After a general presentation on behalf of the organizers and participants’ introductions, the full-day workshop is set up in three main parts and is scheduled as follows:

     coffee break
Part 1: Reflection on using method stories
Part 2: Rethinking method stories
     coffee break
Part 3: Plenary discussion


Each main part of the workshop is explained in more detail below:

Part 1 – Reflection on using method stories

The focus of the first part of the workshop is on how readers listeners or viewers experience method stories as way of sharing behind stories of methods. True to the human-centred design philosophy, we first need to understand the needs and context of use of our method stories’ users (i.e. the researchers and designers that we share our method stories with). Workshop participants will be asked to read, listen, or view the method stories of +/- 3 other participants before the workshop. In groups of +/- 4, participants will discuss these method stories and how they experienced reading, listening or viewing them. More specifically, this part of the workshop consists of:

  • A discussion of participants’ experiences with reading/listening/viewing each other’s method stories: What elements were especially useful for their own work? How could these elements be applied to their own work? Did the stories trigger further questions? Did they find the method stories more informative than traditional method sections in academic papers? During the discussion, groups will document: 1) useful ‘raw elements’ from the method stories (e.g. quotes, video or audio fragments) that will be annotated (Why was this useful? How could you apply this element in your own work?) and coded according to the six key points (and other possible categories); and 2) missing elements from the method stories (e.g. details that one would have to ask the author for in order fully understand and apply the story) that will also be annotated and coded.
  • A discussion of the different formats of method stories written by the participants: What are pros and cons of each format? What alternative formats did participants consider?
  • A final ‘group statement’ presenting the useful and missing elements and the group’s thoughts on method story formats. This statement will be created on a template that will support the groups’ discussions (including spaces for collecting ‘raw’ method story elements, for annotations, for coding, etc.).

After the discussions in small groups, a plenary discussion is held to bring together the groups’ findings. Each group will present their group statement and the useful and missing elements are clustered based on the codes assigned to each element.

Part 2 – Rethinking method stories

In the second part of the workshop, participants will rethink their method stories. In pairs, participants will reconsider the method stories they submitted for the workshop. They will indicate what they would change in order to make the method story more useful for other researchers and designers (e.g. What format would they now choose? What story elements would they keep, change, delete, or add?). The group statements concerning useful and missing elements and suitable formats created in part one will form the starting point for this exercise.

The reworked method stories of all participants are briefly presented and discussed. The moderators will document the changes that have been made to complement the overview of useful story elements and formats.

Part 3 – Plenary discussion

In the final plenary discussion, several questions will be posed to the group in order to come to a final conclusion and to list future actions for continuing method stories as a format for exchanging information between researchers and designers working with people living with impairments. Questions will include:

  • Do the six key points posed in the CoDesign paper form a sufficient starting point for creating a good method story?
  • Which formats are suitable for method stories (also formats that were not used in the workshop)?
  • What is the added value of method stories compared to classical method sections in academic publications?
  • What can we do to make sure that method stories can ‘travel’ better?
  • For what domains other than working with people living with impairments would methods stories be especially suitable?
  • What would be a good way to create a method story during a project?

The answers to these questions will not lead to one single ideal method story format. It is not our intention to create a recipe for method stories that will work for all researchers and designers in every context. Moreover, the discussion is intended to facilitate researchers and designers to reflect on their ways of documenting the making process of methods for involving persons with impairments. The workshop aims to stimulate participants to reflect on the formats that would work for them, in their use context and with their intended users.