This section describes roles we categorized as “emerging roles”. We define emerging roles as roles not originally part of Druin’s model but have emerged from the literature. The roles are discussed under two categories (1) Roles based on children’s social interaction and values in the research process and (2) children as independent designers in the co-design process.
Roles based on children’s social interactions and values
Based on our literature review, we identify an increasing number of studies that focus on the different roles children play based on organizational responsibilities and the social values exhibited during the co-design process. In contrast to Druin’s framework which characterized children’s roles based on the broader outcome and goal of the technology to be designed, these studies focused on the nuanced social interactions and behavior that children exhibit in relation to peers, adults, and technology. It was argued that children eventually take on diverse roles based on the goals and value expectations of a co-design project, and an attempt to force them into pre-defined roles might lead to disengagement from the project. However, when given the freedom to find and choose their own roles in the design process, children are successful in making valuable contributions to the technology design process [
20].
Using a value creation lens, ten roles that children adopt during the codesign process were identified [
20]. Children could take on the role of an
achiever, team worker, leader, artist, adventurer, inspired, pleasure seeker, socialized, conformist, or underachiever. These roles were largely defined by socio-environmental factors that motivate how and to what extent children participate in the design process. For example, a child is considered to be a team worker when he or she derives satisfaction from helping others and making contributions that are valued and appreciated by others. Similarly, children who take the role of a
conformist tend to avoid taking risk or trying out creative ideas during the design process. Instead, these individuals derive satisfaction by following established rules and patterns provided by adults in the design process. On the other hand, children who do not seem to be very interested in the design objective and process might act as
underachiever who often fails to concentrate on activities while exhibiting some form of rebellious attitude. In their study on the roles children play in the design and evaluation of technologies, Ladoni and colleagues defined children’s role based on their personalities and how they interacted with others during the co-design process. The authors noted that children acted as
searchers and
executors as they designed new technologies. As
searchers, children define their own path in the codesign process by experimenting and exploring new ideas [
24]. This is similar to Kinula and colleagues’ designation of the child as an
adventurer where children work on different new things to find what interests them when designing new technologies [
20]. Similarly, we found that the role of a child as an
executor mirrors that of the conformist role explained above. When acting as executors in the co-design of new technologies, children mainly followed the instructions laid down by the adult. Additionally, their design process and evaluation of the technology followed the predetermined workflow set by the adult.
Table 1.
Emerging themes from our analysis and the selected studies that fall under the emerging themes.
Table 1.
Emerging themes from our analysis and the selected studies that fall under the emerging themes.
Aside from the roles children adopt by themselves, they can also act in various capacities assigned by educators based on their cognitive and social skills. For instance, in a gamified co-design study teachers assigned children roles like secretary and silence-keeper within their design groups. The study argued that such roles allow children to apply a broad range of social skills during co-design [
39]. A similar approach was used where children’s roles within teams depended on the design activities, the child’s personality, and the child’s level of confidence in contributing and taking on responsibilities in a team [
40]. Studies involving heterogeneous group of children are also beginning to redefine the diverse roles children might take during the codesign process based on their experience, age, abilities or disabilities, and socio- economic status. In a cooperative inquiry study involving children and young teenagers, Chimbo and Gelderblom described how younger children played the role of designers and evaluators while older kids acted as design facilitators as they worked together to codesign a web-based application. While the evaluator role shares some similarities with Druin’s definition of the child as a tester, however, it is distinct in that children provide feedback on their own initial designs and prototypes [
41]. In the study, adult designers iteratively created design prototypes based on children’s initial design requirements, and the kids, in turn, test the system and identify areas that they would modify or change. This role of an evaluator also mirrors Ladoni’s description of the child as a judge [
24]. Ladoni and colleagues argued that children often play the role of judges when they assess the quality of their own design process or workflow and make necessary refinements to ensure it addresses the objectives of the design [
24]. For example, when acting as judges, children in their study assessed the quality and relevance of materials they used for their design and decided whether they needed to acquire more materials or refine existing ones. The facilitator role, on the other hand, requires children to actively assist younger children in their construction of new ideas all the while making sure that they do not take over the design process. As facilitators, children might carry out tasks like recording the group’s feedback, designing ideas, prodding for new ideas, or helping with presentations.
Finally, children can act as design proxies for another population of children with different needs and abilities. As design proxies, non-disabled children in the study partnered with adults to design, create and test various ideas and media that would appeal to their disabled friends. Garzotto and Gonella argued that this form of design by proxy leads to more holistic and inclusive technology design [
42].