“The mutual learning implies that designers learn about the context from the users, but also that the users learn about the technical possibilities from the designers: the mutuality here makes Participatory Design different from other design methods”. (Bratteteig et al. 2012 p.132)
The third core perspective or requirement of PD is mutual learning. In the PD model, mutual learning is key to achieving good design. Bridges must be built not only between domains of knowledge, but also between how different people think about those domains and how they approach problems and possible solutions. In PD therefore, Mutual learning is a goal for all team members. It is not simply a matter of communicating each other’s knowledge about the design problem, it is a matter of how to build the capacity to work together.
We have seen in the previous sections how the design methods and techniques, developed within PD can therefore be seen as facilitators of shared experiences among the participants that create a flow of information and stimulate a collective creativity. The “Third Space”
conceptualisation of PD methods in particular makes that function very explicit. In this section, we see how those methods are also facilitators of mutual learning. To do this, it is necessary to explore what we mean by learning in this context.
The learning that arises from shared experiences is not formal learning in the pedagogical sense. Instead, to understand mutual learning in this context is to see learning as experiential and social. Learning theories such as those of Kolb are often cited in PD. Kolb’s experiential learning theory introduces a cyclical model that combines experience, reflection on action and additional abstract learning and thought that feed into a reflexive view of experience (Kolb 1983). Kolb's work echoes that of Donald Schön who defined the “Reflective Practitioner”, a
concept that has been extremely influential in design research. For Schön, professional development is achieved through a constant cycle of reflection and critical evaluation of ones own work. Through these cycles we gain incrementally greater understanding and insight that can be applied to future projects (Schön 1983; Schön 1990). Schön’s insights have been applied to many professions and has had much attention in design. The ideas about the reflective practitioner in art and design research was later developed by Steven Scrivener (Scrivener 2000) whose work is also discussed in the methodology section of this thesis.
Through these perspectives we are able to see how the social and material experiments that take place within PD, such as the collaborative evaluation of prototypes, can be learning experiences. However, Schön and Scrivener are primarily concerned with the learning and development of professionals. PD demands an extension of these ideas into a more inclusive domain that encompasses collective mutual learning for all participants. Moreover, learning in PD should support the overall aim of personal and social developments. Because of these ethical and political considerations, many researchers in PD find the theoretical underpinnings of mutual learning in PD in the writings of John Dewey relevant. For Dewey, not only does learning have its roots in experience, that learning is applied back into that experience to actively intervene in the world (Dewey 1910). Learning therefore directly enables taking power and control and creates the potential for individuals to reshape their environment (Ehn 2008).
For PD, learning is experiential and has an ethical purpose for individuals. However, there is also a collective dimension. The work of Lave and Wenger (1991) is important here as it takes as its theme the ways that groups and communities take a role in informal learning. Lave and Wenger introduced the idea of “communities of practice” to describe how new people are inducted into professional practice communities, including their skills, language and world- view. Lave and Wenger are social anthropologists and educational theorists respectively, and their work on Communities of Practice stemmed from observed experiences. Their
observations were that new entrants to a field are introduced via “legitimate peripheral
participation”. That is, they undertake small , non-essential tasks first, which enable them to be present in a group and increase their familiarity with the social and practical nature of the work. As, through experience, their knowledge and understanding increases, participants move towards the centre of the activity, taking more and more control. In a community of practice, the explicit intention to learn is not significant. Much more important is the coming together of people with a common purpose to achieve common goals; learning is not formal but emerges from the planning and realisation of shared tasks (Lave & Wenger 1991, Wenger 1998).
For PD, the Communities of Practice model of learning provides a useful theory that explains how the design and co-realisation activities developed by PD can lead to valuable forms of learning. This binds co-realisation strongly together with mutual learning in a feedback loop in which learning underpins co-creation while the activities of co-creation build further
experiential learning. This model helps describe how a group of participants with diverse experiences become a team with the ability to work together, and how the knowledge of each other’s work areas builds through the shared tasks and activities that comprise PD methods. Experiential learning and communities of practice show how such activities can be personally
transformative for individuals as they broaden and deepen their knowledge and are able to be increasingly creative.
In the Hublink project a number of learning outcomes were observed that became important for how the project progressed, feeding back into a deeper engagement with design and helping the project be sustainable. Indeed, it is proposed that Mutual Learning is a key connector between design and sustainability. The models of experiential and social learning from Lave and Wenger, with some roots in work by Kolb and Dewey connect the design methods we used with the learning outcomes we observed. The Communities of Practice model of learning also connects together threads of this research as it has also been applied to descriptions of how open source communities function. (eg Hill 2011, Ducheneaut 2005, Scacchi 2005). We return to this in the chapter of this review on FLOSS. Communities of Practice therefore provides another theme connecting PD and FLOSS.
Jean Lave is known for her seminal work not only on Communities of Practice. Her
observational work on the situated nature of learning and the improvisational and the creative character of human problem-solving she documents has also been extremely influential for PD (for example, Lave 1998). In the final section of this part of my review, the importance of 'situated action', which can be seen as an extension of Lave's observations about learning into the field of design are explored, accompanied by models of responsibility and accountability coming from feminist philosophy. In the previous section we have noted the influence of social anthropology in shaping PD and broadening its concerns. In particular, we have seen how the idea of learning as experiential and unique to a context has helped create a model of learning that integrates with design. We have also noted the contribution to PD of perspectives from STS and feminism, which have questioned the notion of knowledge as singular by drawing on the work of philosophers of science such as Donna Haraway. Through these contributions, PD has come to be defined as a 'situated design' practice and,through being based on the 'partial
knowledge' of participants with different perspectives and approaches, inherently collaborative. Through these influences, an ethics of PD has also been refined, based on the idea of 'located accountabilities'. It is these features of being situated and located that we will explore in the next section.