In pursuit of rigour and accountability in participatory design.
In pursuit of rigour and accountability in participatory design.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.09.004
复制
发表时间：
2015-02
影响因子：
5.4
通讯作者：
Iversen, Ole Sejer
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Frauenberger, Christopher;Good, Judith;Fitzpatrick, Geraldine;Iversen, Ole Sejer
参与式设计(PD)的领域已经非常多样化，我们看到出现了广泛的途径和方法。然而，为了促进其在设计未来交互技术中的作用，需要讨论这一领域的责任和严谨性。摒弃传统的实证主义框架，我们从设计研究和行动研究等相关领域获得灵感，对这些植根于PD׳S自己的信仰体系的概念进行解释。我们认为，与其他领域不同，问责制和严谨性是通过辩论、批评和反思传达的微妙概念。进行这类辩论的一个关键前提是提供一种语言，使设计师、研究人员和从业者能够就他们的立场、选择和判断的适当性构建坚实的论点。为此，我们提出了一个“思考工具”，通过一个系统的反思和批判性分析的过程来指导设计师、研究人员和实践者，从而提供这样一种语言。该工具提出了四个镜头来批判性地反思PD努力的性质：认识论、价值观、利益相关者和结果。在接下来的步骤中，分析所揭示的特征之间的一致性，并显示它们是将项目推向同一方向还是彼此相反。不管PD的味道如何，我们认为这种特征的连贯性表明了PD工作的内在严谨性水平，而反思和分析的过程提供了为其辩护的语言。我们设想我们的工具将在PD工作的所有阶段都有用：在规划阶段，作为工作期间反思实践的一部分，以及作为一种在事后构建知识和推进领域的手段。我们将我们的理论讨论建立在特定的PD经验基础上，即ECHEES项目，以激励该工具并说明其工作原理。参与式设计(PD)需要问责制和严谨性的微妙概念。问责和严谨是通过辩论、批评和反思来构建的。我们的“工具思考”引导设计师进行系统的、批判性的思考。我们提供了四个反思的镜头：认识论、价值观、利益相关者、结果。反思视角之间的“连贯性”表明了PD工作的内在严谨性。
The field of Participatory Design (PD) has greatly diversified and we see a broad spectrum of approaches and methodologies emerging. However, to foster its role in designing future interactive technologies, a discussion about accountability and rigour across this spectrum is needed. Rejecting the traditional, positivistic framework, we take inspiration from related fields such as Design Research and Action Research to develop interpretations of these concepts that are rooted in PD׳s own belief system. We argue that unlike in other fields, accountability and rigour are nuanced concepts that are delivered through debate, critique and reflection. A key prerequisite for having such debates is the availability of a language that allows designers, researchers and practitioners to construct solid arguments about the appropriateness of their stances, choices and judgements. To this end, we propose a “tool-to-think-with” that provides such a language by guiding designers, researchers and practitioners through a process of systematic reflection and critical analysis. The tool proposes four lenses to critically reflect on the nature of a PD effort: epistemology, values, stakeholders and outcomes. In a subsequent step, the coherence between the revealed features is analysed and shows whether they pull the project in the same direction or work against each other. Regardless of the flavour of PD, we argue that this coherence of features indicates the level of internal rigour of PD work and that the process of reflection and analysis provides the language to argue for it. We envision our tool to be useful at all stages of PD work: in the planning phase, as part of a reflective practice during the work, and as a means to construct knowledge and advance the field after the fact. We ground our theoretical discussions in a specific PD experience, the ECHOES project, to motivate the tool and to illustrate its workings. Participatory Design (PD) requires nuanced concepts of accountability and rigour. Accountability and rigour are constructed through debate, critique and reflection. Our "tool-to-think-with" guides designers in systematic and critical reflection. We provide four lenses for reflection: epistemology, values, stakeholders, outcomes. The "coherence" between reflective perspectives indicates internal rigour of PD work.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
22.7
作者：
CLEMENT, A;VANDENBESSELAAR, P
通讯作者：
VANDENBESSELAAR, P
影响因子：
--
作者：
Cross, N
通讯作者：
Cross, N
DOI：
10.1080/01944366908977225
发表时间：
1969-01-01
期刊：
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PLANNERS
影响因子：
--
作者：
ARNSTEIN, SR
通讯作者：
ARNSTEIN, SR
影响因子：
5.3
作者：
Gartner, J;Wagner, I
通讯作者：
Wagner, I
影响因子：
1.1
作者：
Fallman, Daniel;Stolterman, Erik
通讯作者：
Stolterman, Erik