Participation and Technological Design: Dominant and Alternative Leaps Across the Who, Where, When and Why
Who, how and where people are invited to discuss (and influence) technological design rests ultimately on varying and competing assumptions about value and values. These assumed values, always-loosely justified leaps to what is valued, prompt various leaps to processes and procedures that will achieve these values, and to human participation. In any case, these values and procedural means also make always-incomplete reference to other ends when asked “why”, through necessarily-thinner elaborations and justifications. In all case, they are both the product of and produce the various semi-material realities of the changing technologies themselves. {need to elaborate – but I think there is a matrix of possibilities here}
We consider these necessarily loose connections across the values of human participation in technological design, in order to consider a range of nascent possibilities toward the future. We also consider these connections across a number of broad differences to the underlying nature of information technologies {list them out? enterprise systems; software apps; artificial intelligence}.
This forging of revised rationales for human participation in technological design also raises the more general argument for the future for participation in technological design.
Implications of Big ("Efficient") and Small ("Artisanal") Ends on Participation in Design
On the questions of participation in design, it may be that addressing the question, “is participation in design even possible”, entails a tension from two different design scenarios, which may have some common roots (and technologies) … and, to be determined … some common ways to address. These scenarios/tension are not new but have been gaining ground at least since the industrial revolution.
The Design of Design -- Feenberg, Arendt and Reflective Judgment
1. Is participatory design still possible in a meaningful way in this age of large IT firms, AI, and packages?
Hypocritters
Rick Mercer's alley rant about Stockwell Day, a fundamentalist Christian politician:
“He believes in Capital Punishment and Jesus. Is there a version of Jesus that I don't remember?”
Hypocritical: Behaving in a way that contradicts one's beliefs. From “hypo” (low) and “critical” (as having knowledge to pass judgment). So hypocritical is low or poor judgment.
This is the only excuse for those Christians who voted for Voldemort in the US elections in early November - a lack of judgment. While believing in Jesus and that he was evil, a Trump presidency would do the work of God; which is at least a God who who would be pleased by the roll-back of progressive laws and case precedent for women, LGTBQ+, blacks, migrants, religious freedoms. To Make America Pray (to Jesus) Again (MAPTJA).
Thinking, Reflective Judgment and AI Design
There is a double aspect to humans, participation, and the design of artificial intelligence systems. It's clear in Hannah's work and the philosophers she draws upon, that “thinking” is only a human activity. Of course, in their time, there may have been limited technology, certainly in Socrates' but also Hannah's time. And so her studies and critiques of technical rationality could only be based on advanced techniques and rules (technical rationality) used by people to make decisions.