Logo
ScienceStack
Table of Contents
Fetching ...
Sign In

Disentangling the Power Dynamics in Participatory Data Physicalisation

Silvia Cazacu, Georgia Panagiotidou, Therese Steenberghen, Andrew Vande Moere

TL;DR

This paper investigates the power dynamics in participatory data physicalisation (PDP) by developing a cross-disciplinary ontology anchored in five dimensions (WHO, WHAT, WHY, WHEN/WHERE, HOW) and applying it to a corpus of 23 artefacts. It combines ontology building, a systematic literature review, and codebook thematic analysis to yield six PDP agendas—Pedagogy, Action Research, Practice, Engagement, Exploration, Validation—and a set of critical considerations for balancing power, including inclusive representation and continuous consent. The findings highlight how planning, deployment, and construction decisions shape who participates, what data is encoded, and how artefacts are disseminated, with implications for data justice and feminist transparency. The study contributes to a feminist data science agenda by making power dynamics more visible and recommending participatory practices that empower diverse participants and share responsibility more openly in data visualisation and PDP.

Abstract

Participatory data physicalisation (PDP) is recognised for its potential to support data-driven decisions among stakeholders who collaboratively construct physical elements into commonly insightful visualisations. Like all participatory processes, PDP is however influenced by underlying power dynamics that might lead to issues regarding extractive participation, marginalisation, or exclusion, among others. We first identified the decisions behind these power dynamics by developing an ontology that synthesises critical theoretical insights from both visualisation and participatory design research, which were then systematically applied unto a representative corpus of 23 PDP artefacts. By revealing how shared decisions are guided by different agendas, this paper presents three contributions: 1) a cross-disciplinary ontology that facilitates the systematic analysis of existing and novel PDP artefacts and processes; which leads to 2) six PDP agendas that reflect the key power dynamics in current PDP practice, revealing the diversity of orientations towards stakeholder participation in PDP practice; and 3) a set of critical considerations that should guide how power dynamics can be balanced, such as by reflecting on how issues are represented, data is contextualised, participants express their meanings, and how participants can dissent with flexible artefact construction. Consequently, this study advances a feminist research agenda by guiding researchers and practitioners in openly reflecting on and sharing responsibilities in data physicalisation and participatory data visualisation.

Disentangling the Power Dynamics in Participatory Data Physicalisation

TL;DR

This paper investigates the power dynamics in participatory data physicalisation (PDP) by developing a cross-disciplinary ontology anchored in five dimensions (WHO, WHAT, WHY, WHEN/WHERE, HOW) and applying it to a corpus of 23 artefacts. It combines ontology building, a systematic literature review, and codebook thematic analysis to yield six PDP agendas—Pedagogy, Action Research, Practice, Engagement, Exploration, Validation—and a set of critical considerations for balancing power, including inclusive representation and continuous consent. The findings highlight how planning, deployment, and construction decisions shape who participates, what data is encoded, and how artefacts are disseminated, with implications for data justice and feminist transparency. The study contributes to a feminist data science agenda by making power dynamics more visible and recommending participatory practices that empower diverse participants and share responsibility more openly in data visualisation and PDP.

Abstract

Participatory data physicalisation (PDP) is recognised for its potential to support data-driven decisions among stakeholders who collaboratively construct physical elements into commonly insightful visualisations. Like all participatory processes, PDP is however influenced by underlying power dynamics that might lead to issues regarding extractive participation, marginalisation, or exclusion, among others. We first identified the decisions behind these power dynamics by developing an ontology that synthesises critical theoretical insights from both visualisation and participatory design research, which were then systematically applied unto a representative corpus of 23 PDP artefacts. By revealing how shared decisions are guided by different agendas, this paper presents three contributions: 1) a cross-disciplinary ontology that facilitates the systematic analysis of existing and novel PDP artefacts and processes; which leads to 2) six PDP agendas that reflect the key power dynamics in current PDP practice, revealing the diversity of orientations towards stakeholder participation in PDP practice; and 3) a set of critical considerations that should guide how power dynamics can be balanced, such as by reflecting on how issues are represented, data is contextualised, participants express their meanings, and how participants can dissent with flexible artefact construction. Consequently, this study advances a feminist research agenda by guiding researchers and practitioners in openly reflecting on and sharing responsibilities in data physicalisation and participatory data visualisation.

Paper Structure

This paper contains 54 sections, 3 figures.

Table of Contents

  1. Introduction
  2. Background
  3. Power in data practices
  4. Power in participatory design
  5. Methodology
  6. Ontology building
  7. 5W+H dimensions.
  8. Visualisation themes.
  9. Participatory design themes.
  10. Synthesising themes and codes.
  11. Systematic literature review
  12. Keyword-based search.
  13. Accessed repositories.
  14. Exclusion criteria.
  15. Codebook thematic analysis
  16. ...and 39 more sections

Figures (3)

  • Figure 1: To highlight how power dynamics influence PDP practice, we synthesised six PDP agendas. From left to right: in Ontology building, we iteratively synthesised 5W+H dimensions with corresponding themes, sub-themes and codes. From right to left: we developed a representative corpus by conducting a Systematic literature review. In the middle, we performed a Codebook Thematic Analysis of the Corpus by applying the Ontology.
  • Figure 2: Our results categorise the decisions about the 23 PDPs in the corpus according to the 5 ontological dimensions WHO, WHAT, WHY, WHERE/WHEN and HOW and their respective themes, sub-themes and codes. Six agendas guide these decisions: Pedagogy, Action Research, Practice, Engagement, Exploration and Validation.
  • Figure 3: The six PDP agendas highlight different orientations towards participation. Action Research, Practice and Engagement share a motivation to open the PDP planning and construction to the participation of stakeholders. Pedagogy, Exploration and Validation tend to prioritise innovative ways to embody meanings into data.