Open-ended participatory design as prototypical practice

Abstract

This article argues in favour of seeing co-design as an open-ended exploration where prototypical practices are explored that engender favourable conditions for ongoing negotiation of meaning. Participatory design approaches to designing for specific practices are reviewed with particular focus on how to handle constantly evolving practices, where some design researchers argue for creating open and flexible technical systems while others emphasise design as primarily concerned with questions of changing practices. By discussing an extended participatory design project in which new ways of engaging in informal learning through self-produced videos were explored in an intensive care unit, I argue first and foremost for viewing co-design as prototypical practice which is explored through an open-ended exploration of possibilities. Second, I argue that a focus on practice necessarily requires in situ explorations to see if the proposed design explorations invoke relevant prototypical practices in the midst of work. Third, I argue that a focus on practice entails viewing tools as temporary props for various settings, rather than as central features that define the settings of learning, knowing and working.

Motivations, Results and the Role of Technology in Participatory Design Research during 2000’s – a Review in the Field of Architecture and Urban Planning

“…It seems that usually those who were identified, had been directly involved in the design processes. They were presented, for example, as local stakeholders, planners, farmers and authorities [25], healthcare professionals and their employer [12], teachers and students [1]. However, the stakeholders that were indirectly involved in the process and in particular, those who defined the stakeholders, were remarked rarely, if not at all.…”

“…The results outline scientific knowledge, for example, about urban policies [6], [11], [16], [21], the usability of participatory methods [7], general design process development [12], [18] and urban or regional development [19], [22], [24]. According [18], compensation for participation as well as facilitating active participation is a vital issue.…”

“…The motivation to analyse the role of technology in architecture and urban planning participatory research is that originally, participatory design approach was developed in the context of information technology development processes and in order to particularly engage future technology users at the workplace in the design and development process of that particular information system [12] First of all, technology supporting participatory design approach was not particularly utilised or implemented in 37 % of the studies reported in this paper. Secondly, in many studies the role of utilising technology can be seen as a tool for data gathering, archiving and analysing the data gathered from the participants, for example, qualitative analysis software [18].…”

“…Furthermore, Zhai and Ng [11] emphasised the important role of social capital in the participation process in the context of urban regeneration. The participatory design approach can be seen also from a practice-oriented perspective as "a joint inquiry into prototypical practices" [12,88].…”

Open Design: Non-professional User-Designers Creating Products for Citizen Science: A Case Study of Beekeepers

“…The workshop used posters for the participants to annotate their feedback and ideas, "equipping them with creative ways to express themselves" (LUMA Institute 2012). The open-ended graphics on the posters meant participants could openly interpret material leading to more fruitful insights and ideas (Björgvinsson 2008). The posters also provoked discussions with participants who often had product or equipment ideas but lacked the knowledge to develop concepts into physical objects.…”