The GLID method: Moving from design features to underlying values in co-design
Introduction
Participatory Design (PD) is often described as a set of theories, practices and studies related to the design of technology, aiming to give those that will ultimately be impacted by the technology a voice in its design (Muller, 2002, Schuler and Namioka, 1993). Although PD lacks a strict definition or set of rules, PD aims at establishing partnerships with future users and other relevant stakeholders. Important principles to establish these partnerships are the sharing of decision-making power and establishing a process of mutual learning (Bratteteig et al., 2013). To this end, different techniques that focus on telling, making, and enacting (Brandt et al., 2013) are used to assist participants in analyzing their experiences and giving meaning to them (Veale, 2005). Rather than extracting knowledge from participants, PD aims to co-construct knowledge and shed light on how people engage in world making in their current and future lives. Moreover, in PD, future users are typically involved in the creation of the technological artifact and the practices surrounding it (Bratteteig et al., 2013).
In this article, we focus on one specific way to engage in making activities with future users. Specifically, we focus on the use of co-design with children. Co-design techniques are used at the early, fuzzy stages of design to collectively explore and express future ways of living (Sanders and Stappers, 2008). The basic principle is to guide participants in small steps to construct designerly artifacts with 2D and 3D visual components that are often ambiguous in nature. Afterwards, the participants explain what they have made and why. These stories are then analyzed to inform and inspire the design process (Sleeswijk Visser et al., 2005).
Under the influence of PD, the role of children in design processes has changed tremendously (Read and Markopoulos, 2013). Whereas children were initially involved passively as technology users, their role was gradually broadened to that of active participants using a variety of co-design techniques (e.g., Dindler et al., 2005; Druin, 1999; Gielen, 2008; Horton et al., 2012; Moser, 2012; van Doorn et al., 2013). Nevertheless, it has been acknowledged that it is not easy to involve children as design partners in open-ended, future directed work (Scaife and Rogers, 1999).
The particular challenge that will be addressed in this paper is how to analyze children's contributions in co-design activities. Whereas some authors stick to a descriptive analysis (descriptive perspective), others take a more interpretative stance by looking at deeper levels of knowledge or values embedded in co-design outcomes (knowledge perspective). Within the latter perspective, two shortcomings can be identified: (1) a unilateral focus on the verbal explanation while neglecting the material dimensions of co-design artifacts, and (2) a lack of transparency when interpreting children's contributions. To address these shortcomings, the GLID method is presented, aiming to integrate the material dimensions of co-design artifacts and their verbal explanation in a structured analysis. The method goes beyond a descriptive analysis of children's ideas and aims to identify the values embedded in co-design outcomes.
This paper is structured as follows. In Section 2, we present the theoretical background of our work in co-design and multimodality. Afterwards, we present the GLID method in detail in Section 3. To illustrate this method, we present a case study with primary school children in 4 Case study procedure, 5 Results. Finally, we conclude the paper with a discussion of how GLID contributes to PD research.
Section snippets
Descriptive versus knowledge perspective
The challenge of interpreting children's contributions resulting from co-design activities traces back to Scaife and colleagues’ groundbreaking work in the late 90s (Scaife et al., 1997). They were among the first to give children a more active role in technology design, but, at the same time, acknowledged that this was not without difficulties. Compared to adults, children use different conceptual frameworks and terminology, which makes it difficult to understand the exact meaning of what a
Description of the GLID method
Inspired by a values-led approach to PD and multimodal semiotics and, the multimodal GLID method consists of four broad stages: Grounding the analysis, Listing design features, Interpreting orientation and organization, and Distilling discourse and values (see Fig. 2).
Case study procedure
To illustrate the GLID method, we present a case study in which 49 children aged 9-10 were involved in a series of co-design sessions in two schools in Flanders, Belgium. The sessions were part of a project aimed at the design of tangible, digital tools to make class groups more self-regulatory in the prevention of both traditional bullying and cyberbullying. This goal was translated into an understandable design challenge for children: what tools would improve the class atmosphere and prevent
Eleven co-design outcomes, three examples
Within the scope of this paper, it is not possible to offer detailed analyses of all eleven artifacts and presentations created in the co-design sessions. In order to offer clear examples of our analytic procedure, we will discuss three co-design outcomes in detail. Although we were able to identify children's negotiated values in each of the eleven artifacts, these three examples were chosen for didactic reasons because of their diversity. Created in teams of five children who worked together
Discussion
To illustrate the GLID method, this paper discussed a case study in which children aged 9–10 were involved in a series of co-design activities. The aim was to generate ideas for future technologies and practices that would cope with bullying behavior in school. The co-design techniques served as constructivist tools to assist investigations of ‘what may be’ rather than simply ‘what is’ (Lee, 2014). The simultaneous act of making and reflection in the co-design activities increased children's
Conclusion
In this paper, the GLID method was presented to analyze co-design outcomes in a transparent and systematic way. GLID aims to deduce negotiated values embedded in co-design outcomes by integrating different modes of communication (e.g. verbal, material) in a coherent analysis. GLID thereby addresses two shortcomings found in academic literature: (1) a unilateral focus on the verbal explanation while neglecting the material dimensions of co-design artifacts, and (2) a lack of transparency when
Acknowledgments
This study is part of the EMSOC project (grand number nml 100027), funded by IWT (Agency for Innovation by Science and Technology) and two PhD projects funded by Hasselt University (grand number 5/DWO/2007/11/B011) and iMinds (Interdisciplinary institute for Technology), a research institute founded by the Flemish Government.
The goal of EMSOC project is to critically assess the belief of the user being empowered in a social media culture. The research is structured according to three main areas
Maarten Van Mechelen is a researcher at Mintlab (KU Leuven – iMinds) where he is currently working on different projects in the field of Child Computer Interaction. In addition, his PhD research at PXL-MAD (UHasselt) and LUCA (KU Leuven) concerns co-design with children in the early stages of technology design. Maarten obtained a master's degree in Cultural Sciences at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel after graduating as a master in Graphic Design at the Media Arts & Design Faculty in Hasselt. He
References (70)
- et al.
In pursuit of rigour and accountability in participatory design
Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud.
(2015) - et al.
Cooperative inquiry revisited: reflections of the past and guidelines for the future of intergenerational co-design
Int. J. Child Comput. Interact.
(2013) - et al.
Child-computer interaction
Int. J. Child Comput. Interact.
(2013) - et al.
Cultural Studies and Discourse Analysis: A Dialogue on Language and Identity
(2001) - et al.
The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology
(1985) - Brandt, E., Binder, T., Sanders, E.B.-N., 2013. Tools and techniques: ways to engage telling, making and enacting. In:...
- Bratteteig, T., Bodker, K., Dittrich, Y., Holst, P., Simonsen, J., 2013. Methods: organising principles and general...
‘Creative’ visual methods in media research: possibilities, problems and proposals
Media Cult. Soc.
(2009)- Cockton, G., 2004. Value-centred HCI. In: Proceedings of the Third Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction,...
- Derboven, J., Van Mechelen, M., Slegers, K., 2015. Multimodal analysis in participatory design with children: a primary...
Increasing User Empowerment through Participatory and Co-design Methodologies
Information and Human Values
Exploring the child's mind – contextmapping research with children
Digit. Creat.
A Means-end chain model based on consumer categorization processes
J. Mark.
Language as a Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning
The value of values: resourcing co-design of ubiquitous computing
CoDesign
Social Semiotics
Values-led participatory design
CoDesign
Values as hypotheses: design, inquiry, and the service of values
Des. Issues
Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication
Travels in hypermodality
Vis. Commun.
Cited by (30)
Think-4-EmCoDe framework: Highlighting key qualities in embodied co-design techniques for children
2023, International Journal of Human Computer StudiesLadderbot—A conversational agent for human-like online laddering interviews
2023, International Journal of Human Computer StudiesCitation Excerpt :The value direction of research is appreciated among practitioners for its approaches to not only identify values but to structure identified values and relationships systematically (Gao et al., 2019). Further, the inherent focus on outcomes and lasting impacts fit a broader trend in human–computer interaction (Van Mechelen et al., 2017). We separated studies following a value-oriented approach into two groups (pre-2014 and 2014-today).
Pushing political, cultural, and geographical boundaries: Distributed co-design with children from Namibia, Malaysia and Finland
2022, International Journal of Child-Computer InteractionManifesto for children's genuine participation in digital technology design and making
2021, International Journal of Child-Computer InteractionCitation Excerpt :However, the project lacks an explicit discussion of the values of the participating children. There have been specific calls in the CCI research for foregrounding the values when working with children (Iivari et al., 2015; Iversen & Smith, 2012; Van Mechelen et al., 2014; Yarosh et al., 2011) as well as attempts to create practical tools for identifying, reflecting and negotiating values in a design project (Van Mechelen et al., 2017, 2014) and considering different ethical issues (Read et al., 2014, 2013). For example, CCI researchers have developed a methodology for identifying the underlying values embedded in co-design outcomes (Van Mechelen et al., 2017) and values-related design guidelines in relation to parents’ role in children’s online engagement (Nouwen et al., 2015; Nouwen & Zaman, 2018).
The social perspective on policy towards local shared autonomous vehicle services (LSAVS)
2020, Transport PolicyCitation Excerpt :Co-design also allows those people who will be affected by decisions about technology adoption to have a substantive say in the outcome (Ehn, 1993). Importantly, a key benefit of a co-design approach is that responses (values) can be elicited both on an individual and at a collective level (Van Mechelen et al., 2017). The co-design approach has benefits not just for those designing a service, but also for future service users – not least because the outputs from the process incorporate those collective views.
Children's design recommendations for online safety education
2019, International Journal of Child-Computer InteractionCitation Excerpt :Next, we will discuss our results and their implications. The CCI community has already recognized the significance of values shaping and underlying children’s technology design and use (e.g., [25,39–42]. This study showed that values play an interesting role also in shaping and underlying children’s views as regards to their online safety education.
Maarten Van Mechelen is a researcher at Mintlab (KU Leuven – iMinds) where he is currently working on different projects in the field of Child Computer Interaction. In addition, his PhD research at PXL-MAD (UHasselt) and LUCA (KU Leuven) concerns co-design with children in the early stages of technology design. Maarten obtained a master's degree in Cultural Sciences at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel after graduating as a master in Graphic Design at the Media Arts & Design Faculty in Hasselt. He also holds certificates in Web Design (Syntra) and in Human-Centered Design for Intuitive Man-Machine Interaction (KU Leuven Kulak).
Jan Derboven ([email protected], soc.kuleuven.be/mintlab/blog/) graduated as a Master in Germanic Languages (KU Leuven, 2002) and in Cultural Studies (2003). He is a senior researcher at the Meaningful Interactions Lab (KU Leuven – iMinds), where his research is situated primarily in the domains of media (technology, games & education) and health (assistive technologies). Currently, he is pursuing a PhD on technology appropriation, investigating how people use and reinterpret technologies in everyday life.
Ann Laenen studied Arts and Theatre Science and reached PhD level in 2007 on Arts Education. In 2009 she became the co-ordinator of the Communication Media Design – program at the Media & Design Academy in Genk. October 2010 she became the Head of Department at that institution and two years later she was appointed Dean of the Faculty of the Arts (LUCA School of Arts / KU Leuven). Her research focus today is on arts/design education and interactive processes. At present she is teaching Active Design Processes at the Department of Digital Arts (University of Malta).
Bert Willems obtained his PhD in psychology and pedagogy at the University of Leuven. He is an associate professor at PXL-MAD, Hasselt, and at Hasselt University (Faculty of Architecture & Arts). Within the arts and design program of PXL-MAD and Hasselt University, he is responsible for research policy and the implementation of this policy. In his own research, he always starts from a cognitive view of the design process and the interesting interaction between culture and economy that many designers and artists like to use as a source for their creativity.
David Geerts is Research Manager of the Meaningful Interactions Lab (mintlab) of KU Leuven and iMinds at the faculty of Social Sciences. David is specialized in human-centered design of (social) interactive television. He organized many workshops and tutorials at international conferences, and for some years has taught a course on Human-Computer Interaction. David is member of IFIP TC14 WG6 on Entertainment Computing, is co-founder of the Belgian ACM SIGCHI chapter (CHI Belgium), is part of the TVX steering committee and was general chair of the ACM international conference on interactive experience for television and online video (ACM TVX2015).
Vero Vanden Abeele is assistant professor at the e-Media Lab of KU Leuven. Vero is active in the area of persuasive computing and serious games. Vero's specialties include among many: user experience research, human-computer interaction, player experience, usability, playability, interaction design, tangible play and motivational design. Vero is member of several program committees (ACM International Conference on Interaction Design and Children), ACM Conference on Computer-Human Interaction, ACM International Conference on Tangible, Embodied and Embedded interaction, ACM Conference on CHI Play) and has been a co-applicant for several national and international research projects concerning serious games and children.
- 1
First authors.