[IxDA Discuss] Participatory Design

Wed Jan 24 19:26:47 PST 2007

Dear all,

My doctoral research utilized collaborative design methods and touches on
participatory design. While I am by no means an expert on the topic, part of
my literature review for my thesis discusses PD in the 'related theories and
frameworks' section. I've pasted in this section below as it may be useful
for understanding some of the origins of the movement and what it means for
contemporary software design. I should also note that the term
"participatory" doesn't have a well agreed upon definition (by PD
practitioners/researchers), many people have very strict definitions of what
"is and isn't", and I've seen the term used very loosely by some without any
understanding that it is a type of software development with a good 30+ year
history (however, I'm not saying this is bad as the definition may be
changing).

Here's the thesis section:

Participatory Design

Participatory design (PD) comes from Scandinavian software development
traditions which originated as a product of the local culture during the
1950s. Denmark, Norway and Sweden have long traditions of social democracy,
egalitarianism and cooperation for the common good (Floyd et al., 1989).
Unions formed during the industrial revolution to protect worker rights.
Early PD was a political move to legally require worker participation in
determining changes in the workplace (Helander, Landauer, & Prabhu, 1997, p.
303). Consequently, early Scandinavian software development began in a
context where workers had the legal authority and interest to co-determine
their own future workplaces and processes (Greenbaum & Kyng, 1991,  p.11).
Strong ties developed between business, researchers and unions to cooperate
in the design of new computer systems. In this environment PD formed as the
de-facto ideological theory guiding the software design process.

Much of the theoretical foundation for PD lies in the desire to avoid what
were considered the de-humanising effects of the industrial revolution and
capitalism in general. Consequently the methods used have a political intent
to avoid deskilling of workers and form democratic workplaces and technology
development. There are also parallels between PD theory and Luddite
perspectives on technology development. During the Industrial Revolution in
England, a group of factory workers came to be known as Luddites after they
destroyed automation machinery which they believed would replace them (Darvall,
1969). Neo-luddites are sceptical of the benefits of modern technologies and
often advocate a return to a more 'natural' existence which values human
quality of life and uses simpler forms of technology (London, 1997).
Similarly PD seeks to manage technological introduction in the workplace and
maintain quality of life for workers who will be affected by it. See Section
6.7 for a more detailed discussion of the Luddites and what can be learned
from them about the politics of modern design processes.

PD emphasises that the development process greatly influences products being
designed. It focuses on the social aspects of organisations and aims to
support cooperative work processes. Designers play a less privileged role
since they share control of the resulting design with potential users.
Specific goals of PD include participation of stakeholders with different
areas of expertise, prototyping of ideas and codetermination of technologies
and work practices.

PD theory can be applied both to product development processes and methods.
In both cases it has distinct differences from traditional western software
development. western software engineering commonly uses: fixed requirements,
temporal phases, requirements documents, methods which dictate work
practice, validating correctness, formal language and distribution of
programming tasks (Floyd et al., 1989). This contrasts with the Scandinavian
perspective which is cyclical, informal, holistic, cooperative and
evolutionary. During its development PD specifically focussed on providing
an alternative to rational methods used in the west. PD theorists viewed
task, user and environmental modelling as reductionist methods of portraying
users and work which did not contribute to development of humane
technologies (Helander et al., 1997). PD practice, and the development
environment which it is used within, has changed over the course of 50
years. A short selection of well known PD research is provided below to give
a flavour for how the research is structured and its origins.

Now thought to be a subset of user centred design (UCD) (see Section 2.5.1),
PD generally advocates increased involvement of project stakeholders
(particularly users) in all stages of product development. Modern PD
typically engages users that will be affected by a technology under
development, and uses extensive iterative prototyping with them. In this way
the potential future use of a technology can be envisioned in the
environment where it will be introduced and used. Development usually
proceeds in a fashion overseen and supported by the intended users.

The UTOPIA project is a good example of this. It involved typographers and
journalists in the design of a new system of technologies to support
newspaper production (Ehn & Kyng, 1991). It made extensive use of cardboard
and paper mock-ups of various future technologies such as high-resolution
screens and laser printers. Language games and hands-on interaction with
designs were used to help create a system where journalists and typographers
could peacefully co-exist while improving product quality. Similar research
has used mock-ups with different degrees of fidelity to support design
discussions and development of industrial products for the food industry
(for more about prototypes see Section 2.6.4) (Brandt, 2005b).

A variety of recent research utilises a participatory approach. One study
utilised workshops with high-school students to help design a museums
exhibition. Another project looked at helping community groups design and
maintain technologies to support their activities (Merkel et al., 2004).
Some of the disadvantages of using PD are addressed in a paper describing
research with a social service agency (Luke et al., 2004).

Given the focus on understanding social systems in the workplace, it is not
surprising that ethnographic and in-situ techniques are commonly used. Video
taken in the workplace is commonly used to help inform design (Buur &
Soendergaard, 2000; Suchman & Trigg, 1991). It is also common to do field
visits or develop product designs in the workplace. Workshops or focus
groups, which are often held on-site, are also frequently used as a method
to co-develop designs. These often utilise low-fidelity prototyping
materials or design games (Brandt & Messeter, 2004).
There is also a different variation of PD which refers to end-user
programming or customisation. Several papers have addressed whether
end-users should be given the ability to program or modify existing software
programs for specific purposes  (Gammack, 2002; Wagner, 2002). From this
perspective, users of programs such as Excel have the ability to design
portions of the software's functionality themselves, through methods such as
scripting. The research results are mixed. Some indicate that end users do
not have the training to program and that programs offering modification
facilities are too complex and have poor usability (Wagner, 2002). Others
indicate that it enables end-users to do operations that were not designed
for them and supports expert users (Gammack, 2002).

PD theory and methods are now being used in different cultural, temporal and
physical contexts from their origins. Many modern development environments
do not have unions, are not in industrial settings and involve political
agendas to a lesser degree. Fortunately UCD, which is an established
industry development framework, also highly values user participation in
development processes. Thus there is currently a process of reviewing PD
theory and methods to determine what is appropriate for modern development
projects (Shapiro, 1994). Novel methods of designing with users, ways of
understanding future work processes, and iterative prototyping are
participatory techniques likely to be integrated into mainstream UCD.

-- 
Best Regards,
Jeff
____________________________________________________________________________
Jeff Axup      Ph.D. Candidate - University of Queensland, Brisbane,
Australia
                   Principal Consultant, Mobile Community Design Consulting

Research:    Mobile Group Research Methods, Social Networks, Group Usability
E-mail:        axup <at> userdesign.com
Blog:           http://mobilecommunitydesign.com
Moblog:       http://memeaddict.blogspot.com
Academic:   http://www.infenv.itee.uq.edu.au
____________________________________________________________________________

On 1/24/07, Jeff Howard <id at howardesign.com> wrote:
>
> Vishal,
>
> I think we're dealing with an overlap of terms that are similar in
> spirit but that perhaps differ in domain. Sanders has been writing
> about participatory design since at least the late nineties.
>
> In 1999, in Postdesign and Participatory Culture she wrote that the
> emergence of a participatory culture in design:
>
> "...emphasizes the direct and active participation of all
> stakeholders in the design development process. This makes the
> deliverables of design more meaningful to the people who will
> ultimately benefit from them."
>
> In 2002, she laid out the distinction between UCD and Participatory
> Design in From User-Centered to Participatory Design Approaches:
>
> "There is a shift in perspective occurring today at the
> collaborative edge of design and social
> science. It is a change from a user-centered design process to that
> of participatory
> experiences. It is a shift in attitude from designing *for* users to
> one of designing *with* users..." (her emphasis).
>
> And in 2005 she expanded on that distinction in Information,
> Inspiration and Co-creation
>
> "We are experiencing today the co-evolution of two distinct
> approaches to human-centered
> design research in practice: research that informs the design
> development process and
> research that inspires the design development process."
>
> I don't want to come off as more of an advocate for Participatory
> Design than I am, but Sanders' writing is worth checking out, if
> only for an alternate perspective on the subject.
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
> List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
> (Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> Questions .................. lists at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
> Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org
>