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

Philosophical Foundationsfor Participatory Design:

”Language-games”

”Language-games”

Ehn (1993): Wittgensteinian ”language-games” are the theoretical foundation for Participatory Design

What is a ”language-game”?

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!

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”

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)

A dialectic of ”rule-breaking”

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

rule-breakingevolves

language-gamedesigner’s language-game

users’ language-game

new, common language-game

A hermeneutic representation of a ”language-game” in PD

designers

users

learnsfromlearns

from

Systems Development Research in Scandinavia

Jørgen Bansler

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

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

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

Bansler: Systems Development Research in Scandinavia

Major traditions/Basic Major traditions/Basic ideasideas

Systems theoretical Systems theoretical traditiontradition

Socio-technical traditionSocio-technical tradition Critical traditionCritical tradition

Knowledge interestKnowledge interest Profit maximizing Job satisfaction, participation

Industrial democracy

Notion of the Notion of the organizationorganization

Cybernetic system Socio-technocal system Framwork for conflicts

Notion of the labor forceNotion of the labor force Objects (”systems components”)

Subjects (individuals) Subjects (groups)

Notion of capital/labor Notion of capital/labor relationsrelations

Common interests Common interests Opposing interestes

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

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

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”

Possible conflicts and dilemmas

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

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

PD tenants 1/3

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

software

PD tenants 2/3

Understand the organization – Spend time with users in their workplaces rather

than “testing” in laboratories

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!

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

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

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

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

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