Play Probes – An approach to reveal emergent youth identity through playful making

PLAY PROBES

AN APPROACH TO REVEAL EMERGENT YOUTH IDENTITY THROUGH PLAYFUL MAKING

PHD DISSERTATION BY LINE GAD CHRISTIANSEN

PHD DISSERTATION

PhD Dissertation defended: October, 2023

Author: Line Gad Christiansen

Graphic design / cover: Lucia Isabel Malley

Graphic design / content: Lucia Isabel Malley

Main supervisor: Sune Klok Gudiksen, Associate Professor, Designschool Kolding

Project supervisor: Richard Herriott, Associate Professor, Designschool Kolding

Design School Kolding Ågade 10 6000 Kolding Denmark

www.designskolenkolding.dk

Ó Line Gad Christiansen, 2024

Photographic, mechanical, digital or any other form of reproduction from this book is permitted only in accordance with the agreement between Copy-Dan and the Ministry of Higher Education and Science.

Any other usage without the written consent of the publisher is prohibited by the applicable

Copyright Act. Excepted are extracts for use in reviews and discussions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

For this research and PhD, I have many thanks to send out.

First and foremost, I would like to thank the many young people who have participated: Thanks to Sylvester, Bertram, Isabella, Malucca and Julie. I would like to thank the classes of 8th and 9th grade in 2020 and 2021 at AURA school in Hjerting, Esbjerg as well as the class of 10th grade at Skt. Nikolaj School in 2021 in Esbjerg. A sincere thank you go out to the teachers from the said classes too. Both pupils and teachers have been at the center of making this PhD possible and all your creations, thoughts and inputs are highly valued. A big thank you to the teacher Preben for setting up contacts and daring to invite me into your classes, during a Covid-period, where others didn’t.

Thank you to Design School Kolding and the Lab Design for Play, for letting me dig deep into this special world that a PhD is.

Thank you to my supervisors…

Thank you, Sune Klok Gudiksen; your honest thoughts and inputs, your patience when I got new ideas and for guiding me through several obstacles, such as a pandemic. I don’t believe many of us, had been prepared for those challenges, but you seem to know just what to do at any times. I truly appreciate your encouragements, guidance and “sailor-talk”.

Thank you, Richard Herriott; your great input and making sure that my work made sense from a scientific point of view have been so valuable for me and this work I don’t think I know anyone with as many metaphors on hand, for just about any situation.

A thank you also goes out to my third supervisor, Carsten Lyng Obel. I am truly sad that we never got to do all the plans we set out to do together, you have been a great inspiration and I am grateful the time, enthusiasm, interest and inputs you gave.

Thank you to Lucia Malley for your wonderful and creative inputs and visual skills.

I also send a thank you to my fellow PhD-students and my other coworkers across the Design School Kolding, this would not have been the same without the many conversations, chats, writingstays, times of playing, shared projects and great inputs. I should mention so many of you by name, but I’m not sure there are pages enough.

Thank you to my family and family-in-law, for all your interest, cheering, encouragements and especially helping with the girls whenever time was limited.

En hjertelig tak går til Henrik Uden dig, din evige støtte og vores til tider lange snakke efter pigerne er puttet, om alt fra designforskning og unge mennesker til deadlines og skrivning, er jeg ikke sikker på at jeg var nået hertil. Hvor klichefyldt det end må være, er du og pigerne min største motivation i livet.

INTRODUCTION

Think about when you were a teenager. While, for many, a great time in their lives, adolescence is often also a time of worry and increased responsibility, all while the brain is developing and preparing us for adulthood. Who did you talk to when you felt unsecure? Was it easy or difficult to initiate these talks? If you could go back in time, what would you tell your younger self? How would it have been for you to be a teenager in current times?

We have all been young and in transition between childhood and adulthood. Though the world looked different during our youth, I suspect it is not difficult to remember times of struggles and difficulties in talking with adults, whether they be parents, teachers, or others.

Currently, there is increased focus in the news on how young people are not thriving and hence increasingly receive more diagnoses of psychological disorders such as stress, anxiety, and depression (Hagemann, 2022). In a national test in Denmark, every fifth male respondent and every third female respondent between the ages of 16 and 24 reported experiencing a lack of thriving (Hagemann, 2022). Hagemann (2022) stated that one of the issues causing these troubles is that young people do not seem to talk much about their thoughts, feelings, and concerns and that many young people seem reluctant to reach out when they are in need of guidance or help. Hence, one important tool to help young people thrive more is to provide them with new ways of expressing themselves (Hagemann, 2022).

I later introduce why adolescence can be quite complex, especially if working with young people as a researcher or professional such as supervisor or teacher. For now, I highlight that working with young people is complex and learning insights about them can be difficult, but these understandings are still important. Another aspect that challenges the understanding of and relations with young people involves the difficulties that many groups of adults experience in talking and knowing about young people’s lives. In a Danish study, 95% of parents of young people reported different degrees of difficulties with having good conversations with their teenagers (Sundhedsstyrelsen, 2021). The parents further expressed that the relationship between themselves and their teenager was challenged and that they found it difficult to approach conversations about young people’s mental wellbeing. This challenge does not just seem to be something experienced for the adults in young people’s lives but also the young people themselves. Gilbert (2023) stated that as a psychologist, she has met many young people who struggle to share concerns or troubles that they experience with adults in their lives. As a young girl once told her, “There is literally no one who knows that I’m standing on the edge of a breakdown. I’m still standing and smiling” (Gilbert, 2023, first paragraph, translated from Danish by the author). There is thus a need to explore new ways of decreasing this divide between adults and young people, which is central to this study. Creating a way to let young people use their voices through materials is this PhD’s attempt to aid young people in sharing with us how they are doing and what their world can look like.

RESEARCH FIELD AND POSITIONING

YOUNG P EOPLE AND T HEIR N ARRATIVE OF I DENTITY

Young people, more specifically those between 14 and 17 years old, are the focus of this research. In this section, I present young people and how they narrate the different aspects of their identity in regards of them sharing insights about their lives through vignettes or stories shared in the probes. The section begins with a general introduction to youth culture and what that entails, then moves into the curation and narrative that young people share or build up around themselves. It ends with reflections on how the play phenomenon relates to young people and why this connection makes sense. I also present some of the challenges that might occur, those that are most relevant to consider when doing research with young people, and why doing that research is something to explore in the first place. I do not delve into specific parts or longer outlines of research from a more psychological perspective; rather, my interest lies in covering the dilemmas and challenges associated with accessing the world of youth identity.

Murray (2008) stated that narratives are our ways of constructing and understanding the world. Our experiences are rendered into stories, and we live through not only our own but also others’ narratives. Narrative is a way for us to make meaning of the world both on an individual level and on a more cultural level as a society, group, family, and so on. Stories also provide us a sense of belonging. As Murray (2008) wrote before social media became a larger part of our world, which enabled increased connectivity ”narrative pervades our everyday life. We are born into a narrative world, live our lives through narrative and afterwards are described in terms of narrative” (p. 111). Social media platforms encourage users to simultaneously become consumers and producers (of information). Therefore, these platforms have become a contemporary space for expression and exploration (Mihailidis, 2015). Mihailidis argued that the internet mandates curation if we want to engage with it. He (Mihailidis, 2015) also found that young people curate through digital media, creating their content based on what peers have shared beforehand as well as content that link directly to a source of information. This includes, for example, images, memes, articles, and posts from others, but mostly the young people narrate their own texts when sharing content as well. The young people in Milhailidis’s study also seemed to be able to use sources and materials from across many platforms and were aware of the type of curation they wanted to portray, though some platforms generally supported clearer narrations than others. Most young people reported an awareness of ethical considerations when curating platforms; some even used the platforms as a way of addressing ethics. Two-thirds of the participants stated that they sometimes leave out information to serve their argument or curation, despite many being aware of the ethics surrounding this. As one participant said, “There are so many facts floating around the internet, it is physically impossible to add them all” (Mihailidis, 2015, p. 452).

Murray (2008) categorized the narratives people create about themselves as generally pessimistic, optimistic, or neutral in tone. These stories often fall under themes of comedy, satire, romance, or tragedy. The level of imagination put into the stories decreases or develops as we get older. We even use previous stories from our country, family, culture, technology, and lives to explain current events, and through this process we define and frame our experiences in a certain way. The same event can also be explained by different people depending on their tone and themes to create different meanings to those people: “The primary function of narratives is to bring order to disorder. In telling a story, the narrator is trying to organize the disorganized and to give it meaning” (Murray, 2008, p. 114). According to Wicks et al. (2019), certain key processes happen during adolescence in terms of values, identity, and social autonomy (p. 41). In that regard, identity depends on how society perceives the individual and the traits that a person identifies with internally but also how they compare themselves to or identify in relation to influential people in their life (Wicks et al., 2019).

As previously stated, stories are both constructed for oneself as well as for others. This process during the teenage years helps individuals define who they are, which in turn helps them navigate the different experiences and challenges that life offers (Wicks et al., 2019). Tellis-James and Fox (2016) used narratives to gain knowledge about young people with mental health challenges. Through the stories provided by the participants, insights into their lives emerged. The researchers found that the participants were quite good at sharing and highlighting dreams of the future, and they generally emphasized the role models they had in life (e.g., a mom, a brother, etc.) as an important factor in achieving those dreams.

Tellis-James and Fox (2016) also found that the stories contained different tones and themes depending on the focus. Some participants told stories about difficult past experiences that had a more negative tone, while in others, the students imagined what would be part of their future. There can, however, be challenges with this approach. In Drew et al.’s (2010) research, some of the young people expressed difficulties in portraying aspects of their lives as they desired, that is, in accordance with what they saw others do on social media. They wanted a degree of artistic expression that they did not feel they were able to produce themselves.

In summary, Mihailidis (2015) and Murray (2008) introduced the perspective of young people’s narration. Whether internally, externally, or through social media, we all use narrative as a way to perceive and understand our lives; this also applies to young people. The way that narration is perceived can even dictate how one experiences and defines their own life. Wicks et al. (2019) stated how the stories constructed through narration can aid young people in navigating who they are and how to deal with experiences and challenges in their lives. Tellis-James and Fox (2016) explored how to use stories and narratives to gain insights into young people, finding that they share both positive and negative aspects of their lives through this method. The researchers did, however, warn against not asking too much of the young people to avoid them feeling that they are unequipped or unable to do a task. Still, using narrative as a tool to open up about identity does seem to contain possibilities based on the research presented here. So, if we need to be careful to design tasks appropriately to learn about young people, we need to dig a bit into what we already know about them. In the following section, I therefore present aspects of the culture of young people.

THE CURIOUS CULTURE OF YOUNG PEOPLE

Ages 14–17 form a time in people’s lives where they typically experience the transition from childhood to adulthood, both in outside expectations from parents, society, and school and more internal processes, such as puberty, one’s own expectations, and shifts in interests. Of course, this transition varies from person to person, where some will experience only a few of these things. Other people undergo these changes earlier than 14 or later than 17, but for this research, the assumption is that working with subjects aged 14–17 is adequate. This is also due to that age range being that of udskoling in Denmark, which refers to the last three years of public school This period sees emphasis on preparing pupils for the time and choices to come once they leave the public school system. This includes supervision about education and the future, choosing elective (practical) courses, and graded exams. Though this study does not focus on school settings, learning, or anything directly related to school in terms of purpose, I recognize that this time in Danish youths’ lives is one with more responsibility and expectations both in and outside school (e.g., being allowed to hold a job from 13 years old)

According to Kjeldgaard and Askegaard (2006), youth is considered an “in-process identity” associated with being rebellious and deviance that is enacted on an individual level and cultural level (p. 232). In marketing, the narrative of youth tends to be related to being “cool,” and exploits are aimed at other consumers wanting to feel young (Kjeldgaard & Askegaard, 2006) Hence, youth might not be connected to a specific life stage. It instead suggests that “the project of identity has become a reflexive process in which the self is negotiated in terms of choice among a plurality of lifestyle options” (Kjeldgaard & Askegaard, 2006, p. 232).

Accordingly, youth culture is influenced by global cultural flows, with much of what is available in one place now being made available in other places; local and global information and stories are increasingly blurred. A current example of these blurred lines are the protests of young Iranian women, who are refusing to let their lives be controlled by the government to the degree that is currently accepted, as they are increasingly aware of the rights enjoyed by other women through, for example, digital inclusion: “Information and knowledge are also at the heart of efforts to strengthen tolerance, mutual understanding and respect for diversity” (Livingstone & Helpser, 2007, p. 672). Livingstone and Helpser stated that young people with internet access expand their opportunities through that medium, meaning that they search information and connect to other groups. For young people, having phones, internet, and social media accounts is part of their everyday life and has been ever since they were born

Therefore, the stories they render about themselves are influenced, emphasized, or changed compared to older generations. This is especially the case when considering Murray’s (2008) argument that narratives are part of our identity, which itself is influenced by the culture and groups that people live in and identify with.

Odom et al. (2011) explored how teenagers (aged 12–17) relate to digital possessions and their possible meaningful attachment to these. The researchers found that while the participating teenagers were attached to physical things such as photographs, artifacts, mementos, and symbols of personal achievements, they also had different collections of digital possessions, such as archived messages from social media, photographs, homemade digital artwork, and music. The teenagers used digital media frequently, with photos of special importance to them. They used their phones and computers to access and share these treasures and highlighted the possibility of accessing these things everywhere through the cloud The participants often described their phones as portals to their possessions and social media, even more so than serving as telephones. They also emphasized the importance of maintaining their digital presentation of self and even constructed different versions of their digital selves depending on the audience and medium (Odom et al., 2011). This focus on how young people present themselves through digital media testifies to the importance of understanding how and what young people curate about themselves both online and in analogue, whether in person or as a representation for people to explore or learn from.

The young people who are the focus of this research are 14–17 years old due to the specific phase of life occurring in this age range. That being young is a sensitive and peculiar time in people’s lives has been broadly researched, especially in marketing. Though the current research does not perceive young people as consumers or customers, the insights from marketing research inform on relevant aspects about the target group. For instance, adolescence is an “in-process identity” (Kjeldgaard & Askegaard, 2006), where perceived identity is influenced by both local factors, such as families, school, and friends, and global and cultural factors (Livingstone & Helpser, 2007). In terms of how young people act out their own culture, Odom et al. (2011) highlighted that while older generations might have a need to process affective physical objects, young people tend to perceive digital artifacts and memories in the same way and find it important to maintain and consciously construct their digital identity. As a continuation of the youth culture presented above, the next section introduces some of the challenges that young people face and different solutions to them

YOUNG PEOPLE AND THE DIVIDE

According to Bruselius-Jensen and Nielsen (2020), there is an increased focus on children and young people’s inclusion in political strategies and professional work with this demographic. However, there remains uncertainty on how to best enact this inclusion so that it is meaningful and makes a positive change for the target group. At the same time, more and more indications tell us that a lot of young people are not thriving. For instance, Heidemann (2022) positioned in line with Hagemann (2022), by stating that in Denmark, almost every third young woman and every fifth young man perceive their own mental health as bad. Heidemann (2022) argued that his can be the result of many factors, such as the increased pressure of having many possibilities and a general conception that “you can become what you want if you put effort into it.” Another aspect is society’s changing focus on making the right decisions (Heidemann, 2022). Sabbatical years, changing education, not knowing what you want to become, and other uncertainties are not as socially acceptable from a government point of view. High schools are increasingly focused and primed toward higher education, meaning more decisions need to be made earlier on. In Denmark, Børns Vilkår of Children’s Welfare (a Danish NGO aimed at helping children and young people) explored the decreased level of well-being among Danish youth by talking to 100 children and young people (Thastum et al., 2022). They found that expectations from peers pressures young people to fit in. Børns Vilkår also noted that children and young people often experience a decrease in happiness about who they are when transitioning from a child (9–10 years old) to a teenager (15–16 years old) This decrease was more prominent in girls, but statistically was quite generalized; hence, boys might simply be more reluctant to answer these types of questions honestly (Thastum et al., 2022). The young people also frequently compared themselves to others on social media, which can increase the pressure of believing that they need to be “perfect,” as it is often the best version of others that are presented on social media. One of the issues with this tendency is that young people are both recipients of data on

social media and authors who produce their own materials. These materials also usually present the perfect version of the young people, so they themselves are reinforcing this tendency (Thastum et al., 2022). Thastum et al. (2022) remarked that the participating young people admitted, to a certain degree, to playing a part to fit in, which can result in loneliness. This is supported by theories of narrative identity, as the identity we narrate about ourselves determines how we perceives ourselves and how we experience the world around us (Murray, 2008).

Youth are on a transition to adulthood that requires them to advance in areas such as education, work, financial autonomy, romantic relationships, peer involvement, citizenship, and avoidance of self-destructive behavior (Hair et al., 2009). Young people in this period are thus at risk of different experiences of disconnection, including from school and peers. Hair et al. (2009) found that support programs or guidance from caring adults can decrease this risk. Looking at this specific time in people’s lives and the risks inherent to the divide between “us” and “them,” it is important to understand what the culture of youth are, as they are not “just” people struggling with big life decisions for the first time. They are also part of different types of communities that might either help, support, or negatively influence this time in their lives (Hair et al., 2009).

There exists a risk of young people’s desires, needs, and struggles being misunderstood or misinterpreted as well. Through an enhanced understanding of the everyday lives of those younger than ourselves, I propose that there is a better chance of building bridges between generations. A better understanding of youth would ensure a stronger relationship and communication between generations and hierarchical power relations. This is supported by Drew et al. (2010), who stated that “scholars of the sociology of childhood and youth studies have played an important role in emphasizing the importance of young peoples’ competence as social actors, and the need to be sensitive to the way relationships between adults and young people are influenced by differential power resources” (p. 1677). KLK (2019), a consultancy bureau working alongside the national interest organization of the 98 Danish municipalities, found that to help guide young people with difficulties, there is a need to understand them first, with the bureau making one such attempt through user journeys. If we can fully understand young people, and if they feel safe enough to express themselves freely, I propose that this will increase the likelihood of a shared understanding across generations. A greater shared understanding has the benefit of better and more concrete changes that can aid young people when they need support and in the right way. As stated by Ernst et al. (2019), there is a general tendency for people, to make assumptions on behalf of others that changes when we learn to understand the other people’s perspectives.

The municipality of Copenhagen, for instance, has created “the Short Leash,” which is a support system to get access to young people on the edge of crime and guide them toward a better path. One of the methods used in the short leash is narratives about identity, which involve negative things that young people tell themselves and others about who they are. By changing or reinforcing a more positive narrative about young people’s identity, they get the chance to see themselves and their future in a more positive context, which encourages them to change their path. This approach is supported by the Foundation Tagkærgård, which aims to help young people with histories of substance abuse get clean. They too use narrative about identity to help young people change paths.

Using alternative forms of expression might be a way to expose underlying issues in the world of young people. This is supported by Drew et al. (2010) as well as the social worker and the researcher interviewed for this research. In the interviews, the latter two both expressed that it is very difficult to access insights to young people, even when we (people working with young people) know that there are issues they are struggling with. It is still difficult to find an appropriate way to get young people to open up. Many initiatives to create “safe spaces” (both physically and online) have been implemented in Denmark and internationally. One initiative is the Australian charity group Mission Australian, which has created a support group, helpline, and national survey on young people’s mental health called “understanding young people ” A Danish example is the online platform “Girl Talk”, which states that “nothing is taboo” and aims to embrace a sisterhood through a platform for teenage girls that offers access to group conversations, psychological help, counseling, and lectures. “Unge med Kant” (Youth with Edge) is another initiative that aims to reach young people who are struggling in life and help them achieve their dreams of finishing

school, finding a job, and continuing their education. Notably, researchers working with Unge med Kant have been exploring approaches to co-design with and include young people in different projects. Bruselius-Jensen and Nielsen (2020) emphasized the increased focus on including children and young people in research and policy. At the same time, Heidemann (2022) informed of the tendency of more and more young people in Denmark perceiving their own mental health as not good. Moreover, young people feel a need to fit in and behave according to their peers’ expectations (Thastum et al., 2022), as supported by Hair et al. (2009), who argued that young people are therefore at risk of disconnecting from the people around them, though support systems can decrease this risk and the consequences of such a state of mind. This risk of disconnect and divide between both peers and other generations requires those of us who work with young people to be sensitive and conscious about our approaches in our work (Drew et al., 2010). KLK (2019) used user journeys to understand some of the struggles that young people experience. Further, involving young people in research about themselves should be prioritized, despite the challenges, to decrease the risk of making assumptions on their behalf (Ernst et al., 2022). As identified in this section, there have been and are several attempts to understand and aid young people with the different challenges they might experience. With the many examples of these attempts, a question might arise about why this has such a high degree of focus both nationally and internationally. Is it really that difficult to learn about, understand, and guide young people? As already presented, and to a degree corresponding to the complexity of this subject, the period of one’s life between childhood and adulthood is not merely a transition but a period that needs to be treated on its own. It is complex, easily influenced by many factors, constantly fluctuating, and dependent on the narrative, the local culture, the more global culture, and different influencers such as government, school, friends, and family. In the following section, I address some perspectives on working with young people, from a research-point of view as this is too a complex area.

ACCESS TO YOUNG PEOPLE IN RESEARCH

There are many ways to research people’s narratives. One method is the interview. In general, this method requires many conscious considerations from the interviewer, as the interviewee needs to feel secure and interested enough to want to share their stories. Interviews can be supported through different means; for instance, focus group interviews involving more participants, or researchers can utilize journals or diaries, photographs, and other storytelling implements. The main purpose of interviews is to find a way for the participant to feel comfortable to share their stories, even though those stories will be influenced by the interviewer, the questions, and the interview tools (Murray, 2008).

When working with young people, relying too much on interviews or any other typical data collection method runs the risk of the participant being reluctant to share their story. This may have motivated Drew et al.’s (2010) argument that for many years, there was a tendency to explore this age group “by proxy” through parents, teachers, and others However, in recent years, there has been increased focus on learning from the target group directly (Drew et al., 2010). As stated by Duncan et al. (2009) and supported by Drew et al. (2010), it can be difficult to learn about young people, as they are in a transition stage that influences what they might share with people from outside their own network. This is especially the case for qualitative research on sensitive topics in young people’s lives (Drew et al., 2010). Drew et al. went on to defend the importance of utilizing research methods that are appealing to young people and that therefore increase their willingness to participate. At the same time, it is necessary to make participation safe for the young people given the imbalance in power since they require the same rights as children in terms of data protection, participation, and parental rights (Drew et al., 2010). Another aspect is the rising mental health problems among children in this age range. Studies have shown that an increasing number of young people are diagnosed with depression, stress, and other conditions (Skovlund et al., 2017). Tellis-James and Fox (2016) noted how providing young people their own voice in research is of great importance, as their condition is different from both the views of children and adults. Hence, finding methods to garner insights about young people is increasingly of importance, yet also a challenge.

Morrow (2008) discussed the ethical dilemmas presented by the increasing tendency to include children and young people 12–15 years of age directly in qualitative and participatory research. She presented the tension in power relationships in particular, as adults generally are perceived as “in control ” How the power is distributed among the researcher and the children is based on the researcher’s standpoint on

this tension; do they perceive children as equals in knowledge, as different knowing people, or perhaps as people who knows less (than adults)? Morrow (2008) also addressed ethical dilemmas by emphasizing the following aspects to consider (p. 53):

• The process of obtaining consent Children’s perspective on the research, including being realistic about the expectations of the research and reporting back to the participants

• Breaching confidentiality and privacy

• Choosing pseudonyms

• Attempts to draw out policy implications from the study

Morrow (2008) indicated that consent is more than saying yes to participate: it is also the ability to say yes or no to activities, to ask questions, and should be ongoing rather than a one-time occurrence

Ethically, if the data is somewhat personal, the findings should be anonymized. Morrow (2008) suggested that if the participating children or young people wish to find themselves in the research, pseudonyms can be chosen together. The research can have implications in more broad terms later, and this needs to be considered carefully by the researcher.

Blenkinsop et al. (2006) found that young people value having enough time when asked to make a decision, and that despite having different ways to approach decision making, they prefer to do so based on enlightenment through support and knowledge.

Duncan et al (2009) presented another challenge when working with young people, finding that young people are aware of and influenced by whom they are sharing information with and for which context. In Duncan et al.’s (2009) case, the participating young people expressed concerns about who the information was being shared with, as exemplified in the participant Toby asking, “Is my mom going to hear this?” (p. 1693). Duncan et al (2009) also addressed the importance of having an ethical protocol for when a young person shares something in confidence. To what degree should the researcher preserve that confidence, and when would it be necessary or relevant to share that information? The researchers used Toby as an example: he needed daily medication due to a chronic condition, but in an interview, he shared that he was exploring to what degree he could decrease the intake of his medication, which neither his doctor nor parents knew about it.

Duncan et al. (2009) also shared the difficulties when doing research with young people that arise from the fact, they have less life experience (p. 1694):

This entails less experience at engaging in lengthy conversations about themselves, less experience with the goals and process associated with research, less experience at being assertive, stating their needs and desires, asking for clarification or assistance and less experience at articulating when they are uncomfortable.

Not only is there a risk of affecting the quality of the data, but there is also the matter of young people’s ability to evaluate whether they should agree to participate, if they should continue doing so, and their ability to withdraw consent to participate (Duncan et al., 2009). Therefore, being considerate about how young people are participating is important when doing research with them to protect them from unwanted consequences. They are still minors; they are influenced by the current stage of their lives and imbalances in power.

Horton et al. (2012) created a potential solution to this matter. They used their version of probes, which involved handing out teenage personas to teenage participants to evaluate what defines being “cool” in their worlds. This aided the team in responding to difficulties accessing this specific target group in general and deriving information from them. The participants engaged with the persona-based probes, but in general, the persona ranking (e.g., who was found most and least cool) was not consistent. Still, Horton et al. (2012) were able to find some consistencies that gave a good impression about what the participants valued or not when evaluating coolness (e.g., innovative and rebelliousness).

While there has been a tendency to research young people by proxy (Drew et al., 2010), there is increased focus on how to involve them directly in research. However, there are challenges with research surrounding young people (Duncan et al., 2009), some of these being due to the phase in their lives in which they are still technically children but conscious about their transition into adulthood. Hence, young people cannot be treated exactly as children, but neither as adults (Duncan et al., 2009; Tellis-James & Fox, 2016). Rather, both of these ages, in addition to formulations, participation rights, ethics, and appropriate research setup, need to be considered. Horton et al. (2012) addressed some of these challenge by using probes, with the participants receiving a teenage persona to fill out in accordance with what they perceived as cool. I position myself in line with the importance of understanding young people and emphasizing the conditions surrounding their research participation. There exist many guidelines for interviews, questionnaires, and similar methods, but I would like to more so highlight the experience of young people when they participate in research about themselves. This is not to devaluate the method or the research itself, but to apply a level of understanding that can benefit the participant directly, beyond just “participating for a greater cause” or for gifts or money. For this aim, I focus on play as a driver of young people’s motivation, as introduced in the next chapter.

PLAY IN THE L IVES OF YOUNG PEOPLE

Though we probably have all played at some point in our lives, it can be difficult to explain what exactly play is. Play can look very much like the same things we do daily as practice to comprehend the world we move in. But it can also be more spirited and irregular, an attempt to learn about things that we don’t know Hence, play represents a wide range of behaviors and is also a fundamental and important aspect of human life, as it serves multiple purposes, including social understanding, coping, exploration of new impressions and situations, and of course having fun (Henricks, 2016). While play is strongly associated with childhood, it should also be considered in a broader culture, for play can exist outside childhood (Henricks, 2016; Mouritsen, 1998). I have observed play multiple times when observing young people in different contexts: they tease each other by jumping on a friend’s back, roleplay by singing, and perform small dance routines together. There are competitions of strength and small games or playful challenges, such as who can eat the most cheese puffs. All these forms of play arise and disappear again, such as during breaks at school. I have even experienced how young people specifically ask a teacher to play as a break from the teaching that is happening. So, while they might be generally resistant toward the word play, play is still a part of young people’s (social) lives. Hence I underline the complexity and relevance of play among young people.

WHAT IS PLAY?

When addressing play in the context of young people, I use it more as a general term to ensure a shared understanding of the concept. Sutton-Smith (1997) offered one of the most widely accepted and useful definitions of play (p. 50):

…play is a form of intrinsic motivation, attention to means rather than ends; it is organism dominated, noninstrumental, and free from externally imposed rules.

While some define play as linked to pleasure, and this might be true in many cases, it is not always a twoway relation, as there exists pleasure without play, such as in great food or the comfort of a hug Play can also be without pleasure; it can be fun up to the realization of loss (Vygotsky, 1966). Vygotsky (1966) connected play to development and zones of proximal development, which means that play, too, develops. In play, meaning comes before action, whereas in real life, action dominates (Vygotsky, 1966). Similar to Vygotsky, Piaget (as cited in Sutton-Smith, 1997) perceived play as connected to cognitive development throughout the stages that children go through. Meanwhile, Sutton-Smith (1997) embraced the ambiguity of play, stating that to understand it, one needs to consider different disciplines and recognize that we all play sometimes. That is not to say that Vygotsky and Piaget’s standpoint is incorrect, but rather that recognizing that play is more than development is also crucial. This idea is supported by van Leuween and Westwood (2008), who stated that there has been a tendency to perceive play as something for children and closely connected to maturing or developing. Though this aspect is certainly important, play can be much more than just developmental. Sutton-Smith (1997) further argued that play has many definitions, and though we all know how it feels to play, it is very difficult to explain it simply. Like

Huizinga (1955), Sutton-Smith (1997) used the example of animals biting each other playfully without the intention of hurting each other to explain how play can exist in the threshold between reality and unreality; the bite is not an actual bite, but it shares features of a bite. Sutton-Smith (1997) further described that when looking at how play is defined, some associate it with “foolishness” or infantile behavior while others link it to something essential to humans. That both can be true shows that play can take on multiple forms. Some factors are considered important to play, such as creativity, symbolic meaning, and playfulness (Youell, 2008). Play is fun; it is spontaneous and intrinsically rewarding, protected from the normal consequences of a similar behavior in a non-play situation, and a generator of novel actions (e.g., role reversal). It can have a repetitive nature and only occur when the player feels free. Being playful thus requires a positive mood with a flexible and spontaneous nature (Bateson, 2014, p. 100).

Play is not only something for children (Henricks, 2016; Mouritsen, 1998; van Leuween & Westwood, 2008), but exists at all ages. It can be defined in many ways, but in relation to young people, I perceive play as – among others - involving risk and testing boundaries (Huizinga, 1955; Sutton-Smith, 1997). It also serves as a fun medium for exploring identity and as a way to connect with others. I have also observed how playful activities have been used as a (mental) break, such as from challenges in school. For this research, I believe that utilizing aspects of play as triggers and aiming at achieving a playful experience for young people can yield positive participation from young people (Youell, 2008).

YOUNG PEOPLE AND PLAY

During this research but also in conversations with different professionals working with young people (for more about this, go to the section “Interviews with Teachers and other Professionals”), and as seen in the aforementioned research with young people, it is evident that the combined subject of young people and play is a somewhat challenging area. This is in spite of adults playing, too (Gray, 2011; Mouritsen, 1998). It seems that while it is increasingly accepted for adults to embrace play and playfulness (Proyer, 2013), young people still have a conflicted association with the word play. They do, however, engage in playful activities, and there is evidence indicating a relationship between young people being playful and their physical and mental well-being, as well as the ability to cope with challenges (Proyer, 2013). To understand and explore the possibilities of play and young people in relation to this research, there is a need to depict what is understood as play for young people, as previously stated play can be an ambiguous term. When in the preliminary stages of this research, I asked a class of young people between 15 and 16 years old what play meant to them. The following statements were some of those that the students wrote anonymously and handed back (translated from Danish):

“I associate play with learning, friendship and community. Also, with exercise and being active. Generally, I believe that play is for everybody, no matter the age, and that it is important and healthy for everybody.” (girl)

“I think of kindergarten and wild play, competitions, and fun when hearing the word play.” (girl)

“Play = having fun, hygge [Danish word for being cozy] and friends.” (boy)

“I think of toys when hearing the word play.” (boy)

These examples only hint at how young people might have diversified viewpoints on just the term play. They show that though young people seem to associate play with positive aspects, what exactly they connect the word to differs. Some relate it to being a child, as supported by researchers such as Proyer (2013), due to the transition they are in; going from child to adolescent, it seems that words connected to childhood are something young people might distance themselves from to various degrees. However, some young people try to distinguish play as not being just for children, as seen in the first quote from a 15-year-old girl, who explicitly stated how play is for everybody. Young people therefore seem to be in a space, where play takes up different roles, and perhaps the following quote from Sutton-Smith (1997) could exemplify the difference between the motivation for play from child to adult, and hence also in which field play can move for young people:

“…while the child goes forward in his play, the adult goes sideways… In all these cases play seems to have more to do with waiting than preparing, more to do with boredom than with rehearsal, more to do with keeping up one’s spirit than with depression” (Sutton-Smith, 1997, pp. 47–48).

In Sutton-Smith’s beforementioned quote it goes to show that while play is often connected to some degree of development for children. For adults play is often something else. Young people could therefore be found somewhere in the middle of these two, possibly inspired or connected to both. SuttonSmith (1997) stated that while play can have many reasons and forms, the identity factor is often linked in play among adults (and probably also young people). This can be found in different activities such as validation or parody of local or global cultural membership and traditions. This could also be related to sports, festivals, or local celebrations. In the Danish town of Ribe, for instance, citizens celebrate the coming of summer with a “tulip party” at the end of spring (see Figure 1) Citizens of all ages even those who have moved from the city come together and celebrate the tulip party over multiple days, ending in a big parade with themed wagons, all decorated in tulips or - dependent on the spring weather - silkpaper copies of tulips. These different celebrations across countries and cultures use play as a sanction for community, activity, and participation (Sutton-Smith, 1997, p. 91).

This idea is also supported by Mouritsen (1998), who indicated that while play is considered a project of children, adults still play, even more than we might think, though it takes on another meaning and approach. There seems to be a connection between perceived happiness and playful activities. This applies to both children and young people (Gray, 2011). Additionally, there is a tendency that young people who are playful are more capable of converting any situation into a stimulating or enjoyable one (Barnett, 2006).

But what does it mean to be playful, and how do play and playful relate to each other? Often, playful is perceived as opposite to the term work, which many researchers have disputed (Youell, 2008). It is more a trait that connects to behavior or a state of mind that often happens when playing. Being playful can, however, be present during activities that are not specifically play. It can even be the trigger that pushes an activity from being a task to play.

Figure 1: Tulip party parade in Ribe, 2023

Both Glynn and Webster (1992) and Barnett (2006) explored what young people and adults perceive as playful The following two schemes depict the words that were associated with being playful in these two studies:

Glynn and Webster (1992): Funny Active Cheerful

Spontaneous Energetic Happy

Humorous Adventurous Manifested by joking

Unpredictable Sociable Manifested by teasing

Impulsive Outgoing Manifested by acting silly

Barnett (2006, p. 955): Fun

Spontaneous

Expressiveness

Creative

Silly

Elaborating upon what playful means, Youell (2008) aimed to define different factors of playfulness (p. 144). Playfulness happens in a relationship; it is a two-person phenomenon. We can be playful alone, but only if we have first had the experience of being playful with another.

• Playfulness is an essential part of play. Much of what passes for play in our current society is devoid of playfulness.

• Play and work are not opposites, nor are they mutually exclusive.

• Playfulness is an important factor in effective teaching and learning, both formal and informal.

• Inhibitions in play are an important diagnostic factor when thinking about children’s emotional, psychological, and cognitive development.

Playfulness is not something people can teach in the typical sense of teaching; it is more a state of mind that can be fostered through interactions (Youell, 2008). It is characterized by a positive mood, intrinsic motivation, and occurs in protected contexts (Bateson, 2014). Even when extrinsic motivation is present, the individual needs to be intrinsically motivated to participate in a playful manner for it to be playful, no matter the organizers’ attempts and intentions (Bateson, 2014). Hence, we can design toward playful behavior, but for people to be playful requires them to be playful based on their own intentions and desires. They will not experience something as playful if they do not accept the underlying premise.

While play is something typically not connected directly to young people, there are indications that play can positively influence parts of young people’s lives, such as their mental well-being (Proyer, 2013). When exploring what play means to young people, it is evident that there are different conceptions of the word and who it is linked to (children, young people, etc.). Sutton-Smith (1997) presented a connection between adults, play, and identity by stating that sometimes when play arises in an adult context, it relates to parody, community, or participation, such as local themed parties. Mouritsen (1998) supported this argument, stating that play is not only for children. In the case of young people and adults, being playful is related to happiness and the ability to cope. Exploring what the word playful (Youell, 2008) means for young people, Glynn and Webster (1992) and Barnett (2006) presented two lists of words associated with being playful. These lists share some words, such as being fun or spontaneous, but also contain words that share synonyms but that are still not the same, such as silly/humorous and expressiveness/outgoing. Hence, playful may be more relatable than play, as it is not necessarily connected to age for the young people participating in different research. It is a state of mind that could benefit the experience of participating with a probe with play, if achieved/experienced (Youell, 2008), as it is connected more to an intrinsic reward rather than an extrinsic gift or certificate (Bateson, 2014). But why even aim at play and being playful? In the next section, I present the benefits and especially the safe space that play and playful behavior can create.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF PLAY

Play can benefit different factors in life, and many studies have explored this aspect. Sutton-Smith (1997) listed different benefits such as the correlation between play and language skills, advanced maturity, problem-solving skills, creativity, emotional expression, children’s literacy, education, coping, and general success in life (p. 39).

As found through different research projects, engaging young people in research by utilizing play or playful behavior could have positive outcomes. Sturm et al. (2011) motivated young people to be more active by employing games to encourage playful behavior. Qian and Yarnal (2011) found a correlation between young people being playful and their ability to cope with stressful situations. This is somewhat supported by Staempfli (2007), who found that though playful young people endure the same stress compared to those less who are playful, there is a tendency that the more playful perceive their self-confidence as high, and what they consider stressful is different than others. They also have slightly different ways of coping with stress. Van Leuween and Westwood (2008) stated as well that play across all ages can have positive consequences for well-being and health. Based on these findings, there is general agreement that play can benefit young people in various ways and that playful behavior is a strength.

Gray (2011) proposed that a decline in free play (play that is not structured by adults) is correlated with effects like anxiety, depression, and narcissism. Nitecki and Chung (2016) defined play as a safe space for children to learn about the world and themselves, as it provides both freedom for creative expressions where even scary things such as violence, danger, and villains can take up focus without a negative connotation. They further defined spaces in two ways: 1) the space surrounding the child and 2) the space within the child. The physical and social spaces around a child shape their experiences and learning, inform the child about expectations and cultural norms, and set the ground for development. The space within the child especially is imaginative and developmental and can aid the child through play, for instance, to understand the outside world and internal development. The two spaces are often closely connected, and play can be the vehicle to translate one space to another in a safe (and fun) way (Nitecki & Chung, 2016, p. 26). The need for a safe space is not only important to children but indeed everyone. Therefore, when working with young people, exploring if play can provide a similar safe space for expressions, where the internal and outside worlds meet, is the focus of this research. Successfully creating a space that is safe to express oneself freely and explore playful behavior, as well as is framed to provide valuable information to the researcher, could benefit the sharing that happens between young people and older generations. But for this to work, the type of play and playful behavior intended to happen need to be appropriate to the participants’ age and the probe format.

Sutton-Smith (1997) presented the potential benefits of play, such as coping and finding success in life. Sturm et al. (2011) used this premise to study the influence of encouraging playful behavior on motivation to be active Qian and Yarnal (2011) also found a correlation between young people’s ability to cope and being playful. A benefit from this could be what Staempfli (2007) found in relation to young people being playful: those who perceived themselves as playful were more confident than those who did not perceive themselves as playful. Van Leuween and Westwood (2008) further supported this idea by stating that play and being playful can positively influence mental well-being. Related, Gray (2011) noted a correlation between decline in free play and anxiety, depression, and narcissism. Play can be associated with a free and safe space for expression and imagination (Nitecki & Chung, 2016) and can take up both a physical space and an internal space within oneself. The safe space supported by play can foster understanding of how the two spaces relate to each other and hence increase development, learning, and understanding of concepts on both a concrete and more abstract level. It is thus my goal for the probes in this research to be experienced as a safe space where young people are free to express and explore on their own terms within the activities that each probe entails

PLAY AND CREATIVE THINKING

Terms such as playful and creative are closely connected to play: “Playful play involves having fun while doing so. From the play may emerge a new perspective or a tool that might be used at a later date in combination with other tools, to solve a new challenge” (Bateson, 2014, p. 108). As Bateson showed, play and being playful connect to the creative act of changing perspective or exploring new challenges.

Resnick (2017) further argued that some types of play lead to creative thinking. He distinguished between types of play that are restricted or directed and types that are open to disruption, change, and further development. He used playpens and playgrounds as metaphors for these types of play: a playpen is a restricted area with often very specific toys that are intended to be played with in that setting. There is no room for exploration, experimentation, or risk taking. In comparison, a playground encourages individual types of playful activities. There is room to move, explore, and experiment, hence promoting creative thinkers (Resnick, 2017). In the Danish language, play is similarly separated into two entities: spille and lege. Spille refers to playing games, sports, or gambling and is used when the activity contains a specific frame and set of rules to be followed, comparable to Resnick’s (2017) playpen activities. Lege, meanwhile, refers to play activities that are free of pre-defined rules and involve imagination, exploration, or pretending, making it similar to the playground. This distinguishing of the meanings of play shows the complexity and potential that play entails.

Play can take up many forms and types of research, as presented in this chapter. Resnick (2017) stated that some types of play can lead to creative thinking. This depends on the type of play, however, as there exist both the more restricted types of play such as games and playpen-based activities and the freer types of play related to playgrounds, imagination, exploration, and taking risks. These two types do not exclude or diminish each other, but they do entail different internal experiences and potential outcomes. The previous section presented young people and narration of identity and a focus that could be further explored: how to get young people to willingly open up and share aspects of their lives that might otherwise have been kept to themselves. For this, I emphasize play as both the intended experience for my research participants and the driver for their participation. One could argue that the intended experience is the same as the driver for participation, and while this might be true, the focus and understanding on play’s influence differs. As such, I mention both explicitly to recognize the potential benefit young people could have through the play experience (e.g., they independently reflect on their own world as well as are invited to want to participate) to explore and be creative. Therefore, using some of the benefits from play through what can be called playful triggers (i.e., using play elements to trigger playfulness) might create a safe and fun research environment for young people. This is one of the aims of this research’s probes with play design. The next section introduces probes in general how they can be understood.

PROBES

To properly manage the probes for this research, an overview of probes and their development is necessary. “The past 10 years have shown a rapid adoption of methods of doing research into design processes,” Sanders and Stappers (2014) explained (p. 5). Design(-based) methods are increasingly taking up space in academia, all sharing emphasis on the act of making. This can take many forms and setups, ranging from workshops and group tasks at work to probes in private homes. These methods can be prototypes as inspiration or even co-designs between a researcher or designer and participants. Prototypes can form at any level of fidelity, including quick sketches, paper prototyping, and aesthetic mockups. Sanders and Stappers (2014) presented three different approaches that share some properties: probes, toolkits, and prototypes. They stated that the most important difference between them is the mindset underlying the method. Luusua et al (2015) likewise defined a probe as “an artifact that is sent into inaccessible places and situations in the real world to advance a researcher’s understanding of that place, usually by collecting data” (p. 86). Cultural probes are for inspiration, generative toolkits serve to make understanding of something more explicit, and prototypes inform about a certain form, material, or aesthetic presentation aimed at the intended solution.

CULTURAL PROBES

A cultural probe is a method for inspiring designers with the intention of understanding aspects of people’s lives (Gaver et al., 1999). As such, they lean toward the emergent user-oriented methods, such as user experience design (Rogers et al., 2011) and co-design (Mattelmäki, 2006), which recognize that for any design to be useful, there should be an understanding of the users’ underlying needs. Probes do so by utilizing design traditions as research (Gaver et al., 1999). For instance, they might emphasize the understanding of a phenomenon, which allows for speculations and discovery of new opportunities in product development.

Gaver et al. (1999) presented cultural probes to gain current insight and inspiration from a certain target group: the elderly in their local communities. In the cultural probes, the researchers created different activities such as postcards for sharing advice or art that were important to the elderly, as well as maps on which the participants marked areas where they would go to meet other people or where they liked to daydream. The participants filled out these probes at home and then returned them to the researchers. Gaver et al. (1999) elaborated that the “packages of maps, postcards, and other materials – were designed to provoke inspirational responses” (p. 22). The activities were tailored to a certain purpose, yet still ambiguous and open enough for the participants to fill out on their own. As such, the probes did not act as a new approach to self-report, but more like a thought provocation that inspired discussions (Mattelmäki, 2006). All this was done for the designers to ensure that a possible final design or solution “wouldn’t seem irrelevant or arrogant” (Gaver et al., 1999, p. 22). For the participants in Gaver et al. (1999), the probes offered a chance to find new ways of appreciating their environment: “elders also represent a life free from the need to work, and thus the possibility of exploring life as homo ludens, humanity defined by its playful qualities” (p. 25). The cultural probes were intended to be experienced as presents for the participants to explore in hopes of increasing their desire to engage with the probes in the first place (Gaver et al., 2004; Luusua et al., 2015). As such, probes not only contain possibilities for the researcher developing and using them but can also, if carefully designed, provide value and playfulness for the research participants.

Gaver et al.’s (1999) cultural probes were the first version of probes to be introduced. They were created to provide new insights and inspiration for designers working with specific target groups and entailed a kit of activities for participants to fill out on their own. The probes were meant to be playful in nature and feel like small gifts given to the participants Hence, the full experience of interacting with probes is an important aspect of participation. This is one of the argumentations for exploring the possible value of probes in this research: one of my aims is to create value that goes beyond the researcher and, through play, to give something to the participants in return for their participation. This is opposed to actual gifts or prizes that serve as external motivation post-participation, as in line with Bateson (2014), who argued for intrinsic motivation when experiencing something as playful and enjoyable.

THE AIM AND USE OF PROBES

Since Gaver et al.’s (1999) introduction of probes, different approaches and takes on probes have emerged in research. Mattelmäki (2006) stated that the artistic inspiration that initially drove cultural probes may not be the best approach for everyone. Rather, another purpose could be to produce knowledge. Boehner et al. (2007) similarly perceived probes as an alternative way of producing knowledge in their case, in the field of human-computer interaction design, where they desired more than just another technique for retrieving data. Boehner et al. (2007) found some of the same challenges as presented above, stating that since cultural probes’ introduction, many different ways of approaching them have been developed. Though different versions are not necessarily a bad thing, the desire driving the development of probes tends to differ quite a bit. This risks the probes being perceived as or used more superficially than their actual potential. Probes has thus become an umbrella term for very different approaches, purposes, and intentions (Boehner et al., 2007).

This has led to disagreement on how and for what to use probes; are they meant to stand alone for expert inspiration in a field with the intention of helping designers discover future possibilities through artistic inspiration (Gaver et al., 1999)? Are they intended to be supported by other methods, such as interviews (Mattelmäki, 2006)? Or are they something people fill out and create while the researcher is present (Knutz et al., 2018; Mattelmäki, 2008), an interactive object placed in people’s homes for them to test (Hutchinson et al., 2003; Wallace et al., 2013), or maybe a toolkit to prepare participants for research projects (Sanders et al., 2010). Gaver et al. (2004) argued that this transition of probes changing is both “heartening, of course, but also somewhat troubling.” (p. 53). As Gaver et al. (2004) saw it, there is a tendency to appropriate probes into a scientific process instead of preserving the playful and subjective approach at the heart of cultural probes: “It’s an approach that values uncertainty, play, exploration and subjective interpretation” (p. 53).

Graham et al. (2005) found that across different approaches to probes, they generally describe a cluster of approaches and tools Probes can capture aspects of, for instance, participants’ culture or ludic

pursuits. They can be used to decrease the distance between designers and users. They can be used to understand “hard-to-access” phenomena and in both fragmented and scientific ways. They can be part of something larger or stand on their own, either as a natural extension for users to interact with or as happenings in themselves. But common to all probes is an analysis through which stories arise. These are then typically used for either inspiration or information (Graham et al., 2005).

Boehner et al. (2007) previously defined the common attributes of probes based on how people have used or developed them (pp. 1078–1079):

• Probes as Packet: Focusing on the materiality of probes. Those who use probes with this attribute tend to search for lightweight and easily approachable data that quickly reveals what they need to know.

• Probes as Data Collection: Many use probes with the intention of collecting data. In these cases, probes are often combined with interviews and other social science methods. Generally, they aim to create or show a holistic understanding of a phenomenon or user group.

• Probes as Participatory: Those employing this argument either criticize probes as not participatory enough or praise them for ensuring participants have their own voice and encouraging higher degrees of reflection than typical methods such as interviews. In connection to this latter viewpoint, probes have been argued as appropriate when researching sensitive topics

• Probes as Sensibility: This definition emphasizes the explorative and ambiguous nature of probes, which serve as inspiration and intimate data input. Here, the hope is often to spark new user interactions, reflections, and reactions, with the probes intended to embrace provocativeness (itself present in the original cultural probes).

Though there are many different versions of probes, Graham et al. (2007) found that the following are traits that many share despite their different versions and uses (p. 30):

• Capture artifacts: Not only do probes use physical materials and artifacts, but they also include the deliberate use of affordances and repack objects (such as a new cover for a disposable camera) to serve a specific purpose or encourage certain actions. All of them are carefully chosen and (re)designed to evoke the participants’ responses.

• (Auto)biographical accounts: All probes are aimed at gaining accounts of people’s individual lives. They take the stories from participants seriously but also consciously address that they are just that, stories. They are the insights people choose to share based on the probes they interact with, and ambiguity is simply accepted or even embraced.

• Making the invisible visible: The participants consciously record, write, make, or draw their views of their lives. These actions make visible something that in some ways is invisible, such as the participant’s thoughts or feelings, for the recipient of the probes.

• Participants as experts: With the view that participants are experts in their own lives, probes let participants actively choose what and how to share information about themselves. They are more than just passive resources of information: they (should) take active roles as contributors.

• Dialogue and conversation: Whether the probes are supplemented with additional methods or not, they start a conversation between the participants and the probes themselves, between the probes and a recipient, or a (direct) conversation between the participants and the recipient. These conversations require a shared trust that the recipient will appropriately handle the insights shared and that the participant is honest while sharing those insights.

The probes developed for this research take their point of departure by embracing the playfulness and uncertainty in cultural probes, that is, their activities and setup. However, the intention and hence design of the probes has a knowledge-producing purpose in addition to serving as inspiration, as there might be valuable knowledge to gain from using them to research young people. Accordingly, probes inherently emphasize their participatory nature while also moving somewhere between the lines of sensibility and data collection. These aspects might be considered to stand in opposite corners; however, probes can contain some of the uncertainty and ambiguity seen in the original cultural probes due to their intended use of being playful and providing the participants ownership. This study’s probes are mainly participatory because of the sensitive target group, which should have a high degree of control over what is being shared and how. We can only learn from young people if they actually want to share the information, we do not know beforehand. Here, ambiguity and ownership can be seen as a necessary perspective in

designing this study’s probes. Still, the probes’ content should be vigorous enough for analysis or reflection together with either the participants or other chosen experts, which is in line with the perspectives on probes in general (Graham et al., 2007).

Wallace et al. (2013) argued that probes (when brought home to be filled out) take up a certain space in the participants’ home. They “silently ask questions during this time and the atmosphere around answering them (in our use of the method) is in general an unhurried one” (Wallace et al., 2003, p. 6). This enables participants to set their own pace and have control over when and for how long they desire to interact with the probe. They can even decide to go back and forth to an activity if it makes more sense to them. Therefore, probes’ at-home setup encourages a specific means of interacting that directly encourages reflection and involvement. This approach is especially useful when addressing subjects that might require sensitivity or are difficult to explain or express. Iversen and Nielsen (2003) developed digital cultural probes to learn about what is important in children’s lives while giving the children control. They employed mobile phones with camera and Dictaphone functions to gain insights about what the children perceived as fun, finding that the children tended to use the phones very spontaneously, which provided information not easily retrievable with other methods. Matos et al. (2022) employed their own version of cultural probes to explore young people’s (aged 10–18) engagement with local nature diversity. The researchers found that generally, the young people addressed the probes with focus, commitment, and a positive attitude (Matos et al , 2022, p. 10).

Gaver et al. (2004) stated that returned probes are not easy to analyze, despite the necessity of analysis. However, as with Mattelmäki (2006), it is possible to supplement the design probes with additional participant information from, for instance, interviews. This allows the research team to embrace the mystery and ambiguity that completed probes present, as they form small fragments of stories and clues about the participants (Gaver et al., 2004). Acknowledging this ambiguity and trying to depict the content from a designer’s point of view creates tension that Gaver et al. (1999) and Gaver et al. (2004) used to drive their design decisions. They even described the value in their probes’ uncontrollable setup: “The probes simultaneously make the strange familiar and the familiar strange, creating a kind of intimate distance that can be a fruitful standpoint for new design ideas.” (Gaver et al., 2004, p. 55). Hence, these researchers did not believe that their probes should be analyzed through classical scientific means aimed at minimizing biases, but through the subjective empathy of the designer/researcher telling stories about the participants based on the fragmented insights from their probes. Sanders et al. (2010) also emphasized the value of combining different types of activities when developing a research plan or workshop so they support each other in the best way possible, both in relation to the participants’ experience and to push the activities further: “Telling activities such as photo diaries might be used as primes in order to set the stage for face-to-face play-acting of current scenarios” (p. 4).

Mattelmäki (2006) positioned design probes differently from Gaver et al.’s (1999) cultural probes by acknowledging design probes to take a role in a larger data gathering, combined with methods such as interviews or surveys. Probes can now take on many forms and purposes, making the term more an umbrella of methods than a specific one (Boehner et al., 2007). This has created some tension in probebased research, as not all researchers agree on what entails a proper probe. Some use probes as part of research where the researcher or designer is present while the participants complete each one (Knutz et al., 2018; Mattelmäki, 2008), while others use probes as toolkits to prepare the participants for upcoming activities by setting a certain stage or mood (Sanders et al., 2014). Graham et al. (2005) compared probe-based research and emphasized similarities such as probes being clusters of tools aimed at capturing specific elements and insights from user groups. However, they also stated that probes can take on either small or larger roles in data gathering. Boehner et al. (2007) supported this view by presenting four probe attributes based on how and why people use them, such as probes as packets and probes as data collection. Graham et al. (2007), meanwhile, presented some of the typical traits across probes, such as serving as artifacts that capture responses and perceiving the participants as experts. The probes in this study share traits with cultural probes in how the experience is set up but also with other probes like design probes so they are supported by other data collection methods. I recognize that the probes will take up space within the homes of the young people (Wallace et al., 2003), as well as the importance of giving control to the participants over how, when, and what they want to fill out (Iversen & Nielsen, 2003). This might complicate the analysis later on due to potential disruptions to the materials that the participants want to share (Gaver, et al., 2004; Mattelmäki, 2006).

THE MANY FACES OF PROBES

As stated by Wallace et al. (2013), there is a chance of misinterpreting what a probe is and how it can be used, which creates uncertainty surrounding their creation and use (p. 1). Due to these concerns, Wallace et al. (2013) highlighted the importance of defining how one considers the use of probes while also recognizing that there are many ways to do so. One method does not fit all; rather, the method must define the framework and use of the given approach. In using design probes, Wallace et al. (2013) stated that “we unpick the ways in which materiality can be used to echo a question through innovative forms…, offering a variety of ‘ways in’ to a particular issue and tangible means to express and represent a response” (p. 2).

This research applies some of the same views in using materials and tangibility to enable new means of expression. I suggest that materiality can aid a new approach for young people to open up about themselves through playfulness and the process of making, as supported by Sanders and Stappers (2020). Bateson (2014) found that people who perceive themselves as playful also perceive themselves as creative In looking at how often they are used together, there seems to be a connection between these two terms. This can also be seen in the cultural probes approach, where playful expression and participant creativity are the focus (Gaver et al., 1999).

Mattelmäki (2006) presented her take on cultural probes in referring to them as design probes. These probes take inspiration from cultural probes and human-centered studies. They have some of the same characteristics, such as natural surroundings, an open process that can change, an explorative nature, and focusing on the participants’ point of view. Mattelmäki (2006) stated that tools (i.e., design probes) can aid participants in expressing themselves through metaphors and associations. The benefit of this approach is its promotion of participants expressing what they mean and feel rather than what they think is expected (Rogers et al., 2011). Hence, materials and creative processes can work as a mediator for a shared understanding of conditions. The aim with the design probes to be a vehicle for understanding a human phenomenon and explore opportunities (Mattelmäki, 2006, p. 39). Another aspect of probes proposed by Mattelmäki and Battarbee (2002) is empathy probes. Design empathy refers to a view of users or participants as the individuals they are with their own perspectives and feelings rather than merely as test subjects (Mattelmäki & Battarbee, 2002). Empathy probes were designed to inform a holistic understanding of participants, as supported by interviews and “make tools” (Sanders & Stappers, 2020). The designers chose the content through which participants share information about their physical and social contexts, such as lifestyle and experiences, that were later used in interviews. The content of the empathy probes was designed with empathy for the users’ experiences with the probe and the information the participants shared through them (Mattelmäki & Battarbee, 2002).

Another variety based on a combination of cultural probes, the diary method, and interviews are evaluation probes In the case of an ICT (information and communication technology) diary probe, young adults between 20 and 29 years of age interacted with evaluation probes that acted as a scrapbook of different activities, such as cutting and pasting, writing, and drawing, that were then followed up by an interview to learn about the method developed (Luusua et al., 2015). The researchers had a surprisingly high return rate (48 returned probes out of 56 handed out). In their feedback, many of the participants reported that they enjoyed the completion of the probe as well. However, the participants were also rewarded with gifts after participating (Luusua et al., 2015). Evaluation probes have been used in other cases with different age and target groups, but in general, there has arisen the conclusion that these probes are good for evaluating design artifacts.

Probing arose from the cultural and other types of probes developed over the last few years Whereas probes themselves are typically used and interacted with in people’s homes without the researcher or designer present, probing takes inspiration from, for instance, follow-up interviews (Mattelmäki, 2008). They also focus on probes being used concurrently with the designer (Dankl et al., 2022). In some cases, co-exploring with the participant can aid interaction with a probe, such as when working with older adults who might reject the probes otherwise (Dankl et al., 2022). Interestingly, this approach shares similarities to my argumentation on using probes in the homes of young people. I aim to create a safe space and increase motivation for participation, which in conjunction with probing indicates the importance of carefully considering the participants’ circumstances and needs on a more general level.

Notably, can they fill out the probe on their own, or would they prefer someone being present? Does this dilute their experience with the probe? Further, how can the nuances be collected, and what type of setting would most enhance the feeling of being in a safe space?

So far, the discussions about probes have surrounded physical materials and expressions through materials. However, some probes have a more digital-based form and emphasis. Probes can also consist of a combination hereof. As follows, I present the different probes oriented in digital media

Digital probes have been conducted in different ways, such as the digital cultural probe for children made to learn about children’s learning and what is important in their lives (Iversen & Nielsen, 2003). This was done by providing children with phones with camera and Dictaphone functions and having them send pictures and audio clips about what they perceive as fun at home, in school, and during their leisure time In Iversen and Nielsen’s (2003) case, the approach was a success, but it is worth noting the year of the study, when children might not have had phones as easily accessible as today in 2023 The same goes for Hutchinson et al. (2003), who presented technology probes to design for and with families through their InterLiving Project. They installed one of their technologies, the MessageProbe or the VideoProbe, in the homes of participating families. They emphasized one of the differences compared to prototypes, wherein the probes had to be well-functioning, as their aim was not to discover how to create a good product, but how the probes are used and in what way they might influence the families. This would then identify which types of technologies they could pursue later on. Similarly, Paulos and Jenkins (2005) explored the use of probes through their own version of technology probes called urban probes, which involve different activities with special emphasis on the use of technology due to the influence it has on urban atmospheres. The goal was for the urban probes to reveal new paths and opportunities for technology in urban spaces (Paulos & Jenkins, 2005).

Technology probes differs from prototypes in the following aspects (Hutchinson et al , 2003, p. 2):

Functionality, where the aim is for the probes to be as simple as possible, with just one or two purposes instead of, for instance, exploring usability and functionality, which are typical in prototypes.

• Logging, where the probes collect data on, for instance, relationships and aid families in their envisioning of future scenarios and solutions In prototypes, these data would not be the primary goal.

• Flexibility, where participants are encouraged to use the probes in unexpected ways; here, prototypes are often aimed toward a more focused use.

• Design Phase, where the probes are introduced early on in research to challenge pre-existing ideas and conceptions In contrast, prototypes are often introduced later on in an iterative way.

Hutchinson et al. (2003) found two relevant aspects in the usage of probes. The first concerned family coordination: the families sought to keep track of each other’s whereabouts and schedules, knowing who were home, and keeping in touch both within and outside of the family (e.g., friends). The other discovery was family playfulness, where the families wanted and aimed to have fun with each other and used the probes accordingly. This included playing tic-tac-toe, making funny drawings, and other playful activities.

Hulkko et al. (2004) explored the implementation of mobile phones as a probe by employing the phones’ camera and GPS functions for data collection, similar to self-photography and diary studies. Hulkko et al. (2004) found that mobile phones as probes grant promising opportunities (pp. 49–50). Through this study, they presented four drivers when designing probes that include mobile phones:

• Playfulness: game-like surprising tasks

• Flexibility: allows customization

• Easy to access: one device that enables the smooth solving of different tasks

• Collaborative server: easy to share the data

Accordingly, Hulkko et al. (2004) opened up greater opportunities with mobile phones, such as using them to document activities and cultures or as a tool to explore new technological solutions.

Wallace et al. (2013) argued the importance of defining how probes are understood when designing them. In the case of the current study’s probes, I design materials and tangibility in playful activities (Bateson, 2014; Gaver et al., 1999), aiming to provide young people the possibility of expressing their thoughts and issues freely in a scenario where they are in control over how and what they share. Design probes are one of the many different varieties of probe (Mattelmäki, 2006). They contain elements encouraging the use of metaphors and associations, are set to take place in participants’ natural surroundings, and can be used both for inspiration in a design process and to understand specific aspects of a target group’s lives. Another variety are evaluation probes (Luusua et al., 2015), which are based on scrapbooks but aim at evaluating, for instance, design artifacts. Dankl et al. (2022) argued for using probes together with participants in cases such as when working with the elderly, as they might not want to interact with the probes otherwise. Hutchinson et al. (2003) presented another type of probe, technology probes, which are screens with certain options placed in people’s homes for interaction. Involving technology is also seen in other types of probes, such as involving mobile phone cameras (Hulkko et al., 2004). Edwards et al. (2011) explored young people’s exercise habits and motivation by using technology probes and found that participants were more willing to share insights about themselves and generally positive toward their participation.

PLAY IN PROBES

All the different probes, their uses, and intentions show the diversity of the method, but also a general emphasis on users. As the participants in this research are young people, they present several challenges when wanting to get to know them more, as presented earlier. My intention is thus to develop or explore a method that can be used with young people that on the one hand grants insights into the target group and on the other hand provides the participants something to increase their own desire to participate in a safe environment. Similar probe varieties have been introduced by others, such as Sjøvoll and Gulden’s (2016) play probes and Ribeiro et al.’s (2022) playful probes. Where play in probes exist within a playful frame similar to the method introduced in this research Sjøvoll and Gulden’s (2016) version is gamification-based. They involved a study of how two design students used playful behavior and game dynamics in design probes. One student developed an activity based on snakes and ladders for asylum seekers, and the other created small concrete ramps for bicycles, to be placed across Oslo to raise awareness of bicycle conditions; if someone found all the ramps, they were rewarded with coffee. Playful probes, meanwhile, were based on scenarios that the participants were asked to play out in regard to conditionbased aviation maintenance (Ribeiro et al., 2022).

The probes presented in this research focus on young people and their experience of participation while also potentially providing new insights on this target group. As is the case for other age groups, young people require sensitivity and understanding of (part of) their world for us to better gain insights into their lives, which creates a certain level of complexity. To provide a safe space while also encouraging participation through the use of probes, another aspect has emerged: play. As stated earlier, play entails qualities that could be beneficial to employ in the probes for young people. If used properly, it could increase the level of enjoyment during participation, evoke curiosity from the participants, and perhaps provide a type of reflection, depending on the probes’ individual focus. As is presented later in this thesis, the development of these probes with play is an attempt to create a space where young people feel both encouraged to participate and safe to express themselves through materials and play. The different activities are intended to invite different types of playful interactions, as the participants presumably have different preferences even within playful activities.

My proposition is that aspects of probes, such as flexibility and the empowering of the participants, and the elements typically associated with play can be combined to better enter the world of youth. As young people are in a sensitive stage of their lives and require conscious considerations when interacted with (Drew et al., 2010; Duncan et al., 2009), play could provide the safe space for them to express themselves freely while also ensuring that the act of participation is enjoyable on its own (Nitecki & Chung, 2016; Youell, 2008). Through the probes, we might thus learn new things about young people that they have only now chosen to share openly and hence decrease the risk of a generational divide. I end this chapter on this note and lead you into the methodological journey this research entails. But first, you will find the much hinted-at research questions.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The previous chapter introduced the three core areas of research used to develop this study’s probes: young people, play, and probes. All lead to this section, which presents the research questions about probes as a design tool that employ materials to gain insights at a deeper layer of knowledge from chosen users. The identity of young people can be difficult to learn about, though we could learn from it to aid young people in their struggles and understand them, thereby decreasing a possible generational divide. Exploring new ways of getting to know young people is of relevance to many working with this age group Interviews, observations, and other common ways of retrieving data can provide some insights and have been used multiple times across various fields of research. However, finding alternative ways with inspiration from design traditions can strengthen these common methods or even substitute them depending on the context. Considering the sensitivity often needed when engaging with a target group that is challenging to access, play might allow greater possibilities of gaining access when combined with probes. Therefore, two research questions have become relevant to this research, the first of which being:

1. What are core principles to consider when designing probes with play for young people?

From the literature review, one of the main foci is the question of employing probes, a generative form of expression, when working with young people. RQ1 aims at exploring what and how probes can be used to ensure meaningful participation for the young people in this study and the recipient of the data produced. To be able to depict strengths when using probes in research with young people, it is also important to recognize the possible limitations or weaknesses that occur throughout this research.

By testing different probes with play varieties, this research intends to depict the design principles needed to be considered and implemented. This is important to keep the probes operational for others who would want to develop new versions of probes with play for their own purposes.

RQ1 focuses on the aspects that surround these probes as a method and hence aims to answer how to make a proper probe with play. However, the research surrounding probes have a two-fold focus. The other aspect to address is linked more to the data gathered from the probes and whether or not that data can generate insights into young people and their identify. Therefore, the second research question is:

2 What kinds of themes emerge when gaining access to the life world of youths through probes with play?

Seeking to answer what has been learned about young people through probes, RQ2 focuses on the emergence of different themes that might be important to young people. As the probes for this research focus on everyday life (for more about this, go to “Making the probes”), it is expected that different themes will emerge and inform us about what is going on in the everyday lives of young people. Supported by followup methods, it is the expectation for probes with play to provide information or perspectives on what it means to be young today.

DESIGN RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Having established the areas of research and focus through research questions, the next consideration is how this research is positioned from an epistemological point of view. Therefore, I introduce a presentation of the progress and correlations in research and design in the coming sections: Moving from research in general, I discuss design research, research through design, and generative design research before delving into the fuzziness of the design process. A focus on the involvement of materials leads to an overview of probes. Probes with plays in particular, presented last, are my small contribution to this field.

This research primarily combines knowledge from three different domains: (1) design, (2) play, and (3) life as it unfolds in youth. As stated earlier, when aiming to learn about young people, research can be difficult due to the complexity of this period in their lives (Duncan et al., 2009). There exists a high amount of research surrounding young people, but these studies combine with play and alternative ways of expression only to a limited degree. With this work, it is my hope to contribute to work with young people and present an approach that provides a rewarding method for the participants Doing so may open new opportunities when doing research with young people. Design research can help achieve this aim through close proximity to the target group and approaching the topic in an iterative and explorative way while still encouraging playful behavior. In the next section, I introduce the research framework, creating the umbrella under which this PhD thesis has unfolded. With the point of departure, a relatively young field of research design I show how this research is positioned in design research.

First, I present a brief understanding of research. This reflects not only truth in research but also the movement that this chapter depicts, going from something broad and abstract to the gradually narrower field of research in which the probes exist. The purpose of research “is to extract reliable knowledge from either the natural or artificial world, and to make that knowledge available to others in re-usable form” (Cross, 1999, p. 7). A division often is made between quantitative and qualitative research, with the former referring to data that can be measured, weighed, or put into neat schemes and the latter being more ambiguous and focused on understanding nuances and details (Fossey et al., 2002). This research will to a high degree move within the area of qualitative research.

MOVING FROM RESEARCH TO DESIGN RESEARCH

In general, science differs from arts and humanities in that science has the physical world as its main concern, whereas humankind, in different ways, is the focus of the latter (Archer, 1995). Arts are a subdiscipline that fall under the general subject of humanities, and it is within the nature of humanities that judgements are made within a set of values “There is no such thing as ‘Objective’ Humanities research,” Archer (1995, p.9) stated, meaning that it depends on the researcher’s scientific standpoint. Archer (1995) also claimed that if a set of criteria are met, a practitioner’s work can be considered research, despite nature tending to be more subjective. These criteria are (Archer, 1995, p. 10):

• The goal must be knowledge.

• Research must be systematically conducted

• The process must be transparent for others to be able to duplicate the process

• The data and outcome must be validated in appropriate ways.

If the research is conducted through a practice (e.g., by constructing or enacting something for the purpose of exploring a principle, material, etc.), it can be referred to as action research, assuming that it follows the abovementioned criteria (Archer, 1995). However, action research is closely connected to other practice-oriented research approaches, such as design research. One difference is that in design research, there is general consensus about the importance of intuition (Swann, 2002). The research process of a design researcher is iterative and fluently moves between different elements of research, that is, “problem/research – analysis – synthesis – execution – production – evaluation” (Swann, 2002, p. 53). Another difference is how action can be acted out. In design research, the action is a design intervention, whereas the action in Action Research can take many other forms. A difference between these types of

research, compared to many natural scientific approaches, is that the researcher can be explicitly involved. Swann (2002) stated that the basis of design-oriented research, as described by Archer (1995), has been challenged, as it is possible to investigate and validate research in alternative ways with a point of departure in social science. Specifically:

Design deals in human interaction with artifacts and situations that contain a great deal of uncertainty. Design research is tied to a domain that derives its creative energy from the ambiguities of an intuitive understanding of phenomena. (Swann, 2002, p. 51)

A core difference between, for instance, science or engineering and design research is the treatment of data: whereas more defined research approaches are often quantifiable, design research has a more interpretive and qualitative nature, focusing on the behaviors and sensitivities of humans (Swann, 2002). Hence, this type of research must expect or accept a degree of subjectivity. Different methodologies such as user experience design and interaction design were later established (Rogers et al., 2011), offering focus on the user’s involvement and directly involving them throughout the design process. User experience design refers to the art of designing with users’ intended experience in mind This concept is central to interaction design, which is understood as “designing interactive products to support the way people communicate and interact in their everyday and working lives” (Rogers et al., 2011, p. 8). Interaction design, similar to more general design research, is concerned with practice. Hence, it is not as focused at employing specific methods, but rather has an explorative nature in which methods and techniques can be used from other types of sciences if it makes sense to the overall aim.

This section offers a path through design research, from the broader practice-oriented concepts to specific approaches under design research, to indicate how design research has progressed. However, to better understand some of the basics of design research, we need to dig deeper into what it means. In the following section, I therefore present design research in more depth.

BEING DESIGNERLY

Design has developed from a topic not originally connected to research Through the process of design as a concept, the methods that are used within design and its explorative nature have received increasing interest from different fields of research, with design changing from focusing on what (object) to why (purpose); Thomas & McDonagh, 2013; Zimmerman et al., 2007). Buchanan (1998) stated (p. 64):

Design began as a trade activity, closely connected to industrialization and the emergence of mass communication. After a period of time, professions began to emerge, with traditions of practice and conscious recognition of a distinct type of thinking and working that distinguished our profession from others. Professional practice diversified in many forms – in a process that continues to the present. However, we are now witnessing the beginnings of a third era of design, marked by the emergence of design as a field or discipline.

Different fields and non-designers extrapolate methods from design, as do design researchers from other fields. However, as design is a rather young field, it is often not clear what design researchers are using for their studies. Cross’s (1999) contribution to this is the concept of “designerly ways of knowing,” or the knowledge about being designerly. This concept of “designerly ways of knowing” (Cross, 1982) is a particular approach to solving problems that is unique to designers. Cross (1984) provided an example study of the difference between how scientists and architects solved a task: while the scientists tended to focus on understanding and solving the problem, the architects explored different solutions to find the most appropriate one and through that learned about the problem: “These experiments suggest that scientists problem-solved by analysis, whereas designers problem-solve by synthesis” (p. 223). Hence, a designer is able to navigate in the space between humans and artifacts. This is not only taught as a craft but also learned through practice, which must be applied in design education as an “apprenticeship system of learning” (Cross, 1984, p. 224). So, a designer needs both the skill of managing a craft and the ability to understand and apply the underlying design processes. Often, contributions to design research come from non-designers. Their possible contributions and influences on design research make it a flexible and diverse approach to deploy.

Buchanan (1998) showed how design has changed over time Adding to this, Cross (1999) explained that the focus on design research emphasizes “the development, articulation and communication of design knowledge” (p. 5). He described how this knowledge can manifest in three forms: people, processes, and products (Cross, 1999, pp. 5–6). Design is an ability, natural for humans, and exploring how and what people design allows the attainment of new knowledge. The act of designing might not be explicit knowledge such as can be found in science, but as designers often do more than what they are able to describe, it is a practice-based knowledge that can involve intuition (Frankel & Racine, 2010). Through the tactics and strategies of designing, there are also insights and knowledge to be found. Lastly, design knowledge is present in products and their form, materials, and development; it can be something completely new or a paraphrase or even copy of something else (Cross, 1999, p. 6). Cross (1999) further indicated that copies of other products should not be disregarded as laziness by the designer, but rather accepted as an understanding of the knowledge of purpose and function. Based on this, he presented three categories of design research (Cross, 1999, pp. 6–7):

• Design epistemology – the study of designerly ways of knowing

• Design praxeology – the study of the practices and processes of design

• Design phenomenology – the study of the form and configuration of artifacts

Returning to the three forms that knowledge could manifest into (people, processes, and products), there is a clear connection to the categories of design research, showing that design research can explore and depict aspects of people, a process, or an object In doing design research, we can gain knowledge by studying through design knowledge or artifacts using design processes or methods. Not all definitions of design research assume this division between designer, processes, and objects, however. Some instead argue that design contains and recognizes all three as part of one whole (Frankel & Racine, 2010), but for the sake of this conversation, distinguishing these forms can make it clearer in which area of the design we are moving. I still recognize that the designer, process of design, and designed concept are so closely connected that in practice, their separation might not be as clear as in conversation. When referring to the word design, all three elements are understood as equals, but if one of the elements needs highlighting, it will be based on the above-mentioned division.

Looking at design research, its methods are similar to those found in many other fields However, as Cross (1999) defended, there was (at the time of his study) a growing acceptance of design as its own discipline rather than it being merely an imitation of science. Design has its own strengths, such as modeling and synthesis, all while drawing upon the stronger histories from science and art Cross (1999) further indicated that design is “the challenge for design research – to help construct a way of conversing about design that is at the same time both interdisciplinary and disciplined” (p 7). As design research is iterative, exploratory, and practice-oriented, it must be able to follow a plan but at the same time be adaptable to necessary changes. This complexity is even more emphasized by the fact that design often moves across fields, sharing traits with other areas but anchoring itself in practice: “Design integrates knowledge from many other disciplines and makes that knowledge effective in practical life” (Buchanan, 1998, p. 66). Buchanan (2001) presented three approaches to generating new design knowledge (pp. 17–19):

• Clinical research: focused on specific and concrete areas of exploration, such as the knowledge needed to design a product to serve one purpose, or a process aimed at changing a specific behavior.

• Applied research: aimed at investigating a more general problem or product through systematic inquiry. Often this research includes either multiple cases or is longitudinal. The knowledge found through this type of research can often be used in more specific clinical settings.

• Basic research: explores the fundamental principles that can be used to develop new design theories or cross into other areas of research. Frankel and Racine (2010) argued that the three categories of design research (i.e., praxeology, epistemology, and phenomenology; Cross, 1999) for the most part fall under basic research and in a few cases under applied research.

Building upon this, Frayling (Frankel & Racine, 2010) defined three categories of design research: research for design, research through design, and research about design (Frankel & Racine, 2010). These three categories share traits with Buchanan’s (2001) three categories. Notably: Research for design (similar to clinical research): the type of research that can be used by a designer to achieve or strengthen a design solution.

Research through design (similar to applied research): through actions and reflections, new knowledge is produced. Objects are not the goal but can be used to gain new insights.

Research about design (similar to basic research): often carried out in disciplines other than design. This is where design research is explored to understand and explain either the designer or the objects.

The current research is positioned mainly in relation to research through design, as I use a design method to gain new insights about young people, though it has a two-fold basis similar to what Argyris and Schön (1991) called the double burden. The double burden is based on Action Research and the potential challenge that lies within building the practice while also testing aspects from it through intervention. In the case of this research, the double burden lies in developing a (new) version of a preexisting design method and through it discovering new knowledge (both about young people in general and, perhaps more so, about how to get young people to open up) Hence, I am testing a method while also learning about young people through the insights they share. Through this two-fold aspect, I strive to gain valuable insights by continuously developing and testing the probes. As Argyris and Schön (1991) stated about this type of research, “generalizations tend to describe thematic patterns derived from inquiry in one setting” (p. 86). It is therefore not expected for this type of research to evoke “covering laws” (Argyris & Schön, 1991, p. 86), but to discover and understand patterns and tendencies that might arise from the interventions in this case, the use of probes with play.

RESEARCH THROUGH DESIGN

Research through design (RtD) is an approach “that employs methods and processes from design practice as a legitimate method of inquiry” (Zimmerman et al., 2010, p. 310). In RtD, the designerly approach to problems is a common practice, where messy experiences and unclear problems can be addressed to design toward a desired situation or experience. Cross (1984; 1999) described how designers tend to explore solutions to learn about a problem while finding a proper solution to that problem. This makes it possible to quickly test and explore an intended outcome through one or more solutions, which requires an iterative approach all of essence in RtD, as RtD is often presented in vague terms, and its different elements can vary. However, RtD favors specifically a trial-and-error approach to a current issue to change aspects of the future (Godin & Zahedi, 2014, p. 6). Herriott (2019) stated that RtD can re-link theory and practice (p. 3), thereby recognizing both theory and practice as important in this type of research and that though the researcher of course is involved in all types of research, in RtD, that involvement is explicit. Give this explicit involvement, one thing that other fields of research might question in research design in general as well as in research through design is the data’s validity.

In a RtD project, claims for validity do not rest on the ability to duplicate and retrieve the same results, as the designer’s input is expected to take an active role. This input can also influence the data in a certain direction. A different designer doing the same project would perhaps obtain similar results, though they would not necessarily be identical (Zimmerman et al , 2007, p. 7). The validity of RtD instead lies in its ability to recover the process (Godin & Zahedi, 2014), so despite it being complex and rigorous, that process must be documented appropriately for others to understand rather than test the same solution. For this study, one goal is therefore to present the process in a recoverable way for others to further develop the probe research and results. The probes are not intended to be static, however. Rather, it is my hope that the learnings from this study can inspire and encourage the probes’ application and their key elements in a new way that fits a (new) specific purpose. Hence, it is not my expectation to create a “one size fits all” version of these probes, but to explore which probe approaches, tools, and activities work well in relation to young people more as transferable principles than “covering laws” (Argyis & Schön, 1991). In the following section, I show how the research through design approach has influenced and directed this study.

THE DESIGN PROCESS:

FROM A GENERAL POINT OF VIEW INTO SOMETHING CONCRETE

As design research is changing, so too is the practice and applied context of design. The traditional design concept is anchored in objects, such as designing a chair. Design is now transforming to concern concepts with values in focus, such as designing for the future or for sustainability. What does this mean? Earlier on, a task could be to design a chair for a certain group of people or with a specific intended use, with everyone knowing what to expect. More recently, the designer process has been cherished as a necessity to discover the right solution. Hence, many other activities are part of the design process, and the end products are often not in focus until later in the process compared to traditional (product) design (Sanders & Stappers, 2014). Design can still be linked to a more direct and early understanding, as connected to clinical research (Buchanan, 1999), but an increased emphasis on other approaches is present as well in both design practice and research. One strong reason for applying these new approaches is to ensure that designers do not just make things for the sake of making things, but truly understand the context in which the product (i.e., solution) should exist (Sanders & Stappers, 2020).

The design process is messy and unclear until an understanding of the underlying problem becomes clear, and decisions can be made (Sanders & Stappers, 2020). This messiness is unavoidable, but acceptance of it allows patterns to emerge. But it also presents an issue in describing a design process to others, for though the timeline is linear, the process itself is not. Below, my research process is presented as a model in Figure 2. The circles represent the different sub-stages of the research, and each colored set of arrows represents each of the phases, ending with a test of a version of the probes. This process from the model is presented in greater depth in section “the use of probes”. The purpose here is to visualize how the initial parts of each phase are not linear but are instead a process going back and forth between the different elements of the research.

Figure 2: Own model of the design-process and its iterative progress

Working with people in the center of the research often requires flexibility, as made possible with RtD. As previously stated, many design cases have shifted in focus from objects to needs, meaning users tend to be at the center of the design process.

This research acknowledges the necessity of being able to move wherever the data say to. This can be seen in Figure 2, which shows the study’s iterative and “messy” design process. This focus on users can be challenging to manage, as depending on the type of research or design the users might not be able to express or even know what they need or what their obstacles really are. Combined with the complexity of young people specifically, the process requires cautious decisions on how to approach them. As such, exploring how to engage with young people beyond just through interviews or questionnaires is deemed a relevant direction.

Sanders and Stappers (2020) presented different levels of knowledge in the make-say-do model (Figure 3), showing how different methods relate to the type of actions asked from participants and the type of knowledge one can expect to get out of them.

thoughts and ideas that have not been experienced yet but that we still have an opinion about. For instance, one might have the thought “in a playground for adults, there must be a slide,” though they do not know of any actual playgrounds for adults. Accessing deeper layers of knowledge often requires users to be invested in sharing them. They should want to spend time on these thoughts and put effort into sharing insights about themselves. Examples of methods that aim to open these layers are self-documentation through diaries or generative sessions such as “making” people recall or explain situations or experiences (Sanders & Stapper, 2020). Often, even more nuances come to the surface when combining generative sessions, with methods from the other two categories, i.e. say and do, as can be seen Figure 4 (Sanders & Stappers, 2020).

the authors.

Moving away from the typical methods used to learn about young people as outlined in section “Access to young people in research”, has strong indications for gaining deeper levels of insights. Combining the act of making with doing or saying would reinforce the knowledge that participants would potentially share. This combination can provide nuances that would otherwise not be told if we only asked the participants through “say” tools or observed them through “do” techniques. I have chosen generative design research as this study’s main focus under the overarching research through design umbrella. To understand how this design process is implemented in actual decisions and methods, I introduce it below.

GENERATIVE D ESIGN R ESEARCH

Generative design research “integrates multidisciplinary types of expertise in unconventional ways” (Fischer & Herr, 2001, p 147). Generative design research has two very different directions. On one side, a large amount of research using the term generative design is based in mathematics and technology (Fischer & Herr, 2001). It is linked to the use of computer-aided design and artificial intelligence for a system to suggest, adapt, or elaborate on possible solutions to an issue presented by a human user (Buonamici et al., 2021). However, this is not the focus of this research. Instead, I position myself on the other side, which Sanders and Stappers (2014, 2020) presented as linked closely to terms such as participatory design and co-design, where users are able to influence and be involved in the research in a more concrete way than in user-centered design, where the user is the subject of interest.

Generative design research emphasizes the importance of not only the design of objects or solutions but also the actual process of creating, as well as the use and combination of one or more of the three levels of knowledge, as shown in the figures 3 and 4 from Sanders and Stappers (2020). This way of thinking is interesting, as it provides concrete tools and techniques that enable us to gain deeper insights. It clearly shows the differences and purposes of the different layers and lets us use and move between tools and techniques to gain appropriate access to the users. Employing the materials and activities surrounding making something can help gain insights into the deeper levels of knowledge about users (Sander & Stappers, 2020). It is even possible to use chosen activities as trigger sets in toolkits. These are designed to trigger associations, thoughts, and memories and can take up any form and framing, such as pictures to trigger memories or symbolic shapes as abstractions. These can then be explained from a user’s own point of view. LEGO and other construction kits can be used to aid explanations or as prototypes. Sanders and Stappers (2020) also discussed how different toolkits should have carefully chosen purposes and themes. These could be emotional toolkits to elicit memories or group cognitive toolkits intended for group use, which require different types of materials and framings of activities (e.g., considerations about size) so everyone can see what is being used. Below are different methods that fit within generative design research.

APPROACHES UNDER GENERATIVE DESIGN RESEARCH

As is generally the case in design research, there is not only one approach or even set of approaches in generative design research. Approaches from other types of research can also be used. Generative design research involves methods (tools) and activities (sessions) of a collaborative nature and materials or tasks that enable the target group to express or imagine something typically connected to the future (Sanders & Stappers, 2014). Sanders (2000) illustrated both the how and why of doing generative design research (p. 3):

We put a large number of components together into “toolkits.” People select from the components in order to create “artifacts” that express their thoughts, feelings and/or ideas. The resulting artifacts may be in the form of collages, maps, stories, plans and/or memories. The stuff that dreams are made of is often difficult to express in words but may be imaginable as pictures in your head.

Sanders (2000) showed how a designer or researcher chooses different components that can have, for example, a tactile or visual affordance. The participants then use these components as aids to express something that they would perhaps find difficult to put into words if they were just asked. Hence, toolkits aid conversation and make it easier to access insights about participants through a generative approach compared to typical research methods like interviews.

The approach, interactions, or creations that are present during or after these sessions can be used to discover underlying patterns as well These lie in the fuzzy part of a design process, where the designer or researcher explores issues or possibilities through different methods focusing on the user or their interaction with objects. Depending on the type of research, users have direct influence and involvement in the design process to various degrees and through different methods (Visser et al., 2005). In generative design research, the following two terms are introduced when differentiating between the elements of generative design research: generative sessions when talking about the actual “event” and generative tools and techniques when concerning the methods and approaches used (Sanders & Stappers, 2014, 2020). These elements are often used in combination, but one can also exist without the other, such as when using generative tools as part of a different context in a probe. An important aspect when conducting generative design research is the acknowledgment of both the surface and deeper layers of knowledge (see Figure 3) and that the interplay between different layers can create increased understanding and more nuances of the person or issue we are trying to understand through a generative session. This is done using tools and techniques that fit the scope of the research and its aim, which enables the participants to express themselves in different ways (i.e., by making, saying, and/or doing). I position my research in line with this emphasis on different levels of knowledge and the principle of opening up to more nuances; indeed, this is one of the core principles behind the probes with play. This also fits my aim to include triggers of play in the probes, as I perceive playing as often a negotiation and interrelation between what we think, say, and do. I return to the probes later in this chapter, but before doing so, a depiction of what generative design research might entail is necessary.

Together with probes, different methods and techniques can be used as part of generative design research. Personas is one of these methods. Though they can be used in other contexts, personas can be part of generative design research as well as co-design. Personas are fabricated representations of users, often based on empirical data (Nielsen, 2010). They can be used in many ways in design, such as having participants fill out the profile for a persona (e.g., beliefs and dreams) Personas can also be a way to distance the participants if the subject is of a sensitive nature; having a persona that is similar to or very different from the participant’s profile can ease conversations, for example (Nielsen, 2010). Another typical method used in both research in general and generative design research is interviews. These can take up many forms and structures in types of questions, length, whether they are formal or informal, and if they are done one-on-one or with groups of people (Rogers et al., 2011). Interviews have the benefit of allowing a degree of freedom in what to ask and when to go into depth with topics, through which it is possible to learn from people (Sanders & Stappers, 2020) Interviews can also utilize different generative trigger sets, such as photos, icons, symbols, and physical objects with different qualities to then combine the interview (a say technique) with another technique (e.g., making; Sanders & Stappers, 2020). These different trigger sets could be part of a predetermined toolkit that is used in different ways depending on the current participant, though they must be chosen and designed with a specific purpose in mind.

Toolkits share similarities with probes in that they are kits that elicit interaction through which participants provide information about a certain area of interest. However, toolkits are typically used together with the researcher or designer or in groups while being observed, thus encouraging a cooperative interaction. Additionally, toolkits often surround one (final) artifact, but with many different trigger sets to choose from (Sanders & Stappers, 2020).

Another technique that shares some similarities with probes are prototypes. Prototypes can take on different roles in a design phase, such as making a phenomenon concrete when discussing something abstract or testing a hypothesis, but they can also allow the exploration of interactions and aesthetics. They can be used as well to force necessary decisions and confront issues that were otherwise not visible (Sanders & Stappers, 2014). Prototypes can take on many forms according to the purpose and stage of the design process in which they are used (Rogers et al., 2011) They can be used to evoke conversations and increase shared understanding, leading to the sharing of information that would have otherwise remained hidden in the deeper levels of knowledge without an act of making (Sanders & Stappers, 2020). Probes also take up place in generative design research, but as they are at the center of this research, they have their own section under generative design research, as presented next.

PROBES IN GENERATIVE DESIGN RESEARCH

Though cultural probes have a very clear purpose of inspiration without any other inquiry from participants, probes can be combined with other methods as well. Mattelmäki (2006) presented a different approach to probes, with her design probes followed up by interviews. These types of probes can be placed under generative design research, which relates to the use of probes in this research. Overall, I rely on the understanding of probes found within generative design research as described by Mattelmäki (2006) and Stappers and Sanders (2014). They placed probes in a family of co-design techniques that includes toolkits and prototyping and that connects with the fuzzy front end of design (Sanders & Stappers, 2014). By eliciting responses to the different activities or tasks in a probe, new nuances can appear. A probe may contain activities focused on one of the three levels of knowledge (say, do, and make), but typically they encourage the involvement of all three. Not only saying, doing, and making can be used within probe activities but also other techniques, especially to support how the completed probes are used later (e.g., through interviews; Mattelmäki, 2006). Probes can also be used as preparation for the participants (Sanders & Stappers, 2020). This then strengthens other methods and techniques in later design phases. Typically, people benefit from being involved over time, which allows access to their deeper levels of knowledge. Here, probes can be used to determine a certain mindset (Sanders & Stappers, 2020) as something people tend to bring home, making it possible for researchers or designers to involve participants earlier than they would otherwise have been able to, as the probes do not require the sender’s presence. Probes also provide time for participant reflection, as they are completed over a set timeframe.

Probes are used by many, but they have a special place in the fuzzy front end of generative design research. They can be used with different purposes and take on different roles in design research. When designing a probe, other methods can be used in the different activities they encompass. These methods are not exclusively used within probes, but in this research, the following techniques influenced the probes’ development.

DIARY METHOD

Another approach to understand a target group that inspired this study is the diary method (Bolger et al., 2002). Diaries allow the capturing of information in real time and in the participants’ natural settings (at home, while traveling, etc.). This method encourages participants to track and record certain aspects of their lives, often by writing or drawing notes in a diary-like book or pamphlet. Diaries can be formulated as open tasks where the participants are able to choose how and what they want to share within a frame such as incomplete sentences, word associations, or more strictly framed tasks. Carter and Mankoff (2005) introduced the use of media as part of the diary method. They stated that photos can be used later on as cues for associations in, for example, interviews about the diaries and that photos often contain crucial information that would not have been available with just a written diary. Further, they argued that the use of media might highlight important aspects and provide richer details depending on the purpose of the task.

MATERIALITY

Tangible objects can also be used in activities, as seen in the example of Carter and Mankoff (2005) asking their participants to find objects during a festival. The tangible objects prompted detailed discussions about the participants’ experiences, with the spatial arrangement of the objects representing the mapping of those experiences and supporting memories. Some of the choices in the current research, notably to incorporate tangibility and taking photos into the probe with play kits, were inspired by Carter and Mankoff’s (2005) approach.

According to Ormerod and Ivanic (2002) a combination of materials, linguistics, and visuals can be used to aid the process of meaning making, which is in line with what Sanders and Stappers (2020) indicated about how making, saying, and doing can influence and strengthen each other. As stated by Knutz et al. (2018), “there is a need to delve deeper into the complex practice of probing with materials, how we conceive materials and what kind of research questions can be addressed through materials” (p. 2). Knutz et al (2018) also used probes through what they called probing, or when participants fill out the probes with the researcher present so the researcher can understand and follow the whole probe completion process.

Though their approach to probes was different than in my study, their emphasis on materiality is just as relevant when the probes are filled out in private. Knutz et al. (2018) also presented three different perspectives on the role of materials in probes (pp. 4–6):

• Materiality as a process of doing and negotiating meaning

This perspective aims to make it possible to understand how and why participants interacts with materials while also exploring if the materials help the participants solve a task, thereby acknowledging that materials have a role in the process of doing. In this process, interpreting and acting, doing and thinking, and understanding and responding are parts of the meaning-making process happening during the negotiation between the materials and the participants.

• Materiality as a configuring of relations and networks

This perspective traces the network of human and non-human actors. Some of these actors authorize, enable, or forbid actions, while others do not. Non-human and human actors together shape the roles of identity and social relationships.

• Materiality as a distribution of power, citizenship, and roles of identity

Going a step further than the previous perspective, this one enables exploration of how materials and things encompass political properties through, for instance, shared decision making, where materials can mediate or configure certain forms of participation.

In this research, materials serve mainly as negotiation through making. Knutz et al (2018) observed how materials are interacted with and hence could combine the acts of doing and making through their probes (Sanders & Stappers, 2020). In these cases, where probes are filled out without the researcher being present, the negotiation between the materials and the participants is not visible in the same way, but the underlying purpose remains the same: engaging with the materials requires a different level of reflection from the participants, as materials offer different opportunities in how to use them and express oneself through them. In this study, different elements of how to use probes were more important than being able to observe the “doing ” I return to this in chapter “Making the probes”, but for now, the key takeaway is that the negotiation that materiality can encourage can in turn trigger greater reflection and access to deeper levels of knowledge. Before delving into the practicalities of making the probes, I would like to further explore probes as a generative design research method.

PROBES WITH PLAY

This research focuses on combining play and probes for several reasons The first is to present the target group and their difficulties as well as the importance of understanding them, as presented in the section “Young People and the Divide”. Considering the combination of play and probes is also inspired by the possibilities that play offers when wanting to engage young people and provide experiences that give something back to them directly, all while learning about them. Finally, I chose to utilize these probes with play to provide young people a voice in research and in their meetings with other generations. The section “play in the Lives of Young People” introduced play in relation to young people; the following chapter presents the aspects of play that defend the probes’ creation, and later in chapter “Research Design”, I show how I implemented play in the probes more concretely

Play can be argued as not appropriate to the constraints of a probe, but it also depends on how play is handled and understood. The concepts of probes that are necessary to address in this section are motivation, safe spaces, and creative thinking. These three concepts are all design criteria aimed to achieve through the design of the probes with plays

MOTIVATING PARTICIPATION

Motivating young people to actively participate in issues that concern youth is important (Saggers et al., 2004). “Participation can be seen as the cure for apparently deeply divisive social ills, like vandalism…” wrote Saggers et al. (2004, p. 14), meaning that some view the engagement from young people as the solution to potential problems But as Saggers et al. (2004) further stated, having young people actively participating not only has potential for their society but also internally enables them to be their own advocates, increases their confidence, and promotes their well-being. Among others, Saggers et al. (2004) presented narrative stories and interviews with tools such as pictures, drawings, and paintings to

support conversations with this age group and spatial or temporal mapping exercises, such as ground maps They argued that it can be otherwise difficult to get young people to engage meaningfully through typical approaches. This is in line with the general approaches and tools within generative design research and fits the aim of my probes to use different tools and techniques to provide young people appropriate and enjoyable ways of opening up. There can also be different reasons for being motivated to engage in an activity. Sanders and Stappers (2020) presented some of these as linked to creativity (p. 39), where the motivation for doing something, adapting something to make it one’s own, or making something that requires one’s hands and mind can be the accomplishment. The last reason for being motivated, they mentioned, is to create something, with the motivation being to innovate or express oneself creatively. What Saggers et al. (2004), Sanders and Stappers (2020), and I agree on is using different approaches that involve tactility, visuals, and creativity to motivate and thus engage people (in this case, young people) to participate rather than just expect them to do it for “the greater good ” I propose the use of playful activities as a means of activating participation, though if I only base my probes on motivation, I could just as well have chosen different methods. I argue in favor of my decision due to the sensitivity that is crucial when asking young people to open up, with the probes with plays hopefully creating a safe, sensitive space for them to express themselves.

SAFE SPACE

I felt it important to create a space where young people feel safe to express themselves freely and, in that way, their wants and desires. When talking to different professionals throughout this study, it was evident that many others have emphasized this intention when working with young people as one way of accessing insights, as it can be a challenge to access this target group. Duncan et al. (2009), for example, expressed difficulties when doing research with young people. To create a safe space, I focused on play. Play can be the space where exploration and expression happen safely, even if the things explored are typically dangerous, such as biting or fighting (Huizinga, 1955; Karoff, 2013; Sutton-Smith, 1997). Play and playful triggers can also create a sense of enjoyment (Sturm et al., 2011). Together with some of the traits of a probe, or something the young people can complete on their own terms, the young people decide when (in a given timeframe) and what they fill out, as well as what they share, how much time and details they put into the probes, and where and with whom. Hence, the young people participating in this study were in control of their own probes and the insights they chose to share, all in the hopes of creating a space in which they felt safe to express what they feel is important. Playful triggers in the probes reinforced this sense of safety by also creating a safe and enjoyable experience with the probes’ contents

CREATIVE THINKING

In section “Play and Creative Thinking”, I briefly introduced Resnick’s (2017) metaphor of playpens and playgrounds to distinguish between different types of play. I dig deeper into these concepts as probes and how they contain play by elaborating on the metaphor, then move on to the concept of creative thinking. The probes with play are designed to contain small, playful activities to provide a medium for young people to express themselves through play and materials. The idea behind this is that when young people use materials and engage in these playful activities, the questions asked in those activities will encourage a deep level of reflection, as it involves different layers of knowledge (Sanders & Stappers, 2020). Play takes place in a space that transcends inner and outer reality, and through that, creative action can take place (van Leuween & Westwood, 2008). This means that the reality one lives in can be combined with the imaginative space of their mind through play, leading to creative exploration and experiments. This is closely connected to the concept of creative thinkers (Resnick, 2017). In creative thinking, playful activities involving tinkering (linked to the metaphor of playgrounds) encourage a bottom-up approach to thinking and learning. Resnick (2017) stated that this is applicable across all ages; when exploring materials and concepts through a playful activity, we tend to apply extant knowledge to the current challenge not as a predefined plan, but more as a continuous exploration until we reach our intended goal. One example is building something complex with LEGO: we might have an idea of what to build and how to go about it, but when building our idea, a negotiation often happens when we meet challenges based on what we already know, perhaps from the playground, our work, or our hobbies. As such, we create the final concept as we build, meaning the approach has a creative and explorative nature.

Resnick (2017) further stated that though a group of people might all have the same bottom-up challenges or activities, there are often two types of approaches to those challenges: patterners and dramatists. “Patterners are fascinated by structures and patterns, and they typically enjoy playing with blocks and puzzles. Dramatists are more interested in stories and social interaction, and they often play with dolls and stuffed animals” (Resnick, 2017, p. 7). One benefit of this creative approach to play is that it can even have a self-therapeutic aspect, leading to increased and more positive well-being and health (van Leuween & Westwood, 2008). The idea here is for play to be a version of creative thinking that occurs between reality and imagination, which has several beneficial aspects. To open up play as creative thinking when working with young people, I found it important to provide a safe and enjoyable medium for them to express themselves that included playful aspects and thus opened up the opportunity for a narrative identity.

RESEARCH DESIGN

In this chapter, I introduce the more practical aspects and methods of this research. The previous chapters presented the history of some of the core principles behind this research, its positioning in relation to design research, and some of the arguments backing the decisions made for this study, leading to why the probes should even be made. This chapter now explains how I made and analyzed the probes.

DESIGNING T OWARD PLAY

Developing a probe with play is a challenge that demands careful consideration of how to approach the play aspect. Play is free and intrinsically driven, so a probe with certain restraints and intentions is not compatible with it. The same could be argued for learning games and play activities, as they are chosen and designed with a specific intention: we want something out of the participants or their participation. However, designing toward playful attributes can provide some of the same benefits as play itself while existing within the probe framework. Below is a depiction of this development from both a theoretical and design perspective.

INSPIRING THE DESIGN PROCESS

Legaard (2018, 2020) addressed play and how to consider it when designing toward certain play(ful) experiences. The researcher argued that while designing for play can involve grabbing attention through surprises or bursts of color, it can also involve considerations of which experiences toward play types and playfulness are the study’s aim. For something to classify as play, it needs to be meaningful, voluntary, imaginative, or explorative and contain playfulness to some degree (Legaard, 2018). Legaard (2020) depicted certain factors that can elicit playful experiences, from which he developed the Play Blueprint shown in Figure 5. Legaard (2020) also stated that “the affordances define the structure of the play experience, and the design of the design artifacts thus defining the framing of the play activity, hereby nudging the person participating towards specific behaviors” (p. 6). This means that by paying attention to the affordances and intended use of an object or solution, the design can invite the user to be playful. Legaard (2020) also found motivational factors that encourage playful behavior, particularly chance, autonomy, pleasure, and imagination. When one of these drivers is present, playful behavior can occur, but the presence of two or more often leads to play experiences.

In relation to these drivers, there is a tendency for people to move naturally from construction to storytelling Designing toward play could benefit from this progression through the motivational driver’s imagination and autonomy, which requires a design containing participant freedom to interpret. Legaard (2020) argued that construction requires more investment from a participant than, for instance, storytelling. Hence, elements from storytelling can be used to support construction to make it more approachable for the participants. Combining pleasure and surprise with interactions in a design can encourage play(ful) experiences as well through the unexpected. Legaard (2020) distinguished between play and being playful in saying that “designing for playfulness rather than ‘play’ means that the functional purpose must be the main feature, but the element of playfulness can add a positive feeling to the experience, without the immersion into a play activity” (p. 10). This does not exclude the opportunity for the participant to experience play but ensures that even if the participant is not engaging much with the design, they are still able to enjoy the playful aspects to some degree.

Legaard (2018) developed the Play Blueprint as a tool to develop play(ful) experiences. The blueprint contains three main categories: activities (play types), motive orientations (intentions), and playfulness (a component to set an attitude). As illustrated below in figure 5, when designing, different factors can be used and adjusted toward a (specific or non-specific) playful experience. Construction does not have to be playful, but with elements of disruption or humor or motives aimed toward achievement, a playful experience can still occur. This is in line with the approach Valk et al. (2012) took when designing for a playful experience; they settled on and aimed for specific playful experiences (exploration, curiosity, challenge, fellowship, and competition) through their design. When comparing these to the Play Blueprint, it is easy to find similarities despite the slightly different phrasings. Valk et al. (2012) found that different playful experience aims work well in different stages of play, with curiosity suitable in the early stages to invite participants into an activity and fellowship not standing out in a single stage, but still

being useful all the way through. In contrast, challenge served different purposes at different stages: in the beginning, it needed to be more approachable than later in the process This fits the principle behind flow (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002); the optimal balance of challenge and skills that makes activities rewarding in themselves and leaves time and surroundings forgotten due to the intrinsic motivation and focus put into those activities.

THE PLAY IN THE PROBES

To make the probes with play inviting and offer the experience of being playful while interacting with them, I chose different types of play activities combined with elements of playfulness. As the probes had certain necessary frames, the activities were selected to fit these frames while also considering Legaard’s (2018) Play Blueprint. During the different tests of the probe with play, construction, storytelling, investigation, and bodily activity were explored as activities for the young people to complete. The framing of these activities was then aimed at including humor, imagination, and disruption. I deemed it important to set up activities for the probes with play that varied in how much they demanded from the participants both in time and skills so that they were ambiguous and open to interpretation (Mattelmäki, 2006; Sanders et al., 2010; Wallace et al , 2013).

In the following sections, I introduce the different types of activities and the probes’ playfulness and motive orientation, as based on the Play Blueprint. While this section is in the Research Design chapter and thus should not be of a discussive nature, the activity descriptions do reveal some of the study’s findings All findings are fully addressed in the Cross Comparison and Discussion chapter, but due to some of the findings relating to the probes’ development, it is necessary to outline some the results here in the Research Design chapter too.

Figure 5: The Play Blueprint (Legaard, 2018, p. 2574). Presented in agreement with the author.

PLAYFULNESS

Disruption was enabled by presenting the probes to the participants before handing them out, ambiguity in the formulation of the activities, and adding materials to the probes that had no obvious purpose. These materials consisted of colored markers, tape, glue, small creative materials, and different character elements such as small eyes, hats, feet, and gloves, all placed in a small bag labeled “materials you might want to use.” The thought behind these decisions was to present disruption as acceptable.

Humor was included through the framing of activities, where instead of asking the participants to share “something” about themselves, the activities encouraged them to think creatively and humorously. For instance, a silk clay activity asked the participants to create a monster that informed about themselves, including giving it a name and backstory. Not all activities involved humor, but all probe kits contained something that enabled the participants to be humoristic while completing the activities, such as creating a monster that represent something about themselves The elements of humor did not always create silly content, often what the participants shared was more serious, but humor was still often present, such as in the names the young people gave the characters, they created in silk clay.

Imagination was the easiest element of playfulness to include in probe format and hence was present in most of the activities, either as a specific task where the young people imagined themselves doing something, such as bringing things to a deserted island, or in relation to telling a story about creations or themselves. A lot of the activities were more abstract and did not directly ask the participants to simply inform about, for example, their families. Rather, they were instructed to “take a walk and find things to put in this bag that represent your family and explain why ”

Chance was difficult to include in a valuable way, as the participants were asked to do specific things for each of the activities. Of course, chance influenced the probes highly, such as in the task mentioned above in which the participants were to take a walk and find materials that reminded them of their families. They did not know what they were going to find. The content of the probes was also a bit hidden until they opened them, and a lot of the participants expressed that they felt that the probes felt like a goodie bag or present that they were curious to open. This is despite it being clear that before they were given the probes, they were to hand the probes back after interacting with them.

TYPES OF PLAY ACTIVITIES

Investigation refers to trying to understand something, which people especially babies and toddlers do when exposed to something new. It is not the same as exploration, which is the activity of exploring new options and opening experiences up for new paths and is hence of essence for all playful experiences (Legaard, 2018). The whole experience of receiving and interacting with the probes contained investigation, as the participants did not know the content or what to expect. Some of the activities encouraged exploration as well, such as creating something with silk clay or other materials, where the participants explored what to create from what they had. Hence, investigation sets the stage for all probes, no matter their aim (play probes, design probes, cultural probes, etc.).

Construction was employed through some of the, as it turned out, most effective activities in getting the participants to open up. The construction activities explored the effect of different materials (wooden sticks and shapes, silk clay, or pipe cleaners). These materials demanded different things of the participants, such as gluing and drying periods or allowing them to only make simple shapes. The aim here was to explore if certain materials worked better for probes aimed at young people than others, and from that, what would be important factors to consider when choosing types of activities and types of materials. Construction was almost consistently combined or supplied with elements from storytelling, both to support the analysis later on and to enhance the intended playful experience for the participants.

Storytelling, later called fantasy play, was frequently used in combination with construction. Examples hereof were the previously mentioned creation of monsters, but also activities such as the participants depicting the use of their spare time with wooden sticks. Storytelling was also present in other activities, such as matching descriptions of things they like to do in the present with typical playground activities on a big map.

Figure 7: A boy, 15 years old, found objects during the activity “take a walk” that describe his big brother

Bodily activity was a type of play activity that was more difficult to include in these probes, both due to the target group but also due to the probe format, as they the young people (said that they) brought them into their rooms. Bodily movement was already encouraged in certain framings, such as the one requiring participants to take a walk. One task also included a disposable camera, which the participants were asked to carry with them over the course of a week. Hence, this task also included movement, but not as a crucial part of the task itself. In fact, though the disposable camera task did not directly use bodily movement as a play type, this was the activity in which movement worked best. Most of the young people did not want to take a walk because it was boring, and so they did not do it. Few of them did take the walk and expressed enjoyment afterward, and from that, some informative stories appeared, such as the one in Figure 7. One task included bodily movement and the participants’ own mobile phones, with the participants asked to take pictures with their phones of different things (e.g., things of importance, hideaways, places of fun). Despite many attempts to formulate this task, in all three rounds of probe testing, this specific combination did not work at all. I reflect on this more in the Cross Comparison and Discussion chapter.

MOTIVE ORIENTATION

As the intention of probes with play is for participants to enjoy investing their time and effort in the probes while also providing valuable insight for the researcher, motive orientation in this study was aimed at different factors.

One factors was the achievement of creating or completing something There were some activities that were very fast to complete to make the probes easily accessible for the participants, allowing the feeling of fast achievement.

Another factor was autonomy, as the probes enabled disruption and were generally openly formulated for the participants to put their own perspective on how and what to do. This was also emphasized when introducing the probes, as I highlighted that they were voluntary and that the participants could stop at any point if they did not want to continue. It was therefore their own decision to interact with the probes.

Relatedness came about in some of the probes as well, albeit unintentionally, as the probes were intended to be filled out individually. For the first and second rounds of tests, few activities specifically invited the participants to include others, but these generally did not provide anything in return. However, there may have been a tendency for those who had these activities to express increased interest in their surroundings, meaning a task involving others might be good to include for the experience and curiosity of others, despite the task itself not resulting in anything concrete. In the last round of tests, these types of activities were not included due to the earlier test results being so vague, but no one from this round of test expressed the same enjoyment and experience as in the first two rounds.

Pleasure was an intended benefit of some of the materials in the probes, such as the silk clay, which is soft to touch, light, easy to shape, and not as sticky or cold as modeling clay There was also the more implicit possibility of experiencing pleasure by finishing the different activities

Virtue can be related to both the action of doing something good for others and to roleplaying as someone with good attributes, such as a hero. For the probes, this motive orientation was not actively included in the content and choice of activities However, there was the possibility that the act of doing the probes included the experience of virtue.

MAKING THE PROBES

As previously mentioned, the probes were created based on other probes and similar methods, together with aspects of designing toward play. I apply the view on probe traits from Graham et al. (2007). This includes decisions on artifacts and packaging and the idea that probes do indeed capture individual stories and make invisible aspects of young people’s lives more visible. The young people themselves are considered the most important experts in regard to learning about them. Others might be able to raise perspectives and reflections, but no one knows as much about young people as themselves. The aim here is to encourage and create valuable conversations between generations and between people who could benefit from or need each other (researchers, doctors, teachers, parents, etc. and young people).

The activities were chosen to provide different types of expressions, play activities, motive orientations, and elements of playfulness (Legaard, 2018, 2020). This diversity was intended to increase the chance of providing a playful experience through at least some of the activities to all the participants, despite differences in how they like to express themselves and what they find fun.

The chance of some of the activities being discarded by the participants due to perceptions of them as tedious or boring was necessary to take, as diversity was necessary without prior knowledge of the participants’ preferences In this section are short descriptions of each of the activities, some with more versions than others depending on the activities’ tests, as their development was an iterative process. I elected for the probes’ topics to surround the everyday lives of the participants to test how the probes work, as well as to explore whether or not this type of data retrieval would work with young people. It was not my intention to gain as sensitive information as possible, nor to set a framework around the experiences the young people had with a sensitive topic. It was, however, very possible for the young people to share sensitive information if they decided to. The ethical response to this possibility was not to follow up on the young people’s mental state and ask them to share (only) sensitive information through a somewhat anonymous probe and then leave them afterward. That had too much potential to negatively affect the participants.

The choice to focus on the participants’ everyday lives instead is supported by Murray (2008), who stated that “narratives are not just life stories in the most general sense but also stories about everyday experiences” (p. 117).

Figure 8 shows an example of a probe and its contents. As the probes contained different activities, not all of the probes looked the same; this is just to give an impression of what the participants would find in their probes.

LIGHT ACTIVITIES

The light activities were intended to make the probes more accessible for the young people. Going into time- or thought-demanding activities without any intrinsic motivation might be a challenge, and as the probes were completely voluntary, they required some invitation to do the activities hence the light activities. Below is a short presentation of each light activity.

DREAM JOB BAG/DREAM JOB DRAWING

Different items were placed in a small plastic bag that the participants were made to choose from. They were to explain the objects that they imagined would be in their work bag if they had their dream job. The items could be chosen either on a tangible level (e.g., a wire because the participant dreamed of

working as an electrician) or on an abstract level (e.g., fabric because the participant needed to have a soft side as a psychologist). This task was included in tests 1 and 2 but not test 3, as the insights from this task were limited.

FIVE THINGS ON AN ISLAND

The participants were asked to list the five things they wanted to bring with them on a deserted island. This task was easy and fast to do and probably not a new concept for the young people to get going with the probe. It also showed a bit of insight as to which valuables the participants immediately thought of as important.

PLAYGROUND MAP

This light activity involved an icon-based map of a playground with five typical activities (playhouse, sandbox, swing, seesaw, and slide). The participants were asked to map out what they did in either their everyday lives, with their family, or in their spare time that correlated with the activities on the playground. The framing was used to test the influence of the different words in it while also gauging how the mapping worked in general. The participants had to be creative to come up with current activities that correlated to the different icons. The activity also aimed to trigger a train of thought between playing as a child and similar playful activities as a young person.

COMPLETE THE SENTENCES

Different incomplete sentences about everyday life, likes, and dislikes, such as “I love it when…” or “I am dreaming of…” were presented to the participants to complete. The intention was to let the participants feel a sense of completing something, but also to get some insight into their immediate hopes, dreams, and other thoughts that they chose to share. This task was implemented in test 3 as an alternative to the Dream Job Bag/Dream Job Drawing activity included in tests 1 and 2.

REGULAR ACTIVITIES

The activities presented below required a bit more investment of effort and time compared to the light activities. This does not mean that these activities were tougher, as participants should be able to complete them even within 5–10 minutes, but the activities were also more open-ended if the participants chose to invest more time and effort in them.

SILK CLAY

Silk clay was used to employ construction and fantasy play. The participants were to use a pack of silk clay to create an animal-like creature, hero, or monster that informed of something about themselves and then give the creature a name and backstory. The task was aimed at testing how different words (“creature,” “hero,” and “monster”) evoked responses and also to explore how young people approached the combination of play types and the material.

BUILD IT

Activities requiring the creation of wooden objects focused mainly on construction, but some of the activities also involved fantasy. With wood glue and wooden sticks, matchsticks, cubes, or similar materials, the participants were asked to create either something important to them or a version of a playground activity for young people. As with the silk clay task, the aim was to explore the framing, the approach to the materials, and the type of responses that this activity triggered

TWO SPHERES/MAKE A LIST

There were three versions of this activity, all aimed at answering what young people like to do on their own and together with others. In one version, the participant was asked to simply list the activities they like to do on their own and with others. In the other two versions, the participants had to do the same, but instead of writing these things in a list, they were asked to fill two transparent spheres that could be opened to show two types of activities written on slips of paper. These activities did not evoke playfulness to the same degree as the first sphere activity, but instead were aimed at exploring the effects of involving tangibility instead of just paper.

TAKE A WALK

For the third round of tests, there was the task of taking a walk and bringing a small bag to collect items or even treasures found along the way. The items should represent something about the participants, such as their family, childhood, or spare time; a small notepad was included for them to describe the items accordingly. This task explored the effects of involving bodily movement and imagination while also revealing what the participants would share through such an activity.

USE YOUR PHONE

Three versions of activities that involved phone cameras were presented. The activities were to make a collage of the participant’s week, create a treasure hunt using images, or find an everyday object, turn it into a character, and take a picture of it. These activities were created specifically to involve mobile phones, which most young people have at hand and are probably very familiar using. The framings explored how the participants would address a direct approach through, for instance, a collage and if involving fantasy play or imagination would evoke a stronger response.

IMAGES OF THE WEEK

With disposable cameras, the participants were asked to take pictures for a full week. This was an open task in which they could share whatever they found relevant during the week through up to 27 pictures, which was the maximum amount possible to take with the disposable cameras. As with the task involving the participants’ own phones, this task served to explore if the participants had different approaches to being handed a camera on its own. The task also aimed to depict what the young people would share with the disposable cameras.

YOUR BIRDHOUSE

The participants were required to decorate a birdhouse and thus present their style if they were a bird. This involved a small cardboard birdhouse and different materials to use for decoration. The task was abstract but also demanding, as it both asked the participants to define their style, as if the birdhouse were their own house, and let them decorate according to that chosen style Hence, the participants would have to create something they themselves found aesthetically pleasing or informing. This creative task was included to explore how the young people would engage with it.

OTHER TYPES OF ACTIVITIES

This last section of activities describes those that fall between the light and regular categories, all with different traits and purposes.

PAMPHLET

Pamphlets served as short presentations of the participants and included the option to share their name, age, likes and dislikes, and so on On the last pages, the participants were encouraged to write or sketch something that inspired, entertained, frustrated, or motivated them during a typical week as a sort of framed diary. Different words/framings were used to see what led the young people to share the most details.

SOCIAL LEGO

LEGO bricks of different sizes and colors were presented for the participants to create something in collaboration with another person (either a friend or family member). They were then to discuss the activity and the object created.

BALANCE

When designing the probes and the activities for each, the balance of time and mental investment were factors to consider (Sanders et al., 2010; Wallace et al., 2013). Therefore, an effort was made to ensure that the probes contained light and easy-to-do activities that did not require much time or effort to complete. These activities were created to provide the participants with a quick sense of achievement and a feeling of pleasure (for completing something), which then made the more demanding activities more inviting and easier to approach. I chose to include 5–6 activities per probe, of which 2 should be light. I found that having too many light activities had a slightly negative effect, as the participants generally expressed boredom, which correlates to the need for a sense of flow: there must be a balance

between skills and the requirements/challenge provided (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002). Just as there is an introduction level in video games, the light activities were there to invite the participants to get going and quickly give a sense of being capable, whereas the more demanding activities were those which contained more in-depth experience and nuances for analysis.

As previously stated, in relation to play, I focused on making sure that there was a balance between different types of play activities, motive orientations, and elements of playfulness to enable all the participants to experience some degree of play or playfulness while interacting with the probes. Combining the play(ful) factors in different ways allowed an approach to this aspect.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

As stated in the previous chapter, having an ethical protocol that sets the framework for how to manage sensitive situations can be useful when working with young people (Duncan et al., 2009). In this study, a large number of young people participated anonymously to various degrees: some only shared their age and gender, while others also included their first name. The probes were saved based on the participants‘ classes The participants, however, decided what they wanted to share about themselves and their identification. There was consideration of what to do if a participant shared information that might require action, and indeed, one participant shared insights about herself that indicated a need for adult help. This was a difficult issue to address, as the only way to reach the participant was through her teachers, who were the only ones who could identify the participants based on their probes However, sharing such information with the teachers was a breach of the confidentiality that the participants were informed about before receiving the probes. Hence, the probes’ content had to generate enough of a concern about the young person’s health and well-being to override the trust established with the young people. For the probes, these considerations were taken each time something sensitive was shared, but only if there were indications that something could be understood as a call for help were the teachers contacted. In the specific case where this was necessary, it was a combination of all the content that this particular participant shared that created a possible red flag.

Some of the early participants also expressed that they felt a need for confirmation that the content they created was actually used in some way. They indicated that they had the impression that often when creating something for others (adults), it was not put to use or even respected. Hence, it was made clear, both to them and to participants later on in the research, that they made a difference and that the probes they filled out mattered. However, this, too, required balance, as they were not supposed to feel pressured to participate. One of the key arguments of this research is to make participation voluntary and fun for the participants based on their own intrinsic motivation even if it begins more as extrinsic motivation to benefit both the results and the young people. An emphasis on the voluntary aspect was made clear multiple times when presenting the probes in addition to stating deep gratitude for the young people’s participation. When asked afterward, only very few of the young people expressed that they felt some degree of pressure to participate, e.g., one thought of the probe as a kind of voluntary homework that he chose to do. All the probes were saved and categorized both digitally and physically.

Designing for young people requires careful consideration of how to approach them appropriately. By including play elements, it was my intention to ensure that the young people had the ability to experience fun and enjoyment, which made the creation and decisions about the activities easier to approach; play was the trigger and play was, in itself, safe. Choosing, for instance, irony or even dark play as the focus would have required other ethical concerns. Even so, decisions were made on how long time the probes should take, the types of materials to use (e.g., safety considerations when choosing type of glue), how to make the activity framings open for interpretation but not too difficult to solve, and how not to ask the young people too directly to share something sensitive They should all have been able to do a task without sharing intimate insights if they did not want to. This last factor was addressed by, for instance, asking about “something difficult” rather than the “most difficult thing ” As such, the participants could choose to share things as they wanted without feeling that they had to lie or fake the completion of activities. Some of the answers were more superficial than others as a results, but if combined with, for instance, interviews, such statements can still be used as a primer for deeper conversations , all while ensuring the young people’s control over the probe content.

ETHICS SURROUNDING COVID-19

Though this research was initiated before the Covid-19 pandemic began, some of the actual tests were conducted during the pandemic itself, meaning certain accommodations and considerations had to be taken to protect the participants’ health. This influenced my original approach, but it should not devaluate the data retrieved. Interviews with the participants were possible for the first round of tests, which was conducted before the pandemic, but during the second round, a national lockdown made face-toface interviews impossible. As the young people participating in the second round and the teachers aiding contact with these young people faced a relatively new situation with a high degree of uncertainty in relation to their everyday lives, it was decided not to pursue other ways of approaching the participants. For the third round of tests, the same situation happened; however, as everybody had gone through lockdown before, it was decided to approach the participants for this test through personally created surveys with images from each one’s probes. For rounds 2 and 3, the participants were given the probes through their schools. This was partly done to ensure a random pool of young people in the same age group but also to decrease contact with the young people during the pandemic, as the teachers who were already close to them could aid the research instead (e.g., by collecting the probes after use). The probes for rounds 2 and 3 were created several days before distribution and put away before being opened afterward to decrease the likelihood of potentially spreading the virus

USE OF PROBES

This research had the aim of exploring how to create appropriate and play(ful) probes for young people. Accordingly, the actual results were not the focus, but they were used to understand the possible benefits, limitations, and uses of the probes themselves

THEME

The main idea of this study was to test how the probes could work, so the theme of the actual probes was not in focus for the tests. For this reason, a generic theme was chosen in an attempt to keep the probe content as neutral as possible so as not to disturb the experience too much. If the theme were very sensitive, it might have influenced the data negatively and created an ethical risk, as the probes were not used by someone with a psychological background or who could follow up with the participants. The probes were, however, intended to create a “recipe” for others to use and adapt to their own purposes (e.g., psychologists or teachers who need new insights on young people)

PRESENTATION

As stated earlier, how the probes were presented to the participants was carefully determined to ensure the data and overall approach motivated the young people to participate, as well as to account for ethical considerations. The probes consisted of large paper bags containing the activities, which were individually packed in clear plastic. The probes also contained a small piece of candy and a bag of different materials. Some of the materials in the additional bag were intended to generate disruption, but they also included pens, paper, tape, and other things that might be relevant when completing the probes.

In the first test, the probes were handed out through my own network to the participants. On the probes were descriptions stating that participation was voluntary, contact information if there were any questions, and a short message that encouraged the participants to explore each task before deciding on whether they wanted to interact with the probes. This message featured the same information for the second and third test, but in those two cases the voluntary participation was emphasized verbally as well when the probes were distributed, together with the notice that the young people could stop during a task at any point if they did not want to complete it. The probes contained different combinations of activities and thus differed from each other, despite any similarities in content. Who got which probe was determined at random. The third round of tests were handed over and presented in the same way as in the second round. Both included a description printed on the probe, as well as a verbal presentation when handing out the probes.

TESTING

The probes were tested in three iterations. The first round was conducted with four participants between 14 and 16 years old. The four probes were the participants’ property for 4–6 weeks depending on when it fitted the participants best to hand them back. The second test was conducted with three ninthgrade classes from a public school, with the majority of participants being 15 years old. They had the

probes for three weeks. 60 pupils received the probes, of which 54 were handed back with some level of interaction; some came back untouched, and a few of the probes were never handed in. The third test involved a tenth-grade class in a different public school. There were 16 pupils, and 13 of the probes were handed back interacted with.

