About the ICD

The Human Being Is the Starting Point

The Institute for Communication & Dignity (ICD) places the human being at the centre of its work.

People differ. They have different abilities, experiences, ways of life, needs and circumstances. Yet no single characteristic fully describes a human being. Every person is, first and foremost, a human being.

Society consists of people. Institutions, rules, procedures and technical systems organise how people live together and fulfil specific functions. They are tools – not ends in themselves.

The ICD therefore does not examine how well people fit into existing systems. We ask whether these systems fulfil their function for different people and which differences are actually relevant to a specific function.

In doing so, we do not categorise the human being, but the matter at hand. A human characteristic may explain why someone is disadvantaged in a particular situation. It does not, however, determine either their human worth or their place in society.

The human being is already there.

No one has to earn their place in society, justify their differences or prove their worth through performance or adaptation.

The human being is the point of reference.

Human dignity is the boundary.

The system is the tool.

Human Dignity and Humanity

Human dignity does not arise from social recognition. It is neither granted nor earned, nor does it depend on achievement, abilities or a person’s usefulness to society.

Human beings possess dignity because they are human.

For the ICD, human dignity is therefore not a goal that must first be achieved. It is the immutable foundation of our perspective.

Humanity describes how we uphold that dignity in the way we live together.

Institutions, rules, procedures and technical systems were created by people to fulfil functions for people and for society as a whole. Humanity therefore means not turning the human being into a means to serve the functioning of a system.

Where people need support, solidarity may arise. Where different circumstances make access to shared structures more difficult, accessibility becomes an issue. Where people are excluded, inclusion becomes necessary – and at the same time becomes an indication of a condition that needs to be examined.

These measures, however, do not establish a person’s dignity or their place in society. They respond to circumstances in which a person’s already existing dignity and place in society are not being adequately respected.

Humanity does not require human beings to be the same. What matters is whether different treatment is justified by the specific circumstances and the function involved – or whether the system subordinates the human being to its own order.

Systems have functions – human beings have dignity.

Participation

For the ICD, participation means that people are genuinely able to exercise their rights, access opportunities and take their place in society.

Participation does not mean that everyone must take part in everything.

Not everyone has to be able to do everything, take part in every activity or perform every function within society. Activities and functional contexts may require certain prerequisites.

The decisive question, therefore, is not whether a prerequisite exists, but whether it is actually necessary for the function concerned.

Where there is a substantive connection between a human characteristic or prerequisite and a specific function, different treatment may be justified. Where no such connection exists, the design of a system must not itself become the reason why people are excluded from existing rights or opportunities within society.

A person’s differences do not establish their right to participate in society. Their place in society already exists.

When participation is restricted, we therefore do not begin by asking what a person lacks. We examine the matter at hand:

Which prerequisite prevents participation – and is that prerequisite actually necessary for the function concerned?

Participation does not require a society without differences or systems without prerequisites. It requires that differences become restrictions only where they are relevant to the specific function.

Not every boundary prevents participation.

But every boundary needs a functional justification if it restricts a person’s participation.

Accessibility

For the ICD, accessibility is not a special issue concerning particular groups. It is a structural quality of shared social spaces and systems.

People have different physical, sensory, cognitive, linguistic and communicative prerequisites. These differences do not automatically become barriers. A barrier arises where a system requires a human prerequisite that is not necessary for its actual function.

We therefore do not begin by asking:

“What is this person unable to do?”

We ask:

“Why must they be able to do it in order to use this function?”

A staircase can be one way of overcoming a difference in height. But this does not mean that the ability to climb stairs must be a necessary prerequisite for accessing a building.

Accessibility therefore means distinguishing between a functionally necessary prerequisite and a prerequisite created by the system.

Where a difference is genuinely necessary for the function, there is an objective boundary. Where, by contrast, it is merely the chosen means of access that excludes people, that means must be examined.

It is not the human being who must become capable of overcoming barriers. The system must be accessible wherever its function does not justify exclusion.

Accessibility does not grant an additional right. It enables people with different human prerequisites to exercise rights and opportunities for participation that already exist.

Equal access to the goal does not necessarily require the same path to the goal.

Inclusion – an Indicator of Exclusion

Inclusion is an established concept in society. The ICD does not, however, adopt it uncritically. Instead, we ask what condition it describes and what understanding of belonging underlies it.

When we say:

“We need to include people.”

we are at the same time describing a situation in which people are excluded or in which their belonging and participation are not taken for granted.

Inclusion therefore presupposes exclusion.

This does not mean that inclusion is unnecessary under existing conditions. Where people are excluded, access must be created, rights must be upheld and structures must be changed.

For the ICD, however, a necessary process of inclusion is not the societal ideal. Rather, the fact that it is necessary is an indicator of a condition that needs to be examined.

We therefore do not ask only:

“How can we achieve better inclusion?”

We first ask:

“Why do we need inclusion in the first place?”

People do not need to be granted their place in society on the basis of particular characteristics. They are already part of society. They may need solidarity, support or different means of access – but none of these establishes their belonging.

The human being is already there.

The ICD therefore also regards inclusion as a warning light for society: wherever inclusion becomes necessary, we examine the exclusion that created that necessity.

The ideal is not a society that must include more and more people, but a society in which people’s belonging is increasingly taken for granted rather than called into question.

The need for inclusion indicates exclusion.

Where no one is excluded, no one needs to be included.

Communication

Communication is more than the transmission of information. It creates relationships, conveys knowledge, enables understanding and makes participation in society possible.

How something is said, described, questioned or categorised influences how a matter can be perceived and understood. Terms carry meanings, wording establishes points of reference, and questions can contain assumptions even before an answer is given.

The ICD therefore does not adopt terms uncritically along with their framing. We examine what assumptions a formulation contains, what view of the human being it conveys, and which perspectives it opens up or obscures.

Communication does not create a person’s dignity, nor can it take that dignity away. But it can respect or disregard it.

For the ICD, the quality of communication is therefore not determined solely by whether information is factually correct or formally available. An answer can be correct and still fail to address the question that was asked. Information can be complete and still fail to provide orientation.

We therefore ask:

What function was the communication intended to fulfil – and what effect did it actually achieve?

Clear and accessible communication enables people to understand relationships and contexts, make decisions, exercise their rights, ask questions and raise objections.

Our aim is not to eliminate all framing from communication. We want to make framing visible and therefore open to examination, so that people can recognise the frame of reference being used and assess it for themselves.

Information is not yet understanding.

Factual correctness is not yet successful communication.

Communication is Dignity

Our Scientific Principles

The Institute for Communication & Dignity understands science as the methodical pursuit of knowledge. Our task is not to confirm a desired outcome, but to make relationships visible, comprehensible and open to scrutiny.

The human being is our point of reference – not the predetermined outcome of our analysis.

The ICD works independently, with an open-ended approach to results and without ideological bias. We examine structures, communication and social processes according to their function and effects.

We begin with the observable matter at hand. As far as possible, we distinguish between observation, analysis and evaluation and examine the function of a system, the relevant points of reference and the effects actually produced.

In doing so, we categorise the matter at hand and the disadvantage – not the human being.

Nor do we adopt established concepts and scientific models uncritically. We examine their assumptions, their frames of reference and their explanatory power.

Because social effects can rarely be fully understood from the perspective of a single discipline, the ICD works interdisciplinarily. We examine individual relationships without losing sight of their connection to the system as a whole.

New findings may change existing assessments. The ability to revise our conclusions is therefore not a failure of scientific work, but an integral part of it.

We document the basis of our work, make our conclusions traceable, and identify open questions and uncertainties.

We put facts into context rather than passing judgement.

We examine functions and effects.

The desired outcome does not determine the analysis – the analysis determines the outcome we reach.

Why the ICD Is Needed

Modern societies consist of highly developed institutional, technical and communication systems. They fulfil specialised functions and develop their own rules, procedures, terminology and areas of responsibility.

Each individual component may function when considered on its own – and yet barriers, loss of orientation and exclusion can arise at the interfaces between people and systems.

This is precisely where the Institute for Communication & Dignity begins its work.

People do not live within separate areas of responsibility. An application, a decision or a communication process may pass through several systems. Each individual step may be formally correct while the overall outcome still fails to work for the person concerned.

Human adaptability can also conceal such problems. People find workarounds, obtain additional information or develop their own strategies in order to reach their goal nonetheless.

The fact that a person manages to cope does not prove that the system works.

The ICD therefore pays particular attention to the interfaces and interactions between people, communication and systems. Individual cases and documented experiences can reveal connections that remain invisible within individual areas of responsibility or disciplinary perspectives.

We combine scientific analysis, institutional practice and human experience, asking not only where something happens, but why it happens and which relationships contribute to it.

We do not examine how well the human being fits into the system.

We examine how well the system fulfils its function for the human being.

Where others see a single node, the ICD also looks at the network.

Working Methods & Methodology

The Institute for Communication & Dignity examines communication and social systems based on their function and their effects on people.

Our work does not begin with a predetermined explanation, but with an observation, a question or a documented case.

We begin with the matter at hand – not with its presumed cause.

First, we reconstruct the process: What happened? Which systems and parties were involved? What function was supposed to be fulfilled, and what outcome was produced?

We then determine the function of the system, process or communication being examined. In doing so, we distinguish between the actual function and the specific way in which it is implemented. An existing solution is not automatically identical with the function it is intended to fulfil.

Where differences between people become relevant, we identify the specific point of reference and examine whether it is actually necessary for the function concerned.

We consider not only individual process steps, but also their chain of effects and their connection to the system as a whole.

Human compensation is also part of the analysis. We therefore document not only whether a goal was achieved, but also what additional effort a person had to make in order to achieve it.

Successful compensation does not prove the absence of a barrier.

Individual cases and documented experiences can provide starting points for research questions. They are not automatically generalised; instead, we examine whether reproducible patterns can be identified.

Our findings remain open to scrutiny. We document sources and conclusions, identify uncertainties and revise assessments when new findings require us to do so.

Our methodological cycle is:

Observation → Reconstruction → Function → Point of Reference → Effect → Analysis → Change → Renewed Observation

Our goal is not infallibility. Our goal is traceability.

Structure of the Institute

The structure of the Institute for Communication & Dignity reflects its interdisciplinary research approach.

Communication, participation in society and the effects of institutional systems can rarely be understood from a single perspective alone. The ICD therefore organises its work into different areas, each with its own focus while remaining interconnected.

These areas represent different perspectives on the same relationship: the relationship between the human being, communication and systems.

Research & Analysis

Research, Analysis and Theoretical Foundations

This area develops and examines the scientific foundations of the ICD’s work. It generates research questions, analyses, case studies, theoretical models and scientific publications.

Policy & Governance

Institutions, Rules and Societal Governance

This area examines the function and effects of institutional structures, rules and decision-making processes, as well as their interfaces with the realities of human life.

Accessibility & Public Communication

Accessibility and Public Communication

This area examines comprehensibility, orientation, accessibility and communication barriers. We understand accessibility as a structural quality of shared social spaces.

Education & Academic Engagement

Education, Science and Knowledge Transfer

This area connects research with education and academic exchange. Its purpose is to enable findings to be discussed, communicated, examined and further developed.

Human Experience & Participation

Human Experience and Participation

This area examines people’s actual experiences at the interface between human beings and systems. Documented experiences, citizen insights and specific cases can reveal where formal processes and actual effects diverge.

One Institute – Interconnected Perspectives

The ICD’s areas do not operate in isolation. Experiences can generate research questions, analyses can reveal structural relationships, and new findings can in turn feed back into communication, education and practice.

Each node fulfils its own function – and remains part of the network.

Across all areas, the common point of reference remains the same:

the human being as the bearer of dignity, rights and a place in society.