Daniel Steinberg, Drexel University, daniel.steinberg@gmail.com
Darryl Gardner, Drexel University, darryl_eg@yahoo.com
Brian Smith, Drexel University, bps23@drexel.edu
Abstract: Participatory Design (PD) is an approach that highly values actively involving all stakeholders in the design process to ensure that the product designed meets their needs and is usable by all. The methodology is used to create environments that are more responsive and appropriate to their users' cultural, emotional, spiritual and practical needs. Participatory design is focused on processes and procedures of design and sometimes has a political dimension of user empowerment and democratization. The main critique against it is that it may absolve the designers of responsibility for contentious decisions and stifle any real innovation if not practiced appropriately.
Participatory design revolves around actively involving all stakeholders in the design process to ensure that the system or product meets their needs and is usable by all parties. The methodology is used to create environments that are more responsive and appropriate to their users' cultural, emotional, spiritual and practical needs. PD is
“extraordinarily diverse, drawing on fields such as user-centered design, graphic design, software engineering, architecture, public policy, psychology, anthropology, sociology, labor studies, communication studies, and political science.” (Muller 1)
Since the late 1990s, computers have increasingly become more integral parts of people’s lives. Initially used primarily for work in the workplace, they are now also commonplace in homes and schools. While work typically refers to that which is done in a business setting, the far reach of computers demands that we expand the definition of work to include school and the home as well. That is, when we discuss using PD to evaluate work, this should be taken more broadly to refer to the relationship between users and technology.
As practitioners of participatory design have been advocating for some time, many others are beginning to realize that the skills and experiences of users need to be present in the design of computer systems and the work that they support. This is critical as it will help ensure a better fit between technology and the ideal ways in which people wish to perform their work. As designers, we must be concerned “. . . with a more human, creative, and effective relationship between those involved in technology’s design and its use, and in that way between technology and the human activities that provide technological systems with their reason for being.” (Kensing and
Blomberg 167)
Participatory Design has, as expected, a healthy history with CSCW systems, however the concept may be applied to any environment where multiple users are designing toward a common goal. Sources contained within generally do apply to IT systems at-large, with occasional recognition of the fact that the ideas and processes behind
PD have broad applicability in the real world.
The paper will examine a wide array of sources to analyze the advantages that communal, cooperative design provides while fully exploring the aforementioned main critique of the approach. The effects of abrogating design responsibilities without proper process may yield negative results in such that the main focus then becomes mitigating the gamble on relying on the user base for design concerns. While the paper examines the approach in general - it’s broad applicability, strengths and weaknesses - a subsequent exploration is conducted on the use of PD in the public sector as well as the application of its methodologies and principles in the fields of e-Learning and web 2.0.
There are three major ways to involve users in the design process: via collected metrics, empirically, and through true participation. The simplest to administer and analyze, and the method most commonly used when a design team is short on budget and time, is observation through metrics. Take web design for example - once a site has been connected with an analytics service, the designers can view very specific metrics that range from time spent on a

page to which pages receive the most traffic. Using this data, the team can take the most frequented pages and resources, and make it even quicker to access them. There are certainly aspects of users’ intentions that analysts can infer from this data, though it isn’t exactly a science and the data is often without much context.
Next, and quite popular earlier in the field of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) is empirical design (ED), in which designers make decisions by studying users and the situations where the software will be used. ED relies quite heavily on user interviews and observation however the users are treated more like guinea pigs than actual partners or collaborators. This method typically offers more context than straight metrics, however there is much richer data out there still.
