101

Taking Design Games Seriously Re-connecting Situated Power Relations of People and Materials

Mette Agger Eriksen Malmö University, K3

Sweden mette.agger@mah.se

Eva Brandt The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, Denmark ebr@kadk.dk

Tuuli Mattelmäki Aalto University,

Finland tuuli.mattelmaki@aalto.fi

Kirsikka Vaajakallio Diagonal, Finland

kirsikka@diagonal.fi

ABSTRACT Using design games at Participatory Design (PD) events is well acknowledged as a fruitful way of staging participation. As PD researchers, we have many such experiences, and we have argued that design games connect participants and promote equalizing power relations. However, in this paper, we will (self) critically re-connect and reflect on how people (humans) and materials (non-humans) continually participate and intertwine in various power relations in design game situations. The analysis is of detailed situated actions with one of our recent games, UrbanTransition. Core concepts mainly from Bruno Latour’s work on Actor-Network-Theory are applied. The aim is to take design games seriously by e.g. exploring how assemblages of humans and non-humans are intertwined in tacitly-but-tactically staging participa-tion, and opening up for or hindering negotiations and decision-making, thus starting to relate research on various PD techniques and power issues more directly.

Author Keywords Design games, Actor-Network-Theory, Participation, Situated power relations of humans and non-humans.

INTRODUCTION Issues of power have always been part of the debate within the Participatory Design (PD) field. For instance, Kensing and Blomberg (1998) write that PD largely is about “an effort to rebalance the power relations between users and technical experts and between workers and managers” (ibid. p. 181). Looking back at the heritage of PD during the last forty years, Kensing and Greenbaum (2013), state that today trade unions are ‘not a central focus of power relations’ (ibid, p. 33). Still, one of the core principles in PD is about equalising power relations (ibid). Within PD, however, power issues are often dealt with in very general terms. For instance, Kensing (1983) argued early on that genuine participation in PD projects requires access to information, resources, such as time, money, and expert assistance, and the power to influence decisions. Recently, Bratteteig and Wagner (2012) look broadly at

the complexity of design decisions within a full PD project. Their work is partly inspired by an empirical study by Borum and Enderud, who identified four mechanisms for structuring or avoiding conflicts: “Agenda control (what is discussed and who decides the themes), participants (…), scope (…which problems are defined and seen as relevant and therefore addressed), and resources (…)” (Borum & Enderud (1981) in Bratteteig and Wagner (2012) p. 47). With these complex mechanisms in mind, Bratteteig and Wagner broadly recognize that “applying these arrangements makes the exercising of power less visible, because it is difficult to identify what is not on the agenda or which solutions (and problems) are not discussed” (ibid p. 47). In the details, we will later see many of these various complexly intertwining characteristics too.

Another core part of PD literature is the wide array of tools and techniques that support various practices of participation – such as design games (e.g. Brandt et al. 2013). As pointed out by Vaajakallio and Mattelmäki (2014), there is no clear definition of design games due to their context specific nature, diverse purposes, and application areas. However, most PD design games are, in line with Brandt (2006), explorative activities for staging participation where interaction among players is guided by game rules and tangible game pieces. Over the years we have studied and developed many different design games, and identified game characteristics among them (e.g. Brandt 2006, Brandt et al. 2008, Vaajakallio 2012, Vaajakallio & Mattelmäki 2014). Many others have also studied design games (in relation to PD see e.g. Ehn & Sjogren 1991; Buur & Søndergaard 2000; Iversen & Buur 2002; Johansson & Linde 2005). However, there are only a few detailed analyses of actual game playing sessions. In some of our recent work, we do this (Vaajakallio 2012; Eriksen 2012), but there we mostly focus on design game qualities and socio-material co-designing characteristics, rather than the situated (Suchman 2007) power relations in the collaborative (game-playing) situation. The aim of this paper is therefore to add and start a discussion within the PD community about situated power issues and relations and how these relate to participation and specific PD tools and techniques. Herein we will address two critical points made recently by Blomberg and Karasti (2013) and Bødker (2009). Blomberg and Karasti argue that “Participatory Design researchers can benefit from reflecting on (…) the positionality of those who participate in Participatory

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from Permissions@acm.org. PDC '14, October 06 - 10 2014, Windhoek, Namibia Copyright 2014 ACM 978-1-4503-2256-0/14/10…$15.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2661435.2661447

102

Design projects, developing an awareness of the potentially unfamiliar constraints they may confront. In addition, there is value in Participatory Design researchers turning the mirror on themselves and asking what motivates their participation in these projects” (ibid., p. 107). Bødker has pointed to the need for understanding “the dynamics of practical user involvement and the ways in which we as researchers, designers, or practitioners are tacitly-but-tactically shaping the outcome of user involvement by allowing participants to speak or act through a particular set of very different artefacts” (Bødker, 2009, p. 23). The essence of this paper is a detailed analysis of particular situations with one of our recent design games, UrbanTransition (UT). Here we will analyse how assemblages of people (humans) and materials (non-humans) entangle in shaping and staging participation in certain ways, and thus opening up for or hindering certain dialogues, negotiations, and decision-making processes.

The paper is structured as follows: First the analytical framework is presented. Then, detailed descriptions of situations with the UT design game are mixed with discussions of re-connecting power relations.

ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK The analytical framework and approach for looking into the details of specific collaborative situations, consist of two parts: Actor-Network-Theory (ANT), and some additional concepts on participating materials and delegated non-humans inspired by ANT.

Actor-Network-Theory ANT highlights the importance of taking both humans (people) and non-humans (e.g. game materials, game-rules and agendas) seriously, which is the main reason for choosing this as our analytic approach and framework. ANT has largely developed as a critique of academic social science practices, particularly led by researchers such as Michel Callon (e.g. 1986), John Law (e.g. 2004), and Bruno Latour (e.g. 2005a). In After Methods, Law argues how researchers need to be able to deal with mess and complexities and that we should recognize how the method’s practice “not only describe but also help to produce the reality” they are aimed to understand (2004, p. 5). This is the aim of this paper.

Yet, among many, specifically we have chosen to apply some core ANT concepts as laid out by Bruno Latour (e.g. 2005a). Overall, we recognize the ANT argument that both humans and non-humans have agency and are part of what takes place in all situations: the social. Much in line with Law, Latour stresses that it is essential not to divide our understandings of the social in micro and macro views of interaction, but rather to “keep the social flat” (ibid. pp. 165-172). Further, Latour stresses to avoid getting blinded by overarching structures or predefined filters – so common within the social sciences. Latour rather recommends that we focus on the “real” interaction while at the same time recognizing that the interactions have an “overflow” and relations with elements that are connected to an “other

time, some other place, and [are] generated by some other agency” (ibid. p.166). In Latour’s words, both humans and non-humans have agency and therefore can be actors, but not all humans and non-humans are actors per se, as some just play intermediary roles (ibid.). Latour also refers to some actors as mediators. Mediators are understood as actors “making others do unexpected things” and in ways that could not be fully foreseen (ibid. p. 59). Further, they are thus making a difference to a state of affairs (ibid. p. 52).

Latour therefore suggests tracing associations in the richness of data, and seeking relations in networks, especially with a focus on mediators and their “well-attached attachments” (ibid. e.g. p. 37, 59) – e.g. to other times, places, and agencies. In Making Things Public, Latour describes networks as “each object gathers around itself a different assembly of relevant parties” (Latour 2005b, p. 5). In essence ANT focuses on the relational, on the continually negotiated networks or mediating assemblies of humans and non-humans that seem to make a difference.

Participating materials and delegated non-humans Building upon the view of materiality inherent in an ANT perspective, Eriksen’s thesis work on Material Matters in Co-Designing (2012), recognizes how materials too are participating in PD/co-designing. This work is amongst others inspired by Latour’s notion of “delegated roles” as a way of understanding the agency of non-humans. Latour shows in some of his classic examples e.g. how a road-bump is a “delegated speed-controlling policeman” and the hydraulic pump on doors is a “delegated doorman” (Latour 1992/1994). Eriksen’s detailed analysis revealed various delegated roles of, particularly, non-humans across various exemplary co-design events (Eriksen 2012). With the purpose of further understanding e.g. game rules and tangible game pieces, she suggests viewing some assemblages of participating materials as “delegated” so called “formats of collaboration” - or “delegated coach assistants” (e.g. time-constraints and the rule of turn-taking in design games) and yet others as delegated “content material” or “delegated playmates” (e.g. contextual content such as field material or a design proposal) (ibid, p. 361-365). However, Eriksen also emphasises how these roles in the actual collaborative situated action continually are delegated, re-connected, and enacted and how they complexly intertwine in different human-non-human assemblages. Yet, this thesis refrained from explicitly relating these understandings to power relations – which we investigate here.

Through transcripts of introducing and playing the UrbanTransition design game, we will trace agencies and relations of humans and non-humans to re-connect and further understand detailed, situated power relations of people and materials in PD.

103

Figure 1: The UrbanTransition design game in the specific play situation. The physical game materials consist of: (1) six out of twelve “Controversy”-game board pieces – setting a topic for dialogue and negotiations, (2) three game board “sharp” corners

– for further concept developments, (3) a middle game board triangle - for re-negotiating by betting, (4) personal tokens to argue/bet with, (5) clock for structuring time, (6) Turn-taking figure, (7) two named proposal tokens, (8) 2 x content-specific proposal descriptions, (9) 2 x drawings of the proposals, (10) score/documentation cards, one per proposal. No. (1-6) + (10)

comes with the game. No. (7-9) were prepared specifically by the municipal organizers for the event addressed in this paper.

A SPECIFIC GAME PLAYING SESSION We are at a municipal renewal office in a “climate change” neighbourhood. A large local square is to be re-designed as a showcase adapting to future climate change such as torrential rain. Ralf, an architect from the renewal office, is the project manager of the collaborative re-designing process with local citizens, colleagues from his office, and other municipal departments. He played an earlier version of the game once before. Ralf and two colleagues have planned this two-hour event for months, where two sketched re-design proposals (captured as two sets of description and drawings) will be challenged by the UT game. The three people present from the renewal office have decided beforehand that the colleague, Cathrin (part of the re-design group), will be responsible for documenting in one of the two groups, and that Dan will be today’s “gamemaster” introducing the game. Dan has participated in developing the game with MAE (researcher). This evening MAE is present primarily to observe game-playing, yet with her in-depth knowledge of the UT game she can by herself easily take the facilitating (gamemaster) role in a group if necessary.

The other people invited by Ralf and showing up are: four local citizens; one local business representative; one colleague from the park and nature-department; and one colleague from the traffic-department in the municipality. We have deliberately chosen to introduce the game here, as it was introduced that evening:

Power relations while introducing the game setting Everyone has a drink and a sandwich, and is sitting around a large table, except, Dan, now speaking:

Dan: The game we are going to play today is called UrbanTransition (…) it is actually a part of a European project between Denmark and Sweden (…) developing methods for citizen engagement and collaboration across municipalities about sustainable urban development – it is both green ecological sustainability, economic sustainability and social sustainability we will work with.

It is a project done with researchers from Malmö, Lund and so on. One of them is here today (he points at MAE) to document and see how it goes. We have developed this, also with some professional game developers (…). We have tried to play it several times, and now we are starting to play it for real.

Dan continues: The aim of this game is to pressure test and compare projects – on different parameters. What we will do today is to pressure test and compare the two proposals that we have sketched (…) [no. 8-9 in Fig. 1]. It is a game that is developing, negotiating, and pressure testing the projects on these parameters. These parameters are carefully selected; originally there were twelve parameters - four economical, four social, and four green – but we do not have the time to play all these. We have chosen six specifically for this game (…) so

104

tonight we will be playing with six pieces [Controversy-game board pieces / no. 1 in Fig. 1].

We will start the analysis by solely focusing on the humans as this is how PD power issues are usually discussed. The role of “gamemaster” is often taken by or given to the PD researchers as they often have more experience with organising and staging PD events than the people they collaborate with. PD researchers are often involved in projects in which part of the aim is to introduce others to various PD practices through participation. Thus PD researchers often have the power of preparing and bringing the design game (or other ways of staging co-designing) to the co-design situation. Additionally, it is often PD researchers who have the situated power to organize how it is used. As it appears, it is not MAE, today’s PD researcher, but Dan from the municipality who introduces the UT game. With “We have developed [the UT game]” Dan refers to himself, MAE, the professional game developers (and also various other researchers and people from different municipalities). One important strategy for equalizing power relations in PD is to find ways for other humans than PD researchers to obtain ownership and confidence in taking the role of “gamemaster” – here partly gained by the previous process of co-designing the game.

Before the event, in dialogue with MAE, the three organisers previously selected the six Controversy game-board pieces and decided on their sequence. With these decisions they have largely set the “agenda”. Dan’s explanation for doing this is time limits. This choice however, makes it very clear that the equalizing of power relations is not even in relation to the other people present this evening. Dan’s introduction continues.

Dan: If you get up, then you can see the game over here (everyone gets up and gathers around the other table in the room, on which the game is already laid out). Here we have the pieces… [Controversy game board-piece no. 1 in Fig. 1] (he positions himself so he can read the first piece that will be played). There is one called “Health and Lifestyle”. The question is “Which concept best supports health and a healthy lifestyle?” and number two “Which concept sends the most green and blue signals?” (he moves to read) (…) These are the six pressure testing pieces we have chosen.

Dan continues: (while picking up and lifting in the air one of two “proposal tokens”) [no. 7 in Fig. 1]. And here we have our two proposals. (while reading from the one in his hand) One proposal is called “The Green Heart” [TGH] – it is a green square (while placing that token back where it was and picking up the other one) and “Centre of Urban Life” [CUL] (he also places it back where it was) – These are the two proposals that will be playing against each other.

(While picking up one of the proposal tokens again) It starts with one participant … who on this “Which proposal best supports health and a healthy lifestyle?” should rank these two proposals. Which one gets the best score (while placing the one in his hand on three points) – this one scores three (…) It is one person, who starts to do that, and there is a short amount of time to argue for

it. Afterwards it is a negotiation (…) of deciding how the points should be (…).

Dan: (While moving the two proposal tokens to the next Controversy-game board piece) Then we move to the next one and do the same. And then we come to a point here (while moving the proposal tokens to the first corner of the board) [sharp corner / no. 2 in Fig. 1]. (…) (picking up one of the proposal tokens) (…) it can be developed here at the corners. And then that is how the project is. (while marking with his hand the second side of the triangular board) Then we do the third side .. (…) and then we can make some conclusions. One from the municipality in each group writes down points and developments. (…)[Cathrin and Dan in each group].

Peter (citizen) asks: What if we disagree?

Dan: Then you have to discuss it. (…)

When presenting the board game a lot of non-humans are mobilized. In order to explain the procedure and rules of the game, Dan is largely assisted by moving and referring to the, in the moment, relevant non-human game materials. The two proposals in text and drawing were send to the participants beforehand. They are based on previous work in the re-design group, so content-wise these are not described in much detail. Otherwise, we have learned about the delegated roles of various physical game materials such as the Controversy game-board pieces, the sharp corners and the proposal tokens. We have heard about some of the rules e.g. comparison of proposals, argumentation, and giving points in relation to the sustainability question on the Controversy board.

Because of space limitations it has been necessary not to go into detail with all the non-humans. Thus, the game is presented simpler than it actually is. Peter’s question about what to do if they disagree seems to trigger Dan to further explain the organizer’s thoughts about the position of the various Controversy game-board pieces:

Dan: Exactly, the way we have placed them – here we have made a priority. You can play the game in the way that you first line up all the [Controversy-game board] pieces, and then you mark which ones you would like, and then collaboratively we decide which six we will be playing about. (…) That you can spend an hour doing - again so you set the game-board collaboratively. (while making a thumbs-up) I think that is very good, but it just takes an hour. So we have chosen these ones, and we have chosen to first place the not so controversial one (pointing at the “Health and Lifestyle”) and then the most controversial, or the ones where there will probably be the most disagreements towards the end. The more important or heavy ones – so it increases in levels of conflict. And it starts with the … nicest ones. (while turning towards Peter) So this we have thought of, this we have considered carefully.

Peter (citizen) responds: That you have manipulated.

(Some laughter).

Dan: Exactly. (…)

As seen above, Dan makes it clear that the non-human Controversy game-board pieces have been carefully

105

selected and assembled. In other words, by the organizers, they have been delegated a central role at this event. Dan acknowledges that deciding which ones to include in the present game could have been a collective act, but again he uses time constraints as the reason for not doing so. In any project, time is a core resource. Yet, as identified by several authors described in the introduction, especially in PD projects, what issues to spend time on as well as who decides these is central. In the example above it is clear that the citizen Peter feels manipulated. With the intension of equalizing power relations, the modular UT game board is designed with the possibility to appropriate, in the situation, the game-board (issues to be discussed) to the specific situation. What seems at stake is that, even though Dan (thumbs-up) approves of this possibility, the municipal organisers have not chosen to structure the time to open up that negotiation.

The procedure of a project manager making and being responsible for the agenda prior to a meeting – and the resume afterwards - is very common practice, also within the municipality and at the renewal office. So, for this session, the three organizers from the renewal office have appropriated the game to match these common practices, which also means keeping the power to decide what issues are included on the “agenda” as well as their sequence. The previous choices of and delegation of roles to non-humans – in this case e.g. the six Controversy game board pieces - reveals how non-humans play a core role in manifesting power relations. The situation also shows how the (human) organizers and the “invited” and delegated non-humans together create a quite strong assemblage setting the scene for participation.

The introduction included other questions and answers about the game, which we will not address here. After this they split up into two groups and played in parallel.

Power relations while playing – in one of the groups The following is about interactions in relation to discussing one Controversy game-board piece. Around the table are the following humans: Ralf, the project manager, Cathrin (renewal office, documenting), Ann (traffic department), two local citizens Mads and Lone, and MAE (researcher, moving around with cameras).

We are at the third and last side of the triangular game board working with the fifth Controversy game-board piece. The two proposals being “pressure tested” are still called “The green heart” (TGH) and “Centre of Urban Life” (CUL). It is Ralf’s turn to start.

Ralf reads out loud: Innovative Operation. The question is: What proposal has the most sustainable structures for operation? And it continues: Operations is a big post in a Municipal’s budgets and not least a very rigid issue. For example, it is often various budget posts that pay depending on if a public area counts as a street, park, or nature. Examples: New operational forms, including local resources, better cooperation between public administration, institutions, professional and industrial bodies, etc. …And ehhh, then I can only say – one of the challenges with the green is - it costs money to maintain anything but large green lawns (…) and it would be very sad just to create yet a lawn over there.

Figure 3: The Controversy game board piece “Innovative Operations”. The top part includes the main question,

description and examples. The bottom part includes the scale of points (0, 0, 1, 2. and 3 points) on which to position

the proposal tokens [no. 7 in Fig. 1].

Lone (citizen) asks: Also if it is something that takes care of itself? – something that does not have to be mowed?

Ralf: Yes. (…) ..it would be planned to be maintained just three times a year, but then it also depends on how many people come by and dump their waste in it.

Lone: Then we just need to have waste bins right by it…

Ralf: And then I am also thinking (…) – It is doable, but it costs money compared to sweeping a square, where the surfaces are somewhat even. (…) Ehh, what else… then there are of course some challenges with all the new surfaces and elements – wind and water towers [these are new developments that were added earlier in the session]…they break. For example the bike pumps in the park close by (…) First they are extremely expensive to establish, and it costs about 5000 DKR every time it needs maintenance (…)..

Figure 4: Upper right corner: The proposal tokens stand and wait next to the “Innovative operations” Controversy game-board. On the left: part of the drawing of the TGH

proposal that the humans also sometimes refer to.

Ralf now picks up the TGH proposal token and places it at 3p and the CUL-token at 2p, while saying: “With all the new elements I think it can become heavy operations-wise, the square itself will be easy to maintain, but I think the other parts will make many within the municipality worried. While TGH with the large zones will be possible to maintain (while circling his pen above a particular area on the drawing of the TGH proposal), there it could be possible as a concept to work with the innovative ways of maintenance for example that someone can ‘adopt’ a green bed. It has been discussed at the other local square

106

where some will be having a small garden, so it might be interesting – maybe for the school or something…”

In this situation of starting to discuss a new Controversy game-board piece it right away becomes the current main mediating actor. By having the text on the board read out loud it becomes the scene, the centre of attention. The two non-humans, the proposal tokens wait in the wings beside the board ready for action. Close by they are accompanied by the non-human drawings capturing specific details of the proposals (see fig. 4).

When Ralf starts reflecting on the overall innovative operation question, the non-human Controversy game-board piece and he become a mediating assembly. Before he can make the first move with the non-human proposal tokens he needs to compare the current new versions of the two proposals with the specific theme on the mobilized Controversy game-board piece. His move includes a decision about how many points to give each of the proposals. This is what the rules of the game say – another non-human with agency and power. Thus the game rules and the proposal tokens soon also become part of the above-mentioned mediating assembly. When reading the text on the “Innovative Operation”-game board piece out loud, access to the information is shared. This is necessary in order for everyone to get familiar with the topic at hand and thus be able to engage in the discussion as not everyone can see the text from where they sit. From Ralf’s initial thoughts on the specific subject matter it seems that he has not made up his mind about the two proposals. Strengths and weaknesses about the two current versions are weighed while talking. Lone asks questions that seems to evoke more reflections.

The specific Controversy-game board piece is a powerful non-human mediator. - Both by staging the overall sustainability boundaries within which the proposals shall now be discussed, and by being the stage upon which the proposal tokens enters when a decision about the suggested points is made.

As it plays out, assemblies of humans and non-humans emerge here and now in the situation. But as Latour argues, situations are simultaneously overflowed with relations and attachments that are connected to other times and other places. An example of this is when Ralf says that “the bike pumps in the park close by (…) are extremely expensive to establish and every maintenance costs about 5000DKR”. He relates the present discussion to his knowledge about current maintenance costs and procedures in another park. By doing so tacitly-but-tactically he demonstrates power as “a person that has some experience and knowledge of operation costs”. These kinds of arguments can be very difficult to contest if one does not know the field.

Further, while Ralf is talking his way into the subject matter by sharing his associations to the question on the Controversy game-board piece, new ideas seem to prompt him (e.g. that someone could “adopt” a (non-human) green bed). By mentioning the school as a possible “parent” Ralf suggests bringing new potential humans that are not physically present onto the scene.

Lone’s question and suggestion seem both to be an invitation to investigate more alternatives and not settle too fast on a conclusion. The dialogue continues:

Ann (traffic-dept.): I cannot really see prices of one compared with the other… I don’t know – I cannot come to think of one example, where we have prioritized granite for example outside of the city centre.

Ralf: In the Y area? – but quite many are tired of it, or?

Ann: Oh yeah, (…) it cannot stand for anything – in terms of being driven on, so it is extremely expensive to maintain.

Cathrin (renewal office): (While marking above certain areas of TGH proposal – which were annotated at an earlier stage). No one says that there would have to be granite everywhere.

Ann: No no, I know, but in principle it is also if it is cobblestones. As soon as you need to get in the ground there, it is very expensive to restore. Cobblestones do not break, but still…it is expensive. (While leaning forward) (The egg-clock rings). The green has much more maintenance expenses year after year, while (nodding towards the CUL-drawing) the square there suddenly gets some very high expenses if they decided to place district heating pipes through the area (…).

Ralf: Yes.

In this sequence Ann, from the municipal traffic department, engages in the dialogue by stating that she finds it difficult to compare prizes. However, it soon becomes clear that she has sound knowledge of various surface materials and road related maintenance procedures. Similarly, as Ralf did earlier, she becomes powerful by referring to other places and times. It is not stated explicitly but it seems that her professional “attachments” counter-argue Ralf’s initial views and arguments about maintaining the square’s even surfaces.

Ralf accepts her argument but adds another view “that many are tired of it”. It is unclear who Ralf is referring to, but Ann seems to follow his line of thought by saying that it [the granite] cannot stand for anything. Cathrin jumps into the discussion by creating an assembly with the non-human TGH proposal drawing and stresses that “No one says that there would have to be granite everywhere.” She uses the assembly to make clear that the TGH square can have asphalt or green areas without a solid surface. Ann acknowledges Cathrin’s point but stresses that other materials are still expensive. Ann continues adding details on how she predicts maintenance for each of the propo-sals without paying attention to the clock when it rings.

Earlier, during the game-playing, the ringing of the clock made the team conclude the on-going discussion and the controversy-responsible person make his/her final positioning of the proposal tokens based on the dialogue. Yet, this time it seems that no one pays much attention to the clock. It seems to have lost its mediating power and agency as delegated coach assistant. Now Ann creates a new temporary assembly when pointing at the CUL drawing while simultaneously saying:

107

Ann (traffic-dept.): I don’t know, what if ehh, I don’t know if we have such agreements, but what if we had the technical university to set them up (water & wind towers) – couldn’t they then also maintain them? (Looks at Ralf).

Ralf: Yes, like a large windmill park…

Ann: Or Siemens, or someone.

Lone (citizen): Or Danfoss – they have some sort of park? Maybe they would want to set something up…?

MAE (researcher): There are also communities engaged in urban bees – maybe they could be interested in such responsibilities?

Lone: (While tapping on top of TGH-drawing) That, they could probably also do in the green…

Ann: (while with her hand waving between the drawings of both proposals) Yes, no matter where they are – the single elements, could maybe have maintenance deals…

Various says: Yeah (Ralf takes both tokens and moves TGH to two points and CUL to one point).

Ann: …and where you then can have a higher level of maintenance, so you can secure...

Ralf interrupts: Now I have moved both of them a bit backwards – because I am thinking, maintenance for both of them is a challenge – because it is this square, and no one should worry about it.

As a contrast to the previous sequence the situation has now developed into a more explorative mode. The comment “what if …?” triggered a sequence of other suggestions for specific organisations that perhaps could be interested in maintaining various elements at the square. The different ideas seem to be supporting each other to further qualify, make more realistic, and address different maintenance challenges. Tracing the situation even closer, Ralf already in his initial comments initiated by the specific Controversy game-board says: “TGH (…) there it could be possible as a concept to work with (…) that someone can ‘adopt’ (…)”. Tracing even further back it is clear that the non-human Controversy board once again plays an influential role. Part of the text on the board says: “Examples: New operational forms, including local resources, better cooperation among public administration, institutions, professional and industrial bodies”. Thus it is actually the example of new agreements that is a part of mediating the humans to come up with specific ideas.

In the end, Ralf re-establishes his network and assembly with the Controversy board and the proposal tokens in order to adjust the points to each of the two proposals. By physically moving the proposal tokens he again displays power and takes on the role as the one in charge of this Controversy piece. He has now listened to the different ideas and arguments and captures this dialogue physically by moving both non-human proposal actors down in terms of points. His main argument is again about “worries”. The discussion continues:

Lone (citizen): But some will worry about it, when it becomes the centre of the neighbourhood, and when people come from around the world to see this…ha ha.

Ralf: We hope not. (Some smiles) So maybe we do have the money to plan and establish it, but we do not at all have the money to maintain it.”

After a few comments on current municipal budget practices between Ralf and Ann (traffic dept.), she leans over the table and moves both tokens even farther backwards placing TGH and CUL at 0 points.

Ralf: So you think they both should have no points?

Ann: (leaning back in her seat again, and while looking a Ralf): So you do not like not giving any of them any points?

Ralf: It was because I thought, no I don’t know…

Lone: I think they are equal there, …but I do not have enough competences to really assess it.

Ralf: You could also go the other way and think – it is more interesting for the municipality with something new and green (while waving his pen above TGH drawing) than yet another square…. (…) (Ann nods).

MAE (researcher): Is that where it ends, if you should move on?

Lone: Maybe we should have the green heart at 1p? (Ralf moves THG one step, now at 1p and CUL still at 0p).

Ann: (while pointing at the two proposal tokens): Is this how they were to start with?

Ralf: No, they were farther up.

Ann.: Ok we can do that.

Cathrin (renewal office): Is that it?

Ralf: Yes. (while passing on the proposal tokens to Mads (citizen) who is in charge of the next round. Meanwhile Cathrin annotates the points on the score-cards and writes a few comments about both proposals).

The transcript above shows the last actions taking place in relation to the specific Controversy game board. We will use this and the previous transcripts to start discussing situated power relations of people and materials in the actual game-playing situation and more broadly.

The turn-taking rule is often used as part of design games with the aim of equalising power. Depending on how it is applied, turn-taking divides attention among the human players. In the UT game, people take turns being responsible for a new Controversy board. – Both by starting to give points when beginning a round, and by finishing the same round by placing the proposal tokens on the game board area with the final points that the group agrees on (or with the points that the person who is responsible for the Controversy board finds appropriate). As seen within one rounds, the turn-taking rule is not applied explicitly, because any human can take a turn whenever they feel like doing so. In collaborative settings one can often think that it is the person talking the most that has the power or the one who interacts most with the non-humans. Yet, the last situation shows something else.

Ralf has, until now, been the one moving the proposal tokens and thus changing the points in relation to how he interprets the ongoing discussion. If he has been doing this because he was the one responsible for the

108

Controversy board is unclear. However for a long time in the game there has been a powerful assembly among this game-board piece, the proposal tokens, and Ralf. This assembly is (at least temporarily) dissolved and a new created when Ann suddenly takes the two proposal tokens and moves them farther back on the game board in order to give them zero points each. There is a conflict between the two different assemblies. What seems to be at stake is a disagreement about challenges of operations condensed into the points. Ralf is addressing it immediately by asking if Ann thinks they both should have no points, and she challenges him by asking if he does not like if neither of them gets any points. She is not arguing for her choice made but plays the situation back to Ralf to consider her suggestion. He replies: It was because I thought, no I don’t know…. It seems that he had a different opinion, but it does not come forth. Instead he says: I don’t know, which indicates that he is not sure. The decision-making is in flux. Lone says that she agrees that they are equal, but also stresses that she does not have enough competencies to really assess it. In other words, Lone also becomes a part of the human and non-human assembly including the game board, the concept tokens placed on zero points, and Ann. A little later, Lone changes her mind (creates a new assembly with non-humans) and suggests that the TGH gets one point, which ends up being the result. This happens right after MAE tries to push the humans to move on to the last Controversy board. We find the last actions very interesting, as they show that even though Lone expresses that she does not have that many competencies to discuss the two proposals in terms of operations, her suggestion becomes the final decision that the group agrees upon. In this sense, we cannot claim that decision-making is primarily influenced by the person who talks the most; by the person who creates the longest (in relation to time) assemblies with non-humans; or by the person who displays the most factual knowledge.

The role of the researcher (MAE) was actually to observe how the game-playing evolved, but as we saw here, she interacts as well. Very well aware of the game rules and schedule of the evening, in the last transcript she says: Is that where it ends, if you should move on? She does not intervene in how many points the two proposals should be given. She tries to bring the discussion to a closure and encourages the others to move on to the next Controversy board. When designing the game the game designers had delegated a clock [no. 5 in Fig. 1] the role as “time keeper”, so the time could be equally distributed between the various game board pieces e.g. the issues of each Controversy game-board. Yet, people did not seem to pay attention to the clock when it rang but continued their discussion. When MAE intervenes she temporarily takes the role as “gamemaster” by making an assembly with the clock as a “supporting coach assistant”.

In the examples above, we have seen how assemblies of humans and non-humans were complexly and continually established, joined by others or challenged by competing assemblies and that the assemblies attract attention and mediate new actions. Below, we will further argue that the reason is that in design games (as the UT game)

people, game rules and materials all have agency, and that they complexly intertwines in power relations.

CONCLUDING DISCUSSION As initially recognized, in PD projects it is still relevant to address equalising power relations as stressed by Kensing and Greenbaum (2013), and for researchers and others to (self) critically understand how different artefacts (non-humans) tacitly-but-tactically assist in shaping participation and outcomes as argued by Bødker (2009). With analytic perspectives from ANT, in this paper we have been investigating and reflecting on these PD issues. We have analysed, in detail, the connectedness and power relations of (human) organizers, participants and (non-human) game materials participating in a design game playing session −specifically with the UT design game as one example. Actually, this UT game is designed with more game rules and tangible non-humans with agencies intended to equalize power relations among humans [see Fig. 1 e.g. no. 3-4]. We are aware that we in a way do not do the UT game and hereby the people who collaboratively have designed the game full justice. Yet, because of space limits, to take the game seriously we have focused our detailed analysis on the human and non-human actors participating in a few situations.

ANT as a fruitful perspective for understanding PD ANT has many followers and many critics whose various questions and counterarguments are so nicely gathered in Tim Ingold’s debate in a forest bed between ANT and SPIDER (2008). One of the common critical arguments he brings forth is whether these non-humans really have the agency to cause action. Another is if humans and non-humans really should be considered symmetrically as parts of a temporary assembly and distributed network mediating something to happen in the situation (as opposed to the dominant SPIDER view in social science considering humans as the superior “subjects”). This symmetrical view is also what Latour captures in his suggestion to “keep the social flat”. The ANT argument for doing so analytically is that at least ANTs do not want to be the ones making pre-defined categories and filters. Rather, they will closely trace what really happens in the situated socio-material interaction to understand what actors and assemblies are mediating actions in the network. This is what we have aimed to do in our above analysis, clearly showing how both humans and non-humans have agency, become mediating actors, and constantly make assemblies that influence participation in this particular situation. Tracing the details of the situations also shows how the participating non-humans surely both assisted in opening up for and hindering some dialogues and negotiations − they assisted in both equalizing and establishing various power relations. In the following paragraphs we will not reach any clear-cut conclusions, but rather will continue to discuss the complex issue of situated power relations of people and (game) materials.

Delegated roles as a way of understanding materials The concept of delegated roles, originally introduced by Latour is not a core concept in the current ANT debates. However we have found this fruitful for closely understanding the different (powerful) roles of both the

109

humans and non-humans. – Again, not as they could be delegated beforehand, but as they actually played out in the situation. Below we look further into some of these:

In this event, the three municipal organizers of the event quite obviously have a great deal of power by being the ones preparing and thus having control over the main agenda and content to be discussed (the six chosen sustainability Controversies, their sequence, and the 2 x proposals). Already laid out on the table in the predefined sequence and triangle, together the non-human game board pieces can be argued to assist the organizers in demonstrating this position. In other words, they could be viewed as having the power of “delegated coach/ organizer assistants” and as “delegated topic keepers”.

The time constraint was used as the main argument for the above power relations, but in terms of time – suddenly ringing, the clock is the only non-human not staying silent sound-wise. Every time the clock is set e.g. at five minutes, this game material very explicitly gets the delegated role as the “time keeper”. This allows the organizers to be able to focus on participating in the discussions and negotiations of the strengths and weaknesses of the two proposals (content) in relation to the current Controversy. However, as we saw in the playing situation, it barely had an “intermediary” role – its agency was weak now at the 5th board, so the participants continued talking and MAE (researcher) temporarily took the (human) role as the timekeeper.

Further, the (non-human) Controversy-game board pieces and the two proposal tokens physically look exactly the same while Dan is introducing the game and while the “real” playing happens. But their delegated roles and agencies were enacted quite differently in these situations. As we saw, this is largely because of the temporary assemblies with the different attachments added in the moment by the different humans. As shown and discussed in the situation with Dan introducing the game, for example the Controversy pieces, as parts of the pre-constructed game board-assembly, mediate and open up for comments and explanations about how the game board has been assembled. Yet, this assembly could also be seen to assist in hindering how it collaboratively could have been assembled. In the actual play situation, the role of each Controversy board is different as the written question, text, and some of the examples on the game-board piece later opened up and mediated discussions and negotiations of positions/points of the two proposals.

Looking even closely at the roles of the “Innovative Operations”-Controversy game-board piece, while playing different areas of it, even played different delegated roles. As outlined in Fig. 3, the upper part set the scene for and briefly described the specific (content) sustainability-related issue/controversy in focus now, while the lower part with the scale of possible points set the scene for making explicit and summarizing the negotiations. The intended role of this lower format corresponds with the game rules of having to prioritize. This format was not negotiated in the situation, but the positioning of the proposal tokens (content) on this scale was surely negotiated as different arguments − related to

the interpretation of the upper described issue − were made by different (human) participants. In other words, the upper and the lower part of the board had two very different delegated roles build into it.

The process of making priorities between different proposals with the points as explicit as done in the UT game is not particularly common in PD design games. Previously, Brandt and colleagues (e.g. 2008) have argued for postponing decision-making during co-design events in the beginning of PD projects as negotiations might hinder creativity and not nurture establishing a level ground of co-creation. Here however, the whole UT-game is based upon comparing two or more proposals and giving them points according to whether they are judged as stronger or weaker than the other in relation to the sustainability-controversy being discussed. Thus the point-giving-rule is a delegated “format of collaboration” that makes the humans act in a certain way − becoming explicit about their interests and priorities, which makes it very influential and powerful to use. However, in relation to designing future design games one can consider if game elements like the Controversy-game boards with the explicit questions to be discussed and the point-giving-rule control the participatory explorations too much. An important question is whether these hinder or open up joint creative explorations, which is commonly recognized in PD practices as a way of equalizing power.

It can be discussed if it makes sense to distinguish between the roles of “formats of collaboration” or “delegated coach assistants” and “content material” or “delegated playmates” as suggested by Eriksen (2012). However, these names are not intended as filters, but rather as a way to describe and further understand some of the different mediating agencies that we have seen the non-humans enact – and been delegated to enact − in the situation. In other words, it is intended as a way of seriously and closely tracing what (powerful) mediating roles, particularly the non-humans and the assemblies they engage in, can play, all with the aim to further understand what really happens in the socio-material interaction at co-design events with design games.

Re-connecting power relations of people & materials So many power relations could still be traced and analysed in the few minutes of transcribed dialogues shown above. Yet, with the ones included and addressed in our various discussion sections, we will end by arguing the following: In order to understand situated and detailed power relations in PD, there is a further need for both re-connecting and tracing the participating people (humans) and materials (non-humans) and for recognizing the various mediating assemblies that they are continually entangled in as well as the different powerful (delegated) roles they come to take and enact.

In other words, we hereby encourage an awareness and sensitivity towards the situated roles of both humans and non-humans. Further, we will stress the need for more detailed and serious discussions of re-connecting research on specific PD techniques or ways of staging participation (e.g. with design games) and situated power relations of both people and materials.

110

Lastly, we suggest not viewing in this case the UT game solely as one PD tool. With the ANT perspective, we rather suggest viewing the design game pieces and rules as different (non human) participating materials assisting in staging co-designing and intertwining in mediating discussions and negotiations, and power relations.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to thank all the participants present at the session discussions and everyone involved in developing the UT game from the GröntSpel and UTÖ projects, participants at our Nordes’13 design games workshop, Joachim Halse, Thomas Binder. and Kelton Minor for fruitful feedback on earlier drafts, and the PDC reviewers for their constructive comments.

REFERENCES Blomberg, J. and Karasti, H. (2013). Ethnography –

Positioning ethnography within Participatory Design. In Simonsen, J. & Robertsson, T. (eds.), The International Handbook of Participatory Design. Routhledge. pp. 86 - 116.

Borum, F. & Enderud, H. (1981). Konflikter i organisa-tioner, Nyt Nordisk Forlag, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Brandt, E. (2006). Designing Exploratory Design Games: A Frame- work for Participation in Participatory Design? In Proceedings of Participatory Design Conference. 1.-5. Aug., Trento, Italy. pp. 57–66.

Brandt, E., Messeter, J. and Binder, T. (2008). Format-ting Design Dialogues – Games and Participation. In: Journal of CoDesign, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 51-64.

Brandt, E., Binder, T. and Sanders, E. (2013). Tools and techniques – Ways to engage telling, making and enacting. In Simonsen, J. & Robertsson, T. (eds.). The International Handbook of Participatory Design. Routhledge. pp. 145 – 181.

Bratteteig, T & Wagner, I. (2012). Disentangling power and decision-making in participatory design. In Proceedings of Participatory Design Conference 12-14 Aug., Roskilde, Denmark. pp. 41-50.

Buur, J., and Søndergaard, A. (2000). Video card game: An augmented environment for user centred design discussions. In Proceedings of Designing Augmented Reality Environments. Elsinore, Denmark., pp. 63-69.

Bødker, M. (2009). Performative Artefacts: Users “Speaking through” Artefacts in Collaborative design. In Proceedings of OZCHI’09 - the 21 Annual Conference of the Australian Computer-Human Interaction Special interest group : Design. Melbourne, Australia. ACM press, pp. 17–24.

Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In Law, J. (eds.) Power, action and belief: a new sociology of knowledge? Routledge, London. pp.196-223.

Ehn, P. and Sjögren, D. (1991). From system descriptions to scripts for action. In: Greenbaum, J. & Kyng, M. (eds.) Design at Work: Co-operative Design of Computer Systems, Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum pp. 241-268.

Eriksen, M. Agger (2012) Material Matters in Co-designing - Formatting & Staging with Participating Materials in Co-design Projects, Events & Situations. PhD dissertation. Malmö University, Sweden.

Ingold, T. (2008) When ANT meets SPIDER: Social theory for arthropods. In Knappert C. & Malafouris L. (eds.) Material Agency – Towards a Non-Anthropocentric Approach. Springer. pp. 209-215.

Iversen, O.S., and Buur, J., (2002). Design is a Game: Developing Design Competence in a Game Setting. In: Proceedings of Participatory Design Conference. 23-25 June, Malmö, Sweden. CPSR, pp. 22-28.

Johansson, M. & Linde, P. (2005). Playful Collaborative Exploration: New Research Practice in Participatory Design. Journal of Research Practice, Vol. 1. Issue 1, Article M5. Retrieved [04.08.2014], from http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/5/9

Latour, B. (1994) On Technical Mediation – Philosophy, Sociology, Genealogy. In Common Knowledge, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 29-62.

Latour, B. (1992) Where are the Missing Masses? Sociology of a Few Mundane Artefacts / Sociology of a Door. In Bijker, W. and Law, J. (eds.) Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Socio-technical Change. MIT Press, pp. 255-258.

Latour, B. (2005a) Reassembling the Social. An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford University Press.

Latour, B. (2005b) From Realpolitik to Dingpolitik or How to Make Things Public. In Latour B. & Weibel P. (eds.), Making Things Public: atmospheres of democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press. pp. 14-41.

Law, J. (2004) After Methods – Mess in Social Science Research. Routhledge.

Kensing, F. (1983). The trade unions’ influence on technological change. In Proceedings of the IFIP WG 9.1 Working Conference on Systems Design for, with and by the Users. Riva de Sole, Italy. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Kensing, F. and Blomberg, J. (1998). Participatory Design: Issues and concerns. In The Journal of, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW). Vol. 7 (3-4) pp. 167-185.

Kensing, F. and Greenbaum, J. (2013). Heritage – Having a say. In Simonsen, J. & Robertsson, T. (eds.) The International Handbook of Participatory Design. Routhledge. pp. 21–36.

Suchman, L. (2007). Human-Machine Configurations. Plans and situated actions. 2nd Edition: Cambridge University Press. (1st partial edition from 1987).

Vaajakallio, K. (2012). Design games as a tool, a mindset, and a structure. Aalto University publication series, Doctoral dissertations 87/2012, School of Arts, Design and Architecture, Finland.

Vaajakallio, K. and Mattelmäki, T, (2014). Design games in co-design: as a tool, a mindset and a structure. In Journal of Co-design. Vol.10, No 1, pp. 63-77.