Design Research Society DRS Digital Library DRS Biennial Conference Series DRS2002 - Common Ground Sep 5th, 12:00 AM Dialogue in participatory design R. Luck School of Construction Management, University of Reading, UK Follow this and additional works at: https://dl.designresearchsociety.org/drs-conference-papers Citation Luck, R. (2002) Dialogue in participatory design, in Durling, D. and Shackleton, J. (eds.), Common Ground - DRS International Conference 2002, 5-7 September, London, United Kingdom. https://dl.designresearchsociety.org/drs-conference-papers/drs2002/researchpapers/52 This Research Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Conference Proceedings at DRS Digital Library. It has been accepted for inclusion in DRS Biennial Conference Series by an authorized administrator of DRS Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Dialogue in participatory design R. Luck School of Construction Management, University of Reading, UK Abstract The study of participatory design has been an active research field for several decades (Cross 1971; Sanoff 1973) an acknowledgement that direct involvement in the design and decision making of physical environments has a positive influence and that there is continued value, new insight and knowledge from its investigation. During this time there has been a maturation of the subject and subtle shifts in the field: recognising participatory design as a process with many approaches and techniques, rather than a particular research method and the flexibility of participatory methodologies. Sanoff's (2000) continued involvement and development of the field have shown that participatory design techniques can be used for different scales of project, different units for analysis, to design and develop communities as well as individual buildings. Sanoff's (1988) extensive research in this area stems from the methodological concept of action research (Lewin 1946) which integrates theory and practice. In this way the diversity of views expressed by people during the design decision-making process can influence the final outcome of a project. The democratic principle underpinning participatory design is demonstrated through the involvement of different users during design dialogues and their potential equal contribution to the design outcomes. The egalitarian, non-discriminatory principles of participatory design are common with an 'inclusive' approach for the design of environments: which should not discriminate on accessibility. This paper will draw on interview data gathered during conversations between an architect and the users of a future building to comment on the language used during the design dialogues and its effect on a participatory design process. Durling D. & Shackleton J. (Eds.) Common Ground : Design Research Society International Conference 2002, UK. ISBN 1-904133-11-8 1 Dialogue in participatory design Introduction This paper draws on current research using data gathered from interviews to comment on the dialogue between the architect and building user early in the design process and how user needs and preferences can be part of that process. These data are used to illustrate some of the themes that emerge from the architect-user conversations that are part of the briefing process and questions whether participatory design approaches have potential to enrich the dialogue and the exchange of information between the architect and building user. Participatory design research, originating in 1960s, has evolved progressively, expanding beyond the design of a single building to the design of communities; the dwellings as well as engaging the people of the community in the process. In this way participatory design is more than a collection of design methods to influence the built form, it also has a human dimension and can engage the people who form the community in the process. The participatory design approaches are considered to reflect design as a social process, illustrating that the sphere of the design activity extends beyond the designer. As part of a participatory design workshop the people who attend are part of the social process of design and play an active part in the issue/problem raising, discussion and decision making processes that are part of the early design stage of a project. The people who are commonly known as the 'users' are active participants in the design process and the boundary between 'designer' and 'user' becomes blurred. This has similarities with Hill's (1998) research that recognises that a building user's presence in a space will change the properties of that space; making their own alterations, decoration and through the act of occupation they change the space. He acknowledges that through occupation the user is designing space. This position challenges the finality of the design process as well as the role of the 'architect'. He explores this concept further; playing with the legal definition of an architect, he introduces an 'illegal architect' into the picture, a non-architect designing space. Returning to Professor Sanoff's work, his position as a frontrunner in participatory design (PD) is recognised (Teymur 2002) because of his continued application and refinement of PD methods. He clearly grounds the methodological basis for participatory design in the action research methods of Lewin, (1946) where the engagement of the test participants (I'm consciously avoiding the term test subjects as the approach belongs to the interpretive, not functionalist paradigm) allows new knowledge to be created. The process is iterative and knowledge and understanding emerge as a consequence of the verbal exchange of ideas, the social process that is critical during the early concept, pre-briefing stages of design. There are two main reasons for considering the application of Sanoff's PD methods to a current project; firstly because the study focuses on the iterative, verbal exchange of design ideas and secondly, digging deeper, because of the underpinning philosophy of PD. Sanoff's work clearly articulates that PD methods form part of the broad democratic philosophy of participation of people in decision-making processes, politics etc. This aspect is of particular interest to the project described as it parallels the principles of participation advocated by disability theorists (Finkelstein 1993) that people with disabilities should be in an empowered consultative position in more aspects of their lives, the design of environments being a key area of concern. The social model of disability view, that environments disable people and that some consultative processes are placatory not emancipatory (Imrie 1999) are part of this argument and discussed within (Luck 2000). Durling D. & Shackleton J. (Eds.) Common Ground : Design Research Society International Conference 2002, UK. ISBN 1-904133-11-8 2 The project briefing and data collection process The project described within this paper uses interview data gathered from people with a range of disabilities to illustrate the themes discussed and the range of ideas exchanged verbally during the early design stage. The project is a multi-functional building at the University of Reading, being designed following inclusive design principles, where the accessibility, use and experience of the building should not be influenced by a persons' abilities. The project is described more fully within Luck et. al. (2001) and the method for gathering interview data based on (Taylor 1999). The interviews were conducted with future building users as part of the briefing process, to develop a written project brief and to understand their user's wants, needs and expectations from the building. The number of people interviewed was small, just six. Amongst this user group people with a range of disabilities; two people with hearing impairments, one person with mobility impairment, a wheelchair user and a visually impaired person were interviewed. Two others, with no impairments, were also interviewed as they interact with a range of people with disabilities. The design of the briefing process was considered in detail; the aide memoire prompts used to gather user need information, the structure to the decision-making process for filtering process the ideas generated from the interview consultation process and how these would be taken forward within the written brief. The briefing process had distinct stages and the findings from one stage feed into the next. The stages were; semi-structured interviews - for gathering data, the feasibility study - producing a document with the views of all the people consulted (there were conflicting ideas and suggestions within this document) using this in the third Steering Committee stage - to discuss which ideas would be taken forward when preparing the written brief. Documenting the process meant that a decision could be reviewed and revisited at a later stage. In this way the briefing procedures reflected an iterative decision-making process (as occurred in reality) rather than a post-hoc, smooth sequential process. The method used for the briefing design stage has been discussed in more detail within (Luck, Haenlein et al. 2001). Other advantages of this approach were that the briefing process was informed by the needs of actual building users rather than generalisations from a non-representative group and that the architect wasn't designing on behalf of people with needs beyond their own experience. This fits with the emancipatory, participatory