Proceedings of the 57th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences | 2024

Interactivity Matters – A Role of External Representations in Knowledge
Transfer During Participatory Design Workshops
Mika Yasuoka
Roskilde University
mikaj@ruc.dk

Momoko Nakatani
Tokyo Institute of Tech.
nakatani.m.ad@m.titech.ac.jp

Abstract
Today, our society faces many societal challenges withhigh uncertainty and complexity that a single person
cannot solve. We have gradually recognized diverse
stakeholders including non-professionals need to gather
and co-create solutions collaboratively to tackle thechallenges. One of the difficulties of such participatory
workshops with diverse participants is its knowledgetransfer. To establish a foundation for discussion,
participatory workshops would require transferring
appropriate evidence-based external representations ofknowledge utilized both by experts and non-experts in a
co-creation process. This paper investigates the impactsof three different external representations of knowledge
through 12 social innovation workshops with three
distinct agendas. Our experiments show that evidencebased knowledge was often appropriately transferred.
However, surprisingly spontaneous, and interactive
knowledge had more significant impacts thanauthoritative descriptive knowledge in shaping final
ideas. This result indicates external representation ofknowledge transferred at workshops should be designedwith greater sensitivity and special attention to achieveintended outcomes.
Keywords: External representation of knowledge,
Knowledge transfer, Participatory Design, Social
Innovation workshop.

1. Introduction
In the society we currently live in, various societal
challenges exist, and solutions are collectively beingsought. In the case of global warming, international
collaborative efforts based on UN SDGs can be seen as
top-down actions. Regarding more immediate concerns
such as declining birthrate, education gap, and working
environment, actions also by local governments andcompanies are observed. Top-down actions by nations
and companies are required to impact these social
challenges. At the same time, individual commitments
and actions are also indispensable as such challenges
URI: https://hdl.handle.net/10125/107042
978-0-9981331-7-1(CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

Yuki Taoka
Tokyo Institute of Tech.
taoka.y.aa@m.titech.ac.jp

Nana Hamaguchi
Independent Researcher
nanahamaguchi44@gmail.com

deeply impacting ordinary people's everyday life. Thus,in responding to societal challenges, top-down
approaches, and bottom-up actions to influence andpermeate every corner of society are sought after.
Needless to say, it is difficult for individuals toautonomously take some actions that will lead an impact
on society, even if people are encouraged to work
together to solve societal issues. Therefore, various
approaches and methods have been proposed to resolve
societal challenges by involving individuals in moresignificant actions.
As one of these approaches, Participatory Design
has a high affinity with actions aimed at societal
challenges as a method of involving ordinary people(Schuler & Namioka, 1993; Simonsen & Robertson,2013). Participatory Design utilizes various tools, suchas field investigations through ethnography, prototypes,
and participatory design workshops. Last decade,workshops have become more accessible to experts andthe public, thanks to the popularity of design thinking,and are widely conducted in everyday settings.
A workshop is a meeting of two or more individuals
collaborating to co-create a design to overcome an
obstacle in an existing design (Thoring et al., 2020). The
basic structure of workshops may be simple, butachieving effective results requires proper workshop
design. Especially in the case of design workshops
focusing on societal challenges, where the public
without specialized knowledge participates widely, theinput of relevant knowledge becomes crucial for
producing high-quality outputs. The amount ofknowledge possessed significantly impacts the breadthand depth of the workshop's outputs.
Therefore, in workshops where non-professionals
participate, it is crucial to demonstrate, share, andcommunicate accurate knowledge based on evidence tosupport the discussions and solutions derived fromthem. In recent years, due to the significant impact ofecho chambers and filter bubbles on society (Kratzke,2023), the proper presentation, sharing, andtransmission of relevant knowledge among workshop
participants have become more critical than ever.

Page 5471

So, in the participatory design process aimed atachieving social innovation, how should knowledge be
externalized and presented? To be more precise, howshould knowledge be expressed and communicated for
non-professionals to understand complex knowledge
and utilize it properly as a resource for co-creating
conceptual design solutions? Previously, in-depth
research has been done on the forms of knowledge
representation in knowledge transfer (e.g., (Boose,1989)). However, the impact of external representationof knowledge on idea creation in workshops and an
effective way of specialized knowledge transfer inworkshops still need to be discovered. Therefore, thisarticle primarily focuses on how external representationof knowledge influences knowledge transfer and its cocreation of conceptual solutions in workshops.
The article's structure is as follows: Section 2
reviews related studies, and Section 3 presents ourresearch design for the research question. Section 4
presents the workshop results and discusses our findings
in Section 5. Finally, this paper concludes withsummary and future work.

