Participation through substituting and refusing

Asking participants to explore and critique prototype technologies by using them in the real-world settings of their communities is a common approach to democratizing design decisions. We report on a project that sought to seed a rural community radio station, and simultaneously test and refine an innovative radio technology. Living on a remote Irish island, community members saw value in the local radio contributing to the island's sustainability and oral history preservation. The novel, but not yet stable, prototype radio platform, however, did not enable them to produce content within the time constraints and quality requirements they considered vital to their goals. In response community members substituted the prototype platform with a more stable and familiar setup. We reflect on participants’ refusal and argue that their technology substitution helped us not only to understand user and technical needs, but also meanings about participation that are integral to ensuring the genuine design democratisation.

[1]  Heike Winschiers-Theophilus,et al.  Reducing "white elephant" ICT4D projects: a community-researcher engagement , 2015, C&T.

[2]  Lisa P. Nathan,et al.  Good for Whom?: Unsettling Research Practice , 2017, C&T.

[3]  Guy Julier,et al.  Confronting bureaucracies and assessing value in the co-production of social design research , 2019, CoDesign.

[4]  Janet C. Read,et al.  Taking the Biscuit: Playful Interaction , 2014 .

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

[6]  Kim Halskov,et al.  Reflective design documentation , 2012, DIS '12.

[7]  Mark Davies,et al.  Community engagement for research: contextual design in rural CSCW system development , 2013, C&T '13.

[8]  Paul Dourish,et al.  Beyond the user: use and non-use in HCI , 2009, OZCHI.

[9]  Helena Karasti,et al.  Community Design: growing one's own information infrastructure , 2008, PDC.

[10]  Jo Briggs,et al.  Socio-materiality of trust: co-design with a resource limited community organisation , 2019, CoDesign.

[11]  G. Gelderblom,et al.  Non-use of provided assistive technology devices, a literature overview , 2004 .

[12]  Paul Dourish,et al.  Refusing, limiting, departing: why we should study technology non-use , 2014, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[13]  Anne-Marie Oostveen,et al.  Non-use of Automated Border Control Systems: Identifying Reasons and Solutions , 2014, BCS HCI.

[14]  Carl DiSalvo,et al.  Institutional constraints: the forms and limits of participatory design in the public realm , 2018, PDC.

[15]  P. H. Kahn,et al.  Human values, ethics, and design , 2002 .

[16]  Bran Knowles,et al.  The wisdom of older technology (non)users , 2018, Commun. ACM.

[17]  Margot Brereton,et al.  New challenges for design participation in the era of ubiquitous computing , 2008 .

[18]  Predrag V. Klasnja,et al.  Value scenarios: a technique for envisioning systemic effects of new technologies , 2007, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[19]  Susanne Bødker,et al.  Reimagining participatory design , 2018, Interactions.

[20]  Yvonne Dittrich,et al.  PD in the Wild; Evolving Practices of Design in Use , 2002 .

[21]  Patrick Olivier,et al.  Configuring participation: on how we involve people in design , 2013, CHI.

[22]  Janet Davis,et al.  Value Sensitive Design: Applications, Adaptations, and Critiques , 2013 .

[23]  Kim Halskov,et al.  Participation as a matter of concern in participatory design , 2015 .

[24]  Celia Kitzinger,et al.  Anonymising interview data: challenges and compromise in practice , 2015, Qualitative research : QR.

[25]  Ann Light,et al.  The Meaning of Place in Supporting Sociality , 2017, Conference on Designing Interactive Systems.