---

we conduct empathic design, we bring a specific interest to an
interview and focus on topics that seem to be directly relevant to
our project. As a result, however, we might overlook aspects of users’
10 J. Ingram, E. Shove, and M. Watson,
experiences that are important to them but that might seem, at first
“Products and practices: Selected
glance, to be “off-topic.” In such cases, we might miss the kind of
concepts from science and technology
participation and input from users that we are looking for; HCD can
studies and from social theories of
help us to “learn something that we didn’t know we needed to know.”5
consumption and practice,” Design
Such experiences motivated me to study what happens in
Issues 23:2 (Spring 2007): 3-16; and E.
HCD practices and how the practices differ from HCD principles.
Woodhouse and J. W. Patton, “Design by
society: Science and Technology Studies
Based on experiences in two projects, in which I worked and in
and the Social Shaping of Things,”
which I studied as participant observer,6 I explored an alternative
Design Issues 20:3 (Summer 2004): 1-12.
view of HCD.7
11 B. Latour, Aramis, or the Love of
Technology (Translated by Catherine
Science and Technology Studies
Porter) (Cambridge, and London, UK:
Harvard University Press, 1996); M.
The study presented here can be situated in the field of science
Akrich, M. Callon, and B. Latour, “The
and technology studies (STS), a multi¬disciplinary field in which
Key to Success in Innovation—Part 1:
social scientists, historians, philosophers, and others examine how

The art of interessement,” International
people create and apply science and technology. People engaged in
Journal of Innovation Management 6:2
STS try to open the “black box”8—to show what normally remains
(2002): 187-206; and M. Akrich, M Callon,
hidden and thus to reveal how science and technology are created
and B Latour, “The Key to Success in
Innovation—Part 2: The Art of Choosing
and applied. They are interested in the “social construction”9 of
Good Spokespersons,” International
technology—in the ways people interact and negotiate with each
Journal of Innovation Management 6:2
other while they construct and apply artifacts. Knowledge from STS
(2002): 207-25.
(e.g., about users’ roles and social practices) can be used to improve
12 K. Knorr Cetina, “Laboratory studies:
design practices, and to discuss the role of design in a broader
The Cultural Approach to the Study of
Science,” in S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle,
societal and political context.10
J. C. Petersen, and T. Pinch, eds.
A dominant perspective in STS is actor-network theory
Handbook of Science and Technology
(ANT), in which the creation or application of science or technology
Studies (London, UK: Sage, 1995),
is conceived of as a process in which different actors (or actants,
140-66; and B. Latour and S. Woolgar,
to include not only people, but also things) form a network and
Laboratory life: The Construction of
influence each other, as well as the science or technology that
Scientific Facts (2nd ed.) (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1986).
is being created or applied.11 In an HCD project, we can easily
13 L. Haddon, E. Mante, B. Sapio, K.-H.
imagine that users have less influence than the project team
Kommonen, L. Fortunati, A. Kant, eds.,
members, who bring their agenda and their focus to workshops and
Everyday Innovators: Researching
interviews with users.
the Role of Users in Shaping ICTs
Since the early “laboratory studies,”12 which focused on
(Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer,
2005); B. Edvardsson, A. Gustafsson,
scientists’ or engineers’ practices, the scope of STS has widened.
P. Kristensson, P. Magnusson, and J.
STS scholars now are also interested in, for example, the roles of
Matthing, eds., Involving Customers
users in innovation processes.13 This study reflects and corresponds
in New Service Development (London,
with this trend because the focus is on how HCD practitioners
UK: Imperial College Press, 2006); N.
interact with users and with other project team members,14
Oudshoorn and T. Pinch, eds., How Users
with the goal of opening the “black box” of HCD.15 Thus, my
Matter: The Co-construction of Users
and Technology (Cambridge, and London,
approach is similar to a socio-cultural perspective, which, for
UK: MIT Press, 2003); and H. Rohracher,
example, Bucciarelli developed to describe design as a process
ed., User Involvement in Innovation
of people interacting and negotiating with each other.16 In the
Processes: Strategies and Limitations
next section, I explore an alternative perspective on design that
from a Socio-technical Perspective
complements the current ANT and socio-cultural perspectives.
(Munich, Germany and Vienna, Austria:
Profil Verlag, 2005).
DesignIssues: Volume 28, Number 1 Winter 2012
73

---

Exploring Ethics
14 Please note that, in my study of these
On the basis of participant observations of HCD practices, as well
projects, I focused on the practices
as on the works of French philosophers Emmanuel Levinas (1906-
of project team members, whereas in
the projects studied, we tried, of course,
1995) and Jacques Derrida (1930-2004),17 I explore an alternative
to focus on users.
perspective on HCD. I propose understanding HCD as a process in
15 This study fits into a trend to move
which diverse people participate and move between other and self,
from studying design practices in
and between openness and closure. I see HCD as a fragile encounter
laboratory settings toward studying
between people, as an encounter that can be beautiful, and as an
design practices “in the field.” This
trend can be illustrated by a series
encounter that can easily break.
of PhD dissertations from Industrial
Importantly, in drawing from Levinas and Derrida, I
Design Engineering of Delft University of
introduce a specific type of ethics that is different from, for example,
Technology: K. Dorst, Describing design:
deontological ethics (which focuses on moral rules, duties, and
A comparison of paradigms, 1997; R.
reasoning), or consequentialist ethics (which deals with the positive
Valkenburg, The Reflective Practice
or negative consequences of moral choices). The ethics of Levinas
in Product Design Teams, 2000; M.
Kleinsman, Understanding Collaborative
and Derrida are primarily concerned with the encounter between
Design, 2006; and F. Sleeswijk Visser,
other and self, and with otherness or différance.18 In the ethics of Levinas

Bringing the everyday life of people into
and Derrida, we always find ourselves within other-self relations—
design, 2009.
within ethical relations.
16 L. Bucciarelli, Designing Engineers
Both practical and theoretical motivations are behind
(Cambridge, and London, MIT Press,
1994). Other examples are: N. Cross, H.
this choice. Practically, I want to move away from the language
Christaans, and K. Dorst, eds., Analysing
of ANT, which is derived from “war and power struggles” and
Design Activity (Chichester, UK: John
speaks of “allies and opponents, strategic negotiations, and tactical
Wiley & Sons, 1996); D. Vinck, ed.,
manoeuvres.”19 Instead, the tradition of participatory design20 is more
Everyday Engineering: An Ethnography of
appealing to me, in that it conceptualizes power within a context
Design and Innovation (Cambridge, and
of striving for democracy, participation, and emancipation. My
London, MIT Press, 2003); J. McDonnell
and P. Lloyd, eds., About: Designing:
goal is to foster cooperation in HCD projects, rather than promote
Analysing Design Meetings (London,
competition, and to encourage HCD practitioners to reflect critically
Taylor and Francis, 2009).
on their own practices and to better align these with the potential
17 Although there are differences between
of HCD.
these two philosophers, there are several
Theoretically, I want to explore an alternative perspective
key parallels, and their philosophies
can be combined productively. See: S.
on design that draws attention to the ethical aspects of HCD. This
Critchley, The Ethics of Deconstruction:
move can be understood as a response to Winner’s21 critique of
Derrida and Levinas, 2nd ed. (Edinburgh:
studies in STS regarding their lack of attention to ethics and their
Edinburgh University Press, 1999): 9-13.
“apparent disdain” for moral questions. Van de Poel and Verbeek
18 Philosophers often use words in
similarly proposed to “perform a context-sensitive form of ethics”22
particular ways. For a discussion of
—to study people’s situated and actual practices in a design process,
Levinas’s use of “autre/Autre” (“other”)
and “autrui/Autrui” (“Other”), see, e.g.,
rather than studying the ethical consequences of the outcomes of a
Critchley: The Ethics of Deconstruction:
design project (as is commonly done).
8. For a discussion of Derrida’s use of
“différance,” see, e.g., J. Derrida, “From
Deconstructing Human-Centered Design
‘Différance’ in Margins of Philosophy”
My study aims to deconstruct HCD in the sense of Derrida’s approach
in A Derrida reader: Between the blinds,
P. Kamuf, ed. (New York: Columbia
to deconstructing texts.23 Such deconstruction involves reading
University Press, 1991): 59-79.
between the lines, questioning implicit assumptions and dominant
19 J. Keulartz, M. Schermer, M. Korthals,
meanings, exploring alternative readings, and writing these in the
and T. Swierstra, “Ethics in Technological
texts’ margins. In my case, I questioned assumptions implicit in
Culture: A Programmatic Proposal
current practices and explored alternative practices.
for a Pragmatist Approach,” Science,
Technology, & Human Values 29:1
(2004): 3-29.
74
DesignIssues: Volume 28, Number 1 Winter 2012

---

A key assumption in HCD is that HCD practitioners can
be open toward others, so that they can jointly learn and create—
that they can be open both toward users and their experiences and
toward co-workers and their backgrounds (ISO 1999, HCD principles
1 and 4). Furthermore, HCD assumes that project iterations can be
organized that productively combine divergent, generative phases
(toward openness) and convergent, evaluative phases (toward closure)
(HCD principle 3). Moreover, HCD assumes (in this context of user
involvement, multi-disciplinary teamwork, and project iterations)
that decisions can be made about what the product can do and
how people can use it (HCD principle 2). In the next two sections, I
examine and interpret these assumptions by using texts of Levinas
and Derrida as a lens, by providing examples from two HCD
projects, and by exploring alternative practices.
In these two projects, the goal was to develop innovative
20 P. Ehn, Work-oriented Design of
telecom applications for two different user groups in close
Computer Artifacts (Stockholm, Sweden:
cooperation with them: one for police officers and another for
Arbetslivs centrum, 1988); J. Greenbaum
informal carers. The projects combined technology push (the
and M. Kyng, eds., Design at Work:
ambition to develop telecom applications) and HCD (the ambition
Cooperative Design of Computer Systems
to cooperate with potential users).
(Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum,
1991); and D. Schuler and A. Namioka,
Participatory Design: Principles and
Developing Knowledge: Other and Self, Grasping and Desire
Practices (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Another key assumption in HCD is that the people involved can
Erlbaum, 1993).
jointly learn new things—that they can, for example, develop
21 L. Winner, “Upon opening the black box
knowledge about users and their experiences. However, being
and finding it empty: Social construc-
tivism and the philosophy of technology,”
open toward others and learning new things can be hard. Several
Science, Technology, & Human Values
of Levinas’s texts can help to discuss this process of developing
18:3 (1993): 362-78.
knowledge.
22 I. Van de Poel and P.-P. Verbeek, “Ethics
Throughout his oeuvre, Levinas is concerned with the
and Engineering Design,” Science
difficulties of relations between people and the violence that so
Technology, & Human Values 31:3
often occurs between them. He argues that people tend not to see
(2006): 223-36.
23 J. Derrida, “Letter to a Japanese friend”
the other as other, but as an object, and to reduce what they see and
in A Derrida reader: Between the blinds,
hear from the other to concepts with which they are already familiar.
P. Kamuf, ed. (New York: Columbia
This tendency can lead to “the reduction of the other to the same:” “The
University Press, 1991): 270-6.
foreign being … becomes a theme and an object. … It falls into the
24 E. Levinas, “Philosophy and the Idea
network of a priori ideas, which I bring to bear, as to capture it.”24
of Infinity,” in Collected philosophical
papers (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff
He characterizes this tendency as a grasping gesture: We pull the
Publishers, 1987): 48, 50.
other into our own way of thinking: “Knowledge remains linked
25 E. Levinas, “Transcendence and
to perception and to apprehension and to the grasp.”25 Levinas
Intelligibility,” in Emmanuel Levinas:
describes the self, which he refers to as “the I of knowledge,” as
Basic Philosophical Writings, A.
a “melting pot where every Other is transmuted into the Same.”26
Peperzak, S. Critchley, and R. Bernasconi,
Thus, in an attempt to develop knowledge, the self grasps the other
eds. (Bloomington and Indianapolis:
Indiana University Press, 1996): 152.
and draws the other into her or his own “melting pot,” which makes
26 E. Levinas, “Transcendence and Height,”
learning anything new very difficult.
in Emmanuel Levinas: Basic Philosophical
Writings, A. Peperzak, S. Critchley, and
R. Bernasconi, eds. (Bloomington and
Indianapolis: Indiana University Press,
1996): 13.
DesignIssues: Volume 28, Number 1 Winter 2012
75

---

HCD practitioners cannot escape this tendency. Their
interests and ambitions, their methods and skills, and their
knowledge and ideas (e.g., their selves) make them filter what
they see and hear from users and co-workers (e.g., the others). This
tendency to grasp is illustrated with several examples from the
police project.
In this project, we conducted a series of four co-design
workshops with different groups of police officers. Based on the
findings from each workshop, we gradually changed our project’s
focus and eventually developed a mobile telecom application
that promotes cooperation between police officers. It does so by
automatically making suggestions to share “implicit knowledge”
between police offices to improve the quality of police work. This
type of adaptation of a project, based on interactions with users, is
considered good practice in HCD.
Nevertheless, we also missed several opportunities to learn
from police officers and to let their ideas significantly influence the
project. In the interactions between us (the project team members)
and them (the police of icers), we often privileged our own ideas
over theirs. For example, in the first workshop, we jointly explored
and articulated four areas that they (the police officers) experienced
as problematic. After the workshop, however, we (the project team
members) chose to focus on the one area that was comfortably close
to our ambition to develop a telecom application. As a consequence,
we ignored the other areas relevant to the police officers, such as the
problems they experience with systems they use to share and access
information, and their experiences of struggling with their profes-
sional roles and the organizational culture.
Another example comes from the second workshop, in which
we discussed our observation of police work (conducted some
weeks earlier) to validate our findings. In this workshop, the police
officers confirmed the problems we had identified. In addition,
they wanted to discuss some practical problems, such as their
need to have laptops in their cars to access information remotely.
We responded that our project focuses on developing innovative
telecom applications and not on their current practical problems. We
privileged our ambitions over their practical needs.
These examples il ustrate a question that HCD practitioners
often face: How do we balance users’ concerns with the project’s
ambitions. This question is central in the participatory design
tradition. Based on Levinas, this tension can be rephrased: How
do we balance the ambition to be open toward the other with the
tendency to grasp the other, and to privilege the self over the other?
Applying these ideas to HCD, I propose that as HCD practi-
tioners we need to try to be open toward others. Meanwhile, we also
need to bring our selves: our interests, ambitions, methods, skills,
76
DesignIssues: Volume 28, Number 1 Winter 2012

---

knowledge, and ideas. I suggest that we often are unaware of the
tensions that occur between other and self, and of our tendencies to
privilege the self over the other. Moreover, I propose that we can try
to become more aware of these tensions and tendencies, so that we
can learn to better balance other and self. One suggestion for doing so
comes from Levinas himself. He envisions the possibility of trying to
escape the gesture of grasping —which is aimed at satisfaction of the
self at the expense of the other—through a form of desire aimed not at
satisfying the self, but at respecting the otherness of the other: “This
desire is unquenchable, not because it answers to an infinite hunger,
but because it does not call for food. This desire without satisfaction
hence takes cognizance of the alterity [otherness] of the other.”27
Making Decisions: Openness and Closure, Programming and Passivity
Not only do HCD practitioners need to move toward openness,
toward other people’s experiences, knowledge, and ideas
(divergence); they also need to move toward closure, drawing
conclusions and delivering results (convergence). Making decisions
is critical to combining openness and closure because making
decisions is a way to create closure and to make progress. We
explore directions for developing solutions and then choose one, or
we generate ideas and then select one. Reading some of Derrida’s
texts can help to explore an alternative view on the process of
making decisions.

Derrida remarked that genuine decisions are “exceptional”
decisions: “a decision that does not make an exception, that does
nothing but repeat or apply the rule, would not be a decision.”28 One
cannot make a genuine decision by merely applying knowledge or
simply following rules: “It is when it is not possible to know what
must be done, when knowledge is not and cannot be determining
that a decision is possible as such. Otherwise, the decision is
an application: one knows what has to be done, it’s clear, there
is no more decision possible; what one has here is an effect, an
application, a programming.”29 Furthermore, Derrida observed that
people often try to program innovation and argued that this can
lead to “the invention of the same.”30 Because of this tendency to
27 E. Levinas, “Philosophy and the Idea of
program innovation, we tend to stay within our own comfort zone,
Infinity,” 56.
to move toward closure, rather than toward openness, which makes
28 J. Derrida, “Deconstructions: The
it hard to get out of the box and create anything new. The difficulty
Im-possible” in French Theory in America,
of combining openness and closure and the tendencies to program
S. Lotringer and S. Cohen, eds. (New York
innovation are illustrated here with examples from the informal
and London: Routledge, 2001): 29.
care project.
29 J. Derrida, “Dialanguages” in Points…
Interviews, 1974-1994, (Stanford:
In this project, we cooperated with informal carers—more
Stanford University Press, 1995): 147-8.
specifically, with people who provide “primary” informal care
30 J. Derrida, “Psyche: Inventions of the
for people who suffer from dementia and who live at home, often
Other,” in Reading de Man Reading,
their husband or wife. In this case, different project team members
L. Waters and W. Godzich, eds.
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press, 1989): 46, 55.
DesignIssues: Volume 28, Number 1 Winter 2012
77

---

followed different approaches to talk with potential users about
their daily lives and their needs. Some project team members
who were familiar with dementia and informal care conducted
a questionnaire-based survey (within a psychology tradition).
They interviewed hundreds of people with dementia and their
“primary” informal carers to generate a representative overview
of their needs. In parallel, other project team members, for whom
dementia and informal care were relatively new areas, conducted
informal co-design interviews (within a design tradition) to inform
and inspire their creative process. Both approaches are attempts to
move toward openness, to learn from potential users. However, they
are also moves toward closure—drawing conclusions about people’s
needs and creating products for them.
Because of our chosen methods (from psychology and from
design), we tended to move toward closure rather than toward
openness. The people involved in the survey used questionnaires,
and the respondents’ utterances had to fit into the questionnaire’s
categories. Meanwhile, the people involved in the co-design
interviews started with the ambition to create a telecom application,
and this ambition influenced the way the interviews proceeded.
HCD practitioners bring their methods to the encounters with others
as a way to focus, to stay on track, and to move toward closure.
Because of the different methods used for conducting the
interviews, the findings were also hard to combine within the project
team. Moreover, the different approaches to making decisions were
hard to combine. Coming to agreement about which target group
to focus on and which need to address took considerable effort by
the project team. The people involved in the survey (who had lots
of experience with dementia and informal care) advocated focusing
on the informal carers’ needs and developing a telecom application
that to help informal carers share tasks with others, to alleviate their
burden. Such an application would prevent “primary” informal
carers from burning out and thus would improve the quality of life
for both the informal carer and the care receiver who has dementia.
In contrast, the people involved in the co-design interviews
advocated focusing on the needs of the people with dementia—
probably because they were moved by these people’s condition and
their needs (which were relatively new to them).
I suspect that HCD practitioners are not always aware of the
effects that their backgrounds and methods have on the decision-
making process; of the tensions that occur between openness
and closure; and of their tendencies to program innovation and to
favor closure over openness. Moreover, I propose that by trying to
become more aware of these tensions and tendencies, they might
find a better balance between openness and closure. Derrida offers a
suggestion of how to do so. Similar to Levinas, Derrida advocates
78
DesignIssues: Volume 28, Number 1 Winter 2012

---

welcoming the other—trying to let the other surprise you—to escape
the tendency to program: “To invent would then be to ‘know’ how to
say ‘come’ and to answer the ‘come’ of the other.”31 Such an approach
would be an active form of passivity because trying not to make the
other into a theme within our own “program” requires an effort:
“Letting the other come is not inertia open to anything whatever. No
doubt the coming of the other … escapes from all programming.”32
Advocating for Reflexivity
HCD can be understood as a fragile encounter—an encounter with
inherent tensions, in which people try to move toward the other and
toward openness but in which their tendency is to move toward the
self and toward closure. We often are not aware of these tensions and
moves, which makes it hard to counter these tendencies. Several
suggestions offered can help HCD practitioners to realize more of
the potential of HCD. These suggestions extend our current attempts
to be sensitive and responsive to the people we interact with: both
to potential users and to other project team members. We who are
HCD practitioners can try to become more aware of the moves we
make between other and self, and between openness and closure, and of
our own roles in the HCD process. Being more aware of these moves
and roles might help us try to bring about two important changes:
1) engaging with a form of desire that is open to the other, we may
counter our tendencies to grasp the other and, in doing so, facilitate
joint learning; and 2) engaging with a form of passivity that welcomes
otherness, we may counter our tendencies to program innovation
and, in doing so, facilitate joint creativity.
As HCD practitioners we can try to better balance our
own interests, ambitions, methods, and skil s with users’ and
co-workers’ interests, ambitions, methods, and skills. We can
organize workshops or interviews with a more open mindset. We
can, of course, continue to use agendas or checklists, as long as we
recognize how these methods influence the process and our roles
31 J. Derrida, “Psyche: Inventions of the
in the process. My suggestions boil down to advocating reflection
Other,” 56.
(on the HCD process) and reflexivity (concerning one’s own role in
32 J. Derrida, “Psyche: Inventions of the
this process). Such advocacy is not new to people in the tradition of
Other,” 55-6.
33 E. Beck,“P for Political: Participation
participatory design.33
is Not Enough,” Scandinavian Journal
What, then, might HCD look like? I invite you to try this:
of Information Systems 14:1 (2002):
Close your eyes and imagine yourself participating in a workshop
77-92; S. Bødker, “When Second Wave
with potential users and other project team members. You are aware
HCD Meets Third Wave Challenges,”
of the project’s goal to design a product and of your own ambitions
Proceedings of NordiCHI 2006, October
and skills. You want to create things and make progress. But you also
14-18, 2006, Oslo, Norway (2006) 1-8; J.
Gulliksen, Ann Lantz, and Inger Boivie,
try to be open toward the others as you put your own knowledge
User Centered Design in Practice:
and ideas on hold. Imagine them as secondary. You catch yourself
Problems and Possibilities (Stockholm,
trying to formulate conclusions and envision solutions and try to
Royal Institute of Technology, 1999); and
counter these. For the moment, you notice that you are leaning
R. Markussen, “Dilemmas in Cooperative
Design,” Proceeding of Participatory
Design Conference (1994) 59-66.
DesignIssues: Volume 28, Number 1 Winter 2012
79

---

forward, opening your mouth to say something. Then you pull
back, close your mouth again. You breathe slowly in, and out. You
look at the other and you listen to her. You become curious about
her, and you begin to wonder. What would it feel like to experience
what she talks about? You begin to appreciate her participation. You
are interested in her perspective and ideas. You empathize. You feel
less hurried, and you are aware of the flow of the meeting, of what
happens in the encounters between the people present, between
others and you.
This scenario would come close to what HCD practices can
be: encounters between people in which they can jointly learn and
jointly create.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Pieter Jan Stappers and Ilpo
Koskinen for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper,
Jan Buijs and Hugo Letiche for supervising the PhD research on
which this paper is based, and fellow project-team members for
their cooperation and their kind permission to study and write about
the project. The project was conducted in the Freeband research
program, which was supported by the Dutch Ministry of Economic
Affairs under contract BSIK 03025.
80
DesignIssues: Volume 28, Number 1 Winter 2012

---