Participatory Design- Group 9 30 04 2003

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” l Ehn (1993): Wittgensteinian ”languagegames” are theoretical foundation for Participatory Design What is a ”language-game”?

Wittgenstein’s classic example: ”blocks, pillars, slabs and beams” l l l 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 l l 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 theory l Participatory Design: – l 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” l 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 designers

Systems Development Research in Scandinavia Jørgen Bansler

Bansler: Systems Theoretical Research: 1960 sl l 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: 1970 sl l 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: 1970 sl l 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 capital/ relations 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 l l l 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 l 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 l l l 1/3 Involvement of the users Workers, a prime source The system; more than a collection of software

PD tenants 2/3 l Understand the organization – Spend time with users in their workplaces rather than “testing” in laboratories

Why use Participatory Design? 1/3 l Increase knowledge of the system being developed – l 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 l 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 l Mutual learning – Between developer and user l l Users get to know their future tools, and have the opportunity to suggest alterations if desirable The Say/Do – problem

Possible Problems with PD l l 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