participatory design- group 9 30.04.2003
DESCRIPTION
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”. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
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
”Language-games”
Ehn (1993): Wittgensteinian ”language-games” 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 language-game
This is according to Wittgenstein how children learn language!
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”
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.
rule-breakingevolves
language-gamedesigner’s language-game
users’ language-game
new, common language-game
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 traditions/Basic Major traditions/Basic ideasideas
Systems theoretical Systems theoretical traditiontradition
Socio-technical traditionSocio-technical tradition Critical traditionCritical tradition
Knowledge interestKnowledge interest Profit maximizing Job satisfaction, participation
Industrial democracy
Notion of the Notion of the organizationorganization
Cybernetic system Socio-technocal system Framwork for conflicts
Notion of the labor forceNotion of the labor force Objects (”systems components”)
Subjects (individuals) Subjects (groups)
Notion of capital/labor Notion of capital/labor relationsrelations
Common interests Common interests Opposing interestes
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
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