Content uploaded by Giacomo Poderi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Giacomo Poderi on Aug 28, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Participatory Design and Sustainability–a literature review of
PDC Proceedings
Giacomo Poderi
IT University of Copenhagen
Copenhagen, Denmark
gipo@itu.dk
Yvonne Dittrich
IT University of Copenhagen
Copenhagen, Denmark
ydi@itu.dk
ABSTRACT
This exploratory paper examines the relationship between Par-
ticipatory Design (PD) and Sustainability as it emerges from the
Participatory Design Conference (PDC). The reinvigorated political
agenda of PD, together with the enlargements of its application
domains and scopes of interest, calls for reinvigorating the early
concerns of the eld for long-term, durable, and positive change.
The objective of this paper is to explore what “sustainability” means
in and for the eld. The study is based on a literature review of the
PDC Proceedings and it provides both an outline of the structural
aspects of the literature and a mapping of three use patterns of
the concept: PD for Sustainability;Sustainability of PD Practice; and
Sustainability of PD Results. Based on our interpretation of these
patterns we also provide a general denition of sustainability. We
believe the ndings of this paper can support PD scholars in con-
ceptualizing sustainability and to position their works in relation
to it.
CCS CONCEPTS
•Human-centered computing →Participatory design;
KEYWORDS
Sustainability, literature review, PDC proceedings
ACM Reference Format:
Giacomo Poderi and Yvonne Dittrich. 2018. Participatory Design and Sustainability–
a literature review of PDC Proceedings. In PDC ’18: Proceedings of the 15th
Participatory Design Conference - Volume 2, August 20–24, 2018, Hasselt and
Genk, Belgium. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 5 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/
3210604.3210624
1 INTRODUCTION
Since more than a decade, Participatory Design (PD) enlarged and
diversied its main focus of interests to encompass contexts that go
beyond, for instance, IT design for work practices, and that cover
aspects, such as commons, living labs and publics, only to name
a few [
2
,
27
,
28
]. This results in farther reaching implications for
both the people involved in processes of socio-technical change
and their contexts; and it brings back to the forefront the concern
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or
classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed
for prot or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation
on the rst page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the
author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or
republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specic permission
and/or a fee. Request permissions from permissions@acm.org.
PDC ’18, August 20–24, 2018, Hasselt and Genk, Belgium
©2018 Copyright held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed to ACM.
ACM ISBN 978-1-4503-5574-2/18/08. . . $15.00
https://doi.org/10.1145/3210604.3210624
for long-term, durable, and positive change that characterized PD
since its early years.
The durability of PD projects outcomes has always been con-
sidered an important challenge to be addressed for the diusion
of PD eld itself. Indeed, the lack to achieve such durability is a
major barrier for having concrete inuence on society, beyond the
sphere of a research and experimental practice [
11
,
32
]. Various
scholars engaged with the tangled theoretical, ethical and practical
relationship between PD and long-term implications or durability
of interventions. For instance, for Bødker [
3
] the value of a PD
intervention is primarily about empowering participants and their
contexts, so that such empowerment will be meaningful also after
the PD project ends. Similarly, Kensing and colleagues [
25
] held
sustainability a grounding principle to allow IT systems to integrate
more seamlessly into existing work practices. Others emphasized
the relevance and challenges to explore PD practices in contexts
that are not (any more) dened by a researcher, and to look at these
challenges also from a perspective of sustainability [
15
]. However,
for far too long, the topic of sustainability has been subsumed un-
der the one of mutual learning. As a consequence, the challenges
linked to sustainability were considered resolved therein [
24
]. Only
recently PD scholars started devoting specic attention to the topic,
and the eld witnessed an increasing number of articles dealing
with it.
Considering the emergence of a specic interest on sustainability
as a means to revamp a founding concern in PD, this exploratory
paper aims to provide an initial mapping of how sustainability is
conceptually understood and treated by scholars in this eld. The
following general questions guided the work: what do PD scholars
mean or refer to when talking about sustainability (or being sustain-
able)?How does their focus on sustainability relate to their lines of
inquiry or intervention? Since PD comprises a variety of princi-
ples and practices that are adopted for dierent specic objectives,
across a wide spectrum of possible application domains [
33
], we
wanted the meaning(s) of “sustainability” to emerge from its actual
use in research, rather than, for instance, evaluating how sustain-
ability is practiced or achieved, based on a preconceived denitions
of what “sustainability” is or should be
1
. Following these objectives,
we grounded our work on the literature review of the most pres-
tigious, oldest, and highly-ranked conference of the eld, namely
the biennial Participatory Design Conference (PDC).
This paper is structured as follows. In the next section, we clarify
the methodology we adopted for the literature review and sum-
marize the main outcomes of the search. In Section 3, we outline
1
As a clarication, it is not intention of this work to say anything about the quality of
the published works that have been reviewed, but it is rather an attempt to describe
the dierent ways of using the concept.
PDC ’18, August 20–24, 2018, Hasselt and Genk, Belgium G. Poderi and Y. Dirich
Table 1: Distribution of publications by type and year
2002 2010 2012 2014 2016 TOT
Full [8] [5, 21] [12] 4
Short [26]
[
13
,
17
]
[
7
,
18
,
19
,
23
,
30, 34]
[
1
,
9
,
20]
12
Other [29] [4, 14]
[
16
,
22
]
5
TOT 1 4 3 8 5 21
the descriptive results of the review, which considered some of the
logical and structural aspects of the articles. Section 4 presents the
three main clusters that we identied from the literature - PD for
Sustainability;Sustainability of PD Practice; and Sustainability of
PD Results. In the last section, we highlight the crosscutting aspects
among these areas and provide a general denition of sustainability.
2 METHODOLOGY
In this section, we present our research methodology and material.
With the research question, which we presented above, in mind,
we ran a literature search through Scopus. We focused on the “ACM
International Conference Proceeding” series, and limited the search
to the PDC Proceedings. As the search string, we used “sustain*” in
order to cover also relevant publications that used various conju-
gations of the term, such as sustainable, sustained, and sustaining.
We searched in any of the Title,Abstract, and Keywords elds. In
addition, we complemented this search with a manual scanning of
pdcproceedings.org to cover those conference editions which were
not indexed by Scopus under the ACM series.
The search returned 21 items, out of the 693 publications of
various type that build up the corpus of PDC’s 14 editions. All
the items that we found, except one, belong to the four latest edi-
tions of the conference: 2002 (1), 2010 (4), 2012 (3), 2014 (8), 2016
(5). As shown in Table 1, the set includes full research papers (4),
short exploratory papers (12), and other types of submission (5), i.e.
workshops, exhibitions, and posters. We included all items in the
analysis.
Initially, the rst author skimmed through the papers and built
a simple spreadsheet, which was shared between the two authors.
The following questions were used to identify relevant information
in each article and to populate the spreadsheet: how does sustain-
ability link to the paper objectives? How is “sustainability” dened?
What is the specic target of sustainability, in the paper? This rst
step was useful to obtain the initial descriptive ndings that we
present in the next section, and to guide a more detailed reading of
the papers. In the following step, we reviewed and discussed the
elements of the spreadsheet in an iterative and inductive manner.
The purpose was to nd commonalities or points of convergence
among papers. The result of this process is the grouping we describe
in Section 4.
In the next section, we summarize the initial ‘descriptive’ nd-
ings, which concerned the logical and structural aspects of the
articles, as they emerged from the three aforementioned questions.
3 LITERATURE SEARCH RESULTS
3.1 Sustainability and PD objectives
Half of the papers relate to the concept of sustainability as a central
aspect of their objectives. That is to say that they explicitly bring
“sustainability” in the formulation of the papers’ objectives. Such
as in the following example.
Objectives of the paper are: i) to clarify how Participa-
tory Design could support the sustainability and eec-
tiveness of an alternative, ii) to present an experimen-
tation with renewable energy as CPR as an alternative
model to the actual vision of the energy system. [9]
The other half of the papers sample is more varied and is split
between papers where sustainability is a contextual trait of the
objectives or papers where it is either irrelevant or impossible to
judge it. This was mainly due to the lack of explicit objectives in
the papers. However, at a general level, it is possible to notice that
“sustainability”, in relation to the paper objectives, is treated in the
majority of cases as a desired outcome. In other cases, it is treated
as a contextual domain, a challenge to be solved, or an inherent
characteristic of the method or tools used.
3.2 Dening “sustainability”
Quite surprisingly, the concept of sustainability is treated by PD
scholars as given for granted or unquestioned. Only one paper
includes a denition of the concept – understood as an explicit
explanation, supported by references – which is used to place the
paper’s contribution in the specic area of sustainable design:
Blevis’ (2007, p. 503) denition frames sustainable de-
sign as an act of choosing among or informing choices of
future ways of being. Many sustainable design projects
aim to realise future ways of being through generative
participation. [23]
Eight papers provided one or more references (evenly distributed
between PD and sustainability sciences elds), but did not clarify
the concept in the paper. The 12 remaining articles did neither
dene the concept nor referenced supporting literature. They used
an implicit understanding of the concept in line with ‘the ability to
continue or be continued for a long time’
2
. In short, the intentional,
connotative denition of the concept, which species the neces-
sary and sucient conditions of realizing sustainability, is never
addressed.
3.3 The objects of sustainability
In the reviewed papers, the most diverse entities are targeted or
associated with “sustainability”: from IT systems to communities,
from social innovation to participation, from energy use to e-health,
from design to product development, from human living to global
environmental challenges. No clear prevalent object emerged as
catalyst of the concern on sustainability.
As mentioned in the previous section, by taking stock of these
rst ndings, we grouped the articles under the following three
broad areas: PD for Sustainability (PD4S); Sustainability of PD
Practice (SPDP); Sustainability of PD Results (SPDR). As shown in
2
Common denition taken from the Oxford Dictionary: https://www.
oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/
Participatory Design and Sustainability PDC ’18, August 20–24, 2018, Hasselt and Genk, Belgium
Table 2: Grouping of reviewed literature
PD4S [7, 9, 12–14, 16, 23]
SPDP [1, 4, 5, 8, 17, 20, 21, 34]
SPDR [4, 9, 18–20, 22, 23, 26, 29, 30, 34]
Table 2, the areas are not mutually exclusive and one article can
be found in more than one. For instance,[
9
] is placed both in PD4S
and SPDR: despite being clearly positioned within the problem
areas of sustainability sciences (i.e. energy eciency/behavior),
its core contribution rests on the implications for the long-term
sustainability of the community process, which derives from the
use of a PD approach to enable the process itself.
In the next section, we will discuss these three groups in more
depth, referring to additional research where suitable.
4 EMERGING USE PATTERNS FOR
“SUSTAINABILITY”
4.1 PD for Sustainability
Seven articles fall in this area. In these, PD scholars focus and reect
on how PD can contribute to the areas or topics that are dened by
the various elds of sustainability sciences, broadly understood
3
[
10
,
31
]. Rather than reecting on the theories, methods or challenges
of PD itself, the literature clustered here targets the diverse range
of disciplines that are usually addressed as sustainability sciences –
from sustainable development and sustainable design, to sustainable
living, from environmental science and energy sustainability to
sustainable transports – and it uses PD as a method or approach to
tackle specic challenges of those elds.
The common thread linking PD as contributor to these elds
rests on the core nature of the problems tackled by sustainability
sciences. These are deeply characterized by the need to recong-
ure, realign and renegotiate diverging and heterogeneous interests
in many application domains and at several levels of scale. PD
is perceived as well-equipped with a suitable set of techniques,
methodologies and approaches to address such problems. For in-
stance, Buhmann lays out dierent possible areas where PD can
contribute to transnational rule-making for global sustainability
[
7
]. Here, there is both a need for increasing trust in the process
and for improving the legitimacy of rule-making outputs. The prin-
ciples and approaches of PD can help to foster more transparent
and inclusive IT tools. On another level, technologies for energy
sustainability lack a proper balance between the theory driven
approaches, which often support and drive persuasive technolo-
gies, and more nuanced understanding of people situated needs
and habits. Davis suggests PD as a means to create more ethical
and acceptable persuasive technologies and investigates possible
methods [12].
Furthermore, Huybrechts and colleagues show that PD can also
contribute with concrete methodologies to sustainable design [
23
].
3
None of these works positions itself under the label of sustainability sciences. However,
they all explicitly refer to main (sub)elds or emerging problem areas that can be easily
found in sustainability sciences literature.
Here, the issue of generativity is addressed through the “make-and-
tell” method that is grounded on PD method.
Finally, it is also worth noticing that in a typical PD fashion,
the strength and challenges of PD contributing to sustainability
sciences were addressed through workshops. They engaged dier-
ent scholars and practitioners to come together and address design
challenges e.g. around the topic of sustainable urban planning [
16
]
and PD and ICT for Development [14].
4.2 Sustainability of PD Practice
This area covers eight papers that focus on the reasons and ap-
proaches for addressing the sustainability of PD practice. We refer
here to PD practice as the set of methods, theoretical underpin-
nings and approaches that are actively and intentionally adopted
in concrete, situated contexts.
The rationale behind these papers’ interests has mainly a prag-
matic connotation. Indeed, a PD intervention that has a prolonged,
committed participation of all actors (designers included) through-
out its duration can provide more valuable results. For instance,
in their retrospective analysis of the impact of a past PD project
on a group of participants, Bossen and colleagues understood par-
ticipants’ frustration coming from the conclusion of such project.
As participants are crucial to PD, there is both the practical stake
of avoiding to disappoint them, and the ethical challenge about
satisfying participants’ expectations to be met [
5
]. The pragmatic
value of sustaining PD practice during and after the time frame of
PD projects is reiterated in [
21
] and [
17
], respectively. In the former,
Hertzum and Simonsen propose a method for IT development to
improve the sustainability of the process, and thus solving the chal-
lenge of ensuring valuable end-users feedback in all stages of IT
design and development. The method vouches for a more ecient
participatory process by shifting the focus of attention from system
specications to the eects to be achieved by users through sys-
tem adoption. Ultimately, this also makes the system development
process able to encompass design-in-use. This latter characteristic
is also relevant in other contexts. For instance, when aiming at
sustaining PD practice in dicult cases of urban design, where
participation of marginalized groups is challenging, yet needed. In
[
1
], an infrastructuring process promoting appropriation through
design-in-use of public spaces is suggested as an approach to make
PD interventions more durable even in these dicult contexts.
However, there are also articles that reect on the theoretical
or conceptual aspects that characterize the relationship between
sustainability and PD practice. On one hand Bossen and colleagues
engaged PD scholars in a workshop for reecting on the links
existing among evaluation, sustainability and long-term impacts
and their value for PD. The workshop was driven by the intent to
consolidate awareness and engagement in the community about
fundamental aspects of the practice [
4
]. At another level, Haskel
and Graham provide their perspective on the sustainability of PD
practice by building on their experience with the study of Free
and Open Source Software (FOSS). By focusing on the concept of
infrastructuring they stress how the traits of extensibility, tailorabil-
ity, and maintainability, which are typical of FOSS, well t current
approaches in PD and how synergies among these could greatly
improve the sustainability of PD practice [20].
PDC ’18, August 20–24, 2018, Hasselt and Genk, Belgium G. Poderi and Y. Dirich
4.3 Sustainability of PD Results
This area includes eleven publications that have sustainability as a
fundamental trait of PD intervention outcomes. As a clarication,
we point out that here we found a similar rich diversity about
what counts as a PD result that is described in [
6
]. Indeed, granted
that all articles here are concerned with the achievement of long-
lasting impacts or durable outcomes through PD, they work to
obtain as dierent outcomes as the formation of new consortia
and communities [
18
,
19
] or the strengthening of existing ones
[
9
,
30
], the development of complex IT [
29
] and the consolidation
of participatorily developed processes or practices4[22, 26].
More than in the previous two areas, here it is possible to iden-
tify a set of recurring themes that cross-cut most of the articles:
sense of ownership, mutual learning, and the emergence of skills
or expertise are all considered interrelated, practical implications
of the use of PD that are useful to achieve a sustainable outcome.
In short, by means of involvement in the actual making of, for in-
stance, organizational change or IT design, people develop a sense
of attachment, commitment and empathy – sense of ownership –
towards the success and consolidation of their endeavors. Similarly,
mutual learning emerges when actors are encouraged to bring their
perspectives, needs, and expectations into the participatory process
and confront them with the ones raised by other stakeholders. The
same process can also facilitate the emergence of skills and expertise.
Indeed, by opening up spaces for realignment of responsibilities,
activities and new objectives, participants tend to put into use a
series of skills or expertise that are often neglected in their daily
context or work. All these aspects, resulting from the adoption of
PD approaches, contribute to the creation of a more sustainable
outcome.
Finally, several papers refer to infrastructuring, design-in-use
and end-users development as conceptual frame to improve the
sustainability of the outcome by means of PD.
5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Relevant aspects have emerged from this exploratory work, which
set out to provide a preliminary inquiry of the relationship between
PD and sustainability, broadly understood.
At a general level, although PD scholars address the topic with
the whole range of PDC publication types, from full research papers
to workshop proposals, the theme is treated mainly at the level
of exploratory research; and, as it emerged from the review, the
topic has a role that is central for the paper objectives only for
half of the articles, while it is contextual for most of the remaining
ones. Furthermore, the pervasive lack of a concrete, explicit, and
operational connotation of what “sustainability” means is a relevant
nding of this paper.
We did not expect PD scholars to dene the boundaries of such a
complex and multi-faceted concept, whose meaning and denition
are also debated within the boundaries of sustainability sciences.
However, we consider benecial and valuable that those who en-
gage with the topic do lay out their explicit denition and inter-
pretation of sustainability. This would make easier, for instance, to
position the relationship of the topic with the various principles,
approaches and methods in PD; to perform retrospective analyses
4The targeted practices here are other than PD ones.
of PD interventions that target sustainability; or to compare dif-
ferent interpretations of the concept that can emerge among the
many application domains of PD.
At a substantial level, three distinct, yet potentially overlapping,
use patterns of the concept seem to emerge. These may be indicative
of emerging areas of interest for PD scholars: (1) PD as the method
or approach, which can be used to meet the challenges set forward
by other elds (PD4S); (2) the second area is characterized by the
concern of making the work-in-practice of participatory design-
ers more sustainable (SPDP); and (3) the last group is concerned
with the achievement of sustainable outcomes that can be obtained
thanks to PD (SPDR).
Finally, at a conceptual level, a few constructs stood out more
than others. Infrastructuring, understood as the process of aligning
of social, technical, cultural elements for a given purpose, is used
in several articles to conceptualize both the sustainability of PD
practice and PD outcomes. Similarly, design-in-use and EUD con-
ceptualize the means to empower people to evolve parts of their
technical infrastructure by means of tailoring and customization
and to nurture their sense of ownership towards such infrastructure.
Taken together, these concepts allow us to square the circle and
to abstract our reading of the literature review results further: in-
frastructuring the conditions for design-in-use and/or of end-users
development can foster sense of ownership, mutual learning and
the emergence of latent skills and, therefore, support sustainabil-
ity. Therefore, we propose to dene sustainability as the durability
of alignments among the social and technical dimensions of PD
processes, or PD outcomes, independently from and/or after the
involvement and active intervention of an external participatory
designer or researcher. As such, this broad denition can ideally
support PD in any of the three identied areas.
Given the scope of this exploratory paper, it is important to
highlight some of its limitations. First, the results presented here
primarily reect a reading at the structural and formal levels of the
papers. They do not say much at the substantive level related to,
for instance, theories and methodologies used for understanding
and tackling sustainability. Second, relying exclusively on PDC
proceedings could provide a distorted picture of the eld, because
PD scholars also target other conference venues or journals. Further
research is needed to mitigate these limitations. More importantly, it
is needed to understand how sustainability ts conceptually among
the various theoretical and methodological underpinnings of PD
and how it can be concretely studied, tackled, and assessed.
Regardless of these limitations, we believe that the ndings of
this exploratory paper can support PD scholars in conceptualizing
sustainability and in positioning their works in relation to it.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work is supported by the EU/H2020-MSCA-IF-2016 funding
programme, under Grant n.: 749353.
REFERENCES
[1]
Karl Baumann, Benjamin Stokes, François Bar, and Ben Caldwell. 2016. Design-
ing in "Constellations": Sustaining Participatory Design for Neighborhoods. In
Proceedings of the 14th Participatory Design Conference: Short Papers, Interactive
Exhibitions, Workshops - Volume 2 (PDC ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 5–8.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2948076.2948083
Participatory Design and Sustainability PDC ’18, August 20–24, 2018, Hasselt and Genk, Belgium
[2]
Erling Björgvinsson, Pelle Ehn, and Per-Anders Hillgren. 2012. Design things and
design thinking: Contemporary participatory design challenges. Design Issues
28, 3 (2012), 101–116. http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/DESI_
a_00165
[3]
Susanne Bødker. 1996. Creating Conditions for Participation: Conicts and
Resources in Systems Development. Human-Computer Interaction 11, 3 (1996),
215–236. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci1103_2
[4]
Claus Bossen, Christian Dindler, Julia Garde, and Volkmar Pipek. 2014. Evalu-
ation, Sustainability and Long-term Eects of Participatory Design Projects.
In Proceedings of the 13th Participatory Design Conference: Short Papers, In-
dustry Cases, Workshop Descriptions, Doctoral Consortium Papers, and Keynote
Abstracts - Volume 2 (PDC ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 219–220. https:
//doi.org/10.1145/2662155.2662210
[5]
Claus Bossen, Christian Dindler, and Ole Sejer Iversen. 2010. User Gains and PD
Aims: Assessment from a Participatory Design Project. In Proceedings of the 11th
Biennial Participatory Design Conference (PDC ’10). ACM, New York, NY, USA,
141–150. https://doi.org/10.1145/1900441.1900461
[6]
Tone Bratteteig and Ina Wagner. 2016. What is a Participatory Design Result?. In
Proceedings of the 14th Participatory Design Conference: Full Papers - Volume 1 (PDC
’16). ACM, New York, N Y, USA, 141–150. https://doi.org/10.1145/2940299.2940316
[7]
Karin Buhmann. 2014. Enhancing Collaborative Rule-making on Global Sus-
tainability Concerns Through Participatory Design: A Research Agenda Based
Empirically on United Nations Developments on Business Conduct. In Proceedings
of the 13th Participatory Design Conference: Short Papers, Industry Cases, Workshop
Descriptions, Doctoral Consortium Papers, and Keynote Abstracts - Volume 2 (PDC
’14). ACM, New York, N Y, USA, 63–66. https://doi.org/10.1145/2662155.2662178
[8]
Moniker Buscher, Dan Shapiro, Alexander Voss, Mark Hartswood, Rob Procter,
Roger Slack, Alex Voss, and Preben Mogensen. 2002. Promises, premises and
risks: sharing responsibilities, working up trust and sustaining commitment
in participatory design projects. In PDC 2002: 7th Biennial Participatory Design
Conference. Malmo, Sweden, 183–192. http://cpsr.org/issues/pd/pdc2002/
[9]
Andrea Capaccioli, Giacomo Poderi, Mela Bettega, and Vincenzo D’Andrea. 2016.
Participatory Infrastructuring of Community Energy. In Proceedings of the 14th
Participatory Design Conference: Short Papers, Interactive Exhibitions, Workshops -
Volume 2 (PDC ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 9–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/
2948076.2948089
[10]
William C. Clark and Nancy M. Dickson. 2003. Sustainability science: the emerg-
ing research program. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences 100, 14
(2003), 8059–8061.
[11]
Andrew Clement and Peter Van den Besselaar. 1993. A retrospective look at PD
projects. Commun. ACM 36, 4 (1993), 29–37.
[12]
Janet Davis. 2012. Early Experiences with Participation in Persuasive Technology
Design. In Proceedings of the 12th Participatory Design Conference: Research Papers
- Volume 1 (PDC ’12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 119–128. https://doi.org/10.
1145/2347635.2347653
[13]
Holger Dick, Hal Eden, Gerhard Fischer, and Jason Zietz. 2012. Empowering
Users to Become Designers: Using Meta-design Environments to Enable and
Motivate Sustainable Energy Decisions. In Proceedings of the 12th Participatory
Design Conference: Exploratory Papers, Workshop Descriptions, Industry Cases -
Volume 2 (PDC ’12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 49–52. https://doi.org/10.1145/
2348144.2348160
[14]
Yvonne Dittrich, Retha De La Harpe, Mikko Korpela, Gertrudes Macueve, Rahel
Bekele, and Jens Kaasbøll. 2014. Participation for Development. In Proceedings of
the 13th Participatory Design Conference: Short Papers, Industry Cases, Workshop
Descriptions, Doctoral Consortium Papers, and Keynote Abstracts - Volume 2 (PDC
’14). ACM, New York, N Y,USA, 213–214. https://doi.org/10.1145/2662155.2662207
[15]
Yvonne Dittrich, S. Eriksén, and C. Hansson. 2002. PD in the Wild: Evolving
practices of Design in Use. In Participatory Design Conference,(Malmö, Sweden,
2002), CPSR. 124–134.
[16]
Mette Agger Eriksen, Anna Seravalli, Per-Anders Hillgren, and Anders Emilson.
2016. Collaboratively Articulating "Urban" Participatory Design?!. In Proceedings
of the 14th Participatory Design Conference: Short Papers, Interactive Exhibitions,
Workshops - Volume 2 (PDC ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 111–112. https:
//doi.org/10.1145/2948076.2948104
[17]
Delia Grenville. 2012. Framing Participatory Practices in a Large Corporation.
In Proceedings of the 12th Participatory Design Conference: Exploratory Papers,
Workshop Descriptions, Industry Cases - Volume 2 (PDC ’12). ACM, New York, NY,
USA, 133–136. https://doi.org/10.1145/2348144.2348187
[18]
Lisa Haskel. 2014. Bridging the Gaps: Building on Experience with Participatory
Design. In Proceedings of the 13th Participatory Design Conference: Short Papers,
Industry Cases, Workshop Descriptions, Doctoral Consortium Papers, and Keynote
Abstracts - Volume 2 (PDC ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 233–236. https:
//doi.org/10.1145/2662155.2662243
[19]
Lisa Haskel and Paula Graham. 2014. Hublink: A Case Study in Participator y De-
sign and Open Source in the Third Sector. In Proceedings of the 13th Participatory
Design Conference: Short Papers, Industry Cases, Workshop Descriptions, Doctoral
Consortium Papers, and Keynote Abstracts - Volume 2 (PDC ’14). ACM, New York,
NY, USA, 129–132. https://doi.org/10.1145/2662155.2662237
[20]
Lisa Haskel and Paula Graham. 2016. Whats GNU Got to Do with It?: Participatory
Design, Infrastructuring and Free/Open Source Software. In Proceedings of the 14th
Participatory Design Conference: Short Papers, Interactive Exhibitions, Workshops -
Volume 2 (PDC ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 17–20. https://doi.org/10.1145/
2948076.2948090
[21]
Morten Hertzum and Jesper Simonsen. 2010. Eects-driven IT Development: An
Instrument for Supporting Sustained Participatory Design. In Proceedings of the
11th Biennial Participatory Design Conference (PDC ’10). ACM, New York, NY,
USA, 61–70. https://doi.org/10.1145/1900441.1900451
[22]
Liesbeth Huybrechts, Pablo Calderón Salazar, and Katrien Dreessen. 2016. De
Andere Markt: Transferring Imaginations of Work. In Proceedings of the 14th
Participatory Design Conference: Short Papers, Interactive Exhibitions, Workshops -
Volume 2 (PDC ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 74–75. https://doi.org/10.1145/
2948076.2948118
[23]
Liesbeth Huybrechts, Jessica Schoelen, and Ben Hagenaars. 2014. Make-and-
tell in Haspenwood: On Generativity in Sustainable Design. In Proceedings of
the 13th Participatory Design Conference: Short Papers, Industry Cases, Workshop
Descriptions, Doctoral Consortium Papers, and Keynote Abstracts - Volume 2 (PDC
’14). ACM, New York, N Y, USA, 37–40. https://doi.org/10.1145/2662155.2662198
[24]
Ole Sejer Iversen and Christian Dindler. 2014. Sustaining participatory design ini-
tiatives. CoDesign 10, 3-4 (July 2014), 153–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.
2014.963124
[25]
Finn Kensing, Jesper Simonsen, and Keld Bødker. 1998. MUST: A Method for
Participatory Design. HumanâĂŞComputer Interaction 13, 2 (June 1998), 167–198.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci1302_3
[26]
Kyle Kilbourn and Marie Bay. 2010. Foresight and Forecasts: Participation in
a Welfare Technology Innovation Project. In Proceedings of the 11th Biennial
Participatory Design Conference (PDC ’10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 255–258.
https://doi.org/10.1145/1900441.1900496
[27]
Christopher Le Dantec. 2012. Participation and Publics: Supporting Com-
munity Engagement. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Fac-
tors in Computing Systems (CHI ’12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1351–1360.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208593
[28]
Sanna Marttila, Andrea Botero, and Joanna Saad-Sulonen. 2014. Towards Com-
mons Design in Participatory Design. In Proceedings of the 13th Participatory
Design Conference: Short Papers, Industry Cases, Workshop Descriptions, Doctoral
Consortium Papers, and Keynote Abstracts - Volume 2 (PDC ’14). ACM, New York,
NY, USA, 9–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/2662155.2662187
[29]
Lina Nilsson, Christel Borg, Malin Hoander, and Sara Eriksén. 2010. PD 3.1
to the Rescue: Challenges for Participatory Design in a Health Care Context. In
Proceedings of the 11th Biennial Participatory Design Conference (PDC ’10). ACM,
New York, NY, USA, 269–270. https://doi.org/10.1145/1900441.1900501
[30]
Tania Pérez-Bustos and Manuel Franco-Avellaneda. 2014. Embroidering Self-
knowledge: Systematization of Experiences and Participatory Design of Weaving
As a Caring Practice in Cartago, Valle, Colombia. In Proceedings of the 13th Par-
ticipatory Design Conference: Short Papers, Industry Cases, Workshop Descriptions,
Doctoral Consortium Papers, and Keynote Abstracts - Volume 2 (PDC ’14). ACM,
New York, NY, USA, 99–102. https://doi.org/10.1145/2662155.2662173
[31]
Paul H. Reitan. 2005. Sustainability science and whats needed beyond science.
Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy 1, 1 (2005).
[32]
Dan Shapiro. 2005. Participatory Design: The Will to Succeed. In Proceedings of the
4th Decennial Conference on Critical Computing: Between Sense and Sensibility (CC
’05). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 29–38. https://doi.org/10.1145/1094562.1094567
[33]
Jesper Simonsen and Toni Robertson. 2012. Routledge International Handbook of
Participatory Design. Routledge, London, United Kingdom.
[34]
Yuki Uchida, Fumiko Ichikawa, and Hiroshi Tamura. 2014. Powers of Ten: Ac-
quiring Sense of Ownership in Grow. In Proceedings of the 13th Participatory
Design Conference: Short Papers, Industry Cases, Workshop Descriptions, Doctoral
Consortium Papers, and Keynote Abstracts - Volume 2 (PDC ’14). ACM, New York,
NY, USA, 119–122. https://doi.org/10.1145/2662155.2662231