![](bg9.png)
ference between the concepts of value and objective
is not completely clarified. To underline the point,
for some people, value is about currency or efficiency
and for others it is about ethical questions. As an
anecdote, Cockton (2004; 2006) changed the name
of the concept from value to worth after struggling
with the same issue. It may seem appealing to use a
pre-defined set of values, as in Schwartz’s (2012) the-
ory of basic values, which provides more depth to the
contents and structure of values, but as Isomursu et
al. (2011) discussed, using a pre-defined framework
to analyse and interpret the findings can lead to con-
firmation bias.
Even if we embrace Keeney’s definition, the ques-
tion arises of how to reach abstract constructions that
may be difficult to form as statements. For exam-
ple, Iversen et al. (2012) pointed out that values are
not static entities that are waiting for researchers and
developers to collect them, but more like changing,
complex and abstract ways of being and thinking.
Keeney seems to take it for granted that decision mak-
ers are automatically people who are able to express
what is important to them. For example, when de-
signing with children, there should be more appropri-
ate methods than just asking ’what it is that one cares
for’. People’s values tend to emerge, change, and con-
flict, and researchers should carefully consider who is
answering these questions and what they mean.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to express our gratitude for the Val-
teri School Onerva’s personnel for participating in
the research project. We also thank Kirsi Heinonen,
M.Sc., for assisting in data collection. This research is
funded by the Valteri School Onerva and the Univer-
sity of Jyvaskyla, Faculty of Information Technology
under the project entitled ONSPACE. The research
did not receive any specific grant from funding agen-
cies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sec-
tors.
REFERENCES
Abelein, U. and Paech, B. (2015). Understanding the influ-
ence of user participation and involvement on system
success – a systematic mapping study. Empirical Soft-
ware Engineering, 20(1):28–81.
Alessandrini, A., Cappelletti, A., and Zancanaro, M.
(2014). Audio-augmented paper for therapy and ed-
ucational intervention for children with autistic spec-
trum disorder. International Journal of Human-
Computer Studies, 72(4):422–430.
Barki, H. and Hartwick, J. (1994). Measuring user partici-
pation, user involvement, and user attitude. MIS Quar-
terly, 18(1):59–82.
Benton, L., Vasalou, A., Khaled, R., Johnson, H., and
Gooch, D. (2014). Diversity for design. In Proceed-
ings of the 32nd Annual ACM Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’14, pages 3747–
3756, New York, New York, USA. ACM Press.
Bergvall-K
˚
areborn, B. and St
˚
ahlbrost, A. (2008). Participa-
tory design: one step back or two steps forward? In
Proceedings of the Tenth Anniversary Conference on
Participatory Design 2008, pages 102–111.
Bjerknes, G. and Bratteteig, T. (1995). User participation
and democracy: a discussion of Scandinavian research
on system development. Scandinavian Journal of In-
formation Systems, 7(1):73–98.
Cockton, G. (2004). Value-centred HCI. In Proceedings of
the Third Nordic Conference on Human-Computer In-
teraction - NordiCHI ’04, pages 149–160, New York,
New York, USA. ACM Press.
Cockton, G. (2006). Designing worth is worth design-
ing. In Proceedings of the 4th Nordic Conference
on Human-Computer Interaction Changing Roles -
NordiCHI ’06, number October, pages 165–174, New
York, New York, USA. ACM Press.
Corbin, J. M. and Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory
research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria.
Qualitative Sociology, 13(1):3–21.
Ehn, P. (1988). Work-Oriented Design of Computer Arti-
facts. PhD thesis, Ume
˚
a Universitat.
Frauenberger, C., Good, J., Fitzpatrick, G., and Iversen,
O. S. (2015). In pursuit of rigour and accountabil-
ity in participatory design. International Journal of
Human-Computer Studies, 74:93–106.
Frauenberger, C., Good, J., and Keay-Bright, W. (2011).
Designing technology for children with special needs:
bridging perspectives through participatory design.
CoDesign, 7(1):1–28.
Friedman, B. (1996). Value-sensitive design. Interactions,
3(6):16–23.
Guha, M. L., Druin, A., and Fails, J. A. (2008). Designing
with and for children with special needs. In Proceed-
ings of the 7th International Conference on Interac-
tion Design and Children - IDC ’08, page 61, New
York, New York, USA. ACM Press.
Halskov, K. and Hansen, N. B. (2015). The di-
versity of participatory design research practice at
PDC 2002–2012. International Journal of Human-
Computer Studies, 74:81–92.
Harris, M. A. and Weistroffer, H. R. (2009). A new look at
the relationship between user involvement in systems
development and system success. Communication of
the Association for Information Systems, 24(1):Article
42.
He, J. and King, W. R. (2008). The role of user partici-
pation in information systems development: implica-
tions from a meta-analysis. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 25(1):301–331.
Iivari, J., Isom
¨
aki, H., and Pekkola, S. (2010). The user -
the great unknown of systems development: reasons,
Identifying Objectives for a Learning Space Management System with Value-focused Thinking
33