Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-01T08:51:38.403Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Navigating Matters of Concern in Participatory Design

Part of: Design for Healthcare

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Søsser Brodersen  and
Signe Pedersen

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Among 75-90% of residents in Danish nursing homes are diagnosed with dementia. This article explore how a team of five 3rd semester bachelor's design students sought to improve quality of life for elderly people with dementia in a nursing home through a co-design process of a new sensory stimulation technology. Participatory Design researchers agree that it is important to involve diverse actors in the design process such as elderly with dementia, nursing home management, nursing staff etc. But when involving many different actors in designing new products, services and systems the challenge is to navigate the many perspectives and concerns of these actors, which is often conflicting and hence needs negotiating. ‘We draw upon the ANT framework to analyse how ‘matters of concern’ (MoCs) are negotiated and to discuss how designers navigate by staging and facilitating design interactions to support negotiation of MoCs among numerous actors during the design process.

Keywords

Participatory designDesign engineeringCollaborative design
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 965 - 974
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2019

References

Association, T. D. A. (2017), The Danish Alzheimer Association. Retrieved from http://www.alzheimer.dk/kommunalvalg/temaer/uddannelseaf-personale%0DGoogle Scholar
Binder, T., Brandt, E., Ehn, P. and Halse, J. (2015), “Democratic design experiments: between parliament and laboratory”. CoDesign, Vol. 11 No 3–4, pp. 152–165. http://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2015.1081248Google Scholar
Björgvinsson, E. B. (2008), “Open-ended participatory design as prototypical practice”. CoDesign, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 85–99. http://doi.org/10.1080/15710880802095400Google Scholar
Blanco, EricBoujut, J. F. (2003), “Intermediary Objects as a mean to foster Co-operation”. Engineering Design Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Vol 12 No. 2, pp. 205–219.Google Scholar
Brandt, E., Messeter, J. and Binder, T. (2008), “Formatting design dialogues – games and participation”. CoDesign, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 51–64.Google Scholar
Bratteteig, T. and Gregory, J. (2001), “Understanding Design”. Proceedings of the 24th Information Systems Research Seminar in Scandinavia (IRIS 24), p. 3.Google Scholar
Cross, N. (2005), Engineering Design Methods: Strategies for Product Design (3rd ed.). Milton Keynes, UK: WILEY.Google Scholar
Hendriks, N., Huybrechts, L., Wilkinson, A. and Slegers, K. (2014), “Challenges in doing participatory design with people with dementia”. In Proceedings of the 13th Participatory Design Conference on Short Papers, Industry Cases, Workshop Descriptions, Doctoral Consortium papers, and Keynote abstracts - PDC ‘14 - volume 2 (pp. 33–36). http://doi.org/10.1145/2662155.2662196Google Scholar
Hendriks, N., Slegers, K. and Duysburgh, P. (2015), “Codesign with people living with cognitive or sensory impairments: a case for method stories and uniqueness”. CoDesign, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 70–82. http://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2015.1020316Google Scholar
Iversen, O. S., Halskov, K. and Leong, T. W. (2012), “Values-led participatory design”. CoDesign, Vol. 8 No. 2–3, pp. 87–103. http://doi.org/10.1145/2399016.2399087Google Scholar
Latour, B. (2005), “From Realpolitik to Dingpolitik or How to Make Things Public”. In Latour, P. and Weibel, B. (Ed.), Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy (pp. 14–41). Cambridge: MIT Press, ZKM, Center for Art and Media.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (2008), “A Cautious Prometheus? A Few Steps Toward a Philosophy of Design (with Special Attention to Peter Sloterdijk)”. In “Networks of Design” (pp. 2–10). University College Falmouth, Cornwall, United Kingdom: Universal Publishers. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=3B5bbv0r-EkC&oi=fnd&pg=PA2&dq=A+Cautious+Prometheus?+A+Few+Steps+Toward+a+Philosophy+of+Design+(with+Special+Attention+to+Peter+Sloterdijk&ots=BENSsMyS03&sig=6iebJo1hrW2idy0DTtcUUscMi2Google Scholar
Linde, P. (2012), “Design and the “Manyness” of Things”. In Linde, P., Binder, T., Storni, C., & Stuedahl, D. (Eds.), Exploring ANT in PD: reflections and implications for theory and practice (pp. 9–10). Roskilde, Denmark: PDC.Google Scholar
Lindsay, S., Brittain, K., Jackson, D., Ladha, C., Ladha, K. and Olivier, P. (2012), “Empathy, participatory design and people with dementia”. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM annual conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '12 (p. 521). Austin, Texas. http://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2207749Google Scholar
Namioka, A., Schuler, D. and Blomberg, J. (1993), Participatory Design: Principles and Practices. (Schuler, D. and Namioka, A., Eds.). Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Olsen, A., Didriksen, A., Olsgaard, C., Nilsen, E. and Larsen, T. (2016), Design og Anvendelses af Prototyper. Student report. Sustainable Design BD3. Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Pedersen, S. (2016), Navigating prototyping spaces. Aalborg University, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Pedersen, S. and Clausen, C. (2017), “Staging Collaborative Innovation Processes”. In The XXVIII ISPIM Innovation Conference – Composing the Innovation Symphony. Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
Robinson, L., Brittain, K., Lindsay, S., Jackson, D. and Olivier, P. (2009), “Keeping in Touch Everyday (KITE) project: Developing assistive technologies with people with dementia and their carers to promote independence”. International Psychogeriatrics, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 494–502. http://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610209008448Google Scholar
Rodgers, P. (2016), Designing with People Living with Dementia.Google Scholar
Sanders, E. B.-N. and Stappers, P. J. (2008), “Co-creation and the new landscapes of design”. CoDesign, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 5–18. http://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068Google Scholar
Sanders, E. B.-N. and Stappers, P. J. (2014), “Probes, toolkits and prototypes: three approaches to making in codesigning”. CoDesign, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 5–14. http://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2014.888183Google Scholar
Shiga, J. (2007), “Translations: Artifacts from an Actor-Network Perspective”. Artifact, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 40–55. http://doi.org/10.1080/17493460600658318Google Scholar
Storni, C., Binder, T., Linde, P. and Stuedahl, D. (2015), “Designing things together: intersections of co-design and actor–network theory”. CoDesign, Vol. 11 No. 3–4, pp. 149–151. http://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2015.1081442Google Scholar
Vinck, D. (2012), “Accessing Material Culture by Following Intermediary Objects”. In Naidoo, L. (Ed.), An Ethnography of Global Landscapes and Corridors (pp. 89–108). INTECH Open Access Publisher. Retrieved from http://www.intechopen.com/books/an-ethnography-of-global-landscapes-and-corridorsGoogle Scholar