Wahid bin Ahsan
Department of Human-Centered Design
Userhub

Abstract

Participatory design is widely embraced in development and humanitarian contexts as a pathway to inclusion and empowerment. Yet in practice, participatory UX is often constrained by institutional timelines, cultural misalignments, and symbolic implementation. This conceptual paper critically examines co-design idealism and reframes participation as a negotiated, relational, and context-dependent process. Through a synthesis of interdisciplinary literature, it identifies five recurring tensions that limit participatory UX: (1) ethical and emotional labor in facilitation, (2) structural constraints and donor priorities, (3) epistemological divergence, (4) power and positionality, and (5) symbolic versus substantive participation. Drawing on critical UX, postcolonial HCI, and design justice, the paper offers a reflective framework for more ethically grounded and situated practice. Rather than proposing universal solutions, it invites UX practitioners and researchers to move beyond checkbox participation—toward culturally resonant, reciprocal, and impact-driven engagement.

Keywords: Participatory UX, Co-design, Human-Centered Design (HCD), UX in Development, Design Justice, Ethical Design, Power Asymmetry, Postcolonial HCI, Emotional Labor, Epistemic Pluralism, Symbolic Participation, Situated Practice

Introduction

Participatory design is widely recognized as a strategy for inclusion, empowerment, and socially responsive innovation. In development and humanitarian settings, co-design is often framed as an ethical imperative that promises to elevate user voice, foster local ownership, and promote equitable digital systems (Hussain et al., 2012; Mazzurco & Jesiek, 2017; Sanders et al., 2010). Yet as these participatory approaches are increasingly embedded in civic platforms, digital services, and humanitarian tools, a more critical lens is needed.

This paper examines the idealism often surrounding participatory UX, particularly in contexts marked by power imbalances, structural limitations, and cultural divergence. In practice, participation is frequently shaped by donor agendas, organizational routines, and limited user agency. As a result, participatory processes can become symbolic rather than substantive (KRAMER‐COURBARIAUX et al., 2023; Oyugi et al., 2008). Moreover, participation is not emotionally neutral. Designers and communities alike must navigate moral tensions, emotional labor, and representational complexities that are rarely acknowledged in standard evaluation frameworks (Kelly, 2019; Spiel et al., 2018).

In response, this paper synthesizes conceptual literature, cross-cultural case studies, and practitioner insights to propose a five-dimensional framework that highlights key tensions in participatory UX. These include: (1) ethical and emotional labor, (2) structural constraints, (3) epistemological divergence, (4) power and positionality, and (5) the gap between symbolic and substantive participation (Costanza-Chock, 2020; Poudyal, 2020; Winschiers-Theophilus et al., 2010).

Rather than rejecting co-design, the paper advocates a reimagining of participatory UX as a context-sensitive, negotiated, and ethically reflexive practice. It moves beyond the binary of “authentic” versus “failed” participation, offering a vocabulary for more relational, accountable, and grounded design in high-stakes development environments (Dourish & Mainwaring, 2012; Irani et al., 2010).

Conceptual Framework

This paper proposes a conceptual framework for understanding participatory UX not as a universally beneficial method, but as a context-dependent, negotiated practice. Rather than treating participation as a checklist of inclusive activities, this framework highlights five interlocking tensions that constrain and shape how co-design unfolds in development contexts.

Table 1. Five dimensions of participatory UX tensions and their implications for practice

Dimension	Key Tension	Practice Implication
Ethical & Emotional Labor	Emotional burdens and ethical dilemmas are often invisible in design processes	Plan for emotional workload; support reflexive, care-based facilitation
Structural Constraints	Donor logic and institutional rigidity limit meaningful participation	Acknowledge limits; negotiate flexibility within system constraints
Epistemological Divergence	Western PD norms may clash with indigenous or local knowledge systems	Adapt methods to align with plural epistemologies and cultural logic
Power & Positionality	Asymmetries shape who sets agendas and translates user input	Reflect on designer role, authorship, and knowledge mediation
Symbolic vs. Substantive Voice	Participation may be procedural without shaping outcomes	Prioritize user agency and decision influence over presence alone

1. Ethical and Emotional Labor

Participation involves invisible work. Designers, facilitators, and community members often carry emotional burdens, face conflicting responsibilities, and manage moral tensions that traditional UX workflows rarely address (Kelly, 2019; Spiel et al., 2018). Recognizing emotional labor reframes participation as an affective process, not just a procedural one.

2. Structural Constraints and Donor Logics

Institutional structures—funding cycles, reporting requirements, rigid timelines—can turn co-design into a box-ticking exercise rather than a process of shared meaning-making (Oyugi et al., 2008; Poudyal, 2020). Participation must be understood within these constraints, where control over process and outcomes is often externally determined.

3. Epistemological Divergence and Cultural Practice

Western models of participatory design emphasize linear iteration and individual agency. In contrast, indigenous and Global South epistemologies—such as Ubuntu or relational design—center collective knowledge, cyclical process, and ritual (Cabrero, 2014; Winschiers-Theophilus et al., 2010). Designing with these logics in mind requires unlearning universalist assumptions and valuing local frames of reference.

4. Power and Positionality

Participation is always entangled with power. As KRAMER‐COURBARIAUX et al. (2023) show, how users perceive outsider influence affects trust, agency, and adoption. Designers must consider their own position in the design relationship—who frames the agenda, who interprets user input, and whose knowledge counts.

5. Symbolic vs. Substantive Participation

Not all participation leads to influence. Workshops and feedback sessions may fulfill procedural mandates while having little effect on design decisions. In contrast, models like those from Drain et al. (2021) and Mazzurco & Jesiek (2017) show how adaptive, relational processes can produce substantive user involvement—when users shape direction, not just react to decisions.

Together, these dimensions challenge the idealized framing of participatory UX. They invite a shift toward reflexive, situated design—where participation is not assumed to be empowering, but made meaningful through ongoing ethical reflection, power awareness, and structural negotiation. Especially in development contexts, this framework supports a more honest and accountable approach to co-design.

Discussion

The five tensions explored in this study suggest that participatory UX in development contexts is not a neutral or inherently inclusive practice. Instead, it is a process of negotiation—shaped by emotional labor, institutional constraints, and divergent epistemologies. This discussion examines how these forces interact and what they imply for practice.

Participatory design often demands emotional and ethical labor that goes unacknowledged in mainstream UX discourse. Designers and facilitators navigate conflicting expectations, moral tensions, and care responsibilities—particularly in community-based settings. These affective demands constitute a form of relational labor (Kelly, 2019; Spiel et al., 2018), yet are rarely integrated into design workflows or evaluation criteria. Participation, therefore, must be understood not only as a method but also as a relational practice grounded in care and reflexivity.

At an institutional level, participation is frequently constrained by donor-driven timelines, rigid reporting structures, and predefined outcomes. These conditions can reduce participatory methods to procedural formalities, fulfilling documentation requirements without influencing design (Oyugi et al., 2008; Poudyal, 2020). In such contexts, participation risks becoming symbolic rather than substantive—a pattern widely critiqued in development and postcolonial HCI literature (Mazzurco & Jesiek, 2017).

Epistemological divergence presents another challenge. Participatory UX frameworks rooted in Western paradigms often assume linear iteration, individual agency, and universal problem-solving. These assumptions may conflict with indigenous or local knowledge systems that emphasize collective reasoning, cyclical process, and relational accountability (Winschiers-Theophilus et al., 2010). Without epistemic sensitivity, participatory practices risk reproducing colonial dynamics under the guise of inclusion.

Together, these tensions call for a more reflexive and context-sensitive approach to participation. Practitioners and institutions must ask not whether users were included, but how their knowledge and agency shaped design outcomes. As Costanza-Chock (2020) argues, meaningful participation requires shared power, iterative trust-building, and plural understandings of impact and success.

Reframing participatory UX in this way does not dismiss its potential. Instead, it renews its ethical foundations by positioning participation as a relational, negotiated, and culturally grounded practice—particularly essential in high-stakes development contexts where design decisions can reinforce or redistribute structural inequities.

Conclusion

Participatory UX has become a widely accepted aspiration in development and humanitarian design. However, this paper has shown that when participation is reduced to method rather than meaning, it can reinforce power asymmetries, obscure emotional labor, and fall short of its transformative promise. Co-design idealism often overlooks structural barriers, cultural divergence, and the relational demands of ethical engagement.

Through a synthesis of critical UX, postcolonial HCI, and cross-cultural design literature, this study has proposed a five-dimensional framework for understanding participatory UX as a situated practice. The framework identifies key tensions—ethical labor, donor logic, epistemic plurality, power dynamics, and symbolic inclusion—not as exceptions, but as central conditions that shape whether participation empowers or performs.

Rather than abandoning participatory ideals, this paper calls for their recalibration. Meaningful participation must be reflexive, context-responsive, and grounded in relationships of trust. To make participatory UX truly inclusive and impactful in development contexts, we must move beyond asking whether users were included and begin asking how, why, and to what effect.

Limitations and Future Work

This study is a conceptual and literature-based synthesis, grounded in secondary sources, critical theory, and practitioner reflections. As such, it does not include primary field data or empirical testing of the proposed framework. While the selected literature spans diverse geographies, epistemologies, and design contexts, it may still reflect publication bias—where critical or unsuccessful participatory efforts are more likely to be documented than sustained successes.

The framework is offered as a generative tool, not a prescriptive model. Its aim is to support reflection and critique, rather than to define universally applicable methods. Its relevance and adaptability will vary across cultural, organizational, and geopolitical settings. As a conceptual contribution, it is not intended to produce generalizable findings, but to provoke deeper reflection and contextual adaptation in participatory UX practice.

Future research could expand this work in several directions:

• Ethnographic or autoethnographic accounts of participatory UX in development settings;
• Participatory evaluations of design initiatives using the framework to assess impact and power dynamics;
• Adaptation of the framework into facilitation tools, ethics review criteria, or training materials for practitioners and funders.

Ultimately, this study argues for a shift in how participation is understood—not as a checklist of methods, but as an ongoing negotiation shaped by relational care, cultural logics, and structural realities.

References

Cabrero, D. G. (2014). Participatory design of persona artefacts for user eXperience in non-WEIRD cultures. Proceedings of the 13th Participatory Design Conference: Short Papers, Industry Cases, Workshop Descriptions, Doctoral Consortium Papers, and Keynote Abstracts – Volume 2, 247–250. https://doi.org/10.1145/2662155.2662246

Costanza-Chock, S. (2020). Design Justice. The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/12255.001.0001

Dourish, P., & Mainwaring, S. D. (2012). Ubicomp’s colonial impulse. Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Conference on Ubiquitous Computing, 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1145/2370216.2370238

Drain, A., Shekar, A., & Grigg, N. (2021). Insights, Solutions and Empowerment: a framework for evaluating participatory design. CoDesign, 17(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2018.1540641

Hussain, S., Sanders, E. B.-N., & Steinert, M. (2012). Participatory Design with Marginalized People in Developing Countries: Challenges and Opportunities Experienced in a Field Study in Cambodia. International Journal of Design, 6. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:5025354

Irani, L., Vertesi, J., Dourish, P., Philip, K., & Grinter, R. E. (2010). Postcolonial computing. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1311–1320. https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753522

Kelly, J. (2019). Towards ethical principles for participatory design practice. CoDesign, 15(4), 329–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2018.1502324

KRAMER‐COURBARIAUX, C., OFORI, S. E. N. A., & HAFISOU, K. (2023). Navigating Adoption by Global South Users: The Case of Wikimedia Volunteers: Why It Is Important for Global Organizations to Accommodate Inclusive Research Teams. Ethnographic Praxis in Industry Conference Proceedings, 2023(1), 12–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/epic.12149

Mazzurco, A., & Jesiek, B. K. (2017). Five Guiding Principles to Enhance Community Participation in Humanitarian Engineering Projects. Journal of Humanitarian Engineering, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.36479/jhe.v5i2.80

Oyugi, C., Nocera, J. A., Dunckley, L., & Dray, S. (2008). The challenges for participatory design in the developing world. Proceedings of the Tenth Anniversary Conference on Participatory Design 2008, 295–296.

Poudyal, B. (2020). Building Digital Archive through Collaborative UX Research. Proceedings of the 38th ACM International Conference on Design of Communication, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1145/3380851.3416767

Sanders, E. B.-N., Brandt, E., & Binder, T. (2010). A framework for organizing the tools and techniques of participatory design. Proceedings of the 11th Biennial Participatory Design Conference, 195–198. https://doi.org/10.1145/1900441.1900476

Spiel, K., Brulé, E., Frauenberger, C., Bailly, G., & Fitzpatrick, G. (2018). Micro-ethics for participatory design with marginalised children. Proceedings of the 15th Participatory Design Conference: Full Papers – Volume 1, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3210586.3210603

Winschiers-Theophilus, H., Chivuno-Kuria, S., Kapuire, G. K., Bidwell, N. J., & Blake, E. (2010). Being participated. Proceedings of the 11th Biennial Participatory Design Conference, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1145/1900441.1900443