Search

In Indonesia, an annual participatory planning practice called Musrenbang is implemented to produce village development plans through public meetings. Being an obligatory process, Musrenbang is often poorly implemented due to problems such as power relations and disagreement among stakeholders. Enabling the stakeholders to find common understanding through knowledge integration is crucial to minimize these issues. As most villages do not have proper maps, we developed a collaborative spatial learning methodology to enable the village stakeholders to participate in the mapping process. Through the mapping exercise it is expected that we can support production of the village maps, and contribute to integrate stakeholders’ spatial knowledge; helping them to minimize the power gaps and to find common understanding through social learning experiences. Ultimately, it is expected that the developed methodology will improve the Musrenbang implementation at village level.

Outdoor play activities are one of the ways via which children can acquire a sense of place towards their neighbourhood. Engaging children in the design of these activities through Participatory Design (PD) holds promise. However, knowledge lacks on the characteristics of place-making processes for children, the changing dynamics in these processes, and how PD can contribute to this. This paper proposes a PD method, grounded in literature, to support children in co-creating outdoor play activities for place-making. The method is applied with 42 children in Rotterdam. Involvementof local partners, preparation meetings, and PD materials tailored to children’s interests and skills are vital to enable children to design outdoor play activities that are meaningful to them.

Due to the numerous possibilities of voicing concerns and the flood of data we are exposed to, local issues are sometimes at risk of being overlooked. This study explores Local Commons, a design intervention in public space that combines situated digital and tangible media in order to engage communities in contributing and debating different perspectives on a given local issue. The intervention invited the community to submit images of their perspectives on the issue, which were displayed on a public screen. Via tangible buttons in front of the screen, community members then agree or disagree on the displayed perspectives, creating a space for deliberation. In a user study, we were specifically interested in testing three aspects of our intervention, which are discussed in this paper: The difference that situatedness, visual content, and tangible interaction can make to urban community engagement.

Participatory Design (PD) grew out of linkages between technology designers and worker movements in the 1970s. Now, as participation has emerged as an increasingly popular and contested idea in design fields and education, conversations about what we mean by “participation,” who gets to participate and to what ends, and how we imagine the kinds of knowledge central to collective practices, are critical. We came together for the first time in New York City, January 30th 2020, for a committee meeting for the 16th Participatory Design Conference (PDC) to be held in Manizales, Colombia. This was just before the pandemia was declared. As part of that meeting Shana organized a panel discussion with all of us, with the same theme as this zine. The panel was the starting point of a creative exploration with some of the keywords–concepts that we consider crucial in/for Participatory Design. We continued to interrogate them throughout the PDC 2020, which, because of the pandemia, ended up being an online-only conference. We offer this initial collection of keywords as conversation starting points, teasers, and evocations for further debates and inquiry, but also, importantly, for untold reflections and bridges to alternative worlds. Each word brought together two or more of usto make a start, and each of us played freely with the words to arrive at what we present here as a collective of super idiotic creatures [sic]. We hope, with humility, you would join us in our continued journey to ground and challenge these key concepts, and imagine where their exploration can take us. This zine - version 1 - contains an initial set of 12 keywords, which are merely starters. More words could and should be added; the current 12 could also be further explored in depth and sideways. Browse them, use them, play with them, and also please visit the online editable version at [https://bit.ly/31NKb61] to comment, suggest new entries, and volunteer as contributors to one or more future versions of the zine. As we envision this as a continuous joint community effort, the materials are released under a CC-BY-NC license.

This workshop explores the relevance of the notion of commons as an objective, and commoning as a way of doing and being for design. We invite the PD community to reflect on ways in which these concepts help us critically protect and support sustainable futures for communities of humans and non-humans. How can participatory design remain open to multiple ways of sharing and different worldviews? What would it mean for the participatory design community in terms of challenging established notions such as participation, facilitation, empowerment, to name but a few? How can participatory design contribute further to theoretical elaboration and activist practices?

In this exploratory paper we discuss the relation between empowerment and global sharing economy in a Global Southern context. We distinguish two primary meanings of 'empowerment' namely,the liberation from oppression and the ability to act. We inspect working for sharing economies from both angles. A critical factor for assessing whether sharing economies are empowering for global South workers is the change it brings. If the platform work offers opportunities for formerly unemployed, the change is considered as empowering. However, it is possible, that these platform jobs instead replace the traditional, more protected employments, in which case the change is considered dis-empowering. We exemplify our arguments with a contextual inquiry into community-based tourism in a small village Tanzania.

In this paper I conduct a hauntological analysis of participatory speculation, within the context of a study into understanding the potential for increasing recognition of LGBT+ young people’s experiences of hate crime and hate incidents. Hauntology provides a means to further situate accounts of speculation in Participatory Design by sensitising us to the interplay of the virtual and the actual that enables us to expand our sense of the possible. Through understanding how participatory speculation is shaped by absent presences, this paper contributes to the discussion of post-solutionist practices in PD that foster care and responsibility across multiple sites and forms of participation in the face of issues that resist resolution. I conclude by considering by translating speculation into shared spaces of wonder, Participatory Design can foster ethical commitments that stay with the trouble.

Participation is key to building an equitable, realistic and democratic future. Yet a lack of agency in decision making and agenda-setting is a growing phenomenon in the design of digital public services. We call this pseudo-participation by and in design. The configuration of digital artifacts and/or processes can provide an illusion of participation but lack supportive processes and affordances to allow meaningful participation to happen. This exploratory paper examines the realm of pseudo-participation in the design of public digital services through two concepts: 1) pseudo-participation by design, digital interfaces, and tools that provide the illusion of participation to the people, 2) pseudo-participation in design, processes in which those affected by the design decisions are marginalized and not given any agency. We contribute to the re-imagination of participatory design in modern societies where the role of politics has become ubiquitous and is yet to be critically scrutinized by designers.

Values play a central role in technology design. But beyond acknowledging the politics of technology, questions remain around where those values are coming from, which values we need, and how they play out and shape the socio-technical systems we create. New challenges such as the climate crisis and societal polarization call for technologists to become part of the public and political arena. This results in a new sense of responsibility, but the closing of CPSR, the Computing Professionals for Social Responsibility, has left a gap. Today, across tech workers, academics and computing professionals, there is a renewed sense of urgency for engaging the public and politics to change course in how computing shapes society. What should a CPSR for the 21st century look like? This interactive workshop aims to re-invigorate the debate around values and social responsibility in Participatory Design with special attention to the Latin American context.

We address the theme of participation(s) otherwise by bringing forward what we see as an opportunity to combine existing participatory and service design approaches to participation in the way they weave connections between design, IT, digitalization and democracy, focusing on the context of the public sector. This is a context where participatory design, despite interest and projects, has not been widely adopted. However, service design, the ĝ€new kid on the block', is establishing itself by very pragmatically addressing the emerging need for people-centered design approaches in organizations, including in the public sector. Service design might at first be easily dismissed by participatory design because of what may seem a superficial take on people-centeredness and its links to business-centered interest in ĝ€design'. With this exploratory paper, we emphasize what both disciplines can learn from one another and propose that participatory design and service design join forces in expanding notions of participation and addressing the challenges of digitalization in the public sector.

With the concept of infrastructuring as a background for our reflections, this paper focuses on two complementary verbifications have entered the PD vocabulary: institutioning, which describes engagement with institutions, and commoning, which describes engagement with grassroots communities - and by extension alternative economic frameworks that challenge the status quo. We contribute to this discourse to reflect, theoretically, on themes emerging from the triad of relationships between designers, institutions, and grassroots communities. We do so presenting g, excerpts of our own PD work with institutions and grassroots communities. In this way, we present a nascent conceptual framework that offers analytical potential to promote pluralist understandings of PD scholarship and practices.

Participatory Design (PD) approaches seem particularly well suited to contribute to debates over power and decolonization in design, yet often lack considerations of cultural situatedness and underlying ontological entanglements. In this paper we identify theoretical and methodological gaps in PD relating to contemporary discourses of decolonizing design. We integrate perspectives from PD and postcolonial discourse to explore how we can create more far-reaching examples of decolonizing design in practice. We present a study in which young Namibians are at the forefront of knowledge production on postcolonial memories and contribute to discussions of how decolonizing PD practices may be developed through contextualized, transdisciplinary, and transcultural approaches. In particular, we argue there is a need for a "safe space," as well as continuing reflection on methods and de-linking of knowledge and epistemologies within the PD process itself.