Types, obstacles and sources of empowerment in co-design: the role of shared material objects and processes

References

• Bachrach, P., and M. Baratz. 1970. Power and Poverty: Theory and Practice. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barone, T., and E. Eisner. 1997. “Arts-Based Educational Research.” In Complementary Methods for Research in Education, edited by R. Jaeger, 75–116. New York: Macmillan Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Berger, P. L., and R. J. Neuhaus. 1977. To Empower People, the Role of Mediating Structures in Public Policy. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
   Google Scholar
• Bødker, S. 1996. “Creating Conditions for Participation: Conflicts and Resources in Systems Development.” Human-Computer Interaction 11 (3): 215–236. doi:10.1207/s15327051hci1103_2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boland, R. J., and R. V. Tenkasi. 1995. “Perspective Making and Perspective Taking in Communities of Knowing.” Organization Science 6 (4): 350–372. doi:10.1287/orsc.6.4.350.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boujut, J., and E. Blanco. 2003. “Intermediary Objects as a Means to Foster Co-Operation in Engineering Design.” Computer Supported Cooperative Work 12 (2): 205–219. doi:10.1023/A:1023980212097.
   Google Scholar
• Carlile, P. R. 2002. “A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development.” Organization Science 13 (4): 442–455. doi:10.1287/orsc.13.4.442.2953.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlile, P. R. 2004. “Transferring, Translating, and Transforming: An Integrative Framework for Managing Knowledge across Boundaries.” Organization Science 15 (4): 555–568. doi:10.1287/orsc.1040.0094.
   Google Scholar
• Christens, B. D. 2012. “Toward Relational Empowerment.” American Journal of Community Psychology 50 (1): 114–128. doi:10.1007/s10464-011-9483-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Correia, A., and F. D. Yusop. 2008. ““I Don’t Want to Be Empowered”: The Challenge of Involving Real-World Clients in Instructional Design Experiences.” In Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary Conference on Participatory Design Conference, 217–219. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University.
   Google Scholar
• Dahl, R. A. 1957. “The Concept of Power.” Behavioral Science 2: 201–205. doi:10.1002/bs.3830020303.
   Google Scholar
• Ehn, P. 1992. “Scandinavian Design: On Participation and Skill.” In Usability: Tuming Technologies into Tools, edited by P. S. Adler and T. A. Winograd, 96–132. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ertner, M., A. M. Kragelund, and L. Malmborg. 2010. “Five Enunciations of Empowerment in Participatory Design.” In Proceedings of the 11th Biennial Participatory Design Conference, 191–194. New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Fleischmann, K. R. 2006. “Boundary Objects with Agency : A Method for Studying the Design – Use Interface.” The Information Society 22: 77–87. doi:10.1080/01972240600567188.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foucault, M. 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage Books.
   Google Scholar
• Friedmann, J. 1992. Empowerment: The Politics of Alternative Development. Cambridge: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Gasson, S. 2006. “A Genealogical Study of Boundary-Spanning IS Design.” European Journal of Information Systems 15 (1): 26–41. doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000594.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaventa, J., and A. Cornwall. 2008. “Power and Knowledge.” In The SAGE Handbook of Action Research: Participatory Inquiry and Practice, edited by P. Reason and H. Bradbury, 172–189. London: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Göhler, G. 2009. “Power to and Power Over.” In The SAGE Handbook of Power, edited by S. R. Clegg and M. Haugaard, 27–39. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Goulding, C., M. Kelemen, and T. Kiyomiya. 2017. “Community Based Responses to the Japanese Tsunami: A Bottom up Approach.” European Journal of Operational Research 268 (3): 887–903. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2017.11.066.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hardy, C., and L. O’Sullivan. 1998. “The Power behind Empowerment : Implications for Research and Practice.” Human Relations 51 (4): 451–483. doi:10.1177/001872679805100402.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heron, J., and P. Reason. 1997. “A Participatory Inquiry Paradigm.” Qualitative Inquiry 3 (3): 274–294. doi:10.1177/107780049700300302.
   Google Scholar
• Huvila, I. 2011. “The Politics of Boundary Objects : Hegemonic Interventions and the Making of a Document.” Journal of American Society for Information Science and Technology 62 (12): 2528–2539. doi:10.1002/asi.21639.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kinnula, M., Iivari, N., Molin-Juustila, T., Keskitalo, E., Leinonen, T., Mansikkamäki, E., Käkelä, T., and M. Similä. 2017. “Cooperation, Combat, or Competence Building – What Do We Mean When We are “Empowering Children”?” International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2017) Proceedings, 15. http://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2017/TransformingSociety/Presentations/15
   Google Scholar
• Lee, C. P. 2007. “Boundary Negotiating Artifacts : Unbinding the Routine of Boundary Objects and Embracing Chaos in Collaborative Work.” Computer Supported Cooperative Work 16: 307–339. doi:10.1007/s10606-007-9044-5.
