skip to main content
10.1145/3491102.3502013acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open Access
Honorable Mention

Six Facets of Facilitation: Participatory Design Facilitators’ Perspectives on Their Role and Its Realization

Published:29 April 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

Participatory design facilitators have a significant impact on participatory activities, processes, and outcomes. However, the facilitator role has not yet been thoroughly debated in existing design discourse, and support for role-related reflections is limited. As the first steps towards an enriched collective understanding of this specific role and its realization, we interviewed 14 respondents with an academic background in participatory design and extensive facilitation experience. Based on a content analysis of the interviews, we identified six facets of the role: (1) trust builder, (2) enabler, (3) inquirer, (4) direction setter, (5) value provider, and (6) users’ advocate. Each facet is presented as consisting of the respondents’ perceived associated responsibilities and corresponding strategies. Our results paint a complex picture of participatory design facilitation. We propose the multi-faceted understanding of the facilitator role emerging from this work as a basis for problematized reflection on the role and its realization.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

3491102.3502013-talk-video.mp4

mp4

108.7 MB

References

  1. Liam Bannon, Jeffrey Bardzell, and Susanne Bødker. 2018. Introduction: Reimagining Participatory Design—Emerging Voices. Association for Computing Machinery.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Gro Bjerknes and Tone Bratteteig. 1995. User participation and democracy: a discussion of Scandinavian research on systems development. Scand. J. Inf. Syst. 7, 1, 73–98.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Alan Borning and Michael Muller. 2012. Next steps for value sensitive design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Association for Computing Machinery.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Tone Bratteteig and Ina Wagner. 2016. Unpacking the Notion of Participation in Participatory Design. Comput. Supported Coop. Work. 25, 6, 425-475. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10606-016-9259-4Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Susanne Bødker, Morten Kyng, Pelle Ehn, John Kammersgaard, and Yngve Sundblad. 1987. A Utopian Experience: On design of Powerful Computer-based tools for skilled graphic workers. In Computers and democracy: A Scandinavian challenge, Aldershot: Avebury, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Michela Cozza, Augusto Cusinato, and Andreas Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos. 2020. Atmosphere in Participatory Design. Science as Culture. 29, 2, 269-292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2019.1681952Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Yngve Dahl and Geir Kjetil Hanssen. 2016. Breaking the Sound Barrier: Designing for Patient Participation in Audiological Consultations. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Association for Computing Machinery.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Yngve Dahl and Dag Svanæs. 2020. Facilitating Democracy: Concerns from Participatory Design with Asymmetric Stakeholder Relations in Health Care. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Association for Computing Machinery.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Ana Maria Bustamante Duarte, Nina Brendel, Auriol Degbelo, and Christian Kray. 2018. Participatory Design and Participatory Research An HCI Case Study with Young Forced Migrants. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 25, 1, Article 3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3145472Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Kim Halskov and Nicolai Brodersen Hansen. 2015. The diversity of participatory design research practice at PDC 2002-2012. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 74, C, 81-92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.09.003Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Foad Hamidi, Melanie Baljko, and Isabel Gómez. 2017. Using Participatory Design with Proxies with Children with Limited Communication. In Proceedings of the 19th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, 250–259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3132525.3132527Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Christina N. Harrington, Katya Borgos-Rodriguez, and Anne Marie Piper. 2019. Engaging Low-Income African American Older Adults in Health Discussions through Community-based Design Workshops. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Association for Computing Machinery.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Denny Kwok-leung Ho, Jin Ma, and Yanki Lee. 2011. Empathy @ design research: a phenomenological study on young people experiencing participatory design for social inclusion. CoDesign. 7, 2, 95-106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2011.609893Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Harald Holone and Jo Herstad. 2013. Three tensions in participatory design for inclusion. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2903-2906. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2481401Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Sofia Hussain. 2013. Ethical Leadership in Participatory design. In IASDR 2013: 5th Intl Congress of the Intl Association of Societies of Design Research,Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Sampsa Hyysalo, Virve Hyysalo, and Louna Hakkarainen. 2019. The Work of Democratized Design in Setting-up a Hosted Citizen-Designer Community. International Journal of Design. 13, 1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. ISO 9241-210. 2019. Ergonomics of human-system interaction — Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems. International Organization for Standardization.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Janet Kelly. 2019. Towards ethical principles for participatory design practice. CoDesign. 15, 4, 329-344. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2018.1502324Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Finn Kensing and Joan Greenbaum. 2013. Heritage: having a say. In Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design, Routledge, London, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Steinar Kvale. 1994. Ten standard objections to qualitative research interviews. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 25(2). 25, 2, 147–173. https://doi.org/10.1163/156916294X00016Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Kung Jin Lee, 2021. The Show Must Go On: A Conceptual Model of Conducting Synchronous Participatory Design With Children Online. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Article 345. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445715Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Ann Light and Yoko 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, 61-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2347635.2347645Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Stephen Lindsay, 2012. Empathy, participatory design and people with dementia. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 521-530. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2207749Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Rachael Luck. 2007. Learning to talk to users in participatory design situations. Design Studies. 28, 3, 217-242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2007.02.002Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Donald A. Norman and Stephen W. Draper. 1986. User Centered System Design; New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction. L. Erlbaum Associates Inc.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Briony J Oates. 2006. Researching Information Systems and Computing. Sage Publications Ltd.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Suvi Pihkala and Helena Karasti. 2016. Reflexive engagement: enacting reflexivity in design and for 'participation in plural'. In The 14th Participatory Design Conference: Full papers - Volume 1, 21-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2940299.2940302Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Toni Robertson and Jesper Simonsen. 2013. Participatory Design: An introduction. In Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design, Routledge, London, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Donald A. Schön. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Petr Slovák, Christopher Frauenberger, and Geraldine Fitzpatrick. 2017. Reflective Practicum: A Framework of Sensitising Concepts to Design for Transformative Reflection. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2696-2707. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025516Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Lucy Suchman. 2002. Located accountabilities in technology production. Scand. J. Inf. Syst. 14, 2, 91–105.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Dag Svanæs and Gry Seland. 2004. Putting the users center stage: role playing and low-fi prototyping enable end users to design mobile systems. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 479-486. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/985692.985753Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Maja van der Velden and Christina Mörtberg. 2021. Participatory Design and Design for Values. In Handbook of Ethics, Values, and Technological Design: Sources, Theory, Values and Application Domains, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Tom Wakeford and Michel Pimbert. 2013. Opening participatory democracy's black box: Facilitation as creative bricolage. In Problems of participation: Reflections on authority, democracy and the struggle for common life, ARN Press, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Øivind Klungseth Zahlsen, Dag Svanæs, and Yngve Dahl. 2021. Facilitating User Involvement in a Large IT Project: A Comparison of Facilitators’ Perspectives on Process, Role and Personal Practice. In INTERACT 2021, Bari Italy,Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Øivind Klungseth Zahlsen, Dag Svanæs, Arild Faxvaag, and Yngve Dahl. 2020. Understanding the Impact of Boundary Conditions on Participatory Activities. In Proceedings of the 11th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Shaping Experiences, Shaping Society, Article 81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3419249.3420129Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Six Facets of Facilitation: Participatory Design Facilitators’ Perspectives on Their Role and Its Realization
    Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

    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 Conferences
      CHI '22: Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      April 2022
      10459 pages
      ISBN:9781450391573
      DOI:10.1145/3491102

      Copyright © 2022 Owner/Author

      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial International 4.0 License.

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 29 April 2022

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format