skip to main content
10.1145/2482991.2483001acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesc-n-tConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Community engagement for research: contextual design in rural CSCW system development

Published:29 June 2013Publication History

ABSTRACT

In order to bring about innovation within a community-based context, different stakeholder communities often need to be engaged so that they may appropriately take part in the design process. The 'invisible' work of engagement is frequently overlooked, and yet it plays an important, often pivotal role within many design-based research projects. It revolves around negotiations with a series of stakeholder communities in the design setting and ethnographic understandings of the site and community. Insights and accounts are offered based upon practical experience: existing methodologies and engagement strategies are expanded upon. Our research has shown that understanding and employing community engagement strategies is key to the creation of a network of successfully civilly-engaged stakeholders. Failure to instigate such civil engagement appropriately can endanger the project, as the research 'turns' upon this. We present the approaches taken and critically understand the role of community engagement within the design process, with the purpose of enabling designers and other practitioners to appreciate the role that community engagement plays in systems design and the practical implications this might have for it. This research proceeds from a long-term project in which researchers explored community engagement within the context of design.

References

  1. Crabtree, A. (1998): "Ethnography in Participatory Design", Proceedings of the 1998 Particpatory Design Conference, pp. 93--105, Computer Professionals for Social ResponsibilityGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Bannon, L. (1991): From Human Factors to Human Actors: The Role of Psychology and Human-Computer Interaction Studies in Systems Design. Greenbaum, J. & Kyng, M. (eds.) Design at work.: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 25--44. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Voss, Hartswood, Ho, Procter, Slack, Rouncefield, Buescher (eds) (2007): Configuring user-designer relations: Interdisciplinary perspectives. Springer-Verlag. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Grudin, J. (1990): The computer reaches out. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Seattle, Washington, 261--268. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Chamberlain, A., Crabtree, A., Davies, M., Greenhalgh, C., Rodden, T., Valchovska, S and Glover, K (2012): Fresh and local: the rural produce market as a site for co-design, ubiquitous technological intervention and digital-economic development. MUM 2012, Ulm, Germany, ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Bødker, S. (2008): Design for reconfiguration. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual International Conference on Design of Communication, ACM SIGDOC, ACM Press, pp. 263--264. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Robertson, T. and J. Simonsen (2012): "Challenges and Opportunities in Contemporary Participatory Design," Design Issues, Vol. 28, No. 3, MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Chamberlain, A., Crabtree, A., Rodden, T., Jones, M & Rogers, M. (2012): Research in the wild: understanding 'in the wild' approaches to design and development. Conference on Designing Interactive Systems 2012 ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Brown, B., Reeves, S. and Sherwood, S. (2011): Into the wild. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference of Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Vancouver, Canada, 1157--1666. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Bødker, S. and Iversen, O. S. (2002): Staging a professional participatory design practice: moving PD beyond the initial fascination of user involvement. In Proceedings of the Second Nordic Conference on Human-Computer interaction, NordiCHI '02, vol. 31. ACM.. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Black, Rachel (2012): Porta Palazzo: The Anthropology of an Italian Market. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Buxton, B. (2007): Sketching User Experiences: Getting the Design Right and the Right Design. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Bucciarelli, Louis L. (1984): Reflective practice in engineering design. Design Studies, vol. 5, no. 3, MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Ehn, P. and Kyng, M. (1987): The collective resource approach to system design. In Computers and Democracy - a Scandinavian Challenge, G. Bjerknes, P. Ehn, and M. Kyng, Eds. Avebury, Aldershot, UK: Avebury.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Hayes, G. R. (2011): The relationship of action research to human computer interaction. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction. 18, 3, Article 15. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Checkland, P. and Poulter, J. (2006): Learning for Action: A Short Definitive Account of Soft Systems Methodology and its use for Practitioners, copyright of John Wiley and Sons Limited.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Harper, R. H. R, (2000): The Organisation in Ethnography - A Discussion of Ethnographic Fieldwork Programs in CSCW. Computer Supported Cooperative Work: Journal of Collaborative Computing -- JCSCW 9(2), Springer Verlag. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Garfinkel, H. (1967): Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Johannessen, L. K. and Ellingsen, G. (2012): "Lightweight Design Methods in Integrated Practices", Design Issues, Vol. 28, No. 3, MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Greenberg, S. and Buxton, B. (2008): Usability considered harmful (some of the time). In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference of Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Florence, Italy. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Glass, R., "Agile Versus Traditional: Make Love, Not War," Cutter IT Journal, Dec. 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Sommerville, I. (2007): Software Engineering, 8th edition, Addison -- Wesley.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Community engagement for research: contextual design in rural CSCW system development

          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
            C&T '13: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Communities and Technologies
            June 2013
            165 pages
            ISBN:9781450321044
            DOI:10.1145/2482991

            Copyright © 2013 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 ACM 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: 29 June 2013

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article

            Acceptance Rates

            C&T '13 Paper Acceptance Rate17of58submissions,29%Overall Acceptance Rate80of183submissions,44%

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader