Exploring Similarities and Differences in a set of Linked Multiple-site Design Sessions with Children
Authors: 
Janet Read, 
Gavin Sim, 
Jerry Alan Fails, Marie A Boden, Jessica L Korte, Sanjana Bhatnagar, Lilly Hope Borchardt, Aurora Constantin, Dina Gavrilescu, 
Cara Wilson, Judith Good, Valentina Andries, 
Eva ErikssonAuthors Info & Claims
Janet Read, Gavin Sim, Jerry Alan Fails, Marie A Boden, Jessica L Korte, Sanjana Bhatnagar, Lilly Hope Borchardt, Aurora Constantin, Dina Gavrilescu, Cara Wilson, Judith Good, Valentina Andries, Eva ErikssonAuthors Info & ClaimsArticle No.: 519, Pages 1 - 9
Abstract
In this paper, we present a multiple-site case study to illustrate the similarities and differences in design with children in situated research contexts. The aim is to provide the reader with an insight into the planning, execution and evaluation of a set of linked, yet individual, studies from several different contexts and countries. The cases provide a platform to think about how design studies might be collectively reported and evaluated even when they are carried out in different ways. We illustrate the inherent complexity of this process by considering six case studies from five countries on three continents. The contribution is an illustration of differentiated replication in multiple distributed participatory design case studies with children in different countries. We share our thoughts on replication and differentiation, on the value of the design activities, and on how to carry out a larger project.
References
[1]
MJ Allsop, J Gallagher, R Holt, Bipinchandra Bhakta, and R. M. Wilkie. 2011. Involving children in the development of assistive technology devices. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology 6, 2 (2011), 148–156. https://doi.org/10.3109/17483107.2010.510178
[2]
MJ Allsop, RJ Holt, MC Levesley, and Bipinchandra Bhakta. 2010. The engagement of children with disabilities in health-related technology design processes: Identifying methodology. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology 5, 1 (2010), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3109/17483100903323267
[3]
Olav W. Bertelsen, Susanne Bødker, Eva Eriksson, Eve Hoggan, and Jo Vermeulen. 2018. Beyond Generalization: Research for the Very Particular. Interactions 26, 1 (Dec. 2018), 34–38. https://doi.org/10.1145/3289425
[4]
Aurora Constantin, Cristina Alexandru, Jessica Korte, Cara Wilson, Jerry Fails, Gavin Sim, Janet C Read, and Eva Eriksson. 2021. Distributing Participation in Design: Addressing Challenges of a Global Pandemic. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 28 (2021), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2021.100255
[5]
Aurora Constantin, Jessica Korte, Judith Good, Gavin Sim, Janet Read, Jerry Alan Fails, and Eva Eriksson. 2022. A Distributed Participatory Design Research Protocol for Co-Designing with Children. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference (Braga, Portugal) (IDC ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 510–516. https://doi.org/10.1145/3501712.3535286
[6]
Aurora Constantin, Jessica Korte, Cara Wilson, Cristina Adriana Alexandru, Judith Good, Gavin Sim, Janet Read, Jerry Alan Fails, and Eva Eriksson. 2020. Planning the World’s Most Inclusive PD Project. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference: Extended Abstracts (London, United Kingdom) (IDC ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 118–125. https://doi.org/10.1145/3397617.3398066
[7]
Annie Davy. 2010. Learning & Development: Leuven Scales-All’s well. Nursery World (2010).
[8]
Jan Derboven, Maarten Van Mechelen, and Karin Slegers. 2015. Multimodal Analysis in Participatory Design with Children: A Primary School Case Study. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (CHI ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2825–2828. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702475
[9]
Christian Dindler, Ole Sejer Iversen, Rachel Smith, and Rune Veerasawmy. 2010. Participatory Design at the Museum: Inquiring into Children’s Everyday Engagement in Cultural Heritage. In Proceedings of the 22nd Conference of the Computer-Human Interaction Special Interest Group of Australia on Computer-Human Interaction (Brisbane, Australia) (OZCHI ’10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 72–79. https://doi.org/10.1145/1952222.1952239
[10]
Salma Elsayed-Ali, Elizabeth Bonsignore, Hernisa Kacorri, and Mega Subramaniam. 2020. Designing for Children’s Values: Conceptualizing Value-Sensitive Technologies with Children. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference: Extended Abstracts (London, United Kingdom) (IDC ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 296–301. https://doi.org/10.1145/3397617.3397826
[11]
Eva Eriksson, Gökçe Elif Baykal, Staffan Björk, and Olof Torgersson. 2019. Using Gameplay Design Patterns with Children in the Redesign of a Collaborative Co-Located Game. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (Boise, ID, USA) (IDC ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1145/3311927.3323155
[12]
Naska Goagoses, Heike Winschiers-Theophilus, and Erkki Rötkönen. 2023. Students’ Achievement Goals: Goal Approximation, Engagement, and Emotions in Co-Design Activities and Product. Int. J. Child-Comp. Interact. 36, C (may 2023), 15 pages. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2023.100575
[13]
Mona Leigh Guha, Allison Druin, and Jerry Alan Fails. 2010. Investigating the impact of design processes on children. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children - IDC '10. ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/1810543.1810570
[14]
Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford University. 2023. Get Started with Design Thinking. https://dschool.stanford.edu/resources/getting-started-with-design-thinking.
[15]
Emily K. Jenkins, Allie Slemon, Rebecca J. Haines-Saah, and John Oliffe. 2018. A Guide to Multisite Qualitative Analysis. Qualitative Health Research 28, 12 (July 2018), 1969–1977. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732318786703
[16]
Jessica Korte, Leigh Ellen Potter, and Sue Nielsen. 2017. How design involvement impacts Deaf children. In 2017 International Conference on Research and Innovation in Information Systems (ICRIIS). Langkawi, Malaysia, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRIIS.2017.8002527
[17]
Jessica L. Korte. 2020. Patterns and Themes in Designing with Children. Foundations and Trends® in Human–Computer Interaction (2020). https://doi.org/10.1561/1100000079
[18]
Jessica L Korte, Aurora Constantin, Cara Wilson, Cristina Adriana Alexandru, Gavin Sim, Janet Read, Judith Good, Jerry Alan Fails, and Eva Eriksson. 2021. Participatory Design of the World’s Largest DPD Project with Children. In Interaction Design and Children (Athens, Greece) (IDC ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 687–691. https://doi.org/10.1145/3459990.3460514
[19]
R. Murray Lindsay and A. S. C. Ehrenberg. 1993. The Design of Replicated Studies. The American Statistician 47, 3 (Aug. 1993), 217. https://doi.org/10.2307/2684982
[20]
Sarah Matthews, Marie A. Boden, and Christine Mitchell. 2018. Challenges of implementing design thinking process in the primary classroom. In Integrated education for the real world 5th international STEM in education conference. 235––241.
[21]
Tom Christian Pape and Kari Thoresen. 1985. Development of Common Systems by Prototyping’. In Presedings of the Working Conference on Development and Use of Computer Based Systems and Tools.
[22]
Leigh Ellen Potter, Jessica Korte, and Sue Nielsen. 2012. Sign My World: Lessons Learned from Prototyping Sessions with Young Deaf Children. In Proceedings of the 24th Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference (Melbourne, Australia) (OzCHI ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 501–504. https://doi.org/10.1145/2414536.2414613
[23]
Janet Read, Marta Kristin Larusdottir, Anna Sigríður Islind, Gavin Sim, and Dan Fitton. 2022. Tick Box Design: A bounded and packageable co-design method for large workshops. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 33 (2022), 100505.
[24]
Janet C Read. 2008. Validating the Fun Toolkit: an instrument for measuring children’s opinions of technology. Cognition, Technology & Work 10 (2008), 119–128.
[25]
Janet C Read, Daniel Fitton, Gavin Sim, and Matt Horton. 2016. How Ideas make it through to Designs: Process and Practice. In proceedings of the 9th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction. 1–10.
[26]
Toni Robertson and Jesper Simonsen. 2012. Challenges and opportunities in contemporary participatory design. Design Issues 28, 3 (2012), 3–9.
[27]
Erkki Rötkönen, Heike Winschiers-Theophilus, Naska Goagoses, Helvi Itenge, Gabriel Shinedima, and Erkki Sutinen. 2021. Playing on the Globe: Facilitating Virtual Communications between Namibian and Finnish Learners to Co-Design an Interactive Map Game. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference (Athens, Greece) (IDC ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 160–170. https://doi.org/10.1145/3459990.3460707
[28]
Olof Torgersson, Tilde Bekker, Wolmet Barendregt, Eva Eriksson, and Christopher Frauenberger. 2019. Making the Child-Computer Interaction Field Grow Up. Interactions 26, 2 (feb 2019), 7–8. https://doi.org/10.1145/3310253
[29]
Trudy van der Weijden, France Légaré, Antoine Boivin, Jako S Burgers, Haske van Veenendaal, Anne M Stiggelbout, Marjan Faber, and Glyn Elwyn. 2010. How to integrate individual patient values and preferences in clinical practice guidelines? A research protocol. Implementation Science 5, 1 (2010), 1–9.
[30]
Elise Van Kempen, Jeroen Devilee, Wim Swart, Irene Van Kamp, 2014. Characterizing urban areas with good sound quality: Development of a research protocol. Noise and health 16, 73 (2014), 380.
[31]
Maarten Van Mechelen, Mathieu Gielen, Vero vanden Abeele, Ann Laenen, and Bieke Zaman. 2014. Exploring Challenging Group Dynamics in Participatory Design with Children. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Interaction Design and Children (Aarhus, Denmark) (IDC ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 269–272. https://doi.org/10.1145/2593968.2610469
[32]
Maarten Van Mechelen, Alice Schut, Mathieu Gielen, and Antonia Clasina Södergren. 2019. Children’s Assessment of Co-Design Skills: Creativity, Empathy and Collaboration. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (Boise, ID, USA) (IDC ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 520–526. https://doi.org/10.1145/3311927.3325334
[33]
Maarten Van Mechelen, Gavin Sim, Bieke Zaman, Peggy Gregory, Karin Slegers, and Matthew Horton. 2014. Applying the CHECk Tool to Participatory Design Sessions with Children. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Interaction Design and Children (Aarhus, Denmark) (IDC ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 253–256. https://doi.org/10.1145/2593968.2610465
[34]
Robert K. Yin. 2009. Case Study Research: Design and Methods (4 ed.). Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California, USA.
[35]
Jason C. Yip, Tamara Clegg, June Ahn, Judith Odili Uchidiuno, Elizabeth Bonsignore, Austin Beck, Daniel Pauw, and Kelly Mills. 2016. The Evolution of Engagements and Social Bonds During Child-Parent Co-Design. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (San Jose, California, USA) (CHI ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 3607–3619. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858380
Index Terms
- Exploring Similarities and Differences in a set of Linked Multiple-site Design Sessions with Children
Recommendations
Co-Design Across Cultures: A Two-Country Study With Children
IDC '23: Proceedings of the 22nd Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children ConferenceThrough this paper, we present the results of an exploratory study conducted in India and the USA, examining how cultural and academic backgrounds shape children’s perceptions of themselves as design partners in participatory design. We used ...
Exploring Mobile Co-design in the Context of Use Continuous Elicitation and Evaluation of Design Suggestions
Human-Computer Interaction. Theoretical Approaches and Design MethodsAbstractThis study explores a method for the co-design of mobile applications in the context of use. In 36 sessions with future users, synchronous co-design of a mobile navigation application was conducted in the intended use environment – a hospital – ...
Distributed participatory design
CHI EA '08: CHI '08 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing SystemsOver the years a consensus has developed that involving users directly in the software development process can lead to more useful and usable systems. This has found its clearest expression in the Participatory Design (PD) movement. However, a ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
May 2024
4761 pages
ISBN:9798400703317
DOI:10.1145/3613905
Copyright © 2024 Owner/Author.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.
Sponsors
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 11 May 2024
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Extended-abstract
- Research
- Refereed limited
Conference
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 6,164 of 23,696 submissions, 26%
Upcoming Conference
CHI 2025
- Sponsor:
- sigchi
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 180Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)180
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)8
Reflects downloads up to 23 Jan 2025
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign inFull Access
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderFull Text
View this article in Full Text.
Full TextHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML Format