Rethinking children's co-creation processes beyond the design of TUIs

Abstract

The design of Tangible User Interfaces (TUIs) has often involved children. Nowadays, the term co-creation is gaining momentum and extending the already established role of children as co-designers. In this sense children become creators of new personalized experiences not only during the design process but also when using the final interactive products. Such dynamic opens new possibilities reshaping the role and the development of tangibles by providing users "building blocks" for creative experimentations. This workshop aims at bringing together researchers and practitioners from relevant disciplines and expertise to reflect on the co-creation approach, and on the possibilities that it opens for the development of innovative tools that place the users in the center of the creative process. Contributions to this workshop may address diverse aspects related to co-creation from different perspectives. The ultimate aim of the workshop is to discuss the research challenges and the pedagogical issues that need to be addressed when designing TUIs for co-creation.

What are the social and personal drivers to engage in co-creation? A study of UK 7–13-year-olds

“…However, these contributions have invariably used adult samples (Sarkar and Banerjee, 2019), limiting what is known about children’s co-creative behaviours, despite the acknowledgement in the literature that brand-user characteristics impact upon co-creation activity (Trischler et al , 2017). A review of the extant literature presents an array of empirical papers that indicate that children do engage in co-creation, or “participatory design” (Slingerland et al , 2020), but scrutiny of this body of work indicates that these investigations are highly contextual, and centred within education and educational policy (Breive, 2020; Catala et al , 2018; Clement, 2019; Novlianskaya, 2020; Paracha et al , 2019; Sharma et al , 2020), child development (Slingerland et al , 2020), developmental disorders (Alsem et al , 2017; Huijnen et al , 2017; Whelan et al , 2015) and social learning paradigms (Bevelander et al , 2019; Crosby et al , 2020). Moreover, several of the above studies fail to incorporate children (Crosby et al , 2020; Sharma et al , 2020) and none of the works explore children and co-creation in the context of the marketing literature.…”

“…Moreover, several of the above studies fail to incorporate children (Crosby et al , 2020; Sharma et al , 2020) and none of the works explore children and co-creation in the context of the marketing literature. To date, only Daems et al (2019) have looked at co-creation through a consumption lens, exploring advertising literacy, but even this contribution capitalised on “four co-creation workshops” that were controlled (reflecting earlier work by Catala et al , 2018) and school based, and that did not capture volitional participation in the product design.…”

“…Moreover, several of the above studies fail to incorporate children (Crosby et al, 2020;Sharma et al, 2020) and none of the works explore children and co-creation in the context of the marketing literature. To date, only Daems et al (2019) have looked at co-creation through a consumption lens, exploring advertising literacy, but even this contribution capitalised on "four co-creation workshops" that were controlled (reflecting earlier work by Catala et al, 2018) and school based, and that did not capture volitional participation in the product design. This, leads to the conclusion that there is a significant empirical gap when it comes to children and co-creation beyond what is clearly outlined above.…”