Participant-Making: bridging the gulf between community knowledge and academic research

Too often in social research for design, academic knowledge is privileged at the expense of other knowledge and ways of knowing, although by overlooking insights from other participants this academic meaning-making may be wasteful and/or damaging to relations. In this paper, we describe a project that focuses on establishing academic/community relations to look at how knowledge issues are handled in setting up participative projects. We touch on the ethics of the ‘informed consent’ required for the ethics approval process and that of generating and sharing project outcomes in a way that reflects team membership, considering how to share credit, encourage diverse opinion and ensure some value in participating for all participants. Since a key outcome of the study is intended to be policy recommendations as to how to involve community groups in research projects, we take a highly reflexive approach. We reflect here on how we, as academic researchers, became participants and what we made available to our partners in research to do the same.

[1]  S. Arnstein,et al.  Ladder of Citizen Participation , 2020 .

[2]  Morten Kyng,et al.  Design at Work , 1992 .

[3]  Andrea Botero,et al.  Co-designing for new city-citizen interaction possibilities: weaving prototypes and interventions in the design and development of Urban Mediator , 2008, PDC.

[4]  Matthew Kam,et al.  Human Computer Interaction for Development: Changing HCI to Change the World , 2012 .

[5]  J. McNiff Action Research Principles and Practice , 1988 .

[6]  Lynette Kvasny,et al.  Conduting Feminist Gender Research in the Information Systems Field , 2007 .

[7]  Yochai Benkler Networks of Power, Degrees of Freedom , 2011 .

[8]  Andrew Jones,et al.  Dialectics and difference: against Harvey's dialectical ‘post-Marxism’ , 1999 .

[9]  T. Crompton,et al.  Common Cause: The case for working with our cultural values , 2010 .

[10]  Ann Light,et al.  Geezers, turbines, fantasy personas: making the everyday into the future , 2009, C&C '09.

[11]  Sandra Harding,et al.  Should Social Inquiry Be Conducted Democratically , 2001 .

[12]  Leonard Krimerman,et al.  Participatory Action Research , 2001 .

[13]  Sara Kindon,et al.  Participatory Geographies , 2007 .

[14]  Bernd Carsten Stahl Issues and Trends in Technology and Human Interaction , 2006 .

[15]  Edwin H. Blake,et al.  Being participated: a community approach , 2010, PDC '10.

[16]  J. Tritter,et al.  The snakes and ladders of user involvement: Moving beyond Arnstein. , 2006, Health policy.

[17]  B. Cooke,et al.  Participation: the New Tyranny? , 2001 .

[18]  Paul Egglestone,et al.  Bespoke: increasing social inclusion through community journalism and bespoke design , 2010 .

[19]  Ann Light,et al.  Democratising technology: making transformation using designing, performance and props , 2011, CHI.

[20]  Robyn Carr Woman's Own , 1990 .

[21]  Claus Bossen,et al.  User gains and PD aims: assessment from a participatory design project , 2010, PDC '10.

[22]  G. Spivak Can the Subaltern Speak , 2003 .

[23]  Ann Light,et al.  The unit of analysis in understanding the politics of participatory practice , 2010, PDC '10.

[24]  Amartya Sen,et al.  Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny , 2006 .

[25]  Prem Bahadur Chalaune,et al.  Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny , 2011 .

[26]  J. Potter,et al.  Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behaviour , 1987 .

[27]  Illah R. Nourbakhsh,et al.  The Neighborhood Networks project: a case study of critical engagement and creative expression through participatory design , 2008, PDC.

[28]  Ann Light,et al.  Brokering between heads and hearts : an analysis of designing for social change , 2009 .

[29]  Leon J. Goldstein Collected Papers. Volume I: The Problem of Social Reality , 1963 .

[30]  Michael J. Muller,et al.  Participatory design: the third space in HCI , 2002 .