h tool to improve the dialogue between designers and … · verbal language. we argue that verbal...

ND 2258 - 205 - 06HST

INRS - Hygiène et sécurité du travail - Cahiers de notes documentaires - 4e trimestre 2006 - 205 / 23

In this paper we describe a communication tool able to support a dialogue between designers andusers. We also present our reflections about what our experiments with various dialogues inparticipative design have taught us about the shortcomings of verbal dialogue, and what happenswhen using alternative means - words and pictures - when communicating. This tool is a means bywhich the construction of a design dialogue can be undertaken. The particularity of this dialogue isthat the communication media used by the participants is a combination of associative pictures andverbal language. We argue that verbal dialogue alone is unreliable and has to be complemented byother media. Also, we discuss the possibilities revealed by experiments that pictures catch people’simagination and that they can be used as representations for future ideas. Language and imagery areinvestigated in the paper, a theoretical approach is presented and arguments are developed to explainour procedure. Using a dialogue with imagery has also made us rethink about when a planning anddesign process actually starts. If we intend to change basic habits, we must start earlier than wenormally do by deconstructing our concepts and reconstruct them together in the specific situation.

ASSOCIATIVE IMAGES AS A COMMUNICATIONTOOL TO IMPROVE THE DIALOGUE BETWEEN DESIGNERSAND END-USERS

h Saddek REHAL, Lisbeth BIRGERSSONChalmers University of Technology, Sweden

The paper contributes to the dis-cussion on two issues investiga-ted during the 9th internationalsymposium of the ISSA Research

Section on design process and humanfactors integration (Nice, France, 1-3March 2006): “participative design” and“design practices - how to build bridgesbetween designers and end-users”. Thiscontribution is our experience fromresearch experiments involving the end-users in changes affecting their ownenvironment. It is one in a long row ofsuch experiments in the Scandinaviantradition of inviting citizens to voice

their opinions about major changes inthe built environment, in residentialareas (Olivegren 1975), at workplaces(Ahlin 1974; Steen and Ullmark 1982;Granath 1991) or in public spaces in theurban landscape (Birgersson 1996).

Participation and dialogue are com-mon concepts in different discourses, forexample, in politics, management,design and planning. They refer to sligh-tly different ways of involving people andare used in different situations andcontexts. We are related to the specialistfield of architecture and town planning,and within this broad practice we are

3 Work system design3 Designer3 User3 Communication3 Methodology

HST 205 GB_2258 rehal 21/03/07 11:51 Page 23


involved in the design and planning ofworkplaces. Our research tradition,which has developed in closed connec-tion with town planning and design pro-jects, has been focused on improvingexisting or creating new workplaces.

Our field of research is the dialogue bet-ween participants with different back-grounds, professions, knowledge, etc., invol-ved in a change process. It is based on a longresearch tradition at the School ofArchitecture, Chalmers University ofTechnology, in Göteborg, Sweden, formedby a number of researchers interested inworkplace design, user participation indesign processes, as well as the developmentof entrepreneurship in connection withurban regeneration. This research traditionthus started in the spirit of the 1970s withthe idea of supporting the rights of theemployees to argue and be heard in mattersaffecting their working environment.

During the 1980s and 90s, researchersfrom this unit had several opportunities toparticipate in processes involving changesinitiated by large and semi-large companiessuch as Volvo, SKF, Ericsson, Bil & Truck orlocal authorities. During these two decades,the researchers encountered many differentproblems and successively tried out diffe-rent dialogues and, through reflection triedto understand design and participation(Sachs, Granath et al. 1981; Granath 1991;Birgersson 1996; Lindahl 2001; Rehal2004).

Knowledge within architecture and inparticular within the design of workplaces isembedded in specific situations and as arule should not be generalised. Therefore,we have turned our interest towards know-ledge about the process of finding good solu-tions for specific situations. From this stand-point, we have questioned generalisedexpert knowledge and look upon design as ashared process involving a range of compe-tences from different disciplines and diffe-rent practices in a given situation. From thisperspective, communication involving theend-users is also problematic.

THE PROBLEMATIC OF

USER PARTICIPATION

The objectives of the 9th internationalsymposium of the ISSA Research Section,as stated in the schedule, were "to lookbeyond the technical dimension dictated by anengineering-driven approach that focuses on thetechnical design and control of production sys-

ween people with different backgrounds,skills, professions, etc. acting together inorder to change an existing situation into abetter one. The dialogue is then an arenawhere different views, visions, representa-tions and languages meet. It is in itself a pro-cess of design. It is in this dialogue thatsociety and social realities are constructedand transformed. To understand the mecha-nisms that constitute such a dialogue indesign is the main purpose of this paper.

Our experience regarding user partici-pation in workplaces has taught us that dia-logue in design processes involving usershas several problems to deal with. A dialo-gue between experts and users encounterscommunication barriers due to their diffe-rent knowledge and rank. In addition, inmatters concerning design and planning, itis also problematic that different means ofcommunication are used. In this respect, thedialogue is asymmetrical; the users expressthemselves verbally, while the architect/planner responds graphically with draftsketches, plans, etc. Furthermore, the usersdo not constitute a homogenous group.They have different backgrounds, profes-sions, knowledge, and sometimes differentcultures. Consequently, the situation ofchange is characterised by a mixture of pers-pectives of the world.

Sometimes architects and resear-chers start a development process by lis-tening to what the users have to say aboutthe planned transformation of their envi-ronment. Often as a quick response tothe users, the architects’ drawings andthe planners’ plans are introduced. It isnoticeable when this happens that thesegraphic representations have a hampe-ring effect on the ability of the users todevelop their own representations. Theyalso tend to regard them as fixed solu-

tems, with little consideration given to theusers". In Scandinavia the engineeringapproach concerning the design of workpla-ces has been questioned since the 1970s,and this questioning opened the door to thefield of workplace design for the architectu-ral profession (Etzler 1991).

During the 1970s, in highly-developedcountries, expert-oriented knowledge wasseverely criticised (Broadbent 1984). Even inthe public debate, society was considered tobe steered too much by the experts (Brante1987). Experts were not often aware of thereality of the end-users resulting in negativeconsequences regarding the final product.Thus, it was generally recognised that theinvolvement of the users in design proces-ses could be the solution to problems causedby the traditional process of design by a teamof experts.

Aiming at a dialogue is one thing andthe way dialogue is carried out is another.Indeed, a dialogue can be structured andcarried on in many different manners. Thedialogue may be a discussion around thearchitect’s sketches or a range of questionsposed by the expert and answered by theusers. It could also be conducted as an inqui-ry or as an interview conceived and directedby the specialist in order to collect informa-tion about the users reality - their needs,wills, representations etc…. All these kindsof dialogues have been and still are used byexperts in order to establish communicationwith the end-users, the goal being of coursea well-designed product at the end of theprocess.

We believe that the dialogue is the foun-dation in participation and has a broadermeaning than just being a means of produ-cing a good artefact. It is a practice that canconstantly be developed within an organisa-tion. Participation involves a dialogue bet-

The asymmetrical communication within the design process

FIGURE 1

AA

D2D1

D3

The discipline of the architect

The users communicate with the architect by means

of verbal language

The architect responds by means of

graphic representations

Communication by means of verbal language between the users

Users’ disciplines

HST 205 GB_2258 rehal 21/03/07 11:51 4

ND 2258 - 205 - 06HST


tions, even if they are still intended asmere sketches. From this point onwardsthe users’ reflections about the situationtend to be framed by the sketch and beco-me mainly concerned about variants ofthe solution presented or its details(Ullmark and Granath 1995).

Also, we have to take into considera-tion the fact that the users mostly do nothave well thought-out ideas about howthey would like to change their environ-ment and seldom get the opportunity toreally reflect about their situation whenchanges in their environment are aboutto be initiated. In most cases, the designprocess is conducted by an expert whogathers knowledge in verbal form viaquestionnaires or interviews, or the reac-tions from a drawing or plan, about theusers’ experiences, desires, needs andvisions. The expert is expected to be theright actor to be able to translate verbaldemands into spatial configurations.Furthermore, if the users are only expec-ted to answer questions, without havingthe time or the means to reflect abouttheir situation, or the possibility toconfront their views with other users,then their imagination will be somewhatconstricted. It will be difficult for them toconjure up solutions for their problemsoutside the limits of what they are alrea-dy able to directly express.

Another problem is the unreflectinguse of a common language. We tend tobelieve that we can communicate onalmost everything with anyone with helpof everyday language. We are not reallyaware of ambiguities intrinsic in the lan-guage. Language is not merely a channelthrough which information about under-lying mental states and behaviour or factsabout the world are communicated. Italso shapes our social world, our world-view (Winther Jørgensen and Phillips2002). The phenomenon of languagewill be examined later on in this paper.

CONCEPTO, A TOOL

FOR DIALOGUE BASED

ON A COMBINATION

OF IMAGERY AND VERBAL

UTTERANCE

To avoid the difficulties describedabove a communication tool, Concepto,has been elaborated from a set of experi-ments that simulate the dialogue in the

things and phenomena. A large part of thepicture collection is made of photographsthat we, or our colleagues, have taken. Therest has been bought in from commercialpicture databases.

To carry out a dialogue according tothe Concepto method, one needs a facilita-tor – a person who can conduct the dialo-gue through the different stages and sup-port the participants. The dialogue basical-ly contains two situations involving reflec-tion. The individual one, which occurswhen each participant selects pictures towhich they associate concepts related toproblems or possibilities involved in the

initial phase of the design process (Rehal1997; Rehal 1998; Granath 2005).Experiments were conducted using printedpictures to facilitate the users’ ability toarticulate them. The pictures are in thissituation used associatively, which meansthat the blocking effect caused by graphicrepresentations does not occur.

Concepto is merely a dialogue-basedmethod in which pictures are associated tokey concepts that catch the situation ofchange. It consists of a picture databasewith the support of a trained facilitator. Theimages that constitute the tool are photo-graphs illustrating common situations,

The first stage. Each participant looks for 3 or 4 pictures to associate to some concepts(self-dialogue)

FIGURE 2

The presentation of the images during the first stage

FIGURE 3

The second and third stage.The dialogue proceeds to achieve a common understanding (dialogue with others)

FIGURE 4

HST 205 GB_2258 rehal 21/03/07 11:51 Page 25


proposed situation of change. The com-mon one, in which the participants developa common understanding that can be abasis for further development work. Ifthere are many participants involved, or ifthey are from different disciplines or havedifferent backgrounds, then it is preferableto start the common reflection with sub-groups, gathering people with the samebackground or knowledge. In this case thedialogue will be carried out in three stages.A first stage for the individual choice of pic-tures. A second stage for a discussionwithin the subgroups, where a commonunderstanding is developed and illustratedwith images. A third stage in which a newdialogue is initiated to develop a broadercommon understanding between all theparticipants, based on the contributionsfrom each subgroup.

The first thing to do in order to start aConcepto dialogue is to formulate thequestions that embrace pertinent aspectsof the actual design situation and that willinvolve relevant concepts to discuss. Oncethe questions are formulated and thegroups constituted, the participants have tolook through Concepto’s picture collectionto relate images to the key concepts. Thisindividual reflection is the first stage – theself-dialogue - in the Concepto communi-cation tool.

The next step in the first stage is thepresentation of the individual selection ofpictures. Here the participants displaytheir images on a wall so that the wholegroup can see them. The participantspresent their images individually andmotivate them.

The second stage begins when allindividuals have presented their imagesto the other participants within the sub-group. A dialogue with others starts. Thiscommon reflection consists on a free dis-cussion around the images within eachsubgroup.

The third stage proceeds like thesecond with the difference that it is thesubgroups’ contributions that are dis-cussed, not the individual ones. It is alsoa common reflection, but in the form ofan interdisciplinary dialogue.

The basic hypothesis is that theassociative use of pictures (images) enri-ches communication and supports parti-cipants to better express that which istacit, implicit or difficult to articulate ver-bally. The tool has to fulfil two majorconditions. The first one is that it mustbe used from the very beginning, beforethe designer makes any proposal. Thesecond condition is that the use of verballanguage, as we use it in everyday com-munication, must be reconsidered,

pants were asked to show pictures thatillustrate what they mean by bad air, theychose pictures that show what bad air isnot. They explained that bad air is theabsence of openness. Feeling the sea-sons, the weather and the colours ofnature, that is what they are missing intheir workplace. Their pictures werephotographs illustrating open landsca-pes and oasis (ibid.).

We also experienced a situation inwhich concepts were given differentcontents by different professions. Thishappened in an experiment conductedwith students and staff during the pre-paration of the design of a multimediacentre at the university.

The three people with physicist back-grounds that were going to work in thecentre represented the clients in thedesign situation, as well as the futureusers with similar backgrounds. The stu-dents in the experiment were from theChalmers University of Technology andrepresented the future users of the multi-media centre, but also designers involvedin such a design task. Both groups agreedthat multimedia and communication werethe key concepts that had to be investiga-ted in order to develop a good vision of thefuture multimedia centre. These conceptsare widely used. At the time of the experi-ment, we did not realise that theseconcepts could mean such differentthings for different groups of people, andthat misunderstandings of a whole designconcept might occur. The experiment

because it is unreliable and cannot beused straight off in the dialogue within adesign process. In our research we choo-se to complement verbal language withimagery without disowning the fact thatother media can be foreseeable. We donot use images because, as the well-known maxim affirms, “the image tellsmore than a thousand words”, which ispartially a false statement, but ratherbecause “the words too tell more than athousand pictures”.

SOME EXAMPLES

During our research, we witnessedsituations all the time where a partici-pant associated a concept to an imagethat surprised the other participants inthe dialogue process. Let us take as anexample, the concept of flexibility. Thenumber of pictures that can be associa-ted to this can only be limited by theimagination of the participant. In one ofour experiments, one participant chose apicture of a woman mountaineer strug-gling on a sheer rock face, to illustratewhat she (the participant) had earlierverbally expressed as a need for flexibilityin her workplace. The word flexibility canin this case be misleading for the archi-tect who only takes into account the par-ticipant’s verbal expression. The archi-tect will interpret flexibility as somethingthat deals with spatial configuration. Theword flexibility refers to different thingsin the architect’s world of concept, thanit does for a user talking about his or herwork situation. In our example, the ladywho took up flexibility in the discussioncommented her picture with some laco-nic expressions: “barriers are there to beovercome”, “one can lose the grip”, “peopleare flexible…” (Rehal 1997).

Another example is the concept ofbad air, formulated verbally by partici-pants to describe their work environ-ment. This was interpreted by the inter-viewer as “the bad quality of the physicalair” in the building. When the partici-

HST 205 GB_2258 rehal 21/03/07 11:51 Page 26

ND 2258 - 205 - 06HST


showed this might be the case.For the physicist staff, the multime-

dia concept was firmly associated withdata processing and the computer. Mostpictures chosen by the staff showedcomputers or pictures of phenomenasimulated by the computer, or picturesprocessed by a computer.

The student architects, on the otherhand, do not have any picture associatedwith data processing. Their picturesmostly illustrate human activities, suchas work, games, leisure and humancontact.

During the interdisciplinary dialo-gue, the two groups, while confrontingtheir respective pictures, became awareof what the ‘multimedia’ concept reallyrepresents for each group. This expe-rience confirms that the concept of mul-timedia is a diffuse one. For the staff ofthe library, with physicist backgrounds,the computer and data processing provi-des the opportunity for the physicist tovisualise physical phenomena that up tonow can only be represented by a mathe-matical language. For the student archi-tects, visualisation is an obvious part oftheir profession, as they work with ima-ges all the time. From their point ofview, ‘multimedia’ seems to stand forhuman communication in its variousforms. The images together with the dis-cussion narrowed the gap between theviews of the participants. The librarymanager said at the end of the experi-ment, “we’re talking the same language…

ved that the users acquire an instrumentthat allows them to reflect with the situa-tion (Schön 1983). This is rather likewhat the designer and architect do whensketching to find the form for a newstructure, the new artefacts to be built.Using such a dialogue that allows every-one to ventilate their thinking aloud, theparticipants seem to reach a mutualunderstanding of the situation and for-mulate a shared strategy in a more strin-gent way than through a dialogue onlyusing words. The interesting thing isthat this means more opportunities forreal change, involving both the usersand the designers.

THE DIALOGUE PROCESS

At the beginning of the develop-ment of the Concepto method we focu-sed on the communication process bet-ween the participants in the design pro-cess. We distinguished, on the one hand,the interdisciplinary communicationbetween users from different disciplinesrestricted by linguistic barriers, and onthe other hand, the communication bet-ween the architect and the users restric-ted by the asymmetry of the means ofcommunication i.e. words versus the

of course multimedia isn’t only computers…we have to take advantage of new technolo-gy without losing the human contacts, …”.An architectural student said after theexperiment, “It’s incredible… just write aformula on the keyboard, and you can see iton the screen”.

Finally this experiment made it pos-sible for both groups to exchange theirpoints of view and to be aware of thelimits of their own way of representingthe world.

The use of images with an associati-ve character as a complement to thecommon language surmounts the diffi-culties of communication due to the lan-guage barriers between the various disci-plines involved in the process. A methodusing pictures in the early stages of adesign process has turned out to give theparticipants an opportunity to reflectabout and articulate pre-conceptualideas, firstly for themselves, secondly foreach other in order to develop a commonunderstanding and vision. A number ofexperiments showed that this methoddoes not only resolve the interdisciplina-ry communications problem, but alsostimulates reflection at the level of thesingle actor. By seeking a suitable image,the actor releases himself from the ver-bal framing of a concept and betterapprehends what he/she tries to express.

By introducing pictures, aroundwhich the participants associate the pro-blems and possibilities involved in thechanges they are facing, we have obser-

HST 205 GB_2258 rehal 21/03/07 11:51 Page 27


architect’s drawings and sketches.Firstly, after practicing Concepto, webecame aware that the whole process ismore complex than assumed. In fact,behind the interpersonal dialogue thereare communication processes runningat the individual level. This discoverymade it clear for us that the communica-tion process in question can be descri-bed as a mixture of three dialogues: aninner dialog, a self-dialogue and a dialo-gue with others.

The "inner dialogue" occurs in a“black box” and is not observable fromthe outside. Here, one can say that thesubject "is thinking".

The "self-dialogue" is an externalisa-tion of the inner dialogue. The idea orthe concept is expressed by means of asign, an image. The latter does not repla-ce the idea or the concept, but representsit. The representing sign, in this case theimage, is a means of reflection for thethinking subject. The image providesfeedback to the subject. Here, one cansay that the subject "is thinking aloud". Agood example is when the architect issketching. Other professions or usersmight think aloud using key words on apaper, picking images or body langua-ges. Everyone uses representations andcan develop this task to facilitate a dialo-gue with themselves. In this process, theidea is expressed and externalised,making it possible to reflect again, to re-express it and so on.

The "interpersonal dialogue" rests on

is a design process in itself. This actseems to help the lone individual tothink and develop ideas in a more com-plex way than it would have been possi-ble to do with solely verbal language. Itwas noticeable that in some experimentsvisionary aspects were more accentuatedwhen images were presented, as compa-red to when only words were used. Theparticipants expressed many more andvaried aspects with the help of imagesthan when expressing themselves in thecustomary verbal language. The users ofthe environment in question are oftenastonished as to how the pictures makeit easy for them to find topics that theyhave not thought about before browsingthrough the pictures (Rehal 1997).

IMAGERY VERSUS

NARRATION

In everyday life, illustrative and verbalcommunication are used parallel, comple-menting each other, for instance, as in adocumentary film, a sport’s programmeon TV, advertising or in an instructionmanual. However, one can also deliberate-ly use them in sequence i.e. one after theother, for educational or rhetoric purpo-ses. In order to increase attention andcuriosity, a lecturer may choose to speak

the preceding dialogue. Once the idea orthe concept is expressed and representedby signs they can be perceived and inter-preted by other subjects. In this case, thereis a message and the answer or the reac-tion that the interpreting subjects provideis used as a feedback by the author of themessage. Here, one can say that the sub-jects "are thinking aloud together".

The inner dialogue is continuous inthe world of thought. It forms the basisfor the other dialogues and coexists withthem. It is implicit and will not be dis-cussed here. The other two dialogues areexplicit and it is by learning how to knowand handle them that it is possible todevelop adequate methods and tools fora participative design process.

A dialogue by means of images andwords goes through several levels. At theindividual level, the participant commu-nicates with himself/herself by means ofpictures in order to concretise a problemor an idea that he/she thereafter com-municates to the other participants.They interpret the message and sendback reactions that serve as a feedback tothe individual. He/she reviews the pro-blem or the idea, re-articulates it and soon. In this manner, the group developscommon concepts and a shared under-standing.

This type of communication is notonly a transfer of information betweenindividuals. The choice of images, that isbrowsing through photo-catalogues orchoosing prints from a pile of pictures,

HST 205 GB_2258 rehal 21/03/07 11:51 Page 28

ND 2258 - 205 - 06HST


about his subject first, and then show pic-tures. The remarkable thing about diffe-rent sequences is that they affect ourunderstanding, depending on which orderis chosen; show first and then talk, or thecontrary. If you first relate something, andthen show it in pictures, you will get a cer-tain effect. But if you show the picture firstand then talk, you will get another effect.In the first case, the listener in questionforms two notions, or images around thesame content. In the second case, thevisual experience dominates, and hindersthe listener from forming a personal ver-sion from the narrative. This is what hap-pens when we see a film and read the bookafterwards.

The way of using pictures to expresssomething instead of using verbalexpression or vice-versa has an impacton how a dialogue might be designed.Narratives and imagery have differenteffects in a communication situationdepending on how they are used andwhen. Thus, if the architect enters theprocess too early, his/her graphic repre-sentations may hinder the participantsfrom developing their own comprehen-sible images and visions. This is themain reason why Concepto is conceivedto be used at the very beginning of thedesign process, before the designerstarts making any proposal. At thatstage, it is the users’ needs, desires,visions, etc. expressed as properties ofthe future artefact, rather than its shapethat are the object of discussion. The pic-tures used for that purpose are thereforeof another character. It is the association,not the illustration, which is required here.

It is generally admitted that “a pictu-re is worth more than a thousandwords”. The graphic image’s iconic cha-racter makes it play this role in certaintypes of communication where the exact-

It became clear to us that the combi-nation of picture and verbal languagecan be used in different ways and to dif-ferent ends. The picture is not submittedto a system of rules as words are. It pro-vides more room for creativity and ima-gination in communication. At the levelof the dialogue between different profes-sions, the picture can bring to light theparticipants’ different ways of seeingand 30 each others’ points of view. Italso pays attention in this kind of dialo-gue to the fact that the picture at theindividual level stimulates the partici-pant and supports the establishment of aself-dialogue, in the same way as sket-ching does for the architect.

A THEORETICAL

APPROACH

There is a fundamental difference bet-ween discussing a concept verbally, anddiscussing it with the help of imagery usedin an associative way. We tried a semioticapproach to better understand the differen-ce between word and picture, but did notstop there. It is not the mechanisms ofmeaning that interest us, but rather thevarious effects that different manners toaccommodate verbal language and pictu-res have on the participant’s faculty of ima-gination, expression and understanding.

Let us approach language as such tounderstand why. Language is a system ofsymbols founded on conventions sharedby individuals within the same linguisticunit. Every language is incomplete withregard to each individual and only exists inits totality in the speaking masses (Barthes1985; Saussure 1987). Although differentsocial groups in a society practice the samelanguage, they do not make the same useof it.

Words in a language acquire their truesenses in the use individuals make of themwithin a specific praxis (Wittgenstein1992). Words do not signify phenomena orthings but concepts (Ibid; Saussure 1987).The concept cannot be encompassed by aword in an absolute and incontestablemanner. The word “light”, for example, isnot used in the same way by a physicist, apainter, a photographer, a prisoner, a poli-tician or an architect, and does not desi-gnate the same concept in all these cases.

Thus, language is a sophisticated com-munication tool constituted as a system ofrules; internal rules (grammar, syntax,

ness of the information transmitted isprimordial. This kind of picture imme-diately represents something concreteand perceptible to our senses. It is neces-sary at the end of a design process, andthere it plays an essential role. The archi-tect’s sketch or perspective drawing is agood example of that.

However, a picture can also exceedits iconic character and be used to com-municate abstract phenomena, such asthe sensation, the state of things, themode of existence, etc. Used in thismanner, the picture becomes an opensign to which different meanings can beassigned according to the imagination ofthe participant. It is the capacity of asso-ciation that humans are equipped with,that we, in our research, try to exploitthrough the combination of words andpictures to develop our communicationtool. One and same image can be asso-ciated to different things and, in thesame way, one concept can be illustratedby different images by different persons.The content of the concepts then beco-mes negotiable. In this kind of commu-nication, the picture acts as a key to ope-ning the meaning that verbal languagehas fixed in the different language games.It is this way of using the picture that weargue for and attempt to implement inthe initial phases of the design process.

Our ability to distinguish differentaspects of the same phenomenonwithout confusing them, enables us tosee in a fanciful manner, which is to seewith imagination. In this way of seeing,it is not what is immediately discernedthat is important, but rather what can beassociated to an image. That is where theutility of the image has a big contribu-tion to make. To see with imagination isthe utility that is vitalised when usingimages in a dialogue.

A simplified illustration of the three dialogue levels

FIGURE 5

Inner dialogueThe subject is thinking

Reflexion, Feed-back

Reflexion, Feed-back

Dialogue with others(Inter-personal dialogue)

The subjects are dialoguing

HST 205 GB_2258 rehal 21/03/07 11:51 Page 29


semantics) (Mounin 1968; Saussure 1987)and external rules (Wittgenstein 1992). Tocommunicate pre-supposes mastering thelanguage. This involves following the inter-nal rules, and also mastering the languagein praxis, which involves keeping to theexternal rules elaborated in a social practi-ce. These two types of rules are oftenconfused and one tends to believe that twopeople from the same linguistic unit cancommunicate without difficulty about eve-rything. However, it might well happen,for example, that two farmers from twoentirely different language groups onopposite sides of the world are better ableto communicate with each other than oneof these farmers with an academic fromthe same nation.

Consequently, the situation in thedesign process is that participants,although mastering the same language, donot master the language games that prevailin the different praxes. The situation iseven more alarming in the initial phase ofthe process, since what is discussed in thedialogue does not yet exist at that stage andhas to be formulated. What characterisesthis situation is the absence of commonreferences and the lack of a common lan-guage, which means that the participantsdo not share the same world of concepts.

Concepts permit us to see and toconceive the reality in which we live - “wesee the world through our concepts” (Winch1990). Wittgenstein (1992) introduced thenotion of “seeing as”, to investigate the phi-losophy of perception. On this basis, weargue that we do not see phenomena andthings as they come into our sight, but aswe interpret them, and we interpret themby means of concepts we already have. Inthe same manner, our imagination is limi-ted to modes of representation, bound in

In actual fact, the dialogue by meansof images provides the opportunity to getround the implicit and inherent conven-tions of verbal language. Moreover, afterexperimenting with this type of dialogue,we now consider that verbal language maybe an obstacle in the dialogue betweenparticipants with different experiences andfrom different professions, especially inthe initial phase of a design process.

Of course, as stated earlier, the pictureis not the only possibility; other meanscould be foreseeable. But the picture hasthe advantage of filling several functions inthe dialogue. Firstly, it allows the partici-pant to lead a self-dialogue. It shows dis-tinctly and subtly divergences in the way ofseeing things between different groups. Itserves to open up the sense that the verballanguage closes in language games. Thepicture is, through its free association, asign virgin of sense that serves to open upviews and construct the new languageappropriate to the design situation. It isalso easily remembered as a shared mea-ning to carry through a design process.Another advantage is that it is an easy andquick method to use.

CONCLUSION

Conceiving an artefact starts with anactivity of conceptualisation. The conceptsare our creation, and they are instrumentsby which we can see the world and trans-form it. They are always developed throughcommunication in our social activitieswithin communities, professions, culturesor just a group of people doing something

among other ways to our professional, cul-tural, social and political identity. Thus, wetend more easily to look for solutions to ourproblems within the limits of what wealready know. We are in practice “blind” tothe concepts it is based on.

The concepts outside the natural scien-ces are far from being fixed or compact(Ramirez 2000). In architecture and plan-ning, and particularly during the initialdesign phase, the concepts expressed verbal-ly are diffuse. The content of a concept iscompact only within a specific praxis and thelanguage game in which it circulates. It can-not be communicated between players fromdifferent praxes without ambiguousness.

Thus, in a dialogue between partici-pants in design processes it is necessary todeconstruct a concept in order to recons-truct a new one that better responds totheir common situation. By doing so, theplayers elaborate a new language gameembedded in the situation. Ignoring thisstate leads to misunderstandings in thedesign process. At its worst, the misun-derstanding is underlying, and the partici-pants although using the same languagedo not mean the same thing and even failto realise they do not understand eachother until it is too late and the artefact ismaterialised.

How is it possible to get around thesedifficulties? A foreseeable solution advoca-ted in this research would be to comple-ment the verbal language with picturesused in an associative manner. If wordsused in everyday language have a sense inwhat Wittgenstein calls a language game,that is the way in which they are used insuch and such praxis; the associated pictu-re, on the contrary, is more neutral andseems as being “virgin of sense” before itscirculation in the specific dialogue.

The design process seen as a successive construction of a language that ends in a real artefact

FIGURE 6

stage 4

stage 1 stage 2 stage 3

Past experience

Conceptualisation with the help of

dialogues

Interpretation of the concepts

formulated by the client

constructionrealisation

Verbal and

graphical utterances

Graphicrepresen-

tations

realartefact

Perception,internalisingof precepts and affects

HST 205 GB_2258 rehal 21/03/07 11:51 Page 30

ND 2258 - 205 - 06HST


together to constitute the language gamesthat compose our language. In a languagegame, the concepts are shared by a group ofpeople and are the fundament and the iden-tity of this group. According to the discour-se theory (Winther Jørgensen and Phillips2002) they are paradigms or discoursesthat vehicle the knowledge and know-howof that particular group. At the same time,there is a risk that these paradigms becomea field of specialised knowledge, a languagegame surrounded by linguistic barriers thatmake the interdisciplinary communicationdifficult.

In our view, creativity lies in the frictionbetween different paradigms and languagegames. The linguistic barriers are thusnecessary creativity agents. They need to beovercome but not eliminated. To overcomethese barriers does not mean making com-munication more fluid, but rather to giveeach discipline the possibility of reconside-ring its concepts in the light of other pointsof view. By so doing the project will expandthe limit of its language game and developa new one with new concepts that can beshared by the whole organisation/project.

The artefact being sought after – ahouse, a workplace, an urban district - thatat beginning of a design and planning pro-cess does not exist (not in the mind, not asany representation, not in reality) is pro-gressively constructed as a language by thepeople involved in the planning activity.This construction is carried out as a decons-truction of previous languages that are notcompatible with the new experience thatthe people involved are facing in the newdesign situation.

Human language opens up new worlds,but at the cost of a “schooling” shaped by thefact of “following the rules”; it is what makes

visions. The users’ imagination will besomewhat constricted and it will be difficultfor them to conjure up solutions for theirproblems outside the limits of what they arealready able to directly express.

Thus the act of thinking aloud isimportant in any change process. It is oftenneglected because it is often confused withthe inner dialogue, and also because it isgenerally admitted that the users have theanswers to the questions that concern themand do not need to reflect too much aboutthem. The discovery of this self-dialoguehas clarified the structure of the wholechain of possible communication in a pro-cess of change. A dialogue using represen-tations that make it easy to illustrate expe-riences and feelings can enable both theusers and experts to think aloud together in asymmetrical manner.

We mean that not enough attention isdevoted to what happens to the participantsduring a design process in research dealingwith participative design. We argue that theparticipants develop themselves duringtheir attempts to think about, reflect on andacquire an image of their future environ-ment. Our research experience has drawnattention to the relevance of the rights ofusers to not just be heard, but to think aloudand to design the environment and at thesame time change themselves. The right tothink aloud, that is to design, is not just aresult of making processes of change moreknowledgeable and democratic; it is alsowhat helps to develop democratic practices.

Revised: 07/06/2006

Accepted: 05/07/2006

us unable to see in front of our very nosesand eventually closes us in our modes ofrepresentation. Design, however, gives us theopportunity to reconsider these rules and ourmodes of representation, to construct newlanguage games, to develop the language andto open up new doors, to find new ways toform our human landscape.

The artefact can thus be seen as a lan-guage in constant construction during aprocess of change (Ehn 1988), from words,to graphical representations, to newly-builtstructures. The final product is a confirma-tion of this process, but also the beginningof a new one. We always start in the midd-le, thinking has no beginning (Deleuze1996). This construction is an act of designthat, as we attempt to show, is achieved atdifferent levels and is enriched by the parti-cipation of a wide variety of people involved.These have knowledge to bring into the pro-cess and are concerned by its results. Thus,design is not just an expert matter.Introducing new means, like images, into aprocess of change opens up possibilities forsuch participation, for developing a demo-cratic practice that brings to light hiddenworldviews that can help human activity torealise what otherwise would remainunthinkable.

The lesson to be learnt from our expe-rience is that it is important that the users inparticipative design processes get theopportunity to really reflect about theirsituation when changes in their organisa-tional or physical environment are about tobe initiated. User participation might other-wise be reduced to a process conducted byan expert who gathers knowledge in verbalform through questionnaires or interviews,or the reactions from a document or plan,the users’ experiences, desires, needs and

HST 205 GB_2258 rehal 21/03/07 11:51 Page 31


[1] AHLIN, J. (1974). Arbetsmiljösanering:förnyelse genom demokratisering av plane-ringsprocessen. Stockholm, Avd. för arkitek-tur KTH.

[2] BARTHES, R. (1985). L'aventuresémiologique. Paris, Seuil.

[3] BIRGERSSON, L. (1996). Att byggamening och rum: om processer för utvecklingav verksamhetsmiljöer. Göteborg, Chalmerstekniska högskola.

[4] BRANTE, T. (1987). Sociologiskaföreställningar om professioner. Den sociolo-giska fantasin: teorier om samhället. U.Bergryd. Stockholm, Rabén & Sjögren.

[5] BROADBENT, G. (1984). The develop-ment of design methods. Developments indesign methodology. N. Cross. Chichester,John Wiley & Sons.

[6] DELEUZE, G. (1996). Différence etrépétition. Paris, Presses universitaires deFrance.

[7] EHN, P. (1988). Work-oriented designof computer artifacts. Stockholm,Arbetslivscentrum: [Brevskolan] : Almqvist &Wiksell International.

[8] ETZLER, B. (1991). "Arkitektur förarbete." Nordisk Arkitekturforskning Vol. 4,nr 3.

[9] GRANATH, J. Å. (1991). Architecture,technology and human factors: design in asocio-technical context. Göteborg, Chalmerstekniska högsk.

[10] GRANATH, J. Å. (2005). "Concepto -Ett verktyg för dialog i tidiga skeden."Fastighetsnytt(2-2005).

[11] LINDAHL, G. A. (2001). Rummetsom resurs för förändringsarbete. Göteborg,Chalmers tekniska högskola.

[12] MOUNIN, G. (1968). Saussure ou lestructuraliste sans le savoir : Présentation,choix de textes, bibliographie. Paris, Seghers,"Philosophes de tous les temps".

[13] OLIVEGREN, J. (1975). Brukar-planering: ett litet samhälle föds: hur 12hushåll i Göteborg planerade sitt område ochsina hus i kvarteret Klostermuren på Hisingen.Göteborg, Olivergrens arkitektkontor AB :FFNS-gruppens förl.

[14] RAMIREZ, J. L. (2000). Socialplane-ringens verktyg. En handlingsteoretisk under-sökning i ett humanvetenskapligt perspektiv.Stockholm, Stockholm regionplane-och tra-fikkontor.

[15] REHAL, S. (1997). Att artikulera ochkommunicera insikt: bild och ord som verktygi tidiga skeden av designprocesser. Göteborg,Arbetslivets bebyggelse, Chalmers tekniskahögskola.

[16] REHAL, S. (1998). Le processus deconception participatif: un processus de com-munication. Performances Humaines &Techniques (Nr 96. Toulouse, France).

[17] REHAL, S. (2004). Föreställning ocheftertanke: bilder och verbalt språk i tidiga ske-den av designprocessen. Göteborg, Chalmerstekniska högsk.

[18] SACHS, J., J.-Å. GRANATH, et al.(1981). Industriplanering. Göteborg.

[19] SAUSSURE, F. D. (1987). Cours delinguistique générale. Paris, Payot.

[20] SCHÖN, D. A. (1983). The reflectivepractitioner: how professionals think inaction. New York, Basic Books.

[21] STEEN, J. and P. ULLMARK (1982).En egen väg: att göra fackliga handlingspro-gram. Stockholm, Inst. för arkitektur byg-gnadsfunktionslära Tekn. högsk.

[22] ULLMARK, P. and J. Å. GRANATH(1995). Där arbetet äger rum (Intervju medTomas Engström). Göteborg, Arbetslivetsbebyggelse, Chalmers tekniska högskola.

[23] WINCH, P. (1990). The idea of asocial science and its relation to philosophy.London, Routledge.

[24] WINTHER JØRGENSEN, M. and L.PHILLIPS (2002). Discourse analysis as theo-ry and method. London, Sage.

[25] WITTGENSTEIN, L. (1992). Filosofiskaundersökningar. Stockholm, Thales.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

HST 205 GB_2258 rehal 21/03/07 11:51 Page 32

h tool to improve the dialogue between designers and … · verbal language. we argue that verbal...

Documents