eParticipation and Participatory Design

Participation in Web2.0 and

e-Participation in Government:

Toward a “Third Space” for

Deliberation and GovernmentDeliberation and Government

Michael MullerIBM Research & IBM Center for Social Software

Cambridge, MA, USA

[email protected]

Agenda

• Apology for modifying parts of the planned talk

• Chapter 1. Surprising Experiences with Social Software and Participatory Web2.0

• Chapter 2. Participation in Government and Software Design

• Chapter 3. Moving Forward

• Conclusions• Conclusions

• Our discussion

Apology

• Themes

– Participatory design and HCI

– Engineering and practicality

• Applicability to eParticipation

Agenda

� Chapter 1. Surprising Experiences with Social Software and Participatory Web2.0

– Examples of four software projects with surprising participatory outcomes

– Summary

– Planning to be surprised: Designing for appropriation

– “Third space” / Hybridity Concepts– “Third space” / Hybridity Concepts

• Chapter 2. Participation in Government and Software Design


• Conclusions

• Our discussion

The Coordinator

• (Before “Social Software” was conceived)

• Task-structured email, ca. 1988

– Searles’ theory of Speech Acts

– Attractive abstraction of human communication processes

• “We put it out in the hall, along with all the other trash”along with all the other trash”

• Problems

– Instrumental communications only – Like contracts

– No opportunity for non-instrumental messages

– People need sociality if they are going to work together

� The Coordinator was not social enough

• Winograd, T., A Language/Action Perspective on the Design of Cooperative Work, Human-Computer Interaction 3:1 (1987-88), 3-30.

Reprinted in Greif, I. (Ed.), Computer-Supported Cooperative Work: A Book of Readings, San Mateo, California: Morgan-Kaufmann, 1988,

623-653.

Dual Accounting in Workflows

• Workflow systems as a problematic success story for CSCW

– Inflexible, decontextualized, inhumane to workers

– Necessary and beneficial to organizations to manage work & billing

• Tensions with workflows at a printing shop

– Workflow required each vs. Trusted customers couldprint job to be fully “print now and pay later”negotiated in advance

– Workflow required each vs. Most employees managed– Workflow required each vs. Most employees managedemployee to be assigned to several print jobsa single print job at-a-time simultaneously

• Solution: Break the rules

– Employees accepted and ran print jobs without a new contract

– Employees created false userIDs to allow each human to manage multiple print jobs simultaneously through their false userIDs, and to allow humans to share responsibility for a single job

� Staff invented new ways to do the job collaborative and to give an honest accounting of the work done for each customer

• Dourish, P., Process descriptions as organisational accounting devices: The dual use of workflow technologies. Proc GROUP 2001.

ActivityExplorer

• Conceived as a “niche” solution, between– Very informal, two-person interactions (quick but messy)– <ActivityExplorer>– Formal group processes (slow but disciplined)

• Use Case for ActivityExplorer– Small number of users– A few heterogeneous data objects– A brief period of time– A brief period of time

• Summer 2003 interns assigned to do one step of their projects using ActivityExplorer– Interns took over!– Lunch dates (very informal, two-person…)– “Intern tips and tricks” (formal group processes…)– Interns made AE more broadly social than intended

� Interns’ appropriation led to product success

• Muller, M.J., Geyer, W., Brownholtz, B., Wilcox, E., and Millen, D.R. (2004). One-hundred days in an activity-centric collaboration

environment based on shared objects. Proceedings of CHI 2004.

Activity Threads

Also “lunch dates” and

community-wide threads

ActivityExplorer

• Conceived as a “niche” solution, between– Very informal, two-person interactions (quick but messy)– ActivityExplorer– Formal group processes (slow but disciplined)

• Use Case for ActivityExplorer– Small number of users– A few data objects– A brief period of time– A brief period of time

• Summer 2003 interns assigned to do one step of their projects using ActivityExplorer– Interns took over!– Lunch dates (very informal, two-person…)– “Intern tips and tricks” (formal group processes…)– Interns made AE more broadly social than intended

� Interns’ appropriation led to product success

• Muller, M.J., Minassian, S.O., Geyer, W., Millen, D.R., Brownholtz, E., and Wilcox, E. (2005). Studying appropriation in activity-centric

collaboration. International Reports on Socio-Informatics 2(2), 50-58. http://www.iisi.de/fileadmin/IISI/upload/IRSI/IRSIv2i2complete.pdf.

‘Heretical’ Uses of Social Bookmarking

• Social bookmarking

– Store your browser bookmarks in an online site

• Describe each bookmark with one or more “tags” (user-specified descriptive text)

• Good for people with multiple machines (access own tags anywhere)

• Possible to find relevant bookmarks created by other users

– Use Case: Refinding one’s own bookmarks + opportunistic finding of others’ bookmarksothers’ bookmarks

• Bookmarking for audiences

– Some people use a single tag hundreds of times

– Some people ignore tagging of podcasts in a streaming media service, and then tag those podcasts in the more popular bookmarking service (tagging across services)

• Thom-Santelli, J., Muller, M.J., & Millen, D.R. (2008) Social tagging roles: Publishers, evangelists, leaders. Proc CHI 2008.

‘Heretical’ Uses of Social Bookmarking

• Tagging for audiences– Publishers – Using a reliable tag to lead their readers across services to their internal publication (podcast)

– “Evangelists” – Using one or a few tags to lead thousands of employees to information on a topic of importance (“web2.0”, “attention-management”)

– Community-organizers – Finding a tag that is likely to be used by other members of a community-of-practice

– Team-leads – Finding a tag that is unlikely to be used by anyone – Team-leads – Finding a tag that is unlikely to be used by anyone outside of the team

• Similar findings of Information Curators in an internal file-sharing service – collecting and describing files to be used by colleagues

• New ideas, new patents, new features� Employees appropriated the social bookmarking system to

communicate with large numbers of fellow employees

• Muller, M.J., Millen, D.R., & Feinberg, J. (2009). Information curators in an enterprise file-sharing service. Proc. ECSCW 2009, Vienna,

Austria, September 2009.

Summary (1): Benefits of Surprises

• Review�The Coordinator was not social enough�Staff invented new ways to do the job collaboratively and

honestly � Interns’ appropriation of AE led to product success�Employees appropriated the social bookmarking system to

communicate with large numbers of fellow employees

• Successful technology transfer, good products, happy people• Successful technology transfer, good products, happy people• Users…

– Want to engage in social activities with others– Give high priority to helping one another, and to helping clients– Will find a way to do this!– Often are trying to do the right thing for themselves, others, and

their organizations and communities

Summary (2): Plan to be Surprised

• Designing for Appropriation

– Flexibility, community, incremental changes, visibility, persistence

– Articulation, demonstration

– Deliberately do not complete the design � complete the design through usage

– Our experiences

• Immediate value• Immediate value

• Foreground the content

• Support co-construction of objects and language to describe them

• Provide user control over features that change in meaning

• Dourish, P. (2003). The appropriation of interactive technologies: Some lessons from placeless documents. Journal of CSCW 12(4), 465-

490 (2003).

• Muller, M.J., Minassian, S.O., Geyer, W., Millen, D.R., Brownholtz, E., and Wilcox, E. (2005). Studying appropriation in activity-centric

collaboration. International Reports on Socio-Informatics 2(2), 50-58. http://www.iisi.de/fileadmin/IISI/upload/IRSI/IRSIv2i2complete.pdf.

• Pipek, V. (2005). From tailoring to appropriation support: Negotiating groupware usage. PhD thesis, Oulu University. Available at

http://herkules.oulu.fi/isbn9514276302/ .

• Bell, G., Blythe, M., Sengers, P: Making by making strange: Defamiliarization and the design of domestic technologies. ACM Trans.

Comput.-Hum. Interact. 12(2),149-173 (2005)

• Spinuzzi, C., Tracing genres through organizations: A sociocultural approach to information design. MIT Press, 2003.

Summary (3): Hybridity Theory

• Third space (Bhabha, 1994)

– Where two cultures meet, overlap, interact � something new

– From biology: The estuary where salt water meets fresh � High fertility and biomass

– From cultural critique: The inter-cultural regions along national borders � New understandings and new cultures

– An analytic lens to reduce power imbalances in inter-cultural spaces

• Properties

– (Re-)Negotiate identity of self and others

– Challenge ideas, especially binary oppositions (either/or � both/and)

– New opportunities for self-expression, communication, and co-creation

• Bhabha, H.K., Location of culture. London: Routledge, 1994.

• Dingawaney, A., & Maier, C. (1994). Between languages and cultures: Translation and cross-cultural texts. University of Pittsburgh Press.

• Krupat, A. 1992. Ethnocriticism: Ethnography, history, literature. Berkeley: University of California Press.

• Alcoff, L. (1991). The problem of speaking for others. Cultural Critique, Winter 1991-1992, 5-32.

• Roof, J., and R. Wiegman. 1995 (Eds.). Who can speak? Authority and critical identity. Urbana, IL, USA: University of Illinois Press

• English, L., Third space: Contested space, identity, and international adult education. Paper at CASAE/ACEEA Conference, 2002.

• Hannula.M., Third space: Merry-go-round of opportunity. Kiasma Magazine12(1,), http://www.kiasma.fi

• Bachmann-Medick, D. (1996). Cultural misunderstanding in translation: Multicultural coexistence and multicultural conceptions of world

literature. Erfurt Electronic Studies in English 7. http://webdoc.gwdg.de/edoc/ia/eese/artic96/bachmann/7_96.html

• Grenfell, M. (1998). Border-crossing: Cultural hybridity and the rural and small schools practicum. Australian Association for Research

in Education conference, 1998.

Summary (3): Hybridity Strategy

• The need for dialogue among users and software professionals

• Combine two (or more) domains into a single zone of overlap (break or remove the formal boundaries)

– Software design

– Actual usage

• Users, developers, designers, managers as equal “co-navigators” in this new spacein this new space

• Make everything mutually strange

• Promote and facilitate interaction, combination, dialogue �new relationships and new ideas

• Suchman, L., Located accountabilities in technology production. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 14(2), 91-105, 2002.

• Tscheligi, M., Houde, S., Marcus, A., Mullet, K., Muller, M.J., and Kolli, R Creative prototyping tools: What interaction designers really need to produce

advanced user interface concepts. Proc CHI’95..

• Bretag, T., Developing ‘third space’ interculturality using computer-mediated communication. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 11(4).

• Muller, M.J. Participatory design: The third space in HCI (revised). In J. Jacko and A. Sears (eds.), Handbook of HCI 2nd Edition. Mahway NJ USA:

Erlbaum, 2007.

• Muller, M.J. Ethnocritical heuristics for reflecting on work with users and other interested parties. In M. Kyng and L. Mathiessen (Eds.), Computers and

design in context. Cambridge MA USA: MIT Press, 1997.

• Holmström, J. The power of knowledge and the knowledge of power: On the systems designer as a translator of rationalities. Proc IRIS 1995.

• Fowles, R.A.. Symmetry in design participation in the built environment: Experiences and insights from education and practice. Proc Co-Designing 2000.

• Zurita, L., Rurul living labs: User involvement activities. Proc Conference on Concurrent Enterprising, 2008.

• Driedger, S.M., Kothari, A., Morrison, J., Sawada, M., Crighton, E.J., &Grahahm, I.D., Using participatory design to develop (public) health decision support

systems through GIS. Int. J. Health Geographics 6(53), 2007.

Appropriation through Hybridity

• The Coordinator

– No ability to create new (or familiar) social actions � Failure

• Dual accounting in workflows

– Users changed identity representation to create new false users and to allow more efficient work and better service

• ActivityExplorer

– User experience was flexible enough – and new enough – to create – User experience was flexible enough – and new enough – to create uncertainty and the users’ need to redefine the space in their own way

• Social bookmarking

– Users redefined features for personal-refinding, into features for communication and mutual service

• (Except for The Coordinator), outcomes were good for everyone

Agenda


� Chapter 2. Participation in Government and Software Design

• Partcipatory Design perspectives on ‘participation’

• eParticipation Tools

– Your ideas

• Stages in eParticipation: Standard treatments and what is missing• Stages in eParticipation: Standard treatments and what is missing

• Lifecycle for eParticipation Tools and Systems: Conventional models and what is missing

– Your ideas


• Conclusions

• Our discussion

Participatory Design

• Combination of motivations and efforts

– Workplace democracy

– Knowledge acquisition

– Organizational effectiveness

– Design initiatives

– Market intelligence

• Background• Background

– Labor theory

– Architecture (!)

– Design theory � theories

– Post-modernism and cultural critique

– Translation theory

– Small group phenomena

– Question established power bases (but which ones are ‘established’?)• Bjerknes, G., Ehn, P., and Kyng, M. (eds.), Computers and democracy: A Scandinavian challenge. Brookfield VT USA: Gower, 1987.

• Greenbaum, J., and Kyng, M. (eds.), Design at work: Cooperative design of computer systems. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum, 1991.

• Schuler, D., and Namioka, A. (Eds.),Participatory design: Principles and practices. Hillsdale NJ USA: Erlbaum.

• Bødker, K., Kensing, F., and Simonsen, J., Participatory IT design: Designing for business and workplace realities. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press, 2004.

PD Ways of Working

• Developing theory about participation in work and design

• Testing theory in practical work

• Respecting the work of the worker

– Including the diverse work of researchers and practitioners in diverse disciplines

– Unity of theory and practice

• Compromising, compromising, compromising• Compromising, compromising, compromising

– The problem of “the” “representative user”

– Designers giving up “designerly quality”

– Scientists giving up “experimental control”

• Activity theory as a frame

• Ethnography as a method of inquiry

• Grounded theory as a method of analysis

– Effective participatory process means diffusing power into the group

• Dynamic field – PD has no Kuhnian “normal science”

Problems with eParticipation Systems

• Tensions regarding ownership and provision of services

– Government, political parties, NGOs?

• If built by government

– Low government interest

– “Political niche areas”

– Often poor participation (exception: one-way provision of information)

• If built outside of government

– Can lead to difficulties experienced by government agencies or staff– Can lead to difficulties experienced by government agencies or staff

– Can replicate old power structures and inequalities

• Evaluation issues

– Single evaluation perspective

– Single system in isolation

– Limited range of evaluation reference points or purposes• Aicholzer, G., Towards an eparticiation profile of Austria. MCIS 2006 White papers.

• Manbrey, G., From participation to e-participation: The German case. Proc ICEGOV 2008.

• King, S.F., & Brown, P., Fix my street or else: Using the internet to voice local public service concerns. Proc ICEGOV 2007.

• Wimmer, M.A., Ontology for an e-participation virtual resource center. Proc ICEGOV 2007.

• Panopoulou, E., Tambouris, E., & Tarabanis, K., eParticipation initiatives: How is Europe progressing? Eu. J. ePractice 7, 2009.

• Kavanaugh, A., Zin, T.T., Carroll, J.M., Schmitz, J., Pérez-Quiñones, M., & Isenhour, P., When opinion leaders blog: New forms of citizen interaction. Proc

dg.o 2006 (International Conference on Digital Government).,

• Martin, P.P., Putting e-participation research on the service of civil society. iGov Central, http://www.i-

gov.org/index.php?article=4509&visual=1&id=114&subject=24

• Macintosh, A., & Whyte, A. , Towards an evaluation framework for eParticipation. Transforming Government: People, Process & Policy 2(2), 16-30, 2008.

• Phang, C.W., & Kankanhalli, A., A framework of ICT exploitation for e-participation initiatives. Communications of the ACM 51(12), 128-132 (2008).

Obstacles to Participation

Obstacle

• Physical disability

• Cognitive disability

• Literacy

• Language

• Gender

• Economics & class

• Government poverty

• Ethnic & class conflict• Ethnic & class conflict

• Taouflik, I., Kabaili, H., & Kettani, D., Designing an e-government portal accessible to illierate citizens. Proc ICEGOV 2007.

• Balci, A., Kumas, E., Tasdelen, H., Süngü, E., Medeni, T., & Medeni, T.D., Development and implementation of e-government services in Turkey: Issues of

standardization, inclusion, citizen and satisfaction. Proc ICEGOV 2008.

• Musyoka, J., Social electronic governance: Re-Visiting the redistribution question through coordinating relations between electronic governance and social

goals. Proc ICEGOV 2008.

• Kas, R.K., Patra, M.R., Mahapatra, S.C., e-Grama: A tool for bridging the digital divice in rural India. Proc ICEGOV 2008.

• Koumpis, A., Chatzidimitriou, M., Vontas, A., & Peristeras, V., The 100 Euro e-gov portal. Proc ICEGOV 2007.

• Galpaya, H., Samarajiva, R., & Soysa, S., Taking e-government to the bottom of the pyramid: Dial-a-gov? Proc ICEGOV 2007.

• Seshagiri, S., Sagar, A., Joshi, D., Connecting the ‘bottom of the pyramid’ – An exploratory case study of India’s rural communication environment. Proc WWW

2007.

• Chen, D.-Y., & Lee, C.-P., To reinforce or to mobilize? Tracing the impact of internet use on civic engagement in Taiwan. Proc ICEGOV 2008.

• Kim, B.J., Zheng, L., & Jacobson, D., A report on the 2007 iGov Research Institute: Overcoming four dimensions of language barriers. Proc dg.o 2008

(International Conference on Digital Government).

• Kaliannan, M., Awang, H., & Raman, M., Technology adoption in the public sector: An exploratory study of e-government in Malaysia. Proc Int. Conf. Theory &

Practice of Electronic Governance, 2007.

• Kolko, B., Johnson, E., & Rose, E., Mobile social software for the developoing world. In Online Communities and Social Computing, Springer, 2007.



• Awotwi, J.E., & Owusu, G., Lack of equal access to ICTs by women: An e-governance issue. Proc ICEGOV 2008.

• Subramanian, M., Theory and practice of e-governance in India: A gender perspective. Proc Int. Conf. Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, 2007.

• Millard, J., E-governance and e-participation: Lessons in promoting inclusion and empowerment. In E-Participation and E-Government: Understand the Present

and Creating the Future. United Nations, 2006.

Goals/”Methods” of eParticipation

• Problems and Obstacles � Need for citizen’s involvement in both

– Solving a problem

– Defining the problem

• Do current approaches encourage widespread participation?

• He, J., & King, W.R., The role of user participation in information systems development: Implications from a meta-analysis. J. Mgmt Info Sys 25(1), 2008.

• Doll, W.J., & Deng, X., The collaborative use of information technology: End-user participation and systems success. Info. Resources Mgmt J. 14(2), 2001.

Participation Stages: Offline & Online

Offline Online

InformationNewspaper, radio, TV, leaflet, poster,

brochure, report, mailing, telephone

hotline, information centre

Websites, webcasts, podcasts, email

newsletter, online-registers and

indexes

Consultation

Questionnaires, surveys and polls,

telephone hotlines, fax, citizen’s

panel, public hearings, public

meetings

Online-questionnaires, eSurveys,

ePanels, ePolls, ePetitions, GIS and

map-based tools, email, chatrooms

InvolvementFocus groups, workshops, expert

committees

Online-forum, eConsultation systems,

online surgeries

Cooperation Consensus conferences, mediationOnline-community, wiki, collaborative

systems

Empowerment Referenda, voting, citizens’ jurieseReferenda, eVoting, collaborative

systems

Giving voice Rallies, demonstrations, protests ?

Action Boycott, sick-out, strike, work-to-rule ?

• Alchholzer, G., Buckner, K., Christiansen, E., Cruickshank, P., Davarinos, K., Eleftheriou, E., Gkarafli, M., Lippa, B., Panopoulou, E., Rose, J., Sæbø, Ø.,

Tambouris, E., Tarabanis, K., Taylor-Smith, E., Westhold, H., & Winkler, R., DEMO-net D13.1 Development methods and support environments to build

eParticipation tools. http://demonet.uni-koblenz.de/what-is-it-about/research-papers-reports-1/demo-netdeliverables/AichholzerEtAl2007a/

?searchterm=demo , 2007.

• Macintosh, A., Charaterizing e-participation in policy-making. Proc HICSS 2004.

• Chrysos, C., Kercic, D., Porquier, E., & Todorovski, L., Integating the drivers of e-participation at regional level in Europe. IDEAL-EU.

http://www.google.at/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ideal-eu.net%2Fimages%2FDocuments%2FIDEAL_EU_D6.4_

• Brochure_and_Leaflet.pdf&ei=hjRNSqPkIpOysgbvya2tBA&usg=AFQjCNHOgcQzuFGX08NMFQrIelqcR7BsRQ&sig2=GvwO9Lq3XekjtscuebT-sA

• Curtin, G.G., Global e-government/e-participation models, measurement andmethodology. UN workshop on E-Participation and E-Government, 2006.

• Wimmer, M.A., Ontology for an e-participation virtual resource center. Proc ICEGOV 2007.

• Ahmed, N., An anthology of e-participation models. In E-Participation and E-Government: Understand the Present and Creating the Future. United Nations,

2006.

Participation Stages: Offline & Online

Offline Online






indexes

Consultation




meetings


ePanels, ePolls, ePetition systems, GIS

and map-based tools, email


committeesOnline-forum, eConsultation systems


systems


systems



Offline Online

Information Newspaper, radio, TV, leaflet, poster… Websites, webcasts, podcasts, email...

Consultation Questionnaires, surveys and polls… Online-questionnaires, eSurveys…

Involvement Focus groups, workshops… Online-forum, eConsultation…

Cooperation Consensus conferences, mediation… Online-community, wiki…

Empowerment Referenda, voting, citizens’ juries… eReferenda, eVoting…

Your Ideas

Empowerment Referenda, voting, citizens’ juries… eReferenda, eVoting…



• Should these two cells be added for eParticipation?

• What should go in those cells?

• Should those online service and systems be provided by government, or by citizen organizations?

Your Ideas

Offline Online






indexes

Consultation




meetings


ePanels, ePolls, ePetition systems, GIS

and map-based tools, email


committeesOnline-forum, eConsultation systems


systems


systems



• Should these two cells be added for eParticipation?

• What should go in those cells?

• Should those online service and systems be provided by government, or by citizen organizations?

Development Approaches (1,2)

Plan

Analyze

Design

Implement

eP Tool

Waterfall Model

Dennis, Wixom, & Tegarden, 2005

Where are the citizens?

Plan

Analyze

Design Design Implement Integrate

eP Tool

Design Implement

Design Implement

Parallel Model



and other stakeholders?

• Alchholzer, et al. DEMO-net D13.1 Development methods and support environments to build eParticipation tools. cited in full on “Participation Stages” slide..

Development Approaches (3)

Unified Process - Dennis, Wixom, & Tegarden, 2005


process analysis

process re-design

system development

Policy-making cycle processes

Existing participation opportunities

Existing communication channels

Current technology support

Analysis of current participation in

policy-making

Governance process changes

New participation options

Channel selection

Tool selection

Governance and participation re-

design

Key design decisions

eParticipation tool/service design

system development

Implementation &

change management

Business process re-engineering – e.g., Davenport, 1995; Lenk & Traunmuller, 2000

Key design decisions

Tool design and development

Service design

Programming

Roll-out & implementation

Back-office reorganization

Stakeholder education

Citizen engagement

Tool/service introduction


Design Research - Sanders, 2006

Evolutionary Cyclic

• Mambrey, P., Mark, G., Pankokebabatz, U., User advocacy in participatory design: Designers’ expectations with a

new communication channel. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 7(3-4), 291-313, 1998.

Participatory IT Design

project establishment

in-line analysis /

strategic alignment

scope of design project:

timetable, content, finances,

participants

Focus

aligning the design project’s goals

and the company’s goal’s business

and IT strategies

Project charter + plan

Results - Decisions

Strategic alignment report

• Bødker, K., Kensing, F., & Simonsen, J., Participatory IT design. MIT , 2004.

• Kensing, F., Simonsen, J., & Bødker, K., MUST – a method for participatory design. In Blomberg, J., & Kensing, F., & Dykstra-Erickson, E. (Eds.), Proc

Participatory Design Conference, 1996.

in-depth analysis /

ethnography

innovation /

vision development

work practices in selected work

domains

Visions of IT systems and their

relation to work organization and

qualifications

implementation project

Analysis report + work practice

descriptions

Design project report +

mock-ups and prototypes


Plan

Analyze

Design

Implement

eP Tool

Waterfall Model



Plan

Analyze

Design Design Implement Integrate

eP Tool

Design Implement

Design Implement

Parallel Model



and other stakeholders?


Plan

Analyze

Design

Implement

eP Tool

Waterfall Model


Plan

Analyze

Design

A Simple Model to Build On

Implement

eP Tool

Plan

Analyze

Design

Add an explicit Evaluation Stage

Implement

eP Tool

Evaluate

• Kensing, F., and Munk-Madsen, A., PD: Structure in the toolbox. Communications of the ACM 36(6), 78-85,1993.

• Muller, M.J., Participatory design: The third space in HCI (revised). In Jacko, J. and Sears, A. (eds.), Handbook of HCI 2nd Edition. Mahway, NJ, USA:

Erlbaum, 2007.

• Muller, M.J., Hallewell Haslwanter, J.D., and Dayton, T. (1997). Participatory practices in the software lifecycle. In Helander, M., Landauer, T., & Prabhu, P.

(eds.), Handbook of human-computer interaction. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1997.

Plan

Analyze

Design

Future Workshop

Starting Conference

Strategic Design Workshops

Participatory Workshops

Scenario and Storyboard

Workshops

Implement

eP Tool

“Non-Functional Artifacts”

WorkshopsTheatrical Workshops

Evaluate User Audits

Plan

Analyze

Design

Users’ Stories

Participatory Narratives

Lay PhotoDocumentaries

Co

nte

xtu

al

Inq

uir

y &

Co

nte

xtu

al

De

sig

n

Designers’ Stories

Community Stories

Lay VideoDocumentaries

Sce

na

rio

Implement

eP Tool

EvaluateCo

nte

xtu

al

Inq

uir

y &

Co

nte

xtu

al

De

sig

n

Lay VideoDocumentaries

Interface Theatre

Sce

na

rio-B

ase

d D

esig

n

Plan

Analyze

Design

Language Games

Games

CARD

PICTIVE

Icon Design Game

Carpentopoloy

Specification Game

Layout Kit

Organization Kit

User Game

Landscape Game

What-If Games

Implement

eP Tool

Evaluate

Landscape Game

Technology Game

Scenario Game

Plan

Analyze

Design

Board Games

Prototyping

What-If Games

Collage

Design by Doing

UTOPIA

(“cardboard computers”

Co

op

era

tive

Pro

toty

pin

gE

volu

tion

ary

Pro

toty

pin

g a

nd

“Pe

rpe

tua

l Be

ta”

Implement

eP Tool

CARD

PICTIVE

Evaluate

Carpentopoloy

Specification Game

Layout Kit

Organization Kit

Design by Doing

“Paper Prototypes”

Co

op

era

tive

Pro

toty

pin

gE

volu

tion

ary

Pro

toty

pin

g a

nd

“Pe

rpe

tua

l Be

ta”

Your Ideas

Plan

Analyze

Design

Workshops

Narratives

• What broad topics are missing?

• What specific types of methods are

Co

nte

xtu

al

Inq

uir

y &

Co

nte

xtu

al

De

sig

n

Ba

sed

De

sig

n

Co

op

era

tive

Pro

toty

pin

g

Evo

luti

on

ary

Pro

toty

pin

g a

nd

“P

erp

etu

al

Be

ta”

Implement

eP Tool

Evaluate

Games

Prototyping

of methods are missing?

• What other lifecycle models should be considered?

Co

nte

xtu

al

Inq

uir

y &

Co

nte

xtu

al

De

sig

n

Sce

na

rio

-Ba

sed

De

sig

n

Co

op

era

tive

Pro

toty

pin

g

Evo

luti

on

ary

Pro

toty

pin

g a

nd

“P

erp

etu

al

Be

ta”

PD Thrives on Hybridity

• Diverse disciplines

• Diverse perspectives

– Workers

– Technologists

– Professional designers

– Managers

• Creation of hybrid “third spaces” between conventional

Co-Analysts Co-Designers

• Creation of hybrid “third spaces” between conventional disciplines and project stages

• Use hybridity as a means of connecting disconnect parties and processes

• Muller, M.J., Participatory design: The third space in HCI (revised). In Jacko, J. and Sears, A. (eds.), Handbook of HCI 2nd Edition. Mahway

NJ USA: Erlbaum, 2007.




– Workers

– Technologists


– Managers

• Creation of hybrid “third spaces” between conventional

Co-Analysts Co-Designers

Industry Model






– Citizens

– Citizens

– Citizens…

– NGOs

– Media…Co-Analysts Co-Designers

Polyvocal Polity Model

– Media…

– Technologists


– Managers



Agenda


• Chapter 2. Concepts of Participation in Government and Software Design

� Chapter 3. Moving Forward

– Proposed research topics

• Conclusions• Conclusions

• Our discussion

Moving Forward in eParticipation

• We know how to make systems

– Not perfectly

– We don’t (yet) know how to make citizens’ systems

• We know how to do participatory design

– Too many choices among methods and tools?

– We don’t (yet) know how to do participatory design in the large

• There are a lot of questions!• There are a lot of questions!

• Aichholzer, G., Towards an eparticiation profile of Austria. MCIS 2006 White papers.

• Manbrey, G., From participation to e-participation: The German case. Proc ICEGOV 2008.

• King, S.F., & Brown, P., Fix my street or else: Using the internet to voice local public service concerns. Proc ICEGOV 2007.

• Panopoulou, E., Tambouris, E., & Tarabanis, K., eParticipation initiatives: How is Europe progressing? Eu. J. ePractice 7, 2009.

• Kavanaugh, A., Zin, T.T., Carroll, J.M., Schmitz, J., Pérez-Quiñones, M., & Isenhour, P., When opinion leaders blog: New forms of citizen

interaction. Proc dg.o 2006 (International Conference on Digital Government).,



• Macintosh, A., & Whyte, A. , Towards an evaluation framework for eParticipation. Transforming Government: People, Process & Policy 2(2),

16-30, 2008.

• Zappen, J.P., Harrison, T.M., & Watson, D., A new paradigm for designing e-government: Web2.0 and experience design. Proc dg.o 2008

(International Conference on Digital Government).

• Light, A., Notes on participatory evaluation and sustainability. http://www.futurelab.org/resources/publications-reports-articles/ opening-

education-reports/Opening-Eduation-Report1128

Proposed Research Topics (1)

• If eParticipation is provided via large systems

– Participatory lifecycle models for citizens

– The “simple” study of stakeholders and their needs will be informative

– How can proven participatory methods be “scaled up” (for very large numbers of citizens)?

– How can proven participatory methods be “flattened out” (for very diverse populations)?(for very diverse populations)?

• Thought experiments

– How would broad eParticipation be designed by “a large software company”? by a customer-care provider? by a telecommunications company?

– How would broad eParticipation be designed by the UN?

– How would broad eParticipatoin be designed by the parliamentary bodies of different countries?


• If eParticipation is provided via web services

– How reliable must a system be for eDiscussion? eDeliberation? Contrast with eVoting?

– Which citizenship activities benefit from identity-disclosure? from anonymity? How do these values relate to the obstacles discussed earlier?

– What are the governmental and policy implications of “perpetual beta”

Thought experiments• Thought experiments

– How would Google provide citizens’ services?

– How would Facebook (or Digg) provide citizens’ services?

– How would Twitter provide citizens’ services?

– How would a health service provide citizens’ services?


• What are the consequences of extending the methods of eParticipation? e.g.,

– One-way information provision

– Two-way transactions

– Effective impact on decisions

– Citizens’ initiatives

– Citizens’ actions (demonstrations, protests, marches, boycotts…)– Citizens’ actions (demonstrations, protests, marches, boycotts…)

• For each stakeholder group, e.g.,

– “Ordinary” citizens (the “default” citizen)

– Citizens with special needs

– Government

– Government staff workers

– NGOs

• And who should “own” the space where these activities occur?


• Is appropriation useful for citizens’ services?

– If so, how can it be encouraged?

– If not, how can it be prevented?

– Who should “govern” appropriation?

• Is hybridity a useful attribute of citizens’ services?

– Do we need that much ambiguity and creativity? When? Why?

– How can hybridity support the participation of all of the diverse – How can hybridity support the participation of all of the diverse members of the population? What kind of hybridity?

– Who designs hybridity?

Conclusion

• Appropriation and hybridity revealed through experiences with social software

• Existing eParticipation systems and development models do not allow appropriation or hybridity

• Participatory alternatives

• Proposed research questions

Thank you!

slides available on www.slideshare.com

Contact me on twitter: michael_muller

eParticipation and Participatory Design

Technology

Transcript of eParticipation and Participatory Design