Content uploaded by Paul Rodgers
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Paul Rodgers on Sep 03, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Exploring Respectful Design Directions for Indigenous Communities
Lizette Reitsma, Jane Wallace and Paul A.
Rodgers
Northumbria University, School of Design
City Campus East
Newcastle upon Tyne
NE1 8ST
UK
Abstract— Preserving the cultural heritage of indigenous
communities has gained increased interest in HCI. Since often
the initiative for such project comes from the researchers, the
question arises whether such projects are beneficial for the
communities. This paper describes the first part of a co-
reflective, design research case-study exploring design and
technology in relation to themes like indigenous identity and
cultural heritage. The project aims through guidelines for
respectful design to find an indigenous community to work
with and a design direction beneficial for them. Through an
initial visit to three indigenous communities in Malaysia,
introducing empathic probes, a Penan community was found
that was particularly interested in participating in the project.
Through a content data analysis, a design direction arose
aiming to explore technological design as a means to spark
conversations between younger and older community members
on what it means to be Penan.
Keywords-component; respectful design, indigenous
communities, indigenous identity, empathic design, co-reflective
design, initial visit
I. INTRODUCTION
This paper describes the foundation of a research project
currently undertaken. This design research project will focus
on designing for and with an indigenous community. The
project will explore themes such as indigenous identity and
cultural heritage preservation in relation to design and
technology. In projects such as these, the researcher often
decides on the community and the direction of the project.
The outcome is foremost meant to enrich academic
knowledge. The community often puts their time and effort
in the research but does not get anything in return that is
useful for them. Many indigenous communities had bad
experiences with research, and therefore see research for the
sake of research a waste of time [1]. We believe that this
should be done differently, with more respect for the
communities and the indigenous knowledge system they
relate to. It is for this reason that we became interested in the
respectful design approach, as introduced by Sheehan [2].
Respectful design, the way Sheehan describes it, is informed
by Indigenous Knowledge. Indigenous knowledge is a
layered understanding that includes different streams of
knowledge all interrelated to natural systems. Indigenous
Knowledge respect is about being humble: our perspective
on things is always incomplete and that we therefore should
show care and awareness when identifying, exploring and
assessing meaning. Respectful design informed by
indigenous knowledge, challenges the designer to think more
deeply, differently and connectively about design in order to
understand the designs position in the natural systems and
the social world with which it interacts. This is important in
order to create innovation that contributes positively to the
wellbeing of the whole. The designer needs to step inside the
indigenous culture and can not base the knowledge on
colonizing knowledge from outside.
Since the concept of respectful design does not state how
to start a respectful design approach, other than through
different forms of dialogue, literature was explored for other
approaches relevant to respectful design. This gave us
guidelines empathizing aspects to explore before starting a
design or research project. This exploration is done through
initial visits: before the project started, an initial visit was
undertaken to three different indigenous communities. The
guidelines helped us find a community that was truly
interested to participate. Together, we explored design
directions beneficiary for both the community and the
researcher. We see the approach, that we took on our quest to
start the design process from a respectful design perspective,
as valuable to start other projects as well. Section 2 describes
the literature background, Section 3 the initial visits. In
section 4 we discuss the approach taken as well as
observations from the initial visits. Section 5 is the
concluding section.
II. BACKGROUND
There are multiple examples of projects where the
indigenous communities on which the research is directed is
disrespected, colonized and merely serves as a research
subject [3]. This comes amongst others, from: 1- the research
being started from the perspective of the researcher without
exploring how the project could be beneficial for the
community - resulting in knowledge for knowledge sake [4].
Often when the researcher leaves, the community is left
without anything valuable from the research [5]. There has to
be sought for a balance between the benefit for the
community and for the researcher [6], 2- the lack of culture-
sensitive ways of doing research and empathy towards the
community [7], 3- research being done on an indigenous
community rather than with an indigenous community [4],
4- alternatives to academic knowledge are being seen as less
valuable [3, 8]. In order to take a more respectful approach,
we introduce the following attitudes:
1 - From researcher centered projects to benefit for both
community and researcher. Respectful design [2] states, that
research should be less researcher or designer focused.
Similarly, design anthropology aims towards less researcher
focused projects, in order to make the projects beneficial for
the community it is directed to [9]. Projects should start from
understanding what is really relevant for the community. To
reach this, dialogue between researcher and the community
is essential [2, 10]. When the research has ended, knowledge
should be shared with the community so that they can use it
for their benefit [8].
2 - Towards culture-sensitive and empathic ways of
doing research. Respectful design, takes indigenous
knowledge as a foundation to gain a deeper insight of the
whole context the design will interact with [2]. Through that
it has the ability to be relevant for the community. Similarly,
in design anthropology, cultural values serve as inspiration
for design and it aims through that for culture-based
innovation. Research is mainly a relationship building
process across a participatory field [2]. In this relationship
building process, empathy is essential. Empathy, as stated by
McDonagh [11], is “the ability to identify with other
people’s thoughts and feelings - their motivations, emotional
and mental models, values, priorities, preferences and inner
conflicts.’ Empathy is also essential for understanding what
is truly relevant for the community. Since the culture is
different to that of the researchers, a design approach has to
be taken that enables the researcher to get a deep
understanding about the unfamiliar culture. Through
Hummels’ transformative design process this is possible
[12]. It is a highly dynamic iterative design process that puts
equal weight to practical skills, knowledge and attitudes.
Through ideation, integration and realizing interaction
solutions between users in a context of use, the insights are
physicalized, resulting in a final solution. This process
invites much reflection and validation, helping the designer
to understand, to build and expand the design vision that can
grow and converge towards reality. This fits with what
Redström [13] calls the dialectic process of design research:
the outcome of experiments influences the program and
research question. This can already be implemented from the
start of the process in order to create a design direction
relevant for the community.
3 - Towards a participatory approach. Tomico [14-16]
introduced the co-reflective transformative design process.
This process is an adaptation of the transformative design
process of Hummels, as introduced before. The difference
between both is “the who”, who reflects on the process and
vision. While in the transformative design process only the
designer reflects on the activities undertaken, in the co-
reflective transformative design process, this reflecting is a
mutual exercise for both the designer and the participants.
This mutual exercise will help the designer create as Tomico
calls them: confronted design visions. We rather call them
informed design visions; since this term better reflects the
empathic approach we take. A co-reflective transformative
design process has as a foundation a two-way trust principle,
between designer and participants The researcher does not
direct the conversation, but allows the participant to add his
or her own input. This two-way trust principle allows for
more trustworthy information and meanwhile it steers
reflection into different directions [14, 15]. Co-reflection is
an empathic practice, since it requires both cognition and
affection in order to gain a deep understanding [17]. Not
only does a co-reflective tool help to reach empathy, but also
does it help the participants to become more aware of their
own motivations and desires in order to confront them with
the ideas that the designers have [16]. People are more
responsive if they are central to the indigenous knowledge
related design [18]. They will also have a stronger
commitment to those designs. The same applies to
technology: when it is created with the people, it is more
likely to be accepted [19]. The co-reflective process offers
the ability to make the user central to the design without the
designer loosing the flexibility, needed for design, as might
happen with other forms of participatory design.
4 - Towards an evidence base created by the community
Through the co-reflective transformative design process
taken, the design can be grounded with an evidence base
representing the people it is directed to, important for
respectful design [2]. In order to start the process of empathy
building, explore benefits for the community and to find a
design direction, empathy probes [20] can be used. Those
empathy probes have the ability to support creative thinking
to explore new perspectives, give insights into the private life
of people and through that, they have the ability to stimulate
empathy. These probes can also help to enhance dialogue.
[21] explores the use of design probes to study invisible
populations in marginal communities. Those empathy probes
are designed for users who cannot read nor write. Similar to
the project we propose, the probes function to support
communication between research and community to bridge a
communication gap. Westerlund [22] used probes to
establish a longer design collaboration.
III. INITIAL VISITS
The four approaches towards respectful design as found
in literature (e.g. 1- From researcher centered projects to
benefit for both community and researcher, 2- Towards
culture-sensitive and empathic ways of doing research, 3-
Towards a participatory approach and 4 - Towards an
evidence base created by the community) were translated
into four guidelines:
1. Explore, together with the communities,
different design research directions that could be
beneficial;
2. Start building empathic relationships;
3. Explore opportunities to start a co-reflective
design project within these communities;
4. Explore the possibilities of starting a
community-based project within one of the
indigenous communities.
Those guidelines were meant to guide the explorations
done during the initial visits on whether or not to start the
design research project in that community. The following
section describes these initial visits and how these led to a
direction for a design process.
A. Set-up initial visit.
Three different indigenous communities were chosen to
visit for the initial visits. Easy access and the possibility of
visiting multiple communities in one trip, made us choose
Sarawak, Borneo, Malaysia. The Universiti of Malaysia,
Sarawak (UNIMAS) provided access to three communities
in Sarawak they have been working with. The communities
each had a different cultural background. All of them were
indigenous and faced a problem of disappearing cultural
heritage. The younger part of these communities often left to
find work or education in the cities.
The methods used to explore the guidelines in relation to
each community had to be informal, playful and stand alone,
without the need for continuing research in order to make it
relevant for the particular community. People should not feel
urged to take part in the continuation of the process. The
methods needed to enable the communities to explore the
benefits for participating. The methods had to provide
flexibility to create a dynamic process adjustable to specific
situations and to the specific community. A set of empathy
probes was specially created for each community (see figure
1). Through introducing different probes, the process could
be directed in a suitable way. There was no fixed order for
introducing the probes; also did not all probes have to be
introduced in each community, nor did they have to be
introduced in the same way. The researcher also did bring
materials that could be used to create new probes. The
empathy probes that were used during these visits were
designed around one (or more) of the following themes: (1)
get to know each other (in order to start empathy building);
(2) perspective on preservation; (3) traditional modes of
transfer of oral histories; (4) the type of oral history relevant
to preserve for future generations. They were all designed to
enable communication that does not prioritize speech, by
relying on visual means of communication such as taking
photographs in order to develop a relationship with the
participants beyond a reliance on the translator. Other
activities undertaken to explore the themes were: taking part
in daily life activities of the community members and to
have a group discussion at the end of the stay to facilitate the
exploration of the guidelines in more depth. The researcher
stayed in each community for around 10 days, in order to
give sufficient time to explore the guidelines in relation to
the communities.
B. Experiences
This section describes the initial visits. After the initial
visits, the community was selected that corresponded best
with the guidelines and that was especially enthusiastic about
starting a community-based project together with the
researcher. This selection process took place in consultation
with all communities.
Community A: Community A is a Lun Bawang community,
existing out of nine different villages. Each village has one
or more community chiefs. Above those chiefs stands a
paramount chief. Community A has a hierarchical structure,
similar to community B. Approximately 1500 people life in
Community A. The community has a tele-center, providing
the community members with excess to Internet. This
community seems to be very aware of the benefits that the
virgin rainforest that surrounds the community offers. They
are very environment conscious, and apply organic rice
farming. Community A did not seem very enthusiastic about
a project regarding cultural heritage preservation. Even
though the community members were very friendly and
helpful to the researcher, the researcher had the idea that this
had more to do with pleasing the researcher than with a
genuine interest for the project. They did not see a need for
participating since a neighboring village already had a
cultural field school. To learn about their culture,
community members can visit the cultural field school. Also
was it difficult to work with groups in this community, what
according to the paramount chief was related to a changing
attitude in the community: people became more
individualistic and therefore there was no possibility to start
a community-based project. So, when looking at the
guidelines, only the guideline of start building empathic
relationships gave positive possibilities for starting a
respectful design project in this community, the other
guidelines scored negative: The community members did
not see a benefit for participating, there was no sign that a
co-reflective design project would work within this
community and a community-based project will not work
within this community, based on the comment of the
paramount chief.
Community B: Community B is a Kelabit community,
related to the Lun Bawang culture of Community A.
Community B is remotely located: it takes a one day walk
from the closest airport and a three day walk from
Community A to get there. The only mode of
communication with outside the community is a mobile
telephone connection. An elderly married couple hosted the
researcher: the woman was originally from the community
and her husband was Chinese. The Kelabit cultural as well as
the Lun Bawang culture have a strong hierarchical structure.
Traditionally there were three hierarchical layers: (1) the
nobles, (2) the middle class and (3) the slaves. Even though
these layers do not cause a division as strong as they used to,
and even though there are no slaves anymore, the nobles still
have most power. The lady who hosted the researcher is of
noble descent. She seemed to have an important say in what
happens in the community. The main difficulty faced during
this initial visit was that the researcher only met two
members of the community that hosted her. Once the
researcher met them, the researcher realized that she would
not be able to meet other community members before the
hosts agreed that it would be valuable for the rest of the
Figure 1. Set of Empathy Probes.
community to participate. If there would have been more
time, this would have been possible, but during this visit it
did not happen. This resulted in the researcher’s concern on
whether there was a possibility for respectful design within
this community, since the exploration of the guidelines was
now only based on two community members.
Community C: Community 2 is a Penan community. The
traditional Penan are nomadic people. Before settlement, the
Penan would life in and track through the rainforest, for
hunting and gathering food. They would move with their
food and would never stay long in one place. The people in
Community C descend from the nomadic Penan, but since
they have settled, their lives are different from those of the
traditional Penan. Most of the people inside Community C
are farmers, but they still depend on the forest for hunting
and collecting various forest products. Important in their
culture is: Oro. Oro is the mode of communication used by
the traditional nomadic Penan, to communicate between
different groups of nomads in the rainforest. Oro uses
materials from the rainforest to convey a message (e.g. a
combination of branches, twigs and leaves can tell
community members that someone from their community
passed by a few days ago and that they found food). On
arrival, the community members kept a distance towards the
researcher. This continued for a few days, but it changed
completely after a community meeting where a group
discussion was held on what the researcher was intending to
do. The entire community gave a positive vote for the
researcher to start the explorations. From that moment on the
community members acted very involved. People started to
mobilize other people who had more expertise on a certain
area (e.g. the illustrator and craftswomen). This appears to be
a good foundation for a community-based project. During
the conversations and the probe exercises, the community
itself came up with project directions they thought were
important. They came up with ways to communicate clearly
to the researcher what those directions involved. Due to this,
the project can be shaped in order to make it beneficial for
the community. People did not only come up with directions,
but also with ideas and concepts and possible materials. The
community members initiated all this. This pro-active
behavior could be very valuable in a co-reflective design
process. At the moment where the entire community decided
they could trust the researcher, people started opening up to
her: the empathy building process started.
Since Community C was most interested in the project
and since the guidelines all gave positive possibilities for
respectful design within this community, there was agreed
together with community C to continue the project in this
community.
C. Analysis and Outcome
In order to find a design research direction relevant to the
community, there was looked at the collected data. The
collected data existed out of the information that came from
the probes and from the notes made in the researchers
fieldwork diary. A content analysis was used in order to find
theoretical concepts that could function as possible design
research directions, related to the dialectical process of
Redström [13] and to an informed design vision in Tomico’s
co-reflective transformative design process [14]
This content analysis resulted in 5 main categories, all
with 2 to 4 sub-categories: (1) younger community members
and being Penan, (1.1) their connection to the rainforest, and
(1.2) their attitude towards technology; (2) elders and being
Penan, (2.1) their connection to the rainforest, (2.1.1) the
reasons for the disappearance of traditional knowledge,
(2.1.1.1) traditional modes of traditional knowledge transfer
and (2.2) their attitudes towards technology; (3.1) the process
of acceptance on a formal level and (3.2) the process of
acceptance on a informal level; (4.1) the potential for design
in this community - participation, (4.2) the potential for
design, ideas and (4.3) the potential for design, practicalities;
and (5.1) problems caused by the language barrier and (5.2)
methods for crossing the language barrier. These categories
were placed in a diagram (see fig. 2) and this diagram was
used to look at the relationships between the different
categories. The exercise of exploring the relationships
between the categories, resulted in a quantitative
understanding of the appearance of certain, relational (either
similar or different), code clusters within and between
different categories.
Similarities: The similarities within and between
different categories, that arose are displayed in diagram
x. The main themes were: (1) reflections on what it
means to be a proper Penan, (2) feelings of boredom of
the younger community members and shame to be a
Penan and (3) Oro is an important aspect of Penan life.
Differences: The exercises of exploring the
relationships between the categories, also resulted in an
understanding of the tensions between different
categories: (1) Connection to the rainforest - Elders vs.
Younger community members - Most elders were born
in the rainforest. They were taught how to survive
there. The younger community members, on the other
hand were born, either in the city, or in the community.
They did not have to learn how to survive in the
rainforest, since it is not their place; (2) Attitude
towards technology - Elders vs. Younger community
members - Younger community members use
technology as a means to be part of the “modern world”
(Facebook, modern music and mobile phones). The
elders have a very different attitude towards
technology. They see technology as an option to
Figure 2. Content analysis – finding relationships between codes.
strengthen the Penan identity for the outside world as
well as to make their younger community members feel
proud about being Penan and (3) Elders & Being Penan
vs. Younger community members & Being Penan. The
elders seem proud to be Penan. They value the
traditional Penan cultural things, such as Oro and the
traditional crafts. This is very different among the
younger community members: they often feel ashamed
to be Penan. This is because other cultures see the
Penan culture as backward and primitive.
D. Informed design vision.
There seemed to be a lot of emphasis on what is truly
Penan and what is not, especially from the side of the elders.
The younger members of the Penan community are ashamed
to be Penan. The elders do not understand this because they
see their culture as one to be proud of. This causes a tension
between both generations. According to the elders,
technology could be used to show that the Penan are
innovative, yet true to their cultural background. This
resulted in a respectful design direction aiming to explore the
use of technical design interventions to spark conversations
between older and younger Penan, on their identity. The
inspiration for those technical design interventions will come
from the Oro, since Oro seems to represent traditional Penan.
Oro serves as a messaging system to create a sense of
belonging to a community. It would be nice to explore the
tension between the different generations through a system
with similar community creating traits as Oro.
IV. DISCUSSION.
Hierarchical vs. Egalitarian community structures: A
clear difference could be noticed regarding the three
communities. Both Community A and B had a hierarchical
structure; the selected Community C had an egalitarian
structure. This made that in the two communities with a
hierarchical structure, it was difficult to engage with the
entire community. Instead, small groups of individuals
would serve as representations of the community. It would
be interesting to explore how respectful design could work in
communities with such strong power division, in a way that
still enables representing the entire community.
Informal Approach: In the egalitarian Community C, the
researcher was only allowed to start the exploration in the
community, after all the members had agreed on this. Being
accepted in this community took time, but once the
researcher was accepted, they trusted her and were really
into the project. Even though there was aimed to take an
informal approach, were the researcher would causally
explore the guidelines to make a decision on the
communities only after the initial visits, this was not possible
due to the acceptance process of Community C. Once they
decided to take part, they wanted to take part for the entire
project. The researcher could not leave without the guarantee
that the research would be started in that community. Even
though this was not the planned approach, the guidelines
showed positive possibilities within this community.
Therefore there was decided to select this community for the
respectful design project.
Relevance on Technological based projects: Technology
as now used for archiving cultural heritage is now often alien
to the indigenous communities it is directed to. The reason
for this is that it is created for a community rather than with a
community. Wakeford [19] states that the implementation of
technology will have more chance to be accepted
successfully, if it is developed together with the people it is
developed for. The technology often does not respect the
indigenous system it needs to fit into. It is therefore
important to take a respectful design approach when
introducing technology in an indigenous community.
Conversations on Technology: We were interested to
explore the communities’ stance on technology. Both
Community A and C had a telecentre. Community B did not
have a telecenter, but both community members used of
technology. What was interesting was that in the selected
community, the elders were the ones who saw value of
technology in relation to their culture. It is important to
explore those attitudes before starting a technology oriented
project in an indigenous community, because it might be that
implementing technology results in a tension between
tradition and technology. Or, as in our case, people embraced
technology as a means to interest younger generations to
learn more about the traditional culture. In this case we did
this exploration through group discussion and through the
probe exercises.
Co-reflective design process: The initial visits; analysis
and informed design vision form one iteration of the co-
reflective transformative design approach. It contained a
societal exploration alternated with ideation. The findings
from the exploration phases have been communicated back
to the communities in the shape of photo books. The
proposed design direction, for the selected community, will
be communicated back through a movie shared in the
community’s Facebook group.
Approach: The approach that has been described in this
paper, was informed by the literature concerning doing
research with indigenous communities which led to the
following guidelines that should be met positively, before
starting a project within an indigenous community: 1- to
explore, together with the communities, different design
Figure 3. Similarities – from content analysis.
research directions that could be beneficial, 2 - to start
building empathic relationships, 3 - to explore opportunities
to start a co-reflective design project within these
communities and 4- to explore the possibilities of starting a
community-based project within one of the indigenous
communities).
This approach can be taken before the start of projects
focusing on cultural heritage preservation. It will give the
possibility to explore how and whether such a project can be
of relevance to an indigenous community. Also can it inform
about the stance the community has on applying technology
for cultural heritage preservation.
Recommendations on Approach: Our recommendations
regarding taking the approach we took are the following: (1)
A visit of around 10 days gives enough time for explorations
and empathy building, (2) Create a flexible tool-kit with
empathy probes, from which useful probes concerning the
context can be taken and adjusted when necessary. In order
to create fitting probes, go through multiple design iterations.
Make sure that the probes are made with care and that they
contain reflections to the culture (e.g. a set specially made
for each culture, with the local language in order to show that
effort is put in it), (3) Be open to whatever happens. Don’t
force your ideas, (4) Communicate the research findings
back to the community in a way that enables the community
to use it and (5) Accept that the process of building an
empathic relation takes time.
V. CONCLUSIONS
This paper introduced an approach to start a respectful
design project in an indigenous group. Initial visits, were
introduced during which the guidelines, e.g. 1- to explore,
together with the communities, different design research
directions that could be beneficial, 2 - to start building
empathic relationships, 3 - to explore opportunities to start a
co-reflective design project within these communities and 4-
to explore the possibilities of starting a community-based
project within one of the indigenous communities, were
explored. The aim was to get an idea of the possibility of
starting a respectful design research project within each
community. Those guidelines came from literature relevant
to respectful design. By taking such an approach at the start
of the project, a project will have the ability to get a
respectful design foundation. Such an approach might be
relevant before starting other projects as well. We consider
this approach especially valuable in especially in projects as
sensitive as cultural heritage preservation projects.
REFERENCES
[1] CrazyBull, “A Native conservation about research and
Scholarship. ,” Tribal College: Journal of American Indian Higher
Education, vol. 9, no. 24, 1997.
[2] N. Sheehan, “Indigenous Knowledge and Respectful Design: An
Evidence-Based Approach,” Design Issues, pp. 1–13, Sep. 2011.
[3] L. T. Smith, Decolonizing methodologies. London: Zed Books, 1999.
[4] C. R. Menzies, “Reflections on Research with, for, and among
Indigenous Peoples.,” pp. 1–18, 2001.
[5] C. Geertz, Works and Lives: The Anthropologist as Author. Stanford:
Stanford University Press., 1988.
[6] A. Light, T. Wakeford, P. Egglestone, and J. Rogers, “Research on an
Equal Footing? A UK Collaborative Inquiry into Community and
Academic Knowledge,” pp. 1–9, Sep. 2011.
[7] E. Steinhauer, Canadian Journal of Native Education, vol. 26, no. 2,
pp. 69–81, 2002.
[8] R. P. LOUIS, “Can You Hear us Now? Voices from the Margin:
Using Indigenous Methodologies in Geographic Research,”
Geographical Research, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 130–139, Jun. 2007.
[9] E. Tunstall, “Design Anthropology, Indigenous Knowledge and the
Decolonization of Design,” presented at the Fabrica Workshops,
2011.
[10] A. Light, P. Egglestone, T. Wakeford, and J. Rogers, “Participant-
Making: bridging the gulf between community knowledge and
academic research,” The Journal of Community Informatics, vol. 7,
no. 3, 2011.
[11] D. McDonagh, “Empathic research approaches to support the
designer: a supra-qualitative research for designing model.,” Design
Issues, 2006.
[12] C. Hummels and J. Frens, “Designing for the unknown: A design
process for the future generation of highly interactive systems and
products,” Proceedings Conference on EPDE, pp. 204–209, Aug.
2008.
[13] J. Redström, “Some Notes on Programme-Experiment Dialectics,”
Nordes, vol. 0, no. 4, Mar. 2011.
[14] O. Tomico, “Co-reflection. User involvement aimed at societal
transformation,” Temes de disseny, no. 26, pp. 80–89, Jan. 2010.
[15] O. Tomico, J. W. Frens, and C. Overbeeke, “Co-reflection: user
involvement for highly dynamic design processes,” Proceedings of
the 27th international conference extended abstracts on Human
factors in computing systems, pp. 2695–2698, 2009.
[16] O. Tomico and I. Garcia, “Designers and Stakeholders Defining
Design Opportunities ‘In-Situ’ through Coreflection,” Participatory
Innovation Conference Proceedings. Sønderborg, Denmark, pp. 1–7,
2011.
[17] J. Yukawa, “Co-reflection in online learning: Collaborative critical
thinking as narrative,” Computer Supported Learning, vol. 1, no. 2,
pp. 203–228, Jun. 2006.
[18] “marsden1,” pp. 1–1, Jul. 2007.
[19] I. N. 2. W. I. O. Tom Wakeford, “Democratising Technology,” pp. 1–
40, Nov. 2004.
[20] T. Mattelmäki, “Probing for co-exploring,” Co-Design, vol. 4, no. 1,
pp. 65–78, 2008.
[21] A. JÚDICE and M. JÚDICE, “DESIGNING CULTURAL PROBES
TO STUDY‘ INVISIBLE’ COMMUNITIES IN BRAZIL.”
[22] B. Westerlund, S. Lindqvist, W. Mackay, and Y. Sundblad, “Co-
design methods for designing with and for families,” presented at the
Proceedings for the conference Good | Bad | Irrelevant , COST269:
User aspects of ICTs, 2003.
[23]
