Infrastructuring participatory development in information technology

ABSTRACT

In this paper we present our experience in building a socio-technical infrastructure for supporting social innovation in Information Technology. We start by describing a case study on the design and use of a smartphone application for the canteen services of a local university; based on this, we propose what we call the hourglass approach to support participatory design and development in Information Technology. The hourglass is defined by the intersection of two co-evolving dimensions of infrastructuring: the social and the technical ones. Different subsets of the community, characterized by the increasing involvement of self-selected volunteers, position themselves along the two axes and have different roles in the design and use of the generated artefact. We conclude by discussing how this approach can help addressing some of the current challenges (i.e. scale, milieu and responsibilities) of social innovation in Information Technology.

References

1. Barroso, J. M. D. (2011). Europe leading social innovation. Brussels: Speech, 11(190), 17. Last accessed on 24^th February 2014.
2. Benyon, D., Turner, P., & Turner, S. (2005). Designing interactive systems: People, activities, contexts, technologies. Pearson Education.
3. Björgvinsson, E., Ehn, P., & Hillgren, P. A. Participatory design and democratizing innovation. In Proc. PDC 2010 (pp. 41--50).
4. Bødker, S., Ehn, P., Sjögren, D., & Sundblad, Y. Cooperative Design---perspectives on 20 years with 'the Scandinavian IT Design Model'. In Proc. NordiCHI 2000 (Vol. 2000, pp. 22--24).
5. Bossen, C., Dindler, C., & Iversen, O. S. Impediments to user gains: Experiences from a critical participatory design project. In Proc. PDC 2012 (pp. 31--40).
6. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77--101.
7. Byrne, E., & Sahay, S. (2007). Participatory design for social development: a South African case study on community-based health information systems. Information Technology for Development, 13(1), 71--94.
8. Chesbrough, H. W. Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business Press. 2003
9. Clement, A., & Van den Besselaar, P. A retrospective look at PD projects. Communications of the ACM, 36(6), 29--37. 1993
10. Dalsgaard, P. Challenges of participation in large-scale public projects. In Proc. PDC 2010 (pp. 21--30)
11. Dörner, C., Hess, J., & Pipek, V. Fostering user-developer collaboration with infrastructure probes. In Proc. CHASE 2008 (pp. 45--48)
12. Ehn, P. Work-oriented design of computer artifacts (Vol. 78). Stockholm: Arbetslivscentrum. 1988.
13. Eriksson, M., Niitamo, V. P., & Kulkki, S. (2005). State-of-the-art in utilizing Living Labs approach to user-centric ICT innovation-a European approach. Lulea: Center for Distance-spanning Technology. Lulea University of Technology Sweden: Lulea.
14. Fischer, G., Giaccardi, E., Ye, Y., Sutcliffe, A. G., & Mehandjiev, N. Meta-design: a manifesto for end-user development. Communications of the ACM, 47(9), 33--37. 2004
15. Gaver, B., Dunne, T., & Pacenti, E. Design: cultural probes. Interactions, 6(1), 21--29. 1999.
16. Jégou, F. and Manzini, E. (eds). Collaborative Services: Social innovation and design for sustainability, Milano, Edizioni POLI. Design, 2008.
17. Kanstrup, A. M. A small matter of design: an analysis of end users as designers. In Proc. PDC 2012 (pp. 109--118).
18. Kensing, F., & Blomberg, J. (1998). Participatory design: Issues and concerns. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 7(3-4), 167--185.
19. Kleemann, F., Voß, G. G., & Rieder, K. Un (der) paid innovators: The commercial utilization of consumer work through crowdsourcing. Science, Technology & Innovation Studies, 4(1), PP-5. 2008.
20. Kyng, M. (2010). Bridging the Gap Between Politics and Techniques. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 22(1).
21. Latour, B. A collective of humans and nonhumans: following Daedalus's labyrinth. In Pandora's hope: Essays on the reality of science studies (pp. 174--215). 1999.
22. Latour, B. Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical inquiry, 30(2), 225--248. 2004.
23. Le Dantec, C. A., & DiSalvo, C. (2013). Infrastructuring and the formation of publics in participatory design. Social Studies of Science, 43(2), 241--264.
24. Lieberman, H., Paternò, F., Klann, M., & Wulf, V. End-user development: An emerging paradigm (pp. 1--8). Springer Netherlands. 2006
25. Manzini, E. Design research for sustainable social innovation. In Design research now (pp. 233--245) 2007.
26. Muller, M. J., Blomberg, J. L., Carter, K. A., Dykstra, E. A., Madsen, K. H., & Greenbaum, J. Participatory design in Britain and North America: responses to the "Scandinavian Challenge". In Proc. CHI 1991 (pp. 389--392)
27. Murray, R., Caulier-Grice, J., & Mulgan, G. The open book of social innovation. National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Art. 2010.
28. Namoun, A., Nestler, T., & De Angeli, A. Service composition for non-programmers: Prospects, problems, and design recommendations. In Proc. ECOWS 2010 (pp. 123--130)
29. Pipek, V., & Wulf, V. Infrastructuring: Toward an Integrated Perspective on the Design and Use of Information Technology. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 10(5). 2009.
30. Schön, D. A. The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action (Vol. 5126). Basic books. 1983
31. Surowiecki, J. The wisdom of crowds. Random House LLC. 2005.
32. Von Hippel, E. Democratizing innovation. MIT press. 2005..

Index Terms

• Human-centered computing