skip to main content
10.1145/3210586.3210591acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagespdcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

On scale, dialectics, and affect: pathways for proliferating participatory design

Published:20 August 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

The Participatory Design (PD) community is committed to continuously refine its technological, social, political, and scientific agenda, and as a result, PD has become more widely adopted, robust, and sophisticated. Yet, PD's advancement cannot end here. The gap between those who can contribute to the shaping of future technologies and those who are reduced to consumers, has - if anything - widened on a grand scale. In response, we argue through three lenses: scale, dialectics, and affect in PD, and suggest some pathways to build bridges, foster alliances, and evolve PD practice to proliferate the democratisation in technology design that has been a strong value driving PD. Scale asks about ways for PD to extend its reach without giving up on its core qualities. Dialectics is about creating and maintaining the spaces and fora for constructive conflict by networking and linking with other stakeholders, organisations, and domains. Finally, affect discusses how PD can put forward democratic visions of technological futures that connect to people's hearts, acknowledging that decisions are often made irrationally and unconsciously. Our review draws attention to opportunities for PD to travel between different contexts and proliferate through interconnected and intermediary knowledge and an embodied literacy that enables PD to reach further into industry, government, and community.

References

  1. Susanne Bødker and Morten Kyng. 2016. Challenging the Current State of PD and Looking Towards the Future of Participation. (Aug. 2016). http://pdc2016.orgGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Liam Bannon, Jeffrey Bardzell, and Susanne Bødker (Eds.). 2018. Special Issue on Reimagining Participatory Design of ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI). ACM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Barry Brown, Susanne Bødker, and Kristina Höök. 2017. Does HCI Scale?: Scale Hacking and the Relevance of HCI. interactions 24, 5 (Aug. 2017), 28--33. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Daniel Gooch, Matthew Barker, Lorraine Hudson, Ryan Kelly, Gerd Kortuem, Janet Van Der Linden, Marian Petre, Rebecca Brown, Anna Klis-Davies, Hannah Forbes, Jessica Mackinnon, Robbie Macpherson, and Clare Walton. 2018. Amplifying Quiet Voices: Challenges and Opportunities for Participatory Design at an Urban Scale. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 25, 1 (2018), 2:1--2:34. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Mike Monteiro. 2017. Ethics can't be a side hustle. (2017). https://deardesignstudent.com/ethics-cant-be-a-side-hustle-b9e78c090aeeGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Carl DiSalvo. 2016. Introduction to Data, Design, and Civics: Ethnographic Perspectives. (2016). https://www.epicpeople.org/introduction-to-data-design-civics/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Finn Kensing and Jeanette Blomberg. 1998. Participatory Design: Issues and Concerns. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 7, 3--4 (1998), 167--185. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Tone Bratteteig and Ina Wagner. 2016. Unpacking the Notion of Participation in Participatory Design. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 25, 6 (Dec. 2016), 425--475. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. John Vines, Rachel Clarke, Ann Light, and Peter Wright. 2015. The beginnings, middles and endings of participatory research in HCI: An introduction to the special issue on 'perspectives on participation'. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 74 (feb 2015), 77--80. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Kim Halskov and Nicolai Brodersen Hansen. 2015. The diversity of participatory design research practice at PDC 2002--2012. 74 (2015), 81--92. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Peter Reason. 1998. Political, epistemological, ecological and spiritual dimensions of participation. Studies in Cultures, Organizations and Societies 4, 2 (sep 1998), 147--167.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Eevi E. Beck. 2002. P for political: Participation is not enough. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 14, 1 (2002), 1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. John Vines, Rachel Clarke, Peter Wright, John McCarthy, and Patrick Olivier. 2013. Configuring participation: on how we involve people in design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '13). ACM, 429--438. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Adam Greenfield. 2017. Radical Technologies: The Design of Everyday Life. Verso. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Paul Dourish. 2016. Algorithms and their others: Algorithmic culture in context. Big Data & Society 3, 2 (aug 2016), 205395171666512.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Hans Thomae. 1999. The Nomothetic-Idiographic Issue: Some Roots and Recent Trends. International Journal of Group Tensions 28, 1/2 (1999), 187--215.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Tone Bratteteig and Ina Wagner. 2014. Disentangling Participation: Power and Decision-making in Participatory Design. Springer. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Susanne Bødker, Pelle Ehn, John Kammersgaard, Morten Kyng, and Yngve Sundblad. 1987. A UTOPIAN experience: On design of powerful computer-based tools for skilled graphical workers. In Computers and democracy: A Scandinavian challenge, Gro Bjerknes, Pelle Ehn, and Morten Kyng (Eds.). Aldershot, Avebury, UK, 251--278.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Erling Björgvinsson, Pelle Ehn, and Per-Anders Hillgren. 2012. Agonistic participatory design: working with marginalised social movements. CoDesign 8, 2--3 (June 2012), 127--144.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby. 2001. Design Noir: The Secret Life of Electronic Objects (1 edition ed.). Birkhäuser, Basel.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Jacques Ranciere. 2010. Dissensus: On Politics and Aesthetics. A&C Black.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Claus Bossen. 2006. Participation, Power, Critique: Constructing a Standard for Electronic Patient Records. In Proceedings of the Ninth Conference on Participatory Design: Expanding Boundaries in Design - Volume 1 (PDC '06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 95--104. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Chris Rust. 2004. Design Enquiry: Tacit Knowledge and Invention in Science. Design Issues 20, 4 (sep 2004), 76--85.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Finn Kensing and Joan Greenbaum. 2013. Heritage: Having a say. In Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design, Jesper Simonsen and Toni Robertson (Eds.). Routledge, 21--36.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Kristen Nygaard and Olav Terje Bergo. 1975. The Trade Unions - New users of research. Personnel Review 4, 2 (1975), 5--10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Pelle Ehn. 1989. Work-oriented design of computer artifacts (2nd ed.). Arbetslivs-centrum, Stockholm, Sweden. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Lucy A. Suchman. 1987. Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-machine Communication. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Donald A. Schön. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Terry Winograd and Fernando Flores. 1987. Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design. Addison-Wesley, Boston, USA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Michael J. Muller. 2003. Participatory design: the third space in HCI. In The Human-computer Interaction Handbook, Julie A. Jacko and Andrew Sears (Eds.). L. Erlbaum Associates Inc., Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1051--1068. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=772072.772138 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Johannes Gärtner and Ina Wagner. 1996. Mapping actors and agendas: political frameworks of systems design and participation. Human-Computer Interaction 11, 3 (Sept. 1996), 187--214. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Hugh Beyer and Karen Holtzblatt. 1998. Contextual Design: Defining Customer-Centered Systems (Interactive Technologies). Academic Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Ole Sejer Iversen, Kim Halskov, and Tuck W. Leong. 2010. Values-led participatory design. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 8, 2--3 (2010), 87--103.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Anthony Hornof. 2008. Working With Children With Severe Motor Impairments As Design Partners. In IDC '08: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Interaction design and children. ACM, Chicago, Illinois, 69--72. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Henrik Korsgaard, Clemens Nylandsted Klokmose, and Susanne Bødker. 2016. Computational Alternatives in Participatory Design: Putting the T Back in Socio-technical Research. In Proceedings of the 14th Participatory Design Conference: Full Papers - Volume 1 (PDC '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Marcus Foth, Martin Tomitsch, Christine Satchell, and M. Hank Haeusler. 2015. From Users to Citizens: Some Thoughts on Designing for Polity and Civics. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Australian Special Interest Group for Computer Human Interaction (OzCHI '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 623--633. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Ann Light, Chris Frauenberger, Jennifer Preece, Paul Strohmeier, and Maria Angela Ferrario. 2017. Special Topic: Taking Action in a Changing World. interactions 25, 1 (Dec. 2017), 34--45. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Morten Kyng. 2010. Bridging the Gap Between Politics and Techniques: On the next practices of participatory design. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 22, 1 (2010). http://aisel.aisnet.org/sjis/vol22/iss1/5Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Joanna Saad-Sulonen, Eva Eriksson, Kim Halskov, Helena Karasti, and John Vines. 2018. Unfolding participation over time: temporal lenses in participatory design. CoDesign 14, 1 (2018), 4--16.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Christopher Frauenberger, Judith Good, Geraldine Fitzpatrick, and Ole Sejer Iversen. 2015. In pursuit of rigour and accountability in participatory design. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 74, 0 (2015), 93 -- 106. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Vassilis Kostakos. 2015. The Big Hole in HCI Research. interactions 22, 2 (2015), 48--51. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Thomas S. Kuhn. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Erik Stolterman. 2008. The Nature of Design Practice and Implications for Interaction Design Research. International Journal of Design 2, 1 (2008), 55--65.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Dan Shapiro. 2005. Participatory Design: The Will to Succeed. In Proceedings of the 4th Decennial Conference on Critical Computing: Between Sense and Sensibility (CC '05). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 29--38. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Ellen Balka. 2006. Inside the Belly of the Beast: The Challenges and Successes of a Reformist Participatory Agenda. In Proceedings of the Ninth Conference on Participatory Design: Expanding Boundaries in Design - Volume 1 (PDC '06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 134--143. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Steve Harrison, Phoebe Sengers, and Deborah Tatar. 2011. Making epistemological trouble: Third-paradigm HCI as successor science. Interacting with Computers 23 (2011), 385--392. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Donna Haraway. 1988. Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies 14, 3 (1988), 575--599.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Egon G. Guba and Yvonna S. Lincoln. 1994. Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research. In Handbook of Qualitative Research, Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln (Eds.). Number 6. Sage, London, UK, 105--117.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Gareth Morgan. 1980. Paradigms, Metaphors, and Puzzle Solving in Organization Theory. Administrative Science Quarterly 25, 4 (1980), 605.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. Erling Björgvinsson, Pelle Ehn, and Per-Anders Hillgren. 2010. Participatory design and "democratizing innovation". In Proceedings of the 11th Biennial Participatory Design Conference (PDC '10). ACM, Sydney, Australia, 41--50. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Eli Pariser. 2011. The Filter Bubble: What The Internet Is Hiding From You. Penguin. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Andrew Clement and Peter Van den Besselaar. 1993. A Retrospective Look at PD Projects. Commun. ACM 36, 6 (June 1993), 29--37. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Susan Leigh Star and Karen Ruhleder. 1994. Steps Towards an Ecology of Infrastructure: Complex Problems in Design and Access for Large-scale Collaborative Systems. In Proceedings of the 1994 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW '94). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 253--264. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Volkmar Pipek and Volker Wulf. 2009. Infrastructuring: Toward an integrated perspective on the design and use of information technology. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 10, 5 (2009), 447.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  55. Christopher A. Le Dantec and Carl DiSalvo. 2013. Infrastructuring and the formation of publics in participatory design. Social Studies of Science 43, 2 (2013), 241--264.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  56. Helena Karasti. 2014. Infrastructuring in Participatory Design. In Proceedings of the 13th Participatory Design Conference: Research Papers - Volume 1 (PDC '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 141--150. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. Pelle Ehn. 2008. Participation in design things. In Proceedings of the Tenth Anniversary Conference on Participatory Design 2008. Indiana University, 92--101. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1795248 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. Yvonna S. Lincoln and Egon Guba. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Geraldine Fitzpatrick and Gunnar Ellingsen. 2012. A Review of25 Years of CSCW Research in Healthcare: Contributions, Challenges and Future Agendas. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 22, 4--6 (jun 2012), 609--665. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. Marcus Foth and Jeff Axup. 2006. Participatory Design and Action Research: Identical Twins or Synergetic Pair?. In Proceedings Participatory Design Conference 2006: Expanding Boundaries in Design, Gianni Jacucci, Finn Kensing, Ina Wagner, and Jeanette Blomberg (Eds.). Trento, Italy, 93--96.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Davydd J Greenwood. 2002. Action research: Unfulfilled promises and unmet challenges. Concepts and Transformation 7, 2 (2002), 117--139.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  62. Björn Gustavsen. 2003. Action research and the problem of the single case. Concepts and Transformation 8, 1 (2003), 93--99.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  63. Ray Pawson and Nick Tilley. 1997. Realistic Evaluation. Sage.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. Trisha Greenhalgh, Charlotte Humphrey, Jane Hughes, Frasder MacFarlane, Ceri Butler, and Ray Pawson. 2009. How Do You Modernize a Health Service? A Realist Evaluation of Whole-Scale Transformation in London. Milbank Quarterly 87, 2 (2009), 391--416.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  65. Chris Bonell, Adam Fletcher, Matthew Morton, Theo Lorenc, and Laurence Moore. 2012. Realist randomised controlled trials: A new approach to evaluating complex public health interventions. Social Science & Medicine 75, 12 (2012), 2299--2306.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  66. William A. Firestone. 1993. Alternative Arguments for Generalizing From Data as Applied to Qualitative Research. Educational Researcher 22, 4 (May 1993), 16--23.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  67. Denise F. Polit and Cheryl Tatano Beck. 2010. Generalization in quantitative and qualitative research: Myths and strategies. International Journal of Nursing Studies 47, 11 (2010), 1451--1458.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  68. Deborah Finfgeld-Connett. 2010. Generalizability and transferability of meta-synthesis research findings. Journal of Advanced Nursing 66, 2 (Feb. 2010), 246--254.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  69. Christopher Frauenberger. 2016. Critical Realist HCI. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '16). ACM, 341--351. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  70. Kristina Höök, Peter Dalsgaard, Stuart Reeves, Jeffrey Bardzell, Jonas Löwgren, Erik Stolterman, and Yvonne Rogers. 2015. Knowledge Production in Interaction Design. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2429--2432. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  71. Kristina Höök and Jonas Löwgren. 2012. Strong concepts: Intermediate-level knowledge in interaction design research. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 19, 3 (2012), 1--18. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  72. JohnBowers.2012. The logic of annotated portfolios: communicating the value of 'research through design'. In Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS '12). ACM, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom, 68--77. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  73. Juli Eflin. 2008. Women and Cognitive Authority in the Knowledge Economy. In Knowledge Policy Challenges for the 21st Century, Greg Hearn and David Rooney (Eds.). Edward Elgar Publishing, 45--58.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  74. Thomas Nagel. 1989. The View From Nowhere. Oxford University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  75. Gregory Hearn. 2002. Global Transformations in Knowledge - Social and Cultural Issues. In Encyclopaedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS). Vol. 1.24. Eolss Publishers, Oxford, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  76. Marcus Foth, Nancy Odendaal, and Gregory N. Hearn. 2007. The View from Everywhere: Towards an Epistemology for Urbanites. In 4th International Conference on Intellectual Capital, Knowledge Management and Organisational Learning (ICICKM). Cape Town, South Africa, 127--133. http://eprints.qut.edu.au/9149/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  77. Björn Gustavsen. 2003. New forms of knowledge production and the role of action research. Action research 1, 2 (2003), 153--164.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  78. Joan Greenbaum and Morten Kyng (Eds.). 1992. Design at Work: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems. L. Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, USA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  79. Jesper Simonsen and Finn Kensing. 1994. Take Users Seriously, but Take a Deeper Look: Organizational and Technical Effects from Designing with an Ethnographically Inspired Approach. In In Proceedings of the Third Biennial Conference on Participatory Design. 27--28.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  80. Susanne Bødker. 1996. Creating Conditions for Participation: Conflicts and Resources in Systems Development. Human-Computer Interaction 11, 3 (Sept. 1996), 215--236. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  81. Brendon Clark. 2008. Resources for Action in the Negotiation of Participatory Design Projects. In Proceedings of the Tenth Anniversary Conference on Participatory Design 2008 (PDC '08). Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA, 206--209. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1795234.1795276 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  82. Carl DiSalvo. 2012. Adversarial Design. The MIT Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  83. Laurens Boer, Jared Donovan, and Jacob Buur. 2013. Challenging industry conceptions with provotypes. CoDesign 9, 2 (jun 2013), 73--89.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  84. Chantal Mouffe. 2000. The Democratic Paradox. Verso.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  85. Donald A. Norman. 2010. Technology First, Needs Last: The Research-product Gulf. interactions 17, 2 (2010), 38--42. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  86. Patrick Vlaskovits. 2011. Henry Ford, Innovation, and That "Faster Horse" Quote. (Aug. 2011). https://hbr.org/2011/08/henry-ford-never-said-the-fastGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  87. Giasemi Vavoula and Mike Sharples. 2007. Future technology workshop: A collaborative method for the design of new learning technologies and activities. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 2, 4 (2007), 393--419.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  88. Eva Brandt. 2006. Designing exploratory design games: a framework for participation in Participatory Design?. In PDC '06: Proceedings of the ninth conference on Participatory design. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 57--66. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  89. Elizabeth B.-N. Sanders and Pieter Jan Stappers. 2008. Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign 4, 1 (March 2008), 5--18.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  90. Lisa P. Nathan, Predrag V. Klasnja, and Batya Friedman. 2007. Value Scenarios: A Technique for Envisioning Systemic Effects of New Technologies. In CHI '07 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '07). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2585--2590. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  91. Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby. 2013. Speculative Everything. MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  92. Jeffrey Bardzell and Shaowen Bardzell. 2013. What is "Critical" About Critical Design?. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '13). ACM, 3297--3306. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  93. Bob Dick. 2002. Building agreement from disagreement: The anatomy of dialectical processes. Interchange, Chapel Hill, QLD. http://www.aral.com.au/DLitt/DLitt_P24delphi.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  94. Sandra G. Harding. 2004. The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader: Intellectual and Political Controversies. Psychology Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  95. Christian Dindler and Ole Sejer Iversen. 2014. Relational Expertise in Participatory Design. In Proceedings of the 13th Participatory Design Conference: Research Papers - Volume 1 (PDC '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 41--50. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  96. Jonas Fritsch and Ole Sejer Iversen. 2014. Designing for Experience: Scaffolding a Design Ecology. In Enterprising Initiatives in the Experience Economy, Britta Timm Knudsen, Dorthe Refslund Christensen, and Per Blenker (Eds.). Routledge, 226--244.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  97. Anne Edwards. 2010. Being an Expert Professional Practitioner: The Relational Turn in Expertise. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  98. Anne Tomes and Peter Armstrong. 2010. Dialectics of design: how ideas of 'good design' change. Prometheus 28, 1 (2010), 29--39.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  99. Eli Berniker and David E. McNabb. 2006. Dialectical Inquiry: A Structured Qualitative Research Method. The Qualitative Report 11, 4 (2006), 643--664.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  100. Susanne Bødker. 2011. Use is Everywhere and Changing: Analysis and Design with the Human-artifact Model. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics (ECCE '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3--10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  101. Melissa Gregg and Gregory J. Seigworth. 2010. The Affect Theory Reader. Duke University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  102. Patricia Ticineto Clough and Jean Halley. 2007. The Affective Turn: Theorizing the Social. Duke University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  103. Jonas Fritsch and Mogens Jacobsen. 2017. The Voice Pump: An Affectively Engaging Interface for Changing Attachments. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference Companion Publication on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS '17 Companion). ACM, 265--269. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  104. Ruth Leys. 2011. The Turn to Affect: A Critique. Critical Inquiry 37, 3 (mar 2011), 434--472.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  105. Brian Massumi. 2002. Parables for the Virtual: Movement, Affect, Sensation. Duke University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  106. Lucian Leahu, Steve Schwenk, and Phoebe Sengers. 2008. Subjective Objectivity: Negotiating Emotional Meaning. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS '08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 425--434. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  107. Preben Mogensen. 1992. Towards a Provotyping Approach in Systems Development. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 4, 1 (1992). http://aisel.aisnet.org/sjis/vol4/iss1/5Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  108. Sara B. Hobolt. 2016. The Brexit vote: a divided nation, a divided continent. Journal of European Public Policy 23, 9 (2016), 1259--1277.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  109. Yubo Kou, Yong Ming Kow, Xinning Gui, and Waikuen Cheng. 2017. One Social Movement, Two Social Media Sites: A Comparative Study of Public Discourses. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 26, 4--6 (2017), 807--836. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  110. Marcus Foth, Leonardo Parra Agudelo, and Robin Palleis. 2013. Digital Soap-boxes: Towards an Interaction Design Agenda for Situated Civic Innovation. In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing Adjunct Publication (UbComp '13 Adjunct). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 725--728. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  111. Dan Ariely. 2010. Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions. Harper Perennial, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  112. Alan G. Sanfey, James K. Rilling, Jessica A. Aronson, Leigh E. Nystrom, and Jonathan D. Cohen. 2003. The Neural Basis of Economic Decision-Making in the Ultimatum Game. Science 300, 5626 (2003), 1755--1758.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  113. William E. Connolly. 2002. Neuropolitics: Thinking, Culture, Speed. University of Minnesota Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  114. Nigel Thrift. 2004. Intensities of feeling: towards a spatial politics of affect. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 86, 1 (mar 2004), 57--78.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  115. Nancy Fraser. 2016. Progressive Neoliberalism versus Reactionary Populism: A Choice that Feminists Should Refuse. Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research 24, 4 (2016), 281--284.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  116. Chad Jameson Clem. 2017. Going with Your Gut: A Study of Affect, Satire, and Donald Trump in the 2016 Presidential Election. Master's thesis. Virginia Tech.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  117. Constantina Papoulias and Felicity Callard. 2010. Biology's Gift: Interrogating the Turn to Affect. Body & Society 16, 1 (mar 2010), 29--56.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  118. Clare Hemmings. 2005. Invoking Affect: Cultural Theory and the Ontological Turn. Cultural Studies 19, 5 (sep 2005), 548--567.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  119. Paul Bloom. 2017. Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion. Random House.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  120. Peter Wright and John McCarthy. 2008. Empathy and experience in HCI. In Proceeding of the twenty-sixth annual SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (CHI '08). ACM, Florence, Italy, 637--646. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  121. Stephen Lindsay, Katie Brittain, Daniel Jackson, Cassim Ladha, Karim Ladha, and Patrick Olivier. 2012. Empathy, Participatory Design and People with Dementia. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 521--530. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  122. Paul Coulton, Jonny Huck, Andrew Hudson-Smith, Ralph Barthel, Panagiotis Mavros, Jennifer Roberts, and Philip Powell. 2014. Designing Interactive Systems to Encourage Empathy Between Users. In Proceedings of the 2014 Companion Publication on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS Companion '14). ACM, 13--16. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  123. Katharina Spiel, Christopher Frauenberger, Eva Hornecker, and Geraldine Fitzpatrick. {n. d.}. When Empathy Is Not Enough: Assessing the Experiences of Autistic Children with Technologies. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2017) (CHI '17). ACM, 2853--2864. Honorable Mention (best 4% of submissions). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  124. Lucas D. Introna. 2013. Epilogue: Performativity and the Becoming of Sociomaterial Assemblages. In Materiality and Space. Palgrave Macmillan UK, 330--342.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  125. Gilbert Cockton. 2009. Getting There: Six Meta-principles and Interaction Design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2223--2232. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  126. Gilbert Cockton. 2017. Engineering is Worth It, but Only when Rational Ideals Accept Reflective Realities. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Symposium on Engineering Interactive Computing Systems (EICS '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1--1. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  127. Benedictus de Spinoza. 1994. A Spinoza Reader: The Ethics and Other Works. Princeton University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  128. Gabriela Avram, Jaz Hee-jeong Choi, Stefano De Paoli, Ann Light, Peter Lyle, and Maurizio Teli. 2017. Collaborative Economies: From Sharing to Caring. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Communities and Technologies (C&T '17). ACM, 305--307. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  129. Ann Light and Yoko Akama. 2014. Structuring Future Social Relations: The Politics of Care in Participatory Practice. In Proceedings of the 13th Participatory Design Conference (PDC '14). ACM, 151--160. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  130. Ann Light, Alison Powell, and Irina Shklovski. 2017. Design for Existential Crisis in the Anthropocene Age. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Communities and Technologies (C&T '17). ACM, 270--279. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  131. Alice V. Brown and Jaz Hee-jeong Choi. 2017. Towards Care-based Design: Trusted Others in Nurturing Posttraumatic Growth Outside of Therapy. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Communities and Technologies (C&T '17). ACM, 56--63. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  132. Christopher Alexander, Sara Ishikawa, and Murray Silverstein. 1977. A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. OUP USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  133. Marcus Foth. 2006. Network action research. Action Research 4, 2 (2006), 205--226.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  134. Marcus Foth. 2008. Sociocultural animation. In Information Communication Technologies: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications. IGI Global, 464--471.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  135. Alison Gilchrist. 2004. The Well-connected Community: A Networking Approach to Community Development. Policy Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. On scale, dialectics, and affect: pathways for proliferating participatory design

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      PDC '18: Proceedings of the 15th Participatory Design Conference: Full Papers - Volume 1
      August 2018
      207 pages
      ISBN:9781450363716
      DOI:10.1145/3210586

      Copyright © 2018 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 20 August 2018

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      PDC '18 Paper Acceptance Rate17of67submissions,25%Overall Acceptance Rate49of289submissions,17%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader