design. Tradition refers to how the
designer improves the present, with
the risk of naturalizing objects and
systems that carry embodied but
invisible meanings that are really
not desirable from an ethical point
of view. Transcendence aims at more
fundamental change, where designs
can take on a new role that is perhaps
impossible to conceive under current
norms. While the idea of design for
social change and other value-driven
movements has grown immensely in
the past decade, we can still observe
how a great deal of co-design projects
take a normative starting point and do
not move toward transcendence. This
observation is no critique against design
as problem solving; surely it is needed to
support people in managing mundane
problematic situations. But from an
empowering perspective, and in relation
to ethics in design, this is of great
concern to the co-designer. Designers
are immersed in complex entanglements
of different value systems—their
task is not easy. Attempts at acting
upon values that are so culturally and
politically embedded as to become
invisible paradigms can seem like Don
Quixote fighting windmills. Such values
can be ingrained so deeply that we run
the risk of unconsciously supporting
values we really don’t believe in. One
example of such hegemonies that
are hard to challenge is the idea of
economic growth as an essential and
indispensable element for the well-being of a society. Consequently, it
becomes hard to collaboratively develop
other aspects of well-being that do
not prioritize economics. There are
many other examples in relation to
community work. If we want co-design
with communities to provoke interest,
critical engagement, and collective
action, we need to take this tension
seriously.
MUTUAL LEARNING
AS COLLECTIVE
CRITICAL THINKING
We have highlighted several ethical
dilemmas that designers face in
engaging with(in) processes bringing
together different actors and interests,
and in dealing with larger societal,
organizational, and policy frameworks.
A fair question would be whether and
to what extent a designer should engage
with such complexity. We claim that
we don’t have much of a choice, since
participation has gone mainstream.
From industry to the public sector,
there is a growing and transverse
interest toward multidisciplinary
perspectives, and new alliances across
sectors and organizational structures.
Yet, even when the best intentions are
at play, participation is always at risk
of becoming instrumental to logics of
exploitation and control rather than
empowerment and democratization.
How and why that happens is often
beyond the control of single individuals;
rather, it depends on preexisting
interdependencies, which are often
difficult to influence and change. Should
we then give up on participation? Is the
democratic design agenda outmoded?
Our view is that this agenda is becoming
even more urgent. This urgency is
shared by designers and other societal
actors who are looking with anticipation
at the developments around the sharing
economy, open innovation, and new
models for public welfare.
There is a need for a more nuanced
understanding of opportunities and
risks with participation and, out of
that, more reflective and cautious
frameworks and approaches for action.
In particular, the notion of mutual
learning is key. Within the co-design
tradition, mutual learning emerges
among people who collaborate in a
design process, learning about each
other’s practices and the process’s point
of focus. In line with a renewed interest
in mutual learning within co-design
[ 5], we see mutual learning as key in
creating awareness among participants
about the limits of representation,
preexisting accountabilities, and
struggles between tradition and
transcendence. We propose that an
ethical design approach in complex
participatory processes has to focus
on supporting learning between
participants as a matter of actively
fostering collective critical thinking
about the conditions in which
participatory processes emerge, as well
as their opportunities to move for ward.
Key in this effort is the collective
articulation—together with
DOI: 10.1145/3280938 © 2018 ACM 1072-5520/18/11 $15.00
participants—of the role of cultural
norms, organizational structures,
professional cultures, and policies
in facilitating and hindering
democratization efforts. Additionally,
particular attention should be given
to how participatory endeavors can be
adopted by participants in their own
practice and promoted within their
communities and organizations. Here,
the collective effort should be about
the articulation of opportunities and
risks in the scaling and spreading of
participation. By integrating these
elements, co-designers and participants
can navigate the complexity and
challenges of the era of participation
in an ethical way that addresses the
conditions and scaling of participation.
Endnotes
1. Boyte, H.C. Everyday Politics: Reconnecting
Citizens and Public Life. Univ. of Pennsylvania
Press, Philadelphia, 2004. Referred by
Olivier, P. and Wright, P. Digital civics:
Taking a local turn. Interactions 22, 4
(Jul.–Aug. 2015), 61–63. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1145/2776885
2. Ehn, P. and Badham, R. Participatory
design and the collective designer. Proc. of
the Participatory Design Conference. 2002.
3. Light, A. and Akama, Y. The nature
of ‘obligation’ in doing design with
communities: Participation, politics and
care. In Tricky Design: Ethics Through
Things. T. Fisher and L. Gamman, eds.
Bloomsbury, London, 2017.
4. Suchman, L. Located accountabilities
in technology production. Scandinavian
Journal of Information Systems 14, 2 (2002),
91–105
5. DiSalvo, B., Yip, J., Bonsignore, E., and
DiSalvo, C. Participatory Design for
Learning. Routledge, 2017.
Per Linde is an interaction designer and
assistant professor at Malmö University.
He is chair of the management board for
the Internet of Things and People research
platform and coordinates the project Exploring
Sustainability and Security in Future Living.
His current research addresses ubiquitous
computing, Io T, and participatory design
processes.
→ per.linde@mau.se
Anna Seravalli is a designer and senior
lecturer at Malmö University. In her research
she collaborates with citizens, civil servants,
activists, and entrepreneurs to explore
questions about democracy and participation
in urban production and city making. She is the
coordinator of Malmö University’s DESIS lab.
→ anna.seravalli@mau.se