participatory design – Michael Wolfindale's EDC lifestream

March 9, 2020March 10, 2020

Coursera recommendations (based on false data) – what inclusions and exclusions are apparent?

I am experimenting with inputting false information about myself in Coursera, in order to see the difference in algorithmic recommendations. Here is how I described myself…

… and here are some recommendations provided after entering the above data…

The top listed courses are exclusively technology-based and “offered by” Google, and appear to have no direct connection to my listed industry “Health and Medicine”…

While my explorations were very limited here, in some ways this seems fairly consistent with my experiences of using certain (but not all) MOOC or educational course/video sites (and even more general “apps”). As soon as you step outside of the area of computer science, the range of courses is more limited, despite the sites themselves being presented as general educational sites. In looking to change my “learning plan” options (which change your profile and recommendations) revealed the “default” or “suggested” text, presented before you enter your own profile options:

Setting your Coursera "learning plan" — Setting your Coursera “learning plan”

You can see the results of my profile/”learning plan” alterations here. However, at this stage of deciding my profile options, the “software engineer” who works in “tech” seems to be the “default” starting point here. This is all perhaps no surprise given that Coursera was set up by Stanford computer scientists; as often seems the way, the developers build something for themselves (ensuring a seamless user experience for their own circumstances) and then only later branch out.

One example outside of education here is the online bank Monzo, whose early customer base was ‘95% male, 100% iPhone-owning, and highly concentrated in London’ (Guardian 2019). This description mirrors the co-founder Tom Blomfield, as he himself admits:

‘Our early customer was male, they lived in London, they were 31 years old, they had an iPhone and worked in technology. They were me. I’ve just described myself. Which has huge advantages, right? It’s very easy to know what I want.’ (The Finanser 2017)

While Monzo does claim to have a focus on social inclusion (This is Money 2019), why is this always seemingly secondary to building the app, gaining users (similar to themselves) and getting investors on board? Should social inclusion, whereby apps are designed for all users in a democratic fashion where everyone has a say, not be inherent in the very beginning planning, design and development processes? There may be a place here for considering platform cooperativism, inclusive codesign and participatory design approaches here (see Beck 2002; Scholz and Schneider 2016; West-Puckett et al. 2018).

Coming back to education, if Coursera have taken a similar approach as Monzo to designing their platform and building up their catalogue of courses, it is perhaps concerning that who do not mirror the designers and developers may be left excluded and on the margins.

Conversely, an inclusive codesign approach may have produced different results. As Trebor Scholz (P2P Foundation 2017) explains:

‘The importance of inclusive codesign has been one of the central insights for us. Codesign is the opposite of masculine Silicon Valley “waterfall model of software design,” which means that you build a platform and then reach out to potential users. We follow a more feminine approach to building platforms where the people who are meant to populate the platform are part of building it from the very first day. We also design for outliers: disabled people and other people on the margins who don’t fit into the cookie-cutter notions of software design of Silicon Valley.’
Trebor Scholz (P2P Foundation 2017)

March 9, 2020March 16, 2020

Michael saved in Pocket: ‘Participation, codesign, diversity: Trebor Scholz on Platform Cooperativism’

Excerpts

‘The platform cooperativism movement intervenes at a moment of social crisis in the United States when ninety-four percent of jobs created over the past decade were not in the employment category. In 2016, over twelve million workers have made money on labor platforms. Much of that work is invisible with laborers often exploited, tucked away between algorithms. And over the long-term, as more labor markets shift to the Internet, it also matters that ownership of cloud services and social hangouts on the Internet is highly concentrated.’
Trebor Scholz (P2P Foundation 2017)

‘The importance of inclusive codesign has been one of the central insights for us. Codesign is the opposite of masculine Silicon Valley “waterfall model of software design,” which means that you build a platform and then reach out to potential users. We follow a more feminine approach to building platforms where the people who are meant to populate the platform are part of building it from the very first day. We also design for outliers: disabled people and other people on the margins who don’t fit into the cookie-cutter notions of software design of Silicon Valley.’
Trebor Scholz (P2P Foundation 2017)

View full article

March 9, 2020March 16, 2020

Michael saved in Pocket: ‘P for Political: Participation is Not Enough’ (Beck 2002)

Abstract

Is participatory design outdated in Scandinavia? Many would say it is. Yet, as information Systems (IS) diffusion continues in familiar and new guises, IS researchers and developers face political dilemmas through the conduct of their work. These are precisely the original area of concern for the research area of Participatory Design (PD). How, then to make PD better reflect contemporary concerns?

This paper argues the danger of complacency among Scandinavian IS researchers about the position and meaning of PD: Some researchers reject PD altogether; some who previously have contributed to PD speak of new circumstances making it harder or less relevant today. The paper critically examines a number of such arguments. In a world made “global” by information and communication technologies (ICTs), political concerns remain of the minds of many. PD must encompass work motivated in political conscience which is expressed through a range of approaches and conducted at multiple points throughout the processes of computer development and adoption, not only participatory design. In this sense, PD needs to become broader. Further, participatory design work which does not contribute to challenging patterns of dominance or understanding how to do so currently remain within PD. This is another problem for PD and in this sense the area needs to become more focused.

In sum, PD must develop a stronger demand for analyses of societal/political/ethical consequences of ICT development, management, adoption or use. Thus, systems design would be one of several foci contributors might address. To indicate the range of new possibilities for activism, issues are suggested that might benefit from enquiry motivated in concern for dominated groups.

View full article