ANALYSIS

The probe analysis had two different foci. One concerned which types of activities worked well, and which did not in terms of formulations, materials, types of play, and other factors that might have influenced this; these findings were used continuously to further develop and test the probes. The other focus concerned the actual content of the probes: what did the young people share, and what learnings about their everyday lives could be extrapolated from this information? The logic behind this two-fold analysis was that if the probes reveal insights into these participants’ lives, then some activities in the probes must work. Moreover, in developing and strengthening the activities, the insights from them should hopefully also be strengthened.

Morrow’s (2008) perspective, as mentioned in the section ”Access to Young People in Research”, requires determining consent and withdrawals of consent across all phases of participation, as well as acknowledging questions surrounding the study. In work with young people participating through probes, it might be a challenge to involve the participants directly in the analysis, especially during a time of Covid, but being transparent about why, how, and what is involved should be emphasized. If it is possible to do interviews afterward, the participants should also be invited to take part in understanding the probes by explaining them, as well as be able to ask any questions they have

ANALYSIS OF ACTIVITIES

Different approaches were taken when analyzing the activities. In terms of what worked well and what did not, they were cross compared to similar activities. For this analysis, what the participants shared about themselves as insights were not in focus, whereas how much was shared, which activities were interacted with the most, which were ignored, which were initiated but not completed, and what differences occurred between similar activities were emphasized.

In the analysis of which activities were interacted with, I went through a categorization of each probe’s content for critical incidents (Rogers et al., 2011). For these critical incidents, I noted every occurrence of each activity, even those that were not interacted with. Accordingly, I could determine patterns that I then used to explore the possible reasons behind the critical incidents in the follow-up interviews or surveys. Below in Figure 9 are three examples of this. Each space marked “tom” shows an activity present in that particular probe but that the participant had chosen not to interact with; hence, that activity had a “bad performance” (Rogers et al., 2011). The first two lines show examples of two activities that most participants chose not to do (bad performance), whereas the last example shows an activity that everyone who was presented it did do (good performance).

Some of the activities, such as the two spheres, had a simple quantitative analysis comparing the two conditions (Rogers et al., 2011): How much did the participants share when asked to list something compared to filling a sphere with small slips of written notes in the same task? The number of words did not necessarily inform about the quality of the content, but more about the investment in writing. As such, going through the different statements to discover possible differences and nuances when comparing the two conditions also occurred. An example of this difference can be seen in Figure 10.

Figure 9: Three examples from the categorization of the probes’ content.

Figure 10 shows three examples from the two spheres activity. When going through the content from this activity, quantity of words, nuances, and differences in the different versions were put into an Excel document for easy overview From there, immediate impressions were noted, and the content explored.

There mentioned above (see Figure 11 for an example hereof) the amount and quality of data; and if so, what did they share through the different activities For the analysis of insights, the same materials were used to discover what the participants shared about themselves, and the activities were then put in relation to the rest of content from the same probe. Below, I present how I managed this.

INSIGHTS FROM THE ANALYSIS

As probe data can take on many forms and are used in many ways depending on the probes’ intentions (e.g., as interview support, designers’ inspiration, or data retrieval), there is not one proper approach to use. This makes probe analysis a bit difficult. First, I applied the concept of simple qualitative analysis (Rogers et al., 2011), where I categorized the probes in Excel arcs that featured the physical objects, drawings as images, and written words. Below in Figure 12 is an example of the categorization of probes from one class.

Figure 10: Three examples from the two spheres comparison activity

Figure

These documents were made for each class and test conducted, providing an overall impression that made it possible to find emerging patterns (go to the digital appendix to find the documents) Next, I categorized the content based on the emergent patterns and outliers (Jordan & Hendersson, 1995; Murray, 2008), then went back to the raw data in the Excel documents to discover if these categories were missing information and thus needed to be changed based on the outliers. If more than one person had analyzed these data, this latter step might not have been necessary, but for me to ensure that I had not overlooked something and risked forcing the data to fit within the first emerging patterns, I needed to critically reflect upon my own approach by going back to the start. From these patterns, I could find two types of narratives from the participants; some of the probes had one clear theme across activities, such as being alone. Others did not have a clear theme, but contained many small stories or vignettes that reflected the participant’s everyday life. The probes with a clear theme were easier to assess on their own, whereas those without clear themes would require follow-ups to support the information shared.

Figure 12: Categorization of probe with play content

the content to sort them freely without worrying about mixing up the physical probes. I cut out the different information and put them into immediate themes, then went through it all again and recategorized them into the themes shown above and in the first article. Later I moved it all to a digital version to enable the possibility of continuously adding and changing the themes and content when getting new probes. The initial themes and the third step of can be found in the Appendix under “sorting the themes”

The analysis above was based on mostly written content and explanations that supported the creations. The creations themselves, as well as the images from the disposable cameras, were a bit more challenging to analyze in a typical way. How I addressed this challenge is presented in the following section.

CREATIONS AND MATERIALS

As stated before, the different creations could be difficult to fit into typical analysis, even methods of interaction analysis (Jordan & Hendersson, 1995; Rogers et al., 2011). For the probes, this included the following types of materials: Silk clay creations, wooden figures, images from phones or disposable cameras, objects found on walks, birdhouses, LEGO creations, and content from the dream job bags. To support these creations, small tag notes were included for the participants to explain their creations or materials; these tag notes could then be used for the different types of analysis. The creations and materials themselves, however, contained a lot of reflections and perspectives for use in the follow-up sessions. These were useful when doing the follow-up sessions with the participants and with professionals who did not know the content beforehand.

To avoid unnecessary bias, I triangulated the data (Rogers et al., 2011) by comparing the content analysis with the interviews conducted with either professionals who were presented select probes, interviews, or surveys from the participants or interviews with the teachers who followed the participants throughout the time they had the probes at home. I also went through the theme categorization twice. The tests were therefore supported by different types of follow-ups, which are all presented below. Originally, I intended to conduct the same type of follow-up analysis (i.e., interviews) with each test, but starting with the second test, the Covid-19 pandemic influenced my research design and required me to make decisions that changed the design One benefit of these changes were the many perspectives I was able to gain, despite the challenges brought by doing research during the pandemic.

INTERVIEWS WITH PARTICIPANTS

As mentioned earlier, for the first test, four participants aged 14–16 years old tested the probes with play. They consented to test the probes at home, as well as partake in a follow-up semi-structured interview (Rogers et al., 2011). The interviews were done when the participants turned in the probes, so I had not seen the probes before doing the interview. This was done both to ensure that the probes were fresh in their minds and due to the participants being scattered around Denmark. I had defined some questions beforehand concerning their experiences with the probes, but other than that, I let the participants lead the conversation by sharing their creations and approaches to the probes. The interviews were recorded and partially transcribed (Jordan & Hendersson, 1995).

INTERVIEWS WITH TEACHERS AND OTHER PROFESSIONALS

Before the second test, the Covid-19 pandemic had hit the world. I was still able to hand out the probes and get them back, but the pandemic challenged my intention to do interviews with the participants. Instead, I conducted informal interviews with the teachers of the classes about their experiences and impressions during the three weeks the participants had the probes. Though the probes were not directly related to education, I had used a school as my entry point; thus, I could use the teachers’ feedback as a guideline for what the participants perceived as they talked to their peers and teachers about the probes. The interviews with the teachers were not possible to record, but they consented for me to use the insights they had shared. I noted this information, as well as recorded my thoughts and impressions immediately after the interviews.

Afterward, to discover possible new perspectives on the probes, I arranged interviews with different professionals working with the target group. These were two teachers, a social worker from a municipality, and a researcher/doctor focusing on mental health for young people. The professionals were presented with 9 probes that represented the majority of probes in how they were filled out, as well as a few outliers that were quite different from the rest. The probes were placed on a table, with all content showing for each of them. The professionals had time to freely explore the probe content and ask questions about it if desired. For the interview with the social worker, I could record the interview. The teachers and researcher/doctor preferred not to be recorded, so I relied on notes and post-recording of my recollections of what had been shared.

Figure

15: The layout of the 9 probes presented to the professionals prior to their interviews. The interviews took place in three different locations due to me traveling to the professionals, but I made similar setups each time.

PERSONALIZED SURVEYS FOR PARTICIPANTS

The last probe test was conducted with a tenth-grade class in a different school than in test 2. There were 16 pupils, of which 13 turned in probes that had been interacted with. The agreement with the teachers and parents was to conduct interviews after handing over the probes; however, a new wave of Covid-19 hit the country, and I had to change my research plan once again. To ensure the pupils’ health but still gain as many details about their experiences as possible, I made personally designed surveys based on their individual probes. I did not have the participants’ direct contact information; otherwise, online interviews would have been possible as well. Online surveys have been used extensively across fields of research and marketing to access many participants and avoid biases (Loomis & Paterson, 2018), but in this case, online surveys were used for a different purpose. I wanted the survey forms to be as personalized as possible and show concrete images from the participants’ probes to ensure that they knew which object I was asking about and could elaborate on aspects that I might not have found otherwise. I used first names in the survey introductions, as well as showed images from their probes before asking questions. I also did this to hopefully ensure a higher answering rate than I might have risked if I sent an identical questionnaire to all participants. The surveys were distributed through the pupils’ teachers, and they each received individual links to their own surveys with their specific probe content and name used. An example can be seen in Danish in Figure 16, which shows the survey that a girl named Amalie received. The completed surveys can be found in the digital appendix as “Pers. Surveys”.

Figure

SUMMING UP

In this chapter, I went through the practicalities surrounding the probes, going from how to design toward play to how I analyzed the probes with two different foci. What should be taken from the first part of this chapter, showing how I created the probes, is not an exact recipe for making probes, which I return to in the Cross Comparison and Discussion chapter Rather, it serves as an overview of how I got to the results I found, hence making this generative design research approach replicable (Godin & Zahedi, 2014; Zimmerman et al , 2007), or even possible for others to change if they desire to make their own probe design choices. The last part of this chapter focuses on analysis and aims to depict the process of this two-fold foci, hopefully making it clearer how I managed the same data in different ways when shifting between foci. Though the analyses of activities and insights are closely connected in this research, there was a need to manage them individually to avoid confusion. In the next chapter, I present three articles that outline the different ways I addressed the two foci.

Figure 16: Example of a personalized online participant survey

DESIGN RESEARCH AND RESULTS

In the chapter to come, three articles are introduced that outline the main results for this research and aim to answer the two research questions. Supplementary data are also presented in the Cross Comparison and Discussion chapter to elaborate on the results due to the publishing-constraints of the articles. The first two articles mainly answer RQ1, focusing on the probes as a method, whereas the third article mainly addresses RQ2, aimed at the findings from the probes as filled out by young people. All three articles cover elements from both research questions, however.

The first article, from a conference by LearnXDesign in 2021, covers early exploration of the probes both as a method and in terms of findings about the participating young people. It was written after the second test was conducted and is based on the learnings from the first and second tests regarding probes with play as a method and some of the probes’ findings. This article does not go into depth with the findings, which are unfolded later.

The second article, from a conference by Design Research Society in 2022, presents the final work with the probes for this research, mainly in terms of findings on the methods but also regarding insights into the young people who generated the probes’ content. This article was written after the third test was conducted, but the personalized follow-up surveys sent to each of the participants were filled out afterward and hence do not appear in the article.

The third and final article, from a 2022 issue of the journal Designing for Play in New Nordic Childhood by BUKS, addresses mainly how the probes aimed at creating a meaningful ground for participating when working with young people. As was the case with the second article, this one was also written before the personalized surveys were filled out. For supplementary information and reflection upon the findings from each article, please see the Cross Comparison and Discussion chapter, where the research questions are addressed based on the findings from the articles as well as additional information that could not be included in the articles for various reasons.

TERMS CLARIFICATION

In the BUKS article as well as the LearnXDesign article, the first test is referred to as “pilot test”, it is referred to as Test situation 1 in the DRS article. In the main body of work, it is just test number one or the first test.

In the articles, the content in the probes is referred to as tasks, however as this word does contradict that the probe is voluntary, which it is, the content is referred to as activities in the main body of work.

Throughout the thesis, most of the participants are referred to as e.g., “girl, 15 years old” or similar. In few cases, the probes of certain participants are used continuously throughout the thesis and hence they are referred to by first name as well for the sake of clarity in terms of the narrative the participant wanted to portray. There is no further identification to these participants, as I intend to make them as anonymous as possible

The personalized surveys are referred to as questionnaires in article nr two; this is a mistake, as the survey format does not fit within what a questionnaire entails.

Play Probes

Understanding young people through playful expressions

Line Gad Christiansen and Sune Klok Gudiksen 239

Understanding young people can be a difficult matter when one is past that age. Stories of misunderstandings stemming from generational divides are ubiquitous. A virus, such as Covid-19, threatens to create a deeper generational divide and possibly lead to the problem reaching a magnitude not seen before.

This paper investigates how probes with play triggers can yield a deeper understanding of today’s youth. By analyzing the outcome of 54 youth-created play probes, clustered themes were identified, and the selected ones have been presented in detail. The preliminary conclusions indicate that the play probes allow access to insights about young people using expressive formats such as construction and fantasy play.

This study contributes to design research by illustrating how probes can help learn about the inner workings of the young generations. Further, it suggests that adding play to probes can foster enhanced social interactions in families with teenage members.

Keywords: Probes; Youth; Play; Reframing; Materials

Accelerated generational divides

Working with young people and discovering what is going on in their lives can be a difficult task. The amount of information they tend to provide and that can be observed is often only a small fragment of the world and culture they grow up in. Individuals in this specific age group in this case, ranging from the ages of 14 to 17 are transitioning from being child to becoming adults. This is a critical time and a unique transformation in one’s life an area of research often neglected in design research. These young generations are the future; however, there is often a risk of a generational divide arising because of missed opportunities to obtain an in-depth understanding of the lives of these future generations. As stated by Duncan et al. (2009), it can be difficult to learn about this target group, as they are in a transition stage in their life that influences what they might share with people from outside their own network. Studies show that an increasing number of young people get diagnoses such as depression, stress, and other conditions, that are increasingly affecting their mental health (Skovlund et al., 2017).

Through an enhanced understanding of the everyday lives of those younger than ourselves, the proposition is that there is a better chance of building bridges between generations, whereas, on the other hand, there exists a risk of their desires, needs, and struggles being misunderstood and misinterpreted. Using alternative forms of expressions, can be a way to open up for underlying and unforeseen issues in the world of young people. This paper introduces a possible design research direction we have named play probes. We consider this to be a means for gaining access to insights about young people through expressive formats of their choosing and include play triggers to initiate social interactions with those who are close by. This paper is a part of a bigger research project that investigated how play probes can be developed to aid the quest for understanding young people’s everyday lives, including their thought processes, motives, cultural habits, etc. to be able to

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

understand and design for youth, alternative ways of making inquiries and reach insights that will create opportunities for radical or alternative framing of design problems. Hence aiming to bring to the surface, possibly hidden social problems that affects life situations for younger people and their school life. The intention of the play probe is to provide a toolkit for working with young people, across fields, such as design, healthcare and education, that can both provide new knowledge and ways of outlet, but also provides value in return to the young people. What the tests of the probes have indicated, is that despite the probes aiming to get insights about the young people filling it out, the participants also respond positive towards it, due to i.e., exploring materials not present in their everyday-lives, experiencing enjoyment in relation to some of the activities, being social in regards to solving the tasks, the exploration of something new and increased attention and curiosity from their parents and siblings This feedback is based on interviews, informal feedback and what is present in the probes. Hence the play probe is a mean for inquiry that also aims to provide immediate value in return to the young people participating, while additionally providing a safe space and ownership over how, when and how the young people share the information, they feel a desire to share, within the frame set by the probe. An aspect emphasized by the teachers involved in this research, is the prospects of using materials and play through these probes, to provide a voice for things the young people have difficulties expressing through words. The world of young people is not divided strictly e.g., in school and leisure, as a lot of their lives surrounds the social life, needs and emotions that occurs both within school and outside the school, and hence though these probes are to be filled out in their homes, they also present relevant information that are present throughout the young people’s school-time, the teachers emphasized their holistic view upon the young people they worked with.

From Cultural probes to Play probes

The use of probes as a method, gained prominence in research after Gaver, Dunne and Pacenti (1999) introduced the cultural probe. This focused on creating kits that had different activities for the participants to carry out in familiar settings, such as their home or in other everyday natural environments. The activities were of an aesthetic and reflective nature, aimed to provide inspiration to the researcher working with the probes, and were meant to serve as an alternative to the more ethnography-based observational approaches, such as interviews or observations which requires the presence of the researcher (Gaver et al., 1999). As previously stated, working with young people, created a desire from us, to give these young people some of the control in how, when and what they wished to share, together with the possibility of going and forth to the probes and even change responses, before handing it back. Both in our interviews with teachers and social workers, it became clear that in many cases where young people are asked to share information, they are met with words only, either written or spoken, and the same goes for how the young people are expected to provide responses.

Design probes

Later, the concept of probes was further developed to fit different purposes and contexts. Mattelmäki (2006) defined the Design Probe and emphasized that we need to take the participants and their probes more serious, by not just using them for inspiration. Hence, the author insisted that the probes should be followed up with, for instance, interviews with the researcher to enable the gathering of actual findings and the creation of inspiration to lead to the next stages of design development (Mattelmäki, 2006).

Overall, a probe consists of different activities within a topic with the aim of using, for example, materials, images, and drawings to discover aspects that might not have been found without the probes. It provides a sense of intimacy when being filled out, as the probes are to be filled out at home. This diminishes some of the ethical issues involved in other ethnographical methods, as the participants are in control of what information they provide to the researcher and how they do it.

Sanders and Stappers (2014, p.6) argue, “Methods and tools for making give people – designers and nondesigners – the ability to make ‘things’ that describe future objects, concerns or opportunities. They can also provide views on future experiences and future ways of living.” These authors used concepts that were similar

to probes but were used more as synthesizing tools that were handed out before e.g., an interview. In this case, the aim was to create a bigger foundation for the subsequent stages of the design process. The emphasis was still