   Google Scholar
• Lukes, S. 1974. Power: A Radical View. London: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Manzini, E. 2015. Design, When Everybody Designs: An Introduction to Design for Social Innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nelson, N., and S. Wright. 1995. “Participation and Power.” In Power and Participatory Development: Theory and Practice, edited by N. Nelson and S. Wright, 1–12. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Pennington, D. D. 2010. “The Dynamics of Material Artifacts in Collaborative Research Teams.” Computer Supported Cooperative Work 19: 175–199. doi:10.1007/s10606-010-9108-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pitkin, H. F. 1972. Wittgenstein and Justice. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rappaport, J. 1981. “In Praise of Paradox. A Social Policy of Empowerment over Prevention.” American Journal of Community Psychology 9 (1): 1–25. doi:10.1007/BF00896357.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rappaport, J. 1987. “Terms of Empowerment/Exemplars of Prevention : Toward a Theory for Community Psychology 1.” American Journal of Community Psychology 15 (2): 121–148. doi:10.1007/BF00919275.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riger, S. 1993. “What Is Wrong with Empowerment.” American Journal of Community Psychology 21 (3): 279–292. doi:10.1007/BF00941504.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rocha, E. M. 1997. “A Ladder of Empowerment.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 17: 31–44. doi:10.1177/0739456X9701700104.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadan, E. 1997. Empowerment and Community Planning. Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad.
   Google Scholar
• Sanders, E. B.-N., and P. J. Stappers. 2014. Convivial Toolbox: Generative Research for the Front End of Design. Amsterdam: BIS.
   Google Scholar
• Sanoff, H. 2010. Democratic Design: Participation Case Studies in Urban and Small Town Environments. Saarbrucken: VDM.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, K., and I. Wagner. 2005. “Ordering Systems: Coordinative Practices and Artifacts in Architectural Design and Planning.” Computer Supported Cooperative Work: the Journal of Collaborative Computing 13: 349–408. doi:10.1007/s10606-004-5059-3.
   Google Scholar
• Sennett, R. 2012. Together: The Rituals, Pleasures and Politics of Cooperation. London: Penguin Books.
   Google Scholar
• Solomon, B. B. 1976. Black Empowerment: Social Work in Oppressed Communities. New York: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Speer, P. W. 2008. “Social Power and Forms of Change: Implications for Psychopolitical Validity.” Journal of Community Psychology 36 (2): 199–213. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6629.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Star, S. L., and J. R. Griesemer. 1989. “Institutional Ecology, `Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39.” Studies of Social Science 19 (3): 387–420. doi:10.1177/030631289019003001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevens, J. 2013. “Design as Communication in Microstrategy: Strategic Sensemaking and Sensegiving Mediated through Designed Artifacts.” Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 27: 133–142. doi:10.1017/S0890060413000036.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Storni, C. 2014. “The Problem of De-Sign as Conjuring: Empowerment-In-Use and the Politics of Seams.” In Proceedings of the 13th Participatory Design Conference: Research Papers - Volume 1, 161–170. New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Subrahmanian, E., I. Monarch, S. Konda, H. Granger, R. Milliken, and A. Westerberg, Then-dim group. 2003. “Boundary Objects and Prototypes at the Interfaces of Engineering Design.” Computer Supported Cooperative Work 12 (2): 185–186. doi:10.1023/A:1023976111188.
   Google Scholar
• Timmermans, S., and I. Tavory. 2012. “Theory Construction in Qualitative Research : From Grounded Theory to Abductive Analysis.” Sociological Theory 30 (3): 167–186. doi:10.1177/0735275112457914.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toker, Z. 2007. “Recent Trends in Community Design: The Eminence of Participation.” Design Studies 28 (3): 309–323. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2007.02.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• VeneKlasen, L., and V. Miller. 2002. A New Weave of Power, People and Politics. Oklahoma City: World Neighbors.
   Google Scholar
• Wates, N., and C. Knevitt. 1987. Community Architecture: How People Are Creating Their Own Environment. Oxon and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Zamenopoulos, T., and K. Alexiou. 2018. Co-Design as Collaborative Research. AHRC Connected Communities Foundation Series, eds K. Facer and K. Dunleavy. Bristol: University of Bristol/Connected Communities Programme.
   Google Scholar
• Zimmerman, M. A. 1995. “Psychological Empowerment: Issues and Illustrations.” American Journal of Community Psychology 23 (5): 581–599. doi:10.1007/BF02506983.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zimmerman, M. A. 2000. “Empowerment Theory: Psychological, Organizational and Community Levels of Analysis.” In Handbook of Community Psychology, edited by E. Seidman and J. Rappaport, 43–63. New York: Kluwer/Plenum.
   Google Scholar