Man Zhang
ABSTRACT
Social innovation is both the driving force and the goal of participatory design. However, social innovation does not start directly with action but presupposes the creation of meaningful encounters between participants, which requires corresponding commons to allow for various meetings, conversations, and actions that are not circumscribed. Based on literature research and practical experience, this paper argues that trust-building is the key to creating relational commons. This paper reviews literature about trust and participatory design, uncovers a vision of future co-creative communities based on trust and blockchain of DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organization) as a new organizational form, and analyzes in detail the trust mechanisms of participatory design for social innovation, leading to a theoretical framework. This framework argues that shaping trust's cognitive and affective foundations is crucial to building a social innovation network. Subsequent research will enable the integration of blockchain technology with the theoretical framework and verify the model's validity through empirical studies.
- Paul S. Adler and Seok-Woo Kwon. 2002. Social Capital: Prospects for a New Concept. Acad. Manage. Rev. 27, 1 (2002), 17–40. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2307/4134367Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Nava Ashraf, Iris Bohnet, and Nikita Piankov. 2006. Decomposing trust and trustworthiness. Exp. Econ. 9, 3 (September 2006), 193–208. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-006-9122-4Google ScholarCross Ref
- Robert Axelrod and William Donald Hamilton. 1981. The Evolution of Cooperation. Science 211, 4489 (1981), 1390–1396. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7466396Google Scholar
- Liam J. Bannon and Pelle Ehn. 2013. Design: Design Matters in Participatory Design. In Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design. Routledge.Google Scholar
- Patrick Bateson. 1988. The biological evolution of cooperation and trust. In Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations, Diego Gambetta (ed.). Blackwell, 14–30.Google Scholar
- Zygmunt Bauman. 2001. Community: Seeking Safety in an Insecure World. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
- Erling Bjögvinsson, Pelle Ehn, and Per-Anders Hillgren. 2012. Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges. Des. Issues 28, 3 (2012), 101–116. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1162/DESI_a_00165Google ScholarCross Ref
- 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. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2347635.2347642Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tim Brown and Jocelyn Wyatt. 2010. Design Thinking for Social Innovation. Dev. Outreach 12, 1 (July 2010), 29–43. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1596/1020-797X_12_1_29Google ScholarCross Ref
- Monika Büscher, Dan Shapiro Mark Hartswood, Rob Procter, Roger Slack, Alex Voß, and Preben Mogensen. 2002. Promises, Premises and Risks: Sharing Responsibilities, Working Up Trust and Sustaining Commitment in Participatory Design Projects. (2002), 11.Google Scholar
- Ana Maria Bustamante Duarte, Mehrnaz Ataei, Auriol Degbelo, Nina Brendel, and Christian Kray. 2021. Safe Spaces in Participatory Design with Young Forced Migrants. CoDesign 17, 2 (2021), 188–210. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2019.1654523Google ScholarCross Ref
- Rachel Elizabeth Clarke, Jo Briggs, Andrea Armstrong, Alistair MacDonald, John Vines, Emma Flynn, and Karen Salt. 2021. Socio-Materiality of Trust: Co-Design with a Resource Limited Community Organisation. CoDesign 17, 3 (2021), 258–277. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2019.1631349Google ScholarCross Ref
- James S. Coleman. 1988. Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. Am. J. Sociol. 94, (1988), S95–S120.Google ScholarCross Ref
- George Crowder. 2004. Isaiah Berlin: Liberty, Pluralism and Liberalism. Polity.Google Scholar
- Andy Dearden and Haider Rizvi. 2008. Participatory IT Design and Participatory Development: A Comparative Review. In Proceedings of the Tenth Anniversary Conference on Participatory Design 2008 (PDC ’08), Indiana University, USA, 81–91.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Quinn DuPont. 2017. Experiments in algorithmic governance: A history and ethnography of “The DAO,” a failed decentralized autonomous organization. In Bitcoin and Beyond: Cryptocurrencies, Blockchains, and Global Governance (1st ed), Malcolm (ed.). Routledge, 157–177. DOI:https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315211909Google Scholar
- Asbjørn Følstad. 2017. Chapter 16: From Participatory Design to Co-Creation. In Innovating for Trust, Marika Lüders, Tor W. Andreassen, Simon Clatworthy and Tore Hillestad (eds.). Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK, 247–260. DOI:https://doi.org/10.4337/9781785369483Google Scholar
- Francis Fukuyama. 1999. The Great Disruption. Free Press.Google Scholar
- Christina Harrington, Sheena Erete, and Anne Marie Piper. 2019. Deconstructing Community-Based Collaborative Design: Towards More Equitable Participatory Design Engagements. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 3, CSCW (2019), 1–25. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3359318Google ScholarDigital Library
- Samer Hassan and Primavera De Filippi. 2021. Decentralized Autonomous Organization. Internet Policy Rev. 10, 2 (2021), 1–10. DOI:https://doi.org/10.14763/2021.2.1556Google ScholarCross Ref
- Per-Anders Hillgren, Anna Seravalli, and Anders Emilson. 2011. Prototyping and Infrastructuring in Design for Social Innovation. CoDesign 7, 3–4 (2011), 169–183. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2011.630474Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ying-Ying Hsieh, Jean-Philippe Vergne, Philip Anderson, Karim Lakhani, and Markus Reitzig. 2018. Bitcoin and the rise of decentralized autonomous organizations. J. Organ. Des. 7, 1 (November 2018), 14. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1186/s41469-018-0038-1Google Scholar
- Sofia Hussain, Elizabeth B.-N. Sanders, and Martin Steinert. 2012. Participatory Design with Marginalized People in Developing Countries: Challenges and Opportunities Experienced in a Field Study in Cambodia. 2012 6.Google Scholar
- François Jégou and Ezio Manzini. 2008. Collaborative Services. Social Innovation and Design for Sustainability. Polidesign.Google Scholar
- Danwen Ji, Tinglei Cao, and Hangping Yang. 2022. How Designers Can Act Inside the Design Objects: A Preliminary Study on How Community Building Constituted Social Innovation as a Design Approach. In Cross-Cultural Design: Interaction Design Across Cultures, 1–18. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06038-0_15Google Scholar
- Gareth R. Jones and Jennifer M. George. 1998. The Experience and Evolution of Trust: Implications for Cooperation and Teamwork. Acad. Manage. Rev. 23, 3 (1998), 531–546. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2307/259293Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gereon Koch Kapuire, Heike Winschiers-Theophilus, and Edwin Blake. 2015. An Insider Perspective on Community Gains: A Subjective Account of a Namibian Rural Communities' Perception of a Long-Term Participatory Design Project. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 74, (2015), 124–143. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.10.004Google ScholarDigital Library
- Galia Kondova and Renato Barba. 2019. Governance of decentralized autonomous organizations. J. Mod. Account. Audit. 15, 8 (2019), 406–411. DOI:https://doi.org/10.17265/1548-6583/2019.08.003Google Scholar
- Hee Rin Lee, Selma Šabanović, Wan-Ling Chang, Shinichi Nagata, Jennifer Piatt, Casey Bennett, and David Hakken. 2017. Steps Toward Participatory Design of Social Robots: Mutual Learning with Older Adults with Depression. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, ACM, Vienna Austria, 244–253. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2909824.3020237Google ScholarDigital Library
- Roy J. Lewicki and Barbara B. Bunker. 1996. Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships. Trust Organ. Front. Theory Res. 114, (1996), 114–139. DOI:https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452243610.n7Google Scholar
- J. David Lewis and Andrew Weigert. 1985. Trust as a Social Reality. Soc. Forces 63, 4 (1985), 967–985. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2307/2578601Google ScholarCross Ref
- Juanjuan Li, Yong Yuan, Shuai Wang, and Fei-Yue Wang. 2018. Transaction Queuing Game in Bitcoin BlockChain. In 2018 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), IEEE Press, 114–119. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/IVS.2018.8500403Google Scholar
- Nan Lin. 1999. Social Networks and Status Attainment. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 25, 1 (1999), 467–487. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.25.1.467Google ScholarCross Ref
- Yongqi Lou. 2018. Designing Interactions to Counter Threats to Human Survival. She Ji J. Des. Econ. Innov. 4, 4 (2018), 342–354. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2018.10.001Google ScholarCross Ref
- Yongqi Lou and Jin Ma. 2018. Growing a Community-Supported Ecosystem of Future Living: The Case of NICE2035 Living Line. In Cross-Cultural Design. Applications in Cultural Heritage, Creativity and Social Development (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Springer International Publishing, 320–333. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92252-2_26Google Scholar
- Jin Ma and Yongqi Lou. 2022. Neighborhood Regeneration through Cultivating an Innovation Ecosystem of Future Living-The Case of NICE2035. Archit. J. 03 (2022), 20–27. DOI:https://doi.org/10.19819/j.cnki.ISSN0529-1399.202203003Google Scholar
- Ezio Manzini. 2015. Design, When Everybody Designs: An Introduction to Design for Social Innovation. MIT press.Google Scholar
- Ezio Manzini. 2019. Politics of the Everyday. Bloomsbury Visual Arts.Google Scholar
- Roger C. Mayer, James H. Davis, and F. David Schoorman. 1995. An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust. Acad. Manage. Rev. 20, 3 (1995), 709–734. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2307/258792Google ScholarCross Ref
- Daniel J. McAllister. 1995. Affect- and Cognition-Based Trust as Foundations for Interpersonal Cooperation in Organizations. Acad. Manage. J. 38, 1 (1995), 24–59. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2307/256727Google Scholar
- Robbie Morrison, Natasha C. H. L. Mazey, and Stephen C. Wingreen. 2020. The DAO Controversy: The Case for a New Species of Corporate Governance? Front. Blockchain 3, (2020), 25. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3389/fbloc.2020.00025Google Scholar
- Alex Murray, Scott Kuban, Matt Josefy, and Jon Anderson. 2021. Contracting in the Smart Era: The Implications of Blockchain and Decentralized Autonomous Organizations for Contracting and Corporate Governance. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 35, 4 (2021), 622–641. DOI:https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2018.0066Google ScholarCross Ref
- Robin Murray, Julie Caulier-Grice, and Geoff Mulgan. 2010. The Open Book of Social Innovation. Nesta London.Google Scholar
- Satoshi Nakamoto. 2008. Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. Decentralized Bus. Rev. (2008), 21260.Google Scholar
- Donald A. Norman and Pieter Jan Stappers. 2015. DesignX: Complex Sociotechnical Systems. She Ji J. Des. Econ. Innov. 1, 2 (2015), 83–106. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2016.01.002Google ScholarCross Ref
- Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, Viola Petrella, Joyce Yee, and Rachel E Clarke. 2020. Mutuality and Reciprocity: Foregrounding Relationships in Design and Social Innovation. In Design Research Society Conference 2020. DOI:https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2020.177Google Scholar
- Liwei Ouyang, Yong Yuan, and Fei-Yue Wang. 2019. A Blockchain-based Framework for Collaborative Production in Distributed and Social Manufacturing. In 2019 IEEE International Conference on Service Operations and Logistics, and Informatics (SOLI), IEEE, 76–81. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/SOLI48380.2019.8955075Google ScholarDigital Library
- Walter W. Powell. 1990. Neither Market Nor Hierarchy: Network Forms of Organization. Res. Organ. Behav. 12, (January 1990), 295–336.Google Scholar
- Robert D. Putnam and Making Democracy Work. 1993. Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princet. UP (1993).Google Scholar
- John K. Rempel, John G. Holmes, and Mark P. Zanna. 1985. Trust in close relationships. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 49, 1 (July 1985), 95–112. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.1.95Google ScholarCross Ref
- Olivier Rikken, Marijn Janssen, and Zenlin Kwee. 2019. Governance challenges of blockchain and decentralized autonomous organizations. Inf. Polity 24, 4 (2019), 397–417. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-190154Google ScholarDigital Library
- Elizabeth B.-N. Sanders and Pieter Jan Stappers. 2008. Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign 4, 1 (March 2008), 5–18. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068Google ScholarCross Ref
- Barry R. Schlenker, Bob Helm, and James T. Tedeschi. 1973. The effects of personality and situational variables on behavioral trust. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 25, 3 (1973), 419–427. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034088Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jesper Simonsen and Toni Robertson (Eds.). 2013. Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design (Zeroth ed.). Routledge New York.Google Scholar
- Robert M. Solow. 1997. Tell me again what we are talking about. Stern Bus. Mag. 4, 1 (1997), 12–19.Google Scholar
- Fiona Ssozi-Mugarura, Edwin Blake, and Ulrike Rivett. 2017. Codesigning with Communities to Support Rural Water Management in Uganda. CoDesign 13, 2 (2017), 110–126. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2017.1310904Google ScholarCross Ref
- Pieter Jan Stappers. 2006. Creative Connections: User, Designer, Context, and Tools. Ubiquit Comput 10, 2 (April 2006), 95–100. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-005-0024-9Google Scholar
- Wendy Stone. 2001. Measuring Social Capital: Towards a Theoretical Informed Measurement Framework for Researching Social Capital in Family and Community Life. Aust Inst Family Stud.Google Scholar
- Nick Szabo. 1997. Formalizing and Securing Relationships on Public Networks. First Monday 2, 9 (September 1997). DOI:https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v2i9.548Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lauren Tan. 2012. Understanding the different roles of the designer in design for social good: a study of design methodology in the DOTT 07 (Designs of the Time 2007) projects. (2012), 583.Google Scholar
- Cyril Tjahja and Joyce Yee. 2022. Being a Sociable Designer: Reimagining the Role of Designers in Social Innovation. CoDesign 18, 1 (2022), 135–150. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2021.2021244Google ScholarCross Ref
- Laura Warwick. 2017. Designing Trust: The Importance of Relationships in Social Contexts. Des. J. 20, sup1 (2017), S3096–S3105. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1352817Google Scholar
- Stanley Wasserman and Katherine Faust. 1994. Social Network Analysis in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Soc. Netw. Anal. Methods Appl. 1994, (1994), 3–27. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815478.002Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gavin Wood. 2014. Ethereum: A secure decentralised generalised transaction ledger. Ethereum Proj. Yellow Pap. 151, 2014 (2014), 1–32.Google Scholar
- Yumeng Xie, G Mauricio Mejia, Paul Coseo, and Chingwen Cheng. 2020. A Participatory Design Case Study in Environmental Design Education. In Proceedings of the 16th Participatory Design Conference 2020 - Participation(s) Otherwise - Volume 2, ACM, Manizales Colombia, 87–94. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3384772.3385152Google ScholarDigital Library
- Yong Yuan and Fei-Yue Wang. 2016. Blockchain: the state of the art and future trends. Acta Autom. Sin. 42, 4 (2016), 481–494. DOI:https://doi.org/10.16383/j.aas.2016.c160158Google Scholar
- Lynne G. Zucker. 1987. Institutional Theories of Organization. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 13, 1 (1987), 443–464. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.13.080187.002303Google ScholarCross Ref
Recommendations
Challenges of participatory design for social innovation a case study in aging society
PDC '12: Proceedings of the 12th Participatory Design Conference: Exploratory Papers, Workshop Descriptions, Industry Cases - Volume 2The purpose of the paper is to further our understanding of conditions for participatory design (PD). We base our reflections on an ongoing project to develop new ICT concepts for social innovation to mitigate consequences of the aging society as faced ...
The role of design fiction in participatory design processes
NordiCHI '18: Proceedings of the 10th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer InteractionParticipatory design is in essence very malleable as any design technique could lend itself to it, as long as users and stakeholders are involved. Design fictions however, have more often been used as either a vehicle for critical designs, or as a sheer ...
Social innovation within prison service
PDC '12: Proceedings of the 12th Participatory Design Conference: Exploratory Papers, Workshop Descriptions, Industry Cases - Volume 2This paper report on a project in a maximum-security prison in Denmark, where a group of officers and inmates engaged in a participatory design project aimed at improving the quality of everyday life. A series of participatory design workshops had two ...
Comments