2. Related research
2.1. Creativity, Co-Creation and Participatory
Design for Social Innovation
Fischer (Fischer, 2000) highlighted that our society
confronts the fragmentation of fields and an explosionof information. Thus, there are limits to the knowledge
an individual can acquire in a lifetime today. Heemphasized the necessity of co-creation for addressing
our complex societal challenges posed by technological,
social, cultural, and economic complexities.
Interestingly, in traditional creativity research,diversity has been demonstrated as a crucial source forproblem-solving rather than an obstacle to creativity, as
evidenced by specific cases (Page, 2007; Sawyer, 2007).
Creativity and innovation have arisen from the "clashingpoint of two subjects, two disciplines, two cultures,
which brings about creative chaos (Snow, 1993)", which
are not considered special societal needs but
indispensable foundational abilities. In other words, byassembling teams of experts with different knowledge
backgrounds and strategically allocating them, thecreativity of the entire community can be stimulated(Nisbett, 2003). From this perspective, a community
with diversity can be seen not only as facing challenges
in collaboration but also as a source of innovation.
These recognitions underscore the importance ofbringing together experts from diverse knowledge
domains as a source of innovation, even thoughchallenges in collaboration are anticipated.

The collaborative work of individuals fromdifferent fields and cultural backgrounds inevitably
leads to conflicts as it presents challenges in achieving
mutual understanding due to differences in vocabulary,perspectives, rules, procedures, and common
knowledge (Nisbett, 2003). In order to address theseintercultural challenges, boundary objects (Star, 2010;
Star & Griesemer, 1989) have been recognized as ameans to overcome language barriers, and intercultural
collaboration support systems (Yasuoka, 2006).
However, there is no simple solution to theseintercultural challenges, and despite the recognized
importance of intercultural collaboration, there remains
to be a challenge in implementing it effectively inpractice.
In response to the challenges of intercultural
collaboration, Participatory Design has the potential tobe helpful as a method that addresses these issues andprovides valuable insights for generating creative
outputs when diverse individuals co-create solutions.
Participatory Design has historically started andtraditionally been conducted in Scandinavian (e.g., (J.
Greenbaum & Kyng, 1991; Joan Greenbaum & Ave,2010)) and North American contexts (e.g.,(Schuler &Namioka, 1993)). Although the root of the Scandinavian
Participatory Design is seen in 'Democracy' and'Equality' at work (e.g. (Ehn, 1988; Kensing &Blomberg, 1998)), modern participatory design as amethod has also largely contributed to creativity and cocreation for social innovation by presenting ways forinclusion, participation, and commitment of
stakeholders with diverse opinions and knowledge
background.
To conduct co-creation, it is necessary to ensurethat many people can participate without burdens, andParticipatory Design offers tools and techniques, which
help ordinary participants could commit and participate
without hesitation. As Arnstein points out, participation
does not merely involve being a subject of listening or
engaging as token, but rather committing oneself to thecreation of solutions and its design process (Arnstein,1696).
In Participatory Design, various methods have been
proposed to encourage participation and include
reserved participants. Bødker (1991) advocated the useof prototypes, while Brandt (Brandt & Messeter, 2004)
practiced design games. Simonsen (Simonsen &Robertson, 2013) stated that participation involves
actively expressing one's opinions with a pen at hand,emphasizing the importance of commitments.
In order to promote social innovation through abottom-up approach, individuals with diverse
knowledge backgrounds must participate and engage inthe design process. Participatory design research has
accumulated decades of insights on achieving essential

Page 5472

elements such as participation, inclusion, andcommitments that foster innovation and creativity whiletranscending cultural differences. On the other hand,
while Participatory Design has been typically applied toIT system developments for decades (Simonsen &Robertson, 2013), its application to societal challenges
is a relatively new and emerging applied field of study.

2.2. External Representations of Knowledge
Knowledge is vital to competitive advantage and, atthe same time, difficult to work on (Nonaka & Takeuchi,
1995). Since knowledge is inherently invisible,
intangible indefinite and resistant to quantification (Ahn
& Chang, 2004), collecting, organizing and visualizing
static and dynamic knowledge for transfer has been amore significant challenge (Nissen, 2023).
Knowledge can be broadly classified into explicit
and tacit knowledge (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).
Explicit knowledge is knowledge that is expressed in theform of documents, diagrams, and other tangible
representations. Examples include manuals, reports,
databases, technical specifications, and the like. Thesetypes of knowledge are externalised so relatively easy toshare and transfer. On the other hand, tacit knowledge is
the knowledge that exists in a form that is difficult toarticulate, such as personal experiences, skills, insights,
and intuitions. Examples include expert know-how,experiential insights, and communication skills. Tacit
knowledgeistypicallytransmitted
throughinterpersonal experience sharing and learning.
To transfer knowledge, the process of knowledge
externalization is crucial. Externalization means
converting an individual's tacit knowledge into an
explicit form, making it easier to share and utilize.
Knowledge externalization and transfer are essential for
promoting knowledge sharing and utilizing withinorganizations and fostering innovation (Opland et al.,2023).
Previously,
external
representationofknowledge has been approached primarily throughtangible externalisation such as documentation(manuals, procedures, reports, technical specifications),
databases and knowledge bases (database of bestpractices, experiences, etc.), utilization of collaboration
tools, and training and education programs (workshops,
seminars, training) (Kirsh, 2010). Due to technologicalconstraints, writing has been the primary focus ofexternal representation of knowledge for many years.
However, in recent years, various forms and approaches
to external representation have been proposed in thecontext of knowledge transfer.
Boose (Boose, 1989) showed cognitive maps,
decision tables, rules, scripts, etc., as a method ofpresenting expertise. Yasuoka (Yasuoka, 2021)

compared external representations of knowledge for
abstract knowledge, such as living lab practice, andargued that the recipient's maturity level in therespective field plays a significant role in representation
rather than there being a single ultimate solution for
external representation. For beginners, Q&A-type
representation was found to be more readily accepted by
beginners. At the same time, pattern language wasshown to be more suitable for individuals with a certain
level of knowledge in the field. On the other hand, in
traditional crafts, which have recently gained attention
as a context for knowledge transfer, it has beenrecognized that the initial learning step involves
interactions of the master-apprenticeship styleknowledge transfer. However, the situation changes
beyond the beginner's stage. Even for tacit actions thatare difficult to express in words, the analyses havesuggested that visual expressions such as movies canfacilitate knowledge transfer of tacit knowledge thatsatisfies experts, even without face-to-face interaction(Yasuoka, 2021).
In this way, the form of external representation ofknowledge in knowledge transfer has undergone
significant leaps beyond the constraints of writing. With
the advancement of technology, diversity can beobserved in external representations of knowledge
encompassing not only documents but also sensory
aspects such as audio, visual, and tactile elements.
However, research on how specific forms of knowledge
externalization can influence idea creation throughknowledge transfer is underrepresented to the best of theauthor's knowledge.

3. Research Design
In conducting design workshops for social
innovation, what forms of external representation ofknowledge are desirable when knowledge is provided
within the constraint space such as a workshop? Whenparticipants with diverse backgrounds in a group engage
in co-creation activities at workshops, how canknowledge that supports innovation be best expressed tofacilitate effective communication, sharing, utilization,and co-creating output leading to solutions?
The authors conducted a series of social innovation
workshops using multiple forms of external
representation of knowledge to investigate how
different forms of knowledge representation may impact
the goal of effective idea creation through knowledgetransfer. The base structure of the workshops wasorganized at Future Living Lab.
Future Living Lab is a two-year's researchcollaboration among a telecom company, a Name ofDanish university (Denmark) and a Name of Japanese
university (Japan). The lab aims at staging a future way

Page 5473

of living in 2030 through a collective design processwith citizens. Starting in January 2022, the lab has
provided collaborative design stages for co-creation
through collective conceptualization, discussion,reflection, and makings towards wicked societal
challenges (Buchanan, 1992; Rittel & Webber, 1973).
In the first project year, 2022, the lab conducted threesocial innovation projects, and each project had afocused theme, such as 1) the Future of Food, 2)
Community-based Childcare, and 3) the Future ofWork. The project themes were chosen based on threecriteria; closely related to everyday life, geographicallyrooted, and recognized as a societal challenge.
The following section will introduce workshop
design, the selected forms of knowledge representation,and the applied evaluation criteria.

3.1. Social Innovation Workshop
The Social Innovation Workshops were conducted
as design workshops, with four sessions for the threethemes mentioned above. Participants of the workshops
would collectively shape concepts and ideas forsolutions to societal challenges. All workshops utilized
the back-casting approach, envisioning 2030 as a nearfuture scenario.
The workshops were conducted between March2022 and February 2023 (Table 1). Each session lasted
approx. three hours, with several breaks interspersed
throughout the workshops. The authors invited
participants to join through the public recruitment
process, targeting individuals interested in the specificsocietal challenges addressed.
Table 1. Workshop Schedule.

Regarding the discussion theme, three topics wereselected as mentioned above. "The Future of Food" is a
topic that is relevant to everyone's daily lives. It is not
only associated with relatively familiar social issues,
such as food loss and diabetes, but also connected tolarger-scale societal challenges, such as its impact on
carbon dioxide emissions.
“Community-based Childcare” is a topic that aims
to address childcare within the local community. In oursociety, interaction with neighbours has decreased, theisolation of parents raising children has become asignificant societal challenge. This issue might be seen
to target parents with small children at first sight.
However, this challenge is not only limited to theparenting generation but also to community in general.
It is essential to consider individual families and entire
community for envisioning a future childcare.
The "The Future of Work" is familiar topic to all,encompassing a substantial part of individuals’ lives.
We have witnessed significant transformations in theworking landscape, notably driven by the emergence ofnovel work arrangements, such as remote work,
influenced by the unprecedented impact of the COVID19 pandemic. Moreover, concerns have arisen regarding
the potential displacement of human labour by artificial
intelligence (AI), propelled by advancements in AI
research and its increased adoption in various societal
domains. Additionally, a future decline in the workingage population is projected. Given the uncertain anduncontrollable nature of the future work environment
and the necessity to consider diverse perspectives
beyond one’s own, the future of work is an apt subject
for participatory dialogue.
Every topic has been related to all genders and all
generations in a broad context. It can potentiallytransition from personal interest to social concern andscale its scope easily in terms of time and space.

3.2. External Representation for Workshops
The external representation of knowledge prepared
for the workshops consisted of three forms: statistical
data, videos, and the Human Library.
For statistical data, multiple sources were utilized,then knowledge were presented in the form of written
texts, graphs, and other visual formats. The statistical
data incorporated publicly available information fromnational entities and private companies obtained
through online sources. The aim was to provide
knowledge that deepened the understanding of thethemes from various perspectives and helped
participants recognize the relationship between thethemes and their own experiences. The preparation of
statistical data prioritized clarity and comprehensibility.
Rather than simply listing numbers, efforts were madeto visualize the data through charts and tables,
accompanied by concise explanations. At workshops,
these outputs were distributed to the groups in the formof printed materials, such as papers or cards,
accompanied by oral explanations.
Regarding the theme of "the Future of Food", thestatistical data included knowledge that could be readily
associated with everyday life and information
highlighting significant societal challenges on a larger
scale. The external representation entailed presenting
both knowledges that resonated with participants' dailyexperiencesandshowcasing
cutting-edge
developments, such as global trends in plant-basedfood.

Page 5474

For "Community-based Childcare", the statistical
data incorporated perspectives beyond the direct
participants in childcare. As the goal was to engage theentire community as stakeholders, the external
representation reflected the viewpoints of individuals
not directly involved in childcare. This approach aimed
to comprehensively understand the topic and foster
collaboration among diverse community members.
Regarding the "the Future of Work" theme, thestatistical data aimed to broaden perspectives beyond
the current working environments. It included
information about the diversification of working styles,
work environments, and value systems. Moreover, ithighlighted emerging trends, such as changes in theperception of work time. The intention was to encourage
participants to think beyond conventional notions andexplore the expanding work possibilities. Below is apartial selection of the presented statistical data and an
example of its representation (Figure 1).
Table 2. Selected Statistical Data.
Theme
Example of Extracted Statistics
Veg. consumption trends per capita.
Annual food loss generation.
The impact of climate change on everyday
food.
The Future of Global sources of methane emissions.
Food
The proportion of land used for foodproduction.
Population and age distribution.
A list of community support for parents withchildren.
Experiences for parents with children.
Community Relations between citizens without children-basedand the local community.
Childcare
Trends in the working-age population.
Employment rate among older adults.
International comparisons of well-being
related to work.
The relationship between telework and work
The Future of motivation.
work
The prevalence of side/multiple jobs.

Movies were created by conducting exclusive
interviews with extreme experts who are highly awareand have activities related to each theme. Theinterviewees were selected with consideration fordiversity, including individuals ranging from teenagers
to those in their 60s and both genders. The recordedinterviews were edited to approximately one minute induration. Six videos were prepared for The Future ofFood, three for Community-based Childcare, and four
for the Future of Work. Table 3 summarises selectedstatements and an example of representation (Figure 2)
from a portion of the videos prepared for each theme.
Table 3. Selected Utterance from Expert Interviews.
Theme
Example of Extracted Knowledge
I reduced meat consumption while theurgent need for climate change mitigationnecessitates the utilization of autonomous
The Future of vehicles. Various dietary styles, such as
Foodinsect-based diets and veganism, haveemerged. The quantity of food consumed isdecreasing, with individuals willing tospend money on nutritionally beneficial
food for their bodies.
In parenting, important factors include a
supportive community, collective
responsibility in childcare, and theCommunity - recognition that parents are imperfect
based
individuals. When there is economic andChildcare psychological stability, concerns aboutothers' judgments are less prominent, andpeople in the surrounding environment are
more tolerant of children's noise anddisruptions.
I work from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and am
satisfied with their current arrangement,
intending to maintain the same working
The Future of pattern in the future.
work
I prioritize reducing work hours to allocate
more time for caring for grandchildren andengaging in leisure activities. The ability towork flexibly is highly valued in thisregard.

Figure 1. Selected knowledge representations.

Page 5475

Figure 2. Selected knowledge representations.

The Human Library serves as an interactive
external representation of knowledge. We adopted theoriginal concept of the human library, which is definedas "an event that gets strangers talking openly anddirectly with each other about prejudice (Simon, 2010)".
In our workshop, an individual with deep expertise in
the topics participated as a "human book," allowing
workshop participants to engage in interactive dialogues
with them. The expert actively interacted with thegroups during the workshop, answering questions andfacilitating discussions.

3.3. Evaluation Method
The authors collected two types of data during theworkshop to understand the impact of each external
representation of knowledge on the design process forsocial innovation. One is the social innovation ideas
generated by each team as their solution to thechallenges; the other is semi-structured interviews
conducted with the workshop participants.
The two authors, researchers A and B, both with ten
years of experience in Information Systems and Design
Research, evaluated the social innovation ideas. The
evaluation considered two dimensions; one is thematurity level of the final ideas presented, and the otheris the influence of the three knowledge representations.
Regarding the impact of the form of external
representation of knowledge, we analyzed how their
proposed concepts were influenced by the form ofrepresentation and to what extent. For example, twoanalysts examined whether there was an influence of"statistical data," "movies," or "Human Library" on the
final concepts and then compared the results.
Semi-structured interviews with participants of theinnovation workshop were conducted within one week
after the workshop, with an average duration of 32
minutes. The interview questions were divided into
three categories, as shown in Table 4, and for eachcategory, follow-up questions were asked based on the
responses. For example, regarding the created
innovative solution, we asked, "How much do you thinkof your output as an innovative solution?" Theinterviews were recorded using Zoom or a voicerecorder and transcribed afterwards.
1
2

Table 4. Three interview question topics.
Created innovative solution.
Ex. How much do you think of your output as
innovative solution?
Mindset and opinion change towards the topic
Ex. Did you learn any or change your view on the
topic by participating the workshop?

3

Influence of the three knowledge representations
Ex. Do three presented knowledge representations
influence your output?

4. Results
4.1. Participants
An overview of the participants in the social
innovation workshop is shown in Table 5. The
participants consisted of experts and non-experts,
including students. In each session, approximately onethird of the participants were experts or individuals within-depth knowledge of the topic. The number ofparticipants varied depending on the theme, ranging
from 13 to 24 individuals.
The participants were primarily those interested in
the specific topics solicited through general recruitment,
while some students from the author's researchlaboratory also responded to the invitation andparticipated.
Figure 5. Attributes and Nr. of Participants in Each
Theme*(A,B) A=Professional, B=Non-professional

4.2. Workshop outputs
In a total of 12 workshops across the three topics,
all groups submitted innovation ideas in the end. A
summary of the analysis results regarding the influencesof the three knowledge representations is presented inTable 6. Out of the 11 teams, five teams reflected theknowledge presented in the statistical data into their
final concepts. Additionally, six teams incorporated
perspectives and comments mentioned in the movies,
while ten teams reflected at least some of the knowledge
mentioned in the Human Library into their concepts.
These results were also confirmed through interviews
and supported by participants' comments.

Table 6. Influence of Knowledge Representation.

Page 5476

4.3. Interview outputs
Among the 243 participants, 98 individuals
participated in the interviews, accounting for 40.3% of
the total participants. The interviews ranged from 17 to
63 minutes, with an average duration of 32 minutes.
Table 7. An Overview of Interviewee Participation

5. Discussion
This research investigated the influences of threeknowledge representation forms introduced to the threesocial innovation workshops to understand the impact of
the form of external representation of knowledge inknowledge transfer at workshops.
The evaluation showed that presenting an external
representation of expert knowledge is beneficial insocial innovation workshops without doubt as afundamental notion of knowledge transfer in the form of
a workshop. Regardless of its form, knowledge sharing
is a first step to making the design move (Ehn & Kyng,
1991), and in the context of innovation workshops,
where non-experts gathers are particularly effective.
Experienced individuals can confidently express
their opinions without supporting evidence, while
beginners need more confidence. By having
statistical facts, beginners can gain confidence toexpress their opinions. (Future of Food, Subject P)

One participant expresses the above comment on
statistical data, which can be applied to all forms ofrepresentation. Particularly in such social innovation
workshops where non-experts participate together withexperts, having an authorized knowledge foundation
makes it easier for individuals to express their opinions.
In the co-creation process, when all participants
viewed the external representations and engaged in
discussions based on that knowledge, the sharedknowledge functioned as boundary objects (Star &Griesemer, 1989), fostering a common understanding
and leading to co-created concepts among participants
with different knowledge background. In situations
where individuals with different knowledge cometogether for co-creation, providing knowledge
representation accessible to all would serve as aconcrete platform for discussion in such intercultural
collaboration process (Yasuoka, 2015).

While there are common effects across the threeexternal representations, each retains uniquecharacteristics. We will discuss three distinct findings
regarding the forms of external representations forknowledge transfer: information overload, theimportance of physical presence, and the significance ofinteractivity.

5.1. Information overload
Statistical data appears to have been effective inknowledge transfer, as it influenced the proposed
concepts by being explicitly referenced or touched uponin some statistical data. The influence of statistical data
can be observed in five out of 11 teams in the solutions
proposed. This broad usage of statistical forms ofexternal presentation of knowledge indicates thatstatistical data is a compelling representation form forknowledge transfer in workshops, and the transferredknowledge is received, digested, and utilized by diverse
team members during the co-creation process.
The interview results further support these findings.
Statistical data is regarded as highly reliable and serves
as material that strengthens each perspective. It provides
a foundation for discussions, leading directly togenerating ideas for potential solutions. Multiple
interviewees commented on the contributing role ofstatistical data in their discussion process.
Regarding it [statistical data] as reliable data, theparticipants' initial vague ideas gradually evolved
into more concrete solutions (Future of Food，
Subject K)

On the other hand, there are doubts to which extent,
the rich information provided by the statistical data wasutilized. In the proposed solutions and interviews, there
was almost no evidence of detailed data usage, such asgraphs and specific numbers presented in the statistical
data. It suggests that the utilization of statistical data did
not involve in-depth analysis or a deep understanding of
the fact backed-up by data, remaining relatively
superficial. For instance, Subject F at the Future of FoodWorkshop expressed as following, and a similar
response was mentioned by Subject H at the sameworkshop:
Due to time constraints, I could not delve deeply into
the materials, but the data clearly served as a starting
point for our discussions. In a way, the things wealready knew were shown as data. (Future of Food,
Subject F).
The knowledge shown in the statistics was alreadywell known to us, but to be fair, we had only beenaware of the facts. We had yet to consider the

Page 5477

implications or what it meant for the future (Future ofFood, Subject H).

mentioned it. For instance, Subject F from "the Futureof Food" workshop stated:

In this study, it can be argued that the external
representation of statistical data resulted in limited
understanding. Despite its excellent knowledge
visualization using figures and tables in the statistical
data, participants of the social innovation workshops
presented challenges in deeply comprehending theunderlying knowledge of the representation of thestatistical data.
The primary reason for this limitation is believed tobe the time allocated for participants to engage with thestatistical data, which was approximately 20 minutes foreach workshop. Simply put, the time constraint wasinsufficient for participants to digest and absorb the richknowledge. Additionally, in social innovation
workshops like the one conducted in this study, which
involved diverse non-expert participants, there may
have been variations in the maturity level required tointerpret and comprehend the statistics as shown inanother research (Yasuoka, 2021), potentially leading to
information overload among participants. Therefore,
while the potential for utilizing statistical data in theworkshop cannot be denied, its effectiveness may
depend on the composition of participants and theirability to process the rich knowledge.

In the video, I learned something that was not present
in the statistical data and that I myself did not know. I
was shocked by what the little girl said about noteating meat. The authentic voice made me feel thehuman touch more than the statistical data
did. (Future of Food, Subject F)

5.2. Physical presence matters
This study observed that the impact of knowledge
becomes more robust when the individuals behind thatknowledge are transparently visible. Notably, there
were multiple cases where surprising facts directly
attributed to each participant's knowledge acceptance.
Participants remembered and reflected on these
impactful fragments and utilized them in the solution.
This phenomenon was particularly evident in theknowledge conveyed through videos and the Human
Library.
For instance, knowledge of veganism was
mentioned in both statistical data, videos, and the
Human Library, resulting in the proposed concepts suchas "vegetable-based diet" and "avoiding meat". Theinterviews supported this tendency, with many
individuals citing "being surprised" as their reason forretaining that knowledge. In other words, it remained intheir memory not simply because knowledge wasproperly transferred but because they were surprised by
the individuals who transferred it. For example, in one
video from the "Future of Food", an elementary school
girl presented reasons for importance of becomingvegan and avoiding meat. Many participants got theknowledge and reacted, probably not because it was
novel or important knowledge but because a young girlIn some cases, the presented knowledge wasinterpreted differently by the participants from theoriginal intention of the authors. The interviews exposed
the participants interpreted and contextualized
fragments of knowledge that had surprised them rather
than simply understanding the facts described in the
representations of knowledge. In the video, for example,
the underlying message about adopting anenvironmentally friendly diet was overshadowed bysuperficial examples. Specific surprising topics such as"eating insects" and "not eating meat" mentioned in thevideo have been transferred as trustful knowledge rather
than the perspective of adopting an environmentallyfriendly diet.

5.3. Interactivity matters
An interactive and dynamic external representationof knowledge was found to impact knowledge transfer
significantly. The influence was observed to be greaterwith representations that interactive dialogue, such as
Human Library, followed by the embodied realindividuals, such as videos, surpassing the impact ofstatistical data. In the interviews, many subjects referredto the Human Library and mentioned knowledge they
directly heard in real-time.
Participation [in the Human Library] allowed me toengage in the flow of discussion, which was beneficial
in understanding presented knowledge. (Future ofFood, Subject A)
I realized that there is a wide variety of work styles
worldwide, and I became aware of my limited
perspective. (Future of Work, Subject M)

These comments could be interpreted as follows.
The possibility to deepen understanding on the spot
when questions or doubts arise upon receiving
knowledge is believed to contribute to facilitating
understanding of knowledge and enabling smootherknowledge transfer. The importance of interactivity iswell known in external representation (Kirsh, 2010) andalso in learning behavior that acquiring new knowledge
requires some actions (Kolb, 1984) and interactivity(Latilla et al., 2019).

Page 5478

However, the significance of interactivity inknowledge transfer extends beyond the Human Libraryin our cases. To our surprise, within the context of realtime interactive knowledge transfer, some groupmembers' opinions in the workshop were unexpectedly
given considerable authority. Even if these opinions
were not evidence-based or merely represented a single
individual's views, they occasionally significantly
influenced the final innovation concepts. This impact ofinteractivity was comparable to the influence ofauthoritative knowledge presented in the form ofstatistical data, movies, and the Human Library. In somecases, it had an even more significant impact. Only a
few but some of the final innovation ideas from certain
groups showed little to no influence from the expertiseprovided by the experts. They were solely composed of
the group participants' naïve opinions.
In the interviews, a few subjects referred topersonal anecdotes from group members as trustworthy
knowledge. Although there were instances whereclearly inaccurate knowledge was expressed by teammembers, such comments occasionally gained authority
as trustworthy knowledge from individuals with deep
understandings on the subject matter and were notquestioned. For example, in "the Future of Food",
Subject K stated the following:
As H mentioned, cows do not impact environmental
degradation. We must not underestimate the efforts
made by our predecessors. (Future of Work, Subject
K)

Even if there is a significant amount of knowledge
provided based on statistics or academically validated
evidence, it does not necessarily guarantee that they will
be utilized in co-creation for social innovation. At times,
we observed insights such as personal opinions that are
not evidence-based could quickly gain authority withina group, highlighting the persuasiveness of face-to-faceinteractions.

6. Conclusion
In this study, we conducted a preliminary
examination of effective knowledge transfer when
conducting participatory design-based social innovation
workshops. Currently, a wide range of possible forms
for external representation of knowledge have become
technically feasible with technological developments
and have been proposed. We aimed to consider whatforms of external representations of knowledge aresuitable for knowledge transfer without being limited to
traditional documents or knowledge visualization
models.

Our social innovation workshops conducted in thisstudy brought together diverse participants withdifferent knowledge backgrounds, attempting to design
innovative solutions to societal challenges based on
authorized knowledge in workshops. In participatory
design for social innovation, experts and non-experts are
involved in innovation and participated in the design
process. In such situations, the perspective of accuratelytransferring high-quality knowledge and leveraging it in
the design process for innovation becomes increasingly
important, especially given the current concern, such as
echo chambers (Kratzke, 2023).
Our experiments revealed several insights regardingknowledge transfer within workshops, focusing on theform of external representation of knowledge, and thechallenges associated with effectively utilizing
knowledge. Statistical data was found to have highquality but was limited by the constraints of time forbrowsing and digestion, making it difficult to effectively
use in workshops. It was also observed that individuals
tend to remember knowledge with their interpretation,
together with subjective impressions of the owner of theutterance. When they encounter surprising information,
they tend to stick to the knowledge in innovation
activities. Furthermore, interactive representations ofknowledge, such as videos, or face-to-face interactions,were found to have a more substantial impact on theiracceptance of knowledge.
This study employed qualitative analysis based on
the collected data from four sessions of three social
innovation workshops. Thus, generalizing the findings
should be approached with caution. The results can be
attributed to face-to-face interactions and contextual
factors within the workshop setting, given thatknowledge transfer was the focused agenda.
Moreover, this study highlights the importance ofsensitively understanding the relations of the context,
effective communicative facilitation, and the desired
forms of external representation of knowledge,
particularly in addressing social issues. Our presented
work is the first step to appropriate a form of external
representation of knowledge in the knowledge transfer
at social innovation workshops. Without doubts, there
are limitations in this work. For future research,
conducting a quantitative analysis of the data collectedin this study would be beneficial.

References
Ahn, J., & Chang, S. (2004). Assessing the contribution ofknowledge to business performance: The KP3
methodology. Decision Support Systems, 36(4), 403–
416.
Arnstein, S. (1696). “A Ladder of Citizen Participation.”
Journal of the American Planning Association, 35(r.),

Page 5479

216–224. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315748504-47
Boose, J. H. (1989). A survey of knowledge acquisition
techniques and tools. Knowledge Acquisition.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1042-8143(89)80003-2
Brandt, E., & Messeter, J. (2004). Facilitating collaboration
through design games. Proceedings of the Eighth
Conference on Participatory Design ArtfulIntegration: Interweaving Media, Materials andPractices - PDC 04, 1, 121.
https://doi.org/10.1145/1011870.1011885
Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked Problems in Design Thinking.
Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21.
Ehn, P. (1988). Work-Oriented Design of Computer Artifacts.
Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
Ehn, P., & Kyng, M. (1991). Cardboard computers:
Mocking-it-up or hands-on the future. In Design at
Work: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems (pp.
169–195).
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Fischer, G. (2000). Symmetry of ignorance, social creativity,and meta-design. Knowledge-Based Systems.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-7051(00)00065-4
Greenbaum, J., & Kyng, M. (1991). Design at Work:
Cooperative Design of Computer Systems. Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Greenbaum, Joan, & Ave, F. (2010). Situations andInteractions : Digital café squatting and participatory
design. PDC ’10: Proceedings of the 11th Biennial
Participatory Design Conference, 243–246.
https://doi.org/10.1145/1900441.1900492
Kensing, F., & Blomberg, J. (1998). Participatory Design :Issues and Concerns. Computer Supported
Cooperative Work, 7(3–4), 167–185.
Kirsh, D. (2010). Thinking with external representations. AI
and Society, 25, 441–454.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-010-0272-8
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as
The Source of Learning and Development. Prentice
Hall, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-7506-72238.50017-4
Kratzke, N. (2023). How to Find Orchestrated Trolls? A Case
Study on Identifying Polarized Twitter Echo
Chambers. Computers, 12(3), 57.
https://doi.org/10.3390/computers12030057
Latilla, V. M., Frattini, F., Petruzzelli, A. M., & Berner, M.
(2019). Knowledge management and knowledgetransfer in arts and crafts organizations: evidence froman exploratory multiple case-study analysis. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 23(7), 1335–1354.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-11-2018-0699
Nisbett, R. (2003). The Geography of Thought: How Asians
and Westerners Think Differently...and Why. Free
Press.
Nissen, M. E. (2023). A Method for Assessing Knowledge
Flow Efficiency, Cost and Performance. Proceedingsof the 56th Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences, 4871–4880.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-creating
Company. Oxford University Press.
Opland, L. E., Bley, K., & Pappas Illias O. (2023). Is
Motivation always the Key ? – Antecedents of

Employee-Driven Digital Innovation. Proceedings of
the 56th Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences, 4818–4827.
Page, S. (2007). The Difference: How the Power of Diversity
Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies.
Princeton University Press.
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a
general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–
169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730
Sawyer, K. (2007). Group Genius：The Creative Power ofCollaboration. Basic Books.
Schuler, D., & Namioka, A. (1993). Participatory Design:
Principles and practices (p. 334). Routledge.
Simonsen, J., & Robertson, T. (2013). Routledge
International Handbook of Participatory Design.
Snow, C. P. (1993). The Two Cultures. Cambridge
University Press.
Star, S. L. (2010). This is not a boundary object: Reflections
on the origin of a concept. Science Technology and
Human Values, 35(5), 601–617.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243910377624
Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Amateurs andProfessionals in Berkeley ’ s Museum of Vertebrate
Zoology , 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3),387–420.
http://www.lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Mail/xmcamail.2012_08.dir/pdfMrgHgzULhA.pdf
Thoring, K., Mueller, R. M., & Badke-Schaub, P. (2020).
Workshops as a research method: Guidelines fordesigning and evaluating artifacts through workshops.
Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences, 2020-Janua, 5036–
5045. https://doi.org/10.24251/hicss.2020.620
Yasuoka, M. (2015). Collaboration Across Professional
Boundaries – The Emergence of Interpretation Driftand the Collective Creation of Project Jargon.
Computer Supported Cooperative Work: CSCW: An
International Journal, 24(4), 253–276.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-015-9229-2
Yasuoka, M. (2021). How to transfer tacit knowledge forliving lab practice - Consideration on tacit knowledge
representations. Proceedings of the Annual HawaiiInternational Conference on System Sciences, 2020Janua, 5131–5140.
https://doi.org/10.24251/hicss.2021.625
Yasuoka, M. (2006). Collaboration Support in the Initial
Intercultural Collaboration Phase. Participatory
Design Conference, Vol.2., 129–132.

Page 5480