Participatory design and "democratizing innovation"
Abstract
Participatory design has become increasingly engaged in public spheres and everyday life and is no longer solely concerned with the workplace. This is not only a shift from work oriented productive activities to leisure and pleasurable engagements, but also a new milieu for production and innovation and entails a reorientation from "democracy at work" to "democratic innovation". What democratic innovation entails is currently defined by management and innovation research, which claims that innovation has been democratized through easy access to production tools and lead-users as the new experts driving innovation. We sketch an alternative "democratizing innovation" practice more in line with the original visions of participatory design based on our experience of running Malmö Living Labs - an open innovation milieu where new constellations, issues and ideas evolve from bottom-up long-term collaborations amongst diverse stakeholders. Two cases and controversial matters of concern are discussed. The fruitfulness of the concepts "Things" (as opposed to objects), "infrastructuring" (as opposed to projects) and "agonistic public spaces" (as opposed to consensual decision-making) are explored in relation to participatory innovation practices and democracy.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Recently, the political interests in PD have been revitalized: there is an increasing interest in enabling and supporting PD in various everyday life contexts that are seen as complexly intermingled with power and political issues.
“Recently, the political interests in PD have been revitalized: there is an increasing interest in enabling and supporting PD in various everyday life contexts that are seen as complexly intermingled with power and political issues (e.g., Björgvinsson et al., 2010; Le Dantec and DiSalvo, 2013; Simonsen and Robertson, 2013).”
From Educational Participatory Design in the Crossroads of Histories and Practices – Aiming for Digital Transformation in Language Pedagogy (2023) · cites this paper as Björgvinsson et al., 2010
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 29 · Cited by 709
- Authors
- Björgvinsson, E., Ehn, P., & Hillgren, P.-A.
- Affiliations
- Malmö University (SE)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 11th Biennial Participatory Design Conference
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2010-11-29
- Pages
- 41-50
- OpenAlex
- W1995072497
- Cited by
- 709
- References
- 29
- Citations by year
- 2026: 44 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 52 · 2022: 72 · 2021: 64 · 2020: 50 · 2019: 68 · 2018: 68 · 2017: 48 · 2016: 41 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 45 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 18
- FWCI
- 84.98
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Participatory Design Conference (publishedVersion)
- Malmö University Publications (Malmö University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- VINNOVA
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Innovative Approaches in Technology and Social Development
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Source Software Innovations
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Innovation, Technology, and Society
- Keywords
- participatory design, democratic innovation, open innovation, bottom-up collaboration, stakeholder collaboration, things, infrastructuring, lead users, public sphere
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