参与式设计的评价:文献综述

Claus Bossen, Christian Dindler, O. Iversen
{"title":"参与式设计的评价:文献综述","authors":"Claus Bossen, Christian Dindler, O. Iversen","doi":"10.1145/2940299.2940303","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper focuses on evaluation in Participatory Design (PD), and especially upon how the central aims of mutual learning, empowerment, democracy and workplace quality have been assessed. We surveyed all Participatory Design Conference papers (1990-2014) and papers from special journal issues on PD, focusing on systematic, explicit evaluations. The survey resulted in 143 papers of which 66 were deemed relevant. Of these, 17 papers deal with evaluation of the above mentioned aims. Based on evaluation theory, we propose seven key questions through which to characterize evaluations in PD and analyze the 17 papers. Our analysis reveals that formal evaluations of PD's aims are rare; generally lack details on methods; are researcher- and not participant-led, and that a corpus of work around evaluations needs to be developed. We suggest more explicit, systematic evaluations of PD's central aims to enhance accountability, learning and knowledge building, and to strengthen PD internally and externally.","PeriodicalId":144019,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 14th Participatory Design Conference: Full papers - Volume 1","volume":"81 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"71","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation in participatory design: a literature survey\",\"authors\":\"Claus Bossen, Christian Dindler, O. Iversen\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/2940299.2940303\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper focuses on evaluation in Participatory Design (PD), and especially upon how the central aims of mutual learning, empowerment, democracy and workplace quality have been assessed. We surveyed all Participatory Design Conference papers (1990-2014) and papers from special journal issues on PD, focusing on systematic, explicit evaluations. The survey resulted in 143 papers of which 66 were deemed relevant. Of these, 17 papers deal with evaluation of the above mentioned aims. Based on evaluation theory, we propose seven key questions through which to characterize evaluations in PD and analyze the 17 papers. Our analysis reveals that formal evaluations of PD's aims are rare; generally lack details on methods; are researcher- and not participant-led, and that a corpus of work around evaluations needs to be developed. We suggest more explicit, systematic evaluations of PD's central aims to enhance accountability, learning and knowledge building, and to strengthen PD internally and externally.\",\"PeriodicalId\":144019,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the 14th Participatory Design Conference: Full papers - Volume 1\",\"volume\":\"81 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-08-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"71\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the 14th Participatory Design Conference: Full papers - Volume 1\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/2940299.2940303\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 14th Participatory Design Conference: Full papers - Volume 1","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2940299.2940303","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 71

摘要

本文侧重于参与式设计(PD)的评估,特别是如何评估相互学习、赋权、民主和工作场所质量的中心目标。我们调查了所有参与式设计会议(1990-2014)的论文和来自PD特刊的论文,重点是系统的、明确的评估。调查结果是143篇论文,其中66篇被认为是相关的。其中,17篇论文涉及上述目标的评价。基于评价理论,我们提出了七个关键问题,以此来表征PD中的评价,并对17篇论文进行了分析。我们的分析表明,对PD目标的正式评估很少;一般缺乏方法的细节;是由研究人员而不是参与者主导的,并且需要开发一个围绕评估的工作语料库。我们建议对PD的中心目标进行更明确、系统的评估,以加强问责制、学习和知识建设,并加强内部和外部PD。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluation in participatory design: a literature survey
This paper focuses on evaluation in Participatory Design (PD), and especially upon how the central aims of mutual learning, empowerment, democracy and workplace quality have been assessed. We surveyed all Participatory Design Conference papers (1990-2014) and papers from special journal issues on PD, focusing on systematic, explicit evaluations. The survey resulted in 143 papers of which 66 were deemed relevant. Of these, 17 papers deal with evaluation of the above mentioned aims. Based on evaluation theory, we propose seven key questions through which to characterize evaluations in PD and analyze the 17 papers. Our analysis reveals that formal evaluations of PD's aims are rare; generally lack details on methods; are researcher- and not participant-led, and that a corpus of work around evaluations needs to be developed. We suggest more explicit, systematic evaluations of PD's central aims to enhance accountability, learning and knowledge building, and to strengthen PD internally and externally.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信