CHI 2020 Paper
Towards A Design For Life: Redesigning For
Reminiscence With Looked After Children
Stuart Gray1, Rachel Hahn2, Kirsten Cater3, Debbie Watson4, Keir Williams5,
Tom Metcalfe6, Chloe Meineck7
University of Bristol1-6 Telephone Avenue6
Bristol, UK Bristol, UK
stuart.gray@bristol.ac.uk tom@telephoneavenue.art
ABSTRACT
For ‘looked-after’ and adopted children, physical objects
are often the only remaining link to their pasts; a portal to
stories of former families, homes, and events. The act of
reminiscence, known as ‘life story work’, can help children
to process their pasts and overcome trauma. This paper
describes the user-centred redesign of Trove, a digital and
physical memory box for storing and curating stories about
precious objects.
We describe our redesign process, synthesising the insights
from – previous Trove evaluations with looked-after and
adopted children, and three re-design workshops with 4
looked-after children at a therapeutic residential school. Our
findings advocate for prioritisation of Trove’s digital and
physical security, the sustainability of its companionship,
and the provision of multimedia storytelling to encourage
the construction of identity narratives. Inspired by this, we
present and discuss the redeveloped Trove, before analysing
our participatory design approach with these complex and
under-represented groups.
Author Keywords
Children; Participatory Design; Life Story Work; Memory
Boxes; Reminiscence; Storytelling; Social Care
CSS Concepts
• Human-centered computing~Participatory design
• Social and professional topics~Children
INTRODUCTION
According to the most recent UK Government report, since
2015, the number of looked-after children continue to rise
as the numbers of adoptions from social care continue to
fall [16]. There are now 75420 looked-after children in
England – a rise of approximately 8% during this time,
while the number of adoptions from care plummeted by
nearly 29% to 3820 [16]. Meanwhile, the longer-term trend
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or
classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed
for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full
citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others
than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise,
or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific
permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from Permissions@acm.org.
CHI 2020, April 25–30, 2020, Honolulu, HI, USA.
© 2020 Copyright is held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed to
ACM. ACM ISBN 978-1-4503-6708-0/20/04...$15.00.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376824
Paper 695
CHI 2020, April 25–30, 2020, Honolulu, HI, USA
Studio Meineck7
Bristol, UK
chloe@studiomeineck.com
is even more troubling, with the numbers of looked-after
children in England growing by nearly 60%, since 1994
[16]. ‘Looked after children’ are defined as individuals
under 18 years of age who have been in continuous local
authority care for more than 24 hours, and may be living
with foster parents, in a residential children’s home or
school [46]. The circumstances preceding a child’s
introduction to care are rarely pleasant and commonly
traumatic [28,46,59]. Recent estimates suggest that 63%
enter care because of abuse or neglect [16], entrenching
them in a hyper-vigilant state with detrimental effects on
growth and development [14,55,74].
A child is no longer classed as being ‘looked-after’ upon
turning 18 years old, returning home, or being adopted
[16,46]. As most children are adopted from below the age
of 5 years [16,46], however, these children face similar
challenges as their peers who remain in social care [15].
Like them, children adopted at a young age frequently have
few memories of their former lives [15]. Instead, they must
build an understanding of events from secondary sources –
life story information and artefacts confected by adoptive
parents, social workers or previous care providers [15].
Narratives created for these children do not always portray
events accurately [12,48,79] and can prohibit them from
taking ownership of their past [31,69]. Even when
information about a child’s life is consistent, reminiscence
can be a disconcerting and emotive exercise [13].
In the UK, ‘Life Story Work’ (LSW) is used to support
children to develop life story narratives and engender
reflection in a reassuring environment [81]. Although LSW
can be undertaken in different ways, recent research has
emphasised the power of using personal objects as a portal
to memories of places, people, and events [17,69,71–74].
The important relationship between all children and their
tangible possessions is well known [24] but for looked-after
and adopted children they are paramount [8, 64], serving as
embodied aspects of identity [71]. In the ephemeral living
arrangements associated with social care, keeping these
objects safe can be yet another source of anxiety [71,74]. In
these environments children may experience frequent and
sudden changes in care provisions or accommodation [70],
resulting in the loss of these belongings and the stories they
represent [26,71].
Page 1
CHI 2020 Paper
This paper reports on the user-centred redesign of a digital
and physical memory box called Trove – designed to help
looked-after and adopted children store, curate and reflect
upon stories using personally meaningful objects. Trove
aims to provide children with greater agency over their life
storying by giving them the opportunity to present and
archive their own narratives and offering a safer, more
portable way to keep their objects. In this paper, we frame
the Trove project within its LSW origins and present our
initial prototype. We then outline the redesign insights
generated from our previous work, before challenging our
initial assumptions and building upon our early design
insights with a series of workshops involving 4 looked-after
children from a therapeutic residential school. Lastly, we
describe the redesigned version of Trove and discuss how it
aligns with LSW and Child Computer Interaction literature.
Our work stresses the need to engage looked-after and
adopted children in HCI in order to create technology
which can support their wellbeing. We contribute; 1) design
insights for supporting LSW using meaningful objects with
looked-after and adopted children; 2) a candid account of
our experiences and the user-centred design insights
generated from a series of workshops with society’s most
vulnerable children; 3) our interpretation of the identified
insights through the development of Trove V2.
BACKGROUND
Developing and Identity
Developing a strong understanding of our past life events is
what underpins our sense of self and identity [20]. This is a
process McAdams terms ‘narrative identity’ which consists
of an evolving, internalised story [39,41]. It is postulated
that the telling and re-telling of stories about previous
events enables the narrator to create more cohesive
narratives which reflect a temporal understanding of their
life [21,41]. These elements are central to the construction
of one’s identity [6,21,41,76] and narrative theorists
attribute this process to the human meaning-making
characteristic of constructivism [32,71]. For looked-after
and adopted children creating a strong narrative identity
provides them with a foundation for alleviating the
frustration of uncertainty, allowing them to live in the
present without dwelling on the past, and giving them the
confidence to make their own future plans [31,53].
Narrative identity acknowledges the contradiction in human
actualisation of the ‘self’ – we perceive ourselves as
simultaneously staying the same, yet always changing [7].
It is through the reconciliation of these conflicting positions
that the true-self emerges [7,69] and practising narrative
construction is fundamental to this [41,76]. However,
narrative construction is something children learn to do
with time and is often supported by parent-child dialogues
about events and their associated emotional responses [40].
For looked-after children, who may be experiencing
frequent change and few enduring attachments or
relationships, this presents obvious challenges [31,40].
Paper 695
CHI 2020, April 25–30, 2020, Honolulu, HI, USA
Life Story Work, Objects and Looked after Children
The process we use to support the development of a child’s
narrative identity, life story work (LSW), comprises several
techniques, including the curation of historical information
and artefacts, therapy sessions, and exploring the past
through play [9]. As stated, for looked-after and adopted
children, information about their lives prior to entering care,
is neither as accessible nor well-organised [9,40,56], with
the details which are known darkened by loss, separation,
abuse and/or neglect [16,59]. The accumulation of these
factors often results in a convoluted narrative, littered with
confounding experiences that children are unable to fully
make sense of [45,72,79]. The goal for LSW, then, is to
help children form a consistent account of their life story
and, in doing so, help them to feel less like captives of their
own, poorly understood experiences [31]. LSW does not
omit past realities but attempts to empower children to have
greater control over their identity while emphasising the
security of their current environment [31,53,81].
Despite the strong theoretical rationale for LSW, its real-
world outcomes vary [23,72]. In practice, the social
workers responsible for supporting children’s LSW, often
lack the necessary opportunities, strategies, time and
training to properly carry it out [12,27,83]. Within UK
social care, LSW prioritises the curation of ‘life
storybooks’, to provide a child with a written and
photographic account of their history and relationships
[59,72,73]. Newly adopted children, for instance, are
legally obliged to receive their book within ten days but
book quality is not validated with regards to its content or
role within wider LSW endeavours [72,73].
Moreover, even for detailed books, the narratives presented
are frequently incoherent or even misrepresented, from the
child’s perspective, due to the portrayal of events as
understood by the adult caregiver [9,72]. Where this occurs,
it leads to a dissonance between the child’s current identity
and the identity presented in the book [38]. Contrarily,
certain information may not be fully understood or viewed
differently from the child’s perspective, leading to false
assumptions [72]. Hence, some postulate that although
LSW benefits from being child-led, integrating multiple
perspectives is crucial [9,48,72].
Life story books also suffer from the exclusion of physical
objects. Our tangible possessions are imbued with emotion
and infused with our identities [30,57,71], acting as a
window to one’s cultural and historical origins [2,17,64].
For looked-after children, personal objects are one of the
few consistent things their transient existences [69,71],
often presenting the only remaining link to past families
and lives [69]. When used transitionally, objects can assist
with acclimatising to change [80] but their loss can be
devastating, enacting feelings of profound grief [69]. Thus,
helping children retain these objects is imperative [71,72].
Supporting Reminiscence with Memory Boxes in HCI
Although supporting LSW with looked-after and adopted
children remains mostly uncharted territory in HCI, there is
Page 2
CHI 2020 Paper
a rich history in investigating technology-mediated
reminiscence and storytelling with other groups. A
fundamental influence upon endeavours in this space has
been the centuries-old concept of memory boxes [1], which
simultaneously act as a safe way to keep precious artefacts,
reflect upon their value, and set the stage for storytelling
[1,66]. Memory boxes act as triggers to intimate memories
and enable “temporal shifts from the past to the present and
from the present to the future” [54].
In an early technical illustration, Frohlich and Murphy
developed a digital and physical memory box which
permitted recording and attaching audio stories to
memorabilia using RFID object tags with an integrated box
scanner and loudspeaker [22]. The concept inspired
alternative technologies for story curation and reminiscence
with tangible objects, including the Living Memory Box – a
digital and physical memory box for documenting and
sharing family moments [62]; If These Walls Could Speak
– a minimalist wooden basin which uses river stones as a
vessel for spoken memories [43]; Mementos – a public
kiosk for associating souvenirs with holiday photos [20].
Reminiscence technology in HCI has also considered the
curation and presentation of purely digital content – to help
parents cherish memories of their children [33,34], as
therapeutic tools for individuals with degenerative brain
diseases [36,68], and to develop shared family memory
narratives [58,77]. However, as noted by Mosher et al.,
“Using a dedicated hardware system makes the retrieval
process more intentional and focused, as with the
experience of browsing a physical baby book or photo
album” [43]. One child-led example which recognised the
value in nurturing a special relationship between the
memory vessel and the user was KidKeeper [33]. It
packaged an audio capturing device within an interactive
cuddly toy frog, allowing children to make one-minute long
recordings. The recording mechanism was touch-activated,
hence, precipitated by children engaging in one-to-one
interaction with the toy. The toy would also playback
historical stories during playful interactions with the child.
Where Life Story Work Meets HCI
The reminiscence technology being developed with other
groups in HCI is an opportunity to enact fundamental
changes to LSW for looked-after and adopted children.
Technology-mediated memory boxes are particularly well
aligned, enabling children to record an archive of evolving
narratives awoken by tangible reflection [71,74].
Commenting on the value of digital memory boxes, Gray et
al., state, “as the self and memory are always changing,
being able to record and reflect upon story origins and
evolutions is essential to ensure crucial details are not
forgotten or distorted by the competing narratives of
others” [26]. In LSW we want to consider the perspectives
of others, but we do not want other voices to overpower the
child’s [55]. In looked-after and adoption contexts, adults’
versions of events can be so compelling and traumatic that
children may accept them as their own memories [26,66].
Paper 695
CHI 2020, April 25–30, 2020, Honolulu, HI, USA
There are parallels between the theoretical underpinnings of
LSW and participatory design methodologies in HCI. Druin
and Read et al., have written extensively about empowering
children in the design of technology – a domain where
adults commonly hold the balance of power [18,50]. In
doing so, we attain technology which more closely meets
children’s needs while confer granting them opportunities
to change and control their world [10,11,18,50,78].
Mirroring this, for looked-after and adopted children, taking
greater ownership of their LSW results in a more organized
narrative identity, and affords agency in circumstances
which have been imposed upon them [29,42,44]. Hence,
this shared goal of children’s empowerment presented an
opportunity to represent and involve looked-after and
adopted children in HCI design processes [4,5].
TROVE VERSION ONE: AN INTRODUCTION
Background and Origins
Trove emerged from the research of Debbie Watson (fourth
author) – considering the important relationships between
objects, stories, and identity in children’s LSW, and the
work of designer, Chloe Meineck (seventh author) –
creating object-oriented digital memory boxes for older
adults. Together, they sought to apply the concept of
memory boxes for children in looked-after and adopted
contexts, to support their identity and life story narrative
building during interactions with their meaningful objects.
The first Trove prototype was conceived during an
innovation partnership programme between creative
businesses and academia [47], aimed at developing
experimental ideas into working prototypes.
The 4-month process entailed a structured programme of
co-design workshops, involving brainstorming, user-
personas, low-fidelity prototyping and iterative evaluation
with a group of fifteen children (aged 7-12 years). Further
details can are found in [47,49,74]. The programme
involved a diverse array of projects focusing on multiple
children’s topics. However, the short length of the
programme did not facilitate an ethical basis for the
involvement of looked-after or adopted children. There was
no scope to build relationships with local authorities, recruit
wellbeing support staff, nor train researchers to safeguard
the wellbeing of these children. Hence, the programme
organisers were unable to recruit children from these
backgrounds. The motivation for the redesign of Trove
described in this paper was to solicit greater participation
from children with experience of such contexts.
Trove Version One Overview
Trove V1 [26] was designed as a physical space to keep
objects and memories safe over time. It resembled a multi-
sided gem-shaped box containing object storage space and a
technology insert which facilitated audio recording and
playback, and story storage. Links to recorded stories could
be written to RFID tags attached to objects, and later played
back by placing the tag on a contact point in the technology
insert. Meanwhile, the physical box provided a personal
space for keeping objects. Upon start-up, Trove welcomed
Page 3
CHI 2020 Paper
Figure 1. Trove V1 – see Gray et al. (2019) for more
the user and introduced itself with an audio commentator,
who provided sustained support on how to use the system
throughout the process of recording, playback, and tagging.
Trove also contained an archive of previously recorded
content from which nothing could be deleted to protect
against accidental or malicious story loss. However, stories
could be added and removed from object RFID tags. To
record a story, the user put on Trove’s headphones pressed
the red ‘record’ button and spoke into the headphone
microphone. To write a story to a tag, the user pressed the
blue button and was instructed to place the object’s RFID
tag on the contact point. The yellow button lets users
playback stories by placing its tag on the cross. Each RFID
tag could be associated with multiple stories and the user
navigated between an object’s stories using two small
backward and forward buttons. Trove V1 used a mixture of
pre-existing hardware: RFID reader and tags, Raspberry Pi,
a custom sub-board, arcade buttons, and headphones.
TROVE: PREVIOUS WORK AND INSIGHTS
Trove Version One Evaluations
In the absence of design participation from looked-after or
adopted children in the initial prototype design phase, we
sought to evaluate the conceptual and practical efficacy of
Trove with its target demographic through:
(1) 2 x two-hour playtesting and feedback sessions – a
session with 15 looked-after children and a session with 6
adopted children and their parents [26]. We evaluated Trove
V1 with end-users varying in age and living contexts but
with many of the same life storying challenges.
(2) A 4-week trial with 10 adopted children from 6 family
units [74]. This short in the wild trial investigated establish
how Trove may be used within one of its intended real-
world contexts.
(3) A one-day feedback event with social workers at the
English local authority care centre, which attempted to
understand Trove potential role in assist social workers’
practical life story curation responsibilities [71].
Trove Version One Redesign Insights (DI)
Following the Trove V1 evaluations, it was clear that the
concept had the potential to support LSW in diverse
contexts but required a redesign to more closely meet user
needs. To do this, the founding partners secured funding to
work with HCI researchers at the University of Bristol and
a residential school for looked-after children. Following the
evaluations of Trove V1, the research team embarked on a
process of analysing feedback about the design’s efficacy.
Paper 695
CHI 2020, April 25–30, 2020, Honolulu, HI, USA
This involved thematic analysis of data from the described
evaluations and a series of ‘advisory board’ discussion
meetings which involved all the authors as well as
representatives from local authority care, our partnering
residential school, and children’s charity - Coram. The
outcomes from a subset of these analyses are discussed in
Gray et al. and Watson et al. [26,71,74] but we have
condensed the outcomes into 7 redesign insights (DI):
DI-01: Trove must remain relevant and usable throughout a
child’s lifespan.
DI-02: We prioritise child-led narratives but incorporate the
perspectives of other people in the curation.
DI-03: The security of meaningful objects and their
associated stories are of equal importance.
DI-04: Children remember but may no longer possess
meaningful historical artefacts.
DI-05: Trove’s portability should be further enhanced to
allow for storytelling in different contexts.
DI-06: The sharing of stories should be promoted.
DI-07: To be a scalable solution for local authority budgets,
Trove’s unit cost must not be economically prohibitive.
During the Findings section of this paper, we present
further redesign insights as they emerged in our workshops.
USER-CENTRED REDESIGN MOTIVATION
Laying the Groundwork for the Trove Redesign
Despite the areas of improvement for Trove V2 outlined by
Redesign Insights DI-01 to DI-07, it became apparent that
Trove V1 had made several design assumptions influenced
by the pressures of the initial design process as well as
founders’ previous work – exploring audio storytelling and
object-based reminiscence in dementia care. The original
design had extrapolated the concept directly to looked-after
and adopted children. However, this new and unique
context required greater investigation to appraise the
appropriateness of the original design. Hence, we sought to
examine the concept’s foundations and build upon the
acquired redesign insights through workshops with looked-
after children from our partnering residential school.
The evaluations of Trove V1 highlighted the complex
relationship between objects and storytelling which needed
revisiting in greater detail. A key assumption made in Trove
V1 was the decision to use audio as the sole medium for
storytelling. While being able to narrate one’s own life
story verbally is indicative of possessing a coherent account
of events [71], we questioned whether this would be
immediately possible for children previously exposed to
trauma. Supporting literature emphasises that in therapeutic
settings, traumatic stories can be easier to initially express
non-verbally (e.g. artistically) or not only verbally (e.g.
role-playing) [9]. Hence, vocal articulation of certain past
events associated with meaningful objects could be an
ongoing process, producing our first research question:
RQ1: How do looked after children tell stories associated
with their meaningful objects?
Page 4
CHI 2020 Paper
The Trove V1 evaluations validated the idea of physical
storage space for meaningful objects in volatile living
contexts. Yet, it was unclear how this space should be
implemented to address the diverse needs of our target user
groups. Hence, we challenged our initial decision to make a
ruggedized box, leading to our second research question:
RQ2: “How can looked after children keep their objects?”
The security of recorded stories emerged as a key concern
in the Trove V1 evaluations, but the design solution for
young (and potentially preliterate) children was unclear. We
explored this with the following research question:
RQ3: “How can looked after children ensure the safety of
their stories?”
Through our redesign workshops, we explored these
research questions, dedicating one session to each in turn.
USER-CENTRED WORKSHOP OVERVIEW
Workshop Approach
Our approach reflected the theoretical ideals of LSW – to
encourage children’s voices through adult facilitated
dialogues. Mirroring LSW, the role of the adults in our
workshops was to help children structure and discuss their
thoughts. We drew from successful workshop approaches in
Child-Computer Interaction – Read et al. stress that
research should be fun for children [52] and role-play [52],
sketching [65], low-fidelity prototyping [63], and board
games [61] have become established methods of ensuring
this. Such artefact-based techniques are useful in situations
where communicating in spoken language is challenging
[19]. Participants were given the title of ‘Design
Consultants’, fulfilling the role best described as
‘informants’ [18] – generating and deliberating ideas. But,
the researchers were responsible for shaping design
decisions. This role was deemed appropriate, given the lack
of familiarity between the children and the researchers, the
small number of workshops available, and the additional
stakeholders who also contributed to the redesign.
Participants
The 4 x 60-minute workshops included 4 looked-after
children (Trisha, Robert, Ronnie, Jim) aged 11-13 years
(M=3, F=1) living in our partnering therapeutic residential
school. Children at the school represent some of the most
vulnerable in the country. Some have experienced severe
trauma, and most require close, individual support during
all activities. Many children have problems with basic
literacy and attention and can experience extreme emotional
regulatory challenges. Accordingly, the residential school
deemed it suitable for only four older children from ‘school
council’ – a more mature group who made behavioural
progress and had extra responsibility – to take part during
this phase. Despite this, in what can be an emotionally
taxing milieu, not every child was able to attend every
session. The children could exclude themselves at their own
discretion or following the advice from staff members.
Paper 695
CHI 2020, April 25–30, 2020, Honolulu, HI, USA
Ethical Considerations
The vulnerability of the children necessitated detailed
project ethics. Prior to the workshops, a relationship was
established between the residential school and the research
team. Every workshop plan was validated by two members
of staff responsible for the children’s care, including a child
psychotherapist. 2 weeks prior to the first workshop a
written information sheet was distributed to each child and
explained verbally by school staff. Written permission to
take part was obtained from each child and the school’s
CEO. On the day of the first workshop, the project was
explained again, and consent confirmed verbally. Given the
potentially emotive topics involved, we validated workshop
activities beforehand, with a 15-year-old (M) child from a
stable foster placement. Trained school staff were always
present during the workshops to monitor and support the
children’s emotional health. Approval was granted by the
university ethics board and the school’s ethical review
process. Participant names have been anonymized with
generated pseudonyms in this paper.
Data Collection Methods
The sessions were managed by the first and second authors
who recorded audio and wrote observation notes before
later transcribing them. They took pictures of the content
generated by the participants, audio-recorded and
transcribed post-session reflection discussions, including
discussion of the non-written artefacts generated by the
participants (such as Lego and Plasticine models). The
session artefacts were collected with a range of media –
written post-it notes and answer sheets, audio, image and
video files recorded by the children and support staff.
Procedure
The sessions took place within the school and the
researchers took turns to lead activities and record written
observation notes. Between two and three school support
staff also took part in the sessions. As caregivers with
knowledge of the residential school and the children, they
were well placed to offer support and contribute to
workshop activities. The researchers would prepare and
manage the sessions, but everyone undertook the same
activities. All voices and contributions were valued, even
beyond the scripted activities. The workshop venue was the
dining table of the residential house dormitories – a space
associated with conversation. Given participant ages and
attentional challenges, we prioritised fun and engagement.
Analysis Method
All written observations, artefacts, audio transcripts, and
reflection transcripts from the sessions were digitally
collated, whereby a hybrid thematic analysis process was
undertaken in order to identify the workshop design
insights. The first and second authors jointly defined a
series of 13 deductive category nodes, which built upon the
themes identified in the Trove V1 evaluations [26]. Both
authors read through all the new data together, apportioning
evidence under the deductive nodes and creating 8
inductive nodes to capture new and emerging themes. The
Page 5
CHI 2020 Paper
Figure 2. L-R: One of the cultural probe pictures taken by Robert (Chewbacca); Trisha’s letter about the pencil; Jim’s
reminiscence solution; Ronnie’s car which featured in workshop 1 and the wrap up
themes and their associated evidence were then reviewed
and validated by the remaining authors during a series of
data analysis meetings. These meetings refined the themes
into the redesign insights DI-08 to DI-14 described.
FINDINGS: IDENTIFYING NEW REDESIGN INSIGHTS
Workshop One – RQ1: “How do looked after children
tell stories associated with their meaningful objects?”
Workshop 1 investigated the forms of storytelling media to
be supported by Trove. The session was attended by Trisha,
Robert, Ronnie, and two support staff. Jim excluded
himself for personal reasons. We began with introductions
and outlined what we would do together over the following
weeks. We explained the aim was to learn about the
relationship between objects and stories and inspire the
design of technology for others experiencing similar
circumstances. The first author described the connection
between objects and stories, giving the candid story of his
own meaningful object, ‘Kong’ the gorilla.
In the first activity, the children created objects from Lego
and plasticine to be used throughout the remaining
workshops, rather than using their own objects. This was
deemed to be ethical as it sought to mitigate any emotional
fallout from revisiting real memories. Children recorded
stories about the object they had made using a choice of
media available to them, before (optionally) sharing it with
the group. Despite attempts to circumvent adverse effects,
at least one child’s creation represented an existing object.
Robert shared an audio story, several minutes in length,
about his cuddly toy, Chewbacca, which he recreated from
plasticine, and described its intergalactic adventures.
Despite having recorded an audio story, Robert also said
that if he was making more stories about Chewbacca, he
“might act them out”. Similarly, Ronnie recorded videos
playing with a flying Lego car he had built. For the
moment, the car’s significance and meaning were unclear.
Meanwhile, Trisha, who had created a Lego pencil, was
hesitant to share its story out loud, which she had written
down on paper. Writing stories down appeared to be the
natural choice of media for Trishia, who stated that she
frequently writes in a private diary. After some reassurance,
she vocally recounted a harrowing tale written in the third-
person, about a bullied girl who channelled her adversity
into song writing using her favourite pencil. She never said
the story was about herself but the researchers and support
staff (who knew her background) believed that the fine
detail and hesitance to share, suggested inspiration from
Paper 695
CHI 2020, April 25–30, 2020, Honolulu, HI, USA
real events. This was a powerful moment which portrayed
the children’s complexity and vulnerability. These findings
suggested that the ideal media for storytelling varies,
depending on the content of the stories told, the object, the
environment, and individual preferences. It also appeared
that stories about objects may be grounded in real-life
events even if superficially appearing to be fantasy.
DI-08: To play a therapeutic role, Trove may benefit from
engendering multimedia and playful storytelling.
At the end of the session, we gave each child a cultural
probe package, containing a camera; notepad; and audio
recorder, allowing them to record stories in private rather
than in a group setting, for us to later review.
Workshop Two – RQ2: “How can looked after children
keep their objects?”
Workshop 2 investigated how children keep their most
important objects over time. How might Trove accompany
a child throughout their lifetime as storage demands
evolve? The session was attended by Trisha, Robert, Jim,
and two support staff. Ronnie excluded himself for personal
reasons. We undertook a role-play ‘time machine’ activity,
exploring the use and storage of objects and stories over
time. This involved pairing each child with an adult, who
interviewed them at different hypothetical time points – the
present, after one year, and 50 years later. Using the objects
created in workshop 1, they were asked where the object
was kept, how it was used; and what prompted reflection.
For the future time periods, the kitchen table became a time
machine, and everyone dressed up in wigs and moustaches
to role-play their elder selves.
The role-play provided team bonding and laughter. As their
future selves, the children explained the changes to their
lives but struggled to visualise how they would keep their
objects 50 years in the future. In the present, children didn’t
worry about object security as each child’s room in the
school is itself a lockable safe space. All three children had
meaningful soft toys, which they played and reminisced
with while “lying in bed at night” (Robert), and “sleeping
with it in my bed while hugging it” (Trisha). This
importance for physical comfort afforded by their
meaningful objects was emphasised by all three children, “I
use him for hugs and telling him stories” (Robert).
DI-09: Object reminiscence is common at bedtime while
soft, huggable materials appear to afford comfort.
Within the residential school and while not in use, these
objects were kept in view on their beds or upon cabinets.
Page 6
CHI 2020 Paper
However, in home contexts outside of the school, object
security was of greater concern. One year from now, when
Robert returned “home”, he described hiding Chewbacca in
his closet “away from my brothers”, stating he had a range
of hiding places for his objects: a chest of drawers or under
his bed. Later, the children built their ideal storage system
for their objects and stories from Lego. All 3 children
developed solutions involving secure space, despite never
having seen Trove V1. Trisha built a box with a transparent
viewing window to show off the object and a scanning
platform for story playback. Meanwhile, Jim created a
viewing room where objects could be stored and revisited.
DI-10: The visibility of meaningful objects may be
contextually specific.
As Trisha described her prototype story scanning function,
she posited that some meaningful objects have only one
story – symbolic of an event or relationship, while other
objects have many stories. The researchers quizzed the
children about how many stories their most special objects
had: Trisha’s first childhood object, a special pillow, had
only one story but Robert’s Chewbacca was frequently
used, generating new stories with every play session.
DI-11: Trove’s user interface must let children record and
retrieve a variable number of stories for each object.
Workshop Three – RQ3: “How can looked after children
ensure the safety of their stories?”
Workshop 3 investigated the security of objects and stories
using a board game specially designed for the session. It
was attended by all four children and three support staff.
The researchers noted the ability of the previous role-play
exercise to immerse the children in creative ideation and
conversation. Thus, they developed another role-playing
exercise using a questionnaire board game – a requirements
gathering technique to understand users [61].
The role-playing game asked children to play the role of
‘secret agents’ currently in possession of important
intelligence – a story and a physical evidential artefact.
Agent players rolled the dice, moving places around the
board, carrying two cards - one depicting an object, another
with a story about the object. Other players playing as
foreign intelligence officers pursued them on the board and
sought to confiscate their cards (one at a time) if they
landed on the same place. Agents earned one point for
every card successfully return to their base – the final board
position. On the board, ‘chance card’ places asked the
children to respond to some security-focused scenarios and
questions, while thoughtful answers rewarded with another
dice roll. The questions concerned how objects and stories
could be: viewed or stored in different environments,
protected if captured, and communicated securely to base.
There were many security solutions generated. Robert
described listening to messages from base in an enclosed,
private space by “hiding in a trash can”. Encrypting
messages was suggested by “speaking in a foreign
language” (Trisha) or by “Morse code” (Jim). Meanwhile,
Paper 695
CHI 2020, April 25–30, 2020, Honolulu, HI, USA
story backup suggestions included “a USB hair clip”
(Trisha), “a USB earring” (Robert), and inserting the story
backup “in my arm” (Jim). The game kept the children
engaged, aiding their concentration and depth of thought
when answering questions, compared to previous
endeavours. However, it was unclear whether the
imaginative answers applied beyond the context of the
game plot and into their real lives.
DI-12: Concealing story content can be undertaken both
physically and digitally.
Later in the session, the children were asked to build upon
their Lego object storage prototypes from the previous
workshop but to add a layer of security to protect the
contained artefacts and their recorded stories. For example,
Trisha added a no-text pattern match keycode to her
prototype, while Jim added a fingerprint scanner to the door
of his room and rocket boosters which would propel the
structure into the sky to deny entry to intruders.
DI-13: Non-text-based password systems are a desirable
security measure.
Workshop Wrap Up
At the end of the final workshop, the children were given an
opportunity to share stories from the cultural probe package
we had given them during Workshop 1. Every child had
generated several stories using a mixture of media. Being
able to tell stories in private, rather than the social backdrop
of the workshop, had a profound effect upon the content of
the stories recorded by both Robert and Ronnie. Robert, for
example, had taken lots of pictures during recreational
activities with friends and staff and described the events of
every scene in detail to the researchers. Meanwhile, Ronnie
played an audio story he had narrated about two siblings
and their adventures in a car. It was an intricate, emotional
tale, mirroring known elements from Ronnie’s real life. The
support staff stated their surprise as he struggles to express
himself, something which had been evident in the early
workshops. They noted that the car he had built and played
with in the first workshop had been more significant than
first thought. It was a poignant conclusion to the process.
DI-14: Affording privacy and trust may encourage children
to develop personally meaningful narratives.
TROVE VERSION TWO DESIGN
Following the redesign workshops, the authors deliberated
on how to undertake the 14 redesign insights (DI) and
produce a new prototype. Here we present Trove V2.
System Overview
Trove V2 resembles a large felt bag. It retains the tangible
connection between objects and stories as the core
interaction but there is an inbuilt touchscreen-based
interface to control its functionality (Vodaphone N9
Smartphone concealed from view apart from the screen).
This device allows users to record and playback stories.
There is an external NFC (Near-Field Communication)
scanner for attaching stories to object NFC tags and
allowing instant story playback. The software is a Java app
Page 7
CHI 2020 Paper
Figure 3. Trove V2 Bag – Marketing photographs with child actors
for Android OS devices. Inbuilt smartphone NFC
connectivity is extended using a Flomio NFC extension kit.
Trove: The Life Companion
Trove is designed to be a comforting life companion, like
the precious objects it contains (DI-01). Trove is now made
of a bedtime-friendly huggable felt with an inbuilt cushion
for users to lie on during use (DI-09). The bag can fulfil a
dual role as a venue for showcasing objects in safe
environments but appearing discreet in less secure contexts
(DI-10). The exterior features charcoal grey felt with subtle
orange/blue/aqua coloured detailing, but using the exterior
zip, the bag unfolds a bright blue Trove branded interior to
showcase objects. The branding includes an eclectic object
collection – teddy bears, shells, books, love hearts, and stars
– reinforcing that this is a place for curating objects (DI-
04). To increase privacy users may extend a pull-out
encapsulation screen shield over their heads during use.
Audio privacy is retained using inbuilt headphones (DI-14,
DI-12). The soft exterior is relatively malleable – to fit into
tight spaces and to contain diverse objects – but maintains a
level of rigidity to keep safe any fragile items (DI-03).
Aiding portability in transitional environments, the bag
features a shoulder strap and is far lighter than V1 (DI-05).
Much like before, Trove V2 features an audio companion to
guide users through the interface interactions and provide
words of encouragement. The voice is designed to be warm,
human-like, and female – an insight from our previous
work [74]. It explains every environment within Trove and
how to undertake possible interactions – Login, Record,
Playback, and Library navigation. At the Record screen, it
attempts to provoke some dialogue with the user –
encouraging them to record something, thanking them for
doing so, and reassuring them that it will be kept safe. In
future Trove iterations, making greater use of the audio
companion as an intelligent virtual agent is planned.
Introducing a Screen-Based Interface
Introducing an entry-level smartphone addressed many DIs
in a single package – including multimedia storytelling (DI-
08) and increasing security (DI-03, DI-12, DI-13) – and
remains economically accessible (technology costs approx.
<£30) for local authorities (DI-07). The phone is housed
within a removable plastic interior insert, meaning the
technology can be easily replaced if damaged or in need of
repair. The look and feel of the touchscreen interface
elaborate upon the Trove branding, matching the patterned
interior imagery. The app is playful, with screen transition
Paper 695
CHI 2020, April 25–30, 2020, Honolulu, HI, USA
animations and colourful animated buttons (DI-08). The
centrepiece is the record button which progressively
changes colour while it is depressed (DI-01).
On first use of a new object with Trove, users record an
initial audio story for an object before taking a picture of it,
to initiate into the archive – an on-screen object image
library. At this point, they also scan an NFC sticker tag
attached to the object by placing it on a cut-out orange ‘X’
marker on Trove’s interior floor. This associates the object
with the corresponding library entry – the NFC tag acts as a
hyperlink. Thereafter, an object’s library entry is opened
every time its tag is scanned, with the most recent story
about the object played back on the screen or through the
headphones. The library is a linear list of uniquely shaped
object-image thumbnails, helping young and pre-literate
children navigate. Each library entry lets the user add
additional audio, picture, text, or video stories about that
object (DI-11). Audio functionality is granted by an inbuilt
headphone microphone. Picture and video are captured by a
front-facing camera built into the touchscreen device. Text
is limited to a digital notepad view and an onscreen
keyboard. Each object library item also displays a series of
scrollable thumbnails denoting the different recorded stories
in ascending order of date (DI-11).
Maintaining Relevance Over Time
There are new provisions for Trove’s long-term data
gathering and security (DI-03, DI-12, DI-13), to ensure its
continuing relevance over time (DI-01). Users select and
save a limited number of stories on local device storage for
instant access, but the larger library is stored on Google
Firebase cloud repository and database. This aids the
curation of content for social workers and carers prior to a
child’s usage of Trove (DI-02). Carers can digitize
important life story artefacts and store important details of a
child’s life in the repository. This system is one-way,
meaning that carers can add to a repository without viewing
the child’s content. In future versions, this setup will allow
story sharing and collaboration by allowing shared access
rights for specific stories between Trove accounts (DI-06).
Repository access is only accessible by registered users
from within the app. All content is stored with 256bit AES
encryption (DI-03, DI-12, DI-13). On first use, a user must
sign-up by providing details, generating a username and
password. Thereafter, they’re remembered until deciding to
log-out, but a non-text passcode screen is presented on
start-up for fast access (DI-13). Passcode items appear as a
Page 8
CHI 2020 Paper
Figure 4. L: Trove V2 UI; C: Record new story with audio and image buttons; R: Playback from object NFC tag scanning
series of 8 object images which must be selected in a
correct sequence. Entering login details may be difficult for
children and may require adult assistance, compromising
their privacy. Hence, children must only remember the
passcode after the initial setup is complete. When offline,
recording functionality is retained but playback and user
account story synchronization require internet access.
DISCUSSION
Evolving the Trove User Interface
Kiesinger argues that LSW can be of therapeutic value,
scaffolding personal identity, and development [35]. Our
preliminary evaluations with Trove V1 indicated the
concept’s potential contribution to this by granting looked-
after and adopted children an outlet for narration and
reflection. Even so, design limitations, such as a lack of
portability; the vulnerability of its construction; and
absence of privacy, risked consigning it be another source
of loss or confusion for these children. Trove V2 addresses
these shortcomings with greater design participation from
children in residential care and progresses towards creating
an enduring life companion for reminiscence.
Trove’s transformation from a button-based box to a
touchscreen-based bag is a significant change of approach.
Adopting a touchscreen device attends to many of our
redesign insights (DI) in a single package. In order to scale
Trove for a UK audience of more than 70000 looked-after
children, the familiarity of touchscreen interactions with the
financial accessibility of the underlying technology makes
it an appropriate solution. Yet, through our participatory
design process, we recognise the importance of creating a
product that can be embedded in our participants’ lives
rather than ‘just another app’. We believe that Trove’s value
is in the sum of its parts. The focus on creating a unique and
playful digital and physical aesthetic; Trove’s narrated
voice; and continued use of tangible objects, all contribute
towards a holistic tool for supporting our target group.
Keeping Trove Relevant Throughout a Lifespan
For our young people, we desire for Trove to embody
companionship and stability, aligning with the role of
meaningful objects in their lives [69]. Circumstances and
technology may change with time, but Trove must remain a
constant, grounding feature of their lives. The redesign has
taken strides towards this by creating a safer physical space
for objects and storytelling in tumultuous environments. It
is portable but too big to be easily lost and can be discreet
or playful depending on the context. For those without
Paper 695
CHI 2020, April 25–30, 2020, Honolulu, HI, USA
meaningful objects, the bag design encourages the curation
of their own items and memories. Meanwhile, its modular
construction makes it agnostic to contemporary technology
trends. Currently, we use an inexpensive smartphone with
flexible functionality, but as technology progresses, more
sophisticated or bespoke setups are permissible by
replacing the technology insert. Using cloud capabilities
mean that these changes can be made without losing stories.
Nevertheless, it is premature to assume Trove’s enduring
suitability. The current aesthetic with bright colours and
playful object imagery was designed to be engaging and
fashionable for children but this may change with time [37].
For instance, upon transitioning to adolescence, the design
may be perceived as juvenile or unfashionable. In the
workshops, the children struggled to imagine the need for
secure spaces as they envisaged themselves as adults with
their own homes. Hence, the physical security of the bag
may become redundant. In such circumstances, Trove’s
continuing relevance may be as a cherished historical object
itself. We know the importance of reminiscence beyond
childhood [25], and Trove, hopefully, an old friend by this
point, can still play a role in enabling that.
The Challenges of Designing for Looked after and
Adopted Children: Autonomy and Accountability
Trove's development process highlights the complexities of
designing for looked-after and adopted children. Only by
increasing participation from those who have experienced
the care system, can we build practicably inclusive
technology for these groups. Yet, gaining access to them
and ensuring their welfare can be challenging. Although the
redesign insights (DI) are specific to Trove, we can inform
some broader design considerations for similar projects.
Consideration of autonomy is paramount. LSW should
empower children but this should also be exemplified by
technology designed for them. For reminiscence, autonomy
can manifest itself by giving children spatial and digital
privacy. Yet, mediating LSW with computerized tools risks
marginalising the role of caregivers in similar processes or
even circumventing their support – a scary prospect for
caregivers [26]. To assuage this trepidation, caregivers
should be made to feel included by the technology. But,
how best to do so may not always be clear. Trove
highlighted an ethical dilemma around disclosure. Granting
caregivers information about how their child was using
Trove may have helped them provide better support. This,
however, could have explicitly contravened the child’s
autonomy and trust in Trove. Paradoxically we propose,
Page 9
CHI 2020 Paper
that by giving children greater autonomy over their
reminiscence, in time, it may result in caregivers’ greater
involvement. During our workshops, this was demonstrated
by giving Ronnie time and space to reminisce while
focusing on building trust in our human interactions. We
both were later rewarded by him revealing more of himself.
Even so, if technology permits children greater autonomy,
increasing their propensity for reminiscence and sharing,
we must account for any adverse implications. For instance,
during reminiscence, these children may inevitably engage
with raw and un-processed experiences or emotions. While
this can be a positive part of the LSW process, it requires
careful facilitation from caregivers to deal with these issues
[40,72]. Accountability obligations further increase when
utilising networking capabilities to assist with story sharing
(DI-06) due to the risks of online grooming and bullying
observed in prior research with looked-after children [3–5].
As designers, it is not enough to react to such circumstances
when they do arise. Instead, we must try to anticipate and
prevent them. For Trove we addressed this in two ways.
Firstly, we have developed a support toolkit in partnership
with social workers, which can direct both children and
caregivers, on how best to use Trove as part of their LSW
and how to handle adverse effects. We have also postponed
networked functionality for sharing and collaborative
storytelling pending additional research on their impacts.
Future Work: Building Trust
Our plans for Trove build upon the redesign described in
this paper. Regardless of how usable or aesthetically
supportive a tool Trove is, we recognise that only building
trusting personal relationships give children the confidence
to tell their stories. We found building trust to be a
reciprocal and cooperative process, necessitating patience
and giving of oneself to inspire others to respond in kind.
This transpired between the researchers and the children
during casual exchanges of stories and conversation over
tea and biscuits before and after workshop sessions. The
touching story the first author told about their meaningful
object exemplified this. Yet, this need to develop trust
identifies challenges for Trove – namely, how can Trove
build a trusting relationship with a child in order for them to
impart the true depths of their thoughts and feelings?
To do this we posit advancing Trove’s voice into an
intelligent digital agent which encourages trust by
facilitating more natural and receptive child-computer
dialogues [8,67,75]. Here, Trove will attempt to exhibit an
understanding of the child’s emotions and historical
interactions. The cloud archiving of Trove becomes a useful
dataset which can be queried to better understand the child
and in turn help them understand themselves. In doing so,
Trove may come closer to not only encouraging life story
curation and reminiscence but doing so therapeutically, e.g.
taking an active role in LSW by attempting to broach
difficult subjects or events. Enabling Trove to be more
assertive would magnify the need for greater accountability.
As we continue to develop Trove for the future, we have
Paper 695
CHI 2020, April 25–30, 2020, Honolulu, HI, USA
engaged with a range of stakeholders both within the UK
and internationally, who can contribute contextual
recommendations and further insights. These groups
include – foster parent support councils, support groups for
adult care leavers, foster care charities like Coram.
Empowering Looked after Children
Badillo-Urquiola et al. note the lack of engagement with
looked-after children within the HCI community and
advocate greater use of user-centred design approaches with
these groups “to understand the specific preferences and
needs…instead of relying on assumptions” [3]. Given the
lack of control these children often experience over their
environments [29,42,44], giving them a voice in the design
of technology is an opportunity to increase their agency.
Within our redesign process, we steadily increased their
participation. Their involvement evolved from being design
personas, to direct participants as prototype testers, and now
design informants providing insights, ideas, and inspiration.
In this way, the design process itself mirrors the
empowerment goals of the Trove product.
Despite this progress, the reliance upon adults to coalesce
and realize Trove design decisions could be construed as
being counterproductive and diluting children’s voices.
However, as Yarosh et al. (2011) argue, truly participatory
research processes should be underpinned by values of
theories guiding the research, of the authors, and those
fostered in the child [82]. Our design approach valued
building trust [60], having fun [52], and ensuring welfare
[51]. It reflected the familiar practices of the school and
LSW, entailing structured, adult-led activities to ease any
behavioural and emotional challenges. By following these
values, children’s voices and participation grew organically
with time. Following this trajectory, even greater
participation may be possible for the next Trove iteration.
CONCLUSION
The work presented in this paper underlines the need to
engage with looked-after and adopted children in
participatory design, to develop technologies enhancing
their welfare and life trajectories. We stress that the ethical
and logistical difficulties of working with these potentially
vulnerable groups require detailed planning. However, with
the appropriate considerations made, their increasing
involvement is rewarding for all parties. Trove has already
shown short-term efficacy in encouraging children to reflect
upon their pasts by interacting with tangible objects. But,
through our redesign process, we have attempted to address
the issues prohibiting its usability. With Trove V2, we now
have an opportunity to evaluate the system’s long-term
effectiveness and build towards a lifelong companion for
these children. We hope our ongoing work with these
children will be a positive new chapter in their life story.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank our project partners, the local authority teams,
residential school, and support staff, but most of all the
children we worked with. We also thank AHRC (UK) for
funding the project.
Page 10
CHI 2020 Paper
REFERENCES
[1] Heta Aali, Anna-Leena Perämäki, and Cathleen
Sarti. 2014. Memory Boxes: An Experimental
Approach to Cultural Transfer in History, 1500-
2000. transcript Verlag.
[2] Aaron C Ahuvia. 2005. Beyond the extended self:
Loved objects and consumers’ identity narratives. J.
Consum. Res. 32, 1 (2005), 171–184.
[3] Karla A Badillo-Urquiola, Arup Kumar Ghosh, and
Pamela Wisniewski. 2017. Understanding the
unique online challenges faced by teens in the
foster care system. In Companion of the 2017 ACM
Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative
Work and Social Computing, 139–142.
[4] Karla Badillo-Urquiola, Scott Harpin, and Pamela
Wisniewski. 2017. Abandoned but Not Forgotten:
Providing Access While Protecting Foster Youth
from Online Risks. In Proceedings of the 2017
Conference on Interaction Design and Children,
17–26.
[5] Karla Badillo-Urquiola and Pamela Wisniewski.
2017. For Those Who Need it Most: Helping’At-
Risk’Youth Manage Online Risks. In Badillo-
Urquiola, K.*, Wisniewski, P.†(2017)“For Those
Who Need It Most: Helping ‘At-Risk’ Youth
Manage Online Risks,” Extended Abstract
presented at the Workshop on Equity and
Inclusivity at the 2017 ACM Conference on
Interaction Design and Children (IDC.
[6] Michael Bamberg. 2011. Who am I? Narration and
its contribution to self and identity. Theory Psychol.
21, 1 (2011), 3–24.
[7] Michael Bamberg. 2011. Narrative practice and
identity navigation. Var. Narrat. Anal. (2011), 99–
124.
[8] Brock Bass, Nicole Fink, Margaux Price, Lindsay
Sturre, Erin Hentschel, and Richard Pak. 2011.
How Does Anthropomorphism Affect User’s Trust,
Compliance, and Performance On a Decision
Making Automation Task? In Proceedings of the
Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual
Meeting, 1952–1956.
[9] Polly Baynes. 2008. Untold stories: A discussion of
life story work. Adopt. Foster. 32, 2 (2008), 43–49.
[10] Claus Bossen, Christian Dindler, and Ole Sejer
Iversen. 2010. User gains and PD aims: assessment
from a participatory design project. In Proceedings
of the 11th Biennial Participatory Design
Conference, 141–150.
[11] Claus Bossen, Christian Dindler, and Ole Sejer
Iversen. 2012. Impediments to user gains:
experiences from a critical participatory design
Paper 695
CHI 2020, April 25–30, 2020, Honolulu, HI, USA
project. In Proceedings of the 12th Participatory
Design Conference: Research Papers-Volume 1,
31–40.
[12] Karen Broadhurst, David Wastell, Sue White,
Christopher Hall, Sue Peckover, Kellie Thompson,
Andrew Pithouse, and Dolores Davey. 2009.
Performing ‘initial assessment’: identifying the
latent conditions for error at the front-door of local
authority children’s services. Br. J. Soc. Work 40, 2
(2009), 352–370.
[13] Anna Buchanan. 2014. The Experience of Life
Story Work: Reflections of young people leaving
care.
[14] Dante Cicchetti and Adrienne Banny. 2014. A
developmental psychopathology perspective on
child maltreatment. In Handbook of developmental
psychopathology. Springer, 723–741.
[15] Catherine Cook‐Cottone and Meredith Beck. 2007.
A model for life‐story work: Facilitating the
construction of personal narrative for foster
children. Child Adolesc. Ment. Health 12, 4 (2007),
193–195.
[16] Department for Education. 2018. Children looked-
after in England (including adoption), year ending
31 March 2018. Retrieved from
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government
/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/7579
22/Children_looked_after_in_England_2018_Text_
revised.pdf
[17] Mark Doel. 2017. Social Work in 42 Objects (and
More). Kirwin Maclean Associates.
[18] Allison Druin. 2002. The role of children in the
design of new technology. Behav. Inf. Technol. 21,
1 (2002), 1–25.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290110108659
[19] Pelle Ehn. 1988. Work-oriented design of computer
artefacts.
[20] Augusto Esteves and Ian Oakley. 2010. Mementos:
a tangible interface supporting travel. In
Proceedings of the 6th nordic conference on
human-computer interaction: Extending
boundaries, 643–646.
[21] Douglas Ezzy. 1998. Theorizing narrative identity:
Symbolic interactionism and hermeneutics. Sociol.
Q. 39, 2 (1998), 239–252.
[22] David Frohlich and Rachel Murphy. 2000. The
memory box. Pers. Technol. 4, 4 (2000), 238–240.
[23] Bernard Gallagher and Adam Green. 2012. In, out
and after care: Young adults’ views on their lives,
as children, in a therapeutic residential
Page 11
CHI 2020 Paper
establishment. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 34, 2 (2012),
437–450.
[24] Susan A Gelman and Natalie S Davidson. 2016.
Young children’s preference for unique owned
objects. Cognition 155, (2016), 146–154.
[25] Faith Gibson. 2011. Reminiscence and life story
work: A practice guide. Jessica Kingsley
Publishers.
[26] Stuart Gray, Kirsten Cater, Chloe Meineck, Rachel
Hahn, Debbie Watson, and Tom Metcalfe. 2019.
Trove: A digitally enhanced memory box for
looked-after and adopted children. In Proceedings
of the 18th ACM International Conference on
Interaction Design and Children, 458–463.
[27] Ellen Grootegoed and Mark Smith. 2018. The
emotional labour of austerity: How social workers
reflect and work on their feelings towards reducing
support to needy children and families. Br. J. Soc.
Work 48, 7 (2018), 1929–1947.
[28] Rachael Harker and Sarah Heath. 2012. Children in
care in England: Statistics. London: House of
Commons (2012).
[29] C M Hill and J Watkins. 2003. Statutory health
assessments for looked‐after children: what do they
achieve? Child. Care. Health Dev. 29, 1 (2003), 3–
13.
[30] Elaine Lynn‐Ee Ho and Madeleine E Hatfield.
2011. Migration and everyday matters: Sociality
and materiality. Popul. Space Place 17, 6 (2011),
707–713.
[31] Kate Hooley, Laura Stokes, and Helen Combes.
2016. Life story work with looked-after and
adopted children: how professional training and
experience determine perceptions of its value.
Adopt. Foster. 40, 3 (2016), 219–233.
[32] Sarah L Jirek. 2017. Narrative reconstruction and
post-traumatic growth among trauma survivors: The
importance of narrative in social work research and
practice. Qual. Soc. Work 16, 2 (2017), 166–188.
[33] Jasmine Jones, David Merritt, and Mark S
Ackerman. 2017. KidKeeper: Design for capturing
audio mementos of everyday life for parents of
young children. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM
Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative
Work and Social Computing, 1864–1875.
[34] Julie A Kientz, Rosa I Arriaga, and Gregory D
Abowd. 2009. Baby steps: evaluation of a system to
support record-keeping for parents of young
children. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference
on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1713–
1722.
Paper 695
CHI 2020, April 25–30, 2020, Honolulu, HI, USA
[35] Christine E Kiesinger. 2002. My father’s shoes: The
therapeutic value of narrative reframing. Ethnogr.
Speak. Autoethnography, Lit. Aesthet. (2002), 95–
114.
[36] Amanda Lazar, Hilaire Thompson, and George
Demiris. 2014. A systematic review of the use of
technology for reminiscence therapy. Heal. Educ.
Behav. 41, 1_suppl (2014), 51S-61S.
[37] Janice C Light, Kathryn D R Drager, and Jessica G
Nemser. 2004. Enhancing the appeal of AAC
technologies for young children: Lessons from the
toy manufacturers. Augment. Altern. Commun. 20, 3
(2004), 137–149.
[38] Lorne Loxterkamp. 2009. Contact and truth: the
unfolding predicament in adoption and fostering.
Clin. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 14, 3 (2009), 423–
435.
[39] Dan P McAdams. 1985. The “imago”: A key
narrative component of identity. In Review of
personality and social psychology. Sage, 114–141.
[40] Dan P McAdams and Lisa Janis. 2004. Narrative
identity and narrative therapy. Handb. Narrat.
Psychother. Pract. theory, Res. (2004), 159–173.
[41] Dan P McAdams and Kate C McLean. 2013.
Narrative identity. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 22, 3
(2013), 233–238.
[42] Isabella McMurray, Helen Connolly, Michael
Preston‐Shoot, and Veronica Wigley. 2011. Shards
of the old looking glass: restoring the significance
of identity in promoting positive outcomes for
looked‐after children. Child Fam. Soc. Work 16, 2
(2011), 210–218.
[43] Matthew Mosher. 2017. If These Walls Could
Speak: Tangible Memories. In Proceedings of the
12th International Audio Mostly Conference on
Augmented and Participatory Sound and Music
Experiences, 13.
[44] Eileen Munro. 2001. Empowering looked-after
children. Child Fam. Soc. Work 6, 2 (2001), 129–
137.
[45] Elsbeth Neil. 2012. Making sense of adoption:
Integration and differentiation from the perspective
of adopted children in middle childhood. Child.
Youth Serv. Rev. 34, 2 (2012), 409–416.
[46] NSPCC. 2018. Looked after children. Retrieved
from https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/children-and-
families-at-risk/looked-after-children/
[47] Alison Oldfield and Helen Manchester. 2016.
Designing Playful Products. REACT, Bristol.
Page 12
CHI 2020 Paper
[48] Terry Philpot and Richard Rose. 2004. The child’s
own story: Life story work with traumatized
children. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
[49] REACT Play Sandbox. 2014. Trove. Retrieved
September 19, 2019 from http://old.react-
hub.org.uk/playsandbox/projects/2014/Trove/
[50] Janet C Read, Daniel Fitton, and Matthew Horton.
2014. Giving ideas an equal chance: inclusion and
representation in participatory design with children.
In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on
Interaction design and children, 105–114.
[51] Janet C Read, Matthew Horton, Daniel Fitton, and
Gavin Sim. 2017. Empowered and Informed:
Participation of Children in HCI. In IFIP
Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, 431–
446.
[52] Janet C Read, Stuart MacFarlane, and Chris Casey.
2002. Endurability, engagement and expectations:
Measuring children’s fun. In Interaction design and
children, 1–23.
[53] Joy Rees. 2017. Life Story Books for Adopted and
Fostered Children: A Family Friendly Approach.
Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
[54] Jörg Rogge, Hannu Salmi, Kristina Müller-
Bongard, Asko Nivala, Cathleen Sarti, Alexandra
Schäfer, Heta Aali, Matthias Schnettger, Anna-
Leena Perämäki, and Juhana Saarelainen. 2014.
Memory Boxes. Mainz Hist. Cult. Sci. Vol. 22
(2014), 11.
[55] Richard Rose. 2012. Life story therapy with
traumatized children: A model for practice. Jessica
Kingsley Publishers.
[56] Tony Ryan and Rodger Walker. 1993. Life story
work. British agencies for adoption and fostering
London.
[57] Jw Santrock. 2008. Information processing. A
topical approach to life span development, 272-275.
New York: The Mc-Grow-Hill Companies.
[58] Vardit Sarne-Fleischmann, Noam Tractinsky, Tzvi
Dwolatzky, and Inbal Rief. 2011. Personalized
reminiscence therapy for patients with Alzheimer’s
disease using a computerized system. In
Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on
PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive
Environments, 48.
[59] Julie Selwyn, Dinithi Wijedasa, and Sarah
Meakings. 2014. Beyond the Adoption Order:
challenges, interventions and adoption disruption.
(2014).
[60] Gavin Sim, J Read, and Matthew Horton. 2016.
Practical and ethical concerns in usability testing
Paper 695
CHI 2020, April 25–30, 2020, Honolulu, HI, USA
with children. inGames User Res. Study Approach,
Case, A. Peters, Ed (2016), 1–33.
[61] Karin Slegers, Sanne Ruelens, Jorick Vissers, and
Pieter Duysburgh. 2015. Using game principles in
ux research: A board game for eliciting future user
needs. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM
Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems, 1225–1228.
[62] Molly M Stevens, Gregory D Abowd, Khai N
Truong, and Florian Vollmer. 2003. Getting into the
Living Memory Box: Family archives & holistic
design. Pers. Ubiquitous Comput. 7, 3–4 (2003),
210–216.
[63] Dag Svanaes and Gry Seland. 2004. Putting the
users center stage: role playing and low-fi
prototyping enable end users to design mobile
systems. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference
on Human factors in computing systems, 479–486.
[64] Sherry Turkle. 2007. Evocative objects: Things we
think with. MIT press Cambridge, MA.
[65] Barbara Tversky. 2002. What do sketches say about
thinking. In 2002 AAAI Spring Symposium, Sketch
Understanding Workshop, Stanford University,
AAAI Technical Report SS-02-08, 148–151.
[66] Jeandre Renette Viljoen. 2013. Identifying assets in
the memory-box-making-process with vulnerable
children.
[67] Ewart J de Visser, Samuel S Monfort, Ryan
McKendrick, Melissa A B Smith, Patrick E
McKnight, Frank Krueger, and Raja Parasuraman.
2016. Almost human: Anthropomorphism increases
trust resilience in cognitive agents. J. Exp. Psychol.
Appl. 22, 3 (2016), 331.
[68] Jayne Wallace, Peter C Wright, John McCarthy,
David Philip Green, James Thomas, and Patrick
Olivier. 2013. A design-led inquiry into personhood
in dementia. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems, 2617–2626.
[69] Harriet Ward. 2011. Continuities and
discontinuities: Issues concerning the establishment
of a persistent sense of self amongst care leavers.
Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 33, 12 (2011), 2512–2518.
[70] Harriet Ward and Tricia Skuse. 2001. Performance
targets and stability of placements for children long
looked-after away from home. Child. Soc. 15, 5
(2001), 333–346.
[71] Debbie Watson, Rachel Hahn, and Jo Staines. 2019.
Storying special objects: Material culture, narrative
identity and life story work for children in care.
Qual. Soc. Work (2019), 1473325019850616.
Page 13
CHI 2020 Paper CHI 2020, April 25–30, 2020, Honolulu, HI, USA

[72] Debbie L Watson, Sandra Latter, and Rebecca [78] Keir Williams. 2016. Digital Media in a Special
Bellew. 2015. Adopted children and young people’s Educational Needs Classroom: A Study.
views on their life storybooks: The role of narrative
[79] Rachel Willis and Sally Holland. 2009. Life story
in the formation of identities. Child. Youth Serv.
work: Reflections on the experience by looked-after
Rev. 58, (2015), 90–98.
young people. Adopt. Foster. 33, 4 (2009), 44–52.
[73] Debbie Watson, Sandra Latter, and Rebecca
[80] D Winnicott W. 1953. Transitional objects and
Bellew. 2015. Adopters’ views on their children’s
transitional phenomena—a study of the first not-me
life story books. Adopt. Foster. 39, 2 (2015), 119–
possession. Int. J. Psychoanal. 34, (1953), 89–97.
134.
[81] Katie Wrench and Lesley Naylor. 2013. Life story
[74] Debbie Watson, Chloe Meineck, and Beth
work with children who are fostered or adopted:
Lancaster. 2018. Adopted children’s co-production
Creative ideas and activities. Jessica Kingsley
and use of ‘Trove’(a digitally enhanced memory
Publishers.
box) to better understand their care histories
through precious objects. Clin. Child Psychol. [82] Svetlana Yarosh, Iulian Radu, Seth Hunter, and
Psychiatry 23, 4 (2018), 614–628. Eric Rosenbaum. 2011. Examining values: an
analysis of nine years of IDC research. In
[75] Adam Waytz, Joy Heafner, and Nicholas Epley.
Proceedings of the 10th International Conference
2014. The mind in the machine: Anthropomorphism
on Interaction Design and Children, 136–144.
increases trust in an autonomous vehicle. J. Exp.
Soc. Psychol. 52, (2014), 113–117. [83] Chris Yuill. 2018. Social workers and alienation:
the compassionate self and the disappointed juggler.
[76] Penelope Welbourne. 2012. Social work with
Crit. Radic. Soc. Work 6, 3 (2018), 275–289.
children and families: Developing advanced
practice. Routledge.
[77] Daniel Welsh, Kellie Morrissey, Sarah Foley,
Roisin McNaney, Christos Salis, John McCarthy,
and John Vines. 2018. Ticket to talk: Supporting
conversation between young people and people
with dementia through digital media. In
proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human
factors in computing systems, 375.

Paper 695 Page 14