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 Design:”Language-games”

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

4. Wittgenstein’s 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 Wittgenstein’s 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 designer’s language-game users’ language-game

8. A hermeneutic representation of a ”language-game” in PD users learns from learns from "language-game" 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. Bansler:Socio-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 PD:Main 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 user’s workplace as a design team • The Virtual Team approach does not make user participation easy during the design process