This article discusses the methodology and results of the Maslow’s Palace workshops project, which engages with current debates surrounding the democratisation of digital urban design technology and stakeholder decision making, through the implementation of a speculative oriented approach to serious gaming. The research explores how serious games might be used to help marginalised communities consider past, future and present community experiences, reconcile dissimilar assumptions, generate social capital building and design responses and prime participants for further long-term design engagement processes through a new approach called Speculative Participatory Serious Urban Gaming. Empirical material for this research was gathered from a range of case study workshops prepared with three landfill-based communities and external partners throughout 2017. Results show the approach helped participants develop shared norms, values and collective understandings of sensitive topics and develop ideas for future action through ‘collective tinkering’.
FrenchMPopalARahimiH, et al. Institutionalizing participatory slum upgrading: a case study of urban co-production from Afghanistan, 2002–2016. Environ Urban2018; 31: 209–230.
2.
HamdiN. The placemakers guide to building community. London: Earthscan Publications, 2010.
3.
SanoffH. Community participation methods in design and planning. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000.
4.
SanoffH. Multiple views on participatory design. Int J Archit Res2007; 2(1): 57–69.
5.
FredianiA. Re-imagining participatory design: reflecting on the ASF-UK change by design methodology. Des Issues2016; 32(3): 98–111.
6.
OECD. The well-being of nations: the role of human and social capital. Paris: OECD, 2001.
7.
MolyneuxLVasudevanKZúñigaHG, et al. Gaming social capital: exploring civic value in multiplayer video games. J Comput-Mediat Commun2015; 20(1): 381–399.
8.
ShahDGil de ZúñigaH. Social capital. In: LavrakasPJ (ed.) Encyclopedia of survey research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2008. pp. 824–825.
CollieN. Cities of the imagination: science fiction, urban space, and community engagement in urban planning. Futures2011; 43(4): 424–431.
11.
ForlanoLMathewA. From design fiction to design friction: speculative and participatory design of values-embedded urban technology. J Urban Technol2014; 21(4): 7–24.
12.
IversenOSHalskovKLeongTW. Values-led participatory design. Codesign Int J Cocreation Des Arts2012; 8(2–3): 87–103.
13.
AmpatzidouCGugerellKConstantinescuT, et al. All work and no play? Facilitating serious games and gamified applications in participatory urban planning and governance. Urban Plan2018; 3(1): 34–46.
14.
BeattieHBrownDGjerdeM. Generating consensus: a framework for fictional inquiry in participatory city gaming. In: Proceedings of the serious games 4th joint international conference (JCSG 2018), Darmstadt, 7–8 November 2018, pp. 126–137. Valencia: Springer.
15.
PoplinA. Games and Serious Games in Urban Planning: Study Cases. In: MurganteBGervasiOIglesiasA, et al. (eds) Computational science and its applications. Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer, 2011, pp. 1–14.
16.
YamuCPoplinADevischO, et al. The virtual and the real in planning and urban design: perspectives, practices and applications. London: Routledge, 2017.
17.
JabbarAIAFeliciaP. Gameplay engagement and learning in game-based learning: a systematic review. Rev Educ Res2015; 85(4): 740–779.
18.
DalisayFKushinMJYamamotoM, et al. Motivations for game play and the social capital and civic potential of video games. New Media Soc2015; 17(9): 1399–1417.
19.
MorschheuserBRiarMHamariJ, et al. How games induce cooperation? A study on the relationship between game features and we-intentions in an augmented reality game. Comput Hum Behav2017; 77: 169–183.
20.
Ben-AttarDCampbellT. ICT, urban governance and youth. Nairobi, Kenya: UN-Habitat, 2015.
21.
FothMHearnGKlaebeH. Embedding digital narratives and new media in urban planning. In: Proceedings digital resources for the humanities and arts. Dartington, 2007, https://eprints.qut.edu.au/8813/1/8813.pdf
22.
SalenKZimmermanE. Rules of play: game design fundamentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004.
DiSalvoC. Adverserial design. London: MIT Press, 2012.
25.
MouffeC. Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism (IHS political science series). Vienna: Institute for Advanced Studies (IHS), 2000.
26.
HollandARoudavskiS. Mobile gaming for agonistic design. In: HollandARoudavskiSZuoJ, et al. (eds) Fifty years later: revisiting the role of architectural science in design and practice. Adelaide: The Architectural Science Association; The University of Adelaide, 2016, pp. 299–308.
InnesJEBooherDE. Consensus building as role playing and bricolage: toward a theory of collaborative planning. J Am Plann Assoc1999; 65(1): 9–26.
29.
ChengNY-W. Playing with digital media: enlivening computer graphics teaching. In: AtamanOBermudezJ (eds) Proceedings of the association for computer aided design in architecture. Salt Lake City, UT: Media and Design Process, 1999, pp. 96–109.
30.
CoultonPBurnettDGradinarA. Games as speculative design: allowing players to consider alternate presents and plausible futures. In: 2016 design research society 50th anniversary conference. Brighton, 27–30 June 2016.
