The Practice Level in Participatory Design Rationale: Studying Practitioner Moves and Choices

  • Albert M. Selvin
  • Simon J. Buckingham Shum
  • Mark Aakhus
Chapter
Part of the Human–Computer Interaction Series book series (HCIS, volume 20)

Abstract

Most research in design rationale focuses on specific tools, methods, models, or artifacts. There has been relatively little attention to the practice level of design rationale work: the human experience of working with the tools and methods to create rationale artifacts. This chapter explores a particular juncture of creativity and design rationale that is found in the special case of helping groups of people construct representations of rationale within live meetings. Such work poses challenges and requires skills different from those of individuals working alone. We describe the role of practitioners who perform caretaking and facilitative functions in collaborative or participatory design rationale sessions, and present a set of analytical tools aimed at making the practice level more visible. We locate the analysis in a theoretical framework aimed at understanding the experiential dimensions of such practice, including sensemaking, narrative, aesthetics, ethics, and improvisation.

Keywords

Aesthetics Ethics Facilitation Grounded theory Improvisation Knowledge media Narrative Reflective practice Sensemaking Visualization 

References

  1. Aakhus, M. (2001). Technocratic and design stances toward communication expertise: How GDSS facilitators understand their work. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 29, 341–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aakhus, M. (2002). Design practice and transparency work in the technological facilitation of collaborative decision making. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  3. Aakhus, M. (2003). Neither naïve nor critical reconstruction: Dispute mediators, impasse, and the design of argumentation. Argumentation, 17, 265–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aakhus, M. (2007). Conversations for reflection: Augmenting transitions and transformations in expertise. In C. R. McInerney & R. E. Day (Eds.), Re-thinking knowledge management: From knowledge objects to knowledge processes (pp. 1–20). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Aakhus, M., & Jackson, S. (2005). Technology, interaction, and design. In K. Fitch & R. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction (pp. 411–436). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Arnheim, R. (1967). Art and visual perception: A psychology of the creative eye. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Buckingham Shum, S. (1996). Analyzing the usability of a design rationale notation. In T. Moran & J. Carroll (Eds.), Design rationale: Concepts, techniques, and use (pp. 185–215). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Buckingham Shum, S., Selvin, A., Sierhuis, M., Conklin, J., Haley, C., & Nuseibeh, B. (2006). Hypermedia support for argumentation-based rationale: 15 years on from gIBIS and QOC. In A. Dutoit, R. McCall, I. Mistrik, & B. Paech (Eds.), Rationale management in software engineering (pp. 111–132). Berlin: Springer. Also available at http://oro.open.ac.uk/3032
  10. Clancey, W. J., Sierhuis, M., Alena, R., Berrios, D., Dowding, J., Graham, J. S., Tyree, K. S., Hirsh, R. L., Garry, W. B., Semple, A., Buckingham Shum, S. J., Shadbolt, N., & Rupert, S. (2005, January–February). Automating CapCom using mobile agents and robotic assistants. Paper presented at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 1st Space Exploration Conference, Orlando, FL, USA. Available from: AIAA Meeting Papers on Disc [CD-ROM], Reston, VA, and as Advanced Knowledge Technologies ePrint 375: http://eprints.aktors.org/375, pp. 1–41.
  11. Cohen, C. (1997). A poetics of reconciliation: The aesthetic mediation of conflict. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of New Hampshire, USA. Available on-line at www.brandeis.edu/ethics/coexistence_initiative/research_and_scholarship/reconciliation.pdf
  12. Conklin, J., & Begeman, M. (1988). gIBIS: A hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 6, 303–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dervin, B. (1983, May). An overview of sense-making research: Concepts, methods, and results to date. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Dallas, TX, USA.Google Scholar
  14. Dervin, B. (1992). From the mind’s eye of the user: The sense-making qualitative-quantitative methodology. In J. D. Glazier & R. R. Powell (Eds.), Qualitative research in information management (pp. 61–84). Englewood: Libraries Unlimited.Google Scholar
  15. Dewey, J. (2005). Art as experience. New York: The Berkeley Publishing Group. (Originally published in 1934)Google Scholar
  16. Fortner, R., & Christians, C. (1981). Separating wheat from chaff in qualitative studies. In G. Stempel & B. Westley (Eds.), Research methods in mass communication (2nd ed., pp. 375–387). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  17. Kunz, W., & Rittel, H. (1970). Issues as elements of information systems (Working Paper No. 131). Studiengruppe fur Systemforschung, Heidelberg, Germany.Google Scholar
  18. McCarthy, J., & Wright, P. (2004). Technology as experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Murray, K. (n.d.). Narrative partitioning: The ins and outs of identity construction. Retrieved May 3, 2006, from http://home.mira.net/∼kmurray/psych/in&out.html
  20. Rosson, M. B., & Carroll, J. (2009). Scenario-based design. In A. Sears & J. Jacko (Eds.), Human-computer interaction: Development process (pp. 1032–1050). Boca Raton: CRC Press/Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  21. Sawyer, K. (1999). Improvised conversations: Music, collaboration and development. Psychology of Music, 27, 192–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sawyer, K. (2003). Group creativity: Music, theater, collaboration. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Sawyer, K. (2004). Creative teaching: Collaborative discourse as disciplined improvisation. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 12–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. London: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  25. Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  26. Selvin, A. (2008). Performing knowledge art: Understanding collaborative cartography. In A. Okada, S. Buckingham Shum, & T. Sherborne (Eds.), Knowledge cartography: Software tools and mapping techniques (pp. 223–247). London: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Selvin, A., & Buckingham Shum, S. (2008, April). Narrative, sensemaking, and improvisation in participatory hypermedia construction. Paper presented at the Sensemaking Workshop, CHI 2008: ACM Conference on Computer-Human Interaction, Florence, Italy. Available on-line at http://oro.open.ac.uk/19039
  28. Selvin, A., & Buckingham Shum, S. (2009, April). Coherence, engagement, and usefulness as sensemaking criteria in participatory media practice. Paper presented at the Sensemaking Workshop, ACM Computer-Human Interaction (CHI) Conference, Boston, MA, USA. Available on-line at http://oro.open.ac.uk/12910
  29. Sierhuis, M., & Buckingham Shum, S. (2008). Human–agent knowledge cartography for e-Science: NASA field trials at the Mars Desert Research Station. In A. Okada, S. Buckingham Shum, & T. Sherborne (Eds.), Knowledge cartography: Software tools and mapping techniques (pp. 287–305). London: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. Tracy, K. (1989). Conversational dilemmas and the naturalistic experiment. In B. Dervin, L. Grossberg, B. O’Keefe, & E. Wartella (Eds.), Rethinking communication (Paradigm Examples, Vol. 2, pp. 411–423). Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. Tripp, D. (1993). Critical incidents in teaching: Developing professional judgment. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  34. Weick, K., & Meader, D. (1993). Sensemaking and group support systems. In L. Jessup & J. Valacich (Eds.), Group support systems: New perspectives (pp. 230–252). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  35. Yoong, P., & Gallupe, B. (2002). Coherence in face-to-face electronic meetings: A hidden factor in facilitation success. Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal, 4, 12–21. Available also on-line at http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.125.4454&rep=rep1&type=pdf#page=15

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Albert M. Selvin
    • 1
    • 2
  • Simon J. Buckingham Shum
    • 2
  • Mark Aakhus
    • 3
  1. 1.Verizon Information TechnologyWhite PlainsUSA
  2. 2.Knowledge Media InstituteThe Open UniversityMilton KeynesUK
  3. 3.Department of Communication, School of Communication and Information, RutgersThe State University of New JerseyNew BrunswickUSA

Personalised recommendations