Paper short abstract:

Introducing Critical and Participatory Design as methodologies that conceptualise technology design as the development of socio-material assemblies, I reflect on how characteristics of both approaches can foster a more inclusive and reflective engagement with technology in the context of schools.

Paper long abstract:

This contribution introduces Critical and Participatory Design (CD/PD) as methodological approaches that follow the STS-rationale by understanding technology design as the development of socio-material assemblies (Bjögvinsson et al. 2012). Assuming that humans and non-humans co-constitute a design ‘object’ both approaches raise awareness that the values and practices conveyed by a technology highly depend on 'who' designed it and 'which context' it is embedded in.

In the educational sector, technology (EdTech) is frequently designed outside schools by non-pedagogical staff such as IT-specialists (Selwyn 2021). Consequently, research has shown that EdTech oftentimes reproduces the downsides of traditional teaching and introduces new risks for, e.g., democracy instead of revolutionising education (Reich 2020). To orient EdTech design more towards pedagogy and give school actors the opportunity to reflect on EdTech’s context-specific effects, the interest in applying co-design methods in the development and research of digital educational environments has increased.

Using CD and PD as analytical viewpoint, this contribution reflects on how characteristics of both can foster a more inclusive and reflective engagement with EdTech in school development. Illustrating empirical findings from a co-design process in two schools, I show how especially three institutionalised logics challenged a participatory and reflective approach: (1) the idea of school development as a set of sequential processes; (2) an understanding of digital and analogue as oppositions; (3) the conceptualisation of knowledge hierarchies between internal and external stakeholders. Concludingly, I reflect on how CD and PD can be rethought with regards to STS to be better applicable in educational institutions.

Paper short abstract:

My project is a methodological inquiry, exploring the multidisciplinary methods of community-based participatory research and a community-led co-design through a lens of disability design justice (Costanza-Chock, 2020), and the ethics of democratic process within digital government (Troon, 2024).

Paper long abstract:

I will conduct a methodological inquiry, exploring the multidisciplinary methods of community-based participatory research and community-led co-design through a lens of disability design justice (Costanza-Chock, 2020), and discussing the ethics of democratic process in a world-making through co-design research methodology. I will use reflexive autoethnographic analysis on a case study of co-design sessions led by OCAD to create digital accessibility standards and guidelines and its co-design format with blind and partially sighted participants. The normative assumptions and biases are often embedded in the design of technologies and infrastructure as well as in the process of design (Costanza-Chock, 2020), posing the question of whose knowledge, values, and experiences are imbricated in technology addressed for people with disabilities, and underlying power dynamics within the space of technology development. This analysis will be informed by the concept of disability dongle (Jackson, 2022), technoableism (Shew, 2023), and design justice (Costanza-Chock, 2020). Following this, my project explores the challenges and possibilities implicated in the process of disability co-design modalities and knowledge creation within the concept of digital government (Troon, 2024). In doing so, I will explicate why a co-design process that invites users’ opinions and input into the development of assistive technologies often fails to produce usable solutions and perpetuates the structural disposition towards normative discourses within the realm of inclusive digital governance. Following this, alternative models of co-design will be suggested using the principles of design justice participatory research and decolonializing research methodologies.

Paper short abstract:

With the inclusion of people affected by smart home technologies in their development process, co-design aims to promote a responsible distribution of burdens and benefits. This paper evaluates the potential of a co-design to be responsible and just, while presenting the challenges for it to happen.

Paper long abstract:

The inclusion of people affected by emergent smart home technologies (SHT) in their development process is believed to result in a more responsible and just distribution of burdens and benefits coming with the technology. Co-design has gained attention as one of such participatory methodologies aimed at including people as co-authors of their own sociotechnical systems. To explore participation’s potential to bring responsibility and justice to SHT research, we have run a co-design study with smart technology professionals, early-adopters, and late/non-adopters of SHT. This paper reflects on the final evaluative phase of the co-design, understanding how, if at all, this methodology would be able to deliver its promises.

The evaluation methods include feedback questionnaire forms and online semi-structured interviews. 21 questionnaire forms were filled by participants during the referred co-design study, out of which 14 agreed to take part in the subsequent series of one-on-one interviews. Insights derived by the feedback forms were elucidated with the thematic analysis of the interviews’ audio transcription.

The study’s contributions include, but are not limited to, proposing that (i) responsibility and justice are not inherent to co-design, but rather positionalities to be openly debated, prioritized, and updated during a co-design process; the understanding that (ii) researchers are not able to guarantee empowerment through engagement, but they can provide participants the infrastructures for it; and finally, we reflect on (iii) good practices of responsible and just co-design by comparing participants’ evaluation on our co-design methods with previous participatory SHT studies.

Paper short abstract:

The increase in natural disasters stresses the need for robust risk management. Integrating community-based approaches (CBAs) alongside traditional methods is vital for reducing disaster risk. This study clarifies key CBA elements and tools and propose a framework for effective community engagement.

Paper long abstract:

In 2022, the world witnessed a staggering 387 natural disasters, resulting in the loss of 30,704 lives and causing economic damages amounting to EUR 52.3 billion. These statistics underscore the need for effective disaster risk management strategies in the face of escalating climate-related extremes. While traditional top-down approaches have been commonly employed, there is growing recognition of the importance of integrating bottom-up community-based approaches (CBAs) to ensure the inclusivity and sustainability of disaster risk reduction efforts.

Although CBAs for disaster risk reduction (DRR) have been extensively studied, there's still uncertainty about their essential elements and the most effective tools for community integration into DRR policy cycles. This study delves into the complexities of CBAs and seeks to shed light on the essential elements defining such approaches, as well as the most effective tools for community engagement. We conducted a thorough literature review using Web of Science, identifying 74 papers for detailed analysis. Employing deductive content analysis, we distilled key insights from these papers.

Our findings highlight the myriad ways in which communities can participate in shaping DRR strategies. While diverse tools exist for community inclusion in DRR, no single tool emerges as superior; rather, the efficacy of tools depends on contextual factors. To provide clarity amidst this diversity, we propose a conceptual framework comprising four dimensions: Drivers, Local Context, Community Agency, and Participatory Processes. This framework serves as a blueprint for real-world CBAs, empowering policymakers, researchers, and practitioners to navigate the complexities of community engagement in disaster risk management effectively.

Paper short abstract:

We present a participatory project that develops a serious game with stakeholders. We will reflect on our experiences with the opportunities and challenges of inclusive research design focusing on the identification of stakeholders, but also on their involvement in the research process.

Paper long abstract:

This submission concerns a project that focuses on the participatory development of a serious game with and for stakeholders. The project focuses on future water conflicts in Germany and explores such futures through a scenario analysis, involving stakeholders in the process. In collaboration, we collected data for the model and determined which details to include, which already, which has already led to insights for those involved. One central new aspect of this project (in addition to other) is the translation of the underlying scenario method (Cross-impact balance) into a serious game. The aim is to provide stakeholders and all other players of this serious game with a tool to explore and discuss different futures and to demonstrate how even small actions can interact. In the game, participants have different choices (e.g. policies), which can be changed for every round.

We will reflect on our experiences with the opportunities and challenges of inclusive research design. Here focusing on the identification of stakeholders, but also on their involvement in the project and research process.

To ensure effective time management there will only be a short introduction to this project without going into too much detail. This is because during the discussion (using the remaining time) we want to explore the points of interest for the audience about our project, upon which we can go into more detail. To allow for more interaction with the audience, this presentation will be no longer than 10 minutes and could be shortened.