31.
BogostI. Persuasive games: the expressive power of videogames. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2007.
32.
BrandtE. Designing exploratory design games: a framework for participation in participatory design. In: Proceedings of participatory design conference, Trento, 1–6 August 2006.
33.
VisserFSStappersPJVan Der LughtR, et al. Contextmapping: experiences from practice. Codesign Int J Cocreation Des Arts2005; 1(2): 119–149.
34.
PollastriSBoykoCCooperR, et al. Envisioning urban futures: from narratives to composites. Des J2017; 20(1): S4365–1477.
DindlerC. Fictional space in participatory design of engaging interactive environments. PhD Thesis, Department of Information and Media Studies, Faculty of Humanities, Aarhus University, Aarhus, 2010.
42.
GoodmanN. Ways of worldmaking. Indianapolis, IN: Hacket & Company, 1978.
FothMAxupJ. Participatory design and action research: identical twins or synergetic pair? In: Proceedings of the participatory design conference, Trento, 2006, pp. 93–96, https://eprints.qut.edu.au/4347/1/4347.pdf
45.
FredianiAFrenchMFerreraIN. Change by design: building communities through participatory design. Napier, New Zealand: Urban Culture Press, 2011.
46.
GroatLWangD. Architectural research methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2002.
47.
PollastriS. Visual conversations on urban futures: understanding participatory processes and artefacts. PhD Thesis, Lancaster University, Lancaster, 2017.
48.
ReasonPBradburyH. Handbook of action research: participative inquiry and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2001.
49.
SandersE. An evolving map of design practice and design research. Interact: Expliences People Technol2008; 15(6): 13–17.
50.
SilvermanD. Designerly ways for action research. In: BradburyH (ed.) The Sage handbook of action research. New York: SAGE, 2015, pp. 716–723.
51.
SwannC. Action research and the practice of design. Des Issues2002; 18(1): 49–61.
52.
BeattieHBrownDKindonS. Perceptual bridging as a strategy for stakeholder social capital building and ideation in participatory urban design. Lisbon: Centro de Estudos Internacionais, 2018.
53.
StarSLGriesemerJR. Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology. Soc Stud Sci1989; 19: 387–420.
54.
BraunVClarkeV. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol2006; 3(2): 77–101.
55.
BalestriniM. A city in common: explorations on sustained community engagement with bottom-up civic technologies. PhD Thesis, University College London, London, 2017.
56.
CharnleyFLemonMEvansS. Exploring the process of whole system design. Des Stud2011; 32(2): 156–179.
57.
GoochDBarkerMHudsonL, et al. Amplifying quiet voices: challenges and opportunities for participatory design at an urban scale. ACM Trans Comput-Hum Interact TOCHI: Spec Issue Reimagining Particip Des2018; 25(1): 2–34.
58.
KreutzADerrVChawlaL. Fluid or fixed? Processes that facilitate or constrain a sense of inclusion in participatory schoolyard and park design. Landsc J Des Plan Manag Land2018; 37(1): 39–54.
59.
BjögvinssonEEhnPHillgrenP-A. Design things and design thinking: contemporary participatory design challenges. Des Issues2012; 28(3): 101–116.
60.
EhnP. Designing for democracy at work. Falköping: Arbetslivscentrum, 1988.
61.
ArgyrisCSchönD. Organizational learning: a theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1978.
62.
BüscherMEriksenMAKristensenJF, et al. Ways of grounding imagination. In: Proceedings of the eighth conference on participatory design: artful integration: interweaving media, materials and practices, Toronto, ON, Canada, 27–31 July 2004. New York: ACM.
63.
PolanyiM. The tacit dimension. London: Routledge, 1967.
64.
VaajakallioK. Design games as a tool, a mindset and a structure. PhD Thesis, Aalto University, Helsinki, 2012.
65.
JarvisPHolfordJGriffinC, et al. The theory and practice of learning. London: Kogan Page, 2003.
66.
KebritchiMHirumiA. Examining the pedagogical foundations of modern educational computer games. Comput Educ2008; 51(4): 1729–1743.
67.
BjörgvinssonEEhnPHillgrenP-A. Agonistic participatory design: working with marginalised social movements. Codesign Int J Cocreation Des Arts2012; 8(2–3): 127–144.
68.
HayesG. The relationship of action research to human-computer interaction. ACM Trans Comput-Hum Interact2011; 18(3): 15.
69.
KellyPJ. Practical suggestions for community interventions using participatory action research. Public Health Nurs2005; 22(1): 65–73.
70.
DindlerCIversenOS. Fictional inquiry: design collaboration in a shared narrative space. Codesign Int J Cocreation Des Arts2007; 3(4): 213–234.
71.
SchönD. The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books, 1983.
72.
HoltJRadcliffeDSchoorlD. Design or problem solving: a critical choice for the engineering profession. Des Stud1985; 6(2): 107–110.
