Despite the growing significance of mobile devices, especially among marginalized communities, there are few explorations of how participatory design (PD) can be applied to mobile communication technologies. This case study of Mobile Voices (VozMob) explores a community-based approach to PD and its potential to promote the participation of groups typically marginalized from the design process, and to empower users. VozMob is a mobile platform that was codesigned with and for immigrant workers and organizers to facilitate the online publishing of multimedia stories about their lives and their social justice efforts. Through collective visualization methods, observation, and interviews, this study investigates the factors that enabled or hindered meaningful user participation in the VozMob design process. Significant differences emerged between participants’ experiences of the design process, which allow for the exploration of themes related to technology appropriation, design ownership, and power sharing in collaborative processes. Our findings reveal that a community-based approach to PD can shed light on the degree to which—and how—collaborative design and equitable participation is possible through mobile media.
AgarJ. (2013).Constant touch: A global history of the mobile phone. Cambridge, UK: Icon Books.
2.
AsaroP. M. (2000). Transforming society by transforming technology: The science and politics of participatory design. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 10(4), 257–290.
3.
AsthanaS. (2010). Young people, new media, and participatory design: A study of Cybermohalla from India. In TynerK. (Ed.), Media literacy: New agendas in communication (pp. 11–27). New York, NY: Routledge.
4.
BarF.WeberM.PisaniF. (2016). Mobile technology appropriation in a distant mirror: Baroque infiltration, creolization and cannibalism. New Media & Society, 18(4), 617–636.
5.
BarranqueroA. (2009). Latinoamérica: La arquitectura participativa de la comunicación para el cambio. Diálogos de la Comunicación, 78, 1–14.
6.
BéguinP. (2003). Design as a mutual learning process between users and designers. Interacting with Computers, 15(5), 709–730.
7.
BenstonM.BalkaM. (1993). Participatory design by non-profit groups. Canadian Woman Studies, 13(2), 100–103.
8.
BlomJ.ChipchaseJ.LehikoinenJ. (2005). Contextual and cultural challenges for user mobility research. Communications of the ACM, 48(7), 37–41.
9.
BrunoF.MuzzupappaM. (2010). Product interface design: A participatory approach based on virtual reality. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 68(5), 254–269. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2009.12.004
10.
ByrneE.AlexanderP. M. (2006). Questions of ethics: Participatory information systems research in community settings. Proceedings of the 2006 Annual Research Conference of the South African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists on IT Research in Developing Countries (pp. 117–126). Somerset West, South Africa: South African Institute for Computer Scientists and Information Technologists.
11.
ChambersR. (1997). Whose reality counts? Putting the first last. London, UK: Intermediate Technology.
12.
Costanza-ChockS. (2014). Out of the shadows, into the streets! Transmedia organizing and the Immigrant Rights Movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13.
DeardenA.RizviH. (2008, October). Participatory design and participatory development: A comparative review. Paper presented at PDC’08: Experiences and Challenges, Participatory Design Conference, Indiana University, Bloomington.
14.
DiminescuD. (2008). The connected migrant: An epistemological manifesto. Social Science Information, 47, 565–579.
15.
DiSalvoC.ClementA.PipekV. (2013). Communities: Participatory design for, with, and by communities. In SimonsenJ.RobertsonT. (Eds.), Routledge international handbook of participatory design (pp. 182–209). New York, NY: Routledge.
16.
DonnerJ.MarsdenG.GitauS. (2011). Exploring mobile-only Internet use: Results of a training study in urban South Africa. International Journal of Communication, 5, 574–597.
17.
ErtnerM.KragelundA. M.MalmborgL. (2010). Five enunciations of empowerment in participatory design. In Proceedings of the 11th Biennial Participatory Design Conference (pp. 191–194). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/1900441.1900475
18.
Fals-BordaD.RahmanM. A. (Eds.). (1991). Action and knowledge: Breaking the monopoly with participatory action-research. New York, NY: Apex Press.
19.
FarooqU.GanoeC. H.XiaoL.MerkelC. B.RossonM. B.CarrolJ. M. (2007). Supporting community-based learning: Case study of a geographical community organization designing its website. Behaviour & Information Technology, 26(1), 5–21.
20.
FreireP. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (RamosM. Bergman Trans.). New York, NY: Herder.
21.
GonzalezC.KatzV. S. (2016). Transnational family communication as a driver of technology adoption. International Journal of Communication, 10, 2683–2703.
22.
JacksonE. T.KassamY. (1998). Knowledge shared: Participatory evaluation in development cooperation. Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press.
23.
KensingF.GreenbaumJ. (2013). Heritage: Having a say. In SimonsenJ.RobertsonT. (Eds.), Routledge international handbook of participatory design (pp. 21–36). New York, NY: Routledge.
24.
KöningsK. D.van ZundertM. J.Brand-GruwelS.van MerriënboerJ. J. (2007). Participatory design in secondary education: Is it a good idea? Students’ and teachers’ opinions on its desirability and feasibility. Educational Studies, 33(4), 445–465.
LongfordG. (2005). Pedagogies of digital citizenship and the politics of code. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 9(1), 68–96.
27.
LópezA. (2008). Circling the cross: Bridging Native America, education, and digital media. In EverettA. (Ed.), Learning race and ethnicity: Youth and digital media (pp. 109–126). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28.
MarinoM. (2014). Mobilizing cities: Alternative community storytelling. In FarmanJ. (Ed.), The mobile story: Narrative practices with locative technologies (pp. 290–304). New York, NY: Routledge.
29.
The VozMob Project (AñorveR.BarF.BroughM.CisnerosA.Costanza-ChockS.GarcésA. L.. . . WallisC.). (2011). Mobile Voices: Projecting the voices of immigrant workers by appropriating mobile phones for popular communication. In NapoliP. M.AslamaM. (Eds.), Communications research in action: Scholar-activist collaborations for a democratic public sphere (pp. 177–196). New York, NY: Fordham University Press.
30.
OlssonE. (2004). What active users and designers contribute in the design process. Interacting with Computers, 16, 377–401.
31.
PanchardJ.PrabhakarT. V.HubauxJ.-P.JamadagniH. S. (2007). Commonsense net: A wireless sensor network for resource-poor agriculture in the semiarid areas of developing countries. Information Technologies & International Development, 4(1), 51–67.
32.
ParksW.Gray-FelderD.HuntJ.ByrneA. (2005). Who measures change? An introduction to participatory monitoring and evaluation of communication for social change. South Orange, NJ: Communication for Social Change Consortium.
33.
ReasonP.BradburyH. (Eds.). (2008). The Sage handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
34.
RobertsonT.WagnerI. (2013). Ethics: Engagement, representation and politics-in-action. In SimonsenJ.RobertsonT. (Eds.), Routledge international handbook of participatory design (pp. 64–85). New York, NY: Routledge.
35.
SchönD. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.
36.
SengersP.BoehnerK.DavidS.KayeJ. J. (2005). Reflective design. In Proceedings of the 4th Decennial Conference on Critical Computing: Between Sense and Sensibility (pp. 49–58). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/1094562.1094569
37.
SpinuzziC. (2005). The methodology of participatory design. Technical Communication, 52(2), 163–174.
38.
SvanaesD.SelandG. (2004). Putting the users center stage: Role playing and low-fi prototyping enable end users to design mobile systems. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 479–486). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/985692.985753
39.
TacchiJ. A.WatkinsJ. J. (2007). Participatory research and creative engagement with ICTs. In Proceedings of the ACM Sensys 2007 workshop Sensing on Everyday Mobile Phones in Support of Participatory Research. Retrieved from https://eprints.qut.edu.au/10616/
40.
TazanuP. M. (2015). On the liveness of mobile phone mediation: Youth expectations of remittances and narratives of discontent in the Cameroonian transnational family. Mobile Media & Communication, 3(1), 20–35.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
