User gains and PD aims: assessment from a participatory design project
Abstract
We present a study of user gains from their participation in a participatory design (PD) project at Danish primary schools. We explore user experiences and reported gains from the project in relation to the multiple aims of PD, based on a series of interviews with pupils, teachers, administrators, and consultants, conducted approximately three years after the end of the project. In particular, we reflect on how the PD initiatives were sustained after the project had ended. We propose that not only are ideas and initiatives disseminated directly within the organization, but also through networked relationships among people, stretching across organizations and project groups. Moreover, we demonstrate how users' gains related to their acting within these networks. These results suggest a heightened focus on the indirect and distributed channels through which the long-term impact of PD emerges.
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?
The questions we posed resemble the evaluation taxonomy proposed by Bossen et al. [8].
“To a large extend, the questions we posed resemble the evaluation taxonomy proposed by Bossen et al. [8].”
From Child as Protagonist (2017) · cites this paper as Bossen et al. [8]
Cites
Iversen, O. S., & Brodersen, C. (2008) · Cognition, Technology & Work · doi:10.1007/s10111-007-0064-1 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Iversen, O. S., Smith, R. C., & Dindler, C. (2017) · Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Interaction Design and Children · doi:10.1145/3078072.3079725 · Cited by 306 · see citing works
“These have surfaced recently in retrospective studies assessing what people gain from PD projects [7,8] and in frameworks suggesting how such outcomes might be evaluated [16].”
BackgroundSelf-citationTying Knots: Participatory Infrastructuring at Work
Bødker, S., Dindler, C., & Iversen, O. S. (2017) · Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) · doi:10.1007/s10606-017-9268-y · Cited by 210 · see citing works
“Some networks, as we know them, are indeed developed through PD processes (Bossen et al. 2010), but stakeholders also bring networks into the process from the beginning, and others may be brought on-board along the way.”
BackgroundSelf-citationHarrington, C. N., Borgos-Rodriguez, K., & Piper, A. M. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3290605.3300823 · Cited by 148 · see citing works
Evaluation in participatory design: a literature survey
Bossen, C., Dindler, C., & Iversen, O. S. (2016) · Proceedings of the 14th Participatory Design Conference: Full papers - Volume 1 · doi:10.1145/2940299.2940303 · Cited by 112 · see citing works
Self-citationMeiners, A.-L., Yildiz, Z., Gerling, K., Alexandrovsky, D., & Biernacka, K. (2026) · ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing · doi:10.1145/3814957
- Authors
- Bossen, C., Dindler, C., & Iversen, O. S.
- Affiliations
- Aarhus University (DK)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 11th Biennial Participatory Design Conference
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2010-11-29
- Pages
- 141-150
- OpenAlex
- W2017967790
- Cited by
- 105
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 2.20
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Participatory Design Conference (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Strategisk Forskningsrad (7/11/2128)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Innovative Approaches in Technology and Social Development
- Keywords
- participatory design, elementary school, user experience, knowledge dissemination, long-term effects, teachers, pupils, organizational change
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
