CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 564Innovative Approaches in Technology and Social DevelopmentInnovative Human-Technology InteractionInformation Systems Theories and Implementation

Infrastructuring and the formation of publics in participatory design

Dantec, Christopher A Le, DiSalvo, Carl·2013·Social Studies of Science
DOI 10.1177/0306312712471581
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Of late, there has been a renewed and reinvigorated exchange of ideas across science and technology studies and participatory design, emerging from a shared interest in ‘publics’. In this article, we explore the role of participatory design in constituting publics, drawing together recent scholarship in both science and technology studies and participatory design. To frame our discussion, we present two case studies of community-based participatory design as empirical examples. From these examples and the literature, we discuss the ways in which the concepts of infrastructuring and attachments are central to the constitution of publics. Finally, through an analysis of our case studies, we consider the differences between the practices of enabling participation and infrastructuring, calling attention to the ways that constituting publics foregrounds an engagement with authority structures and unknown futures through the participatory design process.

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 · 10.1177/0306312712471581

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 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?

  • 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 Le Dantec and DiSalvo, 2013

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

Research works printed but not linked: 51

  1. Balka E (2006) Inside the belly of the beast: The challenges and successes of a reformist par- ticipatory agenda. In: PDC '06: Proceedings of the ninth conference on participatory design, Trento, Italy, 1-5 August 2006. New York: ACM Press, pp. 134-143.
  2. Beck EE (2002) P for political: Participation is not enough. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 14(1): 77-92.
  3. Björgvinsson E, Ehn P and Hillgren PA (2010) Participatory design and 'democratizing innova- tion'. In: PDC '10: Proceedings of the 11th biennial participatory design conference, Sydney, Australia, 29 November-3 December 2010. New York: ACM Press, pp. 41-50.
  4. Borning A, Friedman B, Davis J and Lin P (2005) Informing public deliberation: Value sensitive design of indicators for a large-scale urban simulation. In: Proceedings of the 9th European conference on computer-supported cooperative work Paris, France, 18-22 September 2005. New York: Springer, pp. 449-468.
  5. Braun B and Whatmore SJ (eds) (2010) Political Matter: Technoscience, Democracy, and Public Life. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
  6. Calhoun C (ed.) (1993) Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  7. Callon M, Lascoumes P and Barthe Y (2009) Acting in an Uncertain World: An Essay on Techni- cal Democracy (trans. G Burchell). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  8. Carroll JM and Rosson MB (2007) Participatory design in community informatics. Design Studies 28(3): 243-261.
  9. Carstensen P, Schmidt K and Wiil UK (1999) Supporting shop floor intelligence: A CSCW approach to production planning and control in flexible manufacturing. In: GROUP '99: Pro- ceedings of the international ACM SIGGROUP conference on supporting group work, Phoe- nix, Arizon, 14-17 November 1999. New York: ACM Press, pp. 111-120.
  10. Davis J (2009) Early experiences with participatory design of ambient persuasive technology. In: CHI '09: Workshop on defining the role of HCI in the challenges of sustainability, Boston, Massachusetts, 4-9 April 2009. New York: ACM Press, pp. 119-128.
  11. Dewey J (1954 [1927]) The Public and Its Problems. Athens, OH: Swallow Press.
  12. DiSalvo C and Lukens J (2009) Towards a critical technological fluency: The confluence of specu- lative design and community technology programs. In: DAC '09: Proceedings of the 2009 digital and arts and culture conference, Irvine, California, 12-15 December 2009. Irvine: University of California Press, pp. 1-5.
  13. DiSalvo C, Clement A and Pipek V (2013) Communities: Participatory design for, with and by communities. In: Simonsen J and Roberston T (eds) Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design. New York: Routledge, pp. 182-209.
  14. DiSalvo C, Light A, Hirsch T, Le Dantec CA, Goodman L and Hill K (2010) HCI, communities and politics. In: CHI EA '10: Proceedings of the 28th of the international conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, Atlanta, Georgia, 10-15 April 2010. New York: ACM Press, pp. 3151-3154.
  15. DiSalvo C, Louw M, Coupland J and Steiner MA (2009) Local issues, local uses: Tools for robot- ics and sensing in community contexts. In: C&C '09: Proceeding of the seventh ACM confer- ence on creativity and cognition, Berkeley, California, 27-30 October 2009. New York: ACM Press, pp. 245-254.
  16. DiSalvo C, Nourbakhsh I, Holstius D, Akin A and Louw M (2008) The neighborhood networks project: A case study of critical engagement and creative expression through participatory design. In: PDC '08: Proceedings of the tenth conference on participatory design, Blooming- ton, Indiana, 30 September-4 October 2008. New York: ACM Press, pp. 41-50.
  17. Dryzek JS Goodin RE, Tucker A and Reber B (2009) Promethean elites encounter precautionary publics: The case of GM foods. Science Technology & Human Values 34(3): 263-288.
  18. Ehn P (2008) Participation in design things. In: PDC '08: Proceedings of the tenth conference on participatory design, Bloomington, Indiana, 30 September-4 October 2008. New York: ACM Press, pp. 92-101.
  19. Fraser N (1993) Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. In: Calhoun C (ed.) Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 109-142.
  20. Friedman B, Borning A, Davis JL, Gill BT, Kahn PH Jr, et al. (2008) Laying the foundations for public participation and value advocacy: Interaction design for a large scale urban simula- tion. In: Dg.o '08: Proceedings of the 2008 international conference on digital government research, Montreal, Canada, 18-21 May 2008. New York: ACM Press, pp. 305-314.
  21. Galloway A (2010) Locating media futures in the present, or how to map emergent associations and expectations. Aether: The Journal of Media Geography 5: 27-36.
  22. Habermas J (1991 [1962]) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  23. Hildebrandt M and Gutwirth S (2008) Public proof in courts and jury trials: Relevant for PTA citizens' juries? Science Technology & Human Values 33(5): 582-604.
  24. Hirsch EA (2008) Contestational design: Innovation for political activism. PhD Thesis, Massa- chusetts Institute of Technology, US. Available at: http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/46594
  25. Hirsch T, Sengers P, Blevis E, Beckwith R and Parikh T (2010) Making food, producing sustain- ability. In: CHI EA '10: Proceedings of the 28th international conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, Atlnta, Georgia, 10-15 April 2010. New York: ACM Press, pp. 3147-3150.
  26. Karasti H and Baker K (2004) Infrastructuring for the long-term: Ecological information manage- ment. In: Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 5-8 January 2004. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE, pp. 1-10
  27. Latour B (2004) Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  28. Latour B (2007) Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
  29. Latour B and Weibel P (eds) (2005) Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy. Cam- bridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  30. Le Dantec CA (2012) Participation and publics: Supporting community engagement. In: CHI '12: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM annual conference on human factors in computing systems, Austin, Texas, 5-10 May 2012. New York: ACM Press, pp. 1351-1360.
  31. Le Dantec CA and Edwards WK (2008a) Designs on dignity: Perceptions of technology among the homeless. In: CHI '08: Proceeding of the twenty-sixth annual SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Florence, Italy, 5-10 April 2008. New York: ACM Press, pp. 627-636.
  32. Le Dantec CA and Edwards WK (2008b) The view from the trenches: Organization, power, and technology at two nonprofit homeless outreach centers. In: CSCW '08: Proceedings of the ACM 2008 conference on computer supported cooperative work, San Diego, california, 8-12 November 2008. New York: ACM Press, pp. 589-598.
  33. Le Dantec CA, Christensen JE, Bailey M, Farrell RG, Ellis JB, et al. (2010) A tale of two publics: Democratizing design at the margins. In: DIS '10: Proceedings of the conference on designing interactive systems, Arhus, Denmark, 16-20 August 2010. New York: ACM Press, pp. 11-20.
  34. Le Dantec CA, Farrell RG, Christensen JE, Bailey M, Ellis JB, et al. (2011) Publics in prac- tice: Ubiquitous computing at a shelter for homeless mothers. In: CHI '11: Proceeding of the twenty-ninth annual SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 7-12 May 2011. New York: ACM Press, pp. 1687-1696.
  35. Lievrouw LA (2006) Oppositional and activist new media: Remediation, reconfiguration, par- ticipation. In: PDC '06: Proceedings of the ninth conference on participatory design, Trento, Italy, 1-5 August 2006. New York: ACM Press, pp. 115-124.
  36. Light A, Simpson G, Weaver L and Healey PGT (2009) Geezers, turbines, fantasy personas: Mak- ing the everyday into the future. In: C&C '09: Proceeding of the seventh ACM conference on creativity and cognition, Berkeley, California, 27-30 October 2009. New York: ACM Press, pp. 39-48.
  37. Luke R, Clement A, Terada R, Bortolussi D, Booth C, et al. (2004) The promise and perils of a participatory approach to developing an open source community learning network. In: PDC '04: Proceedings of the eighth conference on participatory design, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 27-31 July 2004. New York: ACM Press, pp. 11-19.
  38. Marres N (2007) The issues deserve more credit: Pragmatist contributions to the study of public involvement in controversy. Social Studies of Science 37(5): 759-780.
  39. Merkel CB, Xiao L, Farooq U, Ganoe CH, Lee R, et al. (2004) Participatory design in community computing contexts: Tales from the field. In: PDC '04: Proceedings of the eighth conference on participatory design, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 27-31 July 2004. New York: ACM Press, pp. 1-10.
  40. Saeed S, Rohde M and Wulf V (2009) Technologies within transnational social activist communi- ties: An ethnographic study of the European social forum. In: C&T '09: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on communities and technologies, University Park, Pennsyl- vania, 25-27 June 2009. New York: ACM Press, pp. 85-94.
  41. Sanders EBN (2005) Information, inspiration and co-creation. In: 6th international conference of the European Academy of Design, Bremen, Germany, 29-31 March 2005.
  42. Sanders EBN (2006) Design research in 2006. Design Research Quarterly 1: 1-8.
  43. Shapiro D (2005) Participatory design: The will to succeed. In: CC '05: Proceedings of the 4th decennial conference on critical computing, Arhus, Denmark, 20-24 August 2005. New York: ACM Press, pp. 29-38.
  44. Star SL and Bowker GC (2002) How to infrastructure. In: Lievrouw LA and Livingstone S (eds) The Handbook of New Media. London: SAGE, pp. 151-162.
  45. Suchman LA (2007) Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  46. Turner F (2006) From Counterculture to Cyberculture: Stewart Brand, the Whole Earth Network, and the Rise of Digital Utopianism. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  47. Twidale MB and Floyd I (2008) Infrastructures from the bottom-up and the top-down: Can they meet in the middle? In: PDC '08: Proceedings of the tenth anniversary conference on partici- patory design, Bloomington, Indiana, 30 September-4 October 2008. New York: ACM Press, pp. 238-241.
  48. Wilkie A and Michael M (2009) Expectation and mobilisation: Enacting future users. Science Technology & Human Values 34(4): 502-522.
  49. Wilkie A and Ward M (2009) Made in criticalland: Designing matters of concern. In: Networks of design: Proceedings of the 2008 annual international conference of the design history society, Cornwall, UK, 3-6 September 2008. Boca Raton, FL: Universal Publishers, pp. 118-123.
  50. Winner L (1980) Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus 109(1): 121-136.
  51. Carl DiSalvo is an Assistant Professor of Digital Media in the School of Literature, Media, and Communication at the Georgia Institute of Technology. His research draws together the humani- ties, science and technology studies, and design to increase public engagement with technology and analyze the social and political uses of design. He is the author of Adversarial Design (MIT Press, 2012).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dantec, C. A. L., & DiSalvo, C.
Affiliations
Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
ORCID
Venue
Social Studies of Science
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2013-02-26
Volume
43
Issue
2
Pages
241-264
ISSN
  • 0036-8539 (ISSN-L)
  • 0306-3127
  • 1460-3659
DOI
10.1177/0306312712471581
OpenAlex
W2099634487
Cited by
564
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 71 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 50 · 2021: 51 · 2020: 44 · 2019: 50 · 2018: 56 · 2017: 47 · 2016: 35 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 5
FWCI
59.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Social Studies of Science (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (0915624, 0741685)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Innovative Approaches in Technology and Social Development
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
Keywords
infrastructuring, publics, participatory design, attachment, authority structure, science and technology studies

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