Configuring participation

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 discussing 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.

Strategies for Engaging Communities in Creating Physical Civic Technologies

“…This returns us to our core motivation of transferring control from researchers to neighbourhoods, while also reflecting recent calls to support participants in reconfiguring design processes themselves [33]. But it also exposes the paradox that makes this difficult: the participants must take control of the process to be invested in it, but creating a community of invested local residents initially required a carefully designed process.…”

Everybody's Hacking

“…Existing research, particularly around issueoriented hackathons [6,17,18], points to their ability to bring together developers and activists around civic issues such as engagement with local government, and to the value of networking at these events over the actual technical outputs. We also see the degree to which hackathon participants shape the process, mirroring recent calls to better support participants in doing this [36]. However, other aspects of hackathons are problematic from a participation perspective, as some of their defining characteristics are widely acknowledged as creating diversity issues [5,25].…”

“…Against a growing diversification of participatory methods used in HCI and the recognition of challenges for the field [36], we see potential for hackathons-or at least some of their properties-to contribute to our array of methods. Existing research, particularly around issueoriented hackathons [6,17,18], points to their ability to bring together developers and activists around civic issues such as engagement with local government, and to the value of networking at these events over the actual technical outputs.…”

Articulating Co-Design in Museums

“…Also, in the particular context of a large project, the goals and power relationships in the two examples (which are interlinked with decision-making, as argued in [6] and [27]) were influenced by the overarching goal of the project. In the Loupe example, based on technology constraints, the designers and technologists decided for a shift from the main issue pointed out by the CHPs -way finding -and the compass concept, in order to build a prototype that was both technically feasible in the amount of time available and offering a wider range of functionalities.…”

“…In the Way Detector example, the participating CHPs taking part in the process contributed their knowledge, their content and their time and gained an understanding of the prototypes' potential for adaptation and appropriation. Participation, in both cases, was configured [27] to suit the needs of the project team, who initiated and directed the process and who held the "bigger picture" behind the co-design activities.…”