Qinzhi Jiang
Kentaro Toyama
ABSTRACT
Co-design collects insights from multiple stakeholders collaboratively making it a powerful method to design with marginalized populations. In the latter context, stakeholders have varying levels of power causing asymmetry and possible suppression of one group over another. Such power differentials can hinder co-design’s effectiveness. Through thirteen semi-structured interviews with co-design facilitators who have worked with marginalized communities in 43 different countries, we discovered that despite efforts to mitigate power differentials, significant disparities in educational and cultural backgrounds, language barriers, and gender imbalances prevent true collaboration. Tools for prototyping, analysis and evaluation often require literacy, advanced training, and resources. When these are inaccessible, co-design fails to materialize in the design analysis, implementation, and evaluation phases. We found this failure occurred with marginalized groups. We also found that experienced facilitators were aware of their own privilege as well as the power differentials of outside stakeholders such as donors, and they prioritized strategies to address them ahead of time.
Supplemental Material
- [n.d.]. Designing for a more equitable world. https://news.mit.edu/2017/designing-more-equitable-world-amy-smith-mit-d-lab-1006Google Scholar
- Claus Bossen. 2006. Participation, power, critique: constructing a standard for electronic patient records. In Proceedings of the ninth conference on Participatory design: Expanding boundaries in design - Volume 1(PDC ’06). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1145/1147261.1147276Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tone Bratteteig and Ina Wagner. 2012. Disentangling power and decision-making in participatory design. In Proceedings of the 12th Participatory Design Conference on Research Papers: Volume 1 - PDC ’12. ACM Press, Roskilde, Denmark, 41. https://doi.org/10.1145/2347635.2347642Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tone Bratteteig and Ina Wagner. 2014. Design decisions and the sharing of power in PD. In Proceedings of the 13th Participatory Design Conference on Short Papers, Industry Cases, Workshop Descriptions, Doctoral Consortium papers, and Keynote abstracts - PDC ’14 - volume 2. ACM Press, Windhoek, Namibia, 29–32. https://doi.org/10.1145/2662155.2662192Google ScholarDigital Library
- Grace Burleson, Kathleen H. Sienko, and Kentaro Toyama. 2020. Incorporating Contextual Factors Into a Design Process: An Analysis of Engineering for Global Development Literature. American Society of Mechanical Engineers Digital Collection. https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2020-22634Google Scholar
- Sarah Carr. 2007. Participation, Power, Conflict and Change: Theorizing Dynamics of Service under Participation in the Social Care System of England and Wales Commentary & Issues. Critical Social Policy 27, 2 (2007), 266–276. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/critsplcy27&i=260Google ScholarCross Ref
- Richard Coyne. 2005. Wicked problems revisited. Design Studies 26, 1 (Jan. 2005), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2004.06.005Google ScholarCross Ref
- Shanna R Daly, Seda Yilmaz, James L Christian, Colleen M Seifert, and Richard Gonzalez. 2012. Design heuristics in engineering concept generation. (2012).Google Scholar
- Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, Lillian Lee, Bo Pang, and Jon Kleinberg. 2012. Echoes of power: language effects and power differences in social interaction. (2012), 10.Google Scholar
- Marion Danet. 2020. Impact of creative capacity building of local innovators and communities on income, welfare and attitudes in Uganda. (2020).Google Scholar
- Chiara Del Gaudio, Alfredo Jefferson de Oliveira, and Carlo Franzato. 2014. The influence of local powers on participatory design processes in marginalized conflict areas. In Proceedings of the 13th Participatory Design Conference: Research Papers - Volume 1(PDC ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 131–139. https://doi.org/10.1145/2661435.2661440Google ScholarDigital Library
- Peter Digeser. 1992. The Fourth Face of Power. The Journal of Politics 54, 4 (1992), 977–1007. https://doi.org/10.2307/2132105 Publisher: [University of Chicago Press, Southern Political Science Association].Google ScholarCross Ref
- Andrew Drain, Aruna Shekar, and Nigel Grigg. 2021. Insights, Solutions and Empowerment: a framework for evaluating participatory design. CoDesign 17, 1 (Jan. 2021), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2018.1540641 Publisher: Taylor & Francis _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2018.1540641.Google Scholar
- Allison Druin. 1999. Cooperative Inquiry: New Technologies for Children. (1999), 8.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Michelle Farr. 2018. Power dynamics and collaborative mechanisms in co-production and co-design processes. Critical social policy 38, 4 (Nov. 2018), 623–644. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261018317747444 Publisher: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
- Geraldine Fitzpatrick and Lone Malmborg. 2018. Quadruple helix model organisation and tensions in participatory design teams. In Proceedings of the 10th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. ACM, Oslo Norway, 376–384. https://doi.org/10.1145/3240167.3240191Google ScholarDigital Library
- Pin Sym Foong, Shengdong Zhao, Felicia Tan, and Joseph Jay Williams. 2018. Harvesting Caregiving Knowledge: Design Considerations for Integrating Volunteer Input in Dementia Care. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173653Google ScholarDigital Library
- Trisha Greenhalgh, CLAIRE JACKSON, SARA SHAW, and TINA JANAMIAN. 2016. Achieving Research Impact Through Co‐creation in Community‐Based Health Services: Literature Review and Case Study. The Milbank Quarterly 94, 2 (June 2016), 392–429. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12197Google Scholar
- Lee Gregory. 2012. Leading Public Sector Innovation: Co-creation for a better society – By Christian Bason. Social Policy & Administration 46, 1 (2012), 131–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9515.2011.00821_2.x _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1467-9515.2011.00821_2.x.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Camilla Groth, Margherita Pevere, Kirsi Niinimäki, and Pirjo Kääriäinen. 2020. Conditions for experiential knowledge exchange in collaborative research across the sciences and creative practice. CoDesign 16, 4 (Oct. 2020), 328–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2020.1821713 Publisher: Taylor & Francis _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2020.1821713.Google Scholar
- Mark Haugaard. 2012. Rethinking the four dimensions of power: domination and empowerment. Journal of Political Power 5, 1 (April 2012), 33–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/2158379X.2012.660810 Publisher: Routledge _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/2158379X.2012.660810.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Isaac Holeman, Edwin Blake, Melissa Densmore, Maletsabisa Molapo, Fiona Ssozi, Elizabeth Goodman, Indrani Medhi Thies, and Susan Wyche. 2017. Co-Design Across Borders Special Interest Group. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Denver Colorado USA, 1318–1321. https://doi.org/10.1145/3027063.3049288Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sofia Hussain, Elizabeth B. N. Sanders, and Martin S. Steinert. 2012. Participatory Design with Marginalized People in Developing Countries: Challenges and Opportunities Experienced in a Field Study in Cambodia. International Journal of Design 6, 2 (Aug. 2012), n/a. http://search.proquest.com/docview/1270361550/abstract/44AA8088B8784742PQ/1 Num Pages: n/a Place: Taipei, Taiwan Publisher: Chinese Institute of Design.Google Scholar
- Hilary Hutchinson, Wendy Mackay, Bo Westerlund, Benjamin B Bederson, Allison Druin, Catherine Plaisant, Michel Beaudouin-Lafon, Stéphane Conversy, Helen Evans, Heiko Hansen, 2003. Technology probes: inspiring design for and with families. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. 17–24.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Matthew Kam, Divya Ramachandran, Anand Raghavan, Jane Chiu, Urvashi Sahni, and John Canny. [n.d.]. Practical Considerations for Participatory Design with Rural School Children in Underdeveloped Regions: Early Reflections from the Field. ([n. d.]), 8.Google Scholar
- Rebecca-Jane Law, Lynne Williams, Joseph Langley, Christopher Burton, Beth Hall, Julia Hiscock, Val Morrison, Andrew Lemmey, Rebecca Partridge, Candida Lovell-Smith, John Gallanders, and Nefyn Williams. 2020. ‘Function First—Be Active, Stay Independent’—promoting physical activity and physical function in people with long-term conditions by primary care: a protocol for a realist synthesis with embedded co-production and co-design. BMJ Open 10, 2 (Feb. 2020), e035686. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035686 Publisher: British Medical Journal Publishing Group Section: General practice / Family practice.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Yanki Lee. 2008. Design participation tactics: the challenges and new roles for designers in the co-design process. CoDesign 4, 1 (2008), 31–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875613 Publisher: Informa UK Limited.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Chi-Shun Liao and Lee Lee, Cheng-Wen. 2010. The application of codesign in new bra product innovations. International Journal of Clothing Science and Technology; Bradford 22, 2/3(2010), 211–227. https://doi.org/10.1108/09556221011018676 Num Pages: 211-227 Place: Bradford, United Kingdom, Bradford Publisher: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Maria Rosa Lorini, Melissa Densmore, David Johnson, Senka Hadzic, Hafeni Mthoko, Ganief Manuel, Marius Waries, and André van Zyl. 2019. Localize-It: Co-designing a Community-Owned Platform. In Locally Relevant ICT Research(Communications in Computer and Information Science), Kirstin Krauss, Marita Turpin, and Filistea Naude (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 243–257. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11235-6_16Google Scholar
- Steven Lukes. 2004. Power: A Radical View. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, London, UNITED KINGDOM. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/umichigan/detail.action?docID=296503Google Scholar
- Robert F. Lusch, Stephen L. Vargo, and Matthew O’Brien. 2007. Competing through service: Insights from service-dominant logic. Journal of Retailing 83, 1 (Jan. 2007), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2006.10.002Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ezio Manzini. 2015. Design, When Everybody Designs: An Introduction to Design for Social Innovation. MIT Press. Google-Books-ID: BDnqBgAAQBAJ.Google Scholar
