Empowering Design Practices
  • HOME
  • About
    • TEAM
    • IMPACT
  • DISCOVERING
    • LEARNING FROM PAST PROJECTS
    • LEARNING FROM PROFESSIONALS
    • EXPLORING PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS
  • DEVELOPING
    • LONGITUDINAL PROJECTS
    • THEMED WORKSHOPS
    • TARGETED WORKSHOPS
    • DESIGN TRAINING
    • LIVE PROJECTS
    • STUDY TOURS
    • DESIGN STUDIO
    • EDUCATION & TRAINING
  • SHARING
    • GET INVOLVED
    • EDP AT EXTERNAL EVENTS
    • RELATED PROJECTS
    • EDP LIVE
  • EDP RESOURCES
    • ONLINE COURSE
    • INSPIRING DESIGN STORIES >
      • DESIGN PROJECT STORIES
      • STORIES OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT IN DESIGN
    • HOW TO THINK ABOUT MAKING CHANGES >
      • DESIGN THINKING GUIDE
      • COMMUNITY-LED TRANSFORMATION: SOME KEY CONSIDERATIONS
    • EXPLORE DESIGN AND KEY DESIGN TASKS >
      • EXPLORE DESIGN: Community Buildings
      • DESIGN TRAINING: Film
      • DEVELOPING A SHARED PURPOSE: film
      • PREPARING TO WORK WITH ARCHITECTS
    • HOW TO ENGAGE COMMUNITIES IN DESIGN >
      • DESIGNING PLACES WITH PEOPLE: Booklets
      • COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT IN DESIGN: Film
      • DIGITAL MEDIA booklet
      • USING DIGITAL MEDIA - film
  • Blog
  • CONTACT

Mapping values and value of co-designed projects

17/7/2015

49 Comments

 
post by Katerina Alexiou

Through my engagement in participatory design and community-led design in the last four to five years, I have come across the concept of value from multiple perspectives, both as worth and as meaning (moral principles). Thinking about value and values is in fact inevitable in any research activity that engages with people and wishes to have an impact in society. A key issue is to understand and develop methods to capture the benefits of such activity, going beyond simple economic terms (for example, considering effects on culture or the environment). But value by definition requires some sort of judgement that something is beneficial or good, and this is where the notion of values comes to play. Values in a sense designate what value is.

Participatory design is by definition concerned with people’s values. The participatory design movement was borne out of a commitment to consider users’ and stakeholders’ values and give them voice in the design process. As Iversen et al (2012) discuss, aside a general commitment to democratic ideals, in a participatory design process values are not given a priori but actually ‘emerge in collaboration’. So a significant function of methods developed to support participation and co-design is ‘cultivating the emergence of values’ and facilitating their development and realization.

One of the core questions or aims of the Empowering Design Practices project is to understand how personal values and perceptions of heritage, faith and place influence involvement in and ownership of community-led design projects and how they can be woven effectively into community-led design practices. We thought however, that before we were able to start engaging with communities and facilitate a values-based process, it was important to follow a values-based approach in our own collaboration process as project team.

So in this blog, I would like to report on what we have done so far as a team to unearth and build on our values in order to design and carry out the project activities. But before I discuss what we did, I think it is useful to present some previous work and experience with co-design projects, which led to the formation of our approach.

Engaging with the value(s) question

I started looking at the concept of value in the Valuing Community-Led Design project, whose aim was to explore and help articulate the benefits of community-led design: what are the kinds of impacts these collaborative practices have on individuals, communities and the places they live in? 
Working with multiple stakeholders (academics, practitioners, community representatives) we identified three key areas of value/impact from community-led design activities: quality, social value and personal value.
Picture
Community-led design helps produce better quality environments, better design outputs but also better design practices, by bringing together distributed knowledge, skills and expertise. It also produces social value by helping build community links, promote civic values and deliver public goods. But there is also personal value produced, including skills development, confidence, personal growth and creativity. You can read the project’s report here.
Value(s) and assets

At the same time with my colleagues at the Creative Citizens project we also started exploring the notion of assets as a shortcut to the term value. Assets are the tangible and intangible things individuals and groups hold, or have access to, and that can be mobilised to produce common goods. This can be anything from skills and knowledge, to relationships with other groups and organisations, access to communal spaces or infrastructures, cultural assets, or media. In the Creative Citizen project asset mapping became our central approach and tool for co-design. The method we used aimed to engage participants in exploring and sharing their perceptions about what is valuable. This helped build community relationships, facilitate the collaborative generation of ideas, but also to ‘measure’ or ‘evaluate’ the process and the outcomes of our project: the new assets and the relationships between assets generated. You can read here about this work.
Starting from values

When I got involved in the Scaling up Co-design project the team adopted a values-led asset-based approach early on in its practice. The project required building community-university partnerships in order to co-design the research and co-deliver its activities. It was recognized that in order for the project to be successful and useful for everyone involved, the research aims and activities should be designed around existing interests, resources and needs. We developed different ways to facilitate this process, from individual profiles, to design workshops, card sorting exercises, and the creation of impact and values maps. Being clear about everyone’s agendas and values helped create a safe space for sharing, and also fostered innovation. Check out the project video.

This experience led to our involvement in the Starting from Values: evaluating intangible legacies project. The Starting from Values project focussed on values as a lens through which to explore and capture the legacies of collaborative projects. Here for example is a poster of the Scaling up Values and Legacies that resulted from this investigation.

Building on this knowledge and practice a group of us took the opportunity to create an approach suitable for our work in the Empowering Design Practices.

The Empowering Design Practices case

So let me give a bit more detail about the methods we used to share and reflect on values in this project. In the first team meeting, everyone taking part completed a ‘profile’ sheet, which captured individual research interests, as well as individual principles for collaboration (how we work together as partners), action (what values guide project activities) and success (what makes a good research project). Similar profiles were used in the Scaling up project but were adapted here to help reflect more specifically on values and expected benefits (value).
We then communicated our responses to one another and categorised different items under three categories: shared, individual and conflicting (or contested). In collaborative work, we often tend to focus on those things that are shared, or commonly agreed - here the aim was to help create a common understanding of things that are shared, but also allow space for negotiation and individual expression. Individual values are often important sources of motivation and action and we wished to uncover those values that although might not be shared, can be accommodated in the project to achieve individual needs and wishes.
Picture
We came back to these values on our third team meeting, focussing specifically on relationships between values and (potential) legacies. We grouped the principles we discussed in the first meeting as follows:

Values: 
Open: Open exchange of information, ideas and priorities
Respectful: Drawing on and respecting what everyone brings to the project
Strategic: Acknowledge diverse wider agendas, but be clear about what are the shared interests
Inclusive: Collective approach to problem solving but not everyone needs to be involved in everything (aware of different time commitments)
Impactful: Constantly asking ‘What will this achieve that will make things different and better in the future’?
Reflective: Activities should be captured, evaluated and shared
Accessible: Outcomes and resources must be accessible to our key audiences

Legacies:
Better places: Contributed to the creation of more inclusive and sustainable places of worship
Empowered people: People that look after places of worship are empowered to lead projects
Capacity: Professionals (e.g. architects and support officers) as well as communities use the produced training and practical resources
Improved policy making: The evidence and knowledge produced influenced policymaking
Innovation: The project developed innovative research and practice approaches
We created a box to help us work with these statements. More specifically the aim of our activity was to think about where we want to be at the end of the project in 2019, how we are going to go towards that direction and what we want to capture in this journey as evidence of our success. We placed on the horizontal axis our values statements (these were our shared principles of collaboration and principles of action) and on the vertical axis we positioned legacies, statements expressing where we want to be in 2019 (drawn from our principles of success). We then invited everyone in the room to look again at the statements and identify any gaps or corrections but also (and more importantly) to think about the relation between Values and Legacies and then try to identify actions or mechanisms that would help us achieve those legacies AND/OR evidence a certain legacy. We thought that thinking about the relation between values and legacies is a prompt that may help us think differently and help capture legacies that we often ignore.
Picture
Picture
The tables below summarise the connections we drew together.
Many of these ideas have already been put in motion. But we will continue reflecting on our values and hope to use our treasure box to record the legacies of the project as they become reality. We will report more on the subject as things progress, but as further food for thought I provide some useful links below to other projects relating to the subject of value. Get in touch if you wish to discuss this project with us!

References:

Iversen, O. S., Halskov, K.  and Leong, T.W. ‘Values-led Participatory Design’, In  CoDesign 8 (2–3): 87–103

Links:

Starting from Values project report: http://arts.brighton.ac.uk/projects/starting-from-values-evaluating-intangible-legacies/learning-and-outcomes#Starting%20from%20values%20booklet

The Cultural Value project blog: https://culturalvalueproject.wordpress.com/

Cultural Value Networks report: http://www.dcrc.org.uk/research/cultural-value-networks-research-findings/
49 Comments

Meeting with English Heritage Support Officers

18/3/2015

0 Comments

 
post by Ruchit Purohit 

We attended an annual EH Support Officers meeting a few weeks ago at the Waterhouse Square London. The meeting was organised by Diana Evans who is one of the partners on this project. The Support Officers are experts working on historic places of worship (mostly churches) who had come to discuss their experiences within their diocese. These are bright experienced minds from all over England exchanging the issues they were facing in implementing the conservation projects.

During the introduction, all of us were asked to speak of our best and worst experience in the past one year and it was really inspiring to hear all the work these officers were doing.  There was a lot of positive energy in the room as they discussed their projects. The challenges identified by most of them were roof related tasks and the application for funds for big projects. They also mentioned the bureaucracy behind it which led to the tasks being long and time-consuming - seen as a major hurdle. Closure of certain buildings was seen as a threat and few of them expressed deep concern over it.

Theo Zamenopoulos, our project lead gave a detailed presentation of our project and the stage which we are at the present. He gave them an introduction of what we are seeking to do in next five years and how the officers can be involved in the project. The presentation was very well received and you could see the officers nodding in sync on how important this kind of research is in the present context.

The discussion after the presentation was even more captivating. They told us how relevant it is to do such a project but informed us of the challenges we will face as it involves multi-stakeholders and the community.

Picture
Some of the remarks from the officers were:

An officer who had worked in Southampton on an urban regeneration project told us how regeneration in a Methodist Church will be fairly simple but other churches like the Anglican might be more averse to having any changes. She mentioned that many of these churches are famous and listed for its interiors and the community is very protective about it.  Though most of these interiors are freezing cold, the communities do not really want to change anything and this could be of a challenge for the designers. Also, due to the large size the projects become more expensive and not feasible.

Theo replied that indeed this is a challenge but we want to work with communities and do not intend to push our ideas but work on what really they want to do.

Adding to this discussion a senior officer commented how this research project could be seen in terms of different theologies. How philosophies of some faith groups won’t allow any changes and some will. The question of "what is holy ground" is very relevant and how certain groups won’t allow moving any of the sacred spots in the church (He compared this to his experience of few Hindu temples where the relocation of sacred statues was seemed more acceptable while re-designing spaces)

Another officer mentioned her experience of working with faith groups and how each community raises the issues of security. She stressed that these issues of security differ in different faith groups. For example, the Anglican community is more concerned about protection of the sacred contents in the churches and the possibility of theft. The Jewish and Muslim communities, though concerned about thefts, are far more worried about the issues that are political in nature. The concern was related to the threats/vandalising of properties or the abuse on social media due to the Paris attacks recently. She gave an example of how a Jewish Synagogue wanted to introduce a cafe which would be open to the community but was worried about security issues and that the idea of having two bulky guards at the entrance might not be taken positively.

One of the officers raised a valid point which we project partners have been investigating since the project was conceived. And this is the question - "Who is the community?"

She gave an example of a Gurudwara in east London where the resident community does not comprise of the Sikh faith group. During certain holy and festive events at different times of the year, there are far more worshippers than usual and this impacts on the traffic and parking around the area. This severely affects the local residents and the council has had to take necessary steps. But they have to be cautious as they cannot be seen as discriminatory either to the faith community or to the resident community.

Taking the question of "who is the community" forward another senior officer told of us his experience on working with churches which have been long isolated. The villages surrounding these historical buildings have either moved elsewhere due to natural reasons or have been perished altogether. The community that built these does not exist anymore and thus whom are we aiming for in the changes?

An officer made a very apt comment on how interesting our project is as it concerns with "rational processes which are irrational for people". The other officers nodded and mentioned how certain faith groups don’t know if the proposed changes are for them or for people from the resident community or for the visitors. Diana added that in her experience the faith groups do not understand what public benefit is – “is it for people coming in these sacred places to use the cafes/ toilets and simply admiring the gargoyles?”

One officer commented how the funders like the HLF (Heritage Lottery Fund) demand tangible aspects in terms of the public benefit and impact. 

HLF's demand to give them the number of visitors daily was seen as time-consuming and the officers agreed that the logistics of this was impossible. This kind of bureaucratic side of the funders was seen as a challenge. An officer suggested that the HLF needs to move away from such review processes and accept that it has to be more subtle in their approach and that there is "no one size - fits all" concepts in such reviews.

Continuing with the expectations of funders an officer stated that interpreting the "wider" community benefits is indeed a challenge. She said certain faith groups she had worked with already provided food banks/ counselling/ mental health group/ crèche services etc. This was a part of "role of mission of the Church". Thus, it was difficult to then show to the funders the difference between church activities they were carrying on for wider benefits and the expected 'secular' activities.

Another officer raised the issue of what is funded and for whom is it funded - connecting it to the contrast of architecture value and community value. He mentioned his experience of working for Grade I listed church which is beautiful and has these really great details inside such as the wonderful stain-glass etc. This church has all the money for its maintenance and sustainability but is hardly frequented by the community. Compared to this, within walking distance, was another church not as extravagant but it has a community space. Probably the only community space in the area and hence this church is more frequented. The community has decided to put in more funds and do more renovations in this church!

As it was time to close the session and move onto other activities, Diana added that we intend to come up with outputs from this project which will be useful directly to communities and experts - toolkits/ guides for owners/faith groups/experts etc. Theo thanked everyone for this very useful discussion and stressed that we intend to capture the intangible aspect of public input too.

We exchanged contacts with the officers over lunch and got some really good inputs and suggestions of historical buildings we could look as case studies.

As I walked back home, I looked at the notes in my diary and realised how exciting this project is really going to be. These were experts working at current cases across the country and they exchanged with us the daily challenges that they deal with design and working with different stakeholders.  Within a span of two hours we had discussed economic issues, bureaucratic issues and philosophical issues. The underlying concept that I find relevant is that how different stakeholders perceive these places of worship and what they want to do it with it.  

The struggle is going to be about values - be it architectural value, philosophical value, community value, economic value and so on. The way these values are interpreted and prioritised (by all stakeholders) will define the course of the design and the future of these historic places of worship. It will be important for us to capture these individual/group perceptions and values in our research and how these are prioritised.

One of the comments by an officer would be appropriate to end this blog post - "you know the value of the building only when you close it/ lose it".
0 Comments

    EDP

    Blog from the EDP project team.

    Archives

    December 2021
    June 2021
    October 2020
    March 2020
    July 2019
    May 2019
    March 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    September 2018
    July 2018
    April 2018
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    March 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    August 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    October 2015
    July 2015
    March 2015

    Categories

    All
    Architecture
    Art
    Assets
    Bow Church
    Cemetery Road Baptist Church
    Chester
    Churches
    Civic Leadership
    Co-design
    Community
    Community Engagement
    Controversy
    Covid-19
    Design Challenges
    Design Training
    Diocese Of Ely
    EDP Live
    Educational Resources
    Emotions
    English Heritage
    Faith
    Film
    Focus Group
    Gaming
    Germany
    Heritage
    Heritage Lottery Fund
    Historic England
    History
    Innovative Design
    Intangible Legacies
    Israac Somali Cultural And Community Association
    Live Projects
    Major Parish Churches
    Opportunities
    Pews
    Policy
    Professionals
    Research
    Rural
    Schools
    Shared Spaces
    Sheffield Buddhist Centre
    Site Visit
    Site Visits
    Spirituality
    St John Stadhampton
    St. Luke's
    St. Martin's
    St Mary's Sheffield
    St Michael And All Angels
    Stratford Upon Avon URC
    Study Tour
    Style
    Sustainability
    Utopia
    Values
    Village Hall
    Vision
    Yorkshire Baptist Association

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly