Consulting Report: Co-Designing with Children

Liang Zhi (00366376), Rachel Gilmour (61887) & Tamara Tomanic (61898)

Supervisor: Jørgen Ole Bærenholdt

3rd January, 2019.

Number of pages - 63 Number of characters - 99574

Table of Contents

Management of the project 3

Methods 8

Literature Review 12

Bibliography 19

Management of the project

This section focuses on the context of the project: accounting for how it came about, how the management of the project was handled and how we worked as a team. We will reflect on the phases of initiating, planning, executing/ conducting fieldwork, analysing our data and closure/ finalising the project (Westland, 2016).

Initiating the Project

The initial phase of the project emerged from our collaboration with the cross-disciplinary architecture firm, arki_lab. This collaboration revolved around their upcoming book which explores the topic of outdoor learning spaces for children. Our role in this project evolved from initially being researchers for arki_lab to becoming contributors to the book.

They wished for us to focus on the theme of experience-based learning. This guided our initial phase of desk research for which we found various case studies. After multiple discussions, we settled on three case studies: construction site playgrounds (Danish: Byggelegeplads), the Theme Gardens in Valby Park (Danish: Valby Temahaverne) and the Norwegian concept of Barnetraakk and their Filter project in Gran municipality, Norway. Once we finalised this with arki_lab, we conducted desk research and field work. Field work was only conducted in the first two case studies as it was not possible to do so for the latter because of impractical travel issues.

Throughout the research process we presented our findings to arki_lab through writing. As our research evolved, we agreed upon writing a chapter for the book based on this theme of experienced-based learning. The book is to be printed in January 2019 and will be published later in the year.

As the topic of the semester project concerns producing a consultancy report, we began to debate about how we can use our work for arki_lab as inspiration for our project. We were inspired by this process of working with arki_lab and their enthusiasm for co-design. We were especially inspired by the findings of our research and decided to further explore one

of our case studies, the construction site playgrounds, for the book in the context of a consultancy framework.

Before we elaborate upon the management of conducting the project, we will reflect on the group’s expectations of the project, prefered way of working and agreement on frequently meeting.

Group expectations

When we formed our group, we discussed our expectations for the project and created a written contract which we followed throughout the semester project. The purpose of this was to maintain efficiency throughout the project and avoid potential conflicts. The contract states that we will aim to communicate well, meaning to be honest with each other letting each other know our schedules in advance to ensure that we complete our work on time. This became crucial as the project evolved because of our weekly deadlines for aki_lab, we had to maintain efficiency and professionalism. We also agreed upon maintaining a balance between working alone and working together. Because of the nature our project evolved into, we divided up tasks as we had to juggle our various case studies. Therefore, it was important to work alone yet also together, to ensure that the writing we produced for arki_lab and our project was coherent and clear. Finally, we wanted to aim for a good grade and enjoy the process as we all share a keen interest in arki_lab and the practice of co-design.

Planning the project

The next step was to come up with a plan how to incorporate the work we were doing for arki_lab project into our semester project. We used it as inspiration and decided to focus on co-designing. Further on, we identified a link between our inspiration coming from our work with arki_lab and the experience of working with them. We recognized arki_lab as valuable actors in the practice we wished to focus on. As we have already established a relation with arki_lab we had access to our informants which further led to gathering relevant data and generating knowledge.

Balancing Two Projects

As we were dealing with two projects at the same time and with similar themes, we recognized that time management was an important role in the overall process. Therefore, it was important to plan and set deadlines for both projects (research for arki_lab and the semester project) as they were overlapping. We set some ground rules on how to work with both projects to get the most out of it.

One of the challenges we encountered was the writing style that arki_lab wished us to follow when writing for their book. They encouraged us to use playful and easy-to-read language because the book was for a wide audience. As we are all masters students, we were used to writing in a formal and academic fashion and it was something that we struggled with. It also caused an issue for our semester project because we could not use what we had written for them to our project because the language was not suitable for an academic consultancy report. We had to coordinate a lot of rewriting and editing to maintain a balance between the two projects.

One of the things we did in order to ensure that progression was being made with both projects, was to think ahead with our fieldwork. We knew that we wanted our semester project to focus on co-designing in the construction site playgrounds, yet we were investigating its qualities for arki_lab of being an experience-based way of learning. Therefore, we planned our fieldwork in advance, to make sure that we would gather data that was suitable for both projects. This was to ensure that we completed our fieldwork on time for both projects.

The Semester Project

According to the requirements of the curriculum, our task is to produce a consultancy report. This can be done in two ways and we have decided to shape our project as a ‘practice-oriented project focusing on concrete investigation of consumption, experiences and objects or locations’ (SDS, RUC curriculum 2018).

Taking this in consideration we have decided to divide our project into two sections. First one is the Reading Guide for which we believe it is relevant for the internal assessment of

the project. This section is a more academically oriented which fulfills the project requirements. It provides background relevant for the academic understanding of the project. The second section is the actual Consultancy Report which is written for potential clients. The format of this document ‘combines analytical depth with commercial relevance’ in order for us to engage in practicing consultancy (SDS, RUC curriculum 2018). The consultancy report is structured to examine a problem and answer to a client’s needs by providing recommendations and suggestions.

Execution of the project

The overall process of the project was not linear, but rather iterative. Half way through the project we agreed upon using arki_lab as a case study. Therefore, we wanted to collect more focused data on how they practice co-designing in a professional context, as we had only observed them in the context in writing for their book. We asked them to participate in interviews with us on co-design. We believe that this helped us gain better data for analysis and producing strong arguments in relation to the problem formulation.

The next phase of the project entailed analysing our research and formulating it into a consultancy report. We focused on our findings for shaping our recommendations in the report.

Towards the end of the project, we had a peer feedback session with a fellow group in our programme. This provided us with external guidance which helped us make our project have a clear focus. This external perspective made us observe our project from the outside and see where we had to improve.

Closure on the Project We are planning to send our final project to arki_lab as they have expressed interest in it. As our project emerged out of our collaboration with arki_lab, it could be relevant for them as it provides more in-depth research about co-design and the case study in their book.

What would we do differently?

In hindsight, we would have asked arki_lab to define our role more clearly as contributors to the book from the beginning. This includes identifying what our tasks would have been. It was unclear at the beginning just how involved we would be as it had consequences on the timeframe of our semester project. For example, the book deadline was pushed back from early December 2018 to January 2019. This had an effect on us as it we could not focus on our own project as early as we would have liked to, which presented a challenge for us to make our own deadline.

If we had more time, we would go back to the construction site playgrounds and focus on interviews with the children that go there. This would provide even richer findings and would add an additional perspective on the practice of co-design as we only had the chance to observe them.

Methods

The research for this consultancy report uses a combination of investigative methods including a literature review, semi-structured interviews, and observations. The literature review will provide theoretical support to our data analysis and give the reader a clear definition of what co-designing with children entails. The literature review will be used to as a tool within data analysis, to answer the research question and identify solutions and guide our recommendations. The method of interviewing was used to gather information about perceptions of co-design and outdoor learning spaces from architects, children, and pedagogues in the construction site playgrounds. We also conducted observations and documented them through writing. It gave us a deeper insight into understanding how children work as partners when participating in the practice of designing, how they interact with each other, and how they can influence the design.

Interviews The findings in this report are based on semi-structured interviews that we conducted with people involved with our case studies. Interviewing was used to gather empirical information and data about the case studies and perception of children, architects, and pedagogues in regard to the aspects of co-design and outdoor learning space. “The informant’s position is made more explicit and may also be further developed (Flick, 2009: 160).” Therefore, we can dig out more information by raising more questions which are based on discussions with informants during the interviews.

Informant selection was made with respect to the question of the research. Informants who are selected must be those who have experience in co-design activities or projects since the report is dealing with this aspect. We interviewed two different types of informants, regarding their differing backgrounds on co-design, arki_lab and pedagogues from various construction site playgrounds. We prepared three different interview guides according to the interview groups’ backgrounds so that we can systematically unearth more information from informants in a targeted manner and keep the focus on the desired topic at the same time. These three groups are architects from arki_lab, children at the and pedagogues at

construction sites. In this way, we can gather diverse opinions and views, and uncover findings from one group which can be supplemented with those from other groups.

With Architects from arki_lab

As previously mentioned, arki_lab is an cross-disciplinary architecture firm with a focus on co-designing. When co-designing with children, they create various spaces for different purposes and uses, including outdoor learning spaces. From this perspective, they are ideal informants. arki_lab have a wealth of experience in the co-design process. They know the steps and details of how to collaborate with children in co-design projects. Therefore, our interview guide for ArKiLab is to trigger information and data of architects’ perspective on benefits, challenges, and weaknesses of co-design, and their experience in applying co-design to working on outdoor learning space.

We interviewed two employees working in different positions and a founder of ArKiLab. Considering their own working experiences, we decide to do individual interviews with them instead of interviewing them as a group, so that their thoughts are not interfered by others during the interviews. Moreover, we can gather more and deeper insights from each interviewee throughout individual interviews compared to the group interview.

“Individual interview offers the flexibility to adapt questioning according to the responses of interviewees, to clarify questions or answers, or to probe answers more deeply with supplementary questions as appropriate, to explore issues that emerge from the respondents” (Moser and Korstjens, 2017).

Accordingly, we use the same interview guide and raise different questions according to their answers when interviewing them.

With Pedagogues from Construction Sites

Pedagogues working in construction sites have rich experience in how to guide children to collaborate in the design process and managing and maintaining outdoor learning spaces. It gives them a unique understanding and insight into outdoor learning space, because of their working environment. Therefore, our interviews with them are focused on their views

on outdoor learning spaces, the impact and role of co-designing with children on the design of outdoor learning spaces. Our interviews also cover their observation of whether the space in which children participate in the design will arouse their greater interest, make them stay longer, and whether the learning effect will be enhanced, and others about outdoor learning space and co-design.

The pedagogues we interviewed are staff at two construction sites, Regnbuen and Rodovre. These two interviews are conducted separately, partly because of their geographical location and partly because of the different ways in which they encourage children to be involved in co-designing. According to Jamshed (2014: 1), “the research methodologies are considered to be complementary to each other rather than incompatible to each other.” The purpose of doing interviews with them is to collect complementary data. It does not mean that we ignore opposite viewpoints. What we want to do is to analyze, extract and sort out various complementary or contradictory views from our interviews, and then apply them to the analysis of our case study.

Observation

We use this method to observe phenomena and details that occur in co-design activities at construction sites, such as how children interact and communicate with each other, how they use the space. Observation can also help us gain a deeper understanding of terms and situations described by both pedagogues and children in the interviews. Moreover, we can observe some new situations that our interviewees forget to mention or that are contrary to what they say in the interviews. "Participant observation is used as a way to increase the validity of the study, as observations may help the researcher have a better understanding of the context and phenomenon under study. (DeWalt and DeWalt, 2002: 259-300)”. We are aware that we may neglect some representative situation or phenomena that is not our main focus during observation, which can affect data analysis. To alleviate this problem, we follow a suggestion offered by Johnson and Sackett (1998) of using systematic observation procedures to record behaviors. Our observation proceeds in 3 stages (Moser and Korstjens, 2017: 6), firstly descriptive, followed by focused, and then end with a selective stage. We start with a broad observation to get a general image of what is happening in the sites, how children group in co-design activities, what they are doing in outdoor space, and so on. And then we turn our focus to some representative situation that may exemplify our research field. Regular and irregular activities, the situation of variation

and exceptions are considered to be representative. Finally, we keep our focus on selective participants with outstanding abilities to the subject.

Literature Review

“In light of the increased use of evidence-based practice and research generating stronger evidence, literature review has become essential tools for summarizing, synthesizing, integrating or critically appraising prior knowledge in the academic field.” (Paré and Kitsiou, 2017: 10).

Firstly, we will explain how we utilised the tool of a literature review. Through this method, we will firstly, summarize the knowledge of co-design to demonstrate the value and importance of co-design. In this way, it can provide a comprehensive background for understanding the concept of co-design to both readers and us. Secondly, we will extract and analyze useful knowledge and data of co-design to apply to the analysis of our case studies. In this way, the reader can have a clear vision of what is relevant to the problem formulation in this report. Thirdly, we will discuss strengths and weaknesses and other vital issues related to co-design concept. In this way, we are creating a dialectic framework to examine our arguments and data that are extracted from co-design concept. Through literature review, we can provide and accurate definition of what co-designing means and what it entails.

The Concept of Co-Design

According to Sanders and Stappers (2006), the concept of co-design comes from the field of participation design which originated in the Nordic countries in the 1970s. Norway, Sweden, and Denmark developed a set of methods to bring together experts, designers, researchers, and people with relevant professional skills in production design in order to focus resources on increasing the value of industrial production. They emphasized experimenting in participatory or co-design as it focused more on enabling opportunities amongst communities (ibid: 2006).

Co-creation is another concept that derived from the participatory design. The two concepts of co-design and co-creation are often blurred in terminology. The roles of individuals in these concepts are similar. In the view of Sanders and Stappers, co-creation refers to “any act of collective creativity, i.e. creativity. that is shared by two or more people

(2006: 2).” It focuses on the act of creating whether it is matter or immaterial. While co-design refers to “collective creativity as it is applied across the whole span of a design process” (2006: 2). It focuses on the design process being performed collectively. Sanders and Stappers (2006) also stated that designing collaboratively in a broad sense refers to professional and non-professional people together engaged in the design process. However, in their paper, they also often mixed the concepts of co-creation and co-design. For example, they used the concept of co-design in the first example, and they used the concept of co-creation in subsequent examples and in the elaboration of arguments related to examples. In moving on to the next point, they referred back to the concept of collaborative design. The boundaries of these concepts are blurred, therefore, we consider co-design to be an umbrella term for designing collectively. In this project, however, we will use the term co-design.

According to Sanders and Stappers' research (2006), co-design or co-creation before centralised its focus on participation in the early stage of the design process, that is, participation in the process of idea generation. However, they are also placing increasing emphasis on participation in the decision-making process. In their opinion, participation in design through the creation stage and decision-making stage will greatly influence the whole design.

Sanders and Stappers (2006) pointed out that today's product design is not only targeted at users, but also targets future user or community experience, so a user-centric design approach is no longer appropriate for today's challenges. Therefore, a new design discipline rooted in participatory design has emerged. For example, interactive design proposed by Moggridge and Verplank in the 1980s; service design and transformation design began to emerge in 2006. Sanders and Sappers conclude that the emergence of these new design disciplines reflects a shift in design practice from product design to user goals and social needs.

The application of collaborative design changes the role that designers, users, researchers, and designers play in the design process. Sanders and Stappers (2006) argued that the activities of both user and designer are passive during in the design process of user-centric participatory design. As the research object, users passively accept the observation and interview of researchers. They provide information without being involved in the creation of ideas and the development of knowledge and thoughts. Designers, on the other hand,

passively accept the findings and knowledge summarized and generated by researchers. In collaborative design, users are experts in their own experience, and they actively participate in the design process of ideas generation and the development of knowledge and thoughts. Researchers provide tools to users to conceive and express ideas. In addition to playing a key role in controlling the form of ideas, designers also work with researchers to develop tools for users to conceive and express their ideas. Usually, designers and researchers can be the same person or the same group of people in co-design.

Sanders and Stappers (2006) believe that in addition to changing status in the design process, the role of users also become a co-designer. It depends on how professional they are in their experience, how enthusiastic they are about participating in design and how creative they are. Often, because of their expertise, users need to use different tools to express their ideas accurately when they participate in the design process. When users become co-designers, designers do not change the role of professional designers in the design process, because their expertise and creative thinking are still indispensable in the design process (Sanders & Strappers 2006).

The benefits of co-design have been discussed by many scholars, for example, Kujala (2003), Muller (2002), Steen, manschot and Koning (2011), and so on. These benefits can be summarized as follows: increase the understanding, learning, and communication between users and designers to achieve the purpose of mutual and sharing knowledge, and integrate the design with the ideas and ideas of different people. And these ideas and ideas are often innovative and more tailored to the actual needs of users, so these designs can often improve user satisfaction and loyalty（Steen, Manschot and Koning, 2011. For the design project, as the co-design integrates the user's thoughts and ideas, the user participates in the design process, and the designed object or project can obtain higher satisfaction. For users, the benefits are mainly reflected in the use of the final product of the -co-design, they will get a better user experience. For designers or design companies, they expand their knowledge by exchanging and sharing thoughts and ideas with users, thus obtaining new ideas and innovations.

Practice Theory

As we focus on co-designing as a design process we further examine it in relation to practice theory. This theory is strongly related to consumption as it regards repetitive ways in which objects are used and actions are performed. In this way, specific actions are being recognized as practices (Shove & Pantzar, 2005). According to Reckwitz:

“A practice is thus a routinized way in which bodies are moved, objects are handled, subjects are treated, things are described and the world is understood. To say that practices are ‘social practices’ is indeed a tautology: A practice is social, as it is a ‘type’ of behaving and understanding that appears at different locales and at different points of time and is carried out by different body/minds.” (Reckwitz 2002:250 cited in Warde 2005:135)

Furthermore, establishing a practice entails using objects in a specific manner which are equally necessary as bodily and mental activities. Here the relation between the object and the actor is highlighted (Reckwitz 2002 in Shove & Pantzar 2005). The subject is not solely using the object but rather ‘reproducing’ the practice itself where according to Shove & Pantzar, ‘routine reproduction’ allows for practice to be recognized as an entity (2005: 44).

Design Thinking

In the paper ‘Design Practices in Design Thinking’, Lucy Kimbell (2009) points out the focus of design research being shifted from a more traditional perception of design to ‘design thinking’ which can be applied across different disciplines. Design thinking can be applied to anything that is tangible and intangible as the focus is moving from shaping the designer object to the process of thinking and problem solving. Further on, design thinking ‘can be applied to many different kinds of human activity, towards an attentiveness to practices, rather than individuals, including the practices of non-designers involved in shaping designs’ (Kimbell 2009: 6).

As we argue for co-design as an inclusive process, ‘design thinking’ supports this perspective as it emphasizes the ‘attentiveness to practices’ rather than the product itself. It further entails the importance of non-designers and their potential contribution to problem solving process. This is aligned with our arguments as the theory of co-design values collective effort rather than individuality. This is also emphasized by Kimbell:

“As has been emphasized, theories and concepts about designers’ work lie in several fields and are not necessarily consistent with one another. Research about design by scholars working within management and within design fields has seen understandings of design shift away from objects towards the processes, and from the individual to the social.” (2009: 7)

Kimbell further draws on Buchanan’s contribution which entails that design thinking is focused on ‘an intellectual approach to problem framing and problem solving that acknowledged the social aspects of design work.’ (Buchanan cited in Kimbell 2009: 6)

Theory of Education

To further support our argument for advocating a context of this type of teaching which facilitates the practice of co-design, we researched John Dewey’s (1938) Theory of Education. Dewey’s progressive perspective on education entailed two fundamental principles: continuity and interaction. Interaction refers to how one’s current situation influences their experiences, whilst continuity refers to how experiences, both past and present, influence the future (Dewey 1938). He argues that people’s experiences and their interactions with others, influence their capacity to learn, “education is a social process. Education is growth. Education is not a preparation for life; education is life itself” (Dewey 1938). This means that a child’s experience of a lesson will depend on how the educator arranges and teaches the lesson. This is not limited to the past or present but will also continue in the future.

Because of these views, he believed that traditional education was too restrictive, as it did not allow for individuals to think for themselves, but be docile and obedient (Dewey 1938). He was also against the alternative approach to learning; progressive education, in which children were encouraged to think for themselves and enact adult standards, yet the reasoning behind it was not explained. Dewey rejected both of these theories and instead,

proposed that educators should highlight the relationship between experience and education.

“There is an intimate and necessary relation between the processes of actual experience and education” (Dewey 1938)

Dewey advocated for experience-based learning where he challenged educators to provide a learning experience for children that resulted in growth and learning, believing that in the future, this would continue and growth and activity will occur in future experiences (Dewey 1939). He believed that learners needed to engage directly with the learning environment that they inhabit as:

“Knowledge comes from impressions made upon us by natural objects” (Dewey 1938)

In other words, the experience that one has in a particular environment will impact future decisions and experiences. This notion is termed as, experiential learning. It stresses that environments are crucial in the practice of learning as they have an impact on the quality of learning. For this reason - as we will argue in the consultancy report - co-designing should be used to shape children’s learning spaces as it will have a significant impact on their learning experience.

Furthermore, the quality of experiences are more of an educating factor rather than simply receiving information that one has to learn, according to Dewey (1938). Experience-based learning supports practical or a “hands-on” style of learning. Dewey (1938) defined this approach as “learning by doing. It is a simple definition, yet it posses the further quality, according to Dewey (1938) that the learner will reflect on what they did. This reflection that a learner will carry out within this type of learning allows for the learner to achieve a deeper and more critical understanding of what they have participated in. This act of reflection will enrich a person’s future experiences as it encourages them to question more and be critical, rather than being a submissive learner.

We argue that this type of education, which is apparent in the pedagogical approach of teaching, is a highly suitable context for co-designing to occur in.

Pedagogy

In the context of this report, we refer to the teachers or leaders of a construction site playground as a “pedagog”. It is a Danish term to describe the qualification that the leaders have achieved through their training to work there. The original definition of the word means “leading a child”, and connoted conservative methods in teaching (arki_lab 2016: 107). However, in the Scandinavian context, the word has been adapted to become almost the opposite. In this context, a pedagog is a trained social worker that specializes in working with children or those that are handicapped. The teaching methods focus on the “social aspects of learning as opposed to the formal and didactic aspects that are handled by teachers” (arki_lab 2016: 107). Teaching in Scandinavia encourages social interaction and engaging in democratic behaviour which we argue to be an appropriate context to aid the establishment of co-design as a practice. We will further elaborate upon this in Recognizing The Perspective Of A Child concerning the Danish School Reform which occured in 2013.

Bibliography

DeWalt & DeWalt. 2002.DeWalt, Kathleen M. & DeWalt, Billie R. (1998). Participant observation. In H. Russell Bernard (Ed.), Handbook of methods in cultural anthropology (pp.259-300). Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.

Dewey, J. 1938. Experience and Education, USA: First Touchstone Edition.

Flick, U. 2009. An introduction to qualitative research. SAGE.

Frisk, J., & Arki_lab. 2016. Designing Cities With Young People (1st edition, 1. oplag ed.). Kobenhavn: arki_books.

Johnson, A., & Sackett, R., (1998). Direct systematic observation of behavior. In H. Russell Bernard (Ed.), Handbook of methods in cultural anthropology (pp.301-332). Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press

Jamshed, S., 2014, Qualitative Research Method-Interviewing and Observation.

Kimbell L. 2009. Design Practices in Design Thinking.

Moser, A., and Korstjens, I., 2017, Practical Guidance for Qualitative Research: Sampling, Data Collection and Analysis

Muller, M. J. (2002). Participatory design: The third space in HCI. In J. Jacko & A. Sears (Eds.), The human-computer interaction handbook: Fundamentals, evolving technologies and emerging applications (pp. 1051-1068). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Paré, G, and Kitsiou, S., 2017, Methods for Literature Reviews.

Reckwitz, A. 2002, Towards a Theory of Social Practices: A Development in Culturalist Theorizing, European Journal of Social Theory 5 (2), 243-63.

Spatial Design & Society MSc curriculum, 2018., Roskilde Universitet.

Sanders, E, B., -N., and Stappers, P., J., 2006, Co-Creation and the New Landscape of Design.

Shove E. & Pantzar M., 2005, Consumers, Produces and Practices: Understanding the Invention and Reinvention of Nordic Walking, Journal of Consumer Culture 5 (1)

Steen, M., Manschot, M., and Koning, N. De, 2011, Benefits of Co-design in Service Design Projects. Westland J, 2016, The Project Management Life Cycle, Kogan Page London and Philadelphia.

Table of contents

1. Executive Summary 22

2. Introduction/Why Co-Design? 24

3. Case Studies 27

4. Analysing Our Findings 39

5. Conclusion 56

Bibliography 62

1. Executive Summary

When designing a learning space for children, architects and other individuals involved in the process should consider the practice of co-designing. Rather than relying solely on the expertise of architects, co-designing facilitates a dialogue between the architects and the children who use the learning space which can uncover extensive knowledge about the activities that occur there and what services it should provide. This practice ensures success as it provides the tools to recognise children’s needs and ensure that they will be accounted for in the final product of a co-designed design process. This report will address the following question:

Why is it necessary for co-designing to be an integral part of the process of creating learning spaces for children?

There is no singular way in which co-designing should be practiced, therefore, an analysis of two differing case studies will demonstrate this:

❏ arki_lab - a cross-disciplinary architect firm with a mantra of “designing cities with people” ❏ Construction Site Playgrounds (English translation of Danish concept “byggelegeplads”) - a recreational facility that children can attend outside of school

These case studies will be used as a basis of the principles this consultancy report will recommend to consider when co-designing a learning space for children. Our recommendation of principles is located in the Conclusion of the report.

The findings of this consultancy report are based on ethnographic research: observations and interviews with employees at arki_lab and the pedagogues and children of the construction site playgrounds.

2. Introduction/ Why Co-Design?

“In debates around public spaces and urban development, children often fall into the same ‘minority’ categories as the elderly, homeless, and other socially vulnerable groups…they represent half of the world’s population! The voices of the future are being silenced…they embody the greatest creative potential we have and can supply the architectural process with brilliant and innovative ideas.”1

The voices of children are typically disregarded when it comes to designing learning spaces for them. But why should they be asked when trained and experienced architects are perceived to be the experts of creating a space? It is because children are also experts, in the knowledge of the learning environment in which they inhabit2. The users of a space can help architects do their job for them by identifying the qualities and services that a space should provide3. Which is why this report will answer the following the question:

Why is it necessary for co-designing to be an integral part of the process of creating learning spaces for children?

Co-designing is an exceptionally efficient practice to utilise in the design process of a successful learning space. It facilitates a dialogue between the architects of a learning space and the children who use it, to ensure that the potential of a space is maximised. If a learning space was to be designed based purely on the perspectives of architects, there is a risk that the learning space could have fewer benefits than perhaps would be realised if co-designing was practiced4.

1 Frisk, J., & Arki_lab. (2016). Designing Cities With Young People (1st edition, 1. oplag ed.). Kobenhavn: arki_books., 7. 2 Ibid, 38. 3 Ibid, 62. 4 Steen, M., Manschot, M., & De Koning, N., (2011). Benefits of Co-design in Service Design Projects. International Journal of Design (Vol 5, No 2), 53-60. 25

How is co-designing practiced?

To simply define co-design, it means to design something collectively with other people. Co-designing is grounded in democracy, it is a departure from traditional architectural practices of only having a professional architect’s input. Instead, it allows every individual who is connected to the concerned space to have their perspectives recognised. There is no singular way that co-design can be practiced, which will be elaborated upon in section Analysing Our Findings. As established above, a dialogue between the architects and the users of the space is key. The professional method of co-designing a learning space can be conducted through communication practices such as discussions, focus groups and workshops. These tools are intended to initiate conversation and reveal knowledge of the use of a space. However, co-designing does not need to be practiced in a professional context for children. It can be performed by themselves, with some guidance by the pedagogues, as way of experimenting with creativity and learning how to work with others. It facilitates a learning process of not only this but how something can be designed and constructed.

Who Can Co-design?

This report will provide a set of principles to follow when participating in the practice of co-designing. The principles are suited for those who guide and facilitate the practice. These figures can be stakeholders in municipalities foundations and schools. This report will also provide guidance for those who wish to lead a co-designing project such as architects and designers. Furthermore, if the participants of the co-design process are children - as this report is centered upon - pedagogues can make use of these principles to encourage children to participate and ensure that the practice of co-design is conducted successfully. An analysis of these principles will be illustrated in Conclusion, and our recommendations will be the conclusion of the report.

3. Case Studies

This section will define the profiles of our two case studies. It highlights their differences and demonstrates how co-designing can be practiced in different ways.

arki_lab arki_lab is a cross-disciplinary architect firm based in Copenhagen, Denmark which has the mantra of “designing cities with people” rather than for people. They ground themselves in co-designing, believing that taking local knowledge into account can optimise the process of place-making. They see themselves as facilitators of the collaborative process between citizens, and professionals in the field of architecture, acting as a link in order to achieve people’s visions of a particular space5.

arki_lab people6

5 https://www.arkilab.dk/what-we-do/ 6 https://www.arkilab.dk/contact/ 28

Origins of “designing with people” The company was founded by architects, Jeanette and Rasmus Frisk in 2013 as a result of “critiquing” their profession as architects7. They were inspired by the work of Jan Gehl - for whom Rasmus has previously worked - who advocated the notion of designing cities for people, emphasising the focus on human behaviour and their response to the built environment, rather than only focusing on the design of a space. The founders took interest in this notion and came to the conclusion that citizens are experts of their local area8. People get to know their neighbourhood, it's areas and the people who inhabit it, and are therefore, experts of the areas they inhabit most. arki_lab took this way of thinking a step further, they began to investigate how they can involve people even more: by including them in the design process. The founders wanted to move away from traditional architectural practices of designing with only those amongst this profession and instead, work with public; the people who actually use the space that they are responsible for designing. The final product of a space and the profit it would generate was not the traditional focus for them anymore, but instead the design process. The founders adapted their role as architects and began to take on the role as a “translator” of people’s expertise of local knowledge and their ideas for improving spaces, into physical designs9.

Why Co-design? Creating a sense of community is a conscious goal in every project for arki_lab, they aim for their designs to bring people together. Co-design is equipped with procedures to ensure that a space can be accessible and enjoyable to everyone in the surrounding community. Democracy is a core value of the practice of co-designing and also for arki_lab. It ensures that the voices of participants in the design process are heard. To ensure that the process of co-designing is practiced successfully, establishing a dialogue between the architects and the citizens of the area is essential. Therefore, arki_lab have developed a set of tools to utilise during a project. It is important to note that they believe there is no “one-size-fits-all”.

7 Interview with Jeanette Frisk, see appendix 1 8 Frisk, J., & Arki_lab. (2016). Designing Cities With Young People (1st edition, 1. oplag ed.). Kobenhavn: arki_books., 38. 9 Interview with Jeanette Frisk, see appendix 1 29

Each project is unique as the knowledge of citizens is context-specific and the most powerful contributor of shaping the design process.

Once a project is established, arki_lab work with the local people and aim to understand what they want. They recruit locals to participate in various activities such as: a series of workshops to activate members of the community with games like arki_nopoly, 1:1 prototyping, collaging and a mobile app, CoCityApp10. arki_nopoly is a board game modelled on the traditional game of Monopoly, which is designed to aid the users in achieving better understanding of their local area11. The main objectives of the game are: learning about basic socio-spatial analysis, problem identification, and idea articulation12. The game is designed to be a more fun and dynamic way for the users to learn about how architects work and how they can think about their local area in a critical way, rather than using traditional teaching methods. The CoCityApp also engages with this fun and interactive aspect, which is easily accessible for the public. It is free to download on a mobile smartphone and allows users to take a picture of something in their local environment with which they can make a collage on top of it to illustrate possibilities of improving the area, such as adding more lights or trees. They can then upload to their creation to the web. It is also a social platform which allows users to interact, discuss and elaborate on their opinions13. It is a quick method to begin a dialogue amongst the local community about being critical of their surrounding environments, which they can then make part of the discussion with arki_lab.

Once the wishes of the locals are understood and analysed, arki_lab make informed decisions to design. Often the design is an iterative process, which also takes place over a series of workshops, to ensure that the wishes of the locals are accounted for. For example, prototyping is a significant tool that directs the project. Mock designs are placed in the project space to allow citizens to test the designs and learn if they appeal to them and will make use of them. This is a significant step in terms of participation of citizens as this process demonstrates to the citizens that their views are actually taken into account and listened to. arki_lab stresses that it is vital that the entire process is collaborative from start to finish to ensure that citizens’ ideas are understood correctly and are present in the final design.

10 https://www.arkilab.dk/how-we-do-it/ 11 https://www.arkilab.dk/arki_nopoly-2/ 12 https://www.arkilab.dk/arki_nopoly-2/ 13 https://www.arkilab.dk/co-city-app-3/ 30

How is Co-Designing Facilitated?

Co-designing evidently requires amenities to facilitate this process such as methods of attracting citizen involvement and also stakeholders. arki_lab received support from the various Danish government funding schemes. One of which is the concept of area renewals (Danish: Områdefornyelse), where funding is given by municipalities to support renewals of public space. Conditions are needed to be followed whereby, in order to receive the money, the firm who is applying must demonstrate a 6 year plan of how they will renew a space. Arki_lab make use of this to achieve funding for co-designing public spaces to regenerate an area14.

The founding of arki_lab coincided with the Danish school reform in 2013 where the national school curriculum made changes to include more cross-disciplinary subjects. One feature of this reform is that there are programmes that have been set up for children, from the ages of 0-19, to encourage and facilitate their encounter with professional art in everyday life15. One example of this is demonstrated by The Danish National Arts Foundation (Danish: Statens Kunstfond), who have set up a pot of money that schools and artistic institutions can apply for, called House Artist Funding (Danish: Huskunstnerordningen). This funding programme provides fees that will support artistic projects, which arki_lab apply for on an annual basis. However, in order to apply, the company must fulfill prerequisites of being a professional artist or institution and have already established a partnership that fulfills the requirements of a House Artist course. The requirements state that the artistic institution must have already established partnership with a school or learning institution for children16. The funding programme also states that they prioritise long-term progress for the individual child, where the process must provide an opportunity for both the children and artists or architects to jointly immerse themselves in and explore the creative artistic process17. arki_lab informed us that they are perhaps the only architects that apply for this funding as most artistic practices are traditional artists18. The funding programme directly supports what they do and allows for the possibilities of co-designing to occur, especially since it is

14 Interview with Jeanette Frisk, see appendix 1 15 https://www.kunst.dk/kunststoette/puljestamside/tilskud/huskunstnerordningen/ 16 https://www.kunst.dk/kunststoette/puljestamside/tilskud/huskunstnerordningen/ 17 https://www.kunst.dk/kunststoette/puljestamside/tilskud/huskunstnerordningen/ (translation of requirements) 18 Interview with Jeanette Frisk, see appendix 1 31

focused centrally on young people and children. Democracy is part of Danish culture and is reflected in the support of the stakeholders.

Why should co-design be practiced with children? arki_lab are especially focused on attracting children and young people to have their input in their local community. As the quote mentioned earlier states, children and young people are typically perceived as a “minority” group. However, arki_lab advocate that children’s voices should be taken seriously because they encounter their local areas just as much as adults do. If local areas are to be democratic, all groups of people should be accounted for, which means including children and young people as they are citizens too19. Implementing design in public spaces shapes the future of the local community and children should be a part of it. Children and young people could potentially be the ones who utilise the co-designed space most if it is to have longevity. arki_lab advocate that young people should be encouraged to be a part of this “society-shaping process” so that they can enjoy and be a part of their community as equals. Thus, in the future, they are more likely to be critical of their surroundings as adults if they are aware, from early on in life, that they can be critical.

Byggelegeplads A children’s “construction site playground” (Danish: byggelegeplads) is a Danish concept which was initially developed during 1940’s as a place for children where they can learn and play with a focus of spending the majority of the time outdoors. The concept of construction sites has evolved and altered over the years, but its original idea is based on three aspects: building, animal care and sports. It engages with the qualities of co-design due to the various building activities that children are involved in here, and as a result, children are able to influence and shape their environment. Here, co-design is not as defined a practice as it is in the professional context, it is a practice that naturally occurs in construction site playground environment.

19 Frisk, J., & Arki_lab. (2016). Designing Cities With Young People (1st edition, 1. oplag ed.). Kobenhavn: arki_books., 38. 32

How did it start?

Construction Sites were originally called Junk Playgrounds (Danish: Skrammelegeplads). The concept was a product of the culture of radicalism that originated and occured in Denmark during the 1940s. It expressed a desire for radical change throughout many aspects of society. A need for reform in education was evident, as a change in pedagogy occured after children in Copenhagen began to occupy an unused public space to play and explore in nature with little intervention of adults20. The space was an abandoned area which was surrounded by a fence where different types of materials were deposed. This setting attracted children to play and explore as it allowed for various activities and creativity to develop. As this practice evolved and became a recognised concept, it was identified as an embodiment of a protest within culture radicalism against authoritarian pedagogy21.

The outdoor area of the first construction site playground which was set-up in the Emdrup district of Copenhagen in 1943 and was designed by Dan Fink, an architect from Emdrupsbyggeri in collaboration with a gardener C. TH. Sørensen. The design of the first construction site playground fully embodied the philosophy of outdoor playgrounds and children’s play possibilities that C. TH. Sørensen had always advocated.

“You could organize a kind of construction site playground on a suitable and large area, where there must be pulp, old boards and plank, bricks, roof tiles, sewage pipes, discarded cars, boats, wagons, wheelbarrows and whatever else may be mentioned by junk.”22

This was regarded as a manifesto that challenged and rebelled against traditional playgrounds. The leader of the first construction site playground, John Bertelsen23, was proud to describe what happened in the first day of Emdrup junk playground that all the junk materials were soon turned into huts and caves. John Bertelsen was a recognised figure of culture radicalism and allowed children to play freely and create whatever they imagined. His methods of pedagogy contradicted the traditional authoritarian pedagogy as

20 Henriksen, 2006 21 Henriksen, 2006 22 A translation from Danish “man kunne indrette en slags skrammellegeplads på et passende og stort areal, hvor der skal være kvas, gamle brædder og bræddestumper, mursten, tagsten, kloakrør, kasserede biler, både, vogne, trillebøre og hvad der ellers kan næv¬nes af skrammel (Henriksen, 2006) 23 Ibid, 2006 33

he ensured that staff did not interfere with the children unless it was needed. The welfare of the children and their imagination was the most important attributes that shaped this concept later as a radical form of institution.

Since then several construction site playgrounds were successfully established in different locations in Denmark. Although they have different names, such as “rainbow” (Danish: Regnbuen Byggelegeplads), “cave city” (Danish: Huleby Byggelegeplads), all of these construction site playgrounds supported the ideology and the goal that good playgrounds with endless playing possibilities can provide opportunities to develop children’s creative skills24. In the mid-1960s, there was a discussion whether the name of “junk” playgrounds was suitable and should be changed to something else. The name of construction site playground (Danish: Byggelegeplads) was considered to be a more appropriate term by many people. In 1964, the new leader of Emdrup junk playground, Agnete Vestereg, announced that the name of Emdrup junk playground was changed to be Emdrup construction site playground, with a lot of activities to build or to create25. From then on, many more places of this kind with the name of construction site playground popped up in the surrounding areas of Copenhagen, such as Rødovre and Hvidovre (two locations where we conducted fieldwork).

By the end of 1960s, many alternative institutions emerged in Denmark. What distinguishes these construction site playgrounds as alternative and different from typical educational institutions was that they embodied various political or socialist perspectives. During the 1980s and early 1990s, many construction site playgrounds were assembled with youth clubs or recreational centers. Henriksen claimed in his report that not many “pure” construction sites were left in Denmark as they have evolved considerably26. Nevertheless, many elements from the original construction site playgrounds remain, such as a focus on playing, being outdoors, and experimenting with creativity, building and constructing.

24 Ibid., 2006 25 Ibid., 2006 26 ibid, 2006 34

Modern Construction Site Playgrounds

Although many features of the old style construction site playgrounds have been changed or disappeared, an important aspect still remains in some construction sites today: there are very few rules as to what children can do. The purpose of this is to encourage as much sense of freedom and creativity as possible. However, practices have been put in place to instill qualities of responsibility and respect in the children so that they learn how to behave in society. Many construction site playgrounds are home to various farm animals which children can interact and play with. But, if they wish to do so, they need to demonstrate that know how to look after the animal, displaying they know what responsibility is. Learning practices are at the centre of what construction site playgrounds do although children perhaps may not be aware of it.

Another important feature that has been preserved in many construction site playgrounds is that they provide opportunities to children to freely use their imagination in outdoor areas to create and build things such as animal shelters, wooden houses and caves. “For the child there is a short way from idea to action27” according to the pedagogues of Rødovre construction site playground. This illustrates that children innately have an active imagination. When asked to define the ideals of Hvidovre construction site, a pedagogue, Klaus also recognised the importance of creativity. He said:

“It’s about spending a lot of time outside, in the nature or this kind of nature. It’s about creativity, constructing things, building things. It’s about being able to use tools, fire, materials that you find or make”28

Modern construction site playgrounds maintain the tradition of offering possibilities for children to freely use their imagination to create things. This is the original and basic concept of the old style of construction site playgrounds.

27 A translation from Danish “For barnet er der kort vej fra ide til handling (Værdigrundlag for Rødovre Kommunes Byggelegepladser)” rodovre website 28 Interview with Klaus, see appendix 4 35

Construction site playground in Hvidovre

Influencing the Surroundings

The ability to create at the construction site playgrounds allows for children to shape the environment. Children engage in co-design continuously at a construction site playground because of the activities it provides and supports. Co-designing is not a consciously recognised term here but it is a practice that they engage in. It is a practice that is maintained through building, cooking, taking care of animals, and older children often taking care of the younger ones. It is not limited to a traditional design process as arki_lab does.

An obvious practice of co-designing that the children engage in at a construction site playground is building. Children are encouraged to use their imagination and create real, useable structures. This can vary from building cages and shelters for their animals, to building two storey playhouses made of a variety of materials. It is important to recognise

that these constructions are not just something to play with but are actually useable and safe.

The process begins with a child developing an idea of something they wish to build which they have to propose to the staff members. Together, they discuss it and decide what they is feasible for them to do and how are they going to build it. This is to ensure that they learn how to build properly and safely, ensure that it is manageable for the children and most importantly, realistic so that the children can do it and are satisfied with the result.

The pedagogues of the construction site playgrounds emphasise that the process is more important in the final product. They identified that children are typically more interested in the process rather than the final product. Once a project is completed, interest is quickly lost because there is nothing more to add. The construction site playgrounds therefore encourage tearing down and rebuilding of objects so that children can continuously build but also learn about recycling materials.

Construction site playground in Rødovre

Mistakes are encouraged in a construction sites as the staff members believe that this is a highly effective way of learning. This is a unique quality that this type of learning space has. Many institutions, like traditional schools, do not facilitate making mistakes. For example, failing a test in school has the consequence of a bad grade. However, at construction site playgrounds, making mistakes is not deemed a negative thing, it is in fact praised.

Through building and rebuilding of physical structures, the overall appearance of the site is constantly changing. Through interactive activities such as cooking and older children caring for the younger ones, this act of caring for each other shapes the spirit of the place. In this way, children are directly influencing the overall design and appearance of the site but also cherishing the common values and relationships that are created there. They are given the significant role of shaping the construction site. Here, they learn that their opinion matters and are experience the influence they can have on the surrounding. Ultimately, the practice of co-designing teaches them about teamwork and strengthens their bond with the site.

4. Analysing Our Findings

Introduction to our Findings

In this section, we will provide an in-depth analysis of our two case studies; arki_lab and construction site playgrounds, that are presented above.

The two case studies were chosen to illustrate how the practice of co-design is not limited to a professional context but can be practiced regularly in a children’s learning space. As shown in the section above Case Studies, co-designing can take on many forms. It is a practice that individual’s can engage in whether they are conscious of the term or not. The nature of the practice is democratic, enabling creative freedom and an all-inclusive dialogue for those who have relations with the concerned space. For these reasons, this report we will establish a set of principles to guide individuals in the process and ensure that it is practiced successfully.

Analysis Structure

This section will also give an explanation as to how we came to these principles and why these are the most advisable steps to follow. Therefore, this section is divided into categories which define each principle. The categories will show the context of how we arrived at these conclusions and, additionally, account for why these principles are important.

The principles are mainly concerned with the process of co-design, rather than the product or outcome of the practice. As we have stated, co-design is a departure from the traditional practices of the architectural profession as the central focus has shifted from the product of designing to the process. We will further explain our reasons for this and argue why it it is crucial when practicing co-design.

Recognising the Perspective of a Child

“I remember, I did a speech at the Nordic conference where the founder of Barnetraakk was also speaking and she said something about how we know a lot about the moose, it’s movements and habitat and we know nothing about the children in our cities. I’ve always used that quote to sort of state that it’s funny what we know and what we place our focus on while leaving out something else that’s really crucial. That is inspiring.”29

The first category of the analysis is concerned with the circumstances that can affect the implementation of co-design in a design process. Some of these circumstances are related to the practicalities of enabling co-design, whereas others are concerned with the wider context of society and embedded traditions within it that co-design challenges, and consequently, reveal potential for a societal change. However, these elements collectively influence the ability for the practice of co-designing to occur and the extent of success to which the practice can achieve. Furthermore, these circumstances stem from a deeply embedded perspective in the society that concerns adults’ perception of children, which will be elaborated upon, below.

In this section we elaborate on each of these circumstantial elements in relation to gathered data from desk research, interviews and observations.

The Danish School Reform

Firstly, we will reflect upon the Danish School Reform that was implemented in 2013, which had an indirect impact on co-designing and therefore also on the work of both arki_lab and children’s construction sites.

The Danish School reform introduced a new way of learning for children and young people between the ages of 0-16, through the “Open School Programme”. It declared that public schools were now obligated to create partnerships with external actors30. This gave rise to an integration of learning projects for schools all over Denmark with external actors, encouraging children and young people to be involved in a more participatory style of

29 Interview with Jeanette Frisk, see appendix 1 30 Arki_lab book, p. 12 41

learning. arki_lab is one of these “external actors” who implement learning projects through co-designing, which provided the firm with a suitable context to help their practices thrive and become more widely-recognised31.

Furthermore, the Danish School Reform advocates that children should spend more hours in school. In contrast to its impact on arki_lab, this initially affected children’s construction site playgrounds in a negative way. Before the school reform, children spent their time after school at construction site playgrounds. However, the implementation of the school reform implied that children would be spending less time there. Nevertheless, pedagogues adapted the children’s construction site playgrounds to fit with the reform and now collaborates with schools and settled on an arrangement. This entailed creating workshops that are recognised as fulfilling the educational requirements of the reform, also taking place at the construction site playgrounds during the school hours. In this way, the school reform accomodated a collaboration between these two types of learning spaces. Klaus, a pedagogue at Regnbuen Byggelegeplads in Hvidovre, reflects on this matter:

‘The way we chose to do it, we talked to local school and decided how we want to do it and decided that basically we didn’t want to go to school, but we want to bring the kids here. Because here we can do a lot of experiments, do a lot of things that they cannot do at school. And in that way we can qualify the teaching in a different way.’32

Adult’s perception of children

As mentioned in the introduction this report, children are considered as a “minority” group in regard to the public’s participation in debates concerned with urban and public planning. John Dewey, who developed the theory of education, recognises this as a fundamental issue in children's’ learning development. According to Dewey, children are exclusively associated with “spontaneity, corporeality and naivete”, whilst adulthood is associated with “habit, rationality, constraint and erudition” (Dewey 1938 in Gregory & Granger 2012, 2). It is a historical prejudice that children have had because of their inexperience and presumed lack of abilities (Gregory & Granger 2012: 2). We argue that this should be changed in order

31 To read more on the Danish school reform, see the government document: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/file_import/nrp2013_denmark_en_0.pdf 32 Interview with Klaus, see appendix 4 42

for children to become eager participators and for the product of their involvement in co-designing to be recognised and celebrated.

This perception of children is deeply embedded in society and thus has a crucial effect on the capacity of co-designing. Jeanette Frisk (co-founder of arki_lab) argues that children should in fact be considered as valuable contributors to society:

“There is still sort of a thing, I don’t know how to explain it, kids, yeah, we can just observe and then we know. There is still this kind of attitude towards why should you bother. And why should you invest.”33

There is a tradition of not considering children as equal citizens or even acknowledging their perspective when it comes to shaping the cities. Adult society deem that that they know what is best for children’s needs and fail to see the importance of including children in this matter. Because of this, society is missing a chance to invest in a child’s development. We will further elaborate upon this below.

In order for co-design to become more prevalent, this way of thinking needs to change. Children should be acknowledged as experts of spaces they use.

“So it is the adult society in general that needs to look at a child with a different perspective saying that you actually have valuable ideas. It’s valid what you say, I listen to you… We have a constructive dialogue, you and me. Apart from it just being: we are creating a safe road to school.”34

Here, Jeanette reflects on the relationship between adults and children. She also highlights that the focus of most stakeholders and architects, when it comes to designing for children, revolves around satisfying basic requirements of function and safety. This critique is indicating that there are more layers in designing spaces for children and should be uncovered. Stakeholders and architects should shift their focus from design concerns to investigating the space and understanding its use, together with children.

Having said this, our second case study is situated in a different context. The adult’s perception of children at a construction site playground contradicts the above argument. There, children are still perceived as children and are encouraged to embrace that by having very few rules instructing them on how to behave. They are urged to be at liberty to

33 Interview with Jeanette Frisk, see appendix 1 34 Interview with Jeanette Frisk, see appendix 1 43

do whatever they wish, however there is still some guidance to ensure character development and learning ensues. Klaus, pedagogue at Regnbuen construction site playground in Hvidovre, explains:

“Once again, our job is to create the surroundings, provide the materials, make sure there are adults here and kids can listen to them. But what should take place here is up to the kids. Of course, we arrange things and try to make them interested. But each kid uses this place in his or her own way.”35

As established in Case Studies section, children are encouraged to participate in shaping their environment through construction and building practices. We have established this as a form of co-designing. In this context however, children are already treated as respectable participators in the process of co-design as they learn to work with others and formulate design ideas. They are not constrained by embedded prejudices against them as the construction site playground is tailored for children. It is a context that is outwith society which has their own conditions but it proves that co-designing with children is in fact successful.

“Whatever you see outside, of course, the kids don’t build it alone. Most of them were co-created, yes, it is a good word. But they are based on their ideas.”36

It is important to acknowledge that children need help with the building process because they are physically unable. However, their ideas are implemented and shape the environment. This ranges from building functional animal shelters to two storey playhouses, children are indeed capable of being valuable contributors to the co-design process.

Funding

If society were to recognise children as valuable contributors to the process of co-designing, it would have a subsequent effect on attaining appropriate funding. The investment in co-designing from stakeholders or foundations could become more widely considered if this alternative perspective of children was defined. Subsequently, if co-designing became a more common practice, or even a required design process in the

35 Interview with Klaus, see appendix 4 36 Interview with Klaus, see appendix 4 44

“Open School Programme”, the investment from stakeholders and foundations would increase. More investment would allow for more investigation into the methods of co-designing and the ways it could be practiced, rather than how it is considered at present:

“(...) just a box they tick off and then it’s just done. With no intention of how to recruit, how to design a process, how to do it differently, whether the client is different or group of people…”37

If the perspective of children were to be reimagined like we have identified above, more investment and more awareness of co-design would occur. This would provide a more suitable context for co-design to occur in and allow for it to thrive.

Pedagogical approach

As the co-designing process can be difficult for children to understand and engage in, pedagogical skills are crucial in this process to ensure that children learn. It can be a difficult task to encourage children to participate, communicate with and gain their trust. Which is why pedagogical skills play an important role in the work of both arki_lab and construction site playgrounds.

In the work of arki_lab, having the skills as an architect is not enough to facilitate the process of co-design. Pedagogical skills are a requirement in the process of co-designing in order to establish frameworks of collaborating with children. The first step is to establish good communication with children so they feel they want to participate, devote their time and ultimately contribute to the project. This entails gaining their trust so they feel their contribution is valuable (we will elaborate further on this in the following section).

Another aspect of the co-designing process in which pedagogical approach plays a crucial role is the translation of children’s ideas into physical designs. Here, architects and designers need to patiently listen to children’s ideas and inputs even when those wishes

37 Interview with Jeanette Frisk, see appendix 1 45

seem naive and unrealistic. As Jeanette Frisk points out: “you have to be curious and take every point seriously.”38

Furthermore, Jeanette gave a vivid example, in which they had to dig deeper into the meaning behind the ideas that these children were proposing. It relates to a project with younger participants (4th and 5th graders) in an area which as a reputation of being a ghetto. The project revolved around the design of an outdoor workshop space for all the community to use. During the project, a young boy came up with the idea of building a castle with a water fort surrounding it. The proposal was completely out of line with the content of the project and perhaps unrealistic. However, together, they spent time on grasping the key words and digging into their deeper meanings. Jeanette interpreted the boy’s protected castle meant that he wished for a secluded area that can provide a sense of safety for him. Subsequently, this informed Jeanette’s design decision and came up with the following idea:

“And that actually inspired the idea of this area being shaped as smaller islands with not water around, but sort of water plants that could manage the rain water and stuff like that. They would grow up, these tall plants, and create this secluded environment around these different islands. It’s sometimes being curious about what they are saying.”39

In this case, it was important to carefully listen and uncover the layers of seemingly unrealistic ideas of these teenagers and reach to the core of those statements. Furthermore, architects and designers need to consider the context of where the ideas are coming from and and translate them into useful tips on how to improve the area. Pedagogical skills here are allowing for facilitators to access the valuable knowledge.

Staff at the construction site playgrounds are usually educated pedagogues. If not, they have previous experience of working with children with different qualifications. They understand the importance of building a strong relationship with each child where both sides are equally committed. This is also a way to understand children and their needs and thoughts. Stylianos, pedagogue at Rødovre construction site playground, reflects on this matter:

“I don’t know if it can be translated into English. We call it common thing, which is very important. You have things, for example, you have me, and the child. And the

38 Interview with Jeanette Frisk, see appendix 1 39 Interview with Jeanette Frisk, see appendix 1 46

common thing for us for example is building. So this is actually the things we have in common. We can use this. It could be anything. But it has to be something both persons want. It is very important. It is also a way for us to learn about the children.” 40

When such a relationship is formed in the process of co-designing the outcome is positive. Good communication requires a dialogue between people, the quality of this directly reflects on the outcome. In the process of co-designing good communication reflects on strengthening the sense of collective and individual ownership towards a designed space. Jeanette Frisk reflects on the outcome of a co-designed project:

“He was very proud. He was like: “It’s my islands”. And because we had that dialogue and we shared it with the rest of the group and then they adopted the idea.”41

Good communication helps adults understand children better and vice versa. As in the case of the castle and islands, taking time to listen to child’s ideas and analysing what they mean improves the understanding and allows for dialogue to develop with them. In this way, children can be understood better.

Establishing a Dialogue

As has been previously established in this report, a good dialogue between the architects and the participants of a co-designing practice is essential. As this report is concerned with working with children, it is important that good relationships are established amongst all those involved.

From extensive experience, arki_lab have perfected their techniques of working with children by adapting their role as architects to becoming more pedagogical (as mentioned above). Based on their experience, they have found that time and trust are two important factors in co-designing with children. These factors affect the quality of both the process of co-design and the success of the outcome of co-design projects. Like traditional architectural projects, time management is an important task that affects project efficiency, and if it is not efficient, it subsequently affects the cost. Furthermore, co-designing projects

40 Interview with Stylianos, see appendix 5 41 Interview with Jeanette Frisk, see appendix 1 47

need careful planning of time management as the tasks involve the coordination of many participants. Time needs to be invested in to gain the trust of children, so as to fully mobilize their enthusiasm and maintain their interest as a participant in co-design activities. Only the active participation of children can signify the success of co-design. Jeanette (arki_lab) points out in the interview:

“It is a long built up of trust…You need to start building trust. We have so many examples of projects where at least one third of process is about building trust, or more…”42

Without spending time with children, co-designing remains too methodologically close to traditional architectural practices. The perspective of children needs to be understood by those guiding the co-designing practice, which means, investing time in understanding children.

This process of taking the time to develop trust is not simply a matter of spending time with children, but effort is required to build it up and maintain that trust.

“You can’t say you have a workshop and then only do some posters or something. You need something more to facilitate the output you want to give.”43

This effort includes not only spending time with children, but also allowing children, especially teenagers, to see and feel the sincerity of cooperation of arki_lab. This sincerity does not only mean that arki_lab are listening carefully to their opinions and ideas, but also to apply their opinions and ideas to the design, staying true to their input. Allowing children to feel the sincerity of arki_lab cannot be achieved through a single meeting or contact, but through continuous communication and contact with children.

The practice of showing sincerity from the people who guide the co-design process can be done by holding a workshop or a presentation that informs the children about projects that have been done before, and how the children’s ideas can be applied to the design. This is a simple way for children to visually see what co-designing is and how it is going to be done.

42 Interview with Jeanette Frisk, see appendix 1 43 Interview with Malene, see appendix 3 48

“(We are) getting something out of the ground and make it worth to participate, showing them that we are using their ideas.”44

A more tangible approach to help children understand the practice of co-design would be to utilise the method of prototyping. This entails designing and creating the initial ideas from the children and place them in the concerned space from early on in the project so that children understand that their ideas are actually accounted for and their participation is the most significant role in shaping the design process. An employee at arki_lab recognised a pivotal point for the degree to which a child participates in the design process. In one particular project that arki_lab conducted, the children's interest in participating was initially low. When the team decided to utilise the tool of prototyping early on and install a temporary piece of furniture - based on the child's initial ideas - there was a major shift in the attitude and interest of children’s participation. Suddenly, they became immediately more invested and excited about the project as the children realised that their designs will indeed be brought to life.

“What I experienced was that if we tie their engagement and investment into projects that actually physically manifested it was much more giving for the students. They felt it was worth their time.”45

Moreover, good communication is key. In order to achieve trust through displaying sincerity, adults need to invest time in effective communication. This is to ensure that adults can fully understand what children express and accurately interpret the meaning of their words. Jeanette sees this as an adaption of her role as an architect to a teaching job.

“The point was that at that stage we were designing with these kids, 50 percent of our time was around pedagogical work. It was not how we normally worked. It was very difficult.”46

She also describes how they felt as though they were “therapists” as they had to deal with with the seemingly unrealistic ideas that children often propose. For example, a group of teenagers wanted to build a strip club in their city.

“I also have an example of some teenagers saying we want a strip club in our city. And of course it goes down to that their town was boring as hell. They wanted action

44 Interview with Jeanette Frisk, see appendix 1 45 Interview with Andreas, see appendix 2 46 Interview with Jeanette Frisk, see appendix 1 49

with the girls, where could they go, where could they hang out indoors and listen to music and do what you do when you’re a teenager. That stupid comment gave us knowledge about what they were lacking, what they were missing in the area.”47

Again, this is an unrealistic project, however the team at arki_lab interpreted this as the town being “as boring as hell for the teenagers”48. They agreed that the teenagers wished for a cool, more exciting place where they can do what they want and thus this guided their subsequent design decisions to satisfy their desires. If there was a lack of good communication, this idea would perhaps initially be considered absurd and be dismissed.

Another naive comment made by a teenager is that they wished to have a rollercoaster in their playground like in Tivoli Gardens. But again, arki_lab dug deeper and discovered that teenagers are actually missing playgrounds that match their age and body size. Jeanette states that “you have to be curious and take every point seriously.”49 She concluded that by simply listening to children's words is not enough to make adults understand what children really think. Adults need to invest time in communicating with children and analysing their thoughts to achieve a clear understanding of what they are trying to say. In her opinion, in the co-designing with children, this kind of work as a therapist is a great challenge and a very time-consuming work for them. However, the practice of co-design facilitates successful outcomes because of its democratic nature.

In co-designing with children, time management should also pay attention to the issue of the length of project time, in addition to the trust and good communication. If it is a project has a relatively large time span, the individuals conducting the co-design practice should take into account the need to allocate time to maintain a dialogue with children. As children grow, external complications can occur such as lack of interest, or perhaps transferring to another school, or simply that those involved in the project are no longer together. If the project takes too long, they may forget what they did for the project and fail to keep track of their ideas and designs at all stages of the project.

“There is also another thing and that’s difficult to deal with and that’s time. When you are doing bigger projects it takes time. Bigger built project are several years. And you change so quickly in your young age. Sometimes just within a year is too long so that a thing you also just have to deal with when you’re working with young people is that

47 Interview with Jeanette Frisk, see appendix 1 48 Interview with Jeanette Frisk, see appendix 1 49 Interview with Jeanette Frisk, see appendix 1 50

they are gone to another school or life has changed. It changes so quickly when you are that age.”50

In response to this problem, arki_lab found a solution: to ensure that continuous dialogues are maintained with the children involved. Each stage of the project needs to have the children’s input so that they are constantly active in participating throughout the process. This is where prototyping can be made use of to demonstrate that their ideas actually do shape the whole process. This way children can visually see that they are listened to.

“They tell that to the architects or whoever in charge of the design process and then two years later something pops up and it can be really difficult to see their initial input in the final product, which is why it’s so important to continue this dialogue with the citizens throughout the entire project. And the way to do that is with temporary interventions such as furnitures.”51

Andreas believes that continuous dialogue with children can also ensure that collaborative design with children can be implemented throughout the project. He pointed out that if the design company cuts off the dialogue with children after collecting their thoughts and ideas, the practice of co-design with children would only be maintained at the beginning of the project, and the influence of children would only be limited to the initial stage of the design. When the final design comes out, it is difficult for children to find their thoughts and ideas in it. “I think that’s very true but we really need to make it more clear that people get their voices heard…This part is placed at the beginning of a project and often gets cut off, meaning that you engage with citizens and you get their opinion and stuff and then you collect that in the initial phase of the design process and then they get cut off. Their input of course influences the design but that’s only in the beginning. It has to be much more strongly connected to the actual design.”52

He argues that co-designing loses meaning and significance for the children in this case.

Furthermore, arki_lab advocate for this establishment of trust and careful time management as it can affect the entire project process, such as the time and cost to fund it. Therefore, these methods are needed to be implemented as early on in the process as possible. As for construction site playgrounds, they do not need to worry about winning the trust of children as early as possible because they don't have the same constraints of the cost of the projects and others that an architect firm may have. But that does not mean they do not

50 Interview with Jeanette Frisk, see appendix 1 51 Interview with Andreas, see appendix 2 52 Interview with Andreas, see appendix 2 51

value children's trust. Usually, In the traditional sense of construction site playgrounds, pedagogues will first demonstrate their trust to children, by allowing the children to have the self-management. Adults rarely intervene in their life there. Thus, they set very few rules for children, except for anything that regards potential dangers. Children can do almost anything they like.

“Learning the kids how to be responsible for themselves and care for others, and be responsible about what you do is very important. We trust them a lot.”53

For construction site playgrounds, children's trust in their pedagogues is gradually cultivated through contact with them over time, although it has an advantage of having a sense of trust established immediately from the start. Adults show that they trust the children. It is not so much about children trusting the adults, as it is at arki_lab. For adults, the former is passive waiting for it, the latter is actively striving for it. However, the construction site playground pedagogues also use measures to reinforce the trust children give them. For example, when children share secrets with them, they usually promise to keep them secret.

“One of the children comes to me and says: “I have to tell you a secret, please don’t tell my parents”. For us, we say: “I can listen to what you have to say. But if I decide I have to tell to your parents, I would do so”. It could mean that the child doesn’t want to tell me. It is more important for me to keep the trust.”54

This is of great significance to children, especially teenagers. A 12 year old girl from Hvidovre construction site playground told us that “sometime it means a lot to have someone to talk to when you don’t want to talk to your parents or friends. It is very nice.”55

Co-ownership

The most obvious and direct impact on children by co-designing is the establishment of co-ownership. Because children are involved in the design from the initial phase of the project, they not only witness the whole process of the project from beginning to the end, but also use their own ideas to conceive and design, and participate in the production.

53 Interview with Klaus, see appendix 4 54 Interview with Stylianos, see appendix 5 55 Interview with Klaus, see appendix 4 52

Together they discuss, share and analyze thoughts and ideas, decide on design plans, and control the direction of design. Each progress of project is engraved with traces and records of their participation, and the final product of the project is the result of their joint efforts. It is as what Jeannette told us in the interview:

“This is me, this is how I move. This is what I think. This is what I believe. This is what I want. And slowly it shifts because you do that, everyone does and then you realize there’s more than myself. There’s other people around the table. And at the end it would be a collaboration and a dialogue where you are able to change your views because you share, you get the other views also. If 50 people are playing the game at the same time you share in groups, you share the knowledge you change the narrative. You start changing direction and moving as a group.” 56

For example, in the case of the castle, at first many people thought the castle proposal was ridiculous. But after a joint discussion and analysis, they endorsed the proposal and set out the design. “we had that dialogue and we shared it with the rest of the group and then they adopted the idea. They thought it was silly in the beginning. Because we started to dig into it and share it, they understood it.”57

However, it is important to be aware that not all ideas and proposals are included in the final outcome of the co-design process.

“The majority of young people we’ve been working with, they did not want what was build in the end when they participated in the beginning. But they realized that. They say: “This is not what I imagined in the beginning. This is not what I wanted. But because I’ve been part of it, I can see myself in it. Because I have helped shape that even though it is not what I wanted in the beginning”. Again, that’s what the dialogue is the there for also. Minimizing the idea of I’m just realizing myself in this project. This is what I want. No, no. It’s a collective process where you start understanding and sharing ideas and when you realize: I might have an issue with this corner of the park but majority has an issue over here.”58

They can't help but feel that the things they've been involved in designing and making belong to them. As a result, co-ownership is circulated amongst the children who participate.

56 Interview with Jeanette Frisk, see appendix 1 57 Interview with Jeanette Frisk, see appendix 1 58 Interview with Jeanette Frisk, see appendix 1 53

“That’s ownership. You create ownership by giving them responsibility and showing them that their inputs are valuable. Of course, if you could do the big scale project where at the end they’re not only part of analyzing and designing but they’re also part of building, then that’s even better.” 59

They appreciate the tedious and fun of participating in the creation so they will be particularly appreciative and proud of the results that they have designed and produced. These feelings of appreciation and pride are also partly due to their efforts and dedication that have been recognized by everyone including professionals, their classmates and friends.

“They are quite trying to be cool and don’t care. But you can feel that when they have built something, they are super pride.”60

It is a great honor to be recognized, especially by those children who do not perform well in class, because they show their value and feel that they can have the chance and ability to outdo their classmates who perform well in class. One example that Malene gave us typically reflects this situation:

“And you could really see that they were super pride, because they, this kind of students, they are used to be not the best ones. And they got this prize. And even though they tried to not really care about it, you could see that they did care. They thought it was super nice. They were the best at something, and not the those (usually) best in the class. Those were not the best any more.”61

In co-design activities, children show another side of themselves that is different from the classroom. These situations are also familiar at construction site playgrounds. Stylianos, a pedagogue from Rodovre construction site playground, told us that many times, teachers were surprised to find that those students usually sitting in the corner of classroom suddenly become very active when they take part in activities at construction site playgrounds those students also found they could have something to contribute to the community. This is why the traditional byggelegeplads are popular with children.

One of the immediate benefits of co-ownership is that children value their own creation and therefore voluntarily protect it:

59 Interview with Jeanette Frisk, see appendix 1 60 Interview with Malene, see appendix 3 61 Interview with Malene, see appendix 3 54

“The example of that island project was also that normally in this ghetto area it would be burned down day after it was built. It’s still standing there. The bullies in the area knew it was their younger brothers that built it so everyone was protecting it, right? Apart from the kids that took part in it, everyone else also took care of it afterwards.” 62

Protection of the outcome is not limited to children who have participated in the project, but also includes those around them, family members, classmates, friends and so on. Through this ripple effect of hearing about co-design projects, local children and people who are not involved in the project will be encouraged to participate in a future projects.

62 Interview with Jeanette Frisk, see appendix 1 55

5. Conclusion

In this report, we have analysed the practice of co-designing with children by dividing our main findings into categories. These categories have demonstrated that some principles need to be followed in order to achieve a successful co-designing process. Therefore, we present the following recommendations as principles to consider when conducting the process of co-design with children:

Reflect on the Adult Perspective of Children

Co-designing is largely affected by the society’s perception of children. The adult society does not devote enough time and effort into understanding the perspective of children as users since they are usually not recognized as equal contributors in designing learning spaces for children. Children should be recognized as experts of spaces they use. We argue that architects and designers should strive to achieve this. As facilitators of the co-design process they have the power to affect this way of thinking. If the perspective of children were to be reimagined like we have identified above, more investment and more awareness of co-design would occur. This would provide a more suitable context for co-design to occur in and allow for it to thrive.

Adopt a Pedagogical Approach

Pedagogical skills are a required when practicing co-design with children. As they are young, children may not have the vocabulary to express what the mean or have an understanding of what is feasible in a design process. Therefore, those who guide the co-designing process should be able to communicate well with children and have a good understanding of the ideas they express in order to translate their input into physical designs. Pedagogical skills allow for facilitators to access the valuable knowledge needed to create the ideal outcome for all those involved in the co-design process.

Build Trust

To recruit and maintain children as participants in a co-design process, a sense of trust needs to be established between them and the facilitators. Past examples have shown that children need to recognise that their ideas will be listened to and included in the final product. Facilitators need to demonstrate sincerity in order to build trust. This can be done by showing children previous examples of co-design project or utilising the method of prototyping throughout the project. This way, children can visually recognise that their input is the most powerful determinant of the final outcome of the co-design process. However, it is important to consider that time needs to be invested to build trust.

Consider Time

The project period is important to consider when not only building trust but also for practical reasons. Time management affects project efficiency, and if it is not efficient, it subsequently affects the cost. Therefore, coordination of participants needs to be planned in advance to ensure structure throughout the project.

The length of time that a project takes to complete also needs to be considered when working with children. If a project is to be a considerable period of time, children’s interest is needed to be maintained as they will perhaps become disinterested or move onto other projects as they grow up. Therefore children should not only provide input at one stage of the project but be a part of every step to ensure that they are eager participants and also optimise the success of the final outcome.

Create a Sense of Co-Ownership

Children find their values during the co-design process, and their efforts and dedication that have been recognized by everyone including professionals, their classmates and friends. Benefits of co-ownership is that children value their own creation and therefore voluntarily protect. Protection of the outcome is not limited to children who have participated in the project, but also includes those around them, family members, classmates, friends and so on. It reflects on what Steen, Manschot and Koning has claimed that projects constructed

with co-design approach can obtain higher satisfaction and gain loyalty of users. Therefore, it is important to build up the feeling and awareness of co-ownership among children and other users who participate in the co-design projects. In this way, their passion and creativity for change and innovation can be motivated and improved at the same time.

It is important to note that the above principles are context dependent, therefore, our recommendations serve as a framework that should be acknowledged when participating in the practice of co-design.

Process and Product This report is focused on the process of co-designing rather than the final product it produces. We have identified the significance of the process in the practice of co-design as it has a profound effect on children’s involvement, what they learn and their development as a co-designer.

“We hope to teach them about the responsibility. If you teach the child a game, that is the first concept that we give them of some kind of learning. After a while, maybe they do it in their own. We start it, but we didn’t start in this way. They do it themselves. Then next step is maybe that they try to develop the game themselves. This is like the steps of them being self-reliance, like using something we give them to start something without any grown-ups, and maybe to change and develop things. This is really important. If they get a success with this, they feel free to try more. One of the most important thing is to teach them to think themselves.” 63

This quote illustrates how each child develops their individuality through a collective. By working in a group they recognize the importance of teamwork and further gain confidence in themselves. They do so by identifying themselves as a valuable asset to their group. In this way, they thrive as individuals who are independent and eager to experience more.

The focus on the process rather than the product is most evident in the construction site playgrounds. As described by pedagogues, children there often engage in the process of building. The process itself is more exciting for the children as they are eager to develop their ideas through trial and error to see what creation they can produce. So much so, that the outcome of the product is often being torn down so that building can start again from scratch. This is reflected in the professional process of co-designing where the process facilitates learning through a positive experience for children.

63 Interview with Stylianos, see appendix 5 60

Effect on the Future This corresponds with John Dewey’s (1938) theory on education, as mentioned in the reading guide, which advocates for the notion of experiential learning, whereby the experience one has when learning affects the quality of learning. This concept stresses that environments are crucial within the practice of learning as it has a direct impact on the experience of learning, which is why this report advocates for adopting the practice of co-design for designing learning spaces for children.

Furthermore, Dewey argues that the experience of learning will directly influence a child’s learning in the future. For example, if a child has a positive experience of learning in a specific context, they will be more willing to engage in a similar context again. For this reason, we argue that co-design will have a direct impact on a child’s input into their environment in the future if they have the opportunity to do so when they are young. Based on this theory, we argue that co-design is facilitates a form of learning whereby children learn to analyse their environment and subsequently be more critically aware in the future as adults.

We think it is necessary to co-design learning space for children as the participants are experts of the space they inhabit, can learn how to optimise it and increase the space’s longevity through the sense of co-ownership.

Bibliography

Dewey, J. 1938. Experience and Education, USA: First Touchstone Edition.

Einarsdóttir, J., 2007, Research with children: methodological and ethical challenges.

Gregory, M. & Granger, D. (2012). John Dewey on Philosophy and Childhood. E&C/Education and Culture 28 (2): 1-25.

Henriksen, Ole Schultze, 2006, Skrammellegepladsen: en undersøgelse af skrammellegepladsen/byggelegepladsens historie med udgangspunkt i perioden 1931 til 1947 - den idemæssige og kulturelle baggrund i kulturradikalismen, reformpædagogikken og legepladsbevægelsen. Dansk Pædagogisk Historisk Forening.