“We became with them all”: Putting the human before the computer in HCI

Structuring Future Social Relations: The Politics of Care in Participatory Practice

In this paper Light and Akama discuss the role of the designer as a facilitator and enabler in participatory design (PD) research.  The authors argue that the responsibilities of the designer extend beyond the “formal design space” and that the politics of power and dominance are at the core of the process. They state that the paper is intended to raise debate and inspire critical reflection. It poses the questions ‘how far can designers’ participatory practice influence relations in the world” and what responsibility does this bring?

Light and Akama start by providing a brief historical context for participatory design work quoting Joan Greenbaum’s three main motivations for conducting PD: “pragmatic, theoretical and political”. They go on to present three case studies from their own work, that serve to highlight the ways in which participatory design can address social relations and their structure.

The idea of care and what that means is central to this paper.  The authors define care as something that is “manifested as and in support of ‘sustainable and flourishing relations’”.  It is distinct from the habitually used terms “caring for” or “being cared for” which describe one way acts of care but rather it is a “view where living beings matter but that ‘mattering is ‘always inside connections’. For Light and Akama entering into a participatory design process necessarily entails entering into a mutually created caring relationship with participants. For them this is not an incidental part of PD but perhaps the main benefit and one that can lead participants and designers towards “collaborative future making”. The authors conclude that the this work can be expected to have real impact, “possibly at many levels. What we cannot say is how.”

The authors also state that their design processes may or may not “manifest in enhanced design, deployment, customisation or use of ICT’s”. This raises questions about the limits of HCI. If the work does not have either a certain outcome or even a technological one then can this work be described as HCI research? How can we as researchers with a particular focus and agenda fully engage with stakeholders when we may be restricted by our field and feel unable to follow the full breadth of the issues that are unearthed this process? Or should we in contrast ignore these supposed bounds of our discipline?

I found the language overly descriptive and rhetorical at times; “making the invisible cement of collaborative practice visible”, “we are constantly designed by our own designing, and  “we became with them all.” to give just a few examples that stick in the mind. I think the paper also challenged me by forcing me to confront the potential benefits of an approach that is agnostic about wants to achieve before it sets out on the process. But, a stated aim of the paper is to inspire critical reflection and in that the paper is successful. It has led me to reflect on the nature of participatory design and where it might lead if taken to one extreme.

If I consider the papers on HCI that I have read so far, then I can see a continuum emerging; from the problem solving approach of Oulasvirta and Hornbæk to Light and Akama’s “politics of care” at the other extreme. I can see the real value in both approaches, but I can’t help but feel there must be a happy middle ground somewhere in between.

This week I am also reading “opportunistic Engagement by Designing on the Street” as a paper that exemplifies participatory design. It’s an Open Lab (well, Culture Lab) paper and deals with the public space which I’m interested in so it caught my eye.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *