Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 945–962 | Cite as

Virtues in Participatory Design: Cooperation, Curiosity, Creativity, Empowerment and Reflexivity

Original Paper

Abstract

In this essay several virtues are discussed that are needed in people who work in participatory design (PD). The term PD is used here to refer specifically to an approach in designing information systems with its roots in Scandinavia in the 1970s and 1980s. Through the lens of virtue ethics and based on key texts in PD, the virtues of cooperation, curiosity, creativity, empowerment and reflexivity are discussed. Cooperation helps people in PD projects to engage in cooperative curiosity and cooperative creativity. Curiosity helps them to empathize with others and their experiences, and to engage in joint learning. Creativity helps them to envision, try out and materialize ideas, and to jointly create new products and services. Empowerment helps them to share power and to enable other people to flourish. Moreover, reflexivity helps them to perceive and to modify their own thoughts, feelings and actions. In the spirit of virtue ethics—which focuses on specific people in concrete situations—several examples from one PD project are provided. Virtue ethics is likely to appeal to people in PD projects because it is practice-oriented, provides room for exploration and experimentation, and promotes professional and personal development. In closing, some ideas for practical application, for education and for further research are discussed.

Keywords

Virtue ethics Participatory design Cooperation Curiosity Creativity Empowerment Reflexivity Social networking 

References

  1. Anscombe, G.E.M. (1958). Modern moral philosophy, Philosophy, 33(124), 1–19.Google Scholar
  2. Asaro, P. M. (2000). Transforming society by transforming technology: The science and politics of participatory design. Accounting Management and Information Technologies, 10, 257–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashmore, M. (1989). The reflexive thesis: Wrighting sociology of scientific knowledge. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bannon, L. J. (1991). From human factors to human actors: The role of psychology and human-computer interactions studies in system design. In J. Greenbaum & M. Kyng (Eds.), Design at work: Cooperative design of computer systems (pp. 25–44). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Beck, E. (2002). P for Political: Participation is not enough. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 14(1), 77–92.Google Scholar
  6. Beech, N., MacIntosh, R., & MacLean, D. (2010). Dialogues between academics and practitioners: The role of generative dialogic encounters. Organization Studies, 31(9&10), 1341–1367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bergvall-Kåreborn, B., & Ståhlbrost, A. (2008). Participatory design: One step or two steps forward? In D. Hakken, J. Simonsen, & T. Robertson (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th Biennial participatory design conference (PDC 2008), Bloomington, IN, 1–4 October (pp. 102–111). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bjerknes, G., & Bratteteig, T. (1987). Florence in wonderland: System development with nurses. In G. Bjerknes, P. Ehn, & M. Kyng (Eds.), Computers and democracy: A Scandinavian challenge (pp. 279–296). Aldershot: Avebury.Google Scholar
  9. Bjerknes, G., & Bratteteig, T. (1995). User participation and democracy: A discussion of Scandinavian research on system development. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 7(1), 73–98.Google Scholar
  10. Bjerknes, G., Ehn, P., & Kyng, M. (Eds.). (1989). Computers and democracy: A Scandinavian challenge. Aldershot: Avebury.Google Scholar
  11. Blomberg, J., Giacomi, J., Mosher, A., & Swenton-Hall, P. (1993). Ethnographic field methods and their relation to design. In D. Schuler & A. Namioka (Eds.), Participatory design: Principles and practices (pp. 123–155). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  12. Bødker, S. (2006). When second wave HCD meets third wave challenges. In I. M. Anders, K. Morgan, T. Bratteteig, G. Ghosh, & D. Svanaes (Eds.), Proceedings of 4th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction (NordiCHI 2006), Oslo, Norway, 14–18 October (pp. 1–8). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  13. Bødker, S., Ehn, P., Kammersgaard, J., Kyng, M., & Sundblad, Y. (1987). A UTOPIAN experience: On design of powerful computer-based tools for skilled graphic workers. In G. Bjerknes, P. Ehn, & M. Kyng (Eds.), Computers and democracy: A Scandinavian challenge (pp. 251–278). Aldershot: Avebury.Google Scholar
  14. Bratteteig, T., & Stolterman, E. (1997). Design in groups—and all that jazz. In M. Kyng & L. Mathiassen (Eds.), Computers and design in context (pp. 289–315). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Button, G. (2000). The ethnographic tradition and design. Design Studies, 21(4), 319–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from new technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  17. Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (2006). Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Clement, A., & Van den Besselaar, P. (1993). A retrospective look at PD projects. Communications of the ACM, 36(4), 29–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Crabtree, A. (2003). Designing collaborative systems: A practical guide to ethnography. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Cross, N. (1995). Discovering design ability. In R. Buchanan & V. Margolin (Eds.), Discovering design: Explorations in design studies (pp. 105–120). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design. Design Studies, 25(5), 427–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Devon, R. (2004). Towards a social ethics of technology: A research prospect. Techne: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 8(1), 99–115.Google Scholar
  23. Devon, R., & Van de Poel, I. (2004). Design ethics: The social ethics paradigm. International Journal of Engineering Education, 20(3), 461–469.Google Scholar
  24. Dong, A. (2008). The policy of design: A capabilities approach. Design Issues, 24(4), 76–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ehn, P. (1990). Work-oriented design of computer artifacts. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  26. Ehn, P. (1993). Scandinavian design: On participation and skill. In D. Schuler & A. Namioka (Eds.), Participatory design: Principles and practices (p. 57). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  27. Ehn, P., & Badham, R. (2002). Participatory design and the collective designer. In T. Binder, J. Gregory, & I. Wagner (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2002 participatory design conference (pp. 1–10). Palo Alto, CA: Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility.Google Scholar
  28. Ehn, P., & Kyng, M. (1991). Cardboard computers: Mocking-it-up or hands-on the future. In J. Greenbaum & M. Kyng (Eds.), Design at work: Cooperative design of computer systems (pp. 169–196). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  29. Foot, P. R. (1978). Virtues and vices and other essays in moral philosophy. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  30. Foucault, M. (1990 [1984]). The history of sexuality Vol. 3: The care of self. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  31. Frey, W. J. (2010). Teaching virtue: Pedagogical implications of moral psychology. Science and Engineering Ethics, 16(3), 611–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Greenbaum, J. (1993). PD: A personal statement. Communications of the ACM, 36(4), 47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Greenbaum, J., & Kyng, M. (Eds.). (1991a). Design at work: Cooperative design of computer systems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  34. Greenbaum, J., & Kyng, M. (1991b). Introduction: Situated design. In J. Greenbaum & M. Kyng (Eds.), Design at work: Cooperative design of computer systems (pp. 1–24). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  35. Hadot, P. (1995). Philosophy as a way of life. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  36. Harris, C. E. (2008). The good engineer: Giving virtue its due in engineering ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14(2), 153–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Holzblatt, K., Wendell, J. B., & Wood, S. (2005). Rapid contextual design: A how-to guide to key techniques for user-centered design. San Fransisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  38. Iversen, O. S., Halskov, K, & Leong, T. W. (2010). Rekindling values in participatory design. In T. Robertson, K. Bødker, & D. Loi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th Biennial conference on participatory design (PDC’10), Sydney, Australia, 29 November. New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  39. Iversen, O. S., Kanstrup, A. M., & Petersen, M. G. (2004). A visit to the ‘New Utopia’: Revitalizing democracy, emancipation and quality in cooperative design. In Proceedings of NordiCHI’04 (23–27 October) (pp. 171––179). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  40. Kensing, F., & Blomberg, J. (1998). Participatory design: Issues and concerns. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 7(3–4), 167–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kensing, F., & Madsen, K. H. (1991). Generating visions: Future workshops and metaphorical design. In J. Greenbaum & M. Kyng (Eds.), Design at work: Cooperative design of computer systems (pp. 155–168). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  42. Kuhn, S., & Muller, M. J. (1993). Participatory design. Communications of the ACM, 36(4), 24–28.Google Scholar
  43. Kyng, M., & Mathiassen, L. (Eds.). (1997). Computers and design in context. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  44. Latour, B. (1988). The politics of explanation: An alternative. In S. Woolgar (Ed.), Knowledge and reflexivity: New frontiers in the sociology of knowledge (pp. 155–176). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  45. Lloyd, P., & Van de Poel, I. (2008). Designing games to teach ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14(3), 433–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. MacIntyre, A. (1981). After virtue: A study in moral theory. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  47. MacIntyre, A. (2007). After virtue (3rd ed.). London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
  48. Margolin, V., & Margolin, S. (2002). A ‘Social Model’ of design: Issues of practice and research. Design Issues, 18(4), 24–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Markussen, R. (1994). Dilemmas in cooperative design. In R. Trigg, S. I. Anderson, & E. Dykstra-Erickson (Eds.), Proceedings of 3rd Biennial participatory design conference (PDC’94), Chapel Hill, NC, 27–28 October (pp. 59–66). Palo Alto, CA: CPSR.Google Scholar
  50. Martin, M. W. (2006). Moral creativity in science and engineering. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(3), 421–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Muller, M. J. (2002). Participatory design: The third space in HCI. In J. Jacko & A. Sears (Eds.), The human-computer interaction handbook: Fundamentals, evolving technologies and emerging applications (pp. 1051–1068). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  52. Nussbaum, M. C. (1986). The fragility of goodness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Nussbaum, M. C. (2011). Creating capabilities: The human development approach. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Oosterlaken, I. (2009). Design for development: A capability approach. Design Issues, 25(4), 91–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Oosterlaken, I. (2012). The capability approach, technology and design: Taking stock and looking ahead. In I. Oosterlaken & J. Van den Hoven (Eds.), The capability approach, technology and design (pp. 3–26). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). The future of competition: Co-creating unique value with customers. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  57. Pritchard, M. S. (1998). Professional responsibility: Focusing on the exemplary. Science and Engineering Ethics, 4(2), 215–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pritchard, M. S. (2001). Responsible engineering: The importance of character and imagination. Science and Engineering Ethics, 7(3), 391–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rhodes, C. (2009). After reflexivity: Ethics, freedom and the writing of organization studies. Organization Studies, 30(6), 653–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Roeser, S. (2010). Emotional engineers: Toward morally responsible design. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18(1), 103–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sanders, E. B. N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4(1), 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schuler, D., & Namioka, A. (Eds.). (1993). Participatory design: Principles and practices. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  63. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  64. Sleeswijk Visser, F. (2009). Bringing the everyday life of people into design. PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology.Google Scholar
  65. Sleeswijk Visser, F., Stappers, P. J., Van der Lugt, R., & Sanders, E. B. N. (2005). Contextmapping: Experiences from practice. CoDesign, 1(2), 119–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Steen, M. (2011a). Reflexive practice in human-centred design. Zoontechnica, 1(1).Google Scholar
  67. Steen, M. (2011b). Tensions in human-centred design. CoDesign, 7(1), 45–60. Google Scholar
  68. Steen, M. (2012). Human-centred design as a fragile encounter. Design Issues, 28(1), 72–80.Google Scholar
  69. Steen, M. (2013). Co-design as a process of joint inquiry and imagination. Design Issues, 29.Google Scholar
  70. Stovall, P. (2011). Professional virtue and professional self-awareness: A case study in engineering ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(1), 109–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Thackara, J. (1999). An unusual expedition (Preface). In K. Hofmeester & E. De Charon de Saint Germain (Eds.), Presence: New media for older people (pp. 7–9). Amsterdam: Netherlands Design Institute.Google Scholar
  72. Van de Poel, I., & Verbeek, P. P. (2006). Ethics and engineering design. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 31(3), 223–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  74. Whitbeck, C. (1998). Ethics in engineering practice and research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Widmer, P. S., Schippers, M. C., & West, M. A. (2009). Recent developments in reflexivity research: A review. Psychology of Everyday Activities, 2(2), 2–11.Google Scholar
  76. Woolgar, S. (1988). Reflexivity is the ethnographer of the text. In S. Woolgar (Ed.), Knowledge and reflexivity: New frontiers in the sociology of knowledge (pp. 14–34). London: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.TNODelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations