Participatory design in architectural practice: Changing practices in future making in uncertain times - A Literature Critique

Introduction 

The journal article “Participatory design in architectural practice: Changing practices in future making in uncertain times” by Rachael Luck (Luck, 2018), investigates the evolution of Participatory Design (PD), within the practice of architecture. The article traces the journey of participatory design from the mid-twentieth century, evaluating the context of ever-changing academic settings and socio-political conditions of the world we live in. Modern day PD practices follow a more progressive path and deeply embrace the concept of Value Pluralism. Value pluralism or Moral pluralism is the idea that there can be conflicting moral views that are each worthy of respect (The University of Texas Austin, n.d.). The article states that PD is a derivation of action research, which produces knowledge in a collaborative setting through design, planning, research, and participation.

Nonetheless, the literary approach taken by Luck in this article is centred around history, instead of elaborating more on the current practices. While evolution of the PD research plays an important role, the article leaves you with assumptions about the present and the future-making, which is a key part of an evolutionary approach. In this critique I will analyse the effects of context in contemporary society and its uncertainties, exploring the adaptive nature in practice of participatory design.

Summary 

Participatory design is transformational in nature, as seen through the uncertainty of social, political, and economic conditions spanned over 50 years. Participatory design has been a silent research method within architectural practices, formally pioneered by Henry Sanoff in 1963. Societal, political, and economical shifts affected participatory design in different ways in different eras, questioning ‘how it was being practiced?’ and ‘was it being practiced?’. However, there were practices that stood strong through these altercations, prioritising humane environments and user values.

The participatory design research method stimulates engagement between various stakeholders, such as interactions between architects and people, thus creating spaces that are informed, equitable and inclusive. These methods vary from each other and differ at the scale at which they take place. This maintains the unequivocal influences and historic fundamentals of PD. The escalating problems of a man-made world create a constant need for problem solving. Including the targeted demographic in the design process enables resolutions that tackle these complexities and deliver solutions suited to the ever-evolving communities. The article also showcases multiple case studies and the varied real-world applications of participatory design. Lastly, the article questions the pedagogy of today’s architects to create an equipped workforce that understands the importance of participatory design in architectural practices.

“Participatory design is an attitude about a force for change in the creation and management of environments for people. Its strength lies in being a movement that cuts across traditional professional boundaries and cultures. Its roots lie in the ideals of a participatory ...” (Sanoff, 2010)

Critical Evaluation 

The article makes compelling arguments to depict the dynamic nature of architectural practices and the changing contextual landscapes through participatory design. It establishes the necessity to integrate participatory design within architectural practices. This is carried out by the participatory research approach that engages the users, clients, communities, and other stakeholders, facilitating socially cognizant and relevant design solutions. The article incorporates variety of case-studies to support the relevance of the evolution of PD. This enables rationalization of practical implications of participatory design, adding weight to Luck’s literature. The focus of this evaluation is on uncertainties of the socio-economic and political norms and its effects on participatory design, focusing on community values and needs.

Participatory design is highly dependent on cultural norms, values, and community dynamics. These themes need to be carefully explored and nurtured considering the diversity of participants even within a targeted group. This information is used to materialize creative solutions. The use of Participatory Design methods supports the processes of creative and critical discovery and expression through the arts (Simonsen & Robertson, 2012). Understanding societal preferences, inclinations and expectations is an essential part of creating value oriented and sustainable architectural solutions.

The inclusion of a diverse range of participants could lead to difference in ideas and values creating friction within the design process. The hierarchical nature of the participants needs to be balanced accordingly. This includes the political influences, regulations and policies within the region and governance of the location of the project. Whereas in a neutral territory, participatory design could infer more seamless solutions that abide by the legal frameworks. The main approach to innovation in participatory design research has been to organise projects with identifiable stakeholders within an organisation, paying attention to power relations and the empowerment of resources to weak and marginalised groups (Björgvinsson, et al., 2012).

Economic influences in terms of resources, their availability and distribution affect the applications of participatory design. Limited resources might hamper the scale or depth of the research, restricting inclusivity within the knowledge gleaned from the design process.

Participatory design is adaptive at its core. Even so, these influences need to be considered to derive informative, inclusive and creative solutions from the participants.

Implications and Recommendations 

Participatory design as a method is unfinished. Therefore, practitioners need to constantly embrace and refine this method to adapt to the context of societal conditions or project relevance. PD fosters a culture of “we” and mutual learning to build what actually counts. This adaptive way of working leads to innovative and inclusive solutions that engage a diverse range of stakeholders. This benefits a design manager to respond actively to changing needs and challenges in an organisation. Consequently, enabling strategic implementation of design decisions, keeping in consideration organization level aims and societal impacts.

The article speaks of integrating PD at an academic level, as a way of learning and perpetuating the method. This limits the focus, trivialising the importance of implementation of PD practices at an organizational level. Organisations need to have their own set standards for real-world implications of participatory design within the realm of architecture. This will enable a structured way of managing the varied socio-political and economic variations that come with the uniqueness of each project. The involvement of diverse participants can lead to conflicting interactions or opinions. Conversations about bias and discrepancies in understanding the knowledge acquired need to take place.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the article thoroughly evaluates the journey of participatory design and its transformative nature. It further provides the reader with the intricacies that affect participatory design’s existence and/or functioning within the constantly altering societal landscapes. While advocating the use of participatory design in architectural practices, it implores us to think about further explorations, challenges, and scalability of participatory design.