Ann Biblio

Ann Biblio

Janie Santoy Field Methods Dr. Rickly

Annotated Bibliography Participatory Design vs. Participatory Action Research

My main goal for my research is establishing a clear distinction between participatory design (PD) and participatory action research (PAR). What I would like to do is categorize my work with this study as either one or the other. What I have learned is that both are slippery enough to allow for different interpretation during the application process. Articles which discuss the methodology position PD and PAR as having several common elements. I would like to discuss each of these to tease out the differences of each within the two methodologies.

The first is that researchers work alongside participants in the project. Both are committed to integrating the voice, the experiences and the expertise of the participant into the research. In what way this is done and for what purposes can differ from one research project to another.

The second is that participants should gain something from the research. The PD projects which Ehn (1993) and Bodker (1991, 1996) discuss all focus on the benefit for the participant as the democratization of the workplace, while PAR focuses on changing social conditions so that the position of the participant improves. PD is more focused on enacting change within an organization than on society as a whole.

The third is that participants should control the design or direction of the work. Realistically PD can only grant control within an already existing framework of the goals of the organization. If the workers are going to decide how technology will be implemented in the organization, the implication is that the power structure has already determined that a change will take place and the workers must work and negotiate change within parameters which have already been established. The participant, then, can direct the momentum that has already been initiated. PAR, on the other hand, has the possibility of letting the participant both initiate and direct the momentum of the research. Brydon-Miller’s (2001) research focused on the issues which the community wanted to solve instead of the researcher deciding for them.

One of the main differences is that PAR practitioners are committed to working with groups which have been traditionally marginalized; therefore, the political agenda of PAR is much more explicit than that of PD. PD can have a political agenda within the organization, but it does not seek to change the community conditions in which the participants live.

Both methodologies make use of similar qualitative methods for collecting data such as observation, interviewing, artifact analysis. Similarly, both accept that the research process is iterative and that reflection is crucial to that process.

Unfortunately, both methods face the same risk of being co-opted. Studies such as Lahti (2005) and Wyandotte (1996) show that researchers can design their projects to control and limit the way in which participants will be involved, the decision-capabilities they will have during the research process, and the benefit they will receive for their participation. In fact, I would argue that both those studies use participation but that alone does not qualify them to label their study either PD or PAR.

Participatory Design Bodker, Susanne and Kaj Gronbaek. (1991) “Cooperative Prototyping: Users and Designers in Mutual Activity.” International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34, 453-478. Bodker and Gronbaek advocate the participation of users not only as sources of information but also as active participants who can help to solve problems. Users participate in cooperative prototyping, a design process in which both users and designers, employing their different qualifications, “actively and creatively” participate in the creation and modification of mock-ups. The activities serve to generate ideas and engage prototypes in a work-like activities to evaluate their usefulness. The authors detail their project to design computer support. They began by working with the caseworkers to define their practice and determine where technology could be included in their work environment. They used interviews to gain understanding of the work tasks, future workshop to determine problem areas, and prototyping to meet the needs to the group.

Bodker and Gronbaek describe the process of evaluating the prototype with each participant. They discuss the problems and successes they experienced with each participant and how they could improve the prototyping session. They discuss activity theory which they used to focus on the different activities which occurred during the prototyping sessions. They determined that their prototyping sessions could be categorized into breakdown and focus shifts. They argue the focus shifts should be used as a learning opportunity and the researcher should not force the participant to follow a rigid session schedule. The sessions functioned: • To focus on evaluating the prototype by simulating future work action using a frame task. At times, the prototype only worked fluently for a short period of time and then the participants could not do what he wanted to do. This lead to specific ideas of what needed to be added or changed in the prototype. • As idea generating sessions in which the participants determined specific capabilities they would have like included in the system. The session then turned into how those ideas could be implemented. • To focus on the work practice which helped designers become more familiar with the frame task. This understanding was needed to avoid contradictions in how the frame task was seen by designers and users. • To focus on the prototyping session itself and the inability of the designer to make the modifications which the user needed. These breakdowns lead to better prototyping session in which the designers were more prepared. The process used to prepare for prototyping session included determining the purpose of the session and how stable the prototype should be, planning in-session modifications, choosing a setting, and determining how the outcome would be evaluated.

They also detail several lessons they learned about being prepared: • Have extensive sample data to make their prototypes more effective; • Be prepared for ideas to push the limits of the prototype capabilities; • Learn more about specific work practice; • Plan method to keep the session focused when participant or designer is focusing on detail which is not productive; • Determine participants and their roles.

Bodker, Susanne. (1996). “Creating Conditions for Participation: Conflicts and Resources in Systems Development.” Human-Computer Interaction, 11, 215-236.

Bodker discusses the problem in participatory design involving how conditions are designed for how users are involved in the participation process. She uses the AT project to discuss the concerns and conditions of such projects. The project involved both an implementation of technology and the establishment of a vision about the use of technology in the organization.

She articulates several problems of PD: 1) workers not participating in the project are excluded from the participation experience and sustainability is not built after or in-between projects; 2) participants are selected by management and peers may not support them, thus management remains in control; 3) participation in project generally increases participant work load; and 4) resources for user self-education are not part of the project.

She traces the early PD projects which moved from traditional research approaches to more participatory ones. The projects accepted the view that organizations function despite conflicts which cannot be solved, focused on design methods based on technical and organizational alternatives, highlighted education of users to participate in design, and emphasized users’ work experiences.

The AT project provided a new setting in which to rethink how the resources of the organization, experiences and education of workers were to be to used not only for the existing project but also for the future of the organization. The researchers found that as the activities took shape their goals and the organizational goals did not align; thus, the researchers had to decide to continue the project abandoning their own goals for the research. Unions were not influential in this project so workers had to face management to advocate for themselves. New conflict arose from the changing roles and expectations of the workers involved in the project.

The author explains the different strategies used to keep the organization informed about the progress of the project such as displaying the prototype, publishing a newsletter throughout the process and discussion of project during staff meetings. The sustainability of the project is clear via the continued use of the design procedures by the programmers and the tailors who work closely with users.

Bodker reinterprets the project concerns using the idea that growth involves learning and conflict. She connects the methodology of PD with the zone of proximal development; that is, in developing new system design groups can use direct participation in the analysis and the design of the direction in which the work should go. She suggests using a pilot or applying the technology with a small real working group to gain experience.

Ehn, Pelle. (1993). "Scandanavian Design: On Participation and Skill." In Schuler, Douglasv & Aki Namioka (Eds.), Participatory Design: Principles and Practices (41-77). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ehn defines participatory design as design which engages both the designer and the skilled user with the purpose of producing a high-quality product and promoting Democratic participation and skill enhancement. The design approach is guided by the “democratic ideal” that “[e]very human should have the right to participate equally in decisions concerning his or her life” (42). These decisions address: 1) how resources will be controlled and by whom; 2) the organization of the production and design process; 3) who decides how work is organized; 4) autonomy at work.

Ehn discusses projects developed in Scandanavian settings known for workplace democratization using laws which required certain actions by employers especially as those laws directly affected/regulated the company business and favored workers. Nevertheless, as Ehn makes clear, these laws did not guarantee that worker situations would change; the employer still had the "exclusive right to make decisions" and laws were interpreted in ways to benefit the employer (45).

The trade unions helped to advance the interests of the workers by demanding specific objectives and negotiation cycles and quantifiable demands determined by workers’ experience which were in stark contrast to the production systems which were difficult to define and quantify. Ehn deliberately sided with the workers and their organizations to support the development of their resources for change towards democracy and rejected the assumption that design was a “rational decision making process based on common goals” (47).

Ehn cites several studies in which “job satisfaction” and increased productivity were determined to be common goals but were difficult to implement and when conflicts arose the control of management was strengthened. • The NJMF project reflected the failure of the traditional design process which involved researchers and other individuals making project decisions. A new strategy, the collective resource approach, developed in which local unions chose the topics for study and external consultants assisted in the study. • The DEMOS Project demonstrated that the significant issues for the workers and for management may differ from management’s view which ultimately led to “local agreements for codetermination and rationalization” (54) in which workers demanded flexibility to determine how they would participate in the entire work cycle to achieve their tasks. • The UTOPIA Project added the idea of design to produce quality product to the main idea of the other projects, “support for democratization of the design process” (57). The researchers developed the “tool perspective” which call for the design of tools “as an extension of the traditional practical understanding of tools and materials used within a given craft or profession” (57). The designer would have the technical capability but would need to learn the practical understanding from the user. The understanding was achieved by the use of “design-by-doing approach” which included mock-ups and prototypes.

Ehn turns to theory to advocate a move away from product-oriented design to “process-oriented” design which focuses on people communicating about how to use and design software so that design becomes “an interaction between understanding and creation” or “language as action” (62).

Ehn argues that systems need to be rethought as “learning from each other” to cooperatively produce and envision tools and their use. This knowledge-making can be accomplished through planning and creativity (i.e. participatory design) and the use of language to interact, cooperate and (re)construct the world; to determine, not how the system should be used, but how we use the system and how that use should/could alter the design. Ehn argues that the strength of nonlinguistic design artifacts such as mockups and prototypes lies in the ability to 1) mirror the participants everyday work activity so the design can “make sense” (67) and 2) take advantage of both practice understanding and propositional knowledge. Revolutionary designs will only be possible if other users can be involved and other skills leveraged without excluding the participation of traditionally skilled users.

Participatory design should be understood as a process in which users and designers learn from each other, but ultimately PD projects should meet several conditions: 1) make a difference, 2) be realistic, 3) be fun.

Farooq, Umer, et al. (2006). “CHAPTER TWELVE: Participatory Design as a Learning Process: Enhancing Community-Based Watershed Management through Technology.” Environmental Communication Yearbook, 3, 243-267. This article explores PD that focuses on modes of learning that are hierarchical, cognitive apprenticeships, and lateral (zones of proximal development) through work with organizational stakeholders to create sustainable and empowering practices and learn key elements to guide further research. PD as a learning process requires group involvement in both design and learning so that the knowledge base is improved, users develop realistic expectations which minimize resistance to change, and democratizes the workplace via participation in the design.

The goal of the project was for participants to control the design process by deciding the direction, implementing the decisions, and maintaining the infrastructure. The project to design a web site interface used cognitive apprenticeship in which participants became apprentices for the design components and the researchers for the content. Lateral learning involved co-constructed ZPD areas for which neither group was expert but all worked to combine their skill sets to reach objectives.

The primary method of data collection for this project was participant observation in which they made passive observation and at other times assumed roles of facilitators and consultants. They also collected document and design artifacts. Also, they interviewed one participants using an open-ended, focused method. A descriptive approach to the data was taken to identify the process used during the design.

During the design process, the researchers let the participants take control of the redesign and only provided support by sharing methods and techniques which would help them reach their goals. The author provides an example of how a co-constructed ZPD developed and used to perform a task and how an expert worked with novices to move the design forward while at the same time relinquishing control so that other novices could remain involved. The researchers taught the participants how to use scenarios to help guide their designs and as a method which can be sustained in the ongoing design process.

Farooq argues that theoretical frameworks which can be used for replication can be developed by using patterns that appear repeatedly in case studies. The patterns “include (a) a problem; (b) a description of the problem’s context; (c) an analysis of … resources and trends that enable or constrain … solutions…; (d) a statement of … solution…; (e) a discussion of how the … context…might be changed by adopt[ing] … solution; and (f) examples of the solution…” (265).

Gronbaek, Kaj et al. “Achieving Cooperative System Design: Shifting From a Product to a Process Focus.” In Schuler, Douglasv & Aki Namioka (Eds.), Participatory Design: Principles and Practices (79-97). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gronbaek et al. also advocate shifting to a process focus which includes the user and designer. The key element of the process involves carefully determining the conditions of user participation. The authors present two case studies to show the importance of the 1) who will be involved and when will they be included, 2) the details of the contracts or agreements, 3) process focus to determine more insights.

The first project involved design by software engineers and the exclusion of users in the design phase stemming from the designers’ lack of knowledge of available methodology choices. The development team worked with changes which were determined in advance. The task of producing the user’s manual was given to participants who had no control over the design and eventually disengaged from the project. Different group members exercised control over different aspects of the project and resisted change or failed to include group members in certain activities. The project was abandoned because of perceived lack of market for the product.

The second project was guided by a formal contract which involved significant user involvement in design and requirement specifications and production of mock-ups and prototyping. A phase of the project involved changing specifications which required renegotiation of the contract and the use of a process-contract.

These cases demonstrate that future users need to be carefully defined as ones who understand the actual work processes and both developers and users need to be identified early in the design process. The selection of users involves determining power dynamics among participants and between participants and researchers.

Gronbaek et al. argue that contracts need to emphasize the process rather than the product so that they do not impede the iterative design process. Having a fixed contract assumes that all information about the project and the user needs will be known. Enough flexibility needs to be built into the contract to allow for changes and modifications especially in the contract itself. The authors recommend that the contract “outline a set of work tasks” and guidelines.

Lahti, Henna & Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, Pirita. (2005). “Towards Participatory Design in craft and design education.” Co Design?, 1, 2, 103-117.

This article claims that much of traditional design education relies on studio activities ignoring the collaborative nature of learning and the role of technology in design. Some designers work with users to develop a profile and determine user needs and desires and then evaluate the product. Establishing strong and clear communication between designer and user takes time and effort but is crucial for such projects.

This project focuses on determining what users contribute during the design process and how their ideas appear in the final product. A distributed database was used for collaborative designing so students could learn the tools of virtual designing and so participant contribution could be recorded. The software structured and organized the process. Both designers and participants accessed the collaborative environment and viewed the sketches of the design and made comments online. At the end the designs were evaluated by the teacher and users.

The researchers examined the design discourse using qualitative content analysis. The user comments were coded for product characteristics and user’s activity content. Analysis of the results show the user novel ideas appeared in the final product but the users also provided feedback and expanded on initial student design activities.

The authors argue that user participation can benefit design with conducting needs analysis, proposing design elements, suggesting product solutions, and evaluating prototypes. Users commented more on functionality than aesthetics which may be due to their individual experiences. The user participated as an information source, as a co-designer, and as a reviewer.

The conclusion reached is that technology can facilitate interaction, but interaction must be designed into the project such as sharing a common work space.

Spinuzzi, Clay. (2005). “The Methodology of Participatory Design.” Technical Communication 52, 2, 163-174.

The author provides a historical and theoretical analysis of participatory design and argues for and discusses the implications of understanding participatory design as a methodology rather than a research orientation or a field.

The author defines participatory design as a method which “construct[s] the emerging design” and uses the results which are “co-interpreted by the designer-researchers and the participants who will use the design” (164). The goal of participatory design is to “empirically understand the activity” and at the same time “envision, shape, and transcend it” (164). He explains participatory design helps to bridge the tacit knowledge held by the participants and the abstract knowledge held by the researchers.

He argues that if participatory design is seen and used as a methodology, it can help to create knowledge which can be accessed, analyzed and applied by the field of technical communication. It allows the researcher to describe users’ knowledge and apply it to “design new tools and workflows that empower the users” (166). He presents participatory design as: • Functioning within a paradigm which “sees knowledge-making’ as constructed through “interaction among people, practices, and artifacts” (166); • A methodology derived from action research to facilitate and “empower users” to make “their own decisions” (167); • A research design composed of 3 stages: initial exploration of work, discovery processes and prototyping; • Utilizing methods which are grouped by stage.

Also, he presents three criteria drawn from the methodological principles which can be used to evaluate participatory design; the project can be evaluated by examining if it • Improves the quality of life for participants through both democratic and functional empowerment which can be achieved via critical reflection and assessment of activities and interpretations and codetermination of project goals; • Involves participants in both data collection and analysis to produce changes which address participant concerns and ensure broad representation of workers; • Uses an iterative process which includes continual involvement by participants in revisiting stages of development multiple times and opportunities for participants to reflect on how research results will influence their work.

In addition, the author discusses the limitations of participatory design which include “not lend[ing] itself to radical change,” “focus[ing] too narrowly on artifacts,” altering “how research-designers apply established methods,” and “giv[ing] up traditional research rigor” in order to “gain flexibility and agreement” (168-9). Despite these limitations, the author claims that by understanding participatory design as a methodology, the researcher can have at his disposal methods and techniques which are coherent and grounded by premises of a common methodology.

Participatory Action Research

Barab, Sasha A. et al. “Critical Design Ethnography: Designing for Change.” Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 35, 2, 254-268.

The authors discuss a project in which they as “instructional designers [were] interested in the research and development of designed structures that facilitate learning and empowerment” (255). They used what they term critical design ethnography which incorporates elements of participatory action research, critical ethnography, and instructional design. Out of their work they developed two propositions: ethnographic methods can be useful to “instructional designers who want to develop complex educational interventions that require local adaptation” and that “instructional designers can offer critical anthropologists a methodology for extending their work to future contexts” (255).

The project incorporated traditional ethnographic methods such as participant observation, semi-structured interviews and document analysis as well as activity analysis, talking diaries, personal documentaries, and researcher biographies.

The authors elaborate on the tensions involved in being participant observers which implies an outsider role establishing a description of the context and a change-agent which entails a role inside the organization. On the other hand, designers regard their work as part of a system of human activity and that depends on users interacting with the work, each other, and the social system so the design becomes a tool of the system. They view instructional design as a way to structure participation, afford experience, and offer ways in which individuals can interact and come to understand the world.

They designed Quest Atlantis as a children’s game aimed at inspiring an inclination toward social action using the four steps of critical design ethnography. The process involves inquiry for understanding, critique for improvement, and design to establish a change. The first step is developing a thick description which involved a two-year participant-observer ethnography in a Boys Club and two elementary schools to understand the context in which their users were situated. The second step is developing a commitment which allows all participants voice and the appreciation for work which requires an investment of time and intellectual effort. The third step is making understandings and commitments a concrete aspect of the design. They considered the agendas of all participants in determining the direction of the research and the design and used the expertise of all parties to codetermine the agenda and design solution. The fourth step is the reinterpretation of the design for use in multiple contexts. Their goal is to develop designs that are flexible enough to adapt to new contexts and remain useful.

They stress that design ethnographers must focus on three points. The first is trust which is established by relationship building and the participatory attitude. The second is the design intervention which supports change and can be adapted to local contexts. The third is the sustainability of the project which involves continual commitment from the researchers to provide needed support to participants.

Brydon-Miller, Mary. (2001). “Education, Research, and Action: Theory and Methods of Participatory Action Research.” From Subjects to Subjectivities: A Handbook of Interpretative and Participatory Methods. Deborah L. Tolman & Mary Brydon-Miller (Eds.), NYUP.

The author asserts that transformation for positive social change is the goal of Participatory Action Research (PAR). PAR is defined as a process which integrates research, education, and action and an approach which unites researcher with the participant to enact social change via active participation.

The author traces the use of the term back to 1970s in research which included the knowledge and expertise of community members and highlighted social change. Researchers drew on the work of Paulo Freire, specifically Pedagogy of the Oppressed, who argued that both teachers and students are active participants in the educational process. Practitioners also drew on other theoretical sources, especially critical theory which posits that knowledge can be generated by approaches which are interpretive and critical and that critical knowledge is created by social action which assists emancipation.

Brydon-Miller cites Hall’s three tenets for PAR which include focusing on oppressed communities, addressing community concerns and causes of oppression, and including contributions of skill and knowledge by all participants so that all are transformed through learning.

Traditional methods of social research can be used, such as questionnaires, interviews, group discussions, and focus groups, but the important distinction is that participants help to determine the questions and methods of the research. Development of instruments, research and analysis are done collectively, and the participants determine how results will be used..

The researcher must establish relationships which are based on trust and commitment with participants, then all participants must work together to combine education, community-based research, and social action. The final component of a project must include reflection on learning and reassessment of the social conditions of the community.

The author cites several studies which help to legitimize the research knowledge gained through collaboration and critical learning. She also mentions several which use the term Community Action Research or Action Research but follow similar principles as PAR. She stresses the commitment to political and social change must be explicit otherwise projects risk reinforcing the oppressive power structure and undermining the voices of the participants.

Chataway, Cynthia J. (2001). “Negotiating the Observer-Observed Relationship: Participatory Action Research.” From Subjects to Subjectivities: A Handbook of Interpretative and Participatory Methods. Deborah L. Tolman & Mary Brydon-Miller (Eds.), NYUP.

This article suggests both a process and boundaries which can be useful to a researcher interested in participatory action research (PAR). The author considers PAR an attitude and a commitment to working with participants and their needs or concerns. PAR also requires that participants engage in the design of the research and the ultimate use and representation of the results.

She argues that the researcher’s skill and familiarity with a range of research methods will influence how sensitive the researcher can be to the needs of the participants. The PAR researcher must be willing to commit to sharing the design and content of the research which differs from anthropological methodology in that it maintains control of the methods employed.

The author discusses the difficulties involved in acquiring approval for PAR projects since the proposals are evaluated based on content rather than process criteria. She stresses that because PAR research develops over time, proposals can only specify the process which include: “how participants will be involved, decision rules, and responsibilities to the context.” This process systematically excludes the social aspects of scientific practice which, if include, could produce more valid data by creating opportunities for discussions between researchers and participants concerning the process itself. She cautions that if principles are violated, the researcher must publicly accept responsibility for the violation.

The author provides details of a three-year project to show the dialectical process involved in PAR. The first step involves gathering information and building relationships to communicate the principles and objectives of PAR including the commitments to the participants, the decision-making process, and the focus of the project. The second step involves determining a research question in collaboration with participants. The research questions were further defined via interviews and focus groups. The action stage involved facilitated discussion and publication of results.

Chataway discusses the challenges she faced including the community’s anxiety of being observed and how they were able to arrive at acceptance during the final year of study to move towards action aimed at resolving their community issue even with outside involvement. She explains the scrutiny she faced and the process by which she gains their trust. She found that the inability to find a research question agreeable to all was due to her initial unwillingness to work on internal community issues. She describes the participant influence on the interview questions and on how results were communicated, but also details why she chose to ignore suggestions to exclude an important group from participating.

Jordan, Steven. (2003). “Who Stole my Methodology? Co-opting PAR.” Globalisation, Societies and Education, 1, 2, 185-200.

The author begins his essay by presenting the history, themes and issues of participatory action research (PAR). He details the differences between PAR and action research. The first began with three primary tenets: 1) the participants were to become agents of transformation, 2) the forms of research were critical, emancipatory, and democratic, and 3) contained an action component while the latter was developed by American and European academics to improve professional practices although researchers who have attempted to incorporate PAR tenets into their work. He argues that the development of PAR has been marked by debate about its goals, principles and methods. Thus, PAR has been defined by three key themes: adoption of naturalistic and qualitative forms of inquiry, commitment to work with oppressed groups and shift responsibility for the research process to those affected groups, and finally use of critical theoretical frameworks.

He argues that PAR, a research methodology that worked in and with people in the margins, is being institutionalized and co-opted by a market-based system to either make users participants by becoming consumers or more efficient workers. These applications are in direct contradiction to the founding principles. The methodologies have been assimilated and reconstituted to reify the power structure. PAR has been used as a tool of capitalist accumulation which uses workers’ knowledge to increase productivity and competitiveness and intensifies the labor process with the concepts of learning organizations or teams. He contends that other organizations espouse commitment to social change but he questions “how much” people will be empowered, for what purposes, and who will benefit. Participation is aimed not at the oppressed group but at those who can mobilize them and then represent them.

He contends that PAR can be counter-hegemonic by • drawing on other critical methodologies such as critical ethnography and forms alliances those research communities; • using the concept of learning in social action which posits that learning takes many forms, is implicit in routine activities, involves struggles shaped by many factors, can be emancipatory but must be continually contested, must be analyzed so the researcher can act strategically; • being aware and critical of the ideological tensions implicit in the language and theoretical frameworks used to develop the methodology.

Wyandotte, Annette. (1996). “Participatory Action Research: Bringing Arguments Up to PAR.” Journal of Teaching Writing, 15, 2, 211-33.

This article posits a pedagogical approach based on inquiry as participatory action research. The instructor designs scenarios in which the students can become involved. The projects are designed to require students to do research and to participate in class discussion and debate. The author posits that argument is a participatory activity which can be used to defend interpretation.

The author defines PAR as a set of principles which involves inquiry by stakeholders and an exchange of ideas. These principles can be used to design a “PAR inquiry curriculum” with the teacher-as-researcher and students a joint-venturers in knowledge-making.

She argues that PAR aligns with writing instruction in “democratizing the making and use of knowledge” by promoting critical thinking, recognizing the reciprocal relationship between people, and distributing the benefits of the learning to all stakeholders.

The teacher decides which topics will be discussed and neatly designs the discussion session so that the students respond to the experience at the end of the session. Students are engaged in critical thinking and collective investigation and are evaluated by their ability to convince others.