Relational sensitivity in participatory design

Figures & data

Table 1. The literature review process.

(1) Searched on the Web of Science and Taylor and Francis for ‘relational sensitivity’. Results: Akama and Light (2018) and Akama (2015)

(2) Searched the Web of Science, CoDesign in Taylor and Francis for articles referencing and referenced in Akama and Light (2018) and Akama (2015) that focus on navigating relationships and collaborative dynamics in participatory design processes (18 articles selected).

(3) Expanded the vocabulary from the selected articles in Step 2 to include other words that describe navigating relationships and collaborative dynamics in PD processes, as used by Akama (2015) and Akama and Light (2018):

‘micro-dynamics’ OR ‘body-related competence’ OR ‘open-minded contact’ OR ‘human contact’ OR ‘genuine participation’ OR ‘facilitation skills’ OR ‘contact quality’ OR ‘quality of participation’ OR ‘designer as facilitator’ OR ‘authentic*’ OR ‘between-ness’ OR ‘atmosphere’ OR ‘intuition’ OR ‘improvisation’ OR ‘inter-relatedness’ OR ‘invisible’ OR ‘reflexivity’ OR ‘self-awareness’ OR ‘responsiveness’ OR ‘receptive*’ OR ‘sensitivity’ OR ‘interdependency’ OR ‘intima*’ OR ‘intersubjectiv*’ OR ‘interpersonal dynamic*’ OR ‘inter-personal dynamics’ OR ‘group dynamic*’ OR ‘ephemeral’ OR ‘surrender*’ OR ‘present-in-the-moment’ OR ‘attun*’ OR ‘embodied knowing’ OR ‘empathy’ OR ‘open communicative space*’ AND ‘design practice’ OR ‘design collaboration’ OR ‘participatory design’ OR ‘design training’ OR ‘design students’

(4) Searched the Web of Science and CoDesign in Taylor and Francis for articles containing the keywords listed above. Results: Out of 559 hits on the Web of Science, 17 articles were selected; out of 201 articles in CoDesign, 25 were selected based on the abstract, keywords and their relevance to the topic.

(5) Using the same process from Step 5, 14 papers were selected from the proceedings of PDC 2022.

Table 2. Categories for summarising articles.

Paper	How paper connects to relational sensitivity	Situations and context	Theoretical foundations	Methods and process	Results	Four-Quadrant model
Name of paper and authors	Listing and describing concepts and aspects that focus on navigating relationships and collaborative dynamics, in order to explore different notions of relational sensitivity	Describing design situations and context, to explore if and how relational sensitivity depends on the context	Describing theories used in research and project, to compare underlying epistemologies of relational sensitivity	Describing research and design methods and processes, to explore how methods could contribute to relational sensitivity and inform training such readiness	Describing research and design outcomes, to explore possible outcomes of relational sensitivity	Listing which quadrant(s) are focused on in the paper to then map related concepts and aspects of relational sensitivity onto Wilber and Ofman’s models (described in next section)

Figure 1. The four-quadrant model by Wilber (2000). (All figures are drawn by the author of the present article).

Figure 2. Ofman’s adapted four-quadrant model.

Figure 3. Relational sensitivity from an ‘I’ perspective.

Figure 4. Relational sensitivity from a ‘we’ perspective.

Figure 5. Relational sensitivity from a ‘it’ perspective.

Figure 6. Relational sensitivity from an ‘its’ perspective.

Table 3. Tools for intersubjective dynamics.

Intersubjective dynamics	Tools	Research
Trust/distrust	Commensality Generative tools	Clarke et al. (2019) Bustamante Duarte et al. (2021)
Safe spaces	Spatial arrangements for smaller/bigger group discussions, careful language use, informal clothing, speaking at eye level	Bustamante Duarte et al. (2021)
Togetherness and affect	Design Board Games Commensality (sharing food) Making and sharing poems	Branco, Quental, and Ribeiro (2017) Light and Akama (2014) Ramírez Galleguillos, Eloiriachi, and Coşkun (2022)
Supporting facilitation	Physical artefacts to ‘punctuate’ or create rhythms in the co-creation	Akama and Light (2018)
Initiating dialogue and sensitising participants and researchers to each other’s context	Reusing designed artefacts (‘design non-proposals’)	Taylor, Wujal Wujal Council, and Brereton (2022)
Driving and structuring discussions	Card methods (‘Inspiration Cards’)	Halskov and Dalsgaard (2007)
Exposing tensions and opposing perspectives	Designed, tangible artefacts Improvisational, forum theatre	Andersen and Mosleh (2021) Buur and Larsen (2010)
Eliciting diverse perspectives and stories	Walking as open-ended interviews and spatialised dialogues, emotions-place mapping	Devos and Loopmans (2021)
Empowerment	Creating art installations	Zamenopoulos et al. (2021)

Figure 7. Central concepts in relational sensitivity using Wilber’s four-quadrant model.

Figure 8. Concepts mapped on Ofman’s adapted four-quadrant model.

Table 4. Examples of relational sensitivity.

Sensitivity to self, for example: participants’ embodied awareness and understanding of own interests to authentically participate; practitioners’ ways of participating and being and how this influences relationships (such as being vulnerable, empathic, open to others’ ways of doing and being); practitioners’ awareness of positionality and reflexivity in relation to their own position, assumptions, values, commitments, intentions, situated judgements, and their ethical and methodological implications. Sensitivity to intersubjectivity, for example: practitioners’ awareness for different intersubjective dynamics and how to respond to these (such as power dynamics, affect, trust, and interpersonal tension); practitioners’ attention to diverse worldviews and cultures; continually renegotiating shared values; the groups’ collective orientation and intersubjective awareness of the group and willingness to contribute to each other’s ideas and be in the unknown. Sensitivity to materiality and process, for example: practitioners’ attention to the role of the body in shaping power dynamics (such as cloths and body stances) and supporting communicative practices; practitioners’ attention to the role of materials, artefacts, and activities in shaping intersubjective dynamics; practitioners’ design of process structures to enable open attitudes and participation in emergent conditions (such as agreements to renegotiating values and decisions, structuring ‘voids’ for methods to emerge with people in the place).

Akama, Y., and A. Light. 2018. “Practices of Readiness: Punctuation, Poise and the Contingencies of Participatory Design.” In Proceedings of the 15th Participatory Design Conference: Full Papers – Volume 1. PDC ’18: Participatory Design Conference 2018, 1–12. Hasselt and Genk Belgium: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3210586.3210594.

 Google Scholar

Akama, Y. 2015. “Being Awake to Ma: Designing the Between-Ness as a Way of Becoming with.” CoDesign 11 (3–4): 262–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2015.1081243.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wilber, K. 2000. A Theory of Everything: An Integral Vision for Business, Politics, Science and Spirituality. Boulder Colorado: Shambhala Publications.

 Google Scholar

Clarke, R. E., J. Briggs, A. Armstrong, A. MacDonald, J. Vines, E. Flynn, and K. Salt. 2019. “Socio-Materiality of Trust: Co-Design with a Resource Limited Community Organisation.” CoDesign 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2019.1631349.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bustamante Duarte, A. M., M. Ataei, A. Degbelo, N. Brendel, and C. Kray. 2021. “Safe Spaces in Participatory Design with Young Forced Migrants.” CoDesign 17 (2): 188–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2019.1654523.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Branco, R. M., J. Quental, and Ó. Ribeiro. 2017. “Personalised Participation: An Approach to Involve People with Dementia and Their Families in a Participatory Design Project.” CoDesign 13 (2): 127–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2017.1310903.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Light, A., and Y. Akama. 2014. “Structuring Future Social Relations: The Politics of Care in Participatory Practice.” In Proceedings of the 13th Participatory Design Conference on Research Papers – PDC’14, 151–160. Windhoek, Namibia: ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/2661435.2661438.

 Google Scholar

Ramírez Galleguillos, M. L., A. Eloiriachi, and A. Coşkun. 2022. “Beneath Walls and Naked Souls: Factors Influencing Intercultural Meaningful Social Interactions in Public Places of Istanbul.” In Participatory Design Conference 2022: Volume 1, 194–205. Newcastle upon Tyne: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3536169.3537793.

 Google Scholar

Taylor, J. L., A. S. Wujal Wujal Council, and M. Brereton. 2022. “Tangible ‘Design Non-Proposals’ for Relationship Building in Community-Based Co-Design Projects.” In Participatory Design Conference 2022: Volume 1, 63–74. Newcastle upon Tyne: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3536169.3537780.

 Google Scholar

Halskov, K., and P. Dalsgaard. 2007. “The Emergence of Ideas: The Interplay Between Sources of Inspiration and Emerging Design Concepts.” CoDesign 3 (4): 185–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701607404.

 Google Scholar

Andersen, P. V. K., and W. S. Mosleh. 2021. “Conflicts in Co-Design: Engaging with Tangible Artefacts in Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration.” CoDesign 17 (4): 473–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2020.1740279.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Buur, J., and H. Larsen. 2010. “The Quality of Conversations in Participatory Innovation.” CoDesign 6 (3): 121–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2010.533185.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Devos, T., and M. Loopmans. 2021. “Stimulating Embodied Intersubjectivities: Two Participatory Experiments in Antwerp North, Belgium.” CoDesign 18 (3): 322–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2021.1894179.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zamenopoulos, T., B. Lam, K. Alexiou, M. Kelemen, S. De Sousa, and M. Phillips. 2021. “Types, Obstacles and Sources of Empowerment in Co-Design: The Role of Shared Material Objects and Processes.” CoDesign 17 (2): 139–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2019.1605383.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar