Two Turtles: Children and Autonomy in Participatory Technological Design

  • Núria Vallès-PerisEmail author
  • Miquel Domènech


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.


  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. Callon, M., Lascoumes, P., & Barthe, Y. (2009). Acting in an uncertain world: An essay on technical democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Domènech, M. (2017). Democratizar la ciencia. Revue D’anthropologie Des Connaissances, 11,2(2), XXV. doi:
  7. Druin, A. (2002). The role of children in the design of new technology. Behaviour and Information Technology, 21(1), 1–25. Scholar
  8. 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. Scholar
  9. Fraser, N. (2016). Contradictions of capital and care. New Left Review, 100, 99–117.Google Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Hart, R. A. (1992). Children’s participation: From tokenism to citizenship. UNICEF: Innocenti Essays (Vol. 4).
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Jasanoff, S. (2003). Technologies of humiliation: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva, 41(3), 223–244. Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Leonard, S. T., & Tronto, J. C. (2007). The genders of citizenship. American Political Science Review, 101(1), 33. Scholar
  18. López Gómez, D. (2015). Little arrangements that matter. Rethinking autonomy-enabling innovations for later life. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 93, 91–101.
  19. Mol, A. (2008). The logic of care. Health and the problem of patient choice. London: Routledge. Scholar
  20. 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. Scholar
  21. Papadopoulos, D. (2011). Alter-ontologies: Towards a constituent politics in technoscience. Social Studies of Science, 41(2), 177–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pateman, C. (1995). El contrato sexual. Iztapalapa: Anthropos, México, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana.Google Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Puig de la Bellacasa, M. (2011). Matters of care in technoscience: Assembling neglected things. Social Studies of Science, 41(1), 85–106. Scholar
  25. 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.
  26. Sevenhuijsen, S. (1998). Citizenship and the ethic of care. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Storni, C. (2015). Notes on ANT for designers: Ontological, methodological and epistemological turn in collaborative design. CoDesign, 11(3–4), 166–178. Scholar
  29. Suchman, L. (2003). Agencies in technology design: Feminist reconfigurations. Star, 27, 15–16. Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tronto, J. C. (1993). Moral boundaries. A political argument for an ethic of care. New York City: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. 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).
  33. Verkerk, M. A. (2001). The care perspective and autonomy. Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy, 4(3), 289–294. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universitat Autònoma de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations