Participatory Design (Public shaming post #5)

In his article The Negotiation of Hope, Jeremy Till discusses the shortcomings of participatory design in architecture.  He challenges the mediocrity of a “protecting, placating” participation process and seeks to outline a transformative model of participation where user’s expectations and futures are transformed through the process.  He discusses the role of the architect as “citizen-expert”, where he/she empathizes and understands user needs, and the role of the user as “expert-citizen”, where their input is given higher value.

Henry Sanoff writes on the role of the “expert-citizen” in his article Community Participation Methods in Design and Planning, where the users/participants are “necessary to state the obvious and the commonplace in order to expand the narrowness of the vision often found in trained people.”

In my experience, users are great at telling you what they already know.  It is hard to have them imagine new solutions to existing problems.  As practitioners we may use images, descriptors, collage techniques, focus groups, or simple conversation to better understand user needs and desires.  But, it is rare that users offer ideas that are unexpected and the exercise serves to prove or disprove an idea.

However, users are great at giving insights.  These are glimpses into their daily lives – their joys and their struggles.  As designers, I think it is important to be good listeners and have sensitivity to unmet needs, context, history, culture, etc.  As good designers we are able to turn insight into foresight and imagine the intangible.  That is the strength and purpose of our vocation.  The CAD monkeys can handle everything else.