1. Participatory Design- Group 9 30.04.2003 Readings related to PD: Foundations: ”Language-games” Theoretical Schools in SD Preliminary inquiry General principles of PD PD related to our project

2. Philosophical Foundations for Participatory Design: ”Language-games”

3. ”Language-games” Ehn (1993): Wittgensteinian ”language- games” are the theoretical foundation for Participatory Design What is a ”language-game”?

4. Wittgenstein’s classic example: ”blocks, pillars, slabs and beams” A needs B to help him build a house A points at block and says ”block” In the future, when A needs a block, he shouts ”block” and B provides him with one This is a simple language- game This is according to Wittgenstein how children learn language!

5. Why Wittgenstein’s language- games were revolutionary They closed the ”Cartesian divide” between a human ”brain in a vat” and an external world. No more ding an sich (Kant), only ding für mich. Language-games are a social activity; language is always shared – never private. Reality exists because of language-games, without language-games, no reality. Reality (or a part of it) = something we understand = ”have a word for”

6. Empirical support for the theory Participatory Design: – joint visits to trade-shows; spending more time together; [...]; role-playing games – all helped in improving understanding between user and designer (Ehn, p. 62) Acculturation of newcomers in the workplace: – acculturation takes place faster when newcomers interact with veteran peers (Meryl Reis Louis 1990)

7. A dialectic of ”rule-breaking” Both designer and user are influenced when new language-games are made. rule-breaking evolves language-game designer’s language-game users’ language- game new, common language-game

8. A hermeneutic representation of a ”language-game” in PD designers users learns from learns from

9. Systems Development Research in Scandinavia Jørgen Bansler

10. Bansler: Systems Theoretical Research: 1960s- Objective: rationalize work processes by using computer based information systems Langefors: The ISAC Method – principles of engineering to the design of information systems – Employees: ”factors of production”, – Critique: the uniqueness of human beings are overlooked

11. Bansler:Socio-technical Research: 1970s- Concerns the socio-psychological problems caused by the system designers’ neglect of the human factor Organizations (Bjørn-Andersen et al): – ” job satisfaction” – social system and technical system – Participative approach – Critique: Socio-technical factors are often overseen

12. Bansler: Critical Research: 1970s- Organizations are frameworks for cooperation and conflicts among interests groups Kristen Nygaard, Olav Terje Bergo: – Metal working industry: Computers’ impact on working conditions – Local unions experimented on how to gain more influence in introducing new technology in the workplace – Political research – democratization must involve changes in the structure of social life – Critique: democratization of the workplace is not always the main goal for trade unions

13. Bansler: Systems Development Research in Scandinavia Major traditions/Basic ideas Systems theoretical tradition Socio-technical tradition Critical tradition Knowledge interest Profit maximizingJob satisfaction, participation Industrial democracy Notion of the organization Cybernetic systemSocio-technocal systemFramwork for conflicts Notion of the labor force Objects (”systems components”) Subjects (individuals)Subjects (groups) Notion of capital/labor relations Common interests Opposing interestes

14. Preliminary inquiry (PI) and PD: Main topics The scope and reasons for conducting a PI Aspects that are similar to the focus in PD- theory Possible conflicts and dilemmas

15. The scope and reasons for a conducting a preliminary inquiry The challenges and the setting General principals (Bødker, Kensing, Simonsen) the MUST- method a common vision actual user participation mutual learning process “learning by doing” (UTOPIA?) Anchorage, common reference point

16. Aspects that are similar to the focus in PD- theory User participation Policy of democracy Recognition of workers as a valuable source of knowledge Broader meaning of “system”

17. Possible conflicts and dilemmas power/ influence (the Telenor- project) consequences of visions/ solutions Conflict of interest

18. Participatory Design - principles An approach to assess, design and develop of technical and organizational systems – For more information: http://www.cpsr.org/program/workplace/PD.html

19. PD tenants 1/3 Involvement of the users Workers, a prime source The system; more than a collection of software

20. PD tenants 2/3 Understand the organization – Spend time with users in their workplaces rather than “testing” in laboratories

21. Why use Participatory Design? 1/3 Increase knowledge of the system being developed – Being there is more useful than hearing about it / being told about it Gives a good opportunity to give the users a realistic expectation of the system – And possibly reduce resistance towards the system!

22. Why use Participatory Design? 2/3 Increase Democracy in the work place – By giving users an opportunity to participate in decisions that will possibly affect their workplace / work environment

23. Why use Participatory Design? 3/3 Mutual learning – Between developer and user Users get to know their future tools, and have the opportunity to suggest alterations if desirable The Say/Do – problem

24. Possible Problems with PD Demands close cooperation between the developer and user Requires the same geo. location for the developer and user Developers might not get to work with the “right” users Users might misinterpret their amount of power over their own situation

25. PD in our project: As in PD, we… Had certain METHODS for communicating knowledge Had to solve say-do- challenges Know the organizational context Used the workers as a source of knowledge and innovation

26. PD in our project: As opposed to PD, we… Were not much concerned with democratic processes Could not be at the user’s workplace as a design team The Virtual Team approach does not make user participation easy during the design process