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 Foundations
for Participatory Design:
”Language-games”
”Language-games”

Ehn (1993): Wittgensteinian ”languagegames” 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 languagegame
This is according to
Wittgenstein how children
learn language!
Why Wittgenstein’s languagegames 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.
new, common language-game
designer’s
language-game
rule-breaking
evolves
language-game
users’ languagegame
A hermeneutic representation of a
”language-game” in PD
users
learns
from
learns
from
designers
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
ideas
traditions/Basic
Socio-technical tradition
Critical tradition
Profit maximizing
Job
satisfaction,
participation
Industrial democracy
Cybernetic system
Socio-technocal system
Framwork for conflicts
Notion of the labor force
Objects
(”systems
components”)
Subjects (individuals)
Subjects (groups)
Notion of capital/labor
relations
Common interests
Common interests
Opposing interestes
Knowledge interest
Notion
of
organization
the
Systems
tradition
theoretical
Preliminary inquiry (PI) and PD:
Main topics
• The scope and reasons for conducting a PI
• Aspects that are similar to the focus in PDtheory
• 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