CHECk: a tool to inform and encourage ethical practice in participatory design with children
Abstract
When working with children in participatory design activities ethical questions arise that are not always considered in a standard ethics review. This paper highlights five challenges around the ethics of the value of design and the ethics of the children's participation and presents a new tool, CHECk that deals with three of these challenges by virtue of two checklists that are designed to challenge researchers in CCI and HCI to critically consider the reasons for involving children in design projects and to examine how best to describe design activities in order that children can better consent to participate.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Iversen, O. S., Smith, R. C., & Dindler, C. (2017) · Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Interaction Design and Children · doi:10.1145/3078072.3079725 · Cited by 306 · see citing works
“” While a few IDC authors have touched on ideas closely related to political PD [18,21,22,29], we find the perspective is underdeveloped.”
BackgroundParticipatory Design and Design for Values
van der Velden, M., & Mörtberg, C. (2014) · Handbook of Ethics, Values, and Technological Design · doi:10.1007/978-94-007-6994-6_33-1 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Iivari, N., & Kinnula, M. (2016) · Proceedings of the 9th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/2971485.2971531 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
- Authors
- Read, J. C., Horton, M., Sim, G., Gregory, P., Fitton, D., & Cassidy, B.
- Affiliations
- University of Lancashire (GB)
- University of Central Lancashire, Preston, United Kingdom
- Venue
- CHI '13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2013-04-27
- Pages
- 187-192
- OpenAlex
- W2167451580
- Cited by
- 63
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 4
- FWCI
- 14.55
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Children's Rights and Participation
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
- Keywords
- children's participation, research ethics, participatory design, value of design, informed consent, cheques, ethical review
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