- Mustafa Naseem, Fouzia Younas, and Maryam Mustafa. 2020. Designing Digital Safe Spaces for Peer Support and Connectivity in Patriarchal Contexts. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 4, CSCW2, Article 146 (oct 2020), 24 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3415217Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jane W Njeru, Christi A Patten, Marcelo MK Hanza, Tabetha A Brockman, Jennifer L Ridgeway, Jennifer A Weis, Matthew M Clark, Miriam Goodson, Ahmed Osman, Graciela Porraz-Capetillo, 2015. Stories for change: development of a diabetes digital storytelling intervention for refugees and immigrants to Minnesota using qualitative methods. BMC public health 15, 1 (2015), 1–11.Google Scholar
- Éidín Ní Shé and Reema Harrison. 2021. Mitigating unintended consequences of co-design in health care. Health Expectations 24, 5 (2021), 1551–1556. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13308 _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/hex.13308.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ihudiya Finda Ogbonnaya-Ogburu, Angela D.R. Smith, Alexandra To, and Kentaro Toyama. 2020. Critical Race Theory for HCI. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Honolulu HI USA, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376392Google ScholarDigital Library
- Meg Parsons, Karen Fisher, and Johanna Nalau. 2016. Alternative approaches to co-design: insights from indigenous/academic research collaborations. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 20 (June 2016), 99–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.07.001Google Scholar
- Evan W Patton, Michael Tissenbaum, and Farzeen Harunani. 2019. MIT app inventor: Objectives, design, and development. In Computational thinking education. Springer, Singapore, 31–49.Google Scholar
- Divya Ramachandran, Matthew Kam, Jane Chiu, John Canny, and James F. Frankel. 2007. Social dynamics of early stage co-design in developing regions. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’07. ACM Press, San Jose, California, USA, 1087–1096. https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240790Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mitchel Resnick, John Maloney, Andrés Monroy-Hernández, Natalie Rusk, Evelyn Eastmond, Karen Brennan, Amon Millner, Eric Rosenbaum, Jay Silver, Brian Silverman, 2009. Scratch: programming for all. Commun. ACM 52, 11 (2009), 60–67.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Itesh Sachdev and Richard Y. Bourhis. 1985. Social categorization an power differentials in group relations. European Journal of Social Psychology 15, 4 (Dec. 1985), 415–434. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420150405 Publisher: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Elizabeth B.-N. Sanders and Pieter Jan Stappers. 2008. Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign 4, 1 (2008), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068 Publisher: Association for Computing Machinery, Inc.Google Scholar
- Michael Scaife, Yvonne Rogers, Frances Aldrich, and Matt Davies. 1997. Designing for or designing with? Informant design for interactive learning environments. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, Atlanta Georgia USA, 343–350. https://doi.org/10.1145/258549.258789Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jason C. Yip, Kiley Sobel, Caroline Pitt, Kung Jin Lee, Sijin Chen, Kari Nasu, and Laura R. Pina. 2017. Examining Adult-Child Interactions in Intergenerational Participatory Design. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Denver Colorado USA, 5742–5754. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025787Google ScholarDigital Library
- Theodore Zamenopoulos and Katerina Alexiou. 2018. Co-design As Collaborative Research. Bristol University/AHRC Connected Communities Programme, Bristol. https://connected-communities.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Co-Design_SP.pdfGoogle Scholar
- Theodore Zamenopoulos, Busayawan Lam, Katerina Alexiou, Mihaela Kelemen, Sophia De Sousa, Sue Moffat, and Martin Phillips. 2021. Types, obstacles and sources of empowerment in co-design: the role of shared material objects and processes. CoDesign 17, 2 (April 2021), 139–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2019.1605383 Publisher: Taylor & Francis _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2019.1605383.Google Scholar
Recommendations
Co-Design with Older Adults: Examining and Reflecting on Collaboration with Aging Communities
CSCW2Co-design methods have involved older adults in the design process to fill the knowledge gap that younger adult designers might encounter when designing for an aging population. A focus of co-design means establishing equal and equitable relationships ...
Examining Adult-Child Interactions in Intergenerational Participatory Design
CHI '17: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsPrior studies have focused on child interactions in participatory design (PD) with adults and children, but less is known about what specific adult-child interactions constitute a partnership. In this study, we unpack what constitutes an "equal ...
Integrating user stories to inspire the co-design of digital futures for cultural heritage
Interacción '16: Proceedings of the XVII International Conference on Human Computer InteractionCo-design as a tactic of exploring and shaping possible futures would benefit from contributions of unwitting participants. That is, researchers gather information from them while performing some activities without participants being explicitly aware of ...
Comments