Participatory design in Britain and North America: responses to the “Scandinavian Challenge”
Participatory design in Britain and North America: responses to the “Scandinavian Challenge”
复制标题
英国和北美的参与式设计：应对“斯堪的纳维亚挑战”
DOI：
10.1145/108844.108962
复制
发表时间：
1991
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
J. Greenbaum
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Michael J. Muller;Jeanette L. Blomberg;Kathleen Carter;Elizabeth A. Dykstra;Kim Halskov;J. Greenbaum
有人认为，由于劳动力、立法和工作环境的显着差异，斯堪的纳维亚国家的参与式设计的成功很难在北美或英国复制。该小组由斯堪的纳维亚半岛以外的企业中积极追求参与式设计的人们组成。我们关注参与式设计技术中需要哪些调整来满足我们环境的需求，以及我们的环境中发生了哪些调整以响应参与式设计的经验。引言 Bjerknes、Ehn 和 Kyng [2] 提出的“斯堪的纳维亚挑战”是一系列观点和实践，旨在增强用户在设计过程中作为积极参与者的角色，从而影响用户在工作场所内外的生活。通过 B@lkeret 等人的工作，这项工作已经影响了 SIGCHI 社区。 [5, 6]、Ehn 和 Kyng [9,10, 11] 和 Thoresen [21]，以及 Suchman [20] 和 Grudin [14] 的评论，以及 PDC’90 [19] 和多个会议的小组会议。有人认为，斯堪的纳维亚挑战的工作场所民主主题很难——甚至不可能——在不具备高度工会化、对系统设计中用户角色的立法保护或相对小规模、高度集成的软件开发过程的企业或机构环境中实施。然而，斯堪的纳维亚国家以外的几个项目已经开始使用参与式设计技术——例如，Blomberg [3,4]、DykstraandCarasik [7, 8]、MacLean、Carter、Lovstrand 和 Moran [16]、Muller [17, 18,22]，以及在某些方面 Bennett 等人 [1]，这些项目显然论证了民主设计程序的可行性。 “hostile” environments.他们还提出了参与式设计程序和企业/机构文化之间相互适应的问题。本次小组会议汇集了在斯堪的纳维亚半岛以外的各种环境中进行的参与式设计工作。每个小组成员都强调这些环境如何影响参与式设计范式，以及参与式设计如何影响工作环境。 JEANEELLE L. BLOMBERG：改进技术以实现参与式设计目标：每个人的挑战在与斯堪的纳维亚参与式设计学派的实践者讨论民族志领域方法与新技术设计的相关性时，很明显民族志和参与式设计具有相似的方向。具体来说，民族志田野方法需要即兴的工作风格[3]，随着对当前特定情况的更多了解，对策略和适当的技术进行调整。同样，斯堪的纳维亚的许多参与式设计作品都具有即兴创作的特质。人们认识到，没有两种情况是相同的。每种情况都需要技能、技术、人员、组织和变革机会的创造性编织。这就引出了一个问题：如果没有两种情况是相似的，每种情况都需要独特的做事方式，那么我们在什么意义上可以谈论参与式设计方法，或者就此而言将“斯堪的纳维亚方法”适应北美环境？是什么让我们这些自认为实践参与式设计的人团结在一起——无论是在斯堪的纳维亚半岛还是北美？也许我们应该关注的不是一组技术、一系列必要条件或一组适当的技术，而是对一些基本目标的承诺：提高我们设计技术的对象的工作生活质量，让用户参与新技术的开发，并提供迭代设计的机会，以响应工作情况的每一个要求[4]。我们的技术和策略将反映技术发展的不同背景——
It has been argued that the successes of participatory design in the Scandinavian countries will be difficult to reproduce in North America or Britain, because of significant differences in labor, legislative, and workplace environments. This panel is composed of people actively pursuing participatory design in corporations outside of Scandinavia. We focus on what accommodation(s) were required in participatory design techniques to meet the needs of our environments — and on what accommodations occurred in our environments in response to experiences with participatory design. INTRODUCTION The “Scandinavian Challenge,” as proposed by Bjerknes, Ehn, and Kyng [2], is a set of perspectives and practices for increasing the role of users as active participants in the process through which computer artifacts are designed that have impact on the users’ lives in and out of the workplace. This work has come to influence the SIGCHI community through the work of B@lkeret al. [5, 6], Ehn and Kyng [9, 10, 11], and Thoresen [21], and commentaries by Suchman [20] and by Grudin [14], as well as PDC’90 [19] and panel sessions at several conferences. It has been argued that the workplace democracy themes of the Scandinavian challenge are difficult — or even impossible— to carry out in corporate or institutional environments that are not characterized by high unionization, by legislative protection of the users’ roles in system design, or by a relatively small-scale, highly integrated software development process. However, several projects outside of the Scandinavian countries have begun to use participatory design techniques —e.g., Blomberg [3,4], DykstraandCarasik [7, 8], MacLean, Carter, Lovstrand, and Moran [16], Muller [17, 18,22], and in some ways Bennett et al [ 1], These projects argue for the feasibility of democmtic design procedures in apparently “hostile” environments. They also open questions of mutual accommodation between participatory design procedures and corporate/ institutional culture. This panel session brings together participatory design work that is being conducted in various settings outside of Scandinavia. Each panelist emphasizes how those settings have influenced the participatory design paradigm, and how participatory design has influenced the work setting. JEANEllE L. BLOMBERG: IMPROVISING TECHNIQUES TO ACHIEVE PARTICIPATORY DESIGN GOALS: EVERYONES CHALLENGE In discussing the relevance of ethnographic field methods for the design of new technology with practitioners from the Scandinavian school of participatory design, it became apparent that ethnography and participatory design shared a similar orientation. Specifically, ethnographic field methods require an improvisational style of work [3], where adjustments are made in strategy and appropriate techniques as more is learned about the particular situation at hand. Similarly there is an improvisational quality to much of the Scandinavian work in participatory design. There is a recognition that no two situations are alike. Each situation reqttiresacreative weaving of skills, technologies, people, organizations, and opportunities for change. This leads to the question: If no two situations are alike, each requiring a unique way of doing things, then in what sense can we talk about a participatory design approach or for that matter about adapting the “Scandinavian Approach” to the North American context? What isit that unites those of us who identify ourselves aspracticingparticipatory design— whether in Scandinavia or North America? Perhaps what we should be focusing on is not a set of techniques, a list of necessary conditions, or a collection of appropriate technologies, but instead a commitment to a few basic goals: improving the quality of the working lives of those for whom we design technologies, involving the users in the coltaborat.ivc development of new technologies, and providing opportunities to iterate the design in response to the every&y requirements of the work situation [4]. Our techniques and strategies then will reflect the different contexts in which the technology develop-