What Can Be Learnt From 130 Children's Dream Wheelchair Designs? Eliciting Child-centred Insights Using An Interdisciplinary Design Analysis Framework

Abstract

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.

Full text

WHAT CAN BE LEARNT FROM 130 CHILDREN'S DREAM
WHEELCHAIR DESIGNS? ELICITING CHILD-CENTRED
INSIGHTS USING AN INTERDISCIPLINARY DESIGN ANALYSIS
FRAMEWORK
O'Sullivan, Cara; Bernardi, Francesca; Nickpour, Farnaz
University of Liverpool
ABSTRACT
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 design, Paediatric Mobility, User centred design, Childhood, Collaborative
design

1 INTRODUCTION
Lack of child-centred design approach has historically resulted in various issues around the desirability,
feasibility and usability of inclusive paediatric mobility (IPM) interventions such as wheelchairs
(O'Sullivan and Nickpour, 2020). The multidisciplinary nature of the IPM field requires various
stakeholder voices to be captured and considered in the design process, which has often resulted in
children’s voices being diluted, repressed or sometimes excluded. To address such issues and ensure the
future of IPM design is built upon a holistically considered and inclusive foundation, clarity around why
and how to capture, interpret, and represent the voices of children needs to be improved. The word ‘voice’
is used metaphorically in the context of this paper to signify opinions and expressions encapsulated by all
modes of communication, with explicit inclusion of non-verbal mediums. Children are lived experience
experts in their own mobility and so their perceptions, opinions and ideas around their mobility are of
significant value in an IPM design process. Incorporating children’s voices, perspectives, requirements,
and rights, centrally in the design process can elevate the status of their interests and views (Can &
İnalhan, 2017), psychologically and physically empower them (Hussain, 2010), better understand user
experiences (Desmet & Dijkhuis, 2003) and reveal unmet requirements and desires (Yamada-Rice, 2019).
In the context of IPM design, this could uncover currently unacknowledged, unstated and unmet narratives,
requirements, and challenges around children’s mobility, and identify child-centred design opportunities to
improve the desirability, functionality and usability of interventional outcomes. The urgency to involve
children with IPM design stems from the understanding that until IPM interventions fulfil the requirements
and desires of children, their experience of childhood will be less than optimal and their right to achieve
the “fullest possible social integration and individual development” may not be fulfilled (United Nations,
1990).
2 RESEARCH AIMS AND METHODOLOGY
This paper sets out to identify what could be captured through children's voices in an IPM design process,
both qualitatively and quantitatively, when children take on the active role as Designer. The paper also
explores how interdisciplinarity can help extract meaningful insights from children’s design expressions.
To address these two aims, a qualitative secondary dataset was selected for interrogation and analysis, in
which 130 children who use a wheelchair designed their 'dream wheelchairs'. This paper analyses the
children’s responses and collates their imagined mobility futurescapes, ideas, and dreams, in order to
unpick and assess hierarchy of narratives, requirements, and challenges around children's wheelchairs.
Recognising the complex nature of inviting and including children’s design input, the analysis embraces an
interdisciplinary approach which brings together researchers and IPM stakeholders with distinct
experiential and disciplinary backgrounds, to interweave their differing lenses throughout the process. The
questioning and merging of different disciplinary perspectives can provide a more holistic, rigorous and
exhaustive approach to child-centred research which in turn ensures children’s voices are deeply
considered without the distinctions of disciplinary bias, and with reduced chance of misinterpretation
(CohenMiller & Pate, 2019).
3 ANALYSING CHILDREN'S DREAM WHEELCHAIR DESIGNS
3.1 Data Collection, Context and Significance
The selected secondary dataset was collected through a national design competition which asked children
from across the United Kingdom who use a wheelchair, to design their ‘Dream Wheelchair’. The
competition aimed to create a national conversation involving the voices and ideas of as many young
wheelchair users as possible, and ran for seven weeks in 2019; it encouraged participants to visualise or
describe their designs either individually, with assistance, or in a group. Dream wheelchair designs were
submitted by 130 wheelchair users aged between four to seventeen years, making this the largest and most
recent qualitative dataset of IPM designs by children. The dataset aligns with the research aims set out in
this paper whilst being adopted for a purpose different to the original intentions of the data collection

(Spurlock, 2020). The author of this paper is responsible for leading the analysis of the dataset and has no
connection to any of the competition entrants, nor any involvement with organising the competition.
3.2 Child-centred Design Analysis Framework
To ensure all aspects of the children’s designs could be captured systematically for discussion on multiple
levels, an interdisciplinary theoretical framework was devised to provide structure in the analysis process.
Whilst various tools and frameworks exist to facilitate the analysis of designs, no such thing exists to
facilitate holistic interdisciplinary analysis of designs from a child-centred perspective. Several existing
frameworks were identified as points of reference from across disciplines, and synthesised keeping
‘theories separate but integrated’ (CohenMiller & Pate, 2019) to create the underpinnings of a holistic
intersecting framework suitable for this purpose. The conceptual ‘Three Facets of Language and Art
framework’ (Barroqueiro, 2010) was used as the spine of this framework to divide the analysis into
references relating to the 'Content' and 'Context' of children's designs, and the 'Format' they used to express
their design. The content segment of the framework was expanded by incorporating ‘Categories for
Reasons a Possession Is Valued’ (Richins, 1994), ‘Hierarchy of User Needs’ categories (Walter, 2011), and
foundational Industrial Design principles including ‘CMF’, form, and metaphor. The context segment of
the framework was made up from aspects of the ‘AEIOU’ tool (Robinson, 2015) and the PESTLE analysis
tool (Oxford, 2016). The format segment of the framework was included to record the child’s
communication medium (e.g. a drawing or written description of their design), as well as who else helped
to design it, if specified. The framework was then further detailed and refined by a range of IPM
stakeholders (i.e. lived experience experts - children and parents, occupational therapists, IPM designers
and childhood researchers) through two workshops which invited each of them to review a sample of 14
randomly selected designs from the dataset. The aim of this was to identify high level themes, topics or
points of interest which were recorded and mapped onto the framework. This resulted in the addition of
new nodes, alterations to the order of nodes, language adjustments, and rearrangement of the visual
structure of the framework. Figure 1 illustrates which stakeholders influenced the additional nodes
included in the framework.

Figure 1. The refined child-centred design analysis framework.
3.3 Coding Dataset Using the Framework
The refined child-centred design analysis framework (Figure 1) was then ‘translated’ into a coding
structure using NVivo software to code, categorise and begin to analyse features and functionality
expressed through the dataset. This coding practice revealed child-centred insights and trends, as well as
different disciplinary and stakeholder perspectives. The ‘Child’ and ‘Format’ segments of the framework
were used to gain a better understanding of the child's influences, approach and nature of engagement with
the activity. These segments have been excluded from this paper due to not being immediately relevant to
the research aims, however, they have been included in Figure 1 to provide a complete visualisation of the
analysis framework, and should be further explored in future research.
4 FINDINGS FROM DREAM WHEELCHAIR ANALYSIS
The richness and diversity of children's drawings and texts enable different levels of analysis with two
distinct potential design research outcomes. On one level, children’s dream wheelchair designs can help
capture specific user requirements and product features, informing the design of paediatric wheelchairs
through collecting URS (User Requirements Specifications) and PDS (Product Design Specifications). In
this capacity, such analysis is aimed at ‘problem solving’, and is recognised as a ‘Research For Design’
activity. On the other level, the designs could help uncover children’s highlevel narratives, social
imaginaries, and meanings around childhood, mobility and disability. Rather than interpreting children’s
input based primarily on feasibility, their designs could be unpicked, analysed and used to identify what is
missing from the current state of IPM interventions from a childcentred perspective. In this capacity, the
analysis is aimed at ‘problem framing’, and recognised as a ‘Research Through Design’ activity.

The collective magnitude and hierarchy of topics expressed by children in their dream wheelchair designs
can be gauged by taking a closer look at trends from the analysis results in Figure 2 and Figure 3. Of the
many contextual variables identified through analysing children’s designs, age proved to be the most
notable influencer for variations in the expressed topics (based on the available data). Age has thus been
used as a marker for comparative analysis by splitting all the results into designs by 4-12 year olds (70
children), and designs by 13-17 year olds (60 children) to highlight topics which vary notably between the
age groups.
Figure 2. Results from dream wheelchair design analysis; Context segment of framework.

Figure 3. Results from dream wheelchair design analysis; Content segment of framework
.

5 TRENDING TOPICS AND INITIAL INSIGHTS
The most widely referenced topics in the analysis are classified as ‘trending’ and include all which were
referenced by 30% or more of children within either age group. Sections 5.1 to 5.8 offer further insights
into the children’s designs and imagined mobility scenarios by discussing the trending topics and
commenting on their significance, including variations in trend rates between the different age groups. 5.1
Trending in 'Values'
5.1.1 Utilitarian
Trending at 82% overall, utilitarian expressions were the most referenced topic from the analysis, captured
in 77% of designs by children aged 4 to 12 years, and in 87% of designs by children between 13 to 17
years. Utilitarian expressions encompass a broad range of subtopics relating to functionality, expressed
both implicitly and explicitly. Examples include “the tyres should be thick, chunky and solid so there is no
risk of punctures” and “the chair is fun and relaxing but most importantly functional". This trend indicates
that children have considered the functionality of their wheelchair in more detail than the visual aspects of
their wheelchair which could signify an unspoken hierarchy of importance.
5.1.2 Desirability
The second most referenced topic in children's designs was desirability, with overall 65% of children
emphasising the need for their wheelchair to appeal to their personal aspirations or visual preferences, at
the same time as seeking respect and sometimes envy from others. There is little variation between age
groups around this topic, with references by 67% of children aged 4 to 12 years, and by 28% of children
between 13 to 17 years. Incremental innovations captured at this topic tended to focus on improving the
desirability of their existing wheelchair through cosmetic alterations or the addition of accessories. More
radical innovations around desirability tended to focus on re-imagining what the entire wheelchair concept
could enable, drawing on fantasy and fiction worlds, and indulging in their dreams to redefine what is
possible.
5.1.3 Appearance related
Trending at 30%, references which attributed value to appearance can be found in 31% of designs by
children aged 4 to 12 years, and in 28% of those by children between 13 to 17 years. References to this
topic state the worth or importance of appearance which differentiates the topic to appearance related
references within the ‘Design Language’ section of the framework. References to this topic cover how the
user appears in their wheelchair, how others perceive the wheelchair, why they want their wheelchair to
appear in a certain way, how certain colours or styles make them feel, and what their visual choices
represent or mean. One example states “I put a lot of colours on my wheelchair so that it looks like a
rainbow and makes me feel happy every day.”
5.1.4 Interpersonal ties
Interpersonal ties were trending at 25% overall, appearing in 19% of designs by children aged 4 to 12
years, and in 33% of designs by children between 13 to 17 years. Many children make explicit reference to
the value of companionship through designing considerate accessories or features to be used by, or engage
with, others in ways that existing wheelchairs do not. References to the value or meaning of children’s
interpersonal ties include examples such as: “…an extra seat attached so that you can take your carer on
long journeys”, “…dog trailer means that my dog can be with me anytime, anywhere”, and a toy machine
“so I can give toys to all the children that I see”. By seeking to include others through these design
features, it is possible to see that the children are considering different ways to induce equality and shared
participation in their wheelchair experience.
5.2 Trending in 'Design Language'
5.2.1 Colours
References to colour/s were annotated or described with detail in 52% of the children's designs. This topic
has little variation across age groups, with reference by 50% of children aged 4 to 12 years and 55% of

children between 13 to 17 years. The most common areas of the wheelchair where colour is referred to
include: the seat, the frame, the wheels, the controls (e.g. buttons) and accessories (e.g. colour changing
lights). Through analysing the nature of children’s expressions, references in this topic generally come
across as desirables rather than requirements.
5.2.2 Metaphor
Overall 25% of children use metaphors to describe their designs, however, there is a noteworthy difference
between the use of metaphors across the two age groups; 34% of children aged 4 to 12 years use a
metaphor whilst only 15% of children between 13 to 17 years use one. This correlates closely to the trends
in imagination-rich topics (mentioned later in this paper) such as ‘Power or Magic’ and could be attributed
to older children approaching the design task more rationally or possibly with a wider vocabulary and thus
not requiring such imaginative language to communicate their concepts. Examples of metaphors used in
children’s designs include: “as powerful as a crocodile", "as comfortable as a couch”, “like a spa on the
move”, “it will feel like my mum and look after me for forever.”
5.3 Trending in 'Functionality'
5.3.1 Technology
With 44% of children including references to technology in their designs, this is the highest overall
trending topic in the ‘Functionality’ section of the analysis framework. This trend increases for children
over the age of 12, with technology appearing in 36% of designs by children aged 4 to 12 years whilst
appearing in 53% of designs by children between 13 to 17 years. Designs by those aged 4 to 12 years
mostly relate to enjoyment, usability and convenience, whilst designs by those between 13 to 17 years also
relate to external technological influences and the user’s relationships. The majority of references to tech
equipment relate to iPads, TVs, mobile phones and charging devices.
5.3.2 Weather protection
With 32% of children including references to weather protection features. This topic has a slight increase in
trend rate with age, with 29% of children aged 4 to 12 years, and 35% of children between 13 to 17 years
including weather protection features in their designs. Overall, 93% of these children specifically refer to
protection from various types of precipitation (i.e. snow, rain, hail). Protection from sunshine is also a
dominant theme within this topic.
5.3.3 Speed or Power
References to speed or power are captured in 32% of all children’s dream wheelchairs. The topic trends
higher in designs by children aged 4 to 12 years, with references by 37%, compared to 25% in designs by
children between 13 to 17 years. The dominant underlying narrative accompanying references in this topic
is a desire to move fast, and in many cases to move faster than able-bodied peers. Reasoning behind one of
the designs referencing speed states “when my friends are running I feel really left out, even when they
stay with me I would like to be racing but I cannot.” Another writes “A booster pack for winning first at
Sports Day!”
5.3.4 Lights
Lights were trending at 28% overall, appearing in 26% of designs by children aged 4 to 12 years and
appearing in 32% of designs by children between 13 to 17 years. Lights were predominantly mentioned as
either a safety feature, a functional appearance related feature, or both. Words used when referencing lights
as a safety feature included: automatic, dark, flashing warning, headlights, indicators, night time,
reflectors. Words used when referencing lights as a functional appearance related feature included: a
chandelier inside the wheelchair, colour changing, disco, fairy lights, LED wheels, multi-coloured lights,
spotlights.
5.3.5 Fly or Hover
Trending at 25% overall, reference to flying or hovering functions were made in 31% of designs by
children aged 4 to 12 years and in 18% of designs by children between 13 to 17 years. The drop in trend

rate for children over 12 years could be a result of older children giving greater consideration to the
viability or feasibility of their designs than younger children. Although the concept of a flying wheelchair
might seem unviable, it may be possible to unpick children’s expressions to reveal deeper or alternative
narratives with viable reasoning. For example, 27% of these designs refer to using a fly or hover function
specifically as a means to overcome steps or rough terrain in their wheelchair.
5.3.6 Horn or Sound
References to a horn or sound are captured in 25% of all children’s dream wheelchairs. The topic trends
higher in designs by children between 13 to 17 years, with references by 30% of them, compared to only
21% of children aged 4 to 12 years. The two dominant narratives attached to references in this topic are
safety and entertainment. 55% of references in this topic refer to a horn or sound function for the purpose
of safety, such as a warning beep, whilst the other 45% refer to sound as a means for entertainment. 5.4
Trending in 'Usability'
5.4.1 Controls
Trending at 40% overall, details about the nature of wheelchair controls were captured in 49% of designs
by children aged 4 to 12 years, and in 30% of those by children between 13 to 17 years. All descriptions of
control function adopt a narrative of facilitating usability or independence for the user. Specific types of
controls mentioned include: Buttons, chin controls, control panels, cruise control, eye gaze, fingerprint
recognition, gear sticks, handlebars, hand controls, head controls, knobs, levers, manual and automated
joysticks, mind control, remote controls, steering wheels, switches, touch screen, triggers, various types of
brakes, voice recognition, and wheelchairs which can be controlled by customisable control inputs based
on the users' choice.
5.5 Trending in 'Meaning'
5.5.1 Safety or Security
Of all children, 38% expressed the inclusion of safety or security features in their dream wheelchair
designs. Reference to such features declines for children over the age of 12, with safety or security features
expressed in 30% of designs by children between 13 to 17 years whilst being expressed in 46% of designs
by children aged 4 to 12 years. Keywords used in reference to this topic include: 999 call if I need help,
able to eject me, alarm, anti-tip, automatic cushion if you fall out, automatic seatbelt, beeper to warn
people, brake pedal, call button connected to parents, crash prevention, emergency button, fingerprint
recognition, first aid kit, glow in the dark, handles, harness, helmet visor, keys to open, life jacket under
seat, panic button, parachute, police light, protection, repair kit, ring for help, safety clips, safety lights,
secure storage, sensors, shield, SOS signal button, winch under seat if I get stuck in mud.
5.5.2 Disability Remark
Of all children, 28% expressed some kind of account or remark relating to their lived experience with a
disability, or the behaviours of those around them as a wheelchair user. A slight increase in references can
be seen with age as 26% of children aged 4 to 12 years make a disability remark in their design, whilst
30% of children between 13 to 17 years do so. These references emerged primarily as written descriptions
and have in many cases been embodied by features which address their remark. Examples of such include:
“does more than serve as an alternative to walking”, “You won't get the sympathy stare...you will get a
WHOA, look at that chair”, “the height can be adjusted so you can look down on others for a change”, “an
air horn for people who reach over me”, and “Most restaurants and places do not have wheelchair
accessible tables so you could use your own”.
5.5.3 Power or Magic
Trending at 25% overall, references to power or magic occur in 31% of designs by children aged 4 to 12
years, and 17% of designs by children between 13 to 17 years. The dominant underlying narrative in this
topic centres on children’s abundance of imagination, detailing the adventures they would go on and
powers they would have if they could really live their dreams. References to such magical fantasy lands
include: “a portal to your own secret dimension” and “a time travel button that takes you to the past”.

Another common underlying narrative in this topic is for the wheelchair to not only enable their mobility
impairment to turn from disability into ability, but to grant them abilities superior to their able-bodied
peers.
5.6 Trending in 'Convenience'
5.6.1 Food or Drink
With an equal trend rate to Safety and Security, 38% of children included references to food or drink in
their designs, making it the highest overall trending topic in the ‘Convenience’ section of User Experience
within the analysis framework. This trend was higher for children aged 4 to 12 years, with 46% of them
referencing food or drink in their wheelchair design compared with 30% of children between 13 to 17
years. References to food and drink varied broadly and included: Trays, storage, coolers, fridges and
baskets specifically for food or drink, ways to cook food on the wheelchair, various kinds of built-in drinks
machines, supplies or machines to create food, food dispensers, methods for sharing food with others,
emergency food supplies, secret stashes, wheelchairs powered by food waste, and wheelchairs made out of
food.
5.6.2 Storage or Hidden Compartment
References to storage or hidden compartments were found in 35% of all children’s designs and this was the
highest trending topic for children between 13 to 17 years in the ‘Convenience’ section of User Experience
within the analysis framework. Of children aged 4 to 12 years, 30% designed storage or hidden
compartments intended for items including: accessories, assistant/carer’s belongings, bags, books,
chocolate, dog leads, drinks, emergency equipment, food, litter, remote control, snacks, sweets, technology,
and toys. Of children between 13 to 17 years, 40% designed storage or hidden compartments specifically
for items including: bibs, bits and bobs, cups, glasses, jewellery, pens, phone, rain cover, SatNav, snacks,
spare batteries, spare wheel, suitcase, table, walking sticks, wallet, and water bottles.
5.7 Trending in 'Wellbeing'
5.7.1 Physical Comfort
Trending at 35%, descriptions relating to physical comfort were captured in 30% of designs by children
aged 4 to 12 years, and in 42% of those by children between 13 to 17 years. Physical comfort could be
considered as a minimum requirement in the design of a dream wheelchair, and may have been considered
a given by the 65% of children who did not explicitly refer to it in their designs. The main touchpoint
associated with comfort was the seat of the wheelchair, many of which also used terminology specifically
associated with seating systems. Reoccurring keywords in the analysis included: aches, back, bed, bottom,
calm, comfort, comfortable, comfy, cushion, ergonomic seat, footrest, head rest, lie down, low energy,
massage, moulded shape, padding, pain, position, postural support, recline, riser, shock absorbers, sleep,
smooth ride, sore, spa, springs, stress relief, suspension, tilt in space, tired.
5.7.2 Temperature Control
Temperature control trends at 27% overall, with references from 24% of children aged 4 to 12 years, and
from 30% of children between 13 to 17 years. Features regarding only heating or keeping warm account
for 77% of these references, those regarding only staying cool account for 9%, and both heating and
cooling functions account for 14%. The majority of references mention weather conditions as the reason
for needing such function. Contextual factors which might influence this result include the time of year and
weather when the child designed their dream wheelchair, as well as the typical year-round climate and
weather where they live, geographically speaking.
5.8 Trending in 'Context'
5.8.1 Relationship
At 36%, the only 'trending' topic within the Context section of the analysis framework was ‘Relationship’
which encompasses references to anyone or anything the user expresses a connection or interpersonal

interaction with. This topic has little variation across age groups, with references by 36% of children aged
4 to 12 years, and 37% by children between 13 to 17 years. This topic relates closely to ‘interpersonal ties’
but references do not necessarily state the nature, worth or importance of the expression. References
commonly relate to participating in activities with others, functions which make the wheelchair serve
others as well as the user, and disability remarks around the way the user interacts with or compares to
others. Children aged 4 to 12 years also commonly relate to relationships with pets or toys. Such
consideration for others highlights children’s desires to explore their social role beyond the functional
aspects of mobility, signalling their concern for the wellness and participation of others in ways that
dismantle a rhetoric of need and dependency, hinting towards the potential for a wheelchair to facilitate
child-initiated socialisation through empowering other (potentially able-bodied) people.
6 CONCLUSION & FURTHER RESEARCH
This paper analysed 130 children’s dream wheelchair designs to explore what could be captured by
involving their voices in an IPM design process. A novel interdisciplinary and child-centred framework
was developed to facilitate the analysis of children’s visual or written design input in order to extract,
analyse and quantify meaningful insights. The framework could be utilised by other domains both closely
related and more distant from IPM, to help elicit and elevate children’s voices in design processes. Initial
findings from the analysis identified trending topics and uncovered children’s mobility narratives,
requirements, and imagined futurescapes, which could be implemented by IPM practitioners and
researchers to inform and steer strategy, design and development of future child-centred mobility solutions.
These initial findings will be further analysed to connect findings to research in the fields of emotional and
experience design and to make sense of children’s contributions beyond the most widely referenced topics
within different age groups.
Future research will address the design analysis framework as a whole, with specific focus on the 'Child'
and ‘Format’ segments, to explore how engagements with children in the IPM design process could be
optimised. Questions around how child-centred insights should be translated into design specifications
need to be further explored in order to streamline the incorporation of children's voices into design
interventions. It is hoped that further interdisciplinary work between different stakeholders, practitioners
and academics may produce more viable design practices that include and elevate disabled children’s
voices and are responsive to their desires and ideas.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank the researchers and IPM stakeholders who contributed to the creation of
the child-centred design analysis framework, as well as the Wheels of Change project and the PPL Dream
Fund initiative for sharing the secondary data used in this study. Study conduct was supported by the Hugh
Greenwood Fund for Children's Health Research.
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.
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.
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.
Hussain, S. (2010). Empowering marginalised children in developing countries through participatory design
processes, CoDesign, 6:2, 99-117.
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.
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].
Richins, M, L. (1994). Valuing Things: The Public and Private Meanings of Possessions. Journal of Consumer
Research, 21 (3), Pp. 504-521.

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].
Spurlock, D. (2020). Scholarship During a Pandemic: Secondary Data Analysis. J Nurs Educ. 59(5).
United Nations (1990). Convention On The Rights Of The Child. UN Commission on Human Rights.
Walter, A. (2011). Hierarchy of User Needs: Designing for Emotion, First Ed. Oct 18, 2011; A Book Apart.
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.