Participatory Design Group 9 30.04.2003

1
Participatory Design- Group 9 30.04.2003

• Readings related to PD
• Foundations Language-games
• Theoretical Schools in SD
• Preliminary inquiry
• General principles of PD
• PD related to our project

2
Philosophical Foundationsfor Participatory
DesignLanguage-games
3
Language-games

• Ehn (1993) Wittgensteinian language-games are
  the theoretical foundation for Participatory
  Design
• What is a language-game?

4
Wittgensteins classic example blocks,
pillars, slabs and beams

• A needs B to help him build a house
• A points at block and says block
• In the future, when A needs a block, he shouts
  block and B provides him with one
• This is a simple language-game
• This is according to Wittgenstein how children
  learn language!

5
Why Wittgensteins language-games were
revolutionary

• They closed the Cartesian divide between a
  human brain in a vat and an external world. No
  more ding an sich (Kant), only ding für mich.
• Language-games are a social activity language is
  always shared never private.
• Reality exists because of language-games, without
  language-games, no reality.
• Reality (or a part of it) something we
  understand have a word for

6
Empirical support for the theory

• Participatory Design
• joint visits to trade-shows spending more time
  together ... role-playing games all helped
  in improving understanding between user and
  designer (Ehn, p. 62)
• Acculturation of newcomers in the workplace
• acculturation takes place faster when newcomers
  interact with veteran peers (Meryl Reis Louis
  1990)

7
A dialectic of rule-breaking

• Both designer and user are influenced when new
  language-games are made.

new, common language-game
rule-breakingevolveslanguage-game
designers language-game
users language-game
8
A hermeneutic representation of a language-game
in PD
users
learns from
"language-game"
learns from
designers
9
Systems Development Research in Scandinavia

• Jørgen Bansler

10
Bansler Systems Theoretical Research 1960s-

• Objective rationalize work processes by using
  computer based information systems
• Langefors The ISAC Method
• principles of engineering to the design of
  information systems
• Employees factors of production,
• Critique the uniqueness of human beings are
  overlooked

11
BanslerSocio-technical Research 1970s-

• Concerns the socio-psychological problems caused
  by the system designers neglect of the human
  factor
• Organizations (Bjørn-Andersen et al)
• job satisfaction
• social system and technical system
• Participative approach
• Critique Socio-technical factors are often
  overseen

12
Bansler Critical Research 1970s-

• Organizations are frameworks for cooperation and
  conflicts among interests groups
• Kristen Nygaard, Olav Terje Bergo
• Metal working industry Computers impact on
  working conditions
• Local unions experimented on how to gain more
  influence in introducing new technology in the
  workplace
• Political research
• democratization must involve changes in the
  structure of social life
• Critique democratization of the workplace is not
  always the main goal for trade unions

13
Bansler Systems Development Research in
Scandinavia
14
Preliminary inquiry (PI) and PDMain topics

• The scope and reasons for conducting a PI
• Aspects that are similar to the focus in PD-
  theory
• Possible conflicts and dilemmas

15
The scope and reasons for a conducting a
preliminary inquiry

• The challenges and the setting
• General principals (Bødker, Kensing, Simonsen)
• the MUST- method
• a common vision
• actual user participation
• mutual learning process
• learning by doing (UTOPIA?)
• Anchorage, common reference point

16
Aspects that are similar to the focus in PD-
theory

• User participation
• Policy of democracy
• Recognition of workers as a valuable source of
  knowledge
• Broader meaning of system

17
Possible conflicts and dilemmas

• power/ influence (the Telenor- project)
• consequences of visions/ solutions
• Conflict of interest

18
Participatory Design - principles

• An approach to assess, design and develop of
  technical and organizational systems
• For more information http//www.cpsr.org/program/
  workplace/PD.html

19
PD tenants 1/3

• Involvement of the users
• Workers, a prime source
• The system more than a collection of software

20
PD tenants 2/3

• Understand the organization
• Spend time with users in their workplaces rather
  than testing in laboratories

21
Why use Participatory Design? 1/3

• Increase knowledge of the system being developed
• Being there is more useful than hearing about it
  / being told about it
• Gives a good opportunity to give the users a
  realistic expectation of the system
• And possibly reduce resistance towards the system!

22
Why use Participatory Design? 2/3

• Increase Democracy in the work place
• By giving users an opportunity to participate in
  decisions that will possibly affect their
  workplace / work environment

23
Why use Participatory Design? 3/3

• Mutual learning
• Between developer and user
• Users get to know their future tools, and have
  the opportunity to suggest alterations if
  desirable
• The Say/Do problem

24
Possible Problems with PD

• Demands close cooperation between the developer
  and user
• Requires the same geo. location for the developer
  and user
• Developers might not get to work with the right
  users
• Users might misinterpret their amount of power
  over their own situation

25
PD in our project As in PD, we

• Had certain METHODS for communicating knowledge
• Had to solve say-do- challenges
• Know the organizational context
• Used the workers as a source of knowledge and
  innovation

26
PD in our project As opposed to PD, we

• Were not much concerned with democratic processes
• Could not be at the users workplace as a design
  team
• The Virtual Team approach does not make user
  participation easy during the design process