Abstract
This paper explores the impact of participatory design in educational spaces through a case study of the Law Faculty Library at the University of Prishtina. Within the course of Interior Design at the Faculty of Architecture a participatory project was initiated, engaging students, faculty, and staff in a collaborative process to address poor functionality and out-dated infrastructure and to develop a contemporary design that introduces flexible zones, modular furniture, and modern lighting, creating a dynamic, user-centered setting. The study emphasizes the value of participatory design in interior design education in improving the student learning experience and producing adaptable, functional interiors aligned with user needs.
1 Introduction
As educational approaches shift, the importance of creating adaptable learning spaces becomes increasingly apparent. Three of the Faculties of the University of Prishtina recognized this necessity in 2022 and 2023, aiming to transform underutilized space lacking contemporary functionality and flexibility. To address these encounters, the Faculty of Architecture implemented a Participatory Design approach during Interior Architecture emphasizing user engagement in creating functional and responsive spaces [1, 2]. The initiative aspired to unite students, faculty, and staff in a common effort for a library tailored to contemporary education demands incorporating the digital era, which demands innovative university libraries to support digital learning [3], driving traditional layouts to accommodate modern teaching and learning practices flexibly. This reflects broader theories on the transformative potential of collective engagement in improving educational spaces.
Participatory Design (PD), as a user-centered approach, engages stakeholders in the design process to effectively address functional and technical complexities in educational settings through active user participation [4]. By using structured tools, workshops foster collaboration, build trust, reduce uncertainty, and result in spaces that are both functional and contextually appropriate [5]. In architectural education, PD introduces students to real-world design challenges, encouraging autonomy, critical thinking, and iterative problem-solving [6]. By systematically embedding the input of stakeholders, these tools create a bridge between architectural practice and societal needs [1, 2].
Recognizing the potential of these approaches, the course of Interior Architecture began incorporating PD into its curriculum in the spring semester of 2023. The pedagogical aim was to provide architecture students with hands-on experience in collaborative design processes, enhance students' skills in user-centered design, communication, and problem-solving, and fosters an understanding of how design can respond to real-world needs and stakeholder input. Thus, the objective of this single case study is to address the following questions:
How can PD methods address spatial and functional challenges in university library spaces?
What role do participatory workshops and tools play in engaging stakeholders and shaping user-centered interior spaces?
How does PD enhance architectural education by providing real-world learning experiences?
2 Methodology and materials
The redesign of the Law Faculty Library at the University of Prishtina utilized Participatory Design to explore how stakeholder collaboration influences design and learning outcomes. PD involved four architecture students contributing through coursework, 20 law students as primary users, and three professors from the Faculty of Law, who represented the management and provided academic and functional input. Additionally, the faculty secretary and the librarian participated by offering operational insights. The authors organized workshops, mentored students, effectively integrated feedback from stakeholders, and supplied expert guidance. The lead professor, in particular, was responsible for the live projects being aligned with pedagogical goals and design objectives, integrating the PD approach carefully into the course in a way that would enhance its academic and practical impact. Adopting best practices in community-based and PD [7], various tools were employed to address stakeholders' specific needs. In addition, visual research tools were utilized to enhance awareness of the envisioned library's image, developing a greater sense of ownership among users for the design process [8].
2.1 Research methods
A qualitative case study method enabled in-depth analysis of the PD process, stakeholder interactions, and user-centered interior design development. Data gathering using tailor-made tools captured user input and informed the design development of functional and usable space, demonstrating the feasibility of participatory and user-led design processes. These processes included the next steps.
Site visits and documentation of existing conditions through photographs, sketches, and measurements informed the design proposal, serving as a fundamental step in PD process [7]. These visits help students engage with the environment and gain deeper understanding of user challenges.
Participatory workshop provided detailed documentation of participants' concerns, priorities, and design preferences. Structured tools integrated user feedback into the design process, enabling real-time, iterative adjustments essential for aligning designs with stakeholder needs in participatory design [1].
Design presentations to the members of the Law Faculty gathered feedback wherein the participants could reflect on the evolving designs and suggest improvements.
Reflections and observations from the students and educators at the Faculty of Architecture facilitated iterative, ensuring alignment with the needs identified in the early phases. The reflections emphasize that practical PD relies on skilled facilitation and the flexibility to adapt and combine methods to reach desired outcomes [9].
2.2 User-centered process
The PD process followed a structured five-stage approach, implemented in three diverse faculties during the spring semester of 2023, with customized tools for each project. This case study focuses on the redesign of the Law Faculty Library, combining participatory methods and architectural design to balance functionality and spatial aesthetics [10].
Students conducting site visits and analyzing existing conditions of the Law Faculty Library (Source: Authors)
Citation: Pollack Periodica 2025; 10.1556/606.2025.01335
Stage 1, Initial meetings with Faculty Management involved meetings between architecture students, professors, and the leadership of the Law Faculty to identify areas for redesign, to determine priorities, and outline desired outcomes.
Stage 2, Site visits and briefing had Interior Design students document existing conditions and observe how the space was being used -or not used (Fig. 1). These insights helped uncover challenges and user needs, guided the design process, and developed participatory tools.
Stage 3, Workshop activities are based on a user-centered approach. Tools from established PD methods were adapted [7, 8] engaging stakeholders in addressing functional complexities [4] and exploring visual preferences. This enabled effective data collection, meaningful engagement, and alignment with user needs. These tools are further explored in Section 2.3.
Stage 4, Concept development was a critical phase during which students refined the design based on insights gained from workshop feedback. They presented updated proposals to the Law Faculty, who provided additional input to ensure the plans met practical requirements.
Stage 5, Final approval, and preparation for procurement included faculty review and approval of the final design, followed by the development of detailed drawings. Once all design requirements were specified, procurement procedures were initiated in accordance with the University's protocols.
This user-centered process tended to social needs and inspired full commitment by the Law Faculty's management. PD tools as described below contributed to the project's success by seamlessly integrating user needs into the design and building a meaningful connection between the space and its users.
2.3 Participatory tools
In the workshop configuration, both group activities (Fig. 2) and individual exercises (Figs 3 and 4) were carefully designed using respective tools to facilitate structured engagement with participants, maximize collaboration, and gather actionable insights:
Tool 1, Identifying problems: The group work involved asking each participant to name some negative features of the current library. The facilitators ensured the discussion included aspects about functionality, aesthetics, and comfort, a ground on which the priorities of the redesign would be set (Fig. 2a);
Tool 2, Comparing scenarios: This individual exercise involved a side-by-side comparison of the current library and a proposed design, highlighting likes and dislikes for each. Figure 3 illustrates the questions guiding the discussion of the basic features of design, layout, lighting, and flexibility of the furniture;
Tool 3, Creating a wish-list: This exploratory task invited participants to envision their ideal library, encouraging detailed and aspirational inputs (Fig. 2a);
Tool 4 Categorizing visuals: This collaborative session employed a concentric framework (Fig. 2c), where participants ranked visual and functional elements based on their favorites (Fig. 2d). Using sample materials, each group engaged in a facilitated discussion to reach a consensus on design and aesthetic preferences;
Tool 5, Selecting Qualities: A scoring system was adopted to simplify the process of prioritizing. Participants ranked proposed options on a 0–5 scale based on a pair of nine dichotomies regarding comfort, adaptability, and visual appeal. The tool is shown in Fig. 4, and the data from this ranking is further elaborated in the results section.
Snapshots from participatory workshop illustrating collaborative activities: a) Participant engagement in Tool 1, Identifying Problems; b) Filled form of Tool 2, Wish-list constructing aspirational inputs; c) Facilitating discussions on visual preferences and qualitative assessment using Tool 4 and d) Results of Tool 4, Visual quality categorization (Source: Authors)
Citation: Pollack Periodica 2025; 10.1556/606.2025.01335
Tool 2, Comparing scenarios, capturing user preferences and improvement areas for existing and proposed spaces (Source: Authors)
Citation: Pollack Periodica 2025; 10.1556/606.2025.01335
Tool 5, Selecting qualities, scoring comfort, adaptability, and visual appeal for design decisions (Source: Authors)
Citation: Pollack Periodica 2025; 10.1556/606.2025.01335
3 Results
3.1 Findings from the participatory tools
Participatory design tools tailored to specific objectives provided critical insights into library users' needs and preferences, directly shaping the redesign process. Below is a summary of the findings derived from each tool:
Key challenges identified (Tool 1): Participants highlighted several issues with the existing library, including poor lighting, noise disturbances, outdated furniture, and a lack of collaborative spaces. This provided the order of priorities to take care of the functional deficiencies;
User preferences for layout and features (Tool 2): When comparing existing design scenario against proposed one, participants preferred flexible layouts and brighter conditions that provide adaptable furniture. Though the conventional layout was favored for familiarity, the proposed open-layout concept was appealing for its invitational and functional features;
Aspirations for the ideal library (Tool 3): Through wish list exercises, participants emphasized the need for digital access, soundproofing, comfortable seating, and heating improvements. Bright spaces and natural wood finishes were frequently mentioned as esthetic preferences, alongside inclusivity enhancements like accessibility for individuals with disabilities;
Prioritization of aesthetic elements (Tool 4): In the collaborative framework, the priorities emerged for open spaces, modern furniture, and an inviting atmosphere, while closed spaces have been deprioritized, thereby revealing a unanimity on creating a bright, functional ambiance;
Data-driven decision making (Tool 5): The evaluation data in Fig. 5 presents the top designs valued for openness, beauty, brightness, and quietness. In contrast, less popular options were criticized for monotony and poor adaptability, while the lowest-ranked designs were seen as uninviting and non-adaptive.
Results from Tool 5, Option 1 is the most favored for brightness, beauty, and openness, followed by Option 5 valued for balance but noted as noisier, Option 4 excels in quietness but receives mixed feedback overall, while Options 2 and 3 are consistently the least preferred (Source: Authors)
Citation: Pollack Periodica 2025; 10.1556/606.2025.01335
3.2 Design concept and realization status
The proposed redesign of the Law Faculty Library, as visualized in Fig. 6, reflects stakeholder insights through actionable features:
Diagram illustrating the spatial transition from enclosed and segregated to open and multifunctional space, the axonometric interior highlights diverse functionalities, while the atmospheric qualities emphasize materiality and ambiance (Source: Authors)
Citation: Pollack Periodica 2025; 10.1556/606.2025.01335
Flexible study zones: The results from Tool 2 indicated that flexible layouts, meaning open floor plans, were desired for individual and group work. The axonometric shows that the design incorporates quiet study, group collaboration, and relaxation to accommodate all users (Fig. 6).
Comfort enhancements: Results from Tool 5 emphasized brightness and comfortable furniture, which meant constructing large windows and designing bespoke furniture. These features improve comfort and usability across all zones.
Aesthetic improvements: Insights from Tool 4 prioritized calming, inviting aesthetics. The design incorporates soothing colors and natural wood accents to create a welcoming, visually appealing environment that promotes well-being [11]. As depicted in Fig. 6 materials were chosen to create a calming ambiance, while dynamic wood elements and updated lighting improved the atmosphere and operational efficiency.
Additional facilities: Inclusivity and sociability were key themes in Tool 3, leading to the addition of a refreshment area, restrooms, and casual seating (Fig. 6).
Technology integration: Responses highlighted digital access and modern resources. Hence, enhancing Wi-Fi and printing facilities was proposed. By incorporating modern technologies into flexible spaces, the new design is consistent with the global trend of reconfiguring university libraries as versatile, user-centered physical spaces that facilitate digital learning support [3].
The implementation phase of the project has begun, with the library under construction (Fig. 7). Furniture, adaptable workspaces, technology upgrades, and aesthetic improvements are being installed. These developments reflect the PD process, translating stakeholder aspirations into tangible outcomes and ensuring flexibility, comfort, functionality and aesthetics.
Implementation of the proposed design for the Law Faculty Library, featuring adaptable study zones, a social space, and aesthetic enhancements (Source: Authors)
Citation: Pollack Periodica 2025; 10.1556/606.2025.01335
4 Discussion
The participatory design process for the Law Faculty Library was informative in addressing spatial and functional challenges within educational environments while offering hands-on educational experiences. The five-stage approach succeeded in integrating the data from the workshop into the design. Recurring themes of adaptability, functionality, and aesthetics have formed the basis of design, where features like calm tones, natural materials, and contemporary furniture reflect user-centered and cultural values [10, 12]. Despite this success, there was a heavier student workload, scheduling conflicts, and difficulties balancing theoretical learning with real-world application.
Also, building consensus in PD projects can also be challenging, mainly when stakeholders' requirements differ significantly. In this project, this was observed through the librarian's preference for a conventional layout that did not align with the student's vision for a multifunctional plan with space for quiet study and collaboration. These conflicting demands required sensitive negotiation and skilled facilitation to ensure that every voice was heard and represented in the final design. The PD tools enabled iterative discussion and stakeholders to envision compromises and see the value in suggested design alterations. The process resolved conflicts and served as a vital learning experience for students in managing real-world design challenges.
Additionally, the project's scope extended well beyond the conventional academic realm to encompass technical drawings and procurement specifications required for actual construction. The enthusiasm of students who viewed their involvement as a form of social activism suggests a firm commitment to change at the university level. Despite a voluntary commitment to preparing technical materials typically seen in professional settings, specific design elements faced implementation challenges. The platform lift for persons with disabilities has not yet been implemented, and the archive bookracks were not included during the procurement phase. This emphasizes the need for structured project management within the University of Prishtina to ensure continuity from concept design to construction and avoid possible loss of user-centered conceptions in the implementation process [13].
5 Conclusion
Ultimately, the study portrays a transformation that participatory design can bring into adaptable, user-centered educational spaces and emphasizes the importance of collaboration in aligning designs with societal needs. The design solution for the Law Faculty Library addressed several problems related to spatial challenges, functionality, and aesthetics aligned with stakeholder aspirations. Beyond improving the library, the process demonstrates how PD can enhance architectural education, providing students with the necessary skills in collaboration, communication, and problem-solving.
Future research could explore the long-term effects of PD on user satisfaction and its broader generalizability in different educational contexts, further firming its role in fostering inclusive and responsive learning environments.
Acknowledgments
The Authors thank the Faculties of Architecture and Law for supporting this live project and believing in transformative pedagogy and students' potential. Gratitude is also extended to the Law Faculty students for their active contributions, and especially to Architecture students Arbesa Demi, Erëblina Kida, Fleta Hoxhaj, and Granit Havolli for their creativity and dedication to this project.
References
- [1]↑
H. Sanoff, Community Participation Methods in Design and Planning. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000.
- [2]↑
P. Jenkins and L. Forsyth, Eds, Architecture, Participation and Society. New York: Routledge, 2010.
- [3]↑
S. Liu, H. Liu, and K. Kovács-Andor, “The updated design of university libraries in the digital era,” Pollack Period., vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 171–176, 2024.
- [4]↑
A. B. Jakupi and A. Xhambazi, “Participatory design as an instrument in designing functionally and technically complex buildings,” Architect. Eng. Des. Manage., vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 1280–1300, 2024.
- [5]↑
M. H. Thyssen, S. Emmitt, S. Bonke, and A. Kirk-Christoffersen, “Facilitating client value creation in the conceptual design phase of construction projects: a workshop approach,” Architect. Eng. Des. Manage., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 18–30, 2010.
- [6]↑
A. Xhambazi and V. Aliu, “Nurturing an architect through transformative pedagogy: design studio teaching experience,” Int. J. Architectural Res. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1108/ARCH-05-2024-0214. Accessed: Jan. 12, 2025.
- [7]↑
N. Wates, The Community Planning Handbook – How people Can Shape Their Cities, Towns and Villages in Any Part of the World. UK: Earthscan, 2000.
- [9]↑
A. Botero, S. Hyysalo, K. Cindy, and W. Jack, “Getting participatory design done: From methods and choices to translation work across constituent domains,” Int. J. Des., vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 17–34, 2020.
- [10]↑
X. Kang, G. Medvegy, and Y. Zhou, “Design interiors with architectural design thinking,” Pollack Period., vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 163–170, 2024.
- [11]↑
N. P. Loredan, E. P. Niemelä, and N. Šarabon, “Classroom interior design: wooden furniture prototype with feedback from students and teachers,” Buildings, vol. 14, no. 7, 2024, Art no. 2193.
- [12]↑
J. Wang, G. Medvegy, and C. F. Zhang, “Applied research on semiotics in industrial style interior design,” Pollack Period., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 213–222, 2019.
- [13]↑
A. Lundström, J. Savolainen, and E. Kostainen, “Case study: developing campus spaces through co-creation,” Architect. Eng. Des. Manage., vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 409–426, 2016.
