When participatory design meets data-driven decision making: A literature review and the way forward
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores the impacts of participatory design (PD) on data-driven decision-making (DDDM) in organisations. Despite the extensive examination of PD and DDDM individually, there is a dearth of research in understanding their integration and their impact on decision-making processes in organisations. This research aims to fill this gap by investigating the potential impacts, challenges, benefits, and critical success factors associated with the incorporation of PD activities into DDDM. The study employs a systematic literature review methodology to provide a comprehensive understanding of the topic. The paper provides a research agenda for future researchers as well as discussing best practices for organizations seeking to optimise their data driven decision-making processes in a participatory manner. The research also discussed the ethical implications of data-driven decision-making. Ultimately, this research advances our understanding of how PD and DDDM can be effectively combined to achieve better decision-making outcomes.
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 | 0.131 | 0.271 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".