Atmosphere in Participatory Design

Cozza, Michela; Cusinato, Augusto; Philippopoulos‐Mihalopoulos, Andreas

doi:10.1080/09505431.2019.1681952

Cited by 12 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This limits the creative contribution and conceptual decisions integral to a co-design process (Frauenberger et al 2011). 'Genuine participation', which underpins the democratic principles in PD (Cozza, Cusinato and Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos 2019), should ensure 'the fundamental transcendence of the users' role from being merely informants to being legitimate and acknowledged participants in the design process' (Robertson and Simonsen, as cited in ibid). To enable legitimate participation, creating a meaningful frame that reflects the participants' everyday lives is also crucial (Iversen and Brodersen 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enabling genuine participation in co-design with young people with learning disabilities

Raman

French

2021

CoDesign

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper shares key learnings and emerging principles on ways of enabling genuine participation from young people with learning disabilities in co-design.Reviewing previous research focusing on co-design with young people and people with learning disabilities, we highlight key gaps including -a lack of approaches engaging young people with learning disabilities throughout a codesign process; and limited examples of genuine participation focusing on lived experience and engagement in creative and conceptual decision-making. We present our work with young people with learning disabilities to design a gamebased learning tool, with a focus on the co-design process. The work illustrates a situated, tailored Participatory Design approach for engaging participants across all stages of co-design. Findings highlight the importance of contextual preparation by embedding in situ to support multi-vocal, multi-method engagement; and asset-based narratives to empower young people and support expression of voice, enabling creativity and conceptual decision-making.Synthesising key learnings and reflections, we present emerging principles underpinned by a rights-based ethos, with an emphasis on creating the right conditions and developing capacities to enable genuine participation.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enabling genuine participation in co-design with young people with learning disabilities

Raman

French

2021

CoDesign

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The finding that learning cannot be simply assumed as a design outcome, but rather is embedded in collective design activities structured by power relations and socio-material features, we contend, marks an important agenda point for contemporary debates revolving around co-design and older participants [17,18]. Although previous studies have begun to cast doubt on the link between co-design activities with older people and specific design outcomes (e.g., [27,[67][68][69]), our findings underscore the relevance of the settings of design practices themselves in structuring the type of learning outcomes that can be obtained. Specifically, we observed how different design settings enacted different learning outcomes.…”

Section: Design With Older Peoplementioning

confidence: 77%

“…Besides the general recognition of mutual learning as a particular outcome of design activities enabled by an open and trusting collaboration, the precise content of these learning outcomes has not received extensive attention within the PD literature. Despite recent efforts devoted to providing a deeper understanding of design practices (e.g., [27][28][29]), including calls to examine the social life of methods in general practice [30][31][32], we are still short of a detailed account of how co-design and learning activities are closely intertwined.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Co-Design as Learning: The Differences of Learning When Involving Older People in Digitalization in Four Countries

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Involving older people through co-design has become increasingly attractive as an approach to develop technologies for them. However, less attention has been paid to the internal dynamics and localized socio-material arrangements that enact this method in practice. In this paper, we show how the outcomes that can be achieved with user involvement often pertain to learning, but their content can differ significantly based on how the approach is implemented in practice. Combining explorative, qualitative findings from co-design conducted in four countries (Canada, the Netherlands, Spain, and Sweden), we illustrate how different types of learning occurred as design workshops engaged the experiences and skills of older people in different ways. Our findings make visible how learning can be a core outcome of co-design activities with older adults, while raising awareness of the role of the power relations and socio-material arrangements that structure these design practices in particular ways. To benefit from the full wealth of insights that can be learned by involving older people, deeper knowledge is needed of the implicit features of design, the materials, meanings, and power aspects involved.

show abstract

“…In particular, they do not allow for a reflexive and continuous process of discovery between the researchers and the participants, as well as between the participants themselves. In reference to PD research, Cozza et al (2020) have described this as the difference between “engineering an atmosphere” that supports the inclusion of older adults and creating an “engineered atmosphere” that narrowly focuses the research on a prespecified outcome, thereby suppressing genuine participation (p. 271). For example, in the social robots PD study, older adults were engaged after the project was conceptualized and for a discrete and prespecified purpose—to provide ideas for the future development of a social robot that was assumed to offer a solution to the social isolation faced by older adults living with mental and physical challenges.…”

Section: Comparing and Contrasting Par And Pd In Gerotechnologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Moving Toward the Promise of Participatory Engagement of Older Adults in Gerotechnology

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Limited uptake and use of developed technologies by older adults have prompted interest in participatory design and related approaches in the gerotechnology field. Despite this, recent systematic reviews suggest that researchers continue to passively engage older adults in research projects, often only in providing advice or feedback in the early or later phases of research. A key barrier to more meaningful and active engagement of older adults is a lack of understanding as to how participatory design differs from other participatory approaches, and in particular participatory action research. We address this gap in understanding by exploring the theoretical similarities and differences of participatory design and participatory action research, including their scope, goals, and the nature of the involvement of older adults in each. We conclude with key barriers that are critical to address in order to achieve greater involvement of older adults in gerotechnology, and to broaden and enrich the goals of this field.

show abstract

Atmosphere in Participatory Design

Cited by 12 publications

References 18 publications

Enabling genuine participation in co-design with young people with learning disabilities

Enabling genuine participation in co-design with young people with learning disabilities

Co-Design as Learning: The Differences of Learning When Involving Older People in Digitalization in Four Countries

Moving Toward the Promise of Participatory Engagement of Older Adults in Gerotechnology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About