Co-designing with a community of older learners for over 10 years by moving user-driven participation from the margin to the centre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper addresses a gap in the Participatory Design (PD) literature, wherein more research on the long-term impact of design projects is warranted. This paper reflects on a 10-year study that intertwined ethnography and 2 PD projects in a community of older learners. Although the goal of our study was to design new digital technologies, the process of designing them presented us with opportunities that gave rise to new non-digital practices, which turned out to be the legacy and most significant outcomes of the PD projects. This result invited us to review the trajectory that led to these outcomes. Our analysis shows that the most important legacy aspect of the projects arose from unexpected forms of user—driven participation that we allowed to co-exist together with those practices more related to the design goals of the PD projects. Drawing upon our results, this paper posits that engagement with PD participants that unfolds over an extended period of time is instrumental in facilitating the development of participation, understanding more deeply long-lasting project outcomes, and legitimising forms of participation that are not directly related to project/design goals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".