Call for Papers

The Clothesline Approach to Notions in Participatory Design –  Workshop in conjunction with PDC’16

We invite researchers and practitioners to bring a plurality of perspectives and expertise related to the use of problematic notions in participatory design. How could a change of notions affect our perspective on participation and design? The aim of the full day workshop is to apply a clothesline approach in order to identify and sort, wash and tumble, some of the notions used in the community, and air them for better alternatives. We will do this by 1) critically identifying why certain notions are or have been problematic, 2) elaborating on them to raise awareness of their possible interpretations and implications in order to find alternatives that are usable across different Participatory Design (PD) settings. The outcome of the workshop is to contribute to elucidate how notions and their connotations frame participatory design practice, hopefully in a joint workshop publication.

DESCRIPTION OF THE WORKSHOP

A notion represents the understanding of something. When we talk about this something, we shape how we understand it through the use of notions and expressions. Notions affect the interaction between different stakeholders and a lack of a shared language easily leads to misunderstandings, confusion, or more general failure of communication. Notions reflecting roles, such as expert, patient or designer, may affect who is able and has the right to talk about a certain issue. Power relationships get expressed through language, thus it can be intentionally used to express dominance and request obedience [c.f. 2, 1]. However, it can also invite and open up dialogue.

Many notions in design draw on comparison, analogy and metaphor to illustrate or emphasize some issue [4]. Metaphors shape how things are perceived, experienced and interpreted, and according to Lakoff & Johnson [5] even govern thoughts. When notions carry metaphors, they frame the way both designers and stakeholders think about e.g. problems and solutions, or opportunities while both concealing and revealing [7], highlighting certain aspects and setting priorities. Schön [6] exemplifies this with slum housing. Seen through the metaphor of slum as a disease, an appropriate cure might be surgery or another medical remedy. Seen through the metaphor of slum as a natural community would bring forward responses concerning e.g. enhancing life. We are not always conscious of the assumptions embedded in these metaphors, and sometimes take them for granted; they become petrified. By scrutinizing terms we hope to contribute to a more informed discourse where different stakeholders are invited to participate.

Notions have implications also in participatory design research and practice, as what notion is used has consequences for how an issue is dealt with. For example, what does the notion ‘participant’, imply in a design situation? A recent literature review of PDC papers reveals diverse definitions of ‘participation’, ranging from the goal of ‘involving users’, without further qualification, to more elaborate discussions of the idea of participation as a core aspect of PD [3]. Three general definitions of participation as (1) implicit, (2) users’ points of view, and (3) mutual learning are identified. PD has gone from being concerned with involving users, to involving people in the design process, challenging the idea of the ‘user’ by intentionally blurring the distinctions between designers and users [3]. This illustrate an important development of contemporary PD, that it has advanced by considering new groups of users, who may not specifically consider themselves users, but merely people. However, this development also presents researchers and designers with new questions, such as whom to involve in a project if the ‘users’ are not a clearly defined group. As a consequence, Halskov & Hansen suggests to relabel ‘users’ as ‘people [3].

How we express participation can be more powerful than direct arguments and shape an entire discussion and design orientation. Sometimes researchers focus a project on a specific group of people, such as people having a condition, special need, such as intellectual disabilities – or intellectual diversities. Many notions carry rather negative connotations, e.g. mental retardation, elderly, immigrant, normal – or even user and customer. When specific notions are associated to certain communities, practices and perspectives it becomes important to scrutinize the terms used within the community.

In order to launder some of the potentially dirty or worn out notions used in the community, and search for better alternatives we invite participants to take part in a workshop where we will identify, sort, wash and tumble, or just air some of the key notions in PD.

The suggested workshop will contribute to elucidate how notions and their connotations frame participatory design practice. Often used habitually, the reflection on the meaning and connotation of terms raises awareness of their use and might contribute to finding new participatory design discourses

Contributions to the workshop should expand on how specific notions are central to the practice and theory of PD and how they may be problematic. For instance a contribution can concern one or more of the following key issues related to notions:

• Notions referring to concepts and methods in practice, research and education
• Notions revealing the dark side of participatory design
• Exclusive vs inclusive notions in design
• Discriminating notions
• Notions that reveal power relations in the history of participatory design
• Disruptive notions that change how an issue is framed

The workshop will cover one day. The optimal number of participants will be approximately 15. Groups will be pre-formed by the organizers around themes and notions identified in position papers submitted by participants in advance. The planned activities for the day are inspired by the cloth line approach and are as follows:

• Introduction to the day’s program by the organizers;
• Opening up the closet – quick pitches by the participants;
• Washing and Tumbling – identifying and discussing key challenges, associations and alternatives through group work;
• Sorting – suggest new alternative and motivation through group work
• Airing – choose and present on cloth line in plenum
• The Laundromat – the last part of the workshop will be a collaborative ideation session resulting in an (interactive) installation for the conference participants to contribute to
• Planning for publishing a joint workshop summary report and other possible further publication.

The workshop organizers have experience from organizing workshops in several different areas. A related successful workshop was held at Include 2015, where about 30 designers, researchers, and students washed, tumbled and aired disruptive notions for inclusive design. The workshop at PDC2016 concerns a deeper engagement with the topic to more concrete design tools and strategies to address power relations and distances between designers and stakeholders in PD. The workshop organizers all share an interest in participation but approach it from different angles; HCI, inclusive design, product design, interaction design, craft, in both research and practice.

CALL FOR PARTICIPATION

The aim of the workshop is to contribute insight on how notions may reframe and recreate participatory design practice, while also provide an overview of norms and notions.

We invite submissions of positions papers as 2-4 pages PDF documents following the SIGCHI publications template (http://www.sigchi.org/publications/chipubform). Position papers should be submitted to: eva.eriksson @ chalmers.se

Submissions need to address the main topic of the workshop. The deadline for position papers submissions is July 8, and authors will be notified by July 15. All submissions will be peer reviewed by the workshop organizers. We plan to host around 15 participants at the workshop. Selection will be based on the relevance of the position papers with regards to the theme and key issues of the workshop.  The selected position papers will be published on the workshop website. The main outcome of the workshop will be summarized into a co-authored joint workshop report/publication.

The intended learning outcomes for the workshop include:

• Consciousness of the importance of the use of different vocabularies and notions used in a PD process (cultural, meaning, professional, discriminating)
• Awareness of problematic notions associated to participatory design and the effects that they can have on the design process.
• Identifying how societal drivers create a need for an evolution of notions related to participatory design
• How notions affect power relations between different stakeholders, and the legitimacy by which they can participate in decision making etc.
• Opportunities for collaboration and exchange between different fields and practitioners
• A methodological approach to identify, disseminate and encourage alternative notions in a design process
• The value and dangers of stereotyping, simplification, categorization, and distance creation in the design process

REFERENCES

1. Derrida, J. 1978. Writing and difference. University of Chicago Press.
2. Foucault, M. The Archaeology of Knowledge, Routledge
3. Halskov, K., Hansen, N.B. 2015. The diversity of participatory design research practice at PDC 2002–2012. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 74, 81-92.
4. Hjort af Ornäs, V., Keitsch, M. and Schulte, K. 2014. Metaphors in Design Curricula. A. Eger, A. Kovacevic, & B. E. Parkinson (Eds.), Design Education & Human Technology Relations – Proceedings of Engineering and Product Design Education. SN 978-1-904670-55-1.
5. Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M.1980. Metaphors We Live By, University of Chicago Press.
6. Schön, D.A. 1993. Generative metaphor: A perspective on problem-solving in social policy. A. Ortony, (Ed.): Metaphor and Thought, pp. 137-161, Cambridge University Press, New York.
7. Snodgrass, A. and Coyne, R. 1992. Models, Metaphors and the Hermeneutics of Designing. Design Issues, 9(1), 56-74.