Introduction
The importance of physical and mental well-being through social connectedness has been highlighted in psychological and social science research. With advancements in Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs), people have seen potential benefits in using technologies to mediate social connectedness regardless of location and time. This review focuses on empirical research recording Participatory Design Research (PDR) and co-design approaches for informing and contributing to technology development for family connectedness.
Key Findings
Empirical research on co-designing technologies with families for connectedness is limited, with only seven studies identified between 2005 and 2019. Most research was conducted in Western contexts, indicating a lack of insights from other regions. The studies involved families in multiple phases of the design process and co-creation activities, demonstrating co-design according to Sanders and Stappers’ definition. Various methods were used, including interviews, cultural probes, technology probe deployment, PD or co-design workshops, and prototype testing or deployment.
Methods and Tools for Co-Designing with Families
Interviewing was the most widely adopted research method across different design phases. PD/co-design workshops and prototype testing/deployment were often applied in the generative and evaluative phases. Tools supporting PD/co-design activities included low-tech art materials and high-tech instruments like VR helmets and digital materials.
Challenges in Co-Designing with Families
Four challenges were identified: engaging families for long-term participation, recruiting diverse families, technical difficulties in multi-household research, and stimulating participants’ creativity. Maintaining consistent involvement and dealing with technical issues were significant hurdles.
Scenarios of Technology-Mediated Family Connectedness
Most designs addressed remote family connectedness, with some focusing on co-located experiences. Technologies mediated connectedness through mutual awareness, shared activities, and storytelling. Scenarios varied based on distance, synchronicity, and types of family ties.
Concerns Over Mediating Family Connectedness by Technologies
Privacy and self-disclosure concerns were significant, particularly with designs involving video cameras or sensory experiences. Tangible designs were beneficial, especially for older adults and young children, but not always practical. Playful collaborations were encouraged through shared activities like storytelling, but perceptions of playfulness varied by age.
Discussion
The review highlights the need for flexible co-design methods accommodating scheduling issues and life changes. Recruiting diverse families and exploring innovative tools like metaverse platforms and AI technologies were suggested for future research. Six design implications were summarised for domestic communication technologies, focusing on co-design with diverse families, leveraging existing patterns of shared activities, balancing interests across ages, and affording autonomy in content disclosure.
Conclusion
This review provides an overview of co-designing technologies with families for connectedness, identifying challenges and design implications. While limited by its focus on English publications from primarily Western contexts, it offers insights into co-design methodology and technology-mediated family connectedness. Future reviews should consider cross-cultural collaboration and a broader scope of publications.
