The Methodology of Participatory Design

Spinuzzi, Clay. 2005. "The Methodology of Participatory Design." Technical Communication. 52 (2): 163–174. 


Researchers take different approaches in designing computer interfaces. I haven't thought about it too much before until I entered this program. But I've read great articles from a researcher at the University of Washington who conducts in-depth studies gauging how people use new computer software, how they interact with the options, and how they read the web pages. 


As I read this Spinuzzi article, I found myself wondering more about our interaction with technology. How much of that interaction could be more fluid if the design would have been approached with the user in mind? I'm sure this is a constant question for web designers, but as Spinuzzi discusses in this reading, the meaning goes much deeper than just website design. In the industrial area, for instance, entire systems are created for a task, and those systems are operated by workers pressing buttons and pulling levers—interacting with interfaces.


Many designers of these large systems talk about creating them with a participatory design. Technical communication researchers, too (maybe even more often), use about this approach when creating systems. But the term means a much different thing to many who use it. Spinuzzi states:

The terms participatory design and user-centered design are being broadly applied in the philosophical and pedagogical work of technical communication; methods associated with those terms are being applied in technical communications research; and prototypes in particular are often presented as a vital part of iterative usability (163). 

The problem for Spinuzzi is that there is no set guide for the methodology of participatory design. What is it? How do you go about it? What isn't it? In the article, he answers these questions.


Participatory design research is a way to understand knowledge by doing (163). "Participatory design is research" Spinuzzi says (163). This distinguishes it from just another type of design research. Spinuzzi makes the claim that is turns out to be a good match technical communicators (164). The goal of the research method is to shape the interface in ways that the workers will find to be positive, not just productive from the managerial point of view.


The research came about after large computer systems were replacing people's jobs in Scandinavia. the workplace had to adapt to technological changes, the workers wanted to keep a democratic-oriented workplace. It's easy to see how a large automated system would take power away from the employees by reducing the choices they could make. Instead of controlling the system and making quick, competent decisions regarding the work, they were harnessed and unable to reject changes made by management or the designers of the computer systems. 


Spinuzzi mentions this new computer-designed workplace as a rationalist approach to design, which goes hand-in-hand with Taylorism, a theory which took discretion and decisions away from workers. 


Taylorists believed all human knowledge was discoverable and categorizable. Rationalists built off of this idea and said if all the knowledge was collected and categorized, then designers could create correct design.


But participatory design, on the other hand, "is founded on constructivism, a theory that explicitly resists the notion that knowledge can be completely formalized and classified" (165).


As a research design, this can be confusing. Don't we need to believe that knowledge can be formalized? Not necessarily. Spinuzzi describes the idea of tacit knowledge. Tacit means unseen; tacit knowledge is hiding between the written down answer on a test and an automated action. That is, someone might unconsciously act without thinking much about it. But if they were to train someone else in on the same procedure, they may have a hard time explaining just what it is they do, or how they know when to do it. As Spinuzzi describes it, "tacit knowledge is implicit rather than explicit, holistic rather than bounded and systemized; it is what people know without being able to articulate" (165).


I imagine that a research might ask a question and get a response similar to "I'm not sure, I just know how to do it." Such a response might lead to a discovery of tacit knowledge. 


As I read, I wondered if some bungled government processes do a similar thing. Assume there is one best approach for something, then impose that approach on all. Could there be a link between this rational and environmental risks? I know in Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, she expresses frustration with the government's lack of interest in exploring ways of dealing with environmental risks besides pesticides. In the final chapters of her book, she outlines biological approaches to dealing with environmental risks. One of her main concerns was that the government was approaching such a large-scale problem with one answer: which is also something we deal with on an agricultural plane. Problem: There's not enough food. Answer: Create one answer to the problem and replicate it over and over (genetically modified food). This is a simplified connection, but I'm hoping something similar will apply to the research I'm conducting.


In Scandinavia, researchers took action research to the workplaces. Instead of just observing from the outside, the researchers took part, becoming directly involved in the studies with a desire to create a direct outcome—giving more power back to the workers (165). The participatory design first attempted to discover tacit knowledge, and then it set about to reflect on the found knowledge (165). Then instead of bypassing this tacit knowledge, the system can be fit into what already exists.

Spinuzzi lists three criterions for participatory design: 

1. Quality of life for workers;
2. Collaborative development; and
3. Iterative process (in other words, continual study). (169–171)

As a downside, this type of research is never quite done. All tacit knowledge cannot be found, so the research is never exhaustive. It takes intensive time, money and resources to complete (169), which might make it impractical in many scenarios. 


So to recap, participatory design finds tacit knowledge. Researchers may do this through "organizational games (citations), role-playing games (citations), organizational toolkits (citations), future workshops (citations), storyboarding (citations), and workflow models and interpreting sessions (citations)" (167).


This research takes partnership approach. The designers aren't dictators, they are partners who help empower the workers in their workplace environment (167).