Disentangling participatory ICT design in socioeconomic development

Abstract

Participatory design in socioeconomic development is an invariably political activity fraught with both political as well as ethical entanglements. ICT for development (ICTD)often involved in contexts of great inequality and heteogeneity-places these in especially sharp relief. This paper draws attention to these entanglements as well as what they mean for the role and practice of designer-researchers practicing PD. We then draw upon our experiences in an active PD project to highlight approaches that serve as a partial response to these entanglements. These presents both limitations as well as orientations for our role as designer-researchers in engaging with and organising PD work in ICTD-providing a starting point for answering the question "who participates with whom in what and why?" CCS CONCEPTS • Human-centered computing → Participatory design;

Location-based challenges for playful neighbourhood exploration

“…The locations need to be appropriate for the designed activities and be relevant for the citizens who will engage with them (Kuijer, De Jong, and Van Eijk 2013). It is, therefore, vital that researchers and designers engage with citizens of the neighbourhood through extensive field research, to understand which challenge locations and activities are appropriate for the specific context for which groups of citizens (Kendall and Dearden 2018;.…”

The Designer's Role in Revitalized Participatory Design Agendas

“…This challenge is a concern to new PD agendas (Bødker and Kyng, 2018) as creating means for people of different hierarchical positions to discuss on an equal footing is never a trivial undertaking, but helps PD contributions along their core goals; • Participatory practices are a conflictual environment: in a participatory practice, each stakeholder has different needs and goals, making PD a discipline that needs to deal with conflict if it seeks to tension power relations and change who gets to decide technology. Considering conflict as a driving force for change can make designers integrate them to the practices (Kendall and Dearden 2018), though some preparation should always be in order for dealing with them (Akama and Light 2018). Conflicts represent opportunities for mutual learning among people in the practice space, but can also be hurdles for making meaningful change and promoting democracy (Thinyane et al 2018).…”

“…Thinking about why interpersonal conflicts exist, for example, may direct participation towards a more ethic form, that would fall for PD's historic pitfalls of exploitation, manipulation, and illusion (Muller et al, 1997). For example, Kendall and Dearden (2018) explore how historical processes of colonialism influence PD projects; • Interpersonal interactions in a participatory practice matter: the way which a designer responds to conflicts and unexpected situations in practice is a point considered in new PD agendas (Akama and Light 2018). Interpersonal relationships which occur during practice influence the results, and building trust is an important part of working with a partner community (Spiel et al, 2018).…”

“…• A participatory project may not fit to paper format: durability is an important factor for PD projects (Kendall and Dearden 2018), and is key for focusing contributions towards more ambitions societal and technological changes (Bødker and Kyng, 2018). Enabling meaningful and lasting change is a challenge for PD, as research and participation are situated inside extremely complex social systems (Huybrechts et al, 2018b).…”

“…Each research agenda is written in a different locale, since each community has its own thinking about PD (Halskov and Hansen, 2015). However, designers constantly have a primary role in starting PD processes (Kendall and Dearden 2018). In order to think about contextually aware design, it is necessary to consider that designers are submitted to power relations under which the act of designing operates (Feng and Feenberg 2008).…”