Torben Volkmann
ABSTRACT
Power imbalances between users and designers impede the intent to equal contributions in a participatory process. Recent years have shown that unforeseen external factors pose a risk of exacerbating this power imbalance by limiting in-person meetings and communication in general. This study evaluated a projects’ power relations using a three-part reflection-on-action approach. Results show, that external factors can act as an actor in the power relationship model and that the change of initiative can change the power relations. Thus, we propose a power relation triangle for Participatory Design processes, including participants, designers and external conditions as actors and the decision-making at the center based on the combination of the actor’s relations. This framework can help to better understand and address power imbalances in Participatory Design.
Footnotes
Supplemental Material
- Liam Bannon, Jeffrey Bardzell, and Susanne Bødker. 2018. Introduction: Reimagining participatory design—Emerging voices., 8 pages.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Maria Beimborn, Selma Kadi, Nina Köberer, Mara Mühleck, and Mone Spindler. 2016. Focusing on the Human: Interdisciplinary Reflections on Ageing and Technology. In Ageing and Technology. transcript Verlag, 311–334. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783839429570-015Google ScholarCross Ref
- Susanne Bødker. 2006. When Second Wave HCI Meets Third Wave Challenges. In Proceedings of the 4th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Changing Roles(NordiCHI ’06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1145/1182475.1182476Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tone Bratteteig and Ina Wagner. 2012. Disentangling Power and Decision-Making in Participatory Design(PDC ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 41–50. 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: Short Papers, Industry Cases, Workshop Descriptions, Doctoral Consortium Papers, and Keynote Abstracts - Volume 2 (Windhoek, Namibia) (PDC ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 29–32. https://doi.org/10.1145/2662155.2662192Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tone Bratteteig and Ina Wagner. 2014. Disentangling participation: power and decision-making in participatory design. Springer.Google Scholar
- Tone Bratteteig and Ina Wagner. 2016. Unpacking the Notion of Participation in Participatory Design. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 25, 6 (Dec. 2016), 425–475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-016-9259-4Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tone Bratteteig and Ina Wagner. 2016. What Is a Participatory Design Result?. In Proceedings of the 14th Participatory Design Conference: Full Papers - Volume 1. ACM, Aarhus Denmark, 141–150. https://doi.org/10.1145/2940299.2940316Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ineke Buskens. 2016. Who is It That Participates? Exploring an Intentional and Dialogical Self-Concept for Emancipatory Participatory Design. In Proceedings of the 14th Participatory Design Conference: Short Papers, Interactive Exhibitions, Workshops - Volume 2 (Aarhus, Denmark) (PDC ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 103–104. https://doi.org/10.1145/2948076.2948097Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ceara Ann Byrne, Claudia B. Rebola, and Clint Zeagler. 2013. Design Research Methods to Understand User Needs for an Etextile Knee Sleeve. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Design of Communication. ACM, 17–22.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Rachel Charlotte Smith, Heike Winschiers-Theophilus, Asnath Paula Kambunga, and Sarala Krishnamurthy. 2020. Decolonizing Participatory Design: Memory Making in Namibia. In Proceedings of the 16th Participatory Design Conference 2020 - Participation(s) Otherwise - Volume 1 (Manizales, Colombia) (PDC ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 96–106. https://doi.org/10.1145/3385010.3385021Google ScholarDigital Library
- 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 (Windhoek, Namibia) (PDC ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 131–139. https://doi.org/10.1145/2661435.2661440Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Darin Ellis and Sri H. Kurniawan. 2000. Increasing the Usability of Online Information for Older Users: A Case Study in Participatory Design. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 12, 2 (2000), 263–276.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mette Agger Eriksen, Eva Brandt, Tuuli Mattelmäki, and Kirsikka Vaajakallio. 2014. Taking Design Games Seriously: Re-Connecting Situated Power Relations of People and Materials. In Proceedings of the 13th Participatory Design Conference: Research Papers - Volume 1 (Windhoek, Namibia) (PDC ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1145/2661435.2661447Google ScholarDigital Library
- Aakash Gautam and Deborah Tatar. 2022. Empowering Participation Within Structures of Dependency. In Proceedings of the Participatory Design Conference 2022 - Volume 1 (Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom) (PDC ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1145/3536169.3537781Google ScholarDigital Library
- Victoria Gerrard and Ricardo Sosa. 2014. Examining Participation. In Proceedings of the 13th Participatory Design Conference on Research Papers - PDC ’14. ACM Press, Windhoek, Namibia, 111–120. https://doi.org/10.1145/2661435.2661451Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gopinaath Kannabiran and Marianne Graves Petersen. 2010. Politics at the Interface: A Foucauldian Power Analysis. In Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Extending Boundaries (Reykjavik, Iceland) (NordiCHI ’10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 695–698. https://doi.org/10.1145/1868914.1869007Google ScholarDigital Library
- Wiesław Kopeć, Kinga Skorupska, Anna Jaskulska, Katarzyna Abramczuk, Radoslaw Nielek, and Adam Wierzbicki. 2017. LivingLab PJAIT: Towards Better Urban Participation of Seniors. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Web Intelligence(WI ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1085–1092. https://doi.org/10.1145/3106426.3109040Google ScholarDigital Library
- Michael Massimi, Ronald M. Baecker, and Michael Wu. 2007. Using Participatory Activities with Seniors to Critique, Build, and Evaluate Mobile Phones. In Proceedings of the 9th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility(Assets ’07). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 155–162. https://doi.org/10.1145/1296843.1296871Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sebastian Merkel and Alexander Kucharski. 2018. Participatory Design in Gerontechnology: A Systematic Literature Review. The Gerontologist 59, 1 (May 2018), e16–e25. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gny034Google ScholarCross Ref
- Rachel Pruchno. 2019. Technology and Aging: An Evolving Partnership. Gerontologist 59, 1 (Jan. 2019), 1–5.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Elizabeth B.-N. Sanders and Pieter Jan Stappers. 2008. Co-Creation and the New Landscapes of Design. CoDesign 4, 1 (March 2008), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068Google ScholarCross Ref
- Donald A. Schön. 1984. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think In Action. Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
- Jesper Simonsen and Toni Robertson (Eds.). 2012. Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design (zeroth ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203108543Google ScholarCross Ref
- Rachel Charlotte Smith, Claus Bossen, and Anne Marie Kanstrup. 2017. Participatory Design in an Era of Participation. CoDesign 13, 2 (April 2017), 65–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2017.1310466Google ScholarCross Ref
- Clay Spinuzzi. 2005. The methodology of participatory design. Technical communication 52, 2 (2005), 163–174.Google Scholar
- Fabiana Tomasini Giannini and Ingrid Mulder. 2022. Towards a Power-Balanced Participatory Design Process. In Proceedings of the Participatory Design Conference 2022 - Volume 2 (Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom) (PDC ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 111–117. https://doi.org/10.1145/3537797.3537819Google ScholarDigital Library
- Leslie Gayle Tudor, Michael J. Muller, Tom Dayton, and Robert W. Root. 1993. A Participatory Design Technique for High-Level Task Analysis, Critique, and Redesign: The CARD Method. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 37, 4 (Oct. 1993), 295–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193129303700409Google ScholarCross Ref
- John Vines, Mark Blythe, Stephen Lindsay, Paul Dunphy, Andrew Monk, and Patrick Olivier. 2012. Questionable Concepts: Critique As Resource for Designing with Eighty Somethings. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1169–1178. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208567Google ScholarDigital Library
- Torben Volkmann, Michael Sengpiel, and Nicole Jochems. 2016. Historytelling: a website for the elderly a human-centered design approach. In Proceedings of the 9th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. 1–6.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Torben Volkmann, Michael Sengpiel, and Nicole Jochems. 2022. Collaborating with Communities in Participatory System Development. In Proceedings of the 21st Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2021), Nancy L. Black, W. Patrick Neumann, and Ian Noy (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 725–734.Google ScholarCross Ref
- W. H. Voorberg, V. J. J. M. Bekkers, and L. G. Tummers. 2015. A Systematic Review of Co-Creation and Co-Production: Embarking on the Social Innovation Journey. Public Management Review 17, 9 (Oct. 2015), 1333–1357. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2014.930505Google ScholarCross Ref
- Andrea Wilkinson, Katrien Dreessen, and Selina Schepers. 2016. Keep Forget: Turning Memories and Stories into Artefacts. In Proceedings of the 14th Participatory Design Conference: Short Papers, Interactive Exhibitions, Workshops - Volume 2 (Aarhus, Denmark) (PDC ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 76–77. https://doi.org/10.1145/2948076.2948119Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Balancing Power Relations in Participatory Design: The Importance of Initiative and External Factors
Recommendations
Disentangling power and decision-making in participatory design
PDC '12: Proceedings of the 12th Participatory Design Conference: Research Papers - Volume 1This paper uses the example of a participatory design project in support of urban planning to analyse the complexity of design decisions. A set of design decisions is described and discussed, showing who made decisions on what. We discuss big decisions ...
Participatory Design: How to Engage Older Adults in Participatory Design Activities
Ongoing advances in mobile technologies have the potential to improve independence and quality of life of older adults by supporting the delivery of personalised and ubiquitous healthcare solutions. The authors are actively engaged in participatory, ...
Participatory design with older adults: an analysis of creativity in the design of mobile healthcare applications
C&C '13: Proceedings of the 9th ACM Conference on Creativity & CognitionResearchers often use participatory design -- involving endusers in technology ideation -- as this is found to lead to more useful and relevant products. Researchers have sought to involve older adults in the design of emerging technologies like ...
Comments