Moving Beyond Boundaries: When User-Centered Design meets Sociology

In this paper, we consider the potential of combining design, engineering and sociological perspectives with user perspectives, as part of a user-centered, inclusive design process. Our particular interest lies in the design of inclusive toys and games that disabled and non-disabled children can play together and which foster positive interactions between children across difference. We explore the challenges and opportunities associated with working in a transdisciplinary mode, where knowledge production evolves from dynamic tension between different disciplinary perspectives and those of non-academic stakeholders. We argue that the latter is of particular importance within any design process that seeks to provide accessibility and empower users. Such transdisciplinarity involves an upstream approach to the involvement of non-academic interests in the design process and knowledge production, rather than limiting the engagement of/with users to the dissemination end point stage of research (Barry, forthcoming). The paper draws upon two case studies of projects conducted by the authors. Both projects involve the use of co-operative inquiry [14] with children and we seek to extract the pedagogical implications of both projects for future design, including that within the field of ICT and digital technologies, with and for children.

[1]  E. Goffman.  Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience , 1974 .

[2]  Herbert H. Clark,et al.  Grounding in communication , 1991, Perspectives on socially shared cognition.

[3]  Allison Druin,et al.  Cooperative inquiry: developing new technologies for children with children , 1999, CHI '99.

[4]  A. Price,et al.  TO REVISE OR NOT TO REVISE , 2015 .

[5]  Allison Druin,et al.  Technology probes: inspiring design for and with families , 2003, CHI '03.

[6]  A. Borsay.  Personal Trouble or Public Issue? Towards a Model of Policy for People with Physical and Mental Disabilities , 1986 .

[7]  M. Priestley.  Childhood Disability and Disabled Childhoods , 1998 .

[8]  Donald A. Schön,et al.  Frame Reflection: Toward The Resolution Of Intractable Policy Controversies , 1994 .

[9]  Carol Thomas.  Rescuing a social relational understanding of disability , 2004 .

[10]  K. Runswick-Cole,et al.  Emancipating play: dis/abled children, development and deconstruction , 2010 .

[11]  D. Goodley.  Dis/ability Studies: Theorising disablism and ableism , 2014 .

[12]  K. Hinsch,et al.  [International Classification of Function, Disability and Health (ICF). Basis for cutaneous rehabilitation management]. , 2010, Der Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete.

[13]  Christian Dindler,et al.  A Utopian agenda in child-computer interaction , 2013, Int. J. Child Comput. Interact..

[14]  Tom Campbell,et al.  The social model of disability as an oppositional device , 2015 .

[15]  Allison Druin,et al.  Working with young children as technology design partners , 2005, CACM.

[16]  J. Burke.  ‘Some kids climb up; some kids climb down’: culturally constructed play-worlds of children with impairments , 2012 .

[17]  Donna M. Mertens,et al.  The Handbook of Social Research Ethics , 2008 .

[18]  Sheila Greene,et al.  Creative Methodologies in Participatory Research with Children , 2005 .

[19]  L. Florian.  The SAGE Handbook of Special Education , 2013 .

[20]  Simeon Keates,et al.  Inclusive Design: Design for the Whole Population , 2003 .

[21]  Paul Abberley.  The Politics of Disablement , 1992 .

[22]  W. Frontera.  The world report on disability. , 2012, American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation.

[23]  Janet C. Read,et al.  Bringing tabletop technologies to kindergarten children , 2009 .

[24]  Janet C. Read,et al.  Child-computer interaction , 2013, Int. J. Child Comput. Interact..

[25]  Graham Michael Pullin,et al.  What is an inclusive design process , 2003 .

[26]  Panos Markopoulos,et al.  A comparison of think-aloud and post-task interview for usability testing with children , 2004, IDC '04.

[27]  Amy Bruckman,et al.  HCI FOR KIDS , 2012 .

[28]  Juan Pablo Hourcade,et al.  Child computer interaction , 2008, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[29]  T. Anderson,et al.  Design-Based Research , 2012 .

[30]  Andrew F. Monk,et al.  Inclusive design: beyond capabilities towards context of use , 2011, Universal Access in the Information Society.

[31]  M. Kyng,et al.  Computers and Democracy: A Scandinavian Challenge , 1987 .

[32]  Allison Druin,et al.  The Role of Children in the Design Technology , 1999 .

[33]  E. Kay M. Tisdall,et al.  The Challenge and Challenging of Childhood Studies? Learning from Disability Studies and Research with Disabled Children , 2012 .

[34]  C. Barnes.  An Ethical Agenda in Disability Research: rhetoric or reality? , 2014 .

[35]  T. L. Taylor,et al.  The Assemblage of Play , 2009, Games Cult..

[36]  Alissa Nicole Antle,et al.  Child-based personas: need, ability and experience , 2008, Cognition, Technology & Work.

[37]  Janet Horowitz Murray,et al.  Inventing the Medium: Principles of Interaction Design as a Cultural Practice , 2011 .

[38]  R. Hurst,et al.  To Revise or Not to Revise? , 2000 .

[39]  Abbie Brown,et al.  Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in c , 1992 .

[40]  P. Verbeek,et al.  Materializing Morality , 2006 .

[41]  A. Lewis,et al.  Research and pupil voice , 2007 .

[42]  References , 1971 .

[43]  P. Hunt,et al.  Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation , 2000 .

[44]  Wendy E. Mackay,et al.  Tangicam: exploring observation tools for children , 2005, IDC '05.

[45]  Jp Tom Djajadiningrat,et al.  Changing your Hammer: The Implications of Paradigmatic Innovation for Design Practice , 2014 .

[46]  S. Pijl.  The Sage handbook of special education , 2007 .