Negotiation of values as driver in community-based PD

Community-based PD projects are often characterized by the meeting of conflicting values among stakeholder groups, but in research there is no uncontested account of the relation between design and conflicting values. Through analysis of three community-based PD cases in Denmark and South Africa, this paper identifies and discusses challenges for community-based PD that exist in these settings based on the emergence of contrasting and often conflicting values among participants and stakeholders. Discussions of participation are shaped through two theoretical perspectives: the notion of thinging and design things; and different accounts of values in design. Inspired by the concept of design things, and as a consequence of the need for continuous negotiation of values observed in all three cases, we suggest the concept of thinging as fruitful for creating productive agonistic spaces with a stronger attention towards the process of negotiating values in community-based PD.

[1]  Tomas Sokoler,et al.  SeniorInteraktion: Innovation gennem dialog , 2012 .

[2]  Noëmi Manders-Huits,et al.  What Values in Design? The Challenge of Incorporating Moral Values into Design , 2010, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[3]  Kim Halskov,et al.  Rekindling values in participatory design , 2010, PDC '10.

[4]  Alan Borning,et al.  Next steps for value sensitive design , 2012, CHI.

[5]  C. Mouffe.  The Democratic Paradox , 2000 .

[6]  Christopher A. Le Dantec,et al.  Infrastructuring and the formation of publics in participatory design , 2013 .

[7]  Pelle Ehn,et al.  Participation in design things , 2008, PDC.

[8]  Alan Borning,et al.  Value Sensitive Design and Information Systems , 2020, The Ethics of Information Technologies.

[9]  Lucy A. Suchman,et al.  Located Accountabilities in Technology Production , 2002, Scand. J. Inf. Syst..

[10]  Jason Hong.  Columns on Last Page Should Be Made As Close As Possible to Equal Length , 2012 .

[11]  Susanne Bødker,et al.  Calendars: Time Coordination and Overview in Families and Beyond , 2013, ECSCW.

[12]  Lone Malmborg,et al.  SUSTAINABLE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR AD HOC SOCIAL INTERACTION , 2013 .

[13]  O. Iversen,et al.  Values-led participatory design , 2012 .

[14]  Victor Kaptelinin,et al.  Interaction Design Beyond the Product: Creating Technology-Enhanced Activity Spaces , 2011, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[15]  P. Ehn,et al.  Agonistic participatory design: working with marginalised social movements , 2012 .

[16]  Susan Wyche,et al.  Values as lived experience: evolving value sensitive design in support of value discovery , 2009, CHI.

[17]  Claus Bossen,et al.  CareCoor: Augmenting the coordination of cooperative home care work , 2013, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[18]  Felix Stalder,et al.  Pandora's Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies , 2000, Inf. Soc..

[19]  Shuk Ying Ho,et al.  Human-computer interaction and management information systems: Foundations , 2008, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[20]  L. Nathan,et al.  Values as Hypotheses: Design, Inquiry, and the Service of Values , 2015, Design Issues.

[21]  Andrew Clement,et al.  Communities: Participatory Design for, with and by communities , 2012 .

[22]  Stefan Lundberg,et al.  On Challenges Designing the Home as a Place for Care , 2014 .

[23]  P. Ehn,et al.  Design: design matters in Participatory Design , 2012 .