{"id":606316,"date":"2023-02-09T04:00:00","date_gmt":"2023-02-09T10:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/news.sellorbuyhomefast.com\/index.php\/2023\/02\/09\/design-thinking-was-supposed-to-fix-the-world-where-did-it-go-wrong\/"},"modified":"2023-02-09T04:00:00","modified_gmt":"2023-02-09T10:00:00","slug":"design-thinking-was-supposed-to-fix-the-world-where-did-it-go-wrong","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/2023\/02\/09\/design-thinking-was-supposed-to-fix-the-world-where-did-it-go-wrong\/","title":{"rendered":"Design thinking was supposed to fix the world. Where did it go wrong?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

When Kyle Cornforth<\/a> first walked into IDEO\u2019s San Francisco offices in 2011, she felt she had entered a whole new world. At the time, Cornforth was a director at the Edible Schoolyard Project<\/a>, a nonprofit that uses gardening and cooking in schools to teach and to provide nutritious food. She was there to meet with IDEO.org, a new social-impact spinoff of the design consulting firm, which was exploring how to reimagine school lunch, a mission that the Edible Schoolyard Project has been working toward since 2004. But Cornforth was new to IDEO\u2019s way of working: a six-step methodology for innovation called design thinking, which had emerged in the 1990s but had started reaching the height of its popularity in the tech, business, and social-impact sectors.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Key to design thinking\u2019s spread was its replicable aesthetic, represented by the Post-it note: a humble square that anyone can use in infinite ways. Not too precious, not too permanent, the ubiquitous Post-it promises a fast-moving, cooperative, egalitarian process for getting things done. When Cornforth arrived at IDEO for a workshop, \u201cit was Post-its everywhere, prototypes everywhere,\u201d she says. \u201cWhat I really liked was that they offered a framework for collaboration and creation.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

But when she looked at the ideas themselves, Cornforth had questions: \u201cI was like, \u2018You didn\u2019t talk to anyone who works in a school, did you?\u2019 They were not contextualized in the problem at all.\u201d The deep expertise in the communities of educators and administrators she worked with, Cornforth saw, was in tension with the disruptive, startup-flavored creativity of the design thinking process at consultancies like IDEO.org. \u201cI felt like a stick in the mud to them,\u201d she recalls. \u201cAnd I felt they were out of touch with reality.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

That tension would resurface a couple of years later, in 2013, when IDEO was hired by the San Francisco Unified School District to redesign the school cafeteria, with funding from Twitter cofounder Ev Williams\u2019s family foundation. Ten years on, the SFUSD program has had a big impact\u2014but that may have as much to do with the slow and integrated work inside the district as with that first push of design-focused energy from outside.<\/p>\n

\n
\"An<\/p>\n

GETTY IMAGES<\/p>\n<\/figure><\/div>\n

Founded in the 1990s, IDEO was instrumental in evangelizing the design thinking process throughout the \u201900s and \u201910s, alongside Stanford\u2019s Hasso Plattner Institute of Design<\/a> or \u201cd.school\u201d (which IDEO\u2019s founder David Kelley<\/a> also cofounded). While the methodology\u2019s focus on collaboration and research can be traced back to human-\u00adfactors engineering, a movement popular decades earlier, design thinking took hold of the collective imagination during the Obama years, a time when American culture was riding high on the potential of a bunch of smart people in a hope-filled room to bend history\u2019s arc toward progress. Its influence stretched across health-care giants in the American heartland, government agencies in DC, big tech companies in Silicon Valley, and beyond. City governments brought in design thinking agencies to solve their economic woes<\/a> and take on challenges ranging from transportation to housing. Institutions like MIT<\/a> and Harvard<\/a> and boot camps like General Assembly<\/a> stood up courses and degree programs, suggesting that teaching design thinking could be as lucrative as selling it to corporations and foundations.\u00a0<\/a><\/p>\n

Design thinking also broadened the very idea of \u201cdesign,\u201d elevating the designer to a kind of spiritual medium who didn\u2019t just construct spaces, physical products, or experiences on screen but was uniquely able to reinvent systems to better meet the desires of the people within them. It gave designers permission to take on any big, knotty problem by applying their own empathy to users\u2019 pain points\u2014the first step in that six-step innovation process filled with Post-its.<\/p>\n

\n

We are all creatives, design thinking promised, and we can solve any problem if we empathize hard enough.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The next steps were to reframe the problem (\u201cHow might we \u2026?\u201d), brainstorm potential solutions, prototype options, test those options with end users, and\u2014finally\u2014implement. Design thinking agencies usually didn\u2019t take on this last step themselves; consultants often delivered a set of \u201crecommendations\u201d to the organizations that hired them.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

At the same time, consultancies like IDEO, Frog, Smart Design, and others were also promoting the idea that anyone (including the executives paying their fees) could be a designer by just following the process. Perhaps design had become \u201ctoo important to leave to designers,\u201d as IDEO\u2019s then CEO, Tim Brown, wrote in his 2009 book Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation<\/em>. Brown even touted as a selling point his firm\u2019s utter absence of expertise in any particular industry: \u201cWe come with what we call a beginner\u2019s mind,\u201d he told the Yale School of Management<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n

This was a savvy strategy for selling design thinking to the business world: instead of hiring their own team of design professionals, companies could bring on an agency temporarily to learn the methodology themselves. The approach also felt empowering to many who spent time with it. We are all creatives, design thinking promised, and we can solve any problem if we empathize hard enough.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

But in recent years, for a number of reasons, the shine of design thinking has been wearing off. Critics have argued that its short-term focus on novel and naive ideas has resulted in unrealistic and ungrounded recommendations. And they have maintained that by centering designers\u2014mainly practitioners of corporate design within agencies\u2014it has reinforced existing inequities rather than challenging them. Years in, \u201cinnovation theater\u201d\u2014 checking a series of boxes without implementing meaningful shifts\u2014had become endemic in corporate settings, while a number of social-impact initiatives highlighted in case studies struggled to get beyond pilot projects. Meanwhile, the #MeToo and BLM movements, along with the political turmoil of the Trump administration, have demonstrated that many big problems are rooted in centuries of dark history, too deeply entrenched to be obliterated with a touch of design thinking\u2019s magic wand.\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Today, innovation agencies and educational institutions still continue to sell design thinking to individuals, corporations, and organizations. In 2015<\/a>, IDEO even created its own \u201conline school,\u201d<\/a> IDEO U, with a bank of design thinking courses<\/a>. But some groups\u2014including the d.school and IDEO itself\u2014are working to reform both its principles and its methodologies. These new efforts seek a set of design tools capable of equitably serving diverse communities and solving diverse problems well into the future. It\u2019s a much more daunting\u2014and crucial\u2014task than design thinking\u2019s original remit.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The magical promise of design thinking<\/h3>\n

When design thinking emerged in the \u201990s and \u201900s, workplaces were made up of cubicles<\/a> and closed doors, and the term \u201cuser experience\u201d had only just been coined at Apple<\/a>. Despite convincing research<\/a> on collaboration tracing back to the 1960s, work was still mainly a solo endeavor in many industries, including design. Design thinking injected new and collaborative energy into both design and the corporate world more broadly; it suggested that work could look and feel more hopeful and be more fun, and that design could take the lead in making it that way.<\/p>\n

When author and startup advisor Jake Knapp<\/a> was working as a designer at Microsoft in the 2000s, he visited IDEO\u2019s offices in Palo Alto for a potential project. He was struck by how inspiring the space was: \u201cEverything is white, and there\u2019s sunlight coming in the windows. There\u2019s an open floor plan. I had never seen [work] done like that.\u201d When he started at Google a few years later, he learned how to run design thinking workshops from a colleague who had worked at IDEO, and then he began running his own workshops on the approach within Google.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Knapp\u2019s attraction was due in part to the \u201cradical collaboration\u201d that design thinking espoused. In what was a first for many, colleagues came together across disciplines at the very start of a project to discuss how to solve problems. \u201cFacilitating the exchange of information, ideas, and research with product, engineering, and design teams more fluidly is really the unlock,\u201d says Enrique Allen, cofounder of Designer Fund, which supports startups seeking to harness the unique business value of design in industries from health care to construction. Design thinking offered a structure for those cross-\u00addisciplinary conversations and a way to articulate design\u2019s value within them. \u201cIt gave [your ideas] so much more weight for people who didn\u2019t have the language to understand creative work,\u201d says Erica Eden<\/a>, who worked as a designer at the innovation firm Smart Design.<\/p>\n

\n

It makes a good story to say there\u2019s a foolproof process that will lead to results no matter who runs it.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

For Angela McKee Brown<\/a>, who was hired by SFUSD to help bring the work IDEO had done on improving the school cafeteria to reality, the design thinking process was a language that bureaucracy could understand. In a district that had suffered from an overall lack of infrastructure investment since the 1970s, she watched as IDEO\u2019s recommendations ignited a new will to improvement that continues today. \u201cThe biggest role that process played for us was it told a story that showed people the value of the work,\u201d McKee Brown says. \u201cThat allowed me to have a much easier job, because people believed.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

The enthusiasm that surrounded design thinking did have much to offer the public sector, says Cyd Harrell<\/a>, San Francisco\u2019s chief digital services officer, who has worked as a design leader in civic technology for over a decade. Decades of budget cuts and a lack of civic investment have made it difficult for public servants to feel that change is possible. \u201cFor a lot of those often really wonderful people who\u2019ve chosen service as a career, and who have had to go through times where things seem really bleak,\u201d she says, \u201cthe infusion of optimism\u2014whether it comes in the guise of some of these techniques that are a little bit shady or not\u2014is really valuable.\u201d And it makes a good story to say there\u2019s a foolproof process that will lead to results no matter who runs it.<\/p>\n

Ideas over implementation<\/h3>\n

Execution has always been the sticky wicket for design thinking. Some versions<\/a> of the codified six-step process even omit that crucial final step of implementation. Its roots in the agency world, where a firm steps in on a set timeline with an established budget and leaves before or shortly after the pilot stage, dictated that the tools of design thinking would be aimed at the start of the product development process but not its conclusion\u2014or, even more to the point, its aftermath.\u00a0<\/p>\n

When Jake Knapp was running those design thinking workshops at Google, he saw that for all the excitement and Post-its they generated, the brainstorming sessions didn\u2019t usually lead to built products or, really, solutions of any kind. When he followed up with teams to learn which workshop ideas had made it to production, he heard decisions happening \u201cin the old way,\u201d with a few lone geniuses working separately and then selling their almost fully realized ideas to top stakeholders.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

\n
\n

Execution has always been the sticky wicket for design thinking.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

In the government and social-impact sectors, though, design thinking\u2019s focus on ideas over implementation had bigger ramifications than a lack of efficiency.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The \u201cbiggest piece of the design problem\u201d in civic tech, says Harrell, is not generating new ideas but figuring out how to implement and pay for them. What\u2019s more, success sometimes can\u2019t be evaluated until years later, so the time-\u00adconstrained workshops typical of the design thinking approach may not be appropriate. \u201cThere\u2019s a mismatch between the short-cycle evaluations [in commercial design] and the long-cycle evaluations for policy,\u201d she says. For longtime public servants, seeing a project through\u2014past implementation and into iteration\u2014is crucial for learning and improving how infrastructure functions.\u00a0<\/p>\n

In a 2021 piece on the evolution of their practices, Brown, along with Shauna Carey and Jocelyn Wyatt of IDEO.org, cited the Diva Centres project in Lusaka, Zambia, where they worked to help teens access contraception and learn about reproductive health. Through the design thinking methodology, the team came up with the idea of creating nail salons where the teens could get guidance in a low-pressure environment. The team built three model sites, declaring the work a success; the Diva Centres project won a Core77 Service Design Award<\/a> in 2016, and the case study is still posted on IDEO.org\u2019s website<\/a>. But while the process focused on generating the most exciting user experience within the nail salons, it neglected to consider the world outside their walls\u2014a complex network of public health funding and service channels that made scaling the pilot \u201cprohibitively expensive and complicated,\u201d as the IDEO.org leaders later wrote. Though IDEO intended to build 10 centers by 2017, neither IDEO nor the partner organization ever reported reaching that milestone. The article does not say how much money or time went into realizing the Diva Centres pilot before it ended, so it\u2019s not clear if the lessons learned were worth the failure. (IDEO.org declined to be interviewed for this story.)<\/p>\n

IDEO\u2019s 2013 work for SFUSD\u2014the project that McKee Brown later worked on from the school system\u2019s side\u2014has a more complicated legacy. After five months, IDEO delivered<\/a> 10 recommendations, including communal dining tables, vending machines with meals to grab on the go, community food partnerships for fresher produce, and an app and interactive web portal to give students and families more opportunities to participate in lunch choices. (The food itself was a different issue that the district was working on with its vendors<\/a>.) On IDEO\u2019s website<\/a> today, the story concludes with SFUSD\u2019s \u201cunanimous enthusiasm\u201d for the recommendations\u2014a consultancy happy ending. Indeed, the project was met with a flurry of fawning press coverage<\/a>. But with hindsight, it\u2019s clear that only after IDEO left the project did the real work begin.\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

At SFUSD, McKee Brown saw instances in which IDEO\u2019s recommendations did not take into account the complexities of the district\u2019s operations and the effort it could take to even drill a hole in a wall in accordance with asbestos abatement rules. The vending machines the team proposed, for instance, would need a stable internet connection, which many target locations didn\u2019t have. And the app never came to fruition, McKee Brown says, as it would have required a whole new department to continually update the software and content.\u00a0<\/p>\n

An analysis a few years after IDEO\u2019s 2013 engagement showed that about the same number of kids or even fewer were choosing to eat school lunch, despite a continuous increase in enrollment. This may have had several reasons, including that the quality of the food itself did not significantly improve. The original goal of getting more kids to eat at school would eventually be met by an entirely different effort: California\u2019s universal school meal program<\/a>, implemented in 2022.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Nevertheless, IDEO\u2019s SFUSD project has had a lasting impact, thanks to the work the district itself put into transforming blue-sky ideas into real change. While few of the recommendations ended up being widely implemented in schools exactly as IDEO envisioned them, the district has been redesigning its cafeterias to make the spaces more welcoming and social for students\u2014after sometimes decades of disrepair. Today more than 70 school cafeterias<\/a> out of 114 sites<\/a> in the city have been renovated. The design thinking process helped sell the value of improving school cafeterias to the decision makers. But the in-house team at SFUSD charted the way forward after many of IDEO\u2019s initial ideas couldn\u2019t make it past the drawing board.<\/p>\n

Empathy over expertise<\/h3>\n

The first step of the design thinking process is for the designer to empathize with the end user through close observation of the problem. While this step involves asking questions of the individuals and communities affected, the designer\u2019s eye frames any insights that emerge. This puts the designer\u2019s honed sense of empathy at the center of both the problem and the solution.\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

In 2018, researcher Lilly Irani, an associate professor at the University of California, San Diego, wrote a piece titled \u201cDesign Thinking: Defending Silicon Valley at the Apex of Global Labor Hierarchies\u201d<\/a> for the peer-reviewed journal Catalyst. She criticized the new framing of the designer as an empathetic \u201cdivining rod leading to new markets or domains of life ripe for intervention,\u201d maintaining that it reinforced traditional hierarchies of labor.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Irani argued that as an outgrowth of Silicon Valley business interests and culture, design thinking situated Western\u2014and often white\u2014designers at a higher level of labor, treating them as mystics who could translate the efforts and experiences of lower-level workers into capitalistic opportunity.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Former IDEO designer George Aye has seen Irani\u2019s concerns play out firsthand, particularly in settings with entrenched systemic problems. He and his colleagues would use the language of a \u201cbeginner\u2019s mindset\u201d with the clients, he says, but what he saw in practice was more an attitude that \u201cwe\u2019re going to fumble our way through and by the time we\u2019re done, we\u2019re on to the next project.\u201d In Aye\u2019s view, these consulting engagements made tourists of commercial designers, who\u2014however sincerely they wanted to help\u2014made sure to \u201cget some good pictures standing next to typically dark-skinned people with brightly colored clothes\u201d so they could produce evidence for the consultancy.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Today in his own studio<\/a>, which works only with nonprofit organizations, Aye tries to elevate what\u2019s already being created by a local community, advocate for its members to get the resources they need, and then \u201cget out of the way.\u201d If designers are not centering the people on the ground, then \u201cit\u2019s profit-centered design,\u201d he says. \u201cThere\u2019s no other way of putting it.\u201d<\/p>\n

McKee Brown considers one of the greatest successes of the San Francisco cafeteria redesign project to be the School Food Advisory<\/a> (SFA), a district-wide program in which high schoolers continually inform and direct changes to meal programs and cafeteria updates. But the group wasn\u2019t a result of IDEO\u2019s recommendations; the SFA was formed to ensure that SFUSD students would continue to have a voice in the district and a chance to collaborate often on how to redesign their spaces. Nearly a decade after IDEO completed its work, the best results have been due to the expertise of the district\u2019s own team and its generations of students, not the empathy that went into the initial short-term consulting project.<\/p>\n

As she\u2019s continued to work on food and education, McKee Brown has adapted the process of design thinking to her experiences and team leadership needs. At SFUSD and later at Edible Schoolyard, where she became executive director, she developed three questions she and her team should always make sure to ask: \u201cWho have you talked to? Have you tried it out before we spend all this money? And then how are you telling the story of the work?\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

What\u2019s next for design thinking?<\/h3>\n

Almost two decades after design thinking rose to prominence, the world still has no shortage of problems that need addressing. Design leadership and design processes themselves need to evolve beyond design thinking, and that\u2019s an arena where designers may actually be uniquely skilled. Stanford\u2019s d.school, which was instrumental in the growth of design thinking in the first place, is one institution pushing the conversation forward by reshaping its influential design programs. Within the physical walls of the school, the design thinking aesthetic\u2014whiteboards, cardboard furniture, Post-its\u2014is still evident on most surfaces, but the ideas stirring inside sound new. \u00a0<\/p>\n

\n
\"smahes<\/p>\n

GETTY IMAGES<\/p>\n<\/figure><\/div>\n

In fact, the phrase \u201cdesign thinking\u201d does not appear in any materials for the d.school\u2019s revamped undergraduate or graduate programs\u2014although it still shows up in electives in which any Stanford student can enroll (and a representative from the d.school claims the terms \u201cdesign\u201d and \u201cdesign thinking\u201d are used interchangeably). Instead of \u201cempathy,\u201d \u201cmake\u201d and \u201ccare\u201d are the concepts that program leaders hope will shape the design education across all offerings.\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

In contrast with empathy, care demands a shift in who is centered in these processes\u2014sometimes meaning people in generations other than our own. \u201cHow are we thinking about our ancestors? What is the legacy that this is going to leave? What are all the intended and unintended consequences?\u201d says academic director Carissa Carter<\/a>. \u201cThere are implications no matter where you work\u2014\u00adsecond-, third-order consequences of what we put out. This is where we are pulling in elements of equity and inclusion. Not just in a single course, but how we approach the design of this curriculum.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

The d.school\u2019s creative director, Scott Doorley<\/a>, who has been with the school for over 15 years, has begun to hear the students themselves ask for fundamental shifts like these. They\u2019re entering the programs saying, \u201cI want to make something that not only changes things, but changes things without screwing everything else up,\u201d Doorley says: \u201cIt\u2019s this really great combination of excitement and humility at the same time.\u201d The d.school has also made specific changes in curriculum and tools; an ethics course that was previously required at the end of the undergraduate degree program now appears toward the beginning, and the school is providing new frameworks to help students plan for the next-generation effects of their work beyond a project\u2019s completion.\u00a0<\/p>\n

For the Design Justice Network, a collective of design practitioners and educators that emerged out of the 2014 Allied Media Conference in Detroit, slowing down and embracing complexity are the keys to moving practices like design thinking toward justice. \u201cIf we truly want to think about stakeholders, if we want to have more levels of affordances when we design things, then we can\u2019t work at the speed of industry,\u201d says Wes Taylor, an associate professor at Virginia Commonwealth University and a DJN leader.\u00a0<\/p>\n

IDEO\u2019s practices have been evolving to better address that complexity. Tim Brown says that toward the beginning of the company\u2019s life, its unique power was in bringing together different design disciplines to deliver new ideas. \u201cWe weren\u2019t looking particularly to help our clients build their own capabilities back then. We were simply looking to do certain kinds of design projects,\u201d he says.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Now, when the questions being asked of designers are deeper and more complicated\u2014how to make Ford a more human-centered company rather than how to build a better digital dashboard, he gives as an example\u2014IDEO leaders have recognized that \u201cit\u2019s the combination of doing design and building the capabilities [of IDEO\u2019s clients and their communities] to design at the same time where the real impact can happen.\u201d What this means in practice is much more time on the ground, more partnerships, and sometimes more money. \u201cIt\u2019s about recognizing that the expertise is much more in the hands of the user of the system than the designer of the system. And being a little bit less arrogant about knowing everything,\u201d says Brown.\u00a0<\/p>\n

IDEO has also been building new design capabilities within its own team, hiring writers and filmmakers to tell stories for their clients, which Brown has come to see as \u201cthe<\/em> key activity, not a<\/em> key activity\u201d for influencing change in societal systems. \u201cIf you had asked me 10 to 15 years ago,\u201d he says, \u201cI would never have guessed that we would have as many folks who come from a storytelling background within a design firm as we do today.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

Indeed, design thinking\u2019s greatest positive impact may always have been in the stories it\u2019s helped tell: spreading the word about the value of collaboration in business, elevating the public profile of design as a discipline, and coaxing funding from private and public channels for expensive long-term projects. But its legacy must also account for years of letting down many of the people and places the methodology claimed it would benefit. And as long as it remains in the halls of consultancies and ivory-tower institutions, its practitioners may continue to struggle to decenter the already powerful and privileged.<\/p>\n

As Taylor sees it, design thinking\u2019s core problems can be traced back to its origins in the corporate world, which inextricably intertwined the methodology with capitalistic values. He believes that a justice lens can help foster collaboration and creativity in a much broader way that goes beyond our current power structures. \u201cLet\u2019s try to imagine and acknowledge that capitalism is not inevitable, not necessarily a foundational principle of nature,\u201d he urges.\u00a0<\/p>\n

That kind of radical innovation goes far beyond the original methodology of design thinking. But it may contain the seeds for the lasting change that the design industry\u2014and the world\u2014need now.<\/p>\n

Rebecca Ackermann is a writer, designer, and artist based in San Francisco.<\/em><\/svg> <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Read More<\/a>
\n Rebecca Ackermann<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

When Kyle Cornforth first walked into IDEO\u2019s San Francisco offices in 2011, she felt she had entered a whole new world. At the time, Cornforth was a director at the Edible Schoolyard Project, a nonprofit that uses gardening and cooking in schools to teach and to provide nutritious food. She was there to meet with […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":606317,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2440,534,27953],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-606316","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-design","8":"category-financial","9":"category-thinking"},"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/606316","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=606316"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/606316\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/606317"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=606316"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=606316"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=606316"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}