CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 31Design Education and PracticeInnovative Human-Technology InteractionInnovative Approaches in Technology and Social Development

Design multiple: How different configurations of participation matter in design practice

Open access
Fischer, Björn, Östlund, Britt, Peine, Alexander·2021·Design Studies
DOI 10.1016/j.destud.2021.101016
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This article critically interrogates how participation is practiced during the design process. We present the findings of three different configurations of participatory design workshops, each involving a different stakeholder group (age researchers, care experts and older adults). Building on insights from Science and Technology Studies (STS), we reveal how, in design practice, different configurations of participation enact and materialize multiple versions of ageing. To refer to this ontological layer of design processes, we introduce the concept “design multiple”. Our study adds to current debates on the practices of participatory design and STS, as it shows how different configurations multiply enact objects into several material realities. We raise awareness on the practices of configuring participatory design, and their ontological consequences

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.destud.2021.101016

Cites

89 of 90 references verified0 citation errors · 1 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Researchers and designers use the term PD to signify different understandings of power and empowerment, different levels of politics in the design process, different groups of people, different methods, different goals of participation, and different amounts and configurations of participation.

    “Researchers and designers use the term PD to signify different understandings of power and empowerment, different levels of politics in the design process, different groups of people, different methods, different goals of participation, and different amounts and configurations of participation”

    From An introduction to radical participatory design: decolonising participatory design processes (2022) · cites this paper as Fischer, Östlund & Peine 2021

    The Abstract describes varied participatory-design methods and stakeholders, while section 2 discusses configurations of participation and underlying power dynamics. Section 4.2 also acknowledges different degrees of participation. The copy does not establish the full claim that researchers and designers use the term PD to signify different levels of politics or different goals of participation (page numbers unavailable). (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • There is no shared definition of what participatory design (PD) is.

    “This confusion stems from no shared definition of what PD is.”

    From An introduction to radical participatory design: decolonising participatory design processes (2022) · cites this paper as Fischer, Östlund & Peine 2021

    The Abstract gives a general account of participatory design, and section 7 says its practice can take different forms. Neither passage says that the field lacks a shared definition. A search for definition and consensus found no passage addressing that point. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 92 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Bjerknes, G., Ehn, P., & Kyng, M. (Eds.). (1987). Computers and democracy: A scandinavian challenge. Aldershot, UK: Avebury.
  2. Greenbaum, J., & Kyng, M. (Eds.). (1991). Design at work: Cooperative design of computer systems. Hillsdale, NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  3. Mol, A., Moser, I., & Pols, J. (Eds.). (2010). Care in practice on tinkering in clinics, homes and farms. Bielefeld, Germany: Transcript Verlag.
  4. Simonsen, J., & Robertson, T. (Eds.). (2013). Routledge international handbook of participatory design. London, UK: Routledge.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Fischer, B., Östlund, B., & Peine, A.
Affiliations
  • KTH Royal Institute of Technology (SE)
  • Utrecht University (NL)
Corresponding author
Fischer, Björn
ORCID
Venue
Design Studies
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-05
Volume
74
Pages
101016
ISSN
0142-694X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.destud.2021.101016
OpenAlex
W3158560032
Cited by
31
References
92
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 1
FWCI
1.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Design Studies (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DSpace (Open University in the Netherlands) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Forskningsrådet om Hälsa, Arbetsliv och Välfärd (2017\u201302301, 02301)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Design Education and Practice
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Innovative Approaches in Technology and Social Development
Keywords
participatory design, aging, older adults, stakeholder engagement, materiality, ontology of design, science and technology studies, design practice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review