skip to main content
10.1145/2470654.2470716acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Configuring participation: on how we involve people in design

Authors Info & Claims
Published:27 April 2013Publication History

ABSTRACT

The term 'participation' is traditionally used in HCI to describe the involvement of users and stakeholders in design processes, with a pretext of distributing control to participants to shape their technological future. In this paper we ask whether these values can hold up in practice, particularly as participation takes on new meanings and incorporates new perspectives. We argue that much HCI research leans towards configuring participation. In exploring this claim we explore three questions that we consider important for understanding how HCI configures participation; Who initiates, directs and benefits from user participation in design? In what forms does user participation occur? How is control shared with users in design? In answering these questions we consider the conceptual, ethical and pragmatic problems this raises for current participatory HCI research. Finally, we offer directions for future work explicitly dealing with the configuration of participation.

References

  1. Akama, Y., and Light, A. A candor in reporting: designing dexterously for fire preparedness. In: Proc. CHI EA '12, ACM (2012), 281--290. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Balaam, M., Egglestone, S., Fitzpatrick, G., Rodden, T., et al. Motivating mobility: designing for lived motivation in stroke rehabilitation. In: Proc. CHI '11, ACM, 3073--3082. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Benford, S., Crabtree, A., Reeves, S., Sheridan. J., Dix, A., et al. The Frame of the Game: Blurring the Boundary between Fiction and Reality in Mobile Experiences. In: Proc. CHI '06, ACM (2006), 427--436. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Benton, L., Johnson, H., Ashwin, E., Brosnan, M., Grawemeyer, B. Developing IDEAS: Supporting children with autism within a participatory design team. In: Proc. CHI '12, ACM, 2599--2608. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Bernoff, G., and Li, C. Groundswell: Winning in a World Transformed by Social Technologies. Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Bjorgvinsson, E., Ehn, P., and Hillgren, P. Agonistic participatory design: Working with marginalized social movements. CoDesign, 8 (2-3), 127--144.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Blythe, M., Wright, P., Bowers, J., Boucher, A., Jarvis, N., Reynolds., P., Gaver, W. Age and experience: Ludic engagements in a residential care home. In: Proc. DIS '10, ACM (2010), 161--170. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Bødker, S. A is for alternatives. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 15 (1), 1--3.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Borning, A., and Muller, M. Next steps for value sensitive design. In: Proc. CHI '12, ACM (2012), 1125--1134. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Bossen, C., Dindler, C., and Iversen, O. User gains and PD aims: Assessment from a participatory design project. In: Proc. PDC '10, ACM (2010), 141--150. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Bossen, C., Dindler, C., and Iversen, O. Impediments to user gains: Experiences from a critical participatory design project. In: Proc. PDC '12, ACM, 51--60. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Brown, B., Reeves, S., and Sherwood, S. Into the wild: Challenges and opportunities for field trial methods. In: Proc. CHI '11, ACM (2011), 1657--1666. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Calabrese, F., Di Lorenzo, G., Liu, L., and Ratti, C. Estimating origin-destination flows using mobile phone location data. Pervasive Computing, IEEE (2011), 36--44. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Caroll, J., and Rosson, M. Participatory design in community informatics. Design Studies, 28, 243--261.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Ehn, P. Work-oriented design of computer artifacts. Arbetslivscentrum, Stockholm, 1989. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Ehn, P., and Kyng, M. Cardboard computers: Mocking-it-up and hands-on the future. In: Greenbaum, J and Kyng, M. Design at work: Cooperative design of computer systems. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, 1991. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Frauenberger, C., Good, J., Keay-Bright, W, and Pain, H. Interpreting Input from Children: A Designerly Approach. In: Proc. CHI '12, ACM (2012), 2377--2386. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Google Voice Search http://www.google.co.uk/mobile/voice-search/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Graham, B., and Cook, S. Rethinking curating: Art after new media. Cambridge, MIT Press, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Gruen, D. Storyboarding for design: An overview of the process. Cambridge, Lotus Research, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Halskov, K., and Dalsgard, P. Inspiration card workshops. In. Proc. DIS '06, ACM (2006), 2--11. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Hayes, G. The relationship of action research to humancomputer interaction. ToCHI, 18 (3), 15. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Henze, N., Rukzio, E., and Boll, S. Observational and experimental investigation of typing behaviour using virtual keyboards for mobile devices. In: Proc. CHI '12, ACM, 2659--2668. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Hook, J., Green, D., McCarthy, J., Taylor, S., Wright, P., Olivier, P. A VJ centered exploration of expressive interaction. In: Proc. CHI '10, ACM (2010), 1265--1274. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Hutchinson, H., Mackay, W., Westerlund, B., et al. Technology probes: Inspiring design for and with families. In: Proc. CHI '03, ACM, 17--24. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Iversen, O., Halskov, K., and Leong, T. Rekindling Values in participatory design. In: Proc. PDC '10, ACM (2010), 91--100. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Jungk, R., Mullert, N. Future workshops: How to create desirable futures. Institute for Social Inventions, London, 1987.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Kensing, F., and Blomberg, J. Participatory design: Issues and Concerns. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 7, 167--185. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Le Dantec, C. Participation and publics: Supporting community engagement. In: Proc. CHI '12, ACM, 1351--1360. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Light, A. The unit of analysis in understanding the politics of participatory practice. In: Proc. PDC '10, ACM, 183--186. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Light, A., and Akama, Y. The human touch: participatory practice and the role of facilitation in designing with communities. In: Proc. PDC '12, ACM Press (2012), 61--70. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Light, A., Wakeford, T., Egglestone, P., and Roger, J. research on an equal footing? A UK collaborative inquiry into community and academic knowledge. In: Proc. IKTC '11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Lindsay, S., Brittain, K., Jackson, D., Ladha, C., Ladha, K., and Olivier, P. Empathy, participatory design and people with dementia. In: Proc. CHI '12, ACM (2012), 521--530. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. OpenIDEO. http://www.openideo.com/open/vibrantcities/brief.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Madsen, K. A guide to metaphorical design. In: Com. ACM, 37 (12), 57--62. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Miller, V., Understanding digital culture. New York, Sage, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Mogensen, P. Towards a provotyping approach in systems development. Scandinavian journal of information systems, 3, 1991, 31--53.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Muller, M., and Druin, A. Participatory design: The third space in HCI. In: Sears, A., and Jacko, J. (eds.) The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook (3rd Edition). Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, 2012, 1125--1154.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. New York Times. Google's data advantage over Apple's siri. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/19/googles-data-advantage-over-apples-siriGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Newell, A., Morgan, M., Gibson, L., and Forbes, P. Experiences with professional theatre for awareness raising. Interacting with computers, 23 (6), 594--603. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Nye, D. Technology matters. Cambridge, MIT Press, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Nygaard, K. The iron and metal project: Trade union participation. In: Sandberg, A. Computers Dividing Man and Work - Recent Scandinavian Research on Planning and Computers from a Trade Union Perspective. Utbildningsproduktion, Malmø, Sweden.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Redstrom, J. Towards user design? On the shift from object to user as the subject of design. Design studies, 27, 2, 123--139.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Rheingold, H. Using participatory media and public voice to encourage civic engagement. In: Bennett, W (ed.). Civic life online: Learning how digital media can engage youth. Cambridge, MIT Press, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Sheridan, J., Bryan-Kinns, N., Reeves, S., Marshall, J., and Lane, G. Graffito: Crowd-based performative interaction at festivals. In: Proc. CHI EA '11, ACM, 1129--1134. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Simon, N. The participatory museum. Museum 2.0, Sant Cruz, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Simonsen, J., and Robertson, T. Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design. Routledge, New York, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Smith, R., and Iversen, O. When the museum goes native. Interactions, 18 (5), ACM (2011), 15--19. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Star, S., Griesemer, J. Institutional ecology, 'translations', and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907-39. Social studies of science, 19, 3, 387--420.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Suchman, L. Plans and situated actions. The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1987. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Tausczik, Y., Pennebaker, J. Participation in an online mathematics community: Differentiating motivations to add. In: Proc. CSCW '12, ACM, 207--216. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Tanenbaum, J., Tanenbaum, K., and Wakkary, R. Steampunk as design fiction. In: Proc. CHI '12, ACM (2012), 1583--1592. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Taylor, R., Schofield, G., Shearer, J., Wallace, J., et al.. Designing from within: humanaquarium. In: Proc. CHI '11, ACM (2011), 1855--1864. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Uzor, S., Baillie, L., and Skelton, D. Senior designers: Empowering seniors to design enjoyable falls rehabilitation tools. In: Proc. CHI '12, ACM (2012), 1179--1188. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Vines, J., Blythe, M., Dunphy, P., Vlachokyriakos, V., Teece, I., Monk, A., and Olivier, P. Cheque Mates: Participatory design of digital payments with eighty somethings. In: Proc. CHI '12, ACM (2012), 1189--1198. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Vines, J., Blythe, M., Lindsay, S., Dunphy, P., Monk, A., Olivier, P. Questionable concepts: critique as a resource for designing with eighty somethings. In: Proc. CHI '12, ACM (2012), 1169--1178. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. Vines, J., et al. Summary Report on CHI 2012 invited SIG: Participation and HCI: Why Involve People in Design? http://di.ncl.ac.uk/participation/wp-content/blogs.dir/20/files/2012/09/CHISIGReportFinal.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. Winschiers-Theophilus, H., Chivuno-Kuria, S., Kapuire, G., Bidwell, N., and Blake, E. Being participated: A community approach. In: Proc. PDC '10, ACM (2010), 1--10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. Youtube - frequently asked questions. http://www.youtube.com/t/faqGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Configuring participation: on how we involve people in design

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI '13: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      April 2013
      3550 pages
      ISBN:9781450318990
      DOI:10.1145/2470654

      Copyright © 2013 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 27 April 2013

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI '13 Paper Acceptance Rate392of1,963submissions,20%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader