*Keywords:* Participatory service design, co-design, digital environment, digital artefacts, digital participation, policymaking

‘melanie-sarantou’, ‘mira-alhonsuo’, ‘carolina-gutierrez-novoa’, ‘silvia-remotti’

---

Volume 15, Supplement Issue, pp. 119136 Faculty of Education©, UM, 2021

Generating Stakeholder Workshops for Policymaking in

Digital Environments through Participatory Service Design

Melanie Sarantou¹, Mira Alhonsuo¹, Carolina Gutierrez Novoa², and

Silvia Remotti²

¹University of Lapland, ²PACO Design Collaborative Abstract This article presents the design and research process of a design team of four designer-researchers, who are also the authors of this article and collaborated to develop training guidelines and a toolset for stakeholder workshops. The intention was to use the series of stakeholder workshops as a key method for developing policy recommendations about the role of arts in mitigating societal challenges. The stakeholder workshops were implemented across Europe by the partners of the European Commission H2020-funded project, Acting on the Margins: Arts as Social Sculpture (AMASS). Due to the onset of the COVID19 pandemic, the designerresearchers had to transfer all activities, such as face-to-face workshops and their own work processes, to a digital environment and online participation. The digital toolset and user guidelines were aimed at training the project partners to conduct stakeholder workshops and collect data for creating cultural policy roadmaps that would be contextspecific for the European region where they were located. The design process for creating the digital artefacts, such as the digital toolset, user guidelines and online workshop environment, is discussed in this article, in addition to this study’s opportunities and limitations. Keywords : Participatory service design, co-design, digital environment, digital artefacts, digital participation, policymaking Introduction “A dominant narrative around policymaking highlights its failures in the face of complex societal challenges” (Kimbell & Bailey, 2017, p. 216). Policy action is mostly driven by evidence-based policy, which is based on motivations for seeking or receiving funding, resulting in policy decisions being mostly focused on a rational basis that is underpinned by factual data and quantitative approaches to data collection (Belfiore & Bennett, 2010; Galloway & Dunlop, 2007). From this perspective, it is argued that policy

decisions are often based on positivist and linear models of policymaking, a “symptom of the persisting higher prestige of logic over rhetoric”, consequently neglecting qualitative approaches to policymaking that borrow from the social sciences (Belfiore & Bennett, 2010, p. 134). Galloway and Dunlop (2007, pp. 23 – 24) argue that cultural policy, with its symbolic, aesthetic and artistic needs, requires interventions based on more horizontal and flat hierarchies, as well as different methods informed by the social sciences. For example, cultural policy decisions should be based on a broad range of cultural activities and notions of what constitutes culture (p. 24). Additionally, linear and positivist approaches to policy endeavours support the top-down narratives associated with policymaking, posing a problem for grassroots-level participation, especially the involvement of marginalised communities in policy decisions, because policy often “reinforces existing power structures and elites” (Kimbell & Bailey, 2017, p. 223). The persisting challenges with policy decisions are that they often remain too abstract, distanced and removed from especially marginalised communities. This article discusses the design of a practical toolset and user guidelines that would be used by the partners of the AMASS project (2020–2023) in implementing a series of stakeholder workshops as a method for policymaking. The project investigates how the arts can act as vehicles for mitigating societal challenges and aims to create concrete opportunities for people to collaborate with artists as agents in creative projects. It is aimed at capturing, assessing and harnessing the impact of the arts in this regard. Policy action in AMASS is aimed at overcoming societal challenges among marginal communities in Europe through the arts. The purpose of the stakeholder workshops was to use collected data for making relevant policy recommendations for the European regions represented in the project. The workshops intended to apply participatory service design (PSD) approaches to gain stakeholders’ insights into the needs, existing best practices, resources and actions they deemed important in policy decisions in their particular contexts. The insights would then be used by the project partners for developing regional strategies and policy roadmaps with the stakeholders. This article asks: “How can PSD enable stakeholder workshops for policymaking in digital environments?” The methods adopted in the service design process were reflective practice and reflexivity. The data collection methods included workshops, group discussions, note-taking and observations. The work was implemented in three design cycles, which are discussed in this article. The service design process drew on digital solutions and digital artefacts, such as the use of a shared whiteboard platform, Miro, to guide and implement the training experience for the researchers, and later to implement the stakeholder workshops in the relevant countries. The Miro platform is an online environment, which enables

participants to communicate and collaborate remotely and visually by using different tools, such as sticky notes and symbols. The activities of the design team working on the development of practical methods and approaches to policymaking had to be executed in digital environments, from team meetings and group discussions to more complex activities, such as the development of online workshops. The designerresearchers from Finland and Italy were involved in one of the testbed experiments included in the fourth work package of the AMASS project. Theoretical Concepts The conceptual outline consists of the following key theoretical themes: PSD, the role of design in policymaking, and the role of designers and collaborative approaches in digital environments. Participatory Service Design Service design is a relatively new design discipline that overlaps with many well-known design fields, such as participatory design, human-centred design and co-design. Service design can be perceived as a multidisciplinary practice, which usually has a strong focus on processes, such as services based on abstract ideas. It involves various stakeholders (e.g., end users, service providers) and engages in co-design practices (Miettinen, 2016). Participatory design was originally developed to involve workers and citizens, who are the “targets of policy” (Kimbell & Bailey, 2017, p. 215). In a policy context, a PSD approach makes explicit the overlap between service design and participatory design as policy decision making deals with abstract ideas and the targets of policy, who are the citizens. PSD sets out to facilitate transformation (Irwin, 2013). It focuses on transition processes that are inherent in service design and policymaking by creating solutions, impacts and social change. Service design is strongly founded on the principle of value co-creation with stakeholders (Holmlid, 2009). It is a collaborative activity (Sanders & Stappers, 2008), within which power relations are carefully considered (Ehn, 2017) and the designer’s role is facilitative (Howard & Melles, 2011). Hence, this article refers to PSD. For PSD to generate the types of measures necessary for inclusive participatory democracy and social innovation, partners and civil society organisations must be involved in the planning, delivery, coordination and monitoring of policies (Eça et al., 2016). Collaboration on this level provides information and services for local citizens and communities regarding their engagement in the democratic process, which has been reported to be intertwined with social cohesion (European Commission, 2006). Service design approaches enable participation, both digital and face-to-face, thus addressing inclusion, community penetration and the barriers to arts and cultural engagement (Eça

et al., 2016). However, participation can only be achieved through equal partnerships, dispersion of power and the establishment of citizen control (Kangas, 2017). Design for Policymaking Design has been widely used in policymaking for approximately fifteen years (Kimbell, 2015). Weiss (1977, p. 533) defines the policymaking process as a “political process, with the basic aim of reconciling interests in order to negotiate a consensus, not of implementing logic and truth, [thus] the value issues in policymaking cannot be settled by referring to research findings”. Kimbell and Bailey (2017, p. 215) define policymaking as “mediating between resources in response to a situation deemed to be a public policy issue, in relation to diverse publics with varying degrees of agency, legitimacy and motivation to address it”. Kimbell and Bailey (2017) further explain that governments can use policy to direct or implement public services or laws. The role of design in policy is predominantly to enable sensemaking and dealing with complexities (Mintrom & Luetjens, 2016). Kimbell (2015, p. 7) explains that the purposes of design for policy are to engage in complexity and be citizencentred, impactful and able to envisage new futures. Design thinking is especially useful in policymaking for defining problems and transcending hierarchies in organisational settings (Mintrom & Luetjens, 2016). Some governments have adopted open policymaking as an approach to involve experts, policy implementers, academics and citizens in policy processes (Kimbell, 2015, p. 4). The challenges of design for policy have been outlined by several scholars (Kimbell & Bailey, 2017; Mintrom & Luetjens, 2016). Specific areas of policymaking, for example, cultural and creative policy, are ill-defined, or ample and broadly defined terms exist that cause confusion and a lack of consensus, as well as hampers the work of design for policy (Galloway & Dunlop, 2007). Adding to the challenge of defining terms that are closely related to the area of cultural policy, such as the arts, Dean (2003, as cited in Adajian, 2005, p. 231) boldly states that “the arts cannot be defined”. The integration of design practices into policymaking has thus “received mixed assessments” (Kimbell & Bailey, 2017, p. 220), and policymaking challenges designers “to work at different scales and engage effectively with the politics, complexity and systemic nature of policy development”, and a focus on the creative aspects of design may result in overlooking the underlying functions of government systems (p. 219). Additionally, the authors point out the danger of design as it can “neutralise dissent” by covering or hiding it (p. 216). Belfiore and Bennett (2010, p. 121) suggest moving beyond the typical “toolkit approach” that is widely used in policymaking, and they also criticised policymakers for seeking a one-size-fits-all approach, thus contributing to the

linearity through which policymaking is often approached. Alternative approaches to the toolkit borrow from PSD methods, such as stakeholder workshops, user journeys, mapping and the use of personas and prototyping, to name a few (Kimbell & Bailey, 2017). According to the same authors, prototyping is about using creativity in digital or physical objects to concretise abstract ideas and generate a better understanding of how such ideas can be dealt with in practice (p. 217). However, creative, design and arts-based approaches have to be mindful of and knowledgeable about government systems and seek ways to engage with and perhaps harness citizen dissent and disobedience in policymaking processes. Service Design in Digital Environments Design is used to create innovative solutions to complex problems (Miettinen & Sarantou, 2019); hence, design is increasingly used at a strategic level by applying human-centred approaches (Burdick & Willis, 2011). Design seeks to turn current situations and challenges “into desired ones” by finding suitable, context-specific solutions (Dorst, 2008; Simon, 1969, p. 111). By adopting new perspectives, new challenges can be reframed. By commencing from a design problem, service designers may improvise new approaches when they draw on their past design experiences, intuition and knowledge (Sarantou & Miettinen, 2017). The skills and cognitive diversity of a team, in addition to its collective intelligence (Aggarwal et al., 2019), can maximise optimal outcomes in collaborative processes. This article focuses on PSD because it is based on value co-creation and participation, which are not by definition elements of digital interaction design (Holmlid, 2009). One of the responsibilities of service designers is to ultimately aim for harnessing diversity and supporting the commons and individuals to achieve common goals through exploration, discussion and assessment (Salter et al., 2009). Participatory approaches can increase the sense of ownership within a design team or the commons, but the results that may be created in such digital spaces can have ethical implications of which designers should be aware (Sangiorgi & Prendiville, 2017). Service design approaches are especially important in digital spaces, as service design functions as “an interface between people and the spaces they inhabit” (Felix & Brown, 2011, p. 1). Services shape the level at which digital and physical spaces are experienced, for example, how pleasant or effective they are in terms of resource use (Felix & Brown, 2011). Digital spaces and team work in such environments present new challenges of which designers need to be aware, so critical engagement is required to identify suitable online approaches as group engagement becomes more challenging in digital spaces (Salter et al., 2009). Service and workshop design also shape the behaviour of participants (Vogt, 2009); therefore, service designers need to be mindful of

creating physical and digital environments where participants can feel safe to engage in work. For example, the intellectual property rights and ownership of digital artefacts (Stickdorn et al., 2018) that are created in such spaces have to be carefully considered. Data Collection Methods The applied reflexive research strategy involved practical service design and reflexive research practice, which required a focus on human-centred instead of problem-centred inquiry (Anderson et al., 2004), followed by analytical processes that could enable practitioners to facilitate change in processes and systems (Leitch & Day, 2000, p. 179). Reflexive researchers first explore several single components of the phenomenon under investigation using pluralistic theories and methods before attempting to understand their research holistically (Weber, 2003, p. vi). Attia and Edge (2017, p. 33) argue that reflexive researchers should develop procedures integral to the environments where they work through conceptualisation and an awareness of context and by distancing themselves from the action to advance their theories and ideas. The data collection methods are summarised in Table 1. The application of methods and the types of data collected are clarified in the discussion on the three design research cycles. The researcher-designers collected the data during a variety of online workshops through note-taking in both online and analogue formats. Table 1. Summary of data collection. Method Details of methods used Online workshops and observations A: April–May 2020, 4 online workshops, with a total duration of 5 hours and 20 minutes; July–October 2020, 8 workshops with a total duration of 9 hours and 40 minutes B: May–June 2020, 6 workshops with a total duration of 9 hours C: October 2020, 2 workshops, with a total duration of 6 hours Note-taking (a) Research notes in the form of personal and reflexive diary notes and collective observational notes by the designerresearchers, collected over 29 weeks in a shared document format in Google Docs (b) Over 835 data notes (in the form of sticky notes) collected in the Miro interface (c) Designers’ note-taking on their reflections on the process and tool assessments Group discussion 25 hours and 30 minutes of group discussions among the four designer-researchers during the 3 workshop phases, including a debriefing session with consortium members (in the form of an online seminar) as part of the assessment of the process

Additional data collection methods included group discussions within the design team via the Skype platform, as well as note-taking. The types of data collected were observational data and research notes taken during the mentioned group discussions. The data were primarily collected in digital and online interfaces, such as the Miro whiteboard, Microsoft Word, Microsoft PowerPoint, Google Docs, Google Slides and Google Forms. The chosen method of data analysis was content analysis. The workshops, for which the toolset and user guidelines were intended, were adapted from face-to-face delivery to a digital environment. The design processes commenced much earlier than anticipated to enable the designers to create suitable approaches for training the various project partners to implement regional stakeholder workshops in their countries. Soon after the training began, it became clear that the workshops that the project partners were supposed to offer face-to-face within their regions after the training, also had to be facilitated online. The Miro whiteboard platform was used for training the AMASS partners as well as execution of the stakeholder workshops in the partner’s countries. Ethical Considerations The Ethics Committee of the University of Lapland provided ethical screening of the research. The ethical principles and guidelines of the Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity (TENK) were considered throughout the course of the research. Ethical issues were taken into consideration at every phase of the project: planning the workshops and interaction among designer-researchers who consented to the collective design research before the research and design process. Data in the form of reflexive notes were collected by each designerresearcher during the group discussions of the work team. Informed consent was granted by the project partners who participated in the assessment seminar when their stakeholder workshops were presented. Informed consent was provided by the participants in the stakeholder meetings hosted by the project partners in their countries, but these processes lie outside the scope of this research article. Service designers face new ethical challenges and questions of accountability due to their functioning on digital platforms and in spaces that are enabled by digital technology (Sangiorgi & Prendiville, 2017, p. 7). The power relationships that are present in co-design processes and underpin working in such digital spaces also have to be acknowledged by designers (Collins et al., 2017). In this project, the use of the Miro environment, which is not an openaccess platform, has ethical implications as it may affect the communities’ or the commons’ level of access when using online workshops tools, such as those described in this article. Co-design processes on such digital platforms have additional ethical and intellectual property and ownership implications as data

and even creative outcomes are produced, whose authorship may or may not be shared. The reproduction terms and reuse of such materials need careful consideration. Some of the practical steps for dealing with ethical concerns coming forth from this design activity regarding the designers’ accountability in terms of power and ethical issues were the implementation of prescribed informed consent procedures and obtaining written permissions to use the participants’ visual outcomes in dissemination. PSD Process: Three Design Cycles Following a PSD approach means the designer-researchers’ engagement in codesign and participatory design, which was overlapped by service design methods to jointly develop the training journey for the project partners. They hosted smaller pilot workshops in the online environment to gain familiarity with the methods and approaches. The pilot workshops were then followed by larger stakeholder workshops in their countries, which we referred to (for clarification of terms) as regional stakeholder workshops. The methodology followed in the PSD process for co-designing the training initiative, the training guidelines and toolset for the stakeholder workshops consisted of three design cycles and three types of workshops (see Table 1). The three design cycles are illustrated in Figure 1. Figure 1. The service design cycles (created by author Carolina Gutierrez Novoa).

Cycle 1: Mapping and Scoping This cycle had two aims: (a) mapping the regional stakeholders in the seven partner countries and (b) assessing the training and workshop facilitation needs of the AMASS consortium. In this cycle, the designer-researchers used the two workshop types A and B (see Table 1). Possible stakeholders that might participate in the regional stakeholder workshops and contribute information and data for the development of the regional policy roadmaps were identified by the project partners in their respective regions. This information was applied in the first collective activity of workshop B, stakeholder mapping, which was based on an online journey. The workshop included a board game in which visualisations and a user journey were used to motivate participation and retain the participants’ interest. They could follow clear instructions and steps to arrive at an end destination, where they could express their wishes for the upcoming training as a reward for completing the journey. The tools used and developed in type-B workshops in the Miro interface were as follows:

• a stakeholder map aimed at identifying and understanding potential stakeholders and their interrelationships;

• a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) analysis related to the participants’ concerns regarding the stakeholder workshops; and

• five ‘why’ questions to better understand the findings from the SWOT analysis. The outcome of the mapping and scoping was the identification of key themes from the data notes, which could be used for guiding the designer-researchers in their co-creation of the training guidelines and toolset (Figure 2). This cycle consisted of type-A workshops, conducted in April and May 2020 and comprising 4 online workshops, with a total duration of over 5 hours, and type- B workshops, comprising 6 one-and-a-half-hour workshops in May and June 2020, with a total duration of 9 hours. Cycle 2: Developing the Workshop Guidelines and Toolset for the Online Training Workshop This cycle consisted of two sub-cycles.

• Sub-cycle 1. First, a theme map was created to enable the designer- researchers to co-design the workshop guidelines using the Miro interface. The use of Miro enabled them to track the development of the workshop toolset, which was generated through Microsoft Word, Google Docs and Microsoft PowerPoint, both online and offline. The workshop guidelines and tools were developed through various iterations, starting from the drafting of written (in Google Docs) and

visual guidelines in Miro. This was followed by the development of several Microsoft PowerPoint files. The workshop guidelines and tools were then combined and refined. Data were collected and analysed through the following: o online group discussions (brainstorming sessions) to produce ideas and solve design problems and o mapping and note-taking in the Miro whiteboard interface, an ongoing activity in which all designer-researchers participated to develop the workshop guidelines and toolset.

• Sub-cycle 2. The existing workshop guidelines and tools were used to co-create an online training journey in the Miro interface. This activity took the form of a board game in which the participants followed clear instructions and steps to arrive at an end destination. The reward for completing the online journey was the opportunity to participate in creating an interactive forest or ecosystem, bringing together the needs, best practices and actions for the drafting of a policy roadmap. The outcome of cycle 2 of the research design was the integration of the initial data collected (from the project partners during cycle 1) into the co-design processes of the workshop guidelines and toolset. The cycle consisted of 8 type-A workshops, hosted bi-weekly between July and October 2020, with a total duration of 9 hours. The outcomes were then ready to be tested and refined. Cycle 3: Testing and Refining After weeks of preparing the training, workshop guidelines and toolset, the testing phase commenced. Testing was important for ‘walking through’ the training interfaces and tools. The roles were divided among the four designer- researchers, with one facilitating and three participating. Throughout the training walkthroughs, the project partners engaged in critical reflection, group discussion and continuous questioning to identify and clarify possible misunderstandings and iterate the training steps. In total, 4 testing sessions were conducted over 6 hours of online work. The testing and refining cycle included the following: o online group discussions and training walkthroughs to test, identify and solve interruptions and design problems in the online interfaces used for the workshop guidelines and tools and online workshop activities and o personal diaries and note-taking. This cycle’s outcomes were the (a) a game design-inspired participant journey on the online Miro whiteboard, (b) workshop guidelines (entitled Towards a

Roadmap) and (c) a set of seven workshop tools and templates: timekeeping and planning tool, stakeholder identification tool, stakeholder selection tool, stakeholder invitation template, workshop introduction tool, best practice template, data collection template and template for the roadmap draft. The team produced reflexive notes and engaged in group discussions. This design research and training cycle (type-C workshops) comprised 2 training workshops hosted in October 2020, with a total duration of 6 hours. The project partners underwent a three-hour training during the first phase of the workshop. The Miro whiteboard was then adapted so that the project partners could use it for their stakeholder workshops after the training. Outcomes of Cycle 3 Cycle 3 produced several online tools, as described previously. Figure 2 shows an example of (a) a game design-inspired participant journey on the online Miro whiteboard. Figure 2. The participant journey during the online stakeholder workshop on the Miro whiteboard, which was an outcome of the three-phase design research process (created by author Mira Alhonsuo).

Assessment of Outcomes In an internal seminar arranged by the AMASS consortium, the project partners’ experiences, gained during the pilot stakeholder workshop, were disseminated and discussed. The assessment event included a 10 minute presentation by each partner, followed by a 5 minute discussion. Key themes from the presentations were identified and are presented next. o All project partners had to rely on the online environment to conduct their regional pilot stakeholder and subsequent workshops due to the onset of the COVID19 pandemic. The online environment and toolset that were co-designed by the designer-researchers to enable the training journey for the project partners were used by the latter to conduct their stakeholder workshops in their countries. What was planned to be a digital training environment for the project partners to develop facilitation skills for stakeholder workshops on policymaking processes, was repurposed by each project partner, in smaller and more significant ways, to facilitate their stakeholder workshops digitally. o The partners reported how they reinterpreted, changed and applied their digital environments in unique ways to suit their needs and specific local contexts. For example, the partner in the Czech Republic adapted the digital workshop process to an online seminar-style event, hosting approximately 120 stakeholders. However, most project partners hosted stakeholder workshops in Miro, all having to overcome a number of smaller and larger practical online facilitation challenges, such as using additional platforms or mobile applications to accommodate the needs of their participants who were not necessarily well versed on the chosen platform. The appropriateness of the digital environment and the workshop tools had to be reconsidered in the specific context in which the stakeholder workshops were presented. Hence, the project partners’ flexibility and can-do approaches enabled context-specific online participation. The PSD process discussed in this article presents an example of shifting from the one-size-fits-all toolkit approach commonly used in policymaking to one that enables agility and adaptability. The toolkit was thoroughly integrated into the training process for the project partners; hence, the toolkit and guidelines underpinned the participant experience instead of being mere add-ons for data collection.

o The project partners first took small steps to familiarise themselves with the stakeholder workshop facilitation in a digital environment and then moved on to a larger event. An example of the best practices reported by the project partners was that online workshops should be presented for a maximum of three hours, including breaks. As technological challenges constitute a reality for many participants, careful introductions to the use of the digital environments are also required for better user experiences of participants who are unfamiliar with them. Work in small groups is ideal, while personalisation, focused attention and dialogue generation for the participants may increase motivation for enduring participation over a three-hour period. The use of breakout rooms for focused discussions in small groups is recommended, while the roles of the facilitation team need to be clearly defined and realistically divided before the start of the workshop. The larger the group of participants, the more facilitators and technical expertise are required. The team roles to consider are time moderator, technical assistant, facilitator, reporter and visualiser, to name a few. Finally, the use of pre-recorded videos may enhance online experiences. o Impact was created through stimulating connections and dialogue across a wide range of stakeholders through digital participation in policymaking. However, stakeholder workshops for policymaking require expertise in the subject area as participation in online environments can lack flow and cohesiveness if dialogue is not created parallel to the online process and note-taking. Some participants reported that the workflows became stuck, hampering idea sharing and discussion. Opportunities and Challenges The most significant finding in terms of the challenges faced by the designerresearchers is how decision makers can engage communities – regardless of whether they comprise marginalised peoples, artists, immigrants, Indigenous peoples and citizens – in policy processes. Additional challenges include the lack of definition of key terms in areas of cultural policymaking and the tensions among abstract policy processes that have to create transformational change for citizens’ everyday needs and challenges (Galloway & Dunlop, 2007). Further tensions exist between rational, linear approaches to policymaking and alternative, more creative ways of engaging in decision making, problem definition and needs assessment. Finally, creativity and

design can mask dissent and citizen disobedience in terms of how especially marginalised communities, which are mostly excluded by policy processes, intend to enact decision making, self-determination and autonomy in their local contexts. Nevertheless, the PSD processes of creating and implementing the stakeholder workshops reveal opportunities for experimentation and what Kimbell and Bailey (2017, p. 214) refer to as the “new spirit” of policymaking. This spirit is based on using more citizen-centred, design, creative, open and experimental approaches to policymaking. Kimbell’s (2015) research has revealed challenges in how policymakers can harness small-scale insights to produce more concrete policy actions. This is also a challenge encountered by the stakeholder workshops as they generate such small-scale insights due to their timeconsuming nature, having to rely on citizen participation in complex and abstract needs identification and problem resolution that present difficult topics for discussion. Significant opportunities identified are as follows: o Stakeholder workshop as a method for policymaking. Kimbell (2015) suggests that more research and experimental approaches are needed to gain a better grasp of how policymaking as a process can be improved. She promotes the use and enhancement of practical design methods, such as policy workshops, to achieve this goal. The AMASS project is in line with such goals set out in the literature. The link between the intended impact through policymaking and the methodological approach adapted in the work package involves working in collaboration with communities and regional organisations and stakeholders in the cultural policy domain, especially at the grassroots level, by adopting practical methods that can facilitate bottom-up approaches. A stakeholder workshop is one method that can bring together disparate stakeholders, for example, communities and decision makers, in an attempt to create dialogue and form bridges between them. o Visuality and digital design artefacts. Visualisation and the design of appropriate and usable digital artefacts are important tools for stimulating the motivation level of participants who have to attend workshops in digital environments. Creativity and what Salter et al. (2009, p. 2090) refer to as “interactive and immersive visualisation” are key approaches to sustaining motivation for online participation. The

visual, colourful and playful components can create interest, while a good layout and basic design elements can be other ways to create visually appealing, clear and well-organised environments that inspire the participants. Design can bridge the abstraction and the tangibility of the digital design artefacts, the ‘design products’ that are the visualisations used on the Miro board, for example. Visual and other sensory perceptions and experiences are opportunities for triggering thoughts and stimulating participants to return for similar or further experiences and knowledge. o Value of experimentation. The AMASS project has implemented an artistic testbed based on creative experiments. The spirit of experimentation has also influenced the designer-researchers approaches to playing with design for policy. Kimbell and Bailey (2017, p. 218) explain that the “growing emphasis on experimentation prefigures and carves out a space for prototyping in policy development as a particular mode of enacting organisational flexibility, provisionality and anticipation”. The authors believe that a spirit of experimentation can tackle the lack of dialogue and other sticking points that policymaking faces, apart from marginalised communities’ disengagement in policy processes due to perhaps top-down and positivist approaches. The spirit of experimentation has been extended into the ongoing work by the designer-researchers. Apart from the digital stakeholder workshop discussed in this article, two additional experiments have been implemented. One is based on a stakeholder workshop sprint model, while the other is based on the use of artsbased methods in stakeholder workshops. This presents another opportunity, which is discussed next. o Opportunities for arts-based approaches. In digital environments, the challenge with sustained online participation and engagement can be tackled by using strong visual approaches and arts-based methods. Research in this area is ongoing in the AMASS project and will be reported elsewhere. However, from the first pilot study, the opportunities for using arts-based methods in policy endeavours, especially for generating participation, have been identified because they can, especially in combination with future study methods, enable “new spaces of anticipation and embracing future visions” (Kimbell & Bailey, 2017, p. 216). The visually stimulating online stakeholder workshop, presented in this article and designed as a vibrant online

experience, has paved the way for realising new design research on the use of arts-based methods for policymaking. Conclusion This article has addressed the overlaps among design processes, contexts, digital objects and their actors during a multidisciplinary project that involved research in a wide range of disciplines, from cultural policy to arts education, the arts and service design. This article has presented the work and design research process of a design team whose aim was to implement stakeholder workshops for policymaking. The opportunities and challenges of the online workshop experience have been explored through the evaluation seminar and group discussions. The article’s limitation lies in not presenting further insights into the policy roadmap generation but focusing on the design and implementation of stakeholder workshops at the early stages of generating dialogue in policymaking processes. This article does not present solutions for drafting policy roadmaps or making policy recommendations as such, but it explores one example of how online stakeholder workshops can be approached and designed for the front end of policymaking. Such stakeholder workshops may generate small-scale insights, but they enable data collection (from participants) that can feed into the identification of needs and best practices that are valuable for generating policy recommendations. References Adajian, T. (2005). On the prototype theory of concepts and the definition of art. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism , 63 (3), 231 – 236. Aggarwal, I., Woolley, A. W., Chabris, C. F., & Malone, T. W. (2019). The impact of cognitive style diversity on implicit learning in teams. Frontiers in Psychology , 10 , 1 – 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00112 Anderson, A. G., Knowles, Z., & Gilbourne, D. (2004). Reflective practice for sport psychologists: Concepts, models, practical implications, and thoughts on dissemination. The Sport Psychologist, 18(2), pp.188-203. Attia, M., & Edge, J. (2017). Be(com)ing a reflexive researcher: A developmental approach to research methodology. Open Review of Educational Research , 4 (1), 33 – 45. Belfiore, E., & Bennett, O. (2010). Beyond the “toolkit approach”: Arts impact evaluation research and the realities of cultural policy‐making. Journal for Cultural Research , 14 (2), 121 – 142. Burdick, A., & Willis, H. (2011). Digital learning, digital scholarship and design thinking. Design Studies, 32(6), 546 556.

Collins, K., Cook, M. R., & Choukier, J. (2017). Designing the spikes of injustice. In D. Sangiorgi & A. Prendiville (Eds.), Designing for service: Key issues and new direction (pp. 105 – 114). Bloomsbury Publishing. Dorst, K. (2008). Design research: A revolution-waiting-to-happen. Design Studies , 29 (1), 4 – 11. Eça, T., Saldanha, Â., & Barbero, A. (2016). ‘Insurgence’ – activism in art education research and praxis. In R. Shin (Ed.), Convergence of contemporary art, visual culture, and global civic engagement (pp. 210 – 223). IGI Global. Ehn, P. (2017). Scandinavian design: On participation and skill. In D. Schuler & A. Namioka (Eds.), Participatory design (pp. 41 – 77). CRC Press. European Commission (2006). The role of culture in preventing and reducing poverty and social exclusion. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. http://www.worldcat.org/title/role-of-culture-in- preventing-and-reducing-poverty-and-socialexclusion/oclc/150401314?referer=di&ht=edition Felix, E. & Brown, M. (2011). The Case for a Learning Space Performance Rating System. Journal of Learning Spaces , 1 (1), 1 6. Galloway, S., & Dunlop, S. (2007). A critique of definitions of the cultural and creative industries in public policy. International Journal of Cultural Policy , 13 (1), 17 – 31. Holmlid, S. (2009). Participative; co-operative; emancipatory: From participatory design to service design. Dethinking service; rethinking design—The 2009 ServDes. Conference (No. 059, pp. 105 – 118). Linköping University Electronic Press. Howard, Z., & Melles, G. (2011). Beyond designing: Roles of the designer in complex design projects. In: Paris, C, Huang, W, Farrell, V, Farrell, G, & Colineau, N (Eds.) Proceedings of the 23rd Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference (pp. 152 – 155). Association for Computing Machinery. Irwin, R. (2013). Becoming a/r/tography. Studies in Art Education , 54 (3), 198 – 215. Kangas, A. (2017). Removing barriers – participative and collaborative cultural activities in KUULTO action research. Center for Cultural Policy Research. Cupore Webpublications , 44. https://www.cupore.fi/en/publications/cupore-spublications/removing-barriers Kimbell, L. (2015). Applying design approaches to policy making: Discovering policy lab [Discussion paper]. University of Brighton. https://ualresearchonline. arts.ac.uk/id/eprint/9111/2/Kimbell_PolicyLab_report.pdf Kimbell, L., & Bailey, J. (2017). Prototyping and the new spirit of policy-making. CoDesign , 13 (3), 214 – 226. Leitch, R., & Day, C. (2000). Action research and reflective practice: Towards a holistic view. Educational Action Research , 8 (1), 179 – 193. Miettinen, S. (2016). Introduction. In S. Miettinen, Introduction to industrial service design (pp. 21 32). Routledge. Miettinen, S. A., & Sarantou, M. A. (2019). Managing complexity and creating innovation through design. Routledge.

Mintrom, M., & Luetjens, J. (2016). Design thinking in policymaking processes: Opportunities and challenges. Australian Journal of Public Administration , 75 (3), 391 – 402. Salter, J. D., Campbell, C., Journeay, M., & Sheppard, S. R. (2009). The digital workshop: Exploring the use of interactive and immersive visualisation tools in participatory planning. Journal of Environmental Management , 90 (6), 2090 – 2101. Sanders, E. B. N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. Co-Design , 4 (1), 5 – 18. Sangiorgi, D., & Prendiville, A. (2017). Introduction. In D. Sangiorgi & A. Prendiville (Eds.), Designing for service: Key issues and new direction (pp. 1 – 10). Bloomsbury Publishing. Sarantou, M., & Miettinen, S. (2017). The connective role of improvisation in dealing with uncertainty during invention and design processes. In Design management academy: International Research Conference: Research Perspectives on Creative Intersections (pp. 1171 1186). Design Management Academy. Simon, H. A. (1969). The Sciences of the Artificial. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Stickdorn, M., Hormess, M. E., Lawrence, A., & Schneider, J. (2018). This is service design doing: Applying service design thinking in the real world. O’Reilly Media, Inc. Vogt, J. W. (2009). Recharge your team: The grounded visioning approach. Praeger Publishers. Weber, R. (2003). Editor’s comments: The reflexive researcher. MIS Quarterly , 27(4), v– xiv. Weiss, C. H. (1977). Research for policy’s sake: The enlightenment function of social research. Policy Analysis , 3 (4), 531 – 545.