in 2019. Bartolotta was interested in exploring âthe ethical implications of user-centered research and usability testing when the design of a document operates as a tool of oppression.â Of course, itâs unlikely that the âNext Steps for Familiesâ document would be user-tested at all considering that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (US CBP) didnât even document the childrenâs identities and families of origin. Bartolotta is interested in examining what ethical responsibilities technical and professional communicators have in creating a document like the âNext Steps for Familiesâ handout.
Bartolotta walks readers through a potential test plan for the âNext Steps for Familiesâ document, using the Belmont Reportâwhich outlines ethical standards for research involving human subjectsâas a framework. He outlines potential research questions, test design, task list and participant recruitment. While ethical questions arise with testing an unethical document at all, itâs in participant recruitment where the truly concerning questions come up. As Bartolotta points out, itâd be incredibly hard to ethically recruit testers in this instance. Since the âNext Steps for Familiesâ document is given to undocumented immigrants, test participants would have a similar status and participating in such user research could put them at greater risk.
Implicitly, Bartolotta argues that this document wasnât just designed to be unusable but to further alienate and traumatize the people it pretends to help. But he further raises the question of what a technical communicator can do if given the task to write or user test such a document. Perhaps the bigger question, though, is whether technical communicators can ethically work for organizations or governmental administrations that enact oppressive policies.
Bartolotta argues that the TPC field must decide whatâs acceptable practice when working within oppressive systemsâparticularly when it comes to processes like user testing, which can legitimize documents. While the exercise he walks readers through is largely intellectual, usability practitioners should consider the ethical implications of testing documents like the âNext Steps for Familiesâ flier, even if they work outside an oppressive administration. (Bartolotta gives the example of NGO workers who might be trying to help migrants reunite with their children.)Â
Ultimately, he calls for greater ethical training for user researchers and technical and professional communicators in general alongside training in methodologies. While thatâs already true in academia, where institutions are bound by Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), we can only hope that industry and government take up the ethics mantle as well.
Resources
Usability Testing for Oppression, by Joseph Bartoletta
Viewpoint Written by Erica Lies, Texas State University
Edited by Laura Soran, Texas State University