Is Participatory Design Really That Inclusive?
Exploring practitioner’s perspectives on barriers to inclusion in Participatory Design.
What comes to mind when you come across the term “Participatory Design?” Perhaps you think of sticky notes and thumbtacks on walls at town hall meetings or colorful diagrams with lots of arrows. Or, you imagine design that is, well… participatory. Regardless of your own perception, the buzz around Participatory Design in industry and academic realms calls for exploration, especially as it has been increasingly used with a wide spectrum of people with different lived experiences around the world.
To quickly summarize, Participatory Design is an approach in Human-Computer Interaction and User Experience (UX) Research that emphasizes design alongside people instead of strictly for people. Participatory Design originated in Scandinavia in the 1960’s and was championed by labor unions to democratize workplaces. While its democratic vision still remains, Participatory Design in its current form can sometimes fall short of achieving this vision, especially when it involves marginalized people. Despite its advocacy for greater inclusion and empowerment of people, Participatory Design can be exclusive when only certain people are able and capable of devoting their time and resources to participating. While this is just one example of the ways in which Participatory Design may not be as inclusive as claimed, there are other challenges and barriers to inclusion that prevent Participatory Design from actualizing its goals of democratizing design.
In order to shed light on other barriers to inclusion, I interviewed six Participatory Design practitioners in the United States and Denmark who have five or more years of experience applying the approach in academia and industry and have either worked with or have made it their goal to work with under-represented or marginalized users including children, individuals with disabilities, lower income groups, and ethnically diverse populations. I then analyzed these interviews for common themes and found that practitioner’s reflections largely related to seven barriers to inclusion. These seven barriers are summarized below alongside direct quotes from practitioners.
Difficulties with Recruitment
All six practitioners mentioned their difficulties with recruiting people from marginalized backgrounds. These difficulties stemmed from locational factors, lack of convenience, the nature of Participatory Design attracting smaller group sizes, whether Participatory Design is conducted in industry or academia, and practitioner’s own focus working with only specific groups of people. One participant mentioned that “with Participatory Design you tend to attract certain types of people and maybe not some if you are just doing general recruitment.”
Constraints with Time
Five practitioners reflected on time as a barrier inclusion. These constraints arose from scheduling conflicts and Participatory Design being a lengthy, sequential process. A participant underlined that “Participatory Design requires commitment of time from people, it’s not something that we just do one time.”
Lack of a Shared Language
Shared language ensures that people who are collaborating are on the same page; not in terms of actual spoken language, but in terms of shared terminology and understanding. Four practitioners discussed the lack of shared language amongst Participatory Design practitioners, between practitioners and community members, and amongst community members. For example, one practitioner noted, “Because this was a huge group, we are all individuals, we have our opinions.”
Need for Trust and Relationships
Four practitioners talked about the importance of having trust already established with communities and the need to actively work towards sustaining built relationships. One practitioner highlighted how “you need to build a relationship with your community and your community partner.”
Complexities of Research Ethics
Four practitioners noted additional layers of complexity relating to consent, Participatory Design protocol, and publishing, especially when Participatory Design involves marginalized people. Oftentimes, informed consent from people is a necessary precursor to their involvement in Participatory Design projects. One practitioner said that “We always make it clear at the start of any of those sessions…they can stop at any point — they don’t have to be there.”
Messiness of Participatory Design
Four practitioners considered the messiness of Participatory Design to be a barrier to inclusion. While Participatory Design seems quite doable in theory, practitioners emphasized that it is oftentimes more involved and messier in practice. For example, a practitioner mentioned that “Being able to navigate design processes which are quite open and a messy process, that’s not that easy.”
Challenges with Transportation
Two practitioners mentioned transportation to the location of where Participatory Design is held as a barrier to inclusion. One practitioner noted that “you are kind of gated by the individuals that live within driving distance or that are even willing to drive to your location.”
In order to solve problems, the problems must first be identified. This is the approach I took when interviewing Participatory Design practitioners about the barriers to inclusion they encounter. Overall, practitioners shared their challenges relating to recruitment, time, shared language, trust, research ethics, messiness of the process, and transportation. By shedding light on various barriers to inclusion in Participatory Design, it is my hope that this article sparks new conversations surrounding its true inclusivity.