Participatory design sets itself far apart from the aforementioned user inclusion methods in that it is extremely context-based and views the user as an integral part of the design team. Users aren’t included in the team by manager edict, rather because they are so engaged by the requirements and design techniques in use. Users assist from the very beginning, starting with the prototype of the user interface, all the way though launch and follow-up feedback. (Cohn 152)
Although there are many methods of system design in general, most people will agree that the desired end result is an emotional connection between a person and the product or application. To increase the likelihood of making such a connection, more information is needed at the front end of the design process than most methods typically prescribe. The design team must tap into the front line workers to begin to understand what the users want and how they want to feel. Designers need to gain access to the thought processes and imaginations of target users and if they’re truly successful, the team will quickly begin to see the future of the design process through the eyes of the people who will be using the product or service. The tricky part here is that people often don’t explicitly and consciously know what they want. We, as designers, cannot glean this information from interviews or observed sessions of work. This information is can only be extracted by actively involving users in the process from start to finish. (Gage and Kolari 2002)
Muller (2009) speaks to an important concept involving hybrid experiences - “practices that take place neither in the workers’ domain, nor in the software professionals’ domain, but in an ‘in-between’ region that shares attributes of both the workers’ space and the software professionals’ space.” Within the hybrid space, the old assumptions of both parties are open to questioning, challenges, reinterpretation and even refutation and it is because of this unpredictable and unfamiliar environment that enhanced knowledge exchange is possible. “These dialogues across differences and – more importantly – within differences are stronger when engaged in by groups, emphasizing not only a shift from assumptions to reflections, but also from individuals to collectives.” (Muller 4)
Each audience (workers and designers) have their own worlds, their own knowledge and their own practices. The individuals within each realm are comfortable in what they know and it is really this hybrid space that allows for such a rich exchange of knowledge. Individuals or groups can take a step back from what they “know” to be true and question its validity - ultimately strengthening some of their own convictions, understanding the other side on a deeper level, and learning more about what they didn’t know that they didn’t really know.
The socio-technical approach aims for social and technical systems to be optimized within a specific organization in ways that a beneficial for the workers. The approach is specific to the local system; local conflicts and obstructions are addressed by local structural change. Even though proponents have acknowledged that conflict, struggle, and power at levels higher than the local organization can in fact be relevant, the approach stresses keeping the scope to the immediately local level. (Torpel, Voss, Hartswood, and Procter 16) The approach generally assumes societal harmony which may be too rosy an approach for a realist.
Unlike the socio-technical approach, the collective resource approach assumes inherent and pervasive conflict, struggle and unequal power relations. Those utilizing it take a very partisan approach to developing technology, most often favoring and supporting the weakest parties involved, usually the workers. “ In this view, the workers’ position should be strengthened to enable them to push their agendas forward against exploitative capital endowed with far greater power and resources.” (Torpel, Voss, Hartswood, and Procter 17) Although this has a very

union/worker/management slant, it is easily brought into the more typical information workplace by viewing the priorities and decisions of managers and employees as inherently being in conflict. While the socio-technical approach may not be the best for realists, the collective resource approach perhaps swings too far to the other side of the spectrum.
One of the major concerns with PD is how to implement it in a practical way within modern day work environments.
Being able to realize the benefits of the practices while not creating bottlenecks or unnecessary stoppages in normal work processes is critical for an ideal experience. MUST (a Danish acronym for theories and methods for design activities) is concerned with making PD relevant and practically feasible within modern companies. “ In particular, it empha- sises the importance of the wider organisational context in which PD tends to take place, as well as the fact that most systems development today does not simply take place in-house but involves external players and market relationships.” (Torpel, Voss, Hartswood, and Procter 19) In contrast to other approaches, MUST does not take sides but instead seeks to include the interests of both management and workers.
Participatory design in corporate research and development differs from the other approaches in that they deal with specific target settings, where participants must accept the new technologies, as opposed to open consumer markets where adoption is discretionary. Thus, the emphasis in this approach revolves around establishing ways to bring together “context of use” and “design knowledge”, while enabling consumers and inspiring innovation. “ Usually, the motivation behind these efforts is a practical one stemming from the experience that usability issues are often addressed too late in the development life- cycle to have real impact and that laboratory-based approaches are found to be in- adequate to reflect the complexities of real-world use situations.” (Torpel, Voss, Hartswood, and Procter
19)
There are two basic perspectives to systems design - one that focuses on the product itself and the second that looks closely at the human work processes that the system is supposed to support. Semiotic Conference (SC) is proposed by Bonacin and Baranuaskas (2003) as a “way to explore process-oriented issues related to the social context of the workplace and its connections with aspects of the product being designed.” The approach comes from a combination of PD and Organizational Semiotics, the study of organization using the concepts and methods of Semiotics (the study of signs or symbols and their use or interpretation). Two methods are employed during SC, Semantic Analysis
(SA) and Norm Analysis (NA). SA seeks to describe an organization by focusing on the agents and their pattern of behaviors. NA describes the relationships between an intentional use of signs and the resulting behavior in a social context. (Bonacin and Baranuaskas 39)
In the 1990s, Participatory Design methodology that utilized visualization and active involvement was proven to be effective in several workplace design cases. Other studies have shown that 3D computer aided visualization has been an effective communication tool for the design of workplace environments and for visualizing work-flow.
Recent studies have sought to combine these methods by adapting PC-based virtual reality tools for the participatory design of workplace environments.
This research has lead to the development of Envisionment Workshops, in which the workers work with designers by using full-scale modeling and democratic meetings to design work environments. The results of these case studies suggest that PC-based virtual reality tools can be built and used successfully with small groups of users and designers. However, these tools have been proven to be less effective with larger groups because of the difficulty in sharing vitual reality tools simultaneously with a large number of people.
Limitations in network bandwidth have limited the effectiveness of participatory design in systems where users and designers are not on the same site, but collaborate remotely. Applications, tools and modes of communication that are used in data intensive visualization design scenarios are virtually unusable when collaborating remotely, even in second generation networks.

The Eucalyptus project was designed to be an example of what the future of Participatory Design may look like. The Eucalyptus project promises to deliver a much faster network infrastructure that will finally make fully participatory multi-site design possible. Two case studies have been used to show the technical configuration of the
Eucalyptus project, prove that it can enable fully participatory multi-site design and speculate how the results of this project will change how Participatory Design is done in the future.
Much can be learned from a study on designing a system for users with severe visual impairments. It was necessary to design a system that was capable of dealing with a wide selection of handling concepts. Participatory Design was effectively used to develop a way finding and object-recognition system. Assembling a good pool of members and utilizing Participatory Design was found to be essential in transforming the users’ actual needs and requirements into usable data.
Participatory Design can be used to improve the user experience of a website. The Participatory Design process used for designing web sites can be broken down into three stages. The “Discovery” stage is were the designer gets to know the users, explore their work practices and identify their goals and needs. The “Evaluative” stage is were the users explore and evaluate the existing web site(s). They are asked to identify the strengths and weakness of the current design. The “Prototyping” stage involves the designers brainstorming with users as they suggest ideas for how the site should be implemented. This stage also includes the user evaluation of the new design and approval of the final version.
The authors discuss a web 2.0 e-Learning environment and their study involving undergraduate students. Given that the students are the primary users of the software, the authors engaged them using PD methods to move actively involve them in refining the design of the system.
Thus far, descriptions of Participatory Design and the concepts contained within have repeatedly referenced the need to include societal influences in the design process. In general, this has meant that each of the stakeholders has a different vested interest, and a different perspective that influences their perception of the final product. With the ever-growing increase in global communications, PD faces an essential variation in its consideration of what
‘societal influences’ include.
Cross-cultural transfer of knowledge is a science within CSCW unto itself. Sharing information and ideas in ways that juxtapose country, language, and true ‘worldwide’ societal differences, henceforth referred to as
‘national traits’, is an area that a number of individuals in the IT field continue to work towards. A subset of this is where participatory design intersects. Individuals in participatory design are sharing a specific set of knowledge, and there are cross –cultural considerations for the knowledge itself, however the design implications become more valuable when shared for a system based on the national traits from each stakeholder.
In the paper “Participatory Design Using Scenarios in Different Cultures”, the authors used a combination of Japanese and Taiwanese s students to undertake actions in a design workshop that would reveal how groups having different national traits would approach and solve problems differently.
The first item to note from this study is that the researchers had to create problem scenarios that were “specific and easy for anybody to understand, making them useful for communication between stakeholders, such as designers, engineers and those involved in the process” (Okamoto, p.224). This allows all participants to enter the workshop on an equal par, so that all contributions carry equal substance. Though it is also a de facto ideal for design in general, it carries additional worth when it is involved in cross-cultural design.
Within the study, the workshop consisted of both an ‘observer team’ as well as a ‘design team’. In configuring the workshop as such, the researchers were able to double the cross-cultural influences; both in the way the product was designed and how the entire process appeared from their cultural perspective. The study also included a follow-up discussion in which the two groups of differing national traits briefed the other on what and why certain decisions were made, as to foster further understanding.
The results of the design workshops research yielded two key components to participatory design. First, there may be hugely significant cultural differences in PD stakeholders, regardless of geographic proximity; the idea

of “culture” may easily be applied to any subset of stakeholders. Second, explicitly identifying the cultural groups, and treating each with consideration of the same goals yields both mutual learning, and presumably a better designed product overall, reciprocating one of the main tenants of the field of participatory design.
Participatory Design has developed a fairly rich history in the last 40-50 years since its inception; however an overwhelming majority of that history has taken place in academia. There are some instances where PD has crossed over into the public sector and these instances are essential to seeing PD grow into a universally accepted design process.
The first public sector application of PD analyzed is with the European PALETTE project. PALETTE is a
European Communities of Practice (CoP) platform for the areas of teaching, engineering, management and health.
While not directly associated to any one business or organization, it canvasses multiple activity outside of academia, and is thus available to any number of public sector individuals. The main consideration for PALETTE from a PD perspective was the fact that it was intended to become a CoP tool that was broad enough from a design perspective that it could support multiple interdisciplinary fields, using the tool at different time increments, and across five countries (thus crossing into cross-cultural considerations as well).
The Esnault, et al, paper draws a handful of conclusions about PD in this multi-disciplinary, cross-cultural environment. First, across the environment, there must be some set of common vocabulary. This does not necessarily translate directly to language; many software tools provide language packs just to translate the “words on the screen”. The vocabulary must have a generic understanding such that, in the case of PALETTE, users of different disciplines could all understand. Second, the study indicated that participation needs to be fostered and is not such just from being granted access. This may be somewhat evident, but it still speaks to the value that each stakeholder has within the entire PD process. Finally, the authors suggest that good will and open mindedness are as key to a successful PD process as anything else. As much as the stakeholders’ participation is valued, an equal acceptability from the other stakeholders must be observed.
The main critique against Participatory Design is that it can absolve the designers of responsibility for contentious decisions and stifle any real innovation if not practiced appropriately. Throughout this paper, a number of different methods of PD have been described and analysis has been detailed on case studies where PD has been utilized. All versions of activities related to PD have emphasized the fact that participation and inclusion of all stakeholders will ultimately yield the best final product, however there has been little evidence to support the critique that designers are absolved of responsibility. In fact, participatory design has removed the role of a designer, whose sole purpose is to make design decisions. Instead, it has passed the design responsibilities on to all stakeholders. This has not absolved anyone of design decisions, but rather it has allowed everyone to assume that responsibility. With respect to innovation, PD studies have shown that the actions of a few (traditional design team) cannot meet the same levels of diversity and thus innovation that a large group, such as the one afforded by participatory design, can actually foster innovation. While there are clear outlines to how to garner the most of out participatory design sessions, the inclusion of active participants of any sort appear to only yield positive results.
Blomberg, Jeanette. "Participatory Design: Issues and Concerns." Computer Supported Cooperative Work . By Finn
Kensing. Vol. 7. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic, 1998. 167-85. Print.
Bonacin, R., and Baranauskas, M. C., (2003), Semiotic Conference: Work Signs and Participatory Design, Human-
Computer Interaction: Theory and practice, p38-42
Davies, Roy C. "Adapting Virtual Reality for the Participatory Design of Work Environments." Computer
Supported Cooperative Work . Vol. 13. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic, 2004. 1-33. Print.
Jemtrud, M., Brooks, M., Ho, B., Lui, S., Nguyen, P., Spence, J., Spencer, B., (2006), Eucalyptus:
Intelligent Infrastructure Enabled Participatory Design Studio, Changing Trends in Architectural Design
Education, p. 167-178
Cohn, M., (2004) User Stories Applied: For Agile Software Development, p. 152-155

Dubois, E, Guillaume Gauffre, et al. (2007). Participatory Design Meets Mixed Reality Design Models. In
Calvary, Gaelle, Costin Pribeanu, et al (Eds.), Computer-Aided Design of User Interfaces V . (pp. 71-84).
Springer.
Esnault, Liliane, Amaury Daele, et al. (2009). Creating an Innovative Palette of Services for Communities of
Practice with Participatory Design. In Cress, Ulrike, et al. (Eds.), Learning in the Synergy of Multiple
Disciplines: 4th European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning, EC-TEL 2009.
(pp. 304-309).
Springer.
Gage, Marty and Kolari, Preetham. “Making Emotional Connections through Participatory Design.” Boxes and
Arrows . 11 March 2002. Retrieved from http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/making_emotional_connections_through_participatory_design
Kautz, Karlheinz. "Participatory Design Activities and Agile Software Development." IS Design Science Research .
Ed. J. Pries-Heje. Denmark: International Federation for Information Processing, 2010. 303-16. Print.
Kim, Si-Jung, Tonya Smith-Jackson, Katherine Carroll, Minyoung Suh, and Na Mingers. "Implications of
Participatory Design for a Wearable Near and Far Environment Awareness System (NaFEAS) for Users with Severe Visual Impairments." Universal Access in HCI . Ed. C. Stephanidis. Berlin: Springer-Verlag,
2009. 86-95. Print.
Muller, M., (2009), Participatory Design: The Third Space in HCI, Human-Computer Interaction: Development
Process , p 165-180.
Nikolova-Houston, Tatiana. “Using Participatory Design to Improve Web Sites.” Computers in Libraries. Vol. 25
No. 9, October 2005. http://www.infotoday.com/cilmag/oct05/nikolova-houston.shtml
Okamoto, Makoto, Hidehiro Komatsu, Ikuko Gyobu, and Kei Ito. "Participatory Design Using Scenarios in
Different Cultures." Human-Computer Interaction . Ed. Julie Jacko. Berlin: Springer, 2007. 223-31. Print.
Palaigeorgiou, George, George Triantafyllakos, and Avgoustos Tsinakos. "Participatory Design of the Participatory
Culture: Students’ Projections of E-Learning 2.0." Best Practices for the Knowledge Society . Ed. Miltiadis
D. Lytras. Berlin: Springer, 2009. 119-28. Print.
Törpel, Bettina, Alex Voss, Mark Hartswood, and Rob Procter. "Chapter 2 - Participatory Design: Issues and
Approaches in Dynamic Constellations of Use, Design, and Research." Configuring User-Designer
Relations: Interdisciplinary Perspectives . Ed. Alex Voss. London: Springer, 2009. 13-29. Print.
We individually certify that: To the best of our knowledge, this assignment is entirely work produced by us. Any identification of our group work is accurate. We have not quoted the words of any other person from a printed source or a website without indicating what has been quoted and providing an appropriate citation. We have not submitted any of the material in this document to satisfy the requirements of any other course.