Thank you to all those who have replied so far, your help is much appreciated! 

Prabhu Kandachar, 

Thank you for providing those references, perhaps I should consider regular
business enterprises within a separate or wider category. I am also
interested in learning more about the role of multinational companies such
as PHILIPS in their “philanthropy by design”. I will endeavour to read your
books.

Cigdem, 

Thank you for your feedback, and the references you sent me, they are helpful.

After reading your thoughts on poverty, it seems we do indeed share a
similar ‘ideological stance’! I have certainly been influenced by Escobar’s
writing on development and other critical essays in Sachs, W 1992, The
Development dictionary : a guide to knowledge as power. Also, the topic of
post-development also intriguing - Ziai, A 2007, Exploring post-development
: theory and practice, problems and perspectives

If you are looking to grasp the ideological stance expressed through my
research proposal, you may be left searching—In my thesis, I am interested
in ideology insofar as it effects design thinking. The ideological,
apolitical and de-political tendencies within DSW practice—particularly
within design thinking—are rarely discussed in this field of research. My
approach to ideological matters in design practice (what I call normative
design thinking), is to negotiate them through the act of design thinking
itself, not to place exogenous discourse (economic development,
technological innovation, etc..) as premises upon which we begin designing.
For these reasons, I do not convey my ideological stance directly, as the
focal point of my investigation. Of course implicitly, I do make some
assertions regarding poverty, development, etc.. which I’ll try to clarify.

Regarding the first sentence of my proposal, “This study investigates
industrial design practice which aims to contribute to poverty alleviation
and economic development in poor nations.” Here I am making no attempt to
define poverty in any way. Therefore, I take your question to mean- why I
have chosen to associate poverty with the concept of “nation” rather than
some other term, to describe the focus of poverty alleviation and economic
development. 

For the very reason that within all nation-states (often countries) there is
some level of poverty among marginalized populations (like those you
mention- immigrants, slum populations) and others who live comparatively
better lives—whether perceived in their own absolute terms or from a
relative perspective—there should also be recognition of “nations”, those
who are marginalized and who do not identify themselves as state citizens or
do not posses a territorial border such as indigenous people defined through
culture, ethnicity or religion (the fourth world). Such nations are
scattered throughout many countries. 

What then defines poor nations as poor?  Perhaps the same criteria which is
used to define individual people as poor; One normative view is for this to
be “self-defined”, or constructed through desired capabilities which are
achieved through certain functionings (Amartya Sen, capabilities approach).
Communities of people and larger “nations” often share a common language,
culture, religion, history etc... which go some way in defining their own
level of “poverty” in multi-dimensional terms; deprivations, misfortunes,
asceticism, etc..  So my use of “poor nations” avoids unwanted connotations
of development/underdevelopment/developing – but still collectively
describes a people for which the aims of poverty alleviation and economic
development can be generalized, though not only towards nation-states
(developing countries) which precludes other nationalities.

Indeed, I agree with Escobar and others who point to the Eurocentric notion
and criteria for “development” (a separate complex discussion in
itself)—wherein the levels of depression, alienation, stress, insecurity,
violence, suicide prevalent in developed countries are hardly reflected in
those countries judged in need of “development”.

Cigdem, I’m not so clear on what you mean by a coop, but still a traditional
corporate system.. but happy to hear more..