Participatory design in its classical form was about taking a stance for and with somebody, some group of users/workers/people, at the cost of other groups, whether these were recognized or not. In the 1990s in particular participatory design became “good” in itself, no matter who researchers and designers collaborated with, and the arguments for doing participatory design were to be found in the quality of the products and their usefulness to particular users as such.

With Web 2.0 and social technologies, the scope of user participation has opened even further: not only do we talk about technologies outside work, we also work with technologies that can be redesigned, appropriated, molded and shared by everybody. While in this sense these technologies seem more open and democratic than those designed for very particular groups in the 1980s, they do indeed raise the question of whether it is possible to design technologies that are “better for all”.

In a recent booklet, the philosopher Mikkel Thorup[1] points towards the relationship between friends and enemies and concludes that creativity and innovation happens in communities that are under pressure at their boundaries, whereas peace at large leads to laziness and laissez-faire.

In my talk I will use the notions of stance and boundaries to discuss a few recent cases from PIT with respect to the methods used for engaging with groups of users in design in public and civic settings.

[1] Mikkel Thorup: Fjendskab, Tænkepauser, Aarhus Universitetsforlag 2013