Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T07:17:37.179Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

WHAT CAN BE LEARNT FROM 130 CHILDREN'S DREAM WHEELCHAIR DESIGNS? ELICITING CHILD-CENTRED INSIGHTS USING AN INTERDISCIPLINARY DESIGN ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2021

Cara O'Sullivan ,
Farnaz Nickpour  and
Francesca Bernardi
Cara O'Sullivan*
Affiliation:
University of Liverpool
Farnaz Nickpour
Affiliation:
University of Liverpool
Francesca Bernardi
Affiliation:
University of Liverpool
*
O'Sullivan, Cara, University of Liverpool Industrial Design United Kingdom, cara1@liverpool.ac.uk

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The design of inclusive paediatric mobility (IPM) interventions, such as children's wheelchairs, are entangled with technological, health and social considerations. As narratives around childhood, disability and mobility shift and transform, these entanglements evolve. In order to optimise the experience of childhood mobility, IPM designers must understand and respond to such changes and channel children's own requirements, desires and 'dreams' into the design process; this can be achieved by utilising a child-centred design approach. This paper identifies meaningful child-centred IPM design insights and opportunities through the interdisciplinary analysis of 130 dream wheelchair designs by disabled children, aged 4 to 17 years. A novel interdisciplinary and child-centred design analysis framework is developed to dissect, categorise and code the topics and features expressed through visuals and written descriptions in each of the children's dream wheelchair designs. Children's mobility narratives, desires and requirements are elicited and trending topics are discussed. It is proposed that valuing children's voices in the IPM design process could alter both the process of designing IPM interventions as well as the product outcomes.

Keywords

Inclusive designPaediatric MobilityUser centred designChildhoodCollaborative design
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 1: ICED21 , August 2021 , pp. 3409 - 3418
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Barroqueiro, D. R. (2000). Art in Early Childhood: An Examination of Form, Content and Social Context. International Art in Early Childhood Research Journal, Volume 2, Number 1.Google Scholar
Can, E. and İnalhan, G. (2017) Having a voice, having a choice: Children's Participation in Educational Space Design, The Design Journal, 20:sup1, S3238–S3251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Desmet, P. and Dijkhuis, E. (2003). A Wheelchair Can Be Fun: A Case of Emotion-driven Design. Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces 2003, Pp 22–27.Google Scholar
Hussain, S. (2010). Empowering marginalised children in developing countries through participatory design processes, CoDesign, 6:2, 99–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Sullivan, C., and Nickpour, F. (2020) 50 Years of Inclusive Design for Childhood Mobility; Insights from an Illustrative Mapping Review. In Boess, S., Cheung, M. and Cain, R. (eds.), Synergy - DRS International Conference 2020, Pp. 332–357.Google Scholar
Oxford. (2016). What is a PESTEL analysis? Oxford College Of Marketing. Available online at: https://blog.oxfordcollegeofmarketing.com/2016/06/30/pestel-analysis/ [accessed 04/09/ 2020].Google Scholar
Richins, M. L. (1994). Valuing Things: The Public and Private Meanings of Possessions. Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (3), Pp. 504–521.Google Scholar
Robinson, R.E, (2015). ‘Building a Useful Research Tool: An Origin Story of AEIOU’. Available online at: https://www.epicpeople.org/building-a-useful-research-tool/ [accessed 04/09/2020].Google Scholar
Spurlock, D. (2020). Scholarship During a Pandemic: Secondary Data Analysis. J Nurs Educ. 59(5).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
United Nations (1990). Convention On The Rights Of The Child. UN Commission on Human Rights.Google Scholar
Walter, A. (2011). Hierarchy of User Needs: Designing for Emotion, First Ed. Oct 18, 2011; A Book Apart.Google Scholar
Yamada-rice, D. (2019) Including Children in the Design of the Internet of Toys. In: Mascheroni, G., Holloway, D. (eds) The Internet of Toys. Studies in Childhood and Youth. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.Google Scholar