1 / 26

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”.

alyson
Download Presentation

Participatory Design- Group 9 30.04.2003

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. 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

  2. Philosophical Foundationsfor Participatory Design:”Language-games”

  3. ”Language-games” • Ehn (1993): Wittgensteinian ”language-games” are the theoretical foundation for Participatory Design What is a ”language-game”?

  4. 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 language-game • This is according to Wittgenstein how children learn language!

  5. Why Wittgenstein’s language-games 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”

  6. 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)

  7. A dialectic of ”rule-breaking” • Both designer and user are influenced when new language-games are made. new, common language-game rule-breakingevolveslanguage-game designer’s language-game users’ language-game

  8. A hermeneutic representation of a ”language-game” in PD users learns from learns from "language-game" designers

  9. Systems Development Research in Scandinavia • Jørgen Bansler

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. Bansler: Systems Development Research in Scandinavia

  14. Preliminary inquiry (PI) and PD:Main topics • The scope and reasons for conducting a PI • Aspects that are similar to the focus in PD- theory • Possible conflicts and dilemmas

  15. 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

  16. 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”

  17. Possible conflicts and dilemmas • power/ influence (the Telenor- project) • consequences of visions/ solutions • Conflict of interest

  18. 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

  19. PD tenants 1/3 • Involvement of the users • Workers, a prime source • The system; more than a collection of software

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

  21. 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!

  22. 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

  23. 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

  24. 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

  25. 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

  26. 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

More Related