Participatory Design for Sustainable Development Matthew Kam Feb 7, 2003

Carroll Reading Participatory design –Users actively help to set design goals and plan prototypes –Should aim for long-term collaboration –Jean Piaget’s developmental theory But there’s mutual learning on part of designers

Four Stages Practitioner-informant Analyst Designer Coach

Practitioner-Informant Interviewed the teachers Felt they had little to contribute, relatively passive and compliant role Main role was to provide domain information Primary concern was to “help out” in project as long as they do not diminish students’ learning opportunities Helped out as personal commitment; some conflation with monetary rewards later Does this weaken the motivation for participatory design? Had difficulties envisioning ideas in concrete teaching contexts How to train teachers to evaluate design ideas critically at this stage?

Analyst Teachers were remarkably effectively in analyzing videotaped class sessions Became more active advocates of importance of real classroom situations Not only inform designers, but also make proposals Also reflected / re-examined own teaching practices Analysts need to understand problem domain in context of system capabilities

Designer Took initiative to develop prototypes, with scaffolding from designers Generated ideas for general functions and specific features Embraced Virtual School in their pedagogy But wasn’t clear how they become “bought-in” –Was it the analysis phase? –How? Inter-disciplinary cooperation

Coach Inspired fellow teachers Benefited from externalizing / reconstructing experiences in Virtual School Teacher autonomy as key to long-term sustainability in such collaborations How were teachers able to identify patterns of utility?

Other Issues Can developmental process be accelerated? What impediments to team integration by teachers were identified? How were they resolved? Framed participatory design largely as a learning process –Still, omitted mutual learning on part of designers, and teamwork dynamics

Sawhney Reading Remote participatory design –Made possible by ThinkCycle collaboratory –Focus on knowledge-intensive work –Aims to cross social and institutional boundaries To what extent does being an “open” collaboratory help?

Case for Collaboratories –Leverage on under-used home computers –But limited applications and problems OpenLaw –Generated public awareness and interest ThinkCycle –Shared online space for engineers, domain experts, and stakeholders to exchange and construct ideas for design solutions in critical problem domains

Impediments to Remote Collaboration Olson’s work –Readiness to collaborate Culture of cooperation Trust and other common ground Incentive structure for all parties involved How about language and cultural barriers? –Ability to use collaborative tools and knowledge

ThinkCycle Creation Process Concept prototype –Post problems and solutions –Many bugs –Not scalable (serialized objects) Early functional prototype –”Design that Matters” class to get end-users, generate content, etc. –Post work artifacts like files, images, etc. –16 months of iteration to get user interface right!

Online Community Issues Affordances for social awareness Integrating info from multiple modes of communication and work environments Low bandwidth SoapBox: Informal, impromptu interactions were the norm Unmoderated discussions -> greater participation –Contrast with junk posts on some un-moderated newsgroups Structure for content Privacy and security “Vandal” peer reviews

In Practice ThinkCycle largely used for –Design memory –Solicit feedback from online community –How about group cohesion? –Posts drop when insufficient public interest Co-located members work f2f more instead Topics do not define communities –Action projects, DyD conference and SoapBox discussions more likely to sustain community

Other Issues Roles of online members in ThinkCycle collaboratory?