Transforming society by transforming technology: the science and politics of participatory design

Peter M. Asaro
{"title":"Transforming society by transforming technology: the science and politics of participatory design","authors":"Peter M. Asaro","doi":"10.1016/S0959-8022(00)00004-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This article attempts to shed historical light on some of the social, political, and ethical issues that have arisen from two disparate perspectives on technology which have both come to integrate an explicit consideration of social factors into systems design. It presents two distinct historical traditions which have contributed to the current field of participatory design methodologies—<em>Joint Application Design</em> (JAD<sup>®</sup>), and the British “socio-technical systems” and Scandinavian “collective resources” approaches—and which in practice integrated the end-users in different ways consequent upon their differing perspectives on workers, professional relationships to technology, and stated goals. One interest in examining the independent development of methodologies from these two perspectives is that, despite their differences, the approaches ultimately converged on a set of shared concerns and very similar practices.</p><p>The paper also examines the relation of these traditions to transformations in the theorization of business organization and trends of corporate restructuring which helped to secure a place for variants of related methodologies in major US and multinational corporations. It concludes with an examination of some broader issues in the relationship between technology and society and the prospects for the critical study of technology. I argue that participatory design and its related methodologies are best understood as a model for involving users, designers <em>and the technology itself</em> in a process of technological development. Rather than seeing participatory design as merely the insertion of public dialog within technological design practices, as several observers have done, we should see it as a model for the critical practice of developing technological designs.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100011,"journal":{"name":"Accounting, Management and Information Technologies","volume":"10 4","pages":"Pages 257-290"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2000-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S0959-8022(00)00004-7","citationCount":"286","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounting, Management and Information Technologies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959802200000047","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 286

Abstract

This article attempts to shed historical light on some of the social, political, and ethical issues that have arisen from two disparate perspectives on technology which have both come to integrate an explicit consideration of social factors into systems design. It presents two distinct historical traditions which have contributed to the current field of participatory design methodologies—Joint Application Design (JAD®), and the British “socio-technical systems” and Scandinavian “collective resources” approaches—and which in practice integrated the end-users in different ways consequent upon their differing perspectives on workers, professional relationships to technology, and stated goals. One interest in examining the independent development of methodologies from these two perspectives is that, despite their differences, the approaches ultimately converged on a set of shared concerns and very similar practices.

The paper also examines the relation of these traditions to transformations in the theorization of business organization and trends of corporate restructuring which helped to secure a place for variants of related methodologies in major US and multinational corporations. It concludes with an examination of some broader issues in the relationship between technology and society and the prospects for the critical study of technology. I argue that participatory design and its related methodologies are best understood as a model for involving users, designers and the technology itself in a process of technological development. Rather than seeing participatory design as merely the insertion of public dialog within technological design practices, as several observers have done, we should see it as a model for the critical practice of developing technological designs.

通过改造技术改造社会:参与式设计的科学与政治
这篇文章试图从历史的角度阐明一些社会、政治和伦理问题,这些问题是从两种不同的技术角度产生的,这两种技术都将社会因素明确地考虑到系统设计中。它提出了两种截然不同的历史传统,它们对参与式设计方法的当前领域做出了贡献-联合应用设计(JAD®),以及英国的“社会技术系统”和斯堪的纳维亚的“集体资源”方法-并且在实践中以不同的方式整合了最终用户,这取决于他们对工人的不同看法,专业与技术的关系,以及既定目标。从这两个角度考察方法的独立开发的一个有趣之处在于,尽管它们存在差异,但这些方法最终汇聚在一组共同关注的问题和非常相似的实践上。本文还研究了这些传统与商业组织理论化和公司重组趋势的转变之间的关系,这有助于在美国和跨国公司中为相关方法的变体提供一席之地。最后对技术与社会关系中的一些更广泛的问题以及技术批判性研究的前景进行了考察。我认为,参与式设计及其相关方法最好被理解为一种在技术发展过程中涉及用户、设计师和技术本身的模型。与其像一些观察者所做的那样,仅仅将参与式设计视为技术设计实践中公共对话的插入,我们应该将其视为发展技术设计的关键实践的模型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信