Skip to main content

Two Turtles: Children and Autonomy in Participatory Technological Design

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Communicating Science and Technology in Society

Abstract

This paper explores some issues that emerged in research about a participatory design process with children to develop a pre-prototype of a social robot for hospitalized children. Using as an anecdotic inspiration, the coincidence of the designing of two turtles as social-robot prototypes, one by roboticists and the other one by children, this chapter explores and reflects on the autonomy of children in a participatory process of technological design. Based on the type of discussion that places care at the centre of the debate as a way to stress the relevance of care as a vital requisite for thinking and understanding worlds, we propose a radical reconceptualization of the notion of the citizen as an individual with rights and, on the contrary, emphasizes responsibilities and relations of caring interdependency. Our main goal is to analyse how matters of care emerge when children participate in a process of technological design and how this challenges the supposed children’s autonomy as something related to individual needs and desires as users or consumers. It is our proposal to introduce a critical reflection about autonomy into the debate surrounding citizen’s participation (and particularly the participation of children and other vulnerable collectives) as an inextricable element for the democratization of technology. The fact of reflecting on autonomy as an emergent quality, as a sustained network of intangibles, and as materiality will turn out to be a political proposal to rethink the debate surrounding the responsibilities of technological design toward society and the role that participation plays in it.

Many people need desperately to receive this message: I feel and think much as you do, care about many of the things you care about. You are not alone.

Kurt Vonnegut

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Arneil, B. (2002). Becoming versus being: A critical analysis of the child in liberal theory. In D. Archard (Ed.), The moral and political status of children (pp. 70–94). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Breazeal, C. (2011). Social robots for health applications. In Proceedings of the IEEE EMBS, Boston, MA, USA, 30 August–3 September 2011; IEEE EMBS, Boston, MA, pp. 5368–5371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bucchi, M., & Neresini, F. (2008). Science and public participation. In E. J. Hacket et al. (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 449–472). Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M., Lascoumes, P., & Barthe, Y. (2009). Acting in an uncertain world: An essay on technical democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Díaz Boladeras, M., Nuño Bermudez, N., Sàez Pons, J., Pardo Ayala, D. E., Angulo Bahón, C., & Andrés, A. (2011). Building up child-robot relationship: from initial attraction towards long-term social engagement. In HRI 2011 Workshop on Expectations in intuitive human-robot interaction (pp. 17–22). Lausanne. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2117/11923

  • Domènech, M. (2017). Democratizar la ciencia. Revue D’anthropologie Des Connaissances, 11,2(2), XXV. doi:https://doi.org/10.3917/rac.035.0127.

  • Druin, A. (2002). The role of children in the design of new technology. Behaviour and Information Technology, 21(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290110108659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fails, J. A., Guha, M. L., & Druin, A. (2013). Methods and techniques for involving children in the design of new technology for children. Foundations and Trends in Human–Computer Interaction, 6(2), 85–166. https://doi.org/10.1561/1100000018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, N. (2016). Contradictions of capital and care. New Left Review, 100, 99–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frauenberger, C., Good, J., & Keay-Bright, W. (2011). Designing technology for children with special needs: Bridging perspectives through participatory design. CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts, 7(1), 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, R. A. (1992). Children’s participation: From tokenism to citizenship. UNICEF: Innocenti Essays (Vol. 4). http://doi.org/88-85401-05-8

  • Heerink, M., Vanderborght, B., Broekens, J., & Albó-Canals, J. (2016). New friends: Social robots in therapy and education. International Journal of Social Robotics, 8, 443–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heller, S. (1998). The meaning of children in culture becomes a focal point for scholars. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 44(48), 14–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (2003). Technologies of humiliation: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva, 41(3), 223–244. https://doi.org/10.2307/41821248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1999). On recalling ANT. In J. Law & J. Hassard (Eds.), Actor network theory and after (pp. 15–25). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonard, S. T., & Tronto, J. C. (2007). The genders of citizenship. American Political Science Review, 101(1), 33. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055407070207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • López Gómez, D. (2015). Little arrangements that matter. Rethinking autonomy-enabling innovations for later life. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 93, 91–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2014.02.015

  • Mol, A. (2008). The logic of care. Health and the problem of patient choice. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203927076.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nesset, V., & Large, A. (2004). Children in the information technology design process: A review of theories and their applications. Library and Information Science Research, 26(2), 140–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2003.12.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papadopoulos, D. (2011). Alter-ontologies: Towards a constituent politics in technoscience. Social Studies of Science, 41(2), 177–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pateman, C. (1995). El contrato sexual. Iztapalapa: Anthropos, México, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ponterotto, J. G. (2006). Brief note on the origins, evolution, and meaning of the qualitative research concept thick description. The Qualitative Report, 11(3), 538–549.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puig de la Bellacasa, M. (2011). Matters of care in technoscience: Assembling neglected things. Social Studies of Science, 41(1), 85–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312710380301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scaife, M., & Rogers, Y. (1999). Kids as informants: Telling us what we didn’t know or confirming what we knew already? In A. Druin (Ed.), The design of children’s technology (pp. 1–26). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1145/258549.258789.

  • Sevenhuijsen, S. (1998). Citizenship and the ethic of care. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sevenhuijsen, S. (2004). Trace: A method for normative policy analysis from the ethic of care. In S. Sevenhuijsen & A. Svab (Eds.), The heart of the matter. The contribution of the ethic of care to social policy in some new WU member states (pp. 13–47). Peace Institute: Ljubljana.

    Google Scholar 

  • Storni, C. (2015). Notes on ANT for designers: Ontological, methodological and epistemological turn in collaborative design. CoDesign, 11(3–4), 166–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2015.1081242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, L. (2003). Agencies in technology design: Feminist reconfigurations. Star, 27, 15–16. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1247727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanaka, F., Cicourel, A., & Movellan, J. R. (2007). Socialization between toddlers and robots at an early childhood education center. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2007(104), 17954–17958.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tronto, J. C. (1993). Moral boundaries. A political argument for an ethic of care. New York City: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vallès-Peris, N., Angulo, C., & Domènech, M. (2018). Children’s imaginaries of human-robot interaction in healthcare. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(979). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15050970.

  • Verkerk, M. A. (2001). The care perspective and autonomy. Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy, 4(3), 289–294. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012048907443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Núria Vallès-Peris .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Vallès-Peris, N., Domènech, M. (2021). Two Turtles: Children and Autonomy in Participatory Technological Design. In: Delicado, A., Crettaz Von Roten, F., Prpić, K. (eds) Communicating Science and Technology in Society. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52885-0_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52885-0_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-52884-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-52885-0

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics