Disentangling power and decision-making in participatory design

Abstract

This paper uses the example of a participatory design project in support of urban planning to analyse the complexity of design decisions. A set of design decisions is described and discussed, showing who made decisions on what. We discuss big decisions and small decisions, decisions internal to the project and related to the outside world, and decisions that might be called non-decisions. A conceptual framework on power is applied for understanding decision-making, power and conflict in Participatory Design projects. We discuss the concept of power, making distinctions between sources of power (among them expert knowledge, resource allocation, values, and interpretations); as well as between various mechanisms guiding decision-making: power, influence, trust and seeking understanding.

Exploring the dynamics of ownership in community-oriented design projects

“…Within design research, Bratteteig and Wagner [1] look at power and decision-making in a participatory project, observing the factors mediating control, and reflecting how implemented decisions lessen the room for negotiation: 'The power to allocate resources may rest in the project leader but it is driven by research commitments [and] the fact that some solutions have already been made material, hence irreversible. From this perspective prototyping becomes a decision-making process that closes the design space.'…”

“…As Bratteteig and Wagner [1] observe, prototyping narrows the options remaining and gives decision-making control to the makers. This device is deliberately exploited by both the architectural and research teams to indicate constraints (and advocate for certain options over others).…”

“…In this way, their careful choice of video concepts gave them efficacy beyond direct action. In CARM, the community organizer managed the matter of negotiating with the producer to ensure that she and the group continued to drive the process, even though it meant a short loss of initiative while the academic lead stepped in and reminded everyone of the ultimate authority of the research question, which, as Bratteteig and Wagner [1] point out, becomes a factor with its own agency. These acts of benign manipulation, as agency is extended beyond direct control, perhaps show most clearly how ownership has become of value to the commissioned partners.…”

Articulating Co-Design in Museums

“…Similarly, in [6] Bratteteig and Wagner detail the complex power relationships and the intricacies of the decisionmaking process that characterise and shape participatory projects. Bratteteig and Wagner analyse different cases through a practice-focused conceptual lens on decisionmaking, revealing how various factors in the design team and in the broader context of a project are at play in the way crucial decisions are taken during the co-design flow.…”

“…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.…”