Table 3 Research design of the reviewed literature.
Research Item | Method(s)a | Tool(s)b | Participants |
|---|---|---|---|
Vetere et al., 2005 | 1. Home visit | / | 6 pairs of cohabitating heterosexual Caucasian couples in stable relationships (3 pairs with children) aged from their late 20s to late 40s |
2. Cultural probes (7 weeks); Periodical interviews (3 times) | Diaries, scrapbooks, camera with docking printer, postcards, pens, glue, scissors, catch-phrase stickers; small, printed facsimiles of mobile device screens | ||
3. Focus group | / | ||
4. Brainstorming and design workshop | / | Human–computer interface experts | |
5. Participatory design workshops (4 weeks) | Tools for drawing; pictures taken from cultural probes, etc. | The 6 pairs of couples participated in Stages 1–3 | |
6. Prototyping | / | / | |
Plaisant et al., 2006 | 1. Interviews | / | 3 Swedish families; 3 French families; 1 U.S. family |
2. Cultural probes | Disposable cameras, diaries, and post-it notes | ||
3. Technology probesc; Data logging; Subsequent interviews | 2 technology probes: messageProbe and videoProbe | ||
4. Full-day workshops: Low-tech prototyping activities (with individual households, entire families, and multiple families) | Low-tech materials | ||
5. Online web survey ( ~ 2 months) | Online questionnaire | Online respondents | |
6. Case study: Interviews (each household) | Early paper prototype | The U.S. family (same as in Stages 1–4): Junior family parents and 2 children (aged 10 and 13) and two households of two sets of grandparents | |
7. Field study: Prototype deployment (8 months); Home visits; Informal interviews; Screen captures | Functional prototype: Shared Calendar | ||
8. Design iteration | / | / | |
Follmer et al., 2010 | 1. Lab trials; Observation; Interviews | Prototypes: Find It; Farmer’s Animals | Family 1: Mother and daughter (aged 5); Family 2: Mother and two daughters (aged 2 and 5) |
2. Lab-based experiment | Prototype: Story Places | 4 children (aged 6–7) | |
3. Lab-based testing; Data logging; Interviews | Prototype: People in Books (Building on findings from stage 1) | Family 1 (same as in stage 1) | |
Judge et al., 2010 | 1. Pilot study (4 months) | Initial prototype | The researcher’s family: The household of a researcher, his wife, and 2 children (aged 3 years and 8 months), and the household of the researcher’s parents |
2. Long-term field deployment (4 months); Semi-structured contextual interviews (4 times) | Updated prototype | ||
3. Short-term field deployment (5 weeks); Semi-structured contextual interviews (4 times) | The sisters’ families: The household of Sister 1 and her husband and son (aged 18 months), and the household of Sister 2 and her partner; The daughter’s family: The household of a daughter, her husband and son (aged 2), and the household of the daughter’s mother and stepfather | ||
Raju, 2018 | 1. Exposure to head-mounted display and physical model of the house; Writing/drawing desires and fantasies | Books and pens | A grandmother (aged 61), her granddaughter (aged 11), and her grandson (aged 8) |
2. Home visit; Co-making wish list for virtual home (grandchildren) | / | ||
3. Co-making imaginative artifact: Pegasus and a chocolate tree | Plasticine and paper, a chocolate tree using Styrofoam, acrylic colours | ||
4. Ideas actualisation: 360-degree video recording | The house model and the co-made artifacts | ||
5. Home visit; Additional ideas co-creation | / | ||
6. Additional ideas actualisation | Physical setup; Necessary raw materials (Styrofoam, gum, acrylic colours etc.); Video recording equipment | ||
7. Final prototype display | Co-created outcomes | ||
Christensen et al., 2019 | 1.1. Provotypec Activity #1 – Shared Calendar co-creation | A3 paper, cards representing different technologies, blank cards | Family 1: Mother (46), father (40), two daughters (12, 9), and a son (12); Family 2: Parents (both 41) and two sons (11, 9); Family 3: Mother (47), father (46), a daughter (9), and a son (7) |
1.2. Provotypec Activity #2—Social Drawing co-creation | Paper and pens | Family 4: Mother (46), father (44), two sons (9, 5) and a daughter (7); Family 5: Mother (45), father (44), two daughters (14, 10), and a son (7); Family 6: Parents (both 43) and two sons (13, 8) | |
2. In-situ evaluation: Prototype deployment; Interviews; Questionnaires | Prototype: STORIES | Families 2 and 4 | |
Tzou et al., 2019 | 1. Brainstorming: Family story co-creation; Observation | Three prompts: past family experience; a-decade future speculation; an important place to the family | The Pony Family: 2 parents and a daughter (aged 7) who are Seneca-Cayuga; The Wanbli family: 2 parents and 2 sons (aged 13 and 10) who are Lakota and Paiute |
2. Co-Design: Animating family story; Observation | Robotics elements such as motors, LED lights, and sensors; Scratch (programming platform) | ||
3. Co-Design: Scene building a diorama in a cardboard box; Observation | A diorama in a cardboard box | ||
4. Final Presentations | Co-created outcomes: Dioramas | ||
5. Post-workshop interviews | / |
