skip to main content
10.1145/1147261.1147277acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagespdcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Whose participation? whose knowledge?: exploring PD in Tanzania-Zanzibar and Sweden

Published:01 August 2006Publication History

ABSTRACT

In this paper we discuss two Participatory Design (PD) projects, one in Tanzania-Zanzibar and the other one in Sweden. In both countries the design process was done through the analysis of work practices involving both designers and users. The discussion focuses on a number of factors such as location, time and scene. We also ask how different projects can be that it is still possible to talk about PD as an overall participation and design approach. If PD is not a singular, definite, closed and fixed approach on the explicit layers, so how do these projects relate to each other when focusing on methods embracing the ambiguities of participation? The paper ends with a discussion of differences and similarities considering participation in the projects.

References

  1. Beck, E P for Political: Participation is Not Enough. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 14, 1, (2002), 77--92.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Bjerknes, G., Bratteteig, T. User Participation and Democracy, A Discussion of Scandinavian Research on System Development. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 1, 7, (1995), 73--98. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Brandt, E., Messeter, J. Facilitating Collaboration through Design Games. In Proceedings of Participatory Design Conference (PDC), Toronto, New York City, USA. ACM Press, 2004, 121--131. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Bratteteig, T. Making Change. Dealing with relations between design and use. Dr. Philos dissertation, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Bratteteig, T., Stolterman, E. Design in groups--and all that jazz. In Kyng, M, Mathiassen, L. (eds). Computers and Design in Context. MIT Press, Cambrigde, Mass., London, 1997, 289--316. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Braa, J., Hedberg, C. The Struggle for District-Based Health Information Systems in South Africa. The Information Society 18, 2, (2002), 113--127.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Bødker, K., Kensing, F. and Simonsen, J. Participatory IT Design. Designing for Business and Workplace Realities. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Bødker, S. A for Alternatives. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 15, 1 (2003), 87--89. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Ehn, P, Scandinavian Design: on Participation and Skill. In Schuler, D., Namioka, A. (eds.) Participatory Design: Principles and Practices. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1993, 41--77.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Elovaara, P. Angels in Unstable Sociomaterial Relations: Stories of Information Technology. Karlskrona, Blekinge Institute of Technology, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Gaver, B., Beaver, J. et al (2003) Ambiguity as a Resource for Design. In Proc. CHI 2003, ACM Press (2003), 223--240. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Göranzon, B. The practical Intellect: Computers and Skills. Springer Verlag, London, Berlin, cop. 1993 Carlssons, Stockhom, 1996.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Hansson, P-A. Folkhemmet, medborgarhemmet {People's home, citizens' home}. In Hansson, P-A, Demokrati: tal och uppsatser {Democrary: speeches and essays}, pp. 19--32. Tiden, Stockholm, 1935.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Haraway, D. J. Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. Routledge, New York, 1991.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. hooks, b Feminism is for Everybody: passionate politics. South End Press, Cambridge MA, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Karasti, H. Gendered Expertise and Participation in Systems Design. In Mörtberg, C., Elovaara, P. and Lundgren, A. (eds) How to make a difference?: Information Technology, Transnational Democracy and Gender. Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, 2003, 29--49.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Kimaro, H. C., Titlestad, O. H. Challenges of User Participation in a Design of Computer Based System: The Possibility of Participatory Customisation in Low Income Countries. In IFIP WG 9.4 Working Conference. Enhancing Human Resource Development through ICT, May 26--28 2005, Nicol Hilton Hotel, Abuja, Nigeria.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Law, J After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. Routledge, London, New York, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Loi, D, Voderberg, M, Manrique, P, Marwah, S;, Liney B. "Live like I do" -- a Field Experience Using Cultural Probes. In Proceedings of Participatory Design Conference (PDC), Toronto, New York City, USA. ACM Press, 2004, 121--131.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Markussen, R. Politics of Intervention: Feminist Reflections on the Scandinavian Tradition. AI & Society, 1996, 10, pp. 127--141. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Molander, B. Kunskap i handling {Knowledge in Action}. Daidalos, Göteborg, 1996Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Mörtberg, C. Medborgare i en digital tid - aktörer eller konsumenter? {A Citizen in a Digital Era: Actors or Consumers?}. Oslo: Nordisk institutt for kvinne- og kjønnsforskning. NIKK Småskrifter nr. 9, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Mörtberg, C., Stuedahl, D. Silences and Sensibilities -- increasing participation in IT design. In Proceedings of The Fourth Decennial Aarhus Conference, Denmark (ACM)(2005), 141--144 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Puri, S., Byrne, E., Nhampossa, J. L. and Quraishi Z. B. Contextuality of Participation in IS Design: a Developing Country Perspective. In Proceedings of Participatory Design Conference PDC) Toronto, New York City, USA. ACM Press, 2000, 42 -- 52. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Rydhagen, B. Feminist sanitary engineering as a participatory alternative in South Africa and Sweden. Blekinge Institute of Technology, Karlskrona, 2002Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Regeringens proposition 1999/2000:125 Ett informationssamhälle för alla {Government Bill 1999/2000:125 An Information Society for All}, http://www.regeringen.se {2006-01-15}.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Sahay, S., Avgerou, C. Introducing the Special Issue on Information and Communication Technologies in Developing Countries. The Information Society 18, 2, (2002), 73--76.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Shapiro, D. Participatory Design: the will to succeed. In Bertelsen et al. (eds.) Between Sense and Sensibility Critical Computing Aarhus 2005 Proceedings ACM, pp 29--38, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Star, S. L. Misplaced Concretism and Concrete Situations: Feminism, Method and Information Technology. Gender-Nature-Culture Feminist Research Network, Working paper 11, Odense University, Odense, 1994Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Star, S. I., Strauss, A. Layers of Silence, Arenas of Voice: The Ecology of Visible and Invisible Work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 8, (1999), 9--30. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Suchman, L. Located Accountabilities in Technology Production. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 14, 2, (2002), 91--105. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Suchman, L., Trigg, R.: Understanding Practice: Video as a Medium for Reflection and Design, In Greenbaum, J., Kyng, M. Design at Work: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems. Lawrence Earlbaum Hillsdale, 1991. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Whose participation? whose knowledge?: exploring PD in Tanzania-Zanzibar and Sweden

    Recommendations

    Reviews

    Barrett Hazeltine

    In participatory design (PD), users are involved in the design of a project. Two information technology (IT) projects are described in this paper: one is a hospital information system in Zanzibar, and the other is the improvement of e-government in Sweden. Both projects consist of joint analysis of work practices by users and designers. A full description is given of how the designers attempted to gain the trust of the users and learn their perspective. As expected, the projects differed in many ways besides location: accessibility of participants, reasons for participation, IT knowledge and culture of users, availability of electricity, and import tariffs. The key question is how to maintain the core purpose of PD-to encourage participation in the face of different experiences and knowledge. The research seems to indicate no universal rules exist. The strength of PD is in its capacity to be transformed by the situation at hand. One objective of the study was to find methods to support cooperation between designers and users, while keeping their positions separate. Again, effective techniques seem to depend on the local setting; what works in Sweden may not work in Zanzibar, but the objectives and philosophy of PD should be constant. Both improving the effectiveness of participatory design and allowing for cultural differences in a design are important issues. This paper has some illuminating points, but offers no strong guidelines on what to do. Online Computing Reviews Service

    Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

    Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.

    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 '06: Proceedings of the ninth conference on Participatory design: Expanding boundaries in design - Volume 1
      August 2006
      149 pages
      ISBN:159593460X
      DOI:10.1145/1147261

      Copyright © 2006 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 ACM 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: 1 August 2006

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • Article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate49of289submissions,17%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader