Contenido

Desde la década de 1960 hubo una creciente demanda de una mayor consideración de las opiniones de la comunidad en la toma de decisiones importantes. En Australia muchas personas creían que no estaban previstas "para", sino planificadas "en". (Nichols 2009). A falta de una consulta hecha al sistema de planificación parecer paternalista y sin la debida consideración de cómo los cambios en el entorno construido afectases principales usuarios.

En Gran Bretaña "la idea de que el público debería participar se planteó por primera vez en 1965" (Taylor, 1990, p.86). Sin embargo, el nivel de participación es una cuestión importante. Como mínimo, los talleres y audiencias públicas ya se han incluido en casi toda el esfuerzo de la planificación. (Wheeler, 2004, p.46) Sin embargo, este nivel de consulta puede significar simplemente la información sobre el cambio sin la detallada participación. Participación que "reconoce un papel activo en la toma del plan" (Taylor, 1998, p. 86) no ha sido siempre fácil de lograr. El diseño participativo ha tratado de crear una plataforma para la participación activa en el proceso de diseño, para los usuarios finales.

El desarrollo nunca ha sido, como pretendían las fórmulas neoliberales, un resultado espontáneo del mercado sino que implica la acción y la participación de instituciones económicas y sociales específicas. Para constituir un proceso que permita afianzar una identidad cultural propia y consolidar la energía social que haga posible despertar y dinamizar la creatividad, es fundamental contar con el apoyo de los sectores sociales ligados a la educación.

En relación con este tema Celso Furtado decía: “Si el objetivo estratégico es conciliar una alta tasa de crecimiento con la absorción del desempleo y la desconcentración del ingreso debemos reconocer que la orientación de las inversiones no puede subordinarse a la racionalidad de las empresas trasnacionales. Debemos partir del concepto de rentabilidad social a fin de que se consideren los valores sustantivos que encarnan los intereses de la colectividad en su conjunto.” (Furtado 2000: 9-12).

"Desde el punto de vista antropológico, no hay razones para pensar que un uso sea más o menos legítimo que otro. Con todo derecho, cada grupo social cambia la significación y los usos. En este punto los análisis antropológicos necesitan converger con los estudios sobre comunicación porque estamos hablando de circulación de bienes y mensajes, cambios de significado, del pasaje de una instancia a otra, de un grupo a varios. En esos movimientos se comunican significados, que son recibidos, re-procesados o re-codificados. También necesitamos relacionar el análisis intercultural con las relaciones de poder para identificar quiénes disponen de mayor fuerza para modificar el significado de los objetos". (García Canclini, 2004: 35).

History in Scandinavia

Participatory design was actually born in Scandinavia and was called Cooperative Design. However, when the methods were presented to the US community "cooperation" was a word that did not resonate with the strong separation between workers and managers - who were not supposed to discuss ways of working face to face. Therefore, 'participatory' was used as a location. The initial participatory design sessions were not direct cooperation between workers and managers, sitting in the same room discussing how to improve their work environment and tools, but there were no separate sessions for workers and managers. Each group was participating in the process, not cooperating directly. (in the historical review of cooperative design, at a Scandinavian conference).

In Scandinavia, research projects on user participation in systems date back to the 1970s (Bødker 1996). The so-called "collective resource approach" strategies and techniques developed so that workers could influence the design and use of computer applications at work: The Norwegian Iron and Metal Workers' Union took its first step from traditional research towards working with people, directly changing the role of union clubs in projects (NHE and Kyng, 1987).

The Scandinavian projects developed an action research approach, emphasizing active cooperation between researchers and organizational workers to help improve the work situation. While the researchers got their results, the people who worked did so with the same right to get something from the project. The criterion is based on people's experiences, providing them with the resources to act in their current situation. The view of organizations as fundamentally harmonious—according to which conflicts in an organization are regarded as pseudo-conflicts or "problems" dissolved by good analysis and greater communication—was rejected in favor of a view of organizations that recognizes the fundamental "non-absorbable" conflicts in organizations (NHE and Sandberg, 1979).

Participatory design "techniques" emerged strongly in the 1970s, as a reaction to the "top-down" "educational" policies that governments implemented in their socio-housing policies and as an alternative to the reductionism of the problem in its technical-functional and formal aspects, forgetting the social effects that these produced. This is reflected in the large gaps between the planned design and the actual use, determining, for example, uprooting, violence and destruction of high-rise housing complexes.

In the Utopia Project (Bødker et al., 1987, En, 1988), the main achievements were experience-based design methods, developed through hands-on attention to experiences, emphasizing the need for technical and organizational alternatives (Bødker et al., 1987).

The Florence Project (Gro Bjerkness and Bratteteig Tone) began a long series of Scandinavian research projects in the health sector. In particular, we worked with nurses and developed approaches so that nurses could have a say in the development of work in hospitals. The Florencia project put the gender issue on the agenda with its starting point in a highly generalized work environment.

Community Planning and Placemaking

Major international organizations such as projects for public spaces create opportunities for rigorous participation in the design and creation of places, believing it to be the essential ingredient for a successful environment.

More than just consulting the public, PPS creates a platform for the community to participate and co-design new areas, which reflect their intimate knowledge. They provide ideas that independent design professionals, such as architects or even local government, may not have.

Using a method called Place Game Assessment, where community groups are taken to the proposed development site, where they use their knowledge to develop design strategies that will benefit the community.

Whether the participants are students or professionals, the exercise produces spectacular results because it is based on the experience of the people who use the site every day, or who are the potential users of the place.[2]​ This successfully engages the fundamental idea of ​​participatory design, where the various actors who will be the users of the final product, are involved in the design process as a collective (social group)&action=edit&redlink=1 "Collective (social group) (not yet drafted)").

Similar projects have been successful in Melbourne, Australia particularly in relation to contested sites, where design solutions are often difficult to establish. The Talbot Reserve in St Kilda faced numerous disputed use issues, such as becoming a regular location for sex workers and drug users. Design In, which engaged a variety of key community users on what they wanted for the future of the reserve, traditionally allowed marginalized voices to participate in the design process.

Participants described it as "a transformative experience of seeing the world through different eyes." (Press, 2003, p. 62). This is perhaps the key feature of participatory design, a process that allows multiple voices to be heard and participate in the design, leading to results that suit a wide range of users. Since planning affects everyone it is believed that "those whose livelihoods, environments and lives are at stake must participate in the decisions that affect them" (Sarkissian and Perglut, 1986, p. 3)

The Institute of Placemaking is a knowledge exchange center and a public institution that provides spatial possibilities to people who want a place for new ideas and new encounters within the city.

The Institute is not permanent. It is nomadic and changing. It opens, closes, travels, hides and grows. He is always improvising and improving. The Institute is under permanent construction.

Within urban studies, urban co-creation has been proposed to describe participatory processes that are genuinely inclusive, emphasizing the active and grassroots involvement of residents, communities and local organizations in shaping urban environments. Bruno Seve (2022) argues that urban co-creation encompasses a wide range of practices—including space appropriation, self-construction, guerrilla gardening, and tactical urbanism—that challenge traditional top-down models. He argues that the term participation alone is ambiguous and insufficient to describe the diversity of collaborative and dynamic practices in urban transformation (Seve et. al, 2022).[3]​.

In the built environment

Participatory design has many applications in the development of spaces and to generate changes in already built environments. It has a particular view for planners and architects, in relation to placemaking and community regeneration projects. It potentially offers itself as a much more democratic approach than the design process, as it involves more than one stakeholder.

By incorporating a variety of points of view there is a greater opportunity for successful results. Many universities and large institutions are beginning to recognize its importance. The United Nations Global Studies engages students from Columbia University, the University of Sydney and the Sapienza University of Rome to offer design solutions for Vancouver's Downtown Eastside, which suffered from drug and alcohol problems. The process allowed interdisciplinary participation from planners, architects and industrial designers, who focused on collaboration and the exchange of ideas and stories. (Kuiper, 2007, p. 52).

In housing development

Participatory design tends due to the location of this discipline (housing) towards a process in which all definitions, all determinations are the result of conventional research and participation-action on the reality of the final user; introducing the necessary innovations to modernize both its symbolic expression contextualized in the residents' references, and the equation of technologies that generate massive and efficient construction systems (Becerra, 1986, p. 121).

Muchos gobiernos locales en particular en Melbourne, Australia, requieren de una consulta comunitaria para hacer cambios importantes en el entorno construido. La participación comunitaria en el proceso de planificación es casi un requisito estándar en la mayoría de los cambios estratégicos.

El proyecto de la ciudad de Melbourne de reurbanización de Swanton Street recibió más de 5.000 respuestas por parte del público que les permite participar en el proceso de diseño comentando en siete diferentes opciones de diseño.[4]​ Mientras que la ciudad Río Yarra recientemente llevó a cabo "Historias de la calle", para grabar ideas de la gente sobre el futuro de Smith Street. Se ofreció a los participantes una variedad de medios para explorar sus opiniones como mapas, encuestas de fotos y narración de cuentos. Aunque los consejos locales están tomando medidas positivas para el diseño participativo en lugar de los tradicionales métodos de planificación, muchas comunidades se están moviendo para llevar el diseño en sus propias manos.

El proyecto de la reparación de la ciudad de Portland, Oregón[5]​ es una forma de diseño participativo, que involucra a la comunidad al codiseñar juntos en áreas problemáticas para hacer cambios positivos en su entorno. Se trata de la toma de decisiones y el diseño colaborativo sin la participación tradicional del gobierno o de los profesionales locales, sino que funciona con voluntarios de la comunidad.

Peer-to-peer urbanismo es una forma descentralizada de diseño participativo para entornos urbanos y edificios individuales. Toma prestadas las ideas de organización del movimiento de software de código abierto, por lo que el conocimiento de los métodos de construcción y los planes de urbanismo se intercambian libremente.

El urbanismo de igual-a-igual es una manera innovadora de concebir, construir y reparar la ciudad que se basa en cinco principios básicos.

1. El urbanismo de igual-a-igual defiende el derecho humano fundamental de escoger el ambiente construido en el cual vivimos. La elección individual selecciona la opción que mejor llena nuestras necesidades entre las diversas posibilidades que generan una ciudad compacta y sostenible.

2. Todos los ciudadanos deben tener acceso a la información concerniente a su medio ambiente, de manera que se puedan involucrar en el proceso de toma de decisiones. Esto es posible y apoyado activamente por las TIC (Tecnologías de Información y Comunicación).

3. Los usuarios mismos deberían participar en todos los niveles del codiseño, y en algunos casos, de la construcción de su ciudad. Deberían ser tenedores de los riesgos de cualquier cambio en su medio ambiente que ha sido contemplado por el gobierno o los urbanizadores.

4. Los practicantes del urbanismo igual-a-igual están comprometidos a generar y diseminar conocimiento, teorías y tecnologías de origen abierto, y prácticas implementadas para el tejido urbano a escala humana de manera que estos sean libres para que cualquiera los use y los revise.

5. Los usuarios del medio ambiente construido deben tener el derecho de implementar repositorios para la evolución de los conocimientos, aptitudes y prácticas, que les proporcionan herramientas urbanas cada vez más sofisticadas y mejor adaptadas.

In software development

In the English-speaking world, the term has particular currency in the world of software development, especially in circles related to Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR), who have expressed it in a series of participatory design conferences. It overlaps with the Extreme Programming approach to user participation in design, but (possibly because of its European union origins) the Participatory Design tradition places more emphasis on the participation of a broad population of users rather than a small number of user representatives.

Participatory design can be seen as a movement of end users in the world of researchers and developers, while empathic design can be seen as a movement of researchers and developers in the world of end users. There is a very significant difference between user and user-centered design and design in which there is an emancipatory theoretical basis and a basis in systems theory (Kristo Ivanov, 1972, 1995), on which user design is founded. In fact, user-centered design is a useful and important construct, but it only suggests that users be taken as the center in the design process, even consulting with users to a large extent, but it does not allow users to make the decisions, nor empower users with the tools that experts use.

For example, Wikipedia content is users designing, co-creating, since users have the necessary tools to make and remake their own entries or modify those of others. However, Wikipedia's underlying wiki software is based on user-centered design: while users can propose changes or have input into the design, a smaller, more specialized group decides about the features and design of the system.

Participatory work in software development has historically tended to two distinct trajectories, one in Scandinavia and northern Europe, and the other in North America. The Scandinavian and northern European tradition has remained close to its roots in the labor movement (e.g., Beck, 2002; Bjerknes, epizootic hematopoietic necrosis, and Kyng, 1987). The North American and Pacific Rim tradition has tended to be both broader (e.g., including managers and executives as “stakeholders” in the design) and more limited (e.g., designing for individual features, in contrast to the Scandinavian approach to designing complete systems and designing the work that the system is supposed to support) (e.g., Beyer and Holtzblatt, 1998; Noro and Imada, 1991). However, more recent work has tended to combine the two approaches (Bødker et al, 2004; Muller, 2007).

Distributed participatory design

"Distributed Participatory Design" (DPD) is a design approach and philosophy that supports the direct participation of users and other stakeholders in systems analysis and design work. Today design teams are often distributed, emphasizing the need for support and knowledge accumulated from the design of distributed systems. Distributed participatory design aims to facilitate understanding between different interest groups in distributed design teams by giving each opportunity to participate in hands-on activities.

Participatory design of a project[6]​

In the Manual of participation for humanitarian actors, of the Groupe URD"),[7]​

It mentions the processes that must be used to ensure that the participatory design of a project is beneficial both for the population affected by the crisis and for other actors, including the humanitarian organization. These processes must be the following:

• - Prioritize solutions. Prioritizing is analyzing a series of possible solutions in a specific context and will identify the options that address the set objectives most effectively and with the greatest positive impact. Mainly, the success of the project depends on this stage, since the project objectives and the implementation strategy will be defined according to the analysis carried out at this stage. Prioritizing solutions requires:

• get a list of possible solutions;

• analyze and compare each solution taking into account different criteria, such as analyzing possible solutions, feasibility, complementary with foundations, local practices and techniques, sustainability of the solution;

• Collectively establish priorities among the possible solutions that can be adopted for the project;

• identify possible solutions.

• - Define the project. Once a list of priority solutions has been established, the project strategy can be determined. This stage is one of the most delicate in the project cycle and can be difficult to carry out in a participatory manner, given that it is when commitments to those of the population are clearly defined. Defining the project requires clarifying:

• the project objectives, that is, the problems the project will address;

• the results or performance of the project;

• the target group;

• the activities to be implemented to achieve the project objectives;

• the resources necessary to implement these activities;

• who will carry out each task and what each person will contribute;

• institutional start-up, management and communication strategies.

• - Identify the target group. Related to the definition of objectives and results is the identification of the target group, the group that will directly benefit from the project. Identifying the target group at a broad level (by province or village) will have already been done earlier in the process, often even before carrying out the assessment. Identifying the target group is one of the most delicate steps in the project cycle since it touches on the issues of security and protection, discrimination and humanitarian principles of impartiality, neutrality and independence; that should be taken into account. Therefore, it is important to share with the population, local authorities and other actors the four main ideas associated with the process of identifying the target group:

• be as efficient as possible in alleviating suffering (having a real impact with the assistance available);

• work within resource constraints;

• ensure that the most vulnerable people are served;

• avoid the distorting effects of humanitarian aid.

• - Define the activities and identify the necessary resources. The activities are the tasks that should be carried out to produce the desired results and, therefore, achieve the set objectives. Implementing each activity requires resources that should be planned in the project work plan. Finally, it should also be specified in the project design who is in charge of the different tasks and who provides each of the resources. Together, all these elements make up the project work plan that should be defined with the corresponding actors. In other words, responsibilities and contributions that each actor will make must be defined.

• - Close the design phase. The last step of the design process requires:

• present all decisions made in relation to the future project to the affected population and the corresponding actors and validate them;

• draft and finalize project documentation;

• communicate next steps before starting the implementation phase, especially the resource mobilization process;

• create a space where all elements of the program can be presented and discussed with a wide selection of the affected population.

Participatory design processes require transparency. At the end of this phase, more expectations will have been generated than in the assessment phase. It is necessary to ensure that members of the population and other stakeholders are kept informed about the resource mobilization process, especially when long processes with donors are underway.

Participatory design process

Broadly speaking, we can encompass the participatory design process in four stages:

1. Approach to the problem..

In this first stage there is a rapprochement between the residents of a community and the technical team of advisors, based on the specific need to solve an urban or architectural problem. At this time, a work “collective” is formed to jointly plan the development of the project. Through dialogue, the interests and priorities of the various actors involved are agreed upon. In this phase it is very important to work on the formation and cohesion of the team and on determining the priorities that will guide the rest of the process.

Expected results: a work team made up of various actors —residents, technicians, authorities, etc.— capable of generating ideas, discussing them, exposing their interests and agreeing on priorities..

2. Research—knowledge.

Once the work team is formed, preliminary information is collected and analyzed for each of the components—urban, social, economic, cultural—from which a variety of ideas will emerge that will be combined in the design proposal. It should be noted that, from the participatory design approach, the “triangulation” of information is a priority, that is, the verification of results from various sources, with various methods and with different participants.

Expected results: Useful information for the development of the design process..

3. Generation of design ideas..

Generally, in this phase we work based on design workshops. The information collected, analyzed and systematized in the previous phase serves as a basis for the collective development of ideas about the form of urban-architectural spaces. Through dialogue, the active participation of the advisory team and the community is sought. We work mainly with visual materials (plans, sketches, drawings, photographs) and models.

Expected results: The collective generation of ideas and design criteria..

4. Concretion and evaluation..

Based on the materials generated in the design workshop, the advisory team works on preparing proposals, as an approach to possible solutions. These proposals are discussed, compared and evaluated in successive design workshops until a definitive project is reached.

Expected results: A final project agreed upon by all the actors involved in the process..

It is necessary to clarify that the process does not necessarily develop in a linear manner, in the sequence set out above. It is possible that each of the phases is combined with others. The development of the design process varies in each particular case.[8]​.

Participatory design in social processes

Its objectives are to build a discussion process extended to all actors involved in the projects through the participatory design methodology, about the spaces and uses that will be necessary in a program proposal and architectural project.

Deepen the confluences that exist.

Advance in the concrete formulation of the program and projects.

Objectives of the reflection on the application of the participatory design process

Verify to what extent the participatory design favored or not in these cases:.

• - Understanding, agreements and sustainability of environmental changes.

• - The progressive transformation of attitudes and skills for sustainable environmental management of both the target population and the professionals involved in the design.

• - The development of adequate conditions to optimize and improve the social economy.

• - The implementation of public social housing policies considering environmental aspects.

• - The proposals that were most productive in relation to the traditional way of solving the problem.

• - General methodological process of participatory design. Source: Mariana Enet.

Ecodesign is also found within the philosophy of participatory design and is also known as Design for the Environment. It is presented as a methodology that considers the environmental variable as one more criterion when making decisions in the design process of industrial products, in addition to others that have traditionally been taken into account (costs, quality...).

The ultimate goal of Ecodesign is to improve the environmental performance of products throughout their life cycle (selection and use of raw materials; manufacturing, packaging, transportation and distribution; installation and maintenance; use and end of life), through the systematic integration of environmental issues at the earliest stage of product design.

"The problem of the climate crisis that is plaguing the entire world with serious consequences is added to the effects of the food crisis caused directly by the trade policies of the so-called central countries, which have been put into practice for 20 years with the spread of the neoliberal economic model. Although great steps have been taken towards understanding the economic crisis as a crisis of overproduction, overaccumulation, securitization and creation of fictitious capital, the connections, effects and scope that it has in relation to the depletion of resources have not been sufficiently pointed out. natural resources of the planet.” (Valdes, 2012).

Upper secondary education has the obligation to be side by side with those who are our reason for being, the citizens who trusted the State so that our houses of study train professionals committed to the search and generation of knowledge at the service of the needs of the population and not of corporations or individual interests. On many occasions, the designer “comes out” of the project by recycling or reusing materials that are industrial waste or household waste. With an ecological perspective, any small piece of material is valued and it seems a lack of responsibility for it to be wasted.

The purpose of being useful to a need is confused with that of innovating to sell as an end in itself, the reason for being necessary or useful is inherent to the design; It is an intrinsic, essential reason. If designing involves the creation of forms for a purpose, then the purpose of design is necessarily always to respond to a need of man since the human being is a free being, what allows him to be in the world is precisely his possibilities because the being is being with. This common – unity with all living beings must then be guiding for those of us who have the task of giving meaning to things, the aim as well as the objective of design is to create objects that respond to the needs of man in his habitat, his social and physical environment. Gui Bonsiepe, an industrial designer born in Germany, argues that “design must be done from the countries themselves, in the context in which they live.” This means that objects should be designed in their country of context so that they really regain meaning and so that they can truly satisfy the specific needs of the country or place. These types of developments encourage the local economy and would not feed a global neoliberal economy for “nonsense” objects. This proposal by Bonsiepe brings us closer to a participatory and conscious design, and not to what is currently stated that designers are obsessed with the object, when in reality the attention should be placed on the space where the action, the user and the object are articulated.

• - Asaro, Peter M. (2000). "Transforming society by transforming technology: the science and politics of participatory design." Accounting Management and Information Technology 10: 257–290.

• - Banathy, B.H. (1992). Comprehensive systems design in education: building a design culture in education. Educational Technology, 22(3) 33-35.

• - Beck, E. (2002).P for Political - Participation is Not Enough. SJIS, Volume 14 - 2002.

• - Belotti, V. and Bly, S., 1996. Walking away from desktop computer: distributed collaboration and mobility in a product design team. In Proceedings of CSCW “96, Cambridge, Mass., November 16–20, ACM press: 209-218.

• - Beyer, H., and Holtzblatt, K. (1998). Contextual design: Defining customer-centered systems. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.

• - Button, G. and Sharrock, W. 1996. Project work: the organization of collaborative design and development in software engineering. CSCW Journal, 5 (4), p. 369-386.

• - Bødker, S. and Iversen, O. S. (2002): Staging a professional participatory design practice: moving PD beyond the initial fascination of user involvement. In Proceedings of the Second Nordic Conference on Human-Computer interaction (Aarhus, Denmark, October 19–23, 2002). NordiCHI '02, vol. 31. ACM Press, New York, NY, 11-18.

• - Bødker, K., Kensing, F., and Simonsen, J. (2004). Participatory IT design: Designing for business and workplace realities. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.

• - Bødker, S. (1996). Creating conditions for participation: Conflicts and resources in systems design, Human Computer Interaction 11(3), 215-236.

• - Bødker, S., Christiansen, E., Ehn, P., Markussen, R., Mogensen, P., & Trigg, R. (1993). The AT Project: Practical research in cooperative design, DAIMI No. PB-454. Department of Computer Science, Aarhus University.

• - Bødker, S., Ehn, P., Kammersgaard, J., Kyng, M., & Sundblad, Y. (1987). A Utopian experience: In G. Bjerknes, P. Ehn, & M. Kyng. (Eds.), Computers and democracy: A Scandinavian challenge (pp. 251–278). Aldershot, UK: Avebury.

• - Carr, A.A. (1997). User-design in the creation of human learning systems. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45 (3), 5-22.

• - Carr-Chellman, A.A., Cuyar, C., & Breman, J. (1998). User-design: A case application in health care training. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46 (4), 97-114.

• - Divitini, M. & Farshchian, B.A. 1999. Using Email and WWW in a Distributed Participatory Design Project. In SIGGROUP Bulletin 20(1), pp. 10–15.

• - Ehn, P. & Kyng, M. (1987). The Collective Resource Approach to Systems Design. In Bjerknes, G., Ehn, P., & Kyng, M. (Eds.), Computers and Democracy - A Scandinavian Challenge. (pp. 17–58). Aldershot, UK: Avebury.

• - Ehn, P. & Kyng, M., 1991. Cardboard Computers: Mocking-it-up or Hands-on the Future. In, Greenbaum, J. & Kyng, M. (Eds.) Design at Work, pp. 169 – 196. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.

• - Ehn, P. (1988). Work-oriented design of computer artifacts. Falköping: Arbetslivscentrum/Almqvist & Wiksell International, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

• - Ehn, P. and Sandberg, Å. (1979). God utredning: In Sandberg, Å. (Ed.): Utredning och förändring i förvaltningen[Research and change in administration]. Stockholm: Liber.

• - Grudin, J. (1993). Obstacles to Participatory Design in Large Product Development Organizations: In Namioka, A. & Schuler, D. (Eds.), Participatory design. Principles and practices (pp. 99–122). Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

• - Grønbæk, K., Kyng, M. & P. ​​Mogensen (1993). CSCW challenges: Cooperative Design in Engineering Projects, Communications of the ACM, 36, 6, pp. 67–77.

• - Kristo Ivanov (1972). Quality-control of information: On the concept of accuracy of information in data banks and in management information systems. The University of Stockholm and The Royal Institute of Technology. Doctoral dissertation.

• - Kristo Ivanov (1995). A subsystem in the design of informatics: Recalling an archetypal engineer. In B. Dahlbom (Ed.), The infological equation: Essays in honor of Börje Langefors, (pp. 287–301). Gothenburg: Gothenburg University, Dept. of Informatics (ISSN 1101-7422). Note #16.

• - Kensing, F. & Blomberg, J. 1998. Participatory Design: Issues and Concerns In Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Vol. 167–185.

• - Kensing, F. 2003. Methods and Practices in Participatory Design. ITU Press, Copenhagen, Denmark.

• - Kuiper, Gabrielle, June 2007, Participatory planning and design in the downtown eastside: reflections on Global Studio Vancouver, Australian Planner, v.44, no.2, pp. 52–53.

• - Kyng, M. (1989). Designing for a dollar a day. Office, Technology and People, 4(2): 157-170.

• - Muller, M.J. (2007). Participatory design: The third space in HCI (revised). In J. Jacko and A. Sears (eds.), Handbook of HCI 2nd Edition. Mahway NJ USA: Erlbaum.

• - Naghsh, A. M., Ozcan M. B. 2004. Gabbeh - A Tool For Computer Supported Collaboration in Electronic Paper-Prototyping. In *Dearden A & Watts L. (Eds). Proceedings of HCI “04: Design for Life volume 2. British HCI Group pp77 – 80.

• - Näslund, T., 1997. Computers in Context –But in Which Context? In Kyng, M. & Mathiassen, L. (Eds). Computers and Design in Context. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. pp. 171 – 200.

• - Nichols, Dave, (2009) Planning Thought and History Lecture, The University of Melbourne.

• - Noro, K., & Imada, A. S. (Eds.). (1991) Participatory ergonomics. London: Taylor and Francis.

• - Perry, M. & Sanderson, D. 1998. Coordinating Joint Design Work: The Role of Communication and Artefacts. Design Studies, Vol. 19, pp. 273–28.

• - Anonymous. (2013). What is eco design? ., from Ihobe Website: http://www.ihobe.net/Paginas/Ficha.aspx?IdMenu=0e4d5b7a-bcae-4f11-8173-efef8a5c09dd&Idioma=es-ES.

• - Press, Mandy, 2003. “Communities for Everyone: redesigning contested public places in Victoria”, Chapter 9 of end Weeks et al. (eds), Community Practices in Australia (French Forests NSW: Pearson Sprint Print), pp. 59–65.

• - Reigeluth, C. M. (1993). Principles of educational systems design. International Journal of Educational Research, 19 (2), 117-131.

• - Sarkissian,W, Perglut, D. 1986, Community Participation in Practice, The Community Participation handbook, Second edition, Murdoch University.

• - Schuler, D. & Namioka, A. (1993). Participatory design: Principles and practices. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

• - Seve, Bruno; Redondo, Ernesto; Sega, Robert (2022). "Urban co-creation taxonomy." Journal of Urban Design. 27 (5): 589–604. doi:10.1080/13574809.2022.2053283. hdl:2117/364861..

• - Trainer, Ted 1996, Towards a sustainable economy: The need for fundamental change Envirobook/ Jon Carpenter, Sydney/Oxford, pp. 135–167.

• - Wojahn, P. G., Neuwirth, C. M., Bullock, B. 1998. Effects of Interfaces for Annotation on Communication in a Collaborative Task. In Proceedings of CHI “98, LA, CA, April 18–23, ACM press: 456-463.

• - Wheeler, Stephen, 2004, Planning for Sustainability, Routledge pp. 34–52.

• - Von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General systems theory. New York: Braziller.

• - From the book: Participatory and sustainable design by: Valdés Sylvia, Zen, Marcela de, Basterrechea, Lucía Publisher: Editions of the CCC- Floreal Gorini Cultural Cooperation Center Date: 2013.

• - From the book: Participatory and sustainable design by: Valdés Sylvia, Zen, Marcela de, Basterrechea, Lucía Publisher: Editions of the CCC- Floreal Gorini Cultural Cooperation Center Date: 2013.

[Housing and Urban Planning Notebooks 1]​ </ref>.

<http://revistas.javeriana.edu.co/index.php/cvyu/article/view/4046> Participatory design: Effective strategy for environmental improvement and social economy in low-income housing. Mariana Enet. Housing and Urban Planning Notebook. December 12, 2012.

• - Web Page on Participatory Design on the CPSR site. Links to various papers and information about Participatory Design conferences.

• - Institute for Participatory Design Participatory Design theory and practice, interesting project examples from Germany.

• - Participle Creating new types of public services (London).

• - Human Centered Design Toolkit IDEOs free toolkit.

• - We build the parts you build the product Fast Company Magazine.

• - The World Seed Project.

• - Technical report on participatory theory and methods emphasizing hybridity (methods and work practices that share attributes of multiple domains or disciplines).

Contenido

Desde la década de 1960 hubo una creciente demanda de una mayor consideración de las opiniones de la comunidad en la toma de decisiones importantes. En Australia muchas personas creían que no estaban previstas "para", sino planificadas "en". (Nichols 2009). A falta de una consulta hecha al sistema de planificación parecer paternalista y sin la debida consideración de cómo los cambios en el entorno construido afectases principales usuarios.

En Gran Bretaña "la idea de que el público debería participar se planteó por primera vez en 1965" (Taylor, 1990, p.86). Sin embargo, el nivel de participación es una cuestión importante. Como mínimo, los talleres y audiencias públicas ya se han incluido en casi toda el esfuerzo de la planificación. (Wheeler, 2004, p.46) Sin embargo, este nivel de consulta puede significar simplemente la información sobre el cambio sin la detallada participación. Participación que "reconoce un papel activo en la toma del plan" (Taylor, 1998, p. 86) no ha sido siempre fácil de lograr. El diseño participativo ha tratado de crear una plataforma para la participación activa en el proceso de diseño, para los usuarios finales.

El desarrollo nunca ha sido, como pretendían las fórmulas neoliberales, un resultado espontáneo del mercado sino que implica la acción y la participación de instituciones económicas y sociales específicas. Para constituir un proceso que permita afianzar una identidad cultural propia y consolidar la energía social que haga posible despertar y dinamizar la creatividad, es fundamental contar con el apoyo de los sectores sociales ligados a la educación.

En relación con este tema Celso Furtado decía: “Si el objetivo estratégico es conciliar una alta tasa de crecimiento con la absorción del desempleo y la desconcentración del ingreso debemos reconocer que la orientación de las inversiones no puede subordinarse a la racionalidad de las empresas trasnacionales. Debemos partir del concepto de rentabilidad social a fin de que se consideren los valores sustantivos que encarnan los intereses de la colectividad en su conjunto.” (Furtado 2000: 9-12).

"Desde el punto de vista antropológico, no hay razones para pensar que un uso sea más o menos legítimo que otro. Con todo derecho, cada grupo social cambia la significación y los usos. En este punto los análisis antropológicos necesitan converger con los estudios sobre comunicación porque estamos hablando de circulación de bienes y mensajes, cambios de significado, del pasaje de una instancia a otra, de un grupo a varios. En esos movimientos se comunican significados, que son recibidos, re-procesados o re-codificados. También necesitamos relacionar el análisis intercultural con las relaciones de poder para identificar quiénes disponen de mayor fuerza para modificar el significado de los objetos". (García Canclini, 2004: 35).

History in Scandinavia

Participatory design was actually born in Scandinavia and was called Cooperative Design. However, when the methods were presented to the US community "cooperation" was a word that did not resonate with the strong separation between workers and managers - who were not supposed to discuss ways of working face to face. Therefore, 'participatory' was used as a location. The initial participatory design sessions were not direct cooperation between workers and managers, sitting in the same room discussing how to improve their work environment and tools, but there were no separate sessions for workers and managers. Each group was participating in the process, not cooperating directly. (in the historical review of cooperative design, at a Scandinavian conference).

In Scandinavia, research projects on user participation in systems date back to the 1970s (Bødker 1996). The so-called "collective resource approach" strategies and techniques developed so that workers could influence the design and use of computer applications at work: The Norwegian Iron and Metal Workers' Union took its first step from traditional research towards working with people, directly changing the role of union clubs in projects (NHE and Kyng, 1987).

The Scandinavian projects developed an action research approach, emphasizing active cooperation between researchers and organizational workers to help improve the work situation. While the researchers got their results, the people who worked did so with the same right to get something from the project. The criterion is based on people's experiences, providing them with the resources to act in their current situation. The view of organizations as fundamentally harmonious—according to which conflicts in an organization are regarded as pseudo-conflicts or "problems" dissolved by good analysis and greater communication—was rejected in favor of a view of organizations that recognizes the fundamental "non-absorbable" conflicts in organizations (NHE and Sandberg, 1979).

Participatory design "techniques" emerged strongly in the 1970s, as a reaction to the "top-down" "educational" policies that governments implemented in their socio-housing policies and as an alternative to the reductionism of the problem in its technical-functional and formal aspects, forgetting the social effects that these produced. This is reflected in the large gaps between the planned design and the actual use, determining, for example, uprooting, violence and destruction of high-rise housing complexes.

In the Utopia Project (Bødker et al., 1987, En, 1988), the main achievements were experience-based design methods, developed through hands-on attention to experiences, emphasizing the need for technical and organizational alternatives (Bødker et al., 1987).

The Florence Project (Gro Bjerkness and Bratteteig Tone) began a long series of Scandinavian research projects in the health sector. In particular, we worked with nurses and developed approaches so that nurses could have a say in the development of work in hospitals. The Florencia project put the gender issue on the agenda with its starting point in a highly generalized work environment.

Community Planning and Placemaking

Major international organizations such as projects for public spaces create opportunities for rigorous participation in the design and creation of places, believing it to be the essential ingredient for a successful environment.

More than just consulting the public, PPS creates a platform for the community to participate and co-design new areas, which reflect their intimate knowledge. They provide ideas that independent design professionals, such as architects or even local government, may not have.

Using a method called Place Game Assessment, where community groups are taken to the proposed development site, where they use their knowledge to develop design strategies that will benefit the community.

Whether the participants are students or professionals, the exercise produces spectacular results because it is based on the experience of the people who use the site every day, or who are the potential users of the place.[2]​ This successfully engages the fundamental idea of ​​participatory design, where the various actors who will be the users of the final product, are involved in the design process as a collective (social group)&action=edit&redlink=1 "Collective (social group) (not yet drafted)").

Similar projects have been successful in Melbourne, Australia particularly in relation to contested sites, where design solutions are often difficult to establish. The Talbot Reserve in St Kilda faced numerous disputed use issues, such as becoming a regular location for sex workers and drug users. Design In, which engaged a variety of key community users on what they wanted for the future of the reserve, traditionally allowed marginalized voices to participate in the design process.

Participants described it as "a transformative experience of seeing the world through different eyes." (Press, 2003, p. 62). This is perhaps the key feature of participatory design, a process that allows multiple voices to be heard and participate in the design, leading to results that suit a wide range of users. Since planning affects everyone it is believed that "those whose livelihoods, environments and lives are at stake must participate in the decisions that affect them" (Sarkissian and Perglut, 1986, p. 3)

The Institute of Placemaking is a knowledge exchange center and a public institution that provides spatial possibilities to people who want a place for new ideas and new encounters within the city.

The Institute is not permanent. It is nomadic and changing. It opens, closes, travels, hides and grows. He is always improvising and improving. The Institute is under permanent construction.

Within urban studies, urban co-creation has been proposed to describe participatory processes that are genuinely inclusive, emphasizing the active and grassroots involvement of residents, communities and local organizations in shaping urban environments. Bruno Seve (2022) argues that urban co-creation encompasses a wide range of practices—including space appropriation, self-construction, guerrilla gardening, and tactical urbanism—that challenge traditional top-down models. He argues that the term participation alone is ambiguous and insufficient to describe the diversity of collaborative and dynamic practices in urban transformation (Seve et. al, 2022).[3]​.

In the built environment

Participatory design has many applications in the development of spaces and to generate changes in already built environments. It has a particular view for planners and architects, in relation to placemaking and community regeneration projects. It potentially offers itself as a much more democratic approach than the design process, as it involves more than one stakeholder.

By incorporating a variety of points of view there is a greater opportunity for successful results. Many universities and large institutions are beginning to recognize its importance. The United Nations Global Studies engages students from Columbia University, the University of Sydney and the Sapienza University of Rome to offer design solutions for Vancouver's Downtown Eastside, which suffered from drug and alcohol problems. The process allowed interdisciplinary participation from planners, architects and industrial designers, who focused on collaboration and the exchange of ideas and stories. (Kuiper, 2007, p. 52).

In housing development

Participatory design tends due to the location of this discipline (housing) towards a process in which all definitions, all determinations are the result of conventional research and participation-action on the reality of the final user; introducing the necessary innovations to modernize both its symbolic expression contextualized in the residents' references, and the equation of technologies that generate massive and efficient construction systems (Becerra, 1986, p. 121).

Muchos gobiernos locales en particular en Melbourne, Australia, requieren de una consulta comunitaria para hacer cambios importantes en el entorno construido. La participación comunitaria en el proceso de planificación es casi un requisito estándar en la mayoría de los cambios estratégicos.

El proyecto de la ciudad de Melbourne de reurbanización de Swanton Street recibió más de 5.000 respuestas por parte del público que les permite participar en el proceso de diseño comentando en siete diferentes opciones de diseño.[4]​ Mientras que la ciudad Río Yarra recientemente llevó a cabo "Historias de la calle", para grabar ideas de la gente sobre el futuro de Smith Street. Se ofreció a los participantes una variedad de medios para explorar sus opiniones como mapas, encuestas de fotos y narración de cuentos. Aunque los consejos locales están tomando medidas positivas para el diseño participativo en lugar de los tradicionales métodos de planificación, muchas comunidades se están moviendo para llevar el diseño en sus propias manos.

El proyecto de la reparación de la ciudad de Portland, Oregón[5]​ es una forma de diseño participativo, que involucra a la comunidad al codiseñar juntos en áreas problemáticas para hacer cambios positivos en su entorno. Se trata de la toma de decisiones y el diseño colaborativo sin la participación tradicional del gobierno o de los profesionales locales, sino que funciona con voluntarios de la comunidad.

Peer-to-peer urbanismo es una forma descentralizada de diseño participativo para entornos urbanos y edificios individuales. Toma prestadas las ideas de organización del movimiento de software de código abierto, por lo que el conocimiento de los métodos de construcción y los planes de urbanismo se intercambian libremente.

El urbanismo de igual-a-igual es una manera innovadora de concebir, construir y reparar la ciudad que se basa en cinco principios básicos.

1. El urbanismo de igual-a-igual defiende el derecho humano fundamental de escoger el ambiente construido en el cual vivimos. La elección individual selecciona la opción que mejor llena nuestras necesidades entre las diversas posibilidades que generan una ciudad compacta y sostenible.

2. Todos los ciudadanos deben tener acceso a la información concerniente a su medio ambiente, de manera que se puedan involucrar en el proceso de toma de decisiones. Esto es posible y apoyado activamente por las TIC (Tecnologías de Información y Comunicación).

3. Los usuarios mismos deberían participar en todos los niveles del codiseño, y en algunos casos, de la construcción de su ciudad. Deberían ser tenedores de los riesgos de cualquier cambio en su medio ambiente que ha sido contemplado por el gobierno o los urbanizadores.

4. Los practicantes del urbanismo igual-a-igual están comprometidos a generar y diseminar conocimiento, teorías y tecnologías de origen abierto, y prácticas implementadas para el tejido urbano a escala humana de manera que estos sean libres para que cualquiera los use y los revise.

5. Los usuarios del medio ambiente construido deben tener el derecho de implementar repositorios para la evolución de los conocimientos, aptitudes y prácticas, que les proporcionan herramientas urbanas cada vez más sofisticadas y mejor adaptadas.

In software development

In the English-speaking world, the term has particular currency in the world of software development, especially in circles related to Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR), who have expressed it in a series of participatory design conferences. It overlaps with the Extreme Programming approach to user participation in design, but (possibly because of its European union origins) the Participatory Design tradition places more emphasis on the participation of a broad population of users rather than a small number of user representatives.

Participatory design can be seen as a movement of end users in the world of researchers and developers, while empathic design can be seen as a movement of researchers and developers in the world of end users. There is a very significant difference between user and user-centered design and design in which there is an emancipatory theoretical basis and a basis in systems theory (Kristo Ivanov, 1972, 1995), on which user design is founded. In fact, user-centered design is a useful and important construct, but it only suggests that users be taken as the center in the design process, even consulting with users to a large extent, but it does not allow users to make the decisions, nor empower users with the tools that experts use.

For example, Wikipedia content is users designing, co-creating, since users have the necessary tools to make and remake their own entries or modify those of others. However, Wikipedia's underlying wiki software is based on user-centered design: while users can propose changes or have input into the design, a smaller, more specialized group decides about the features and design of the system.

Participatory work in software development has historically tended to two distinct trajectories, one in Scandinavia and northern Europe, and the other in North America. The Scandinavian and northern European tradition has remained close to its roots in the labor movement (e.g., Beck, 2002; Bjerknes, epizootic hematopoietic necrosis, and Kyng, 1987). The North American and Pacific Rim tradition has tended to be both broader (e.g., including managers and executives as “stakeholders” in the design) and more limited (e.g., designing for individual features, in contrast to the Scandinavian approach to designing complete systems and designing the work that the system is supposed to support) (e.g., Beyer and Holtzblatt, 1998; Noro and Imada, 1991). However, more recent work has tended to combine the two approaches (Bødker et al, 2004; Muller, 2007).

Distributed participatory design

"Distributed Participatory Design" (DPD) is a design approach and philosophy that supports the direct participation of users and other stakeholders in systems analysis and design work. Today design teams are often distributed, emphasizing the need for support and knowledge accumulated from the design of distributed systems. Distributed participatory design aims to facilitate understanding between different interest groups in distributed design teams by giving each opportunity to participate in hands-on activities.

Participatory design of a project[6]​

In the Manual of participation for humanitarian actors, of the Groupe URD"),[7]​

It mentions the processes that must be used to ensure that the participatory design of a project is beneficial both for the population affected by the crisis and for other actors, including the humanitarian organization. These processes must be the following:

• - Prioritize solutions. Prioritizing is analyzing a series of possible solutions in a specific context and will identify the options that address the set objectives most effectively and with the greatest positive impact. Mainly, the success of the project depends on this stage, since the project objectives and the implementation strategy will be defined according to the analysis carried out at this stage. Prioritizing solutions requires:

• get a list of possible solutions;

• analyze and compare each solution taking into account different criteria, such as analyzing possible solutions, feasibility, complementary with foundations, local practices and techniques, sustainability of the solution;

• Collectively establish priorities among the possible solutions that can be adopted for the project;

• identify possible solutions.

• - Define the project. Once a list of priority solutions has been established, the project strategy can be determined. This stage is one of the most delicate in the project cycle and can be difficult to carry out in a participatory manner, given that it is when commitments to those of the population are clearly defined. Defining the project requires clarifying:

• the project objectives, that is, the problems the project will address;

• the results or performance of the project;

• the target group;

• the activities to be implemented to achieve the project objectives;

• the resources necessary to implement these activities;

• who will carry out each task and what each person will contribute;

• institutional start-up, management and communication strategies.

• - Identify the target group. Related to the definition of objectives and results is the identification of the target group, the group that will directly benefit from the project. Identifying the target group at a broad level (by province or village) will have already been done earlier in the process, often even before carrying out the assessment. Identifying the target group is one of the most delicate steps in the project cycle since it touches on the issues of security and protection, discrimination and humanitarian principles of impartiality, neutrality and independence; that should be taken into account. Therefore, it is important to share with the population, local authorities and other actors the four main ideas associated with the process of identifying the target group:

• be as efficient as possible in alleviating suffering (having a real impact with the assistance available);

• work within resource constraints;

• ensure that the most vulnerable people are served;

• avoid the distorting effects of humanitarian aid.

• - Define the activities and identify the necessary resources. The activities are the tasks that should be carried out to produce the desired results and, therefore, achieve the set objectives. Implementing each activity requires resources that should be planned in the project work plan. Finally, it should also be specified in the project design who is in charge of the different tasks and who provides each of the resources. Together, all these elements make up the project work plan that should be defined with the corresponding actors. In other words, responsibilities and contributions that each actor will make must be defined.

• - Close the design phase. The last step of the design process requires:

• present all decisions made in relation to the future project to the affected population and the corresponding actors and validate them;

• draft and finalize project documentation;

• communicate next steps before starting the implementation phase, especially the resource mobilization process;

• create a space where all elements of the program can be presented and discussed with a wide selection of the affected population.

Participatory design processes require transparency. At the end of this phase, more expectations will have been generated than in the assessment phase. It is necessary to ensure that members of the population and other stakeholders are kept informed about the resource mobilization process, especially when long processes with donors are underway.

Participatory design process

Broadly speaking, we can encompass the participatory design process in four stages:

1. Approach to the problem..

In this first stage there is a rapprochement between the residents of a community and the technical team of advisors, based on the specific need to solve an urban or architectural problem. At this time, a work “collective” is formed to jointly plan the development of the project. Through dialogue, the interests and priorities of the various actors involved are agreed upon. In this phase it is very important to work on the formation and cohesion of the team and on determining the priorities that will guide the rest of the process.

Expected results: a work team made up of various actors —residents, technicians, authorities, etc.— capable of generating ideas, discussing them, exposing their interests and agreeing on priorities..

2. Research—knowledge.

Once the work team is formed, preliminary information is collected and analyzed for each of the components—urban, social, economic, cultural—from which a variety of ideas will emerge that will be combined in the design proposal. It should be noted that, from the participatory design approach, the “triangulation” of information is a priority, that is, the verification of results from various sources, with various methods and with different participants.

Expected results: Useful information for the development of the design process..

3. Generation of design ideas..

Generally, in this phase we work based on design workshops. The information collected, analyzed and systematized in the previous phase serves as a basis for the collective development of ideas about the form of urban-architectural spaces. Through dialogue, the active participation of the advisory team and the community is sought. We work mainly with visual materials (plans, sketches, drawings, photographs) and models.

Expected results: The collective generation of ideas and design criteria..

4. Concretion and evaluation..

Based on the materials generated in the design workshop, the advisory team works on preparing proposals, as an approach to possible solutions. These proposals are discussed, compared and evaluated in successive design workshops until a definitive project is reached.

Expected results: A final project agreed upon by all the actors involved in the process..

It is necessary to clarify that the process does not necessarily develop in a linear manner, in the sequence set out above. It is possible that each of the phases is combined with others. The development of the design process varies in each particular case.[8]​.

Participatory design in social processes

Its objectives are to build a discussion process extended to all actors involved in the projects through the participatory design methodology, about the spaces and uses that will be necessary in a program proposal and architectural project.

Deepen the confluences that exist.

Advance in the concrete formulation of the program and projects.

Objectives of the reflection on the application of the participatory design process

Verify to what extent the participatory design favored or not in these cases:.

• - Understanding, agreements and sustainability of environmental changes.

• - The progressive transformation of attitudes and skills for sustainable environmental management of both the target population and the professionals involved in the design.

• - The development of adequate conditions to optimize and improve the social economy.

• - The implementation of public social housing policies considering environmental aspects.

• - The proposals that were most productive in relation to the traditional way of solving the problem.

• - General methodological process of participatory design. Source: Mariana Enet.

Ecodesign is also found within the philosophy of participatory design and is also known as Design for the Environment. It is presented as a methodology that considers the environmental variable as one more criterion when making decisions in the design process of industrial products, in addition to others that have traditionally been taken into account (costs, quality...).

The ultimate goal of Ecodesign is to improve the environmental performance of products throughout their life cycle (selection and use of raw materials; manufacturing, packaging, transportation and distribution; installation and maintenance; use and end of life), through the systematic integration of environmental issues at the earliest stage of product design.

"The problem of the climate crisis that is plaguing the entire world with serious consequences is added to the effects of the food crisis caused directly by the trade policies of the so-called central countries, which have been put into practice for 20 years with the spread of the neoliberal economic model. Although great steps have been taken towards understanding the economic crisis as a crisis of overproduction, overaccumulation, securitization and creation of fictitious capital, the connections, effects and scope that it has in relation to the depletion of resources have not been sufficiently pointed out. natural resources of the planet.” (Valdes, 2012).

Upper secondary education has the obligation to be side by side with those who are our reason for being, the citizens who trusted the State so that our houses of study train professionals committed to the search and generation of knowledge at the service of the needs of the population and not of corporations or individual interests. On many occasions, the designer “comes out” of the project by recycling or reusing materials that are industrial waste or household waste. With an ecological perspective, any small piece of material is valued and it seems a lack of responsibility for it to be wasted.

The purpose of being useful to a need is confused with that of innovating to sell as an end in itself, the reason for being necessary or useful is inherent to the design; It is an intrinsic, essential reason. If designing involves the creation of forms for a purpose, then the purpose of design is necessarily always to respond to a need of man since the human being is a free being, what allows him to be in the world is precisely his possibilities because the being is being with. This common – unity with all living beings must then be guiding for those of us who have the task of giving meaning to things, the aim as well as the objective of design is to create objects that respond to the needs of man in his habitat, his social and physical environment. Gui Bonsiepe, an industrial designer born in Germany, argues that “design must be done from the countries themselves, in the context in which they live.” This means that objects should be designed in their country of context so that they really regain meaning and so that they can truly satisfy the specific needs of the country or place. These types of developments encourage the local economy and would not feed a global neoliberal economy for “nonsense” objects. This proposal by Bonsiepe brings us closer to a participatory and conscious design, and not to what is currently stated that designers are obsessed with the object, when in reality the attention should be placed on the space where the action, the user and the object are articulated.

• - Asaro, Peter M. (2000). "Transforming society by transforming technology: the science and politics of participatory design." Accounting Management and Information Technology 10: 257–290.

• - Banathy, B.H. (1992). Comprehensive systems design in education: building a design culture in education. Educational Technology, 22(3) 33-35.

• - Beck, E. (2002).P for Political - Participation is Not Enough. SJIS, Volume 14 - 2002.

• - Belotti, V. and Bly, S., 1996. Walking away from desktop computer: distributed collaboration and mobility in a product design team. In Proceedings of CSCW “96, Cambridge, Mass., November 16–20, ACM press: 209-218.

• - Beyer, H., and Holtzblatt, K. (1998). Contextual design: Defining customer-centered systems. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.

• - Button, G. and Sharrock, W. 1996. Project work: the organization of collaborative design and development in software engineering. CSCW Journal, 5 (4), p. 369-386.

• - Bødker, S. and Iversen, O. S. (2002): Staging a professional participatory design practice: moving PD beyond the initial fascination of user involvement. In Proceedings of the Second Nordic Conference on Human-Computer interaction (Aarhus, Denmark, October 19–23, 2002). NordiCHI '02, vol. 31. ACM Press, New York, NY, 11-18.

• - Bødker, K., Kensing, F., and Simonsen, J. (2004). Participatory IT design: Designing for business and workplace realities. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.

• - Bødker, S. (1996). Creating conditions for participation: Conflicts and resources in systems design, Human Computer Interaction 11(3), 215-236.

• - Bødker, S., Christiansen, E., Ehn, P., Markussen, R., Mogensen, P., & Trigg, R. (1993). The AT Project: Practical research in cooperative design, DAIMI No. PB-454. Department of Computer Science, Aarhus University.

• - Bødker, S., Ehn, P., Kammersgaard, J., Kyng, M., & Sundblad, Y. (1987). A Utopian experience: In G. Bjerknes, P. Ehn, & M. Kyng. (Eds.), Computers and democracy: A Scandinavian challenge (pp. 251–278). Aldershot, UK: Avebury.

• - Carr, A.A. (1997). User-design in the creation of human learning systems. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45 (3), 5-22.

• - Carr-Chellman, A.A., Cuyar, C., & Breman, J. (1998). User-design: A case application in health care training. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46 (4), 97-114.

• - Divitini, M. & Farshchian, B.A. 1999. Using Email and WWW in a Distributed Participatory Design Project. In SIGGROUP Bulletin 20(1), pp. 10–15.

• - Ehn, P. & Kyng, M. (1987). The Collective Resource Approach to Systems Design. In Bjerknes, G., Ehn, P., & Kyng, M. (Eds.), Computers and Democracy - A Scandinavian Challenge. (pp. 17–58). Aldershot, UK: Avebury.

• - Ehn, P. & Kyng, M., 1991. Cardboard Computers: Mocking-it-up or Hands-on the Future. In, Greenbaum, J. & Kyng, M. (Eds.) Design at Work, pp. 169 – 196. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.

• - Ehn, P. (1988). Work-oriented design of computer artifacts. Falköping: Arbetslivscentrum/Almqvist & Wiksell International, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

• - Ehn, P. and Sandberg, Å. (1979). God utredning: In Sandberg, Å. (Ed.): Utredning och förändring i förvaltningen[Research and change in administration]. Stockholm: Liber.

• - Grudin, J. (1993). Obstacles to Participatory Design in Large Product Development Organizations: In Namioka, A. & Schuler, D. (Eds.), Participatory design. Principles and practices (pp. 99–122). Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

• - Grønbæk, K., Kyng, M. & P. ​​Mogensen (1993). CSCW challenges: Cooperative Design in Engineering Projects, Communications of the ACM, 36, 6, pp. 67–77.

• - Kristo Ivanov (1972). Quality-control of information: On the concept of accuracy of information in data banks and in management information systems. The University of Stockholm and The Royal Institute of Technology. Doctoral dissertation.

• - Kristo Ivanov (1995). A subsystem in the design of informatics: Recalling an archetypal engineer. In B. Dahlbom (Ed.), The infological equation: Essays in honor of Börje Langefors, (pp. 287–301). Gothenburg: Gothenburg University, Dept. of Informatics (ISSN 1101-7422). Note #16.

• - Kensing, F. & Blomberg, J. 1998. Participatory Design: Issues and Concerns In Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Vol. 167–185.

• - Kensing, F. 2003. Methods and Practices in Participatory Design. ITU Press, Copenhagen, Denmark.

• - Kuiper, Gabrielle, June 2007, Participatory planning and design in the downtown eastside: reflections on Global Studio Vancouver, Australian Planner, v.44, no.2, pp. 52–53.

• - Kyng, M. (1989). Designing for a dollar a day. Office, Technology and People, 4(2): 157-170.

• - Muller, M.J. (2007). Participatory design: The third space in HCI (revised). In J. Jacko and A. Sears (eds.), Handbook of HCI 2nd Edition. Mahway NJ USA: Erlbaum.

• - Naghsh, A. M., Ozcan M. B. 2004. Gabbeh - A Tool For Computer Supported Collaboration in Electronic Paper-Prototyping. In *Dearden A & Watts L. (Eds). Proceedings of HCI “04: Design for Life volume 2. British HCI Group pp77 – 80.

• - Näslund, T., 1997. Computers in Context –But in Which Context? In Kyng, M. & Mathiassen, L. (Eds). Computers and Design in Context. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. pp. 171 – 200.

• - Nichols, Dave, (2009) Planning Thought and History Lecture, The University of Melbourne.

• - Noro, K., & Imada, A. S. (Eds.). (1991) Participatory ergonomics. London: Taylor and Francis.

• - Perry, M. & Sanderson, D. 1998. Coordinating Joint Design Work: The Role of Communication and Artefacts. Design Studies, Vol. 19, pp. 273–28.

• - Anonymous. (2013). What is eco design? ., from Ihobe Website: http://www.ihobe.net/Paginas/Ficha.aspx?IdMenu=0e4d5b7a-bcae-4f11-8173-efef8a5c09dd&Idioma=es-ES.

• - Press, Mandy, 2003. “Communities for Everyone: redesigning contested public places in Victoria”, Chapter 9 of end Weeks et al. (eds), Community Practices in Australia (French Forests NSW: Pearson Sprint Print), pp. 59–65.

• - Reigeluth, C. M. (1993). Principles of educational systems design. International Journal of Educational Research, 19 (2), 117-131.

• - Sarkissian,W, Perglut, D. 1986, Community Participation in Practice, The Community Participation handbook, Second edition, Murdoch University.

• - Schuler, D. & Namioka, A. (1993). Participatory design: Principles and practices. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

• - Seve, Bruno; Redondo, Ernesto; Sega, Robert (2022). "Urban co-creation taxonomy." Journal of Urban Design. 27 (5): 589–604. doi:10.1080/13574809.2022.2053283. hdl:2117/364861..

• - Trainer, Ted 1996, Towards a sustainable economy: The need for fundamental change Envirobook/ Jon Carpenter, Sydney/Oxford, pp. 135–167.

• - Wojahn, P. G., Neuwirth, C. M., Bullock, B. 1998. Effects of Interfaces for Annotation on Communication in a Collaborative Task. In Proceedings of CHI “98, LA, CA, April 18–23, ACM press: 456-463.

• - Wheeler, Stephen, 2004, Planning for Sustainability, Routledge pp. 34–52.

• - Von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General systems theory. New York: Braziller.

• - From the book: Participatory and sustainable design by: Valdés Sylvia, Zen, Marcela de, Basterrechea, Lucía Publisher: Editions of the CCC- Floreal Gorini Cultural Cooperation Center Date: 2013.

• - From the book: Participatory and sustainable design by: Valdés Sylvia, Zen, Marcela de, Basterrechea, Lucía Publisher: Editions of the CCC- Floreal Gorini Cultural Cooperation Center Date: 2013.

[Housing and Urban Planning Notebooks 1]​ </ref>.

<http://revistas.javeriana.edu.co/index.php/cvyu/article/view/4046> Participatory design: Effective strategy for environmental improvement and social economy in low-income housing. Mariana Enet. Housing and Urban Planning Notebook. December 12, 2012.

• - Web Page on Participatory Design on the CPSR site. Links to various papers and information about Participatory Design conferences.

• - Institute for Participatory Design Participatory Design theory and practice, interesting project examples from Germany.

• - Participle Creating new types of public services (London).

• - Human Centered Design Toolkit IDEOs free toolkit.

• - We build the parts you build the product Fast Company Magazine.

• - The World Seed Project.

• - Technical report on participatory theory and methods emphasizing hybridity (methods and work practices that share attributes of multiple domains or disciplines).