The messy complexities of democratic engagement and empowerment in participatory design – an illustrative case with a community-based organisation

References

• Bannon, L. 1991. “From Human Factors to Human Actors: The Role of Psychology and Human-computer Interaction Studies in System Design Source.” In Design at Work: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems, edited by J. Greenbaum and M. Kyng, 25–44. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Bjögvinsson, E., P. Ehn, and P. A. Hillgren. 2012. “Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges.” Design Issues 28 (3): 101–116. doi:10.1162/DESI_a_00165.
   Web of Science ®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
• Botchway, K. 2001. “Paradox of Empowerment: Reflections on a Case Study from Ghana.” World Development 29 (1): 135–153. Oxford: Elsevier Science Limited. doi:10.1016/S0305-750X(00)00084-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowen, S. 2010. “Critical Theory and Participatory Design.” In Proceedings of the 15th Participatory Design Conference: Full Papers - Volume 1 (PDC ’18), Article 2. New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, G., and M. Baer. 2011. “Location in Negotiation: Is There a Home Field Advantage?” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 114 (2): 190–200. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.10.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clarke, A. 2005. Situational Analysis: Grounded Theory after the Postmodern Turn. New York, NY: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Ehn, P., and M. Kyng. 1991. “Cardboard Computers: Mocking-it up or Hands-on the Future.” In Design at Work: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems, edited by J. Greenbaum and M. Kyng, 169–196. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   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 - PDC ’10, 191–194. New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1900441.1900475.
   Google Scholar
• Feenberg, A. 1991. Critical Theory of Technology. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fleck, R., and G. Fitzpatrick. 2010. “Reflecting on Reflection.” In Proceedings of the 22nd Conference of the Computer-Human Interaction Special Interest Group of Australia on Computer-Human Interaction - OZCHI ’10, 216–223. New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1952222.1952269.
   Google Scholar
• Henning, E., W. Van Rensburg, and B. Smit. 2004. Finding Your Way in Qualitative Research. Pretoria: Van Schaik.
   Google Scholar
• Light, A., and Y. Akama. 2012. “The Human Touch: Participatory Practice and the Role of Facilitation in Designing with Communities.” In Proceedings of the 12th Participatory Design Conference: Research Papers - Volume 1 (PDC ’12), 61–70. New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Louridas, P., and P. Loucopoulos. 2000. “A Generic Model for Reflective Design.” ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 9 (2): 199–237. doi:10.1145/350887.350895.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mathar, T. 2008. “Review Essay: Making a Mess with Situational Analysis?” In Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research 9 (2), Art. 4.
   Google Scholar
• Morrow, S. L. 2005. “Quality and Trustworthiness in Qualitative Research in Counseling Psychology.” Journal of Counseling Psychology 52 (2): 250. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.250.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oakley, P. 1991. Projects with People. The Practices of Participation in Rural Development. Geneva: International Labour Office.
   Google Scholar
• Rouwette, E. A. J. A., and J. A. M. Vennix. 2008. “Team Learning on Messy Problems.” In Work Group Learning: Understanding, Improving & Assessing How Groups Learn in Organizations, edited by V. I. Sessa and M. London, 243–284. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Salacuse, J. W., and J. Z. Rubin. 1990. “Your Place or Mine? Site Location and Negotiation.” Negotiation Journal 6 (1): 5–10. doi:10.1111/nejo.1990.6.issue-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanders, E. B.-N., E. Brandt, and T. Binder. 2010. “A Framework for Organizing the Tools and Techniques of Participatory Design.” In Proceedings of the 11th Biennial Participatory Design Conference on - PDC ’10, 195–198. New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1900441.1900476.
   Google Scholar
• Sengers, P., K. Boehner, S. David, and J. J. Kaye. 2005. “Reflective Design.” In Proceedings of the 4th decennial conference on Critical computing between sense and sensibility - CC ’05, 49–58. New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1094562.1094569.
   Google Scholar
• Spinuzzi, C. 2005. “The Methodology of Participatory Design.” Technical Communication 52 (2): 163–174.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steen, M. 2013. “Virtues in Participatory Design: Cooperation, Curiosity, Creativity, Empowerment and Reflexivity.” Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (3): 945–962. doi:10.1007/s11948-012-9380-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tuckman, B. W. 1965. “Developmental Sequence in Small Groups.” Psychological Bulletin 63 (6): 384. doi:10.1037/h0022100.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Mechelen, M., M. Gielen, A. Laenen, and B. Zaman, & others. 2014. “Exploring Challenging Group Dynamics in Participatory Design with Children.” In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Interaction design and children, 269–272. New York, NY: ACM Press.
   Google Scholar
• West, M. A. 2000. “Reflexivity, Revolution and Innovation in Work Teams.” In Advances in the Interdisciplinary Study of Work Teams: Product Development Teams, edited by D. A. Johnson and S. T. Beyerlein, 1–29. Stamford, Connecticut: JAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Widmer, P. S., M. C. Schippers, and M. A. West. 2009. “Recent Developments in Reflexivity Research: A Review.” Psychology of Everyday Activity 2 (2): 2–11.
   Google Scholar
• Zheng, Y., and B. C. Stahl. 2011. “Technology, Capabilities and Critical Perspectives: What Can Critical Theory Contribute to Sen’s Capability Approach?” Ethics and Information Technology 13 (2): 69–80. doi:10.1007/s10676-011-9264-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar