In pursuit of rigour and accountability in participatory design

The field of Participatory Design (PD) has greatly diversified and we see a broad spectrum of approaches and methodologies emerging. However, to foster its role in designing future interactive technologies, a discussion about accountability and rigour across this spectrum is needed. Rejecting the traditional, positivistic framework, we take inspiration from related fields such as Design Research and Action Research to develop interpretations of these concepts that are rooted in PD׳s own belief system. We argue that unlike in other fields, accountability and rigour are nuanced concepts that are delivered through debate, critique and reflection. A key prerequisite for having such debates is the availability of a language that allows designers, researchers and practitioners to construct solid arguments about the appropriateness of their stances, choices and judgements. To this end, we propose a “tool-to-think-with” that provides such a language by guiding designers, researchers and practitioners through a process of systematic reflection and critical analysis. The tool proposes four lenses to critically reflect on the nature of a PD effort: epistemology, values, stakeholders and outcomes. In a subsequent step, the coherence between the revealed features is analysed and shows whether they pull the project in the same direction or work against each other. Regardless of the flavour of PD, we argue that this coherence of features indicates the level of internal rigour of PD work and that the process of reflection and analysis provides the language to argue for it. We envision our tool to be useful at all stages of PD work: in the planning phase, as part of a reflective practice during the work, and as a means to construct knowledge and advance the field after the fact. We ground our theoretical discussions in a specific PD experience, the ECHOES project, to motivate the tool and to illustrate its workings

Goodbye to Projects? Working paper 1: Annotated bibliography on livelihood approaches and development interventions.

YesThis paper is one in a series of working papers prepared under a research project on Goodbye to Projects? The Institutional Impacts of a Livelihood Approach on Projects and Project Cycle Management. This is a collaborative project between the Bradford Centre for International Centre for Development (BCID) with the Economic and Policy Research Centre (EPRC), Uganda; Khanya ¿ managing rural change, South Africa; and, the Institute for Development Management (IDM), Tanzania. The project is supported by the UK Department for International Development (DFID) under their Economic and Social Research Programme (ESCOR).Department for International Developmen

Co-guarantor attributes: a systemic approach to evaluating expert support

The paper suggests features of a generic framework which can assist in highlighting good practice as well as revealing shortcomings in expert support for management decision-making. Following the earlier writings of Habermas, I argue that expertise might be identified and considered as a set of �co-guarantor attributes� based upon knowledge constitutive interests. Co-guarantor attributes can be used as a benchmark for evaluation, where affirmative features of expert support can be identified as well as the incidence of �false guarantor� attributes which might be significant in perpetuating costly and unsuccessful intervention

Doing Participatory Action Research as a Doctoral Student in the Peace and Conflict Studies Field

There is still little written about doing participatory action research (PAR) as a doctoral student. This paper provides a missing first-person account of doing a PAR Ph.D. in the Peace and Conflict Studies (PACS) field. Based on the author’s own experience of using PAR as part of his PACS doctoral degree this paper reflects on why he decided to use PAR in his doctorate project and how he went about doing it. It further highlights some of the benefits (academic and non-academic) of doing a PAR Ph.D., as well as challenges faced and responses to them. Four key lessons learned are also offered with the hope that they will be helpful to others embarking on PAR. The paper also includes a discussion of the broader implications for those interested in doing PAR, as well as a call for more PAR in the PACS field, making the argument that it offers a powerful means for narrowing the oft-cited gap between peace research and peace action

Time to get real: the case for critical action research in purchasing and supply management

In fragile and often complex supply chains, PSM failures continue to be reported in the media, often with severe economic, social and environmental consequences. To encourage organisations to engage in responsible PSM, we need engaged research. In this paper we argue that Action Research (AR) is an influential, participative method to challenge the more dominant versions of PSM impacts, which tend to focus only on the positive, and often only monetised elements of what is valued. AR places change at the core of the research process, requiring critical reflexive practice of the impact of assumptions, values and actions on others. We argue that PSM research has more potential for influence if it starts from a ‘real’ problem anchored in practice, and that crucially, the problem itself should be challenged dialogically by scholars, practitioners and diverse stakeholders. Critical AR can reframe performance from a technical, company-centric notion to explore broader relationships between inputs and outputs over a longer time frame. We explore the risks and rewards of Critical AR for PSM scholars and draw conclusions on our role as engaged advocates of change

Poverty Eradication Dilemma: Understanding Poverty Dynamics in Nebbi District, Uganda

This paper addresses a current methodological gap in poverty measurement, which stems from acknowledging the multi-dimensionality of poverty, on the one hand, and using an income/consumption measurement of poverty as thenorm, on the other

Researching social policy

The 1990s saw a remarkable change in the rhetoric of international donor and lender agencies. The “magic of the market” paradigm of the previous decade gave way to a “balanced” strategy in which the state had a crucial role to play. The primacy of economic growth gave way to an emphasis on “poverty reduction”, with poverty being defined not simply in income terms but as a “multidimensional” construct, also covering low levels of education and health, vulnerability and powerlessness. To address this broad agenda, agencies turned to experts on “social development”, often providing a welcome boost to their own previously somewhat marginalised social development teams. This concern with social issues and social context lead to a greatly expanded demand for new methodologies and methods which could provide improved “knowledge” and “understanding” of social processes. A battery of “toolkits”, “manuals” and “sourcebooks” were produced, each of which promised not only to meet this demand but to do so quickly, efficiently and often in partnership with local people. This Working Paper reviews some of the main methodological approaches to emerge from this period, reflecting on both their ambitious objectives and somewhat more prosaic limitations

Brokering between heads and hearts: an analysis of designing for social change

This paper describes a fluid and responsive design process identified among certain practitioners involved in solving social problems or inspiring social change. Their practice is both user-centred and participative in its approach and addresses the shortcomings of many top-down initiatives. These people work tactically to weave together policy knowledge, funding opportunities, local initiative and ideas for improving social and environmental conditions, acting as connectors, activists and facilitators in different contexts at different times. Although their activities are recognisably related to more conventional designing practices, the materials they use in finding solutions are unusual in that they may include the beneficiaries themselves and other features of the social structure in which they are effecting change. We present an ethnographic study of practices in designing that focuses on social initiatives rather than the tangible products or systems that might support them. We explore the how design practices map to the process of winning local people's commitment to projects with a social flavour. To situate the discussion in a political context we draw on de Certeau’s distinction between strategic and tactical behaviour and look at how our informants occupy a space as mediators between groups with power and a sense of agency and those without. Keywords: Social Change; Ethnographic Action Research; Discourse Analysis; Designing In The Wild</p

Social entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial philanthropy: their contribution to a ‘what works’ system in the homelessness field

Historically it has not been only (or even primarily) governments that have sought to respond to the complex challenge of homelessness. From alms-houses for the elderly funded through religious charity, to large-scale social housing provided by philanthropists, to refuges for women who are escaping domestic violence provided by non-profit organisations, private actors have intervened in diverse ways. Over the last decades there has been a significant re-emergence of such private action for public benefit across multiple fields of social action. Examples of this re-emergence include a global increase in non-profit associations, growing numbers of philanthropic foundations, and the emergence of hybrid organisations such as social enterprises that combine social purpose with commercial activities (Salamon, 1994; Defourny and Nyssens, 2017; Johnson, 2018). These developing phenomena have complex origins, but a consistent theme is awareness of the limits of government and the market to resolve persistent social problems (such as poverty), or tackle new ones (such as climate change). This re-emergence has been characterised by a concurrent re-imagining of the function and approach of private action, including a sharpened focus on impact and evidence. This article explores two influential and interconnected examples of this reimagining of private action for public benefit – social entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial philanthropy – and reflects upon their potential contribution to an evidence-based system of innovation and intervention in the homelessness field. The paper first introduces the concept of social entrepreneurship, exploring its potential contribution to a what works system, and describes the role of entrepreneurial philanthropy in funding such approaches. It then makes tentative proposals about the specific functions of social entrepreneurship in the homelessness field. Please consult the original publication on the journal webpage. https://www.feantsaresearch.org/en/publications/european-journal-of-homelessness?journalYear=2021