social media, participatory design and cultural engagement (watkins 2007)

7/30/2019 Social Media, Participatory Design and Cultural Engagement (Watkins 2007)

1/6

161

Social Media, Participatory Designand Cultural Engagement

Jerry WatkinsARC Centre of Excellence for

Creative Industries and InnovationQueensland University of TechnologyKelvin Grove, AustraliaTel. +61 7 3105 7353

[email protected]

ABSTRACTThis paper reports on the application of Participatory Design

methodology to an experiment in social media production. Staff at

the Australian Museum are developing new content genres,

creative tools and techniques in order to produce original cultural

multimedia based on or inspired by the Museums extensive

collections. The ultimate aim of the project is for the Museum to

act as a social media hub for external communities of interest to

co-create their own narrative-based interpretations of the

Museums content, leading to an individualized cultural

experience for physical and online visitors alike. A participatory

content creation method has been developed for this project,

which features iterative design cycles marked by social

prototyping, evaluation and strategic formulation. These cycles

are repeated until desired performance is achieved.

Categories and Subject DescriptorsH.5.1 [Information Interfaces and Presentation]: Multimedia

Information Systems evaluation/methodology.

General TermsDesign, Theory.

KeywordsSocial media, participatory design, participatory content creation.

1. INTRODUCTIONThis research examines the potential for cultural institutions to

interact with online and physical knowledge-based communities

of interest using social media such as blogs, vodcasts and content

shares. It describes a current experiment being conducted at the

Australian Museum to investigate the potential of social media-

based communication strategies. Established in 1827, the

Australian Museum specializes in natural history and indigenous

studies and is the oldest institution of its kind in the country [1].

This heritage has resulted in a collection of 14.5 million

specimens which in turn attract a monthly web visitation rate

regularly exceeding 1.5 million. Since the quantity of web visitors

more than satisfies the Museums public service commitment,

management focus is being placed instead on the quality of online

experience offered; especially to youth / informal learning

communities. Social media are being considered as a route

towards a more creative engagement between the Museum and its

communities of interest, using the Museums extensive collectionsas a source of original digital content.

2. PD AT THE AUSTRALIAN MUSEUMParticipatory Design (PD) was selected as a strategic methodology

to guide the Australian Museum social media experiment. The

origins of the methodology are to be found in the Scandinavian

labor movement in the 1980s where it was used to integrate

workers within the industrial design process. Bearing this history

in mind, the application of PD to social media design for cultural

institutions may seem rather tenuous. Yet PD methodology has

been extended to both museum exhibition design [2]and library

website design [3]. PD focuses upon the relationship between

organization and technology, which is particularly relevant to this

experiment. There is considerable current debate as to whether thecontemporary museum should remain focused on the preservation

of collections; or should seek to engage its audiences in a more

open educative discourse [4]. By using a social media experiment

to engage in this debate, the Australian Museum is presented with

many open questions about the changing role of the Museum and

the adoption of new information and communication technologies

to support this role. PD is an appropriate methodology to use in

this instance, as One goal of participatory design is to understand

organizational change in computer use the effects of introducing

technology on organizational structure and process and the effects

of organizational restructuring on the way work is carried out

[5].

A three-phase participatory content creation method applicable to

the Australian Museum project was adapted from more recentwork using PD for website design within the library sector [3].

Phase (1) of the new method comprises a period of due diligence,

which informs phase (2) iterative design cycles. These cycles

repeat until phase (3), the achievement of desired system/artifact

performance.

2.1 Phase 1: due diligenceThis initial phase includes three steps: organizational observation;

domain review; and initial project strategy. It commenced in 2005

OzCHI 2007, 28-30 November 2007, Adelaide, Australia. Copyright the

author(s) and CHISIG. Additional copies are available at the ACM

Digital Library (http://portal.acm.org/dl.cfm) or can be ordered from

CHISIG([email protected])

OzCHI 2007 Proceedings, ISBN 978-1-59593-872-5


2/6

162

with the formation of a small working party tasked with

developing the project internally. This consisted of myself as

designer/researcher; the Museums Head of Audience Research;

and Head of Web Services. By taking a participative role in the

working party, I was able to gain first-hand experience-based

knowledge of culture and working practices in order to gather

data for the organizational observation step.

Figure 1. participatory content creation methodAs part of the domain review step, the working party reviewed

then-current best practice in participatory content creationprojects by cultural institutions. The Museum was attracted by the

digital storytelling genre, whereby community participants are

trained to write and produce their own short digital narratives in

the form of an autobiographical mini-movie. This technique has

been used by other cultural institutions to collaborate with

communities in order to produce digital collections of user-

created social histories [6]. The working party felt that this kind

of do-it-yourself digital narrative production might provide a

cost-effective means of engagement with communities of interest,

which could make their own podcasts or vodcasts based on or

inspired by the Museums collection. The potential for a

multimedia approach to historical narratives reflects wider debate

as to the effectiveness of current forms of narrative cultural

communication: historians should search for alternatives to their

narratives in innovative experiences done in other areas,

particularly literature and cinema. Those experiences challenged

the notion of narrator or chronological sequence and responded to

many historical narrative shortcomings [7]. Furthermore, it has

been suggested that the use of social media tools by the cultural

sector can facilitate individualized meaning-making, leading to

nuanced interpretation of cultural content enhanced and/or

encouraged by networked conversations [8].

The final step within the due diligence stage was the formulation

of an initial project strategy by the working party. It was decided

that the first cycle of prototyping would use Museum staff as

participants in a series of workshops that would develop skills in

creative storytelling (this participant selection is explained in

section 2.2.1 below). The project was now christened Australian

Museum Stories.

2.2 Phase 2(a): prototypingThe application of prototyping to user-centered design (as part of

rapid application development) has resulted in a realization within

parts of the design community that the outcomes of the

prototyping process should include not only artifacts, but also

shared understandings: Considerations for communication take

the form of social processes that are designed to promote two-way

or multi-way interpersonal interactions; these interactions include

not only ideas about the design, but individuals' and groups'

stakes and risks in the outcome. This model of prototyping is

necessarily social [9]. Since organizational buy-in had already

been defined as a critical success factor during due diligence,

social prototyping was adopted as an approach for the

Australian Museum Stories experiment.

2.2.1 Participant selection and workshop designA rhetoric theory of communication characterizes the audience

not as a reader but as a dynamic participant in argument... The

specific audiences experiences within society and its

understanding of social attitudes are an essential aspect of

argument and necessary to the communication goal [10]. This

rhetoric model is gaining some currency within the cultural sector.

Gillard suggests that One of the major shifts in understanding

occurring in new audience research is the definition of audience

as a dynamic relationship rather than groupings of human

subjects. This dynamic relationship is an important

observation and Gillard uses it to revisit the concept of the

cultural audience: audiences are understood as being forms of

engagement created around contents... The contents encounteredor actively sought contribute to understanding, enjoyment and

creativity in the lives of individuals and groups [11]. The

importance of participatory content creation activities to a

dynamic relationship between cultural institution and audience is

increasingly recognized: The increased value attached to cultural

experience has led to more systematic and determined cultural

participation. For many, leisure is not a passive consumer activity,

but is active and participatory. One effect of this is to bring into

question the previously clear distinction between professional and

amateur. Museums, libraries and archives have worked to

encourage the participation of these pro-ams, enabling them to

engage with culture, science, natural history and many other

subject areas on their own terms [12]. Some institutions are

becoming aware that engaging physical and online audiences incontent creation activities is not only a means to increase site

visitation, but also to engage online consumers on the basis that

cultural products or activities create audiences as people engage

with them [11]. Through participatory content creation

programs, institutions can build a dynamic relationship with

cultural audiences and consumers.

In order to build such a relationship, the Australian Museum

experiment examined participatory content creation and social

media programs with online audiences, rather than physical


3/6

163

visitors (the latter are already the focus of the majority of the

Museums public programs and exhibition events). It was not

deemed viable for the Australian Museum to implement a

participatory content creation program with communities of

interest without first achieving a significant level of organizational

buy-in, both from the bottom-up and top-down. Therefore the

initial phase of the experiment was designed to skill Museum staff

in social media production techniques.

The working party decided upon a workshop format for the initial

in-house training program. Organizational requirements dictated a

maximum workshop duration of two days. I prepared a condensed

and accelerated agenda in order to use the abbreviated schedule as

a spur to creativity: What can be considered a hindrance, for

example time pressure, can be considered by others to be a

facilitator (the ironically positive effects of an impending

deadline) [13]. The agenda was structured around three areas

considered to be essential in equipping the participants with the

minimum skills and knowledge required to prototype creative

artifacts and processes:

Creative teamwork, including ideas generation and dispute

resolution. Creative development, including concept development,

writing and storyboarding.

Multimedia production, including digital photography, audiorecording and video editing.

Table 1. Teamwork: performance gain vs. loss factors

(after [14])

Performance gain factors Performance loss factors

Social facilitation

(enhanced performance

through presence of others)

Social interference and loafing

Increased knowledge,ability and effort Failure to use availableknowledge and abilities

Diversity of views Conflict of views

2.2.2 Creative teamworkThe enhanced task performance achievable by a team over an

individual can be attributed to various factors. These same factors

can also be detrimental to performance if misapplied, as listed in

table 1. However, the sheer complexity of creative communication

using multiple media usually requires a collaboration effort. For

example, in the feature film sector, the core collaborative team

features the director, director of photography and editor. For the

Museum experiment, team formation was based on a similar

creative triad, constructed as follows:

The writeroriginates the story idea and generates scripts andother narrative materials.

The creative producerprepares media content to support thescript, and is responsible for maintaining audience focus

throughout the creative process.

The editorgenerates a storyboard and creates the final mediaartifact using suitable applications.

Eleven participants were assigned to four teams by the working

party some weeks prior to the first workshop, held in June 2006.

The lack of creative teamwork experience held by the participants

coupled with the extremely tight schedule of the workshop

informed the addition of a fourth team role, an executive

producer. This team member would act as a chairperson, project

manager and arbitrator, with creative input as required. The

executive producer was tasked with encouraging performancegain factors and minimizing performance loss factors (see table 1).

For the first workshop, the executive producers were multimedia

practitioners drawn from outside the Museum.

2.2.3 Creative developmentLike its full-length forebear, the microdocumentary genre

encompasses creative non-fiction. The short duration of a

microdocumentary piece (audio or video) can encourage an

informal tone, which was precisely the kind of narrative or

reportage genre that the Museum was looking for to supplement

the formal authoritative tone of its traditional exhibition

communication. The four Museum teams started the first day of

the workshop with a tentative story idea, genre definition and

required resources checklist (e.g. audio, video and/or text sourcematerials). The teams were assigned an executive producer; I then

facilitated an intensive series of creative development exercises

which approximated a simple multimedia preproduction process.

Following the creative development exercises, team members

were left to work either together or separately to collect existing

content, generate original content and write final scripts and

storyboards by the end of the day.

2.2.4 Multimedia productionThe second and final workshop day was devoted to editing and

postproduction at the Powerhouse Museums Soundhouse

Vectorlab facility [15]. The participants were given a short

introduction to Sonys Vegas video editing suite before

reassembling into their teams to record voiceovers and edit thefinal microdocumentary according to the storyboard prepared

during creative development. The end artifact had to be finished

by close of play, including time required to encode the

microdocumentaries in full-screen and web-ready codecs. The

workshop concluded with a presentation of the final results.

2.2.5 Second workshopEvaluation of the first workshop was sufficiently positive to run a

second workshop in November 2006. Fourteen participants

attended (two teams of three, two teams of four) drawn again from

varied Museum departments. The workshop format remained

unaltered except that the four executive producers were now

sourced from Museum staff that had completed the first

workshop.

2.3 Phase 2(b): evaluationAccording to the participatory content creation method, the

purpose of the evaluation step within the iterative design cycle is

to analyze the results of prototyping in order to inform the

formulation of strategy, prior to the next iterative cycle. A

qualitative inductive research design was selected, rather than a

quantitative hypothesis-testing framework. Hypothesis testing is


4/6

164

an appropriate research strategy when much is known about the

phenomenon of interest [16] but in this experiment, the

prototyping exercise conducted via workshop training had

produced a participant-generated dataset upon which the

imposition of a designer/research-generated hypothesis might be

inappropriate. Although qualitative datasets can be difficult to

codify, this was not felt to be an issue in this instance due to the

small number of participants (25). Based on this research designstrategy, four separate evaluations were conducted to gather data

on the social prototyping process as well as the microdocumentary

artifacts:

Internal analysis of workshop output.

In-workshop survey.

Post-workshop survey.

External focus groups.

Using multiple evaluation tools permitted evaluation of both

internal participants and external audiences, as well as allowing

measurement of participants over a period of six months (rather

than taking a single snapshot). These formal evaluation tools were

supported throughout by the designer/researchers participant

observation.

2.3.1 Output analysisIn total, the first cycle of iterative design produced nine artifacts

from eight groups over two workshops. Table 2 below

summarizes this output and indicates the diversity of the

Museums current audiences.

Table 2. Combined workshop outputs

Subject Format Audience

Repatriation of

Indigenous objects

Digital stills +

voiceover

Indigenous

Deep-sea species

collection

Digital stills +

voiceover

K>12

Amateur fossil

identification

Digital stills +

voiceover

Enthusiasts

Creating a new

Museum exhibition

Video Museum visitors,

potential sponsors

Rare bird species

identification

1) Digital stills +

voiceover

2) Audio

Bushwalkers,

enthusiasts

New Museum

attractions for kids

Digital stills +

voiceover

Kindergarten

parents

Museum exhibit

stories

Digital stills +

voiceover

K>12 museum

visitors

Biosystematics

research reporting

Digital stills +

voiceover

Researchers

2.3.2 In-workshop surveyThis was conducted at both workshops using an identical self-

administered questionnaire. 24 out of 25 workshop participants

completed the questionnaire, and indicated a high level of

satisfaction with the social prototyping experience. There was

some variance between this measurement and my own participant

observation, which recorded that three participants (12% of total)

displayed a lack of satisfaction during the workshop; although two

of these then indicated high satisfaction levels in the self-

administered questionnaire. Reasons for this variance may include

organizational pressure (i.e. not wishing to express dissatisfaction

in a written document); or behavioral dysfunction caused by a

pressurized team environment.

2.3.3 Post-workshop surveyParticipants were invited to a discussion group approximately

three months after the completion of the workshops. These

sessions were loosely based on the idea of a Futures Workshop,

organized to generate ideas for future activities and to initiate

actions for implementing those ideas [17]. I presented an

analysis of the in-workshop evaluation to participants in order to

initiate discussion on the prototyping process. Participants then

completed a second self-administered survey which invited further

input on how the stories created during the workshop could be

used by the Museum, as well as reflections on any perceived

organizational barriers.

2.3.4 Focus groupsIn order to bring an external audience perspective to the

evaluation, a series of focus groups were conducted by the

working party in order to gauge reaction to the

microdocumentaries from potential target audiences. The

segments defined were parents of under-5s; parents of under-16s;

science teachers; and culturally active seniors. This segmentation

reflected common bases used by the Museum [18]. The four focus

groups held in February 2007 reacted positively to the

microdocumentary format and were responsive to a more informal

style of museum communication. Conversely, they expected a

higher level of production quality than was achieved by the pilot

microdocumentaries. Criticism of production quality is made

regularly about various styles of user-generated video content,since many audiences have come to expect high standards through

consumption of broadcast TV and film-on-DVD.

2.4 Phase 2(c): strategyThe first iterative design cycle concluded with a strategic meeting

in March 2007 of Museum staff who might be involved in the

evolution of the Australian Museum Stories project including

workshop participants and senior management in order to

generate input into a short- to medium-term strategy for project

development. According to the participatory content creation

method used in this research, this strategy meeting also informs

the second cycle of iterative design (figure 1). With regard to its

function in the PD methodology, this strategy meeting is

reminiscent of an Implementation Workshop designed to

initiate actions that bridge the gap between vision and reality[19]. The strategy meeting was chaired by the Museums

Audience Research Unit and its agenda was informed by data

generated during evaluation. I did not attend, in order to allow

meeting participants to criticize the design and/or conduct of the

creative workshops and evaluation protocols for which I was

responsible. The key outcomes of the strategy meeting are listed

below in sections 2.4.1 to 2.4.3.


5/6

165

2.4.1 Production qualityFrom the 25 workshop participants, ten people were selected from

across departments by the working party to form a core team

within the Museum. This team would undertake to drive forward

the Australian Museum Stories project. Selection was based upon

interest and aptitude demonstrated during the workshop, as well

as availability. The prototype microdocumentaries had been

criticized for lack of production quality by both internal andexternal audiences. Since most participants had indicated via the

in-workshop survey that they would like to undertake further

training in creative multimedia production, additional skills

training was planned for the core creative squad. One potential

response to negative criticism of production quality would be to

focus the project on creation of audio stories for download /

podcast / broadcast, rather than image- and audio-based artifacts.

However, participants felt that image and video media are more

appropriate for creating stories based upon objects within the

collection.

2.4.2 Genre and formatThe working partys initial strategy was to consider social media

as a form of creative engagement between the Museum and itscommunities of interest, using the Museums extensive collections

as a source of original digital content. However, it had become

clear throughout the experiment that this was just one of a number

of routes that participants wished to explore using the

microdocumentary format. Other genres included linear

microdocumentary, and online interactives destined for the

Museums forthcoming Web 2.0 website upgrade.

2.4.3 Second iterative design cycleThe March strategic meeting informed the formulation of the

second iterative cycle of participatory content creation, as

described in figure 1 (above). Referring back to the initial project

strategy defined in stage 1(c), it was clear that both the philosophy

and practice of cultural engagement via social media wassupported by the workshop participants. Sufficient creative skills,

enthusiasm and impetus had been generated by the workshop

process to establish a core in-house team to continue and sustain

creative social media production within the institution. During the

second iterative content creation cycle, members from this team

would conduct pilot projects with external communities already

associated with the Museum. In effect, the workshop participants

were now taking their new skills and knowledge into the field. A

number of innovative external collaborations have already taken

place. Curatorial staff worked with an external biodiversity

organization to produce two scientific microdocumentary vodcasts

on species identification. These will be uploaded to the Museums

website, as well as YouTube. The Museums Audience Research

Unit has also used the microdocumentary format as a new and

powerful way of summarizing the results of its studies, for

dissemination to a wider audience. The next major collaborative

project will bring students from a number of secondary schools in

the New South Wales region into the Museum, in order to

produce a number of microdocumentary vodcasts and podcasts in

collaboration with the Museum.

Any successful creative social media system must address not

only the co-creative process itself, but also the distribution of co-

created content. In terms of online distribution, the Australian

Museum Stories will be a feature of the Museums current website

redevelopment, which will feature Web 2.0 functionality such as

blogs and wikis as part of a wider strategy of increased

interaction with communities of interest. Appropriate Stories will

also be shown within the Museum on screens, integrated within

its new physical exhibitions. Other organizational issues revealed

by the first participatory design cycle include:

Making time for social media projects in already tight workschedules; particularly time-consuming editing tasks.

Additional demands placed upon AV and IT resources.

Updating communication strategies and participant feedbacksystems.

3. SUMMARYThe application of Participatory Design methodology to this

experiment was meant to ensure that a core creative team of

Museum staff should take part in the decisions that affect the

system and the way it is designed and used [19]. So far, the use

of a participatory content creation method to support the overall

PD methodology within the context of social media production

has gone somewhat further than incorporating users within thedecision-making process. By emphasizing social prototyping

within an iterative design cycle, Australian Museum teams have

designed new tools, techniques and genres to produce original and

distinctive microdocumentaries with which to enhance existing

communication strategies. Furthermore, the extensive evaluation

has helped to establish a sustainable foundation for the project:

Producing an artifact should not be regarded as a one-shot affair,

but rather as formulating a growing experience for engaging in the

development of creating generations of artifacts [20].

Much of the projects success to date in generating both concrete

results in the Museum as well as applied research outcomes can

be attributed to PDs insistence on a dialogue between the

designer/researcher and participants: To design effective systems,

we need to understand users experience of work and systems.This information is invisible; we cannot access it by standing on

the outside of a process, watching peoples behavior and writing

down what happens. We need to talk with users to understand

their experience. To have an effective dialogue, we form

partnerships with our users [21]. This dialogue was firmly

established by the use of intensive creative workshops as the basis

of the prototyping stage of the PD method used for this project. It

is possible to criticize this experiment for the amount of

interventions by the working party during the due diligence and

strategic formulation phases of the project, which could be seen as

being excessively top-down for a Participatory Design

methodology. It is anticipated that as the experiment continues

into its second cycle of iterative design, less intervention will be

required in order to evolve the creative tools and techniques

prototyped during the workshops into a stable system deliveringdesired performance. This evolution will be the subject of

ongoing research and publication.

4. ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThanks to the Australian Museum for its support of the Australian

Museum Stories experiment; in particular Lynda Kelly, Head of

Audience Research; and Brooke Carson-Ewart, Web Manager.

This research is part of the project New Literacy, New Audiences


6/6

166

at the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for

Creative Industries and Innovation [22].

5. REFERENCES[1] Australian Museum, 14 June 2007.

http://www.amonline.net.au/about/index.cfm

[2] Taxn, G. Introducing Participatory Design in Museums. In8th Biennial Participatory Design Conference Vol. 1.

Toronto, Canada, 2004, pp.204-213.

[3] Nikolova-Houston, T. Using Participatory Design to ImproveWeb Sites. In Computers in Libraries, Hoffman, D. (Ed.).

Vol. 25 No. 9 Information Today, Inc, 2005, unpaged.

[4] Russo, A. and Watkins, J. Digital Cultural Communication:Audience and Remediation. In Theorizing Digital Cultural

Heritage, Cameron, F. and Kenderdine, S. (Eds.) Cambridge,

Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2007, pp. 149-164.

[5] Grudin, J. Obstacles to Participatory Design in Large ProductDevelopment Organizations. In Participatory design:

principles and practices, Schuler D. and Namioka, A. (Eds.)

Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates, 2002, p.99.

[6] See for example State Library of Queensland, QueenslandStories http://www.qldstories.slq.qld.gov.au/

as of 14 June 2007.

[7] Kos, J.R. Digital Media Contributions for the City HistoryRepresentation. in New Heritage Conference. 2006. Hong

Kong: Faculty of Architecture, University of Hong Kong,

p.116.

[8] Fisher, M. and Twiss-Garrity B. A. Remixing Exhibits:Constructing Participatory Narratives With On-Line Tools

To Augment Museum Experiences. InMuseums and the Web

2007: Proceedings, Trant J. and Bearman D. (Eds.). Toronto:

Archives & Museum Informatics, 2007, unpaged.

[9] Tscheligi, M., Houde, S., Kolli, R., Marcus, A., Muller, M.

J., and Mullet, K. Creative prototyping tools: Whatinteraction designers really need to produce advanced user

interface concepts. In CHI'95 conference companion,

Denver: ACM, 1995, unpaged.

[10]Tyler, A.C., Shaping Belief: The Role of Audience in VisualCommunication, in The Idea of Design, V. Margolin and R.

Buchanan, Editors. 1995, MIT Press: Cambridge, Mass. p.

104-5.

[11]Gillard, P. Museum Visitors as Audiences: InnovativeResearch for Online Museums. InMobilising the Audience,

O'Regan, T., Balnaves, M. and Sternberg, J. (Eds.) St Lucia,

Queensland: University of Queensland Press, 2002, p.177.

[12]Holden, J. and S. Jones, Knowledge and Inspiration: thedemocratic face of culture, Demos, Editor. 2006, Museums,

Libraries and Archives Council: London. p. 28.

[13]Nakakoji, K., Tanaka, A., and Fallman, D. "Sketching"

Nurturing Creativity: Commonalities in Art, Design,Engineering and Research. In CHI 2006, Montreal: ACM

Press, 2006, p.1717.

[14]Furnham, A. The psychology of behaviour at work. Hove:Psychology Press, 1997, p.463.

[15]Powerhouse Museum Soundhouse Vectorlab, 14 June 2007.http://www.powerhousemuseum.com/soundhousevectorlab/

[16]Allen, C. Reciprocal Evolution as a Strategy for IntegratingBasic Research, Design, and Studies of Work Practice. In

Participatory design: principles and practices, Schuler D.

and Namioka A. (Eds.) Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum

Associates, 1993, pp.243-4.

[17]Greenbaum, J. and Halskov Madsen, K. Small Changes:

Starting a Participatory Design Process by GivingParticipants a Voice. In Participatory design: principles and

practices, Schuler D. and Namioka, A. (Eds.) Hillsdale, N.J.:

L. Erlbaum Associates, 1993, p.292.

[18]Kelly, L. and Watkins, J., Australian Museum StoriesEvaluation. Unpublished report, Australian Museum,

Sydney, 2007.

[19]Greenbaum, J. A Design of One's Own: TowardsParticipatory Design in the United States. In Participatory

design: principles and practices, Schuler D. and Namioka A.

(Eds.) Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates, 1993, p.28.

[20]Nakakoji, K. Seven Issues for Creativity Support ToolResearchers. Workshop on Creativity Support Tools,

Washington, DC, 2005, p.69.

[21]Holtzblatt, K. and Jones, S. Contextual Inquiry: AParticipatory Technique for System Design. In Participatory

design: principles and practices, Schuler D. and Namioka A.

(Eds.) Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates, 1993, p.185.

[22]New Literacy, New Audiences, 14 June 2007.http://nlablog.wordpress.com/

social media, participatory design and cultural engagement (watkins 2007)

Documents