SummerPIT talk Pär-Ola Zander Aalborg University ICT4D

Who is Pär-Ola Zander? � eLearning Lab, Aalborg University � Sub-group ICT4D (Information Technology

for development) �  http://www.ict4d.aau.dk �  Main focus: Design & evaluation of ICT,

Education, Development �  Group in formation �  10 current active members �  Leader: POZ

Intervention Areas

05/04/2013 09:19ICT4D - Google Maps

Page 1 of 2https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msa=0&msid=20895130324811…5,350.859375&t=m&z=2&vpsrc=6&ei=W3leUdGQGMa-8AOxs4Ag&pw=2

©2013 Google - Map data ©2013 MapLink, Tele Atlas -

ICT4DPublic · 0 viewsCreated on Nov 6, 2012 · By postdebornite · Updated 2 minutes ago

Safwat

Safwat

Cifuentes

Aim of the talk � Topic: The relationship between

Participatory design and Development Research �  What is known? �  Unexplored areas

� Why? ICT4D popularity, upcoming PDC in Namibia

Participatory Design � The Scandinavian tradition, starting with

NJMF, DUE, DEMOS… � Leading up to the Collective Resource

approach and cooperative design � Later becoming part of the larger

Participatory Design community �  In short; a tradition with strategies,

methods and theories for PD

Development Research � Definition: Contested… � The Scholarly study of improving societies;

in particular with respect to those areas that are somehow relatively lagging behind

�  Interdisciplinary field; Economists; sociologists; Aid; various technology disciplines (e.g. Agriculture) and more

�  (Good introduction: Willis, 2005)

Development Research � Development in developed countries

(ICT4D examples: LeDantec & Edwards, 2008, Qvortrup, 1989)

�  ICT4D: Will not survey history of this research field closely here �  Note that ICT4D is equally a professional,

evidence-concerned community �  (see Patra, 2009)

D for Development �  Toyama (2010): Development = international development �  Development or international Development?

�  ”international” contains presuppositions that the community/action researcher is from a Western country

�  Why is it ”international” to develop Bangladesh, but not Norway? �  Global development may be less flawed �  Is development always a wicked problem?

�  Like software ”development”, sometimes it can denote quite mundane problems

�  Toyama (2): Development as negatively defined: not interested in the ” the well-being of the relatively rich and powerful” �  1) Far away from common sense meaning of development �  2) Studies of making advantaged groups more happy/stimulate

economic growth are conceivable – but very seldom published �  it is largely true for ICT4D! (it is the 4)

The relationship between PD and Development resarch - history �  NJMF; DUE; DEMOS; PD did not start with the weak

but with a stakeholder on the rise �  PD has dealt with the marginalised at least since the

80’ies �  Participation in this region is not new

�  The Ahmedabad project (Rice, 1958) �  PRA (Participatory rural approach) �  PAR (Participatory Action Research) �  The reaction: Participation: the new tyranny? (Cooke &

Kothari, 2001) �  The relationship has been studied before: Dearden &

Ritzi (2008); Ho et al (2009); Toyama (2010); Zander (2011)

Similarities (Toyama) � Methodological Overlap & techniques in

common � Qualitative work is respected � ”deep understanding” acknowledged � Design & Iterative prototyping

Interesting relationships between PD and DR � HCI4D – an established field?

�  No established conference?

�  Interpreted as a subfield of HCI and ICT4D, not development research (Winthers & Toyoma)

Similarities and ”deep” relationships � Capacity building (Dearden, 2008)

�  Main research theme in development research and practice

�  Collective Ressource Approach can be read similarly � The roles of national unions, local unions and

researchers �  HCI as ”needs-based” HCI – In developing

countries, people’s needs are addressed to less extent (Toyama, 2010)

Techniques in common � Dearden & Rizvi (2009) – overviews of

techniques �  modelling �  walking �  Workshops

�  (Example: Chambers, 2002 as a handbook for running workshops generally)

Participation and hidden agendas? �  Vigilant debate in development resarch

about ”participation: the new tyranny”? �  Example: Is participation typically co-opted?

�  Quasi-participation �  Tool for elite? �  This can be found in PD too; but DR has a rich

literature �  The long-term perspective on participation:

Luther and reformation? (Henkel & Stirrat, 2001)

ICT4D conflicts �  Toyama: HCI is criticized for generally

demonstrating happy users with benefits, but not development (increased literacy, GNI, etc.) �  For PD: Stop when the alternative is formulated? �  The difference in profession

�  Practicality vs. Technical dazzle �  Surprisingly, action research is not so common �  Route to scale �  ” HCI comprises a unique, complete theory of

problem solving” (Toyama, 2010) �  With a relatively high degree of methodological

and philosophical rigour

Difference in Scale and Scope �  Scope:

�  PD: Open with regards to aims, researcher tool �  Participatory development: Reached widespread

adoption �  participation is often a practitioner tool, not resulting in

research �  The first issue is the difference in scale and scope

between participatory design and participatory development. �  Example: Kecataman Development Project �  85 Billion USD over last decade (Mansuri, World Bank,

2013) �  Mass adoption by professionals is a fact �  Participatory design (of content): Wikipedia

Research Method or double method? � My interpretation of PD:

�  Inspired by Argyris (1985); no absolute tool division between researchers and professionals

�  Not true for all fields; Compare with e.g. Conversation analysis

�  In Development research �  Mainly a practitioner tool �  It is atypical to see use of PRA methods that

are later reported to research community

The issue of Control and ”outsourcing” �  Claim: It is standard practice within PD to be in firm

control of each step that generates data �  This is not so in e.g. Participatory Rural Appraisal (see

e.g. Narayanasamy, 2009) �  Example: Persona Admin workshop �  Local organiser tend to lead to decreased

procedural control �  Interpreter facilitation favours ”methodological

minimalism” �  Turbulence favours ”methodological minimalism” �  This calls for decreased focus on PROCEDURE

�  Alternative: Checklists? �  Points of orientation?

Towards universal participation. �  Cockton on ”domain tourism”

�  What can ICT4D bring back? �  Other cultures of participation?

�  Nussbaum (2000, chapter 1): Universal values �  Islam: Quran dictates deliberation �  Zulu: Chief needed to convince counsellers �  Hinduism & Buddhism: Deliberative institutions since 400 B.C. �  Those institutions have their own shortcomings �  My argument: We can learn about new forms of

participation through development research – or design praxis as a striving towards participation

�  Context still matters

Literature References (in no particular order) Zander, P.-O., Georgsen, M., & Nyvang, T. (2011). Scandinavian Participatory Design - Beyond Design, Beyond Scandinavia. Presented at the The Joint Nordic conference for the Nordic Development Research Associations, Copenhagen. Retrieved from http://fau.dk/httpdocs/NC/Abstracts_and_papers/Papers/W9_paper_Zander_Georgsen_Nyvang.pdf Le Dantec, C. A., & Edwards, W. K. (2008). Designs on dignity: perceptions of technology among the homeless (p. 627). ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1357054.1357155 Willis, K. (2005). Theories and practices of development. London ; New York, NY: Routledge. Qvortrup, L. (1989). The Nordictelecottages: Community teleservice centres for rural regions. Telecommunications Policy, 13(1), 59–68. Patra, R., Pal, J., & Nedevschi, S. (2009). State of the union: where have we reached and where are we headed. In ICTD’09. Piscataway. Toyama, K. (2010). Human–Computer Interaction and Global Development. Foundations and Trends® in Human–Computer Interaction, 4(1), 1–79. doi:10.1561/1100000021 Dearden, A., & Rizvi, H. (2008). Participatory IT design and participatory development: a comparative review. In Proceedings of the Tenth Anniversary Conference on Participatory Design 2008 (pp. 81–91). Indianapolis, IN, USA: Indiana University. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1795234.1795246 Henkel, H., Stirrat, R., Cooke, B., & Kothari, U. (n.d.). Participation as spiritual duty: Empowerment as secular subjection. In Participation: The new tyranny. Norfolk: Zed Books. Barron, P. (2011). Contesting development: participatory projects and local conflict dynamics in Indonesia. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Congratulations ICT4D! � ”One of the great strengths of both the

HCI and ICT4D communities is their capacity for reflection and self-critique.” (Toyama (MS research India), 2010, p. 23)