Zander summer pit

1,176 views

Published on

Participatory design and Development Research

Published in: Technology, Economy & Finance
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,176
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Zander summer pit

  1. 1. SummerPIT talk Pär-Ola Zander Aalborg University ICT4D
  2. 2. Who is Pär-Ola Zander? ›  eLearning Lab, Aalborg University ›  Sub-group ICT4D (Information Technology for development) ›  http://www.ict4d.aau.dk ›  Main focus: Design & evaluation of ICT, Education, Development ›  Group in formation ›  10 current active members ›  Leader: POZ
  3. 3. Intervention Areas 05/04/2013 09:19ICT4D - Google Maps
  4. 4. Aim of the talk ›  Topic: The relationship between Participatory design and Development Research ›  What is known? ›  Unexplored areas ›  Why? ICT4D popularity, upcoming PDC in Namibia
  5. 5. Participatory Design ›  The Scandinavian tradition, starting with NJMF, DUE, DEMOS… ›  Leading up to the Collective Resource approach and cooperative design ›  Later becoming part of the larger Participatory Design community ›  In short; a tradition with strategies, methods and theories for PD
  6. 6. Development Research ›  Definition: Contested… ›  The Scholarly study of improving societies; in particular with respect to those areas that are somehow relatively lagging behind ›  Interdisciplinary field; Economists; sociologists; Aid; various technology disciplines (e.g. Agriculture) and more ›  (Good introduction: Willis, 2005)
  7. 7. Development Research ›  Development in developed countries (ICT4D examples: LeDantec & Edwards, 2008, Qvortrup, 1989) ›  ICT4D: Will not survey history of this research field closely here ›  Note that ICT4D is equally a professional, evidence-concerned community ›  (see Patra, 2009)
  8. 8. D for Development ›  Toyama (2010): Development = international development ›  Development or international Development? ›  ”international” contains presuppositions that the community/action researcher is from a Western country ›  Why is it ”international” to develop Bangladesh, but not Norway? ›  Global development may be less flawed ›  Is development always a wicked problem? ›  Like software ”development”, sometimes it can denote quite mundane problems ›  Toyama (2): Development as negatively defined: not interested in the ” the well-being of the relatively rich and powerful” ›  1) Far away from common sense meaning of development ›  2) Studies of making advantaged groups more happy/stimulate economic growth are conceivable – but very seldom published ›  it is largely true for ICT4D! (it is the 4)
  9. 9. The relationship between PD and Development resarch - history ›  NJMF; DUE; DEMOS; PD did not start with the weak but with a stakeholder on the rise ›  PD has dealt with the marginalised at least since the 80’ies ›  Participation in this region is not new ›  The Ahmedabad project (Rice, 1958) ›  PRA (Participatory rural approach) ›  PAR (Participatory Action Research) ›  The reaction: Participation: the new tyranny? (Cooke & Kothari, 2001) ›  The relationship has been studied before: Dearden & Ritzi (2008); Ho et al (2009); Toyama (2010); Zander (2011)
  10. 10. Similarities (Toyama) ›  Methodological Overlap & techniques in common ›  Qualitative work is respected ›  ”deep understanding” acknowledged ›  Design & Iterative prototyping
  11. 11. Interesting relationships between PD and DR ›  HCI4D – an established field? ›  No established conference? ›  Interpreted as a subfield of HCI and ICT4D, not development research (Winthers & Toyoma)
  12. 12. Similarities and ”deep” relationships ›  Capacity building (Dearden, 2008) ›  Main research theme in development research and practice ›  Collective Ressource Approach can be read similarly ›  The roles of national unions, local unions and researchers ›  HCI as ”needs-based” HCI – In developing countries, people’s needs are addressed to less extent (Toyama, 2010)
  13. 13. Techniques in common ›  Dearden & Rizvi (2009) – overviews of techniques ›  modelling ›  walking ›  Workshops ›  (Example: Chambers, 2002 as a handbook for running workshops generally)
  14. 14. Participation and hidden agendas? ›  Vigilant debate in development resarch about ”participation: the new tyranny”? ›  Example: Is participation typically co-opted? ›  Quasi-participation ›  Tool for elite? ›  This can be found in PD too; but DR has a rich literature ›  The long-term perspective on participation: Luther and reformation? (Henkel & Stirrat, 2001)
  15. 15. ICT4D conflicts ›  Toyama: HCI is criticized for generally demonstrating happy users with benefits, but not development (increased literacy, GNI, etc.) ›  For PD: Stop when the alternative is formulated? ›  The difference in profession ›  Practicality vs. Technical dazzle ›  Surprisingly, action research is not so common ›  Route to scale ›  ” HCI comprises a unique, complete theory of problem solving” (Toyama, 2010) ›  With a relatively high degree of methodological and philosophical rigour
  16. 16. Difference in Scale and Scope ›  Scope: ›  PD: Open with regards to aims, researcher tool ›  Participatory development: Reached widespread adoption ›  participation is often a practitioner tool, not resulting in research ›  The first issue is the difference in scale and scope between participatory design and participatory development. ›  Example: Kecataman Development Project ›  85 Billion USD over last decade (Mansuri, World Bank, 2013) ›  Mass adoption by professionals is a fact ›  Participatory design (of content): Wikipedia
  17. 17. Research Method or double method? ›  My interpretation of PD: ›  Inspired by Argyris (1985); no absolute tool division between researchers and professionals ›  Not true for all fields; Compare with e.g. Conversation analysis ›  In Development research ›  Mainly a practitioner tool ›  It is atypical to see use of PRA methods that are later reported to research community
  18. 18. The issue of Control and ”outsourcing” ›  Claim: It is standard practice within PD to be in firm control of each step that generates data ›  This is not so in e.g. Participatory Rural Appraisal (see e.g. Narayanasamy, 2009) ›  Example: Persona Admin workshop ›  Local organiser tend to lead to decreased procedural control ›  Interpreter facilitation favours ”methodological minimalism” ›  Turbulence favours ”methodological minimalism” ›  This calls for decreased focus on PROCEDURE ›  Alternative: Checklists? ›  Points of orientation?
  19. 19. Towards universal participation. ›  Cockton on ”domain tourism” ›  What can ICT4D bring back? ›  Other cultures of participation? ›  Nussbaum (2000, chapter 1): Universal values ›  Islam: Quran dictates deliberation ›  Zulu: Chief needed to convince counsellers ›  Hinduism & Buddhism: Deliberative institutions since 400 B.C. ›  Those institutions have their own shortcomings ›  My argument: We can learn about new forms of participation through development research – or design praxis as a striving towards participation ›  Context still matters
  20. 20. Literature References (in no particular order) Zander, P.-O., Georgsen, M., & Nyvang, T. (2011). Scandinavian Participatory Design - Beyond Design, Beyond Scandinavia. Presented at the The Joint Nordic conference for the Nordic Development Research Associations, Copenhagen. Retrieved from http://fau.dk/httpdocs/NC/Abstracts_and_papers/Papers/ W9_paper_Zander_Georgsen_Nyvang.pdf Le Dantec, C. A., & Edwards, W. K. (2008). Designs on dignity: perceptions of technology among the homeless (p. 627). ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1357054.1357155 Willis, K. (2005). Theories and practices of development. London ; New York, NY: Routledge. Qvortrup, L. (1989). The Nordictelecottages: Community teleservice centres for rural regions. Telecommunications Policy, 13(1), 59–68. Patra, R., Pal, J., & Nedevschi, S. (2009). State of the union: where have we reached and where are we headed. In ICTD’09. Piscataway. Toyama, K. (2010). Human–Computer Interaction and Global Development. Foundations and Trends® in Human–Computer Interaction, 4(1), 1–79. doi:10.1561/1100000021 Dearden, A., & Rizvi, H. (2008). Participatory IT design and participatory development: a comparative review. In Proceedings of the Tenth Anniversary Conference on Participatory Design 2008 (pp. 81–91). Indianapolis, IN, USA: Indiana University. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1795234.1795246 Henkel, H., Stirrat, R., Cooke, B., & Kothari, U. (n.d.). Participation as spiritual duty: Empowerment as secular subjection. In Participation: The new tyranny. Norfolk: Zed Books. Barron, P. (2011). Contesting development: participatory projects and local conflict dynamics in Indonesia. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  21. 21. Congratulations ICT4D! ›  ”One of the great strengths of both the HCI and ICT4D communities is their capacity for reflection and self- critique.” (Toyama (MS research India), 2010, p. 23)

×