Editing Participatory design (section)

== Difficulties of adoption and involvement ==
Participatory Design is a growing practice within the field of design yet has not yet been widely implemented. Some barriers to the adoption of participatory design are listed below.

=== Doubt of universal creativity ===
A belief that creativity is a restricted skill would invalidate the proposal of participatory design to allow a wider reach of affected people to participate in the creative process of designing.<ref name=":5">{{Cite journal |last1=Sanders |first1=Elizabeth B.-N. |last2=Stappers |first2=Pieter Jan |date=2008-03-01 |title=Co-creation and the new landscapes of design |journal=CoDesign |volume=4 |issue=1 |pages=5–18 |doi=10.1080/15710880701875068 |issn=1571-0882|doi-access=free }}</ref> However, this belief is based on a limited view of creativity which does not recognize that creativity can manifest in a wide range of activities and experiences. This doubt can be damaging not only to individuals but also to society as a whole. By assuming that only a select few possess creative talent, we may overlook the unique perspectives, ideas, and solutions.

=== Lack of technology in software based co-op design ===

Often co-op based design technology assumes users have equal knowledge of technology used. For example: Co-op 3d-design program can let multiple people design at same time, but does not have support for guided help – tell the other guy what to do through markings and text, without talking to the person.

In programming, one also have the lack of guided help support, concerning co-op based programing. One have support for letting multiple people programming at same time, but here one also have lack of guided help support – text saying write this code, hints from other user, that one can mark relevant stuff on screen and so on. This is a problem in pair-programming, with communication as a bottle neck – one should have possibility to mark, configure and guide the user without knowledge.

=== Self-serving hierarchies ===
In a profit-motivated system, the commercial field of design may feel fearful of relinquishing some control in order to empower those who are typically not involved in the process of design.<ref name=":5" /> Commercial organizational structures often prioritize profit, individual gain, or status over the well-being of the community or other [[Externality|externalities]]. However, participatory practices are not impossible to implement in commercial settings. It may be difficult for those who have acquired success in a hierarchical structure to imagine alternative systems of open collaboration.

=== Lack of investment ===
Although participatory design has been of interest in design academia, applied uses require funding and dedication from many individuals. The high time and financial costs make research and development of participatory design less appealing for speculative investors.<ref name=":5" /> It also may be difficult to find or convince enough shareholders or community members to commit their time and effort to a project.<ref name=":6">{{Cite journal |last=Francis |first=Mark |date=1983-10-01 |title=Community Design |url=https://doi.org/10.1080/10464883.1983.11102642 |journal=Journal of Architectural Education |volume=37 |issue=1 |pages=14–19 |doi=10.1080/10464883.1983.11102642 |issn=1046-4883}}</ref> However, widespread and involved participation is critical to the process.

Successful examples of participatory design are critical because they demonstrate the benefits of this approach and inspire others to adopt it. A lack of funding or interest can cause participatory projects to revert to practices where the designer initiates and dominates rather than facilitating design by the community.<ref name=":6" />

=== Differing priorities between designers and participants ===
Participatory design projects which involve a professional designer as a facilitator to a larger group can have difficulty with competing objectives. Designers may prioritize [[aesthetics]] while end-users may prioritize functionality and affordability.<ref name=":6" />  Addressing these differing priorities may involve finding creative solutions that balance the needs of all stakeholders, such as using low-cost materials that meet functional requirements while also being aesthetically pleasing. Despite any potential predetermined assumptions, "the users’ knowledge has to be considered as important as the knowledge of the other professionals in the team, [as this] can be an obstacle to the co-design practice."<ref name=":7" /> "[The future of] co-designing will be a close collaboration between all the stakeholders in the design development process together with a variety of professionals having hybrid design/research skills."<ref name=":0" />

=== Emotional and ethical dimensions ===
Recent scholarship has highlighted the complex emotional landscape navigated by researchers engaged in participatory design, especially in contexts involving vulnerable or marginalized communities. Emotional challenges such as guilt and shame often emerge as researchers confront the disparity between their professional objectives and the lived realities of the communities they engage with. These emotions may stem from unmet expectations, perceived exploitation, or limited project impact. For instance, researchers may experience a sense of guilt when project outcomes fail to meet community needs or when research goals appear to benefit academic careers more than the communities themselves. The ethical dilemmas associated with balancing research agendas, funding constraints, and community needs can create a conflict between professional obligations and personal commitments, potentially leading to emotional burnout or moral distress. Consequently, there is a growing call within the field for frameworks that address these emotional aspects, advocate for ethical reflexivity, and promote sustained engagement strategies that align more closely with community well-being and autonomy. This perspective broadens the traditional scope of participatory design by acknowledging the emotional toll on researchers, thereby emphasizing the need for supportive structures that account for these emotional and ethical intricacies.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Christensen |first1=Lars Rune |last2=Ahsan |first2=Hasib |chapter=The Researcher's Plight: Guilt and Shame in Participatory Design and Action Research |date=2024-08-31 |title=Participatory Design Conference 2024 |chapter-url=https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3661455.3669865 |series=PDC '24 |location=New York |publisher=Association for Computing Machinery |volume=2 |pages=19–23 |doi=10.1145/3661455.3669865 |isbn=979-8-4007-0654-7}}</ref>