Community Consensus:
Design Beyond Participation
Heike Winschiers-Theophilus,
Nicola J. Bidwel , Edwin Blake
“Umuntu Ngumuntu Ngabantu” Zulu proverb, translated
“A person is a person through other persons”
Dilemmas in Participation
The importance of user involvement in design activities has been
widely recognized in efforts to design more usable and acceptable
systems. Tools and methods used in some approaches, such as
user-centered, interaction, and Participatory Design, shifted the
focus to the user; nevertheless, “user involvement” remains a
vague concept and a highly varied practice. Value-based
approaches have heightened awareness of the need to explicitly
redefine who is making the design decisions and to explicate what
design processes say about users.1 However, to date, design dis-
course has merely scratched the surface in unpacking meanings
about participation and the ways these meanings affect design out-
comes. We rarely discuss the assumptions inherent in concepts
related to being human, whether as an individual or a community
member (i.e., participating with others within a community), nor
do we articulate how participation and design activities together
define the identity of the user/community member as “the
designer from within” and “the technologist/researcher/designer”
as the “designer from outside” not originating from the commu-
nity in which the design takes place. In this article, we propose
that grappling with meanings about participation is critical to
design, and in particular, to cross-cultural design. Societies and
groups based on other value systems conceptualize “participation”
1 Steve Harrison, Deborah Tatar, and
differently, and this understanding directly affects the intercul-
Phoebe Sengers, “The Three Paradigms
tural design process.2
of HCI,” in Proceedings of ACM

Thus, we explore the concept of participation in design
CHI 2007 Conference on Human
from a different viewpoint. We draw on an African philosophy
Factors in Computing Systems,
of humanness—“Ubuntu,” as lived through African rural commu-
New York, USA, 1-21.
2 Heike Winschiers-Theophilus, “Cultural
nity practices—to re-frame Participatory Design paradigms and
Appropriation of Software Design and
methods. We reflect on our own Participatory Design interventions
Evaluation” in Handbook of Research on
in Southern African communities as we explore the theoretical
Socio-Technical Design and Social
grounds to draw methodological conclusions for design. We then
Networking Systems, B Whitworth and A
de Moor, eds., (Hershey, PA: IGI Global,
2009), 699-711.
© 2012 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
89
DesignIssues: Volume 28, Number 3 Summer 2012

---

propose guidelines that might enable technologists/researchers to
respond more effectively in developing contextual y appropriate
and consensual methods in design with communities.
Localizing Design
Many attempts have been made to adapt participatory and user-
centered design methods to specific regions by localizing usability
measures or incorporating cultural models of people’s interper-
sonal interactions and communicative habits into analytic tools.3
However, our failure to successful y apply user-centered methods,
evaluations, or benchmarks in developing regions,4 or to assess the
efficacy of cross-cultural projects according to “universal y valid”
a priori measures cal s for the reframing of relationships between
cultural contexts and meaning in design. Various critiques and
approaches, emerging over the past 20 years, have motivated a
reconsideration of the ways that design activities accommodate the
social situation in establishing criteria of success, making deci-
sions, and evaluating.5 Harrison et al. applied the term “situated-
paradigm” to perspectives that respond to the social context of
interactions and the varied non-technological factors that affect
design and use.6 Situated paradigms, such as, value-sensitive, user-
experience, critical, and Participatory Design, treat interactions of
3 Elisa Del Galdo and Jacob Nielsen,
all types as a form of meaning-making in which activities, arti-
International User Interfaces (New York:
John Wiley & Sons, 1996).
facts, and their context—at all levels—are mutually defining.
4 Garry Marsden, “Toward Empowered
Accounting for the many differences in approaches to participa-
Design,” Computer 41, no. 6 (2008):
tion found in designing health information systems in South
42-46.
Africa, Mozambique, and India, Puri et al. conclude: “There is no
5 Batya Friedman, ed., Human Values and
single algorithmic best practice regarding participatory design in
the Design of Computer Technology (New
York: Cambridge University Press, 1997).
information systems which is applicable to all situations.”7
6 Harrison et al., “The Three Paradigms of

Situated paradigms favor multiple interpretations over
HCI” (2007), 1-21.
single, objective descriptions and are thus amenable to the varying
7 Satish Puri, Elaine Byrne, Jose
“cultural logics” that designers, users, and other stakeholders
Nhampossa and Zubeeda Quraishi,
apply in undertaking and making sense of design activities.8
“Contextuality of Participation in IS
Tacchi and Watkins propose that local participation must involve
Design: A Developing Country
Perspective” (Participatory Design
local interpretation to respond to the socio-economic, cultural, and
Conference, 2004), 42-52.
political context that shapes users’ behavior and actions.9 However,
8 Nicola Bidwell, Thomas Reitmaier, Garry
identifying and applying methods that ensure local interpretations
Marsden, and Susan Hansen, “Designing
of participation and enable participants to appropriate the design
with Mobile Digital Storytelling in Rural
process poses chal enges.10 Winschiers demonstrated that common
Africa” (CHI, 2010) 1593-1602.
9 Jerry Tacchi and Jo Ann Watkins,
Participatory Design methods based on Western communication
“Participatory Research and Creative
structures (e.g., future workshops and brainstorming) were incom-
Engagement with ICTs” (ACM Sensys,
patible with Namibian user groups’ social habits.11 More compati-
2007).
ble methods involve respecting the implicit and explicit rules that
10 Heike Winschiers-Theophilus, “Cultural
govern local practices of participation; however, designers from
Appropriation” (2009), 699-711.
outside, are often unaware of these rules, or they find that the
11 Heike Winschiers-Theophilus, “The
Challenges of Participatory Design in an
rules conflict with fundamental tenants in the development
Intercultural Context: Designing for
agenda. Consider, for example, that lower ranking members in
Usability in Namibia” (Participatory
Design Conference, 2006).
90
DesignIssues: Volume 28, Number 3 Summer 2012

---

hierarchical societies are not expected to express opinions publicly
or to non-peers, even though they are not formally prohibited
from doing so. Such expectations seem unjust to those of us accul-
turated in egalitarian systems; indeed, we usually associate
democracy with the protocols and methods required for local
uptake, ownership, and domestication of information communica-
tion technologies (ICTs). Paradoxical y, approaches that authorize
particular stances on democracy are counter to genuine participa-
tion, as an al -inclusive paradigm, whereby al participants con-
tribute toward a decision.

To localize participation, we must develop “sensitivity
toward new types of network relations among people, the diverse
12 Margot Brereton and Jacob Buur, “New
motivations of people to participate, the subtle balance of values
Challenges for Design Participation in the
and benefits involved in col aborative endeavors, and the inherent
Era of Ubiquitous Computing,” Co Design
4, no. 2 (2008): 101-13.
power relations between participants.”12
13 Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of Indignation
(Boulder, CO: Paradigm, 2004).
Grounding Community Consensus Theoretically
14 Karen Martin summarizes Indigenist
We start by describing elements of a theoretical framework that
research as research that is culturally
serves to ground a different way of thinking about participation.
safe and respectful and that emphasizes
We focus on how dialogue shapes meanings of community and
the emancipatory imperative of resis-
personhood, how practices of information exchange establish
tance to support political integrity and
privilege Indigenous voices. In her thesis,
understandings about the relationship between people and infor-
Martin extends earlier principles for
mation, and how through learning people can “make and remake
Indigenist research by 1) recognizing that
themselves.”13
Indigenous people’s worldviews, knowl-
edge and realities are distinctive and
Ubuntu and Dialogue
vital to their existence and survival;
Indigenist paradigms,14 which recognize relationships between the
2) honoring the social mores of
nature of participation and knowledge practices, motivate us to
Indigenous people as essential
processes through which they live, learn
draw on local epistemologies in negotiating conflicts between cul-
and situate themselves as Aboriginal
tural y specific systems of participation.15 Sensitivity to epistemolo-
people “in their own lands and when in
gies in sub-Saharan Africa means appreciating that the way of life
the lands of other Aboriginal people;”
in rural communities associates with the paradigm that “a person
3) emphasizing social, historical and
is a person through other people.” This sense of connectedness is
political contexts which shape Indigenous
encompassed in the concept of “Ubuntu,” which variously means
people’s experiences, lives, positions and
futures; 4) privileging the voices, experi-
“humanity,” “humanness,” or “humaneness.” It is related to words,
ences and lives of Aboriginal people and
aphorisms, and proverbs in many other African languages. Mbiti,
Aboriginal lands. Martin, K. (2003). Ways
one of the first writers in English on African philosophy, never
of Knowing, Ways of Being and Ways of
used the term Ubuntu but explains that a cardinal point in the
Doing: A Theoretical Framework and
African view of humanity involves understanding that “I am,
Methods for Indigenous and Indigenist
Research, 4-5.
because we are; and since we are, therefore I am.”16 By including al
15 Karen Martin, “Ways of Knowing, Ways
participants’ voices in building consensus, Ubuntu reflects a criti-
of Being and Ways of Doing: A
cal discourse. It introduces dimensions that Western discourses do
Theoretical Framework and Methods for
not often associate with community—including a temporality
Indigenous Research and Indigenist
beyond an individual’s own life and accountability to ancestors
Research: Voicing Dissent,” New Talents
and descendants. As Mbiti explains: “In traditional life, the indi-
21C: Next Generation Journal of
Australian Studies 76 (2003): 203-13.
vidual does not and cannot exist alone except corporately. He owes
16 John S. Mbiti, African Religions and
his existence to other people, including those of past generations
Philosophy 2nd ed. Harlow (UK:
Heinemann, 1990): 141.
DesignIssues: Volume 28, Number 3 Summer 2012
91

---

and his contemporaries. He is simply part of the whole. The com-
munity must therefore make, create, or produce the individual; for
the individual depends on the corporate group.”17

Inclusive decision-making and participatory meetings
are key traditions in rural African communities. Francophone
Africans use the term palaver to describe how such traditions
efficiently institutionalize “communicative action.”18 For instance,
Congolese theologian Bénézet Bujo explains: “In seeking a solution
for a problem, they share experiences, refer to the entire history of
the clan community, and consider the interests of both the living
and the dead. The procedure can be time-consuming as it is car-
ried on until consensus is achieved.”19

To il ustrate the implications of Ubuntu for design, we now
explore the relative identities of the community members and the
designers from outside participating in design and introduce some
methodological consequences. Despite the misuse and overuse of
this powerful and loaded concept,20 time and again we encounter
people in rural African communities explicating the need to act
together “as one person” general y and in relation to ICT projects;
and time and again, we observe local expectations about “partici-
pation” in daily life.21 To respond effectively, we must re-focus
methods formalized in Participatory Design so that we emphasize
17 Ibid., 106.
facilitation of groups that have already established their existence
18 Bénézet Bujo, “Is There a Specific
as a whole to create a design output, rather than focusing on bring-
African Ethic?” in African Ethics: An
ing individuals together for the purpose of undertaking a joint
Anthology of Comparative and Applied
design activity. This approach, of course, re-ignites questions about
Ethics, Munyaradzi Felix Murove, ed.,
(Scottsville, South Africa: University of
the appropriate role of the designer from outside, in relation to
Kwazulu-Natal Press, 2009), 122.
already established communities during the joint design activities.
19 Ibid., 122.
To fol ow the Ubuntu principle, we need to identify ourselves (as
20 Mluleki Munyaka and Mokgethi
designers from outside) as part of a wider community that encom-
Motlhabi, “Ubuntu and Its Socio-Moral
passes designers from inside and outside who together derive a
Significance” in African Ethics: An
Anthology of Comparative and Applied
communal existence, and we need to acknowledge that it is within
Ethics, Munyaradzi Felix Murove, ed.,
this communal existence that “I am” a designer.
(Scottsville, South Africa: University of

A promising avenue for refining participatory approaches
Kwazulu-Natal Press, 1990), 64.
and enabling designers to perform identities within a communal
21 Nicola J Bidwell, “Ubuntu in the
existence distinguishes “dialogue” from “discussion.” Bohm pro-
Network: Humanness in Social Capital in
poses that dialogue does not aim to convince others about an opin-
Rural Africa,” Interactions 17, no. 2
(2010): 68-71.
ion, assert that particular concepts or solutions are the sole truth,
22 David Bohm, On Dialogue (London, Great
or sum up or merge prior ideas, but is a means to create jointly new
Britain: Routledge, 2007).
concepts and solutions by suspending judgment and respecting
23 Nicola J. Bidwell, “Anchoring Design to
al contributions.22 Such “conversations” absorb multiple perspec-
Rural Ways of Doing and Saying,”
tives and diverse aspects of settings beyond the spoken; that
Interact 1, T. Gross et al., eds., LNCS
5726 (2009): 686-99.
is, indexicality gives salience to actions and utterances and, reflex-
24 Cecilia Merkel, Lu Xiao, Umer Faroog,
ively, shares and augments context in creating shared meaning.23
Craig Ganoe, Roderick Lee, John Carroll
To generate new meanings about participation together, commu-
and Mary Rosson, “Participatory Design
nity outsiders must enter a lengthy process of social grounding.24
in Community Computing Contexts: Tales
from the Field,” (Participatory Design
Conference, 2004), 1-10.
92
DesignIssues: Volume 28, Number 3 Summer 2012

---

Disregarding the importance, underestimating the complexity of
these encounters, and curtailing the process of redefining the
respective identities of designers form outside and inside contrib-
utes substantial y to design failures. Generating new meanings
about participation through dialogue diffracts the logics about
participation that we gained in our own communities of practice.
Indeed, such dialogue sensitizes us to our value-laden assump-
tions about participant roles and acts in participating. Because
such assumptions arbitrate how we align our understandings of
design with those of the community, we consider reflexive
accounts about our own and community members’ modes of par-
ticipation to be integral to the evolving design product.
Values and Logics about Personhood in Information Transfer
Bidwell uses the lens of Ubuntu to il uminate the values and logics
that shape participation in social networks in Africa and their link
to concepts about personhood and identity.25 Practices of informa-
tion exchange reproduce values about personhood, as well as
implicit theories about the relationship between people and infor-
mation. The values embedded in Western modes of information
exchange, such as “efficiency” and individuals’ freedom to express
25 Nicola J. Bidwell, Ubuntu, See note 21,
(including expression of information) are shaped by media tradi-
68-71.
tions, including writing systems and “secondary orality.” In con-
26 Nicola J. Bidwell, Heike Winschiers-
trast, African rural communities often preserve strong oral
Theophilus, Gereon Koch Kapuire, and
traditions, which intertwine with certain values and logics in their
Matthias Rehm, “Pushing Personhood
local knowledge systems. For instance, speakers frequently per-
into Place: Situating Media in the
Transfer of Rural Knowledge in Africa,”
sonalize and control access to information according to their
International Journal of Human-Computer
knowledge about the listener, and this approach contributes to
Studies (Special Issue on Locative Media)
constructing both the speaker’s and listener’s identities.26
69, no. 10 (2011): 618-31, K. Cheverst and

Recognizing how power relations between systems of infor-
K. Willis, eds.
mation exchange can undermine certain values and logics can be
27 See Sylvia Scribner and Michael Cole,
extremely difficult. For instance, attributing the cognitive abilities
The Psychology of Literacy (Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 1981), and
of detachment and objectivity to written literacy arises within par-
Russell Kaschula, ed., African Oral
ticular perspectives on modernity, “progress,” and writing sys-
Literature: Functions in Contemporary
tems.27 Often we adopt a “deficit approach” to differences and, by
Contexts (South Africa: New Africa
using methods to compensate for “il iteracies” of some sort, unwit-
Books, 2001).
tingly deemphasize those logics and skil s in which we ourselves
28 Jahanzeb Sherwani, Nosheen Ali,
Carolyn Penstein Rose, and Roni
are il iterate. Consider how accounts about cognitive abilities tune
Rosenfeld, “Orality-Grounded HCID:
designing for oral users;28 simultaneously, they neglect relations
Understanding the Oral User,”
between verbal explanations, specific literacy, or schooling prac-
Information Technologies and
tices and disregard the acute linguistic awareness of multilingual
Development 5, no. 4 (2009): 37-49.
people, who are many in Africa.29 They thus marginalize the work
29 See Glynda Hull and Katherine Schultz,
people do in face-to-face communication. Imposing systems that
“Literacy and Learning Out of School: A
Review of Theory and Research,” Review
neglect core features of information transmission can undermine
of Educational Research 71 (2001):
the literacies people apply in participation and consequently can
575-611 and Ruth Finnegan, The Oral and
displace local knowledge traditions in developing ICTs.
Beyond: Doing Things with Words in
Africa (Oxford/Chicago: James Currey/
University of Chicago Press, 2007).
DesignIssues: Volume 28, Number 3 Summer 2012
93

---

Scholarship of African orality includes linguistic and “extra-
linguistic” acts, such as gesture, movement, crafts, and perfor-
mance.30 Rather than eventuating in print or a technological
artifact, information is continuously recreated, accreted, and dis-
tributed across groups. As Sherwani et al. remark, when a commu-
nity emphasizes oral transfer, all information “is traceable to a
person.”31 The design implications of local values associated with
and expressed by the personal pedigree attached to information
are nicely il ustrated by our experience in evaluating a sophisti-
cated decision support system, based on ecological models about
southern African farming. The system neglected the way that
farmers draw on their lived familiarity with people in assessing
the relevance and integrity of information; the farmers participat-
ing in the evaluation were uninterested in the system’s logical rea-
soning or the decision paths displayed by our initial interface and
instead wanted information about people they knew who had fol-
lowed the proposed decision.32 Sometimes we try to reconcile dif-
ferent approaches to information exchange by emphasizing
similarities at the expense of noticing differences. Consider story-
tel ing, for example: Many African oral traditions use stories to
transfer information, whether in everyday speech (e.g., the idioms
and proverbs that inundate rural vernaculars of isiXhosa) or in
bounded activities (e.g., story-tel ing around the evening fire). We
widely accept the importance of storytel ing to design practice,
and tel ing stories are core to many Participatory Design methods
and user-centered design tools.33 Such approaches reproduce par-
ticular customs of storytel ing, conceptions about stories, and nar-
rative conventions (e.g., chronology and linearity), which are
shaped by Western media traditions. However, African storytel -
ing traditions have their own narrative forms and aural, visual,
and kinaesthetic qualities.34 Further, our views of where a story
“comes from” and who is permitted to voice it are cultural; for
instance, a Western constructivist view—that authors control nar-
30 Finnegan,
The Oral and Beyond.
rative and listeners determine meaning—is in stark contrast to cul-
31 Sherwani et al.,“Orality-Grounded HCID,”
tures where stories are “owned” by ancestors or the land or where
37-49.
deep familiarity between speakers and listeners and their respec-
32 Heike Winschiers-Theophilus, Jens
Fendler, Dave Joubert, Ibo Zimmermann,
tive social relations can limit multiple meanings.35
Colin Stanley, and Sebastian Mukumbira,
“A Bush Encroachment Decision Support
Mutual Learning in Dialogue
System’s Metamorphosis,” (OZCHI, 2008):
A commitment to generate new meanings about participation
287-90.
through dialogue, and to revise norms about participants’ roles
33 Nicola Bidwell et al., “Designing with
involve envisioning and realizing an environment conducive to
Mobile Digital Storytelling,”1593-1602.
mutual learning among designers form outside and local commu-
34 For narrative forms, see Finnegan, The
Oral and Beyond; For aural, visual, and
nity members. Freire concedes that dismantling the dichotomy
kinesthetic qualities, see Kaschula,
between the people who know and those who do not (yet) know
African Oral Literature.
requires the marginalized to be active in their own emancipation.36
35 Nicola Bidwell et al., “Pushing
Personhood into Place,” 618-27.
36 Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of Indignation.
94
DesignIssues: Volume 28, Number 3 Summer 2012

---

The literature reports different approaches to al eviating concep-
tual and practical gulfs between designers from outside and users
in Africa. For example, Walker et al. suggest this approach: “[T]rain
local people to take on design roles and self-report their progress
with the technology as participant ethnography.”37 Explicitly
acknowledging local knowledge by recognizing community mem-
bers as fel ow researchers reveals insights into local understand-
ings about, and use of, technology that would not otherwise
emerge. Co-generating techniques for gathering data is particu-
larly enriching because local appropriations of methods, which
established disciplines would regard as lacking rigor, reveal how
communities construct the objects and relations of enquiry.38

On the other hand, literacy on ICTs is a prerequisite for
involvement in design.39 Designers often simultaneously assume
37 Kevin Walker, Joshua Underwood, Tim
Waema, Lynne Dunckley, Jose
the roles of both facilitators and change agents, which is inherently
Abdelnour-Nocera, Rosemary Luckin,
problematic. To create common understandings about ICT that are
Cecilia Oyugi, and Souleymane Camara,
compatible with a community’s priorities, activities must permit
“A Resource Kit for Participatory Socio-
stakeholders to explore options safely and to make choices about
Technical Design in Rural Africa,” (CHI,
adopting outside knowledge or altering current practices gradu-
2008): 2709-14.
ally.40 Many design disciplines widely accept that people under-
38 Nicola Bidwell et al., “Pushing
Personhood into Place,” 618-27.
stand issues and options by creating and testing possible solutions
39 Andre Maunder, Garry Marsden, Dominic
and reflecting on outcomes.41 In addition, prototypes have proven
Gruijters, and Edwin Blake, “Designing
particularly useful in catalyzing discussions, eliciting observations
Interactive Systems for the Developing
of use, and envisioning future use.42 Blake and Tucker suggest
World: Reflection on User-Centred
adapting methods from agile and evolutionary software engineer-
Design,” in Proceedings IEEE/ACM
International Conference on Information
ing under the umbrel a of action research, as a paradigm rather
and Communication Technologies and
than a methodology.43 Action research encompasses cycles of inter-
Development (ICTD, 2007): 321-28.
vention and reflection. Each design iteration reveals to user groups
40 Walker et al., “A Resource Kit,” 2709-14.
both the possibilities and the malleability of ICTs, as well as to
41 Geraldine Fitzpatrick, The Locales
designers the many factors that situate their use.44 Designers are
Framework: Understanding and Designing
technology interventionists who materialize their understanding
for the Wicked Problems, Computer
Supported Cooperative Work 1, 17 (2-3):
of aspects of local context in prototypes, and user groups are
91-96 (Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
respondents who materialize their ideas about the possibilities for
Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003).
ICT by using, or not using, prototypes. Throughout, the phases of
42 Margot Brereton and Jacob Buur, “New
action and critical reflection on action lead to a shared understand-
Challenges for Design Participation,”
ing of design itself and a continuous transformation of the envi-
101-13.
43 Edwin Blake and William Tucker,
ronment for participation.45
“Socially Aware Software Engineering
for the Developing World,” (IST Africa,
From Expert to Apprentice
2006).
To il ustrate and elaborate on some of the chal enges and nuances
44 Edwin Blake, “Software Engineering in
of the theoretical considerations outlined in the previous section,
Developing Communities,” in CHASE’10:
we draw upon our experiences with one particular African rural
Proceedings of the 33rd International
Conference Software Engineering
community project in Namibia. In 2008, we established a research
Workshop on Cooperative and Human
agenda to appropriately translate an African indigenous knowl-
Aspects of Software Engineering, New
edge system into technology. We sought to support the knowledge
York ACM, (2010) 1-4.
that rural communities have produced, over generations, despite
45 Edwin Blake, “How to Provide Useful ICT
When Called Upon,” Interactions 13, no.
5 (2006): 20-21.
DesignIssues: Volume 28, Number 3 Summer 2012
95

---

ongoing interruptions to information transfer caused by urban–
rural migration and modernization. Our major design chal enge is
to reconcile data structures, retrieval mechanisms, and user inter-
faces with local African orality. The full involvement of rural com-
munity members is indispensable because outsiders to these
communities of practice can never ful y comprehend the knowl-
edge system. However, such involvement poses numerous hurdles,
including linguistic gulfs, differing agendas and roles of individ-
ual participants, the dynamics of managing and control ing design
processes, trust and acceptance, and the type of interactions. To
start to address these hurdles, we sought a common framework
that might be embodied in the principle of Ubuntu.46
Participant Identities
Our design team consisted of about 20 community members of the
Herero tribe at two sites in eastern Namibia and eight designers of
different ages and genders: four who were based in Namibia’s cap-
ital, two who were based elsewhere in southern Africa, and two
based in Europe. One team member, both a designer and a mem-
ber of one of the rural communities, had wel -established, trusting,
and respectful relationships with wise elders who reside in the vil-
lages. Our team’s composition meant we performed and embodied
distinct identities, situated in different research contexts.

In the capital, the senior designers were the main actors
in the project’s planning, processes and reporting. The Namibian-
based designers triggered the original goal of generating an indig-
enous knowledge management system and invited other senior
and student designers to join them. We, the senior designers, read-
ily admitted that, in our entrapment within our own conceptual-
ization of knowledge and ICT solutions, we could not design for
the community, but instead acted as enablers. Thus, the designer
who originated from the vil age served as the main actor - assum-
ing a distinct third role in interactions by translating conversations
with and between community members - all of which were
conducted in Otji Herero. He thus performed two identities in the
context of our research and the rural community. Being young,
relative to the vil age elders, he was expected to listen actively but
not to interrogate or initiate actions. At the same time, he provided
the necessary linguistic and cultural translations, such that trans-
lation did not disturb the flow of interactions but delicately
balanced the design activities. Younger and/or female designers,
regardless of their experience, adopted the host communities’
46 Heike Winschiers-Theophilus, Nicola J
Bidwell, Edwin Blake, Shilumbe Chivuno-
customarily passive roles in interactions; and this demeanor rein-
Kuria, and Gereon Koch Kapuire, “Being
forced the influence of the designer from the vil age in interactions
Participated: A Community Approach,” in
with community members.
Proceedings of the Participatory Design
Conference 2010. Participation: The
Challenge, (Sydney, Australia: ACM,
2010): 1-10.
96
DesignIssues: Volume 28, Number 3 Summer 2012

---

Our behavior in the villages thus reinforced the perfor-
mance of customary identities. For example, to engage with and
abide by local protocol, we consulted with and properly informed
the elder, who was familiar with leading dialogue and consensus-
decisions, about proposed participatory sessions before informing
other community members. We remain uncertain about whether
community members recognized their ownership and active role
in designing the system. Before this project began, many had not
used a cell phone or computer, and their initial comments sug-
gested that they did not relate their traditional knowledge to eco-
nomic benefit. Rather, they felt flattered by our consultation,
emphasized the importance of their knowledge to their identity,
and expressed hopes that recordings of daily life and practices
might raise wider awareness of their need for basic services (e.g.,
water and electricity) and ICT. We compensated community mem-
bers—with food hampers—for their availability and participation
in the research activities and conversations, hoping to express in a
locally meaningful way how we valued their participation and
knowledge. However, we did so ful y aware that such behaviors
express power relations and might inherently privilege certain
concepts about intel ectual property over a local logic of commu-
nal knowledge.
Oscillation in Design Processes Control
Throughout our repeated stays in the vil ages, community mem-
bers accommodated project activities within their busy daily
schedules. Initially, we found ourselves anxiously wondering
whether our intended activities, which needed to happen primar-
ily in daylight, would happen. Over time, we learned to accept that
events rarely happened according to our plans but that adjusting
to the community’s rhythms was essential for activities to absorb
vital local values about dialogue. That is, we learned to appreciate
that the social focus of vil agers’ unhurried activities are a pur-
poseful part of community practice.

During each visit, we oscil ated through different modes of
participation. The designers from outside sometimes participated
in community-initiated activities, which either occurred routinely
or were intended to guide us; at other times, community members
participated in our activities, including contextual interviews,
technology probes, prototype evaluations, and reflections.47 The
non-planned, community-driven activities were deemed equal y
47 Heike Winschiers-Theophilus et al.,
important in the overall design exercise, complementing our eth-
“Being Participated,” 1-10.
48 Nicola Bidwell, Heike Winschiers-
nography.48 Experiencing community practices led us to better
Theophilus, Gereon Koch Kapuire, and
assess the adequacy of design methods and decisions, and partici-
Shilumbe Chivuno-Kuria, “Situated
pating in community-driven activities contributed to a framework
Interactions Between Audiovisual
within which to build consensus. As designers, we recognized that
Media and African Herbal Lore,”
such an approach starts to address the power relations that can
Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 15,
no. 6 (2011): 609-27.
DesignIssues: Volume 28, Number 3 Summer 2012
97

---

intimidate and inhibit participants.49 However, this approach also
suggests the need to balance expectations about processes and out-
comes. The slow production of concrete outcomes can frustrate
both designers and community members. Designers do not always
recognize the role of community-initiated activities on design out-
comes and, especial y if they are unfamiliar with rural Africa, may
feel they waste valuable time in the field. In addition, our deliber-
ate suspension of ideas, intended to avoid pre-empting local
design suggestions, can confuse community members who expect
a finalized system.
Guidelines for Community Design
Our lived experience in this project, together with our ongoing
situated research elsewhere in rural Africa, yields various issues
that require further research and discourse in striving for a more
consensual approach to design.
Being Participated
Designing with rural communities built on intricate kin relations
and established over many generations differs radically from
designing for organizations or individuals. Any interaction takes
place within a network of people whose links are not necessarily
transparent to outsiders. We conduct all usability evaluations and
design sessions in rural communities with group members who
have been assigned by those communities. This approach has
proven very effective in eliciting spontaneous and informative dis-
cussions about design, which would not have occurred in an indi-
vidual setting. By drawing on the concepts of Ubuntu, we place
the people’s interactions and interrelations at the heart of each
encounter. We devote significantly more time to speaking and
listening and undertake many activities, intended to establish
and sustain col aboration that would be branded irrelevant by clas-
sical design strategists. When community members outnumber
designers from outside and are in their own familiar environment,
they often lead the participatory interactions. Their continuous
deviation from the schedules, processes, and aims of the activities
we plan contributes to our sense of “being participated.” Initially,
this sensation of losing design process control is uncomfortable;
however, as we have reflected on the interactions, we feel a sense
of release about the community’s empowerment in controlling
the process.50
Situated Redefinition
We have referred to differences in the values and logics of Western
and African societies that influence concepts of participation
49 Sherwani et al., “Orality-Grounded
in design. In most sub-Saharan rural communities, “participation”
HCID.”
is well-established, and collaboration incorporated in everyday
50 Heike Winschiers-Theophilus et al.,
“Being Participated,” 9.
98
DesignIssues: Volume 28, Number 3 Summer 2012

---

activities.51 Thus, facilitating participation is not about cultivating a
composite of disparate individuals but about contributing to an
environment where interactions can influence design. To make
appropriate participation possible, we need to observe, reflect on,
and respond to local values because every design situation pres-
ents unique flavors of participants’ identities, viewpoints, agendas,
and roles within their community. Thus, mutual learning informs
the design processso that common concepts, such as “participation,”
are defined within the design context.
Changing Roles
Participation in influencing the design process means that both
designers and community members influence the design outcome.
However, the former risk, consciously or unconsciously monopo-
lizing the process, and subverting local norms in their choice of
methods and model ing techniques. To locate the design process in
the community, designers must develop a particular sensitivity to
their own bias and embrace a change of role from meta-partici-
pants (e.g., facilitator) to a participant; they must adjust to appro-
priate joint interactions and translate these adjustments into
implementations. In such contexts, designing by consensus rede-
fines the nature of the common roles in Participatory Design,
requiring oscil ation between roles as facilitators, interventionists,
observers and interpreters.
Conclusion
We have il ustrated how local values and logics shape participation
in design within a specific rural community context and have
drawn upon the philosophy of Ubuntu to explicate a new meaning
for participation. Local practices in many sub-Saharan African
regions express the values and logics of Ubuntu, which suggests
we can generalize some lessons for other projects in rural African
communities. Further, we propose that embracing Ubuntu into
design thinking enhances more meaningful participation in con-
texts in which the socio-economic access to technological innova-
tions and the epistemological circumstances of designers and user
groups differ acutely.

Our position here is a partial answer to col eagues working
with indigenous groups or across cultures who assert that
“Participatory Design does not work!” A key aspect of our role as
designers lies in acknowledging that, as part of a community of
participants, we must embrace the experience of “being partici-
pated.” Working in rural Africa is replete with opportunities for
such experiences—opportunities that enable us to revise our
concepts about participation and contribute our revisions to our
share of final products. Rather than actively facilitating participa-
tion according to our own definitions of participation, we are
51 Nicola J. Bidwell et al., “Pushing
Personhood into Place,” 618-31.
DesignIssues: Volume 28, Number 3 Summer 2012
99

---

responsible for integrating the communities’ participatory prac-
tices so that participants are able to appropriate the design process.
This perspective assumes a commitment to mutual learning. On
the one hand, we need to acquire sufficient local knowledge to con-
tribute methods that respect communication protocols, and, on the
other hand, communities need sufficient exposure to technology to
contribute actively to detailed design decisions. Continuous reflec-
tion on actions and technology interventions by all participants
throughout the design process helps to re-align methods and deci-
sions and shape the design process itself, such that together we
transform the environment and resituate participation.
Acknowledgements
We thank al the community members for their commitment to
this project and for al owing us to participate.
100
DesignIssues: Volume 28, Number 3 Summer 2012

---