Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Conclusions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Disentangling Participation

Part of the book series: Computer Supported Cooperative Work ((CSCW))

  • 1280 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter looks back and reflects on the three concepts: power, decision-making, and participation, and how they have helped us understand the PD practices in the two projects. There are different arenas for participation in a design project: creating choices, selecting among choices, implementing or materializing a choice, seeing/evaluating, and making the next move. Having uncovered a strong link between participation and ‘power to’, we argue that users don’t have to participate in all these arenas to contribute to a participatory result.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Bjögvinsson, E., Ehn, P., & Hillgren, P.-A. (2012). Design things and design thinking: Contemporary participatory design challenges. Design Issues, 28(3), 101–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloch, E. (1995). The principle of hope. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bratteteig, T., & Wagner, I. (2012). Spaces for participatory creativity. CoDesign, 8(2–3), 105–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bratteteig, T., Bødker, K., Dittrich, Y., Mogensen, P. H., & Simonsen, J. (2012). Methods: Organising principles and general guidelines for participatory design projects. In J. Simonsen & T. Robertson (Eds.), Routledge international handbook of participatory design (pp. 177–144). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clement, A., & Van den Besselaar, P. (1993). A retrospective look at PD projects. Communications of the ACM, 36(6), 29–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finken, S. (2005). Methods as technologies for producing knowledge. An encounter with cultural practices—reflections from a field study in a high-tech company. (PhD), Roskilde University, Roskilde.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finken, S., & Stuedahl, D. (2008). Silence’ as an analytical category for PD. Paper presented at the proceedings of the tenth anniversary conference on participatory design, Indiana University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaventa, J. (2005). Reflections on the uses of the ‘Power Cube’ approach for analyzing the spaces, places and dynamics of civil society participation and engagement CFP evaluation series 2003–2006 (p. 46). Brighton: University of Sussex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatuka, T., & D’Hooghe, A. (2007). After postmodernism: Readdressing the role of Utopia in urban design and planning. Places, 19(2), 20–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heath, D. (2007). Bodies, antibodies and modest interventions. In K. Asdal, B. Brenna, & I. Moser (Eds.), Technoscience: The politics of interventions (pp. 135–156). Oslo: Oslo Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langley, A., Mintzberg, H., Pitcher, P., Posada, E., & Saint-Macary, J. (1995). Opening up decision-making. Organization Science, 6(3), 260–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markussen, R. (1996). Politics of intervention in design: Feminist reflections on the Scandinavian tradition. AI & Society, 10, 127–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McClelland, D. C. (1975). Power: The inner experience. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mörtberg, C., & Studedahl, D. (2005). Silences and sensibilities: Increasing participation in IT design. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 4th decennial conference on critical computing: Between sense and sensibility, Aarhus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricoeur, P. (1978). The metaphorical process as cognition, imagination, and feeling. Critical Inquiry, 5(1), 143–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, T., & Wagner, I. (2012). Ethics: Engagement, representation and politics-in-action. In J. Simonsen & T. Robertson (Eds.), Routledge international handbook of participatory design (pp. 64–85). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rolstad, O. K. (2014). The life and death of design ideas (Master thesis). Oslo: University of Oslo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schütz, A. (1951). Choosing among projects of action. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 12(2), 161–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Informatics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Tone Bratteteig

  2. Department of Informatics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Ina Wagner

Authors
  1. Tone Bratteteig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ina Wagner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tone Bratteteig .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bratteteig, T., Wagner, I. (2014). Conclusions. In: Disentangling Participation. Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06163-4_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06163-4_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-06162-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-06163-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation