skip to main content
10.1145/3385010.3385028acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagespdcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Ecologies of Contestation in Participatory Design

Published:18 June 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

How do various forms of contestation and agonism in collective social contexts challenge and transform Participatory Design (PD)? Under what conditions does agonism lead to productive outcomes, expand participation and social inclusion? In this paper, we highlight key insights and issues emerging from three case studies, where design practitioners engaged in PD projects for urban and cultural transformation in New York City and Cambridge. Wide-ranging interviews and participatory workshops reveal how PD is transformed by different “ecologies” inherent in the socio-cultural conditions, power relations, design constraints, and intrinsic values of practitioners grappling with contestation and seeking to engage agonistic pluralism.

References

  1. Finn Kensing and Jeanette Blomberg. 1998. Participatory Design: Issues and Concerns. In Proceeding of the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW),7: 167. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Clay Spinuzzi. 2005. The methodology of participatory design. Technical Communication, 52 (2), 163–174.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Liam J. Bannon and Pelle Ehn. 2013. Design Matters in Participatory Design. In J. Simonsen and T. Robertson (Eds.). Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Chantal Mouffe. 1999. Deliberative Democracy or Agonistic Pluralism? Social Research,66 (3), 745-758. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Chantal Mouffe. 2013. Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically. Verso Books.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Seyla Benhabib. 1996. Toward a Deliberative Model of Democratic Legitimacy. In Democracy and Difference, Benhabib, Seyla, ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Carl DiSalvo. 2010. Design, Democracy and Agonistic Pluralism. In: Proceedings of the Design Research Society International Conference, 7–9 July, Montreal University, Montreal.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Carl DiSalvo. 2012.  Adversarial Design. The MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Chantal Mouffe. 2011. On the Political. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Chantal Mouffe. 2007. Artistic activism and agonistic spaces.  Art & Research 1, no. 2, 1-5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Pelle Ehn and Morten Kyng. 1987. The Collective Resource Approach to Systems Design, in Gro Bjerknes, Pelle Ehn and Morten Kyng (Eds.) Computers and Democracy: A Scandinavian Challenge, Brookville, VT: Avebury.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Kristen Nygaard. 1979. The Iron and Metal Project: Trade Union Participation, In Å. Sandberg (ed.): Computers Dividing Man and Work – Recent Scandinavian Research on Planning and Computers from a Trade Union Perspective. Swedish Center for Working Life, Demos Project report no. 13, Utbildningsproduktion, Malmø, Sweden.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Pelle Ehn and Ake Sandberg. 1979. Management Control and Wage Earner Power (Foretagsstyrning och Lontagarmakt). Falkoping: Prisma.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Morten Kyng and Lars Mathiassen. 1982. Systems development and trade union activities. In Bjørn-Andersen, N. (Ed.), Information society, for richer, for poorer, 247-260. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North- Holland.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Andrew Clement and Peter Van den Besselaar. 1993. A Retrospective look at PD Projects. Communications of the ACM, 36(6):29-37.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Susanne Bødker, Pelle Ehn, John Kammersgaard, Morten Kyng, and Yngve Sundblad. 1987. A Utopian experience: On design of powerful computer-based tools for skilled graphical workers, in Gro Bjerknes, Pelle Ehn and Morten Kyng (Eds.) Computers and Democracy: A Scandinavian Challenge, Brookville, VT: Avebury. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Pelle Ehn. 1988. Work-Oriented Design of Computer Artifacts, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Susanne Bødker, Pelle Ehn, Dan Sjögren, and Yngve Sundblad. 2000. Co-operative Design—perspectives on 20 years with ‘the Scandinavian IT Design Model’. In Proceedings of NordiCHI (Vol. 2000, pp. 22-24).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Jesper Simonsen and Finn Kensing. 1997. Using ethnography in contextual design. Communications of the ACM,40, 7, 82-88.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Liesbeth Huybrechts, Henric Benesch, and Jon Geib. 2017. Institutioning: Participatory design, co-design and the public realm.  CoDesign 13, no. 3, 148-159.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Per-Anders Hillgren, Anna Seravalli, and Mette Agger Eriksen. 2016. Counter-hegemonic practices; dynamic interplay between agonism, commoning and strategic design.  Strategic Design Research Journal; 9 (2): 89-99.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Peter Munthe-Kaas. 2015. Agonism and co-design of urban spaces."  Urban Research & Practice 8, no. 2, 218-237.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Gavin Parker, Tessa Lynn, and Matthew Wargent. 2017. Contestation and conservatism in neighbourhood planning in England: reconciling agonism and collaboration?  Planning Theory & Practice 18, no. 3, 446-465.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Erling Björgvinsson, Pelle Ehn, and Per-Anders Hillgren. 2012. Agonistic participatory design: working with marginalised social movements, CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts, 8:2-3, 127-144.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Paulo Freire. 1972. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Yoland Wadsworth. 1998. What is participatory action research? Paper 2, Action Research International. Institute of Workplace Research, Learning and Development, Southern Cross University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Sara Kindon, Rachel Pain, and Mike Kesby (Eds.). 2007. Participatory Action Research Approaches and Methods: Connecting People, Participation and Place. Routledge, London; New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Henri Lefebvre. 1968. Le droit à la ville Paris: Anthropos.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Henri Lefebvre. 1996. The right to the city, in Kofman, Eleonore; Lebas, Elizabeth, Writings on cities, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Wiley-Blackwell, p. 158.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Mark Purcell. 2002. Excavating Lefebvre: The right to the city and its urban politics of the inhabitant. GeoJournal, Special Issue: Social Transformation, Citizenship, and the Right to the City. Springer. 58 (2–3): 99–108.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. David Harvey. 2008. The right to the city. New Left Review. New Left Review. II (53): 23–40.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Marcus Foth, Martin Brynskov, and Timo Ojala. 2015. Citizen's Right to the Digital City: Urban Interfaces, Activism, and Placemaking. Singapore: Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Joe Shaw and Mark Graham. 2017. An Informational Right to the City? Code, Content, Control, and the Urbanization of Information. Antipode. Wiley Publications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Eugene Pleasants Odum and Gary W. Barrett. 1971. Fundamentals of Ecology. Vol. 3. Philadelphia: Saunders.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Peter Finke. 2013. A Brief Outline of Evolutionary Cultural Ecology in Traditions of Systems Theory: Major Figures and Contemporary Developments, ed. Darrell P. Arnold, New York: Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Paul Robbins. 2012. Political Ecology: A Critical Introduction. 2nd ed. Blackwell.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Janet Vertesi. 2014. Seamful Spaces: Heterogeneous Infrastructures in Interaction.  Science, Technology, & Human Values, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 264–284.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Gloria Mark, Kalle Lyytinen, and Mark Bergman. 2007. Boundary objects in design: An ecological view of design artifacts. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 8, no. 11, 34.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Gilbert W. Fairholm. 1993. Organizational power politics: tactics in organizational leadership. Westport, Conn.: Praeger. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Jeffery Pfeffer. 1981. Power in organizations. Marshfield, Mass.: Pitman Pub.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. NYC Cultural Affairs. 2017. About the Cultural Plan. CreateNYC. Last accessed on September 5, 2019. https://createnyc.cityofnewyork.us/the-cultural-plan/main/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Kenneth Pietrobono. 2017. How NYC's New Cultural Plan and the “People's Plan” Can Work in Tandem. Hyperallergic. Last accessed on April 10, 2019. https://hyperallergic.com/392512/how-nycs-new-cultural-plan-and-the-peoples-plan-can-work-together/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Aarian Marshall. 2018. “Still Smarting from Uber, Cities Wise up About Scooter Data”. Wired. Last accessed on December 17, 2018. https://www.wired.com/story/cities-scooter-data-remix-uber-lyft/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Russ Lopez, Richard Campbell, and James Jennings. 2008. The Boston Schoolyard Initiative: A Public-Private Partnership for Rebuilding Urban Play Spaces. J Health Polit Policy Law, 33 (3): 617–638.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. Tone Bratteteig and Ina Wagner. 2014. Disentangling Participation: Power and Decision-Making in Participatory Design. Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    PDC '20: Proceedings of the 16th Participatory Design Conference 2020 - Participation(s) Otherwise - Volume 1
    June 2020
    211 pages

    Copyright © 2020 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 18 June 2020

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate49of289submissions,17%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format