Child-centred framing through design research: a framework for analysing children’s ‘dream wheelchair’ designs to elicit meaning and elevate their voice

References

• Can E, İnalhan G. Having a voice, having a choice: children’s participation in educational space design. Design J. 2017;20(sup1):S3238–S3251.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feder K. Exploring a child-centred design approach [PhD Thesis]. Denmark: Designskolen Kolding. Kolding; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Vasalou A, Ibrahim S, Clarke M, et al. On power and participation: reflections from design with developmentally diverse children. Int J Child-Comput Interact. 2021;27:100241.
   Google Scholar
• Yamada-rice D. Including children in the design of the internet of toys. In: Mascheroni G, Holloway D, editors. The internet of toys. Studies in childhood and youth. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Brown B. Thing theory. Critical Inquiry. 2001;28(1):1–22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giaccardi E. Things as Co-ethnographers: implications of a thing perspective for design and anthropology. In: Speed C, Cila N, Caldwell ML, editors. Design anthropological futures. Milton Park: Routledge; 2016. p. 14.
   Google Scholar
• Kolb B. 2021. Brain development during early childhood. In: Hupp S. and Jewell J., editors. The encyclopedia of child and adolescent development. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• McDonnell J. Design roulette: a close examination of collaborative decision-making in design from the perspective of framing. Design Studies. 2018;57:75–92.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dorst K. Frame creation and design in the expanded field. She Ji: J Design Eco Innovat. 2015;1(1):22–23.
   Google Scholar
• Silk EM, Rechkemmer AE, Daly SR, et al. Problem framing and cognitive style: impacts on design ideation perceptions. Design Studies. 2021;74:101015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shaw C, Nickpour F. A framework for transitioning designerly ways; interrogating 50 years of inclusive design for paediatric mobility. Design J. 2021;24(6):977–999.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernardi F. Reclaiming childhood. disrupting discourses of identity, autonomy and dis/ability, adopting arts-based methods, Gramsci and Bourdieu: a cross-cultural study in Central Italy and North West England [PhD Thesis]. Edge Hill University; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Druin A. The role of children in the design of new technology. Behav Inf Technol. 2010;3(1):17–22.
   Google Scholar
• Abbott D. Who says what, where, why and how? Doing real-world research with disabled children, young people and family members. In: Curran T, Runswick-Cole K, editors. Disabled children’s childhood studies. Critical approaches in a global context. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2013. p. 39–56.
   Google Scholar
• Carlgren L, Rauth I, Elmquist M. Framing design thinking: the concept in idea and enactment. Creat Innov Manag. 2016;25(1):38–57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hart R. Children’s participation: from tokenism to citizenship. Florence: International Child Development Centre/UNICEF; 1992.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas N. Turning the tables: children as researchers. In: Christensen P, James A, editors. Research with children. Perspectives and practices. 3rd ed. Abingdon: Routledge; 2017. p. 160–179.
   Google Scholar
• Wickenden M, Kembhavi-tam G. Ask us too! doing participatory research with disabled children in the global South. Childhood. 2014;21(3):400–417.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corsaro W. The sociology of childhood. 5th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Yavuz S, Bonetti R, Cohen N. Designing the “next” smart objects together with children. Design J. 2017;20(sup1):S3789–S3800.
   Google Scholar
• Jones N. Narrative inquiry in human-centered design: examining silence and voice to promote social justice in design scenarios. J Tech Writ Commun. 2016;46(4):471–492.
   Google Scholar
• Yip JC, Sobel K, Pitt C. Examining adult-child interactions in intergenerational participatory design. Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, 2017. p. 5742–5754.
   Google Scholar
• Clark A. Listening to young children, expanded third edition: a guide to understanding and using the mosaic approach. 3rd ed. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Kelly SR, Mazzone E, Horton M, et al. Bluebells: a design method for child-centred product development In Proceedings of the 4th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction: changing roles Association for Computing Machinery, New York, 2006. p. 361–368.
   Google Scholar
• Hagen E, Sm R, Hiseth M, et al. Co-designing with children: collecting and structuring methods. 9th NordDesign conference; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Süner S. Elicitation, prioritisation, observation: a research model to inform the early design phases with child-centred perspectives Ph.D Thesis, Doctoral Program, Middle East Technical University, 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Blumenfeld-Jones D. Wild imagination, radical imagination, politics, and the practice of arts-based educational research (ABER) and scholartistry. In: Cahnmann-taylor M, Siegesmund G, editors. Arts-Based research in education (inquiry and pedagogy across diverse contexts). New York: Routledge; 2018. p. 48–66.
   Google Scholar
• Bernardi F. Autonomy, spontaneity and creativity in research with children: a study of experience and participation, in Central Italy and North West England. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2020;23(1):55–74.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eldén S. Inviting the messy: drawing methods and ‘children’s voices. Childhood. 2013;20(1):66–81.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merriman B, Guerin S. Using children’s drawings as data in child-centred research. Irish J Psychol. 2006;27(1–2):48–57.
   Google Scholar
• Nygren MO, Nouwen M, Van Even P, et al. Developing ideas and methods for supporting whole body interaction in remote Co-design with children. In interaction design and children. New York: Association for Computing Machinery; 2021. p. 675–678.
   Google Scholar
• Ibrahim S, Vasalou A, Benton A, et al. A methodological reflection on investigating children’s voice in qualitative research involving children with severe speech and physical impairments. Disabil Soci. 2022;37(1):63–88.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United Nations. Convention on The Rights of The Child, E/CN.4/RES/1990/74, UN Commission on Human Rights; 1990.
   Google Scholar
• Stern J. Children’s voice or children’s voices? How educational research can be at the heart of schooling. forum. 2015;57(1):75–90.
   Google Scholar
• Lambert V, Glacken M, McCarron M. Using a range of methods to access children’s voices. J Res Nurs. 2013;18(7):601–616.
   Google Scholar
• Bloom A, Critten S, Johnson H, et al. A critical review of methods for eliciting voice from children with speech, language and communication needs. J Res Spec Educ Needs. 2020;20(4):308–320.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen JM, Luetz JM, et al. Mono-/inter-/multi-/trans-/anti-disciplinarity in Research. In: Leal Filho W. editor. Quality education, encyclopedia of the UN sustainable development goals. Cham: Springer; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Luck R. Inclusive design and making in practice: bringing bodily experience into closer contact with making. Design Stud. 2018;54:96–119.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gray C, Winter E. Hearing voices: participatory research with preschool children with and without disabilities. Eur Early Child Educ Res J. 2011;19(3):309–320.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spyrou S. The limits of children’s voices: from authenticity to critical, reflexive representation. Childhood. 2011;18(2):151–165.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feldner HA, Logan SW, Galloway JC. Why the time is right for a radical paradigm shift in early powered mobility: the role of powered mobility technology devices, policy and stakeholders. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2016;11(2):89–102.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allsop M, Holt R, Levesley M, et al. The engagement of children with disabilities in health-related technology design processes: identifying methodology. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2010;5(1):1–13.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Allsop M, Gallagher J, Holt R, et al. Involving children in the development of assistive technology devices. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2011;6(2):148–156.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Costanza-Chock S. [Internet]. Design justice. Design narratives: from TXTMob to Twitter; [cited 2020 Dec 14]. Available from: https://design-justice.pubpub.org/pub/0v6035ye/release/1.
   Google Scholar
• Whizzkids [Internet]. #DreamWheelchair Competition; What would the wheelchair of your dreams be like? [cited 2020 Dec 18]. Available from: https://www.whizz-kidz.org.uk/discover/post/hannah-bishop-from-horsham-wins-first-prize-in-dreamwheelchair-competition.
   Google Scholar
• Braun V, Clarke V. To saturate or not to saturate? Questioning data saturation as a useful concept for thematic analysis and sample-size rationales. Qual Res Sport Exerc Health. 2021;13(2):201–216.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farokhi M, Hashemi M. The analysis of children’s drawings: social, emotional, physical, and psychological aspects. Procedia – Soc Behavi Sci. 2011;30:2219–2224.
   Google Scholar
• Cohenmiller A, Pate E. A model for developing interdisciplinary research theoretical frameworks. Qual Rep. 2019;24(6):1211–1226.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barroqueiro DR. Art in early childhood: an examination of form, content and social context. International art in early. Childhood Res J. 2010;2(1):1–16.
   Google Scholar
• Richins ML. Valuing things: the public and private meanings of possessions. J Consum Res. 1994;21(3):504–521.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walter A. Hierarchy of user needs: designing for emotion, A Book Apart, First Ed; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Becerra L. CMF design: the fundamental principles of colour, material and finish design. Netherlands: Frame Publishers; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson RE. [Internet]. Building a useful research tool: an origin story of AEIOU; [cited 2020 Dec 18]. Available from: https://www.epicpeople.org/building-a-useful-research-tool/.
   Google Scholar
• What is a PESTEL analysis? [Internet]. Oxford college of marketing; [cited 2020 Dec 18]. Available from: https://blog.oxfordcollegeofmarketing.com/2016/06/30/pestel-analysis/.
   Google Scholar
• O’Sullivan C, Nickpour F, Bernardi F. What can be learnt from 130 children’s dream wheelchair designs? Eliciting child-centred insights using an interdisciplinary design analysis framework in Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Design; 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Shew A. Ableism, technoableism, and future AI. IEEE Technol Soc Mag. 2020;39(1):40–85.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson L. [Internet]. A community response to a #DisabilityDongle; [cited 2020 Dec 16]. Available from: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/spark/disabled-people-want-disability-design-not-disability-dongles-1.5353131.
   Google Scholar
• Maslow AH. A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review. 1943;50(4):370–396.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shaw C, Nickpour F. Design as an agent of narratives: a conceptual framework and a first exploration in the context of inclusive paediatric mobility design, DRS International Conference 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Bradbury-Jones C, Isham L, Taylor J. The complexities and contradictions in participatory research with vulnerable children and young people: a qualitative systematic review. Soc Sci Med. 2018;215:80–91.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar