Participatory Design (PD) and Meta-Design (MD) are both design approaches aiming to empower end -users. Despite this shared aim, the scientific communities involved with both approaches remain largely disparate. This paper investigates the similarities and diferences between both approaches, based on their core elements. Then, it proposes three dimensions along which both approaches could be integrated. Finally, it suggests directions for future research.
Meta-design (MD) and end-user development (EUD) have been proposed as a conceptual frameworks for
designing flexible systems that can adapt, or be adapted to the changing needs of end-users even after
these systems have entered their ‘use-phase’ [
Despite MD being grounded in the assumption that “future uses and problems cannot be completely
anticipated at design time” [
At the same time, in practice there are many examples of socio-technical systems where end-users
engage in the modification or extension of technologies, based on lived-experience and domain
knowledge [
In contrast to MD, Participatory design (PD) has been (and still is) more widely used in design (e.g.,
[
While PD is an excellent approach for incorporating the lived experience and professional knowledge of a broad range of stakeholders in the process of designing a technology, traditionally it is applied within the context of a ’design project’. That is, the process is bounded by a beginning and an end point, typically the point where the designed solution is implemented in context. This puts limitations on the extent to which a PD-designed technology remains fit to the needs of the end-users over time. The longer the time after the design project has ended, the greater the chance that stakeholder requirements have changed and the technology becomes a poor fit, or even obsolete.
The previous sections might seem to position Meta-Design and Participatory Design on two opposing ends of a trade-of: either one gets the advantage of long-term modifiability (MD), or one gets technologies that perfectly fit the needs of stakeholders (PD). Of course, this is a false dichotomy. Meta-designing a technology does not preclude the possibility of deeply engaging with stakeholders in the initial phases of the design process. In fact, both approaches are rooted in a similar motivation: giving end-users greater control over the products and services that are being designed for them.
In order to identify opportunities for bridging between the two approaches, it is interesting to look at the core principles underlying both. Table 1 lists key concepts underlying Participatory Design and Meta-Design.
Firstly, we need to note that PD focuses much on understanding and designing for users from the
context of a design project residing in the ’now’ - the ’design time’ [
When comparing their basic principles, it becomes clear that both PD and MD both share a focus on
tasks and activities, albeit in diferent ways. Where MD states that meta-designed environments must
support tasks that people engage in, PD broadens this notion to not only encompass the (technical)
environment being designed, but also the very activities and tasks that the design process is addressing.
Although not listed as one its key principles, MD theory proposes a similarly broad framing through
the lens of ’cultures of participation’ (CoP) [
Another interesting commonality between PD and MD is the shared notion of role separation between (meta-)designers and end-users. Both approaches identify these as diferent roles within the design and use of a system. However, where PD explicitly separates these groups, emphasizing the roles both groups should occupy within a design process (e.g., preventing designers from blindly following whatever a user suggests), MD has a more nuanced view. MD does recognize diferent levels of ’designerly involvement’ - ranging from ’passive end-users’ to ’meta-designers’. Moving along this scale, end-users gain more and more involvement in designerly activities related to the system at hand. For example, in the case of Wikipedia, end-users might just consume information, make small textual changes, contribute entirely new articles, or even be involved in the overall design and management of the Wikipedia infrastructure. Like PD, MD emphasizes on role separation, but MD explicitly connects the notion of (meta-)designer to a role, and not to a person. That is, persons may occupy diferent roles over time, and learn to become (meta-)designers within the scope of an environment, depending on personally relevant goals and needs.
A final comparison that can be made between PD and MD concerns the notion of supporting users in
exploring future possibilities. Two of PD’s fundamental principles relate to this notion, one expressing
the need for designers to allow end-users to deviate in thinking and experiencing from their original
practices, so not blindly accepting these practices as fixed. Another principle stresses the importance of
being able to experience a design (and not just think about it in the abstract), in order to allow users
to formulate demands for it. PD puts the responsibility for realizing these two principles primarily
with the designer. Meta-design, in contrast, emphasizes the need for systems to 1) support end-users in
contributing actual designs themselves, 2) support end-users in sharing such designs, and 3) allow
endusers to perceive the benefits of contributing. The contrast here is interesting - PD assumes end-users
need to be guided and stimulated to step beyond the current practices and solutions, while MD assumes
end-users will voluntarily and more or less independently do so, given proper infrastructural support.
In PD, stimulating end-users to think about alternative designs is posited as the job of the designer,
where MD puts (part of) this task with other end-users (see social creativity [
Now that we have identified the similarities and diferences between PD and MD, we can look forward towards bridging between both approaches. Rather than fleshing out the contours of a new approach, my aim here is to outline a few lines along which both approaches are complimentary.
Participatory Design is primarily concerned with engaging users during the initial design phase to develop systems that respond directly to their current requirements. This approach, while efective in producing contextually appropriate solutions, may not account for the evolving nature of user needs over time. Meta-Design, in contrast, facilitates the ongoing evolution of systems by empowering users to modify, adapt, and extend the design post-deployment.
By integrating PD and MD, the design process can initially address specific user needs (via PD), while
embedding adaptive frameworks (via MD) that enable continuous user-driven system evolution. Thus,
PD provides the foundation for immediate functionality, while MD ensures that systems can adapt
to future, unanticipated needs. In practice, many MD project might already employ a participatory
approach in the initial phases of the design process (e.g., see [
Participatory Design Focus on Design-time Design conditions for the whole use activity Users and designers have diferent backgrounds and belong to diferent communities of practice
Meta-design Focus on Use-time The environments must support tasks that people engage in.
Designers must become meta-designers. They should use their own creativity to create sociotechnical environments in which other people can be creative by shifting from determining the meaning, functionality, and content of a system to encouraging and supporting users to act as designers. They must be willing to share control of how systems will be used, which content will be contained, and which functionality will be supported.
Changes must be technically feasible. As a necessary prerequisite, there need to be possibilities and mechanisms for extension of designs.
The practice of the users is the starting point for design. At the same time users need to be confronted with, and to experience new ideas in order to transcend their own practice.
Users need to experience the future design in order Low barriers must exist to sharing changes. Evoluto pose demands for it. tionary growth is greatly accelerated in a system in which participants can share changes and keep track of multiple versions easily.
Benefits must be perceived. Contributors have to believe that what they get in return justifies the investment they make.
In PD, users are positioned as active contributors to the design process, collaborating with designers to co-create systems. However, their role typically diminishes once the design phase is complete. MD extends the participatory ethos by promoting a long-term, user-driven design model, where users transition from participants to co-designers. They are provided with tools and environments that allow them to modify and evolve the system beyond the initial design phase.
This complementary relationship fosters a continuum of user engagement, wherein users first
contribute to the creation of the system (PD) and subsequently assume the role of co-designers with the
capacity to adapt the system over time (MD). This shift enhances user agency and promotes a sense of
ownership over both the initial and future iterations of the system. There is an opportunity here to look
more closely into how this transition between ’design contributor’ towards ’end-user designer’ could
be facilitated. For example, Cabitza et al. have proposed an extension to the meta-design paradigm, in
which a maieuta-designer (derived from maieutics, a Socratic form of inquiry and discussion between
individuals) acts as a complementary role to the meta-designer, but “more oriented to the social aspects
of EUD practice than to the technical ones” [
Participatory Design often results in specific, tailor-made solutions based on user input, producing
well-defined systems that address particular needs at a given time. Meta-Design, on the other hand,
produces open-ended frameworks or environments that can be adapted and reconfigured by users to
accommodate their evolving requirements. Yet, even meta-designed systems are not ’hollow shells
of possibilities’, but instead functional systems that address existing user needs and providing the
possibility for change or expansion. The Seeding, Evolutionary growth and Re-seeding model [
In this paper, I have contrasted and compared the approaches of Participatory Design and Meta-Design. Both approaches share a similar aim of end-user empowerment, but apply diferent approaches. While related, the two approaches still largely exist and are applied as separate frames on the design of technology. This paper argues for a number of directions for more closely investigating the touch points between both approaches, and suggests routes for connecting and integrating them into a more holistic approach. Future research should aim to explore the possible integration of both approaches so that designers might be facilitated in co-creating systems that are embedded in the empowering foundations of both Participatory Design and Meta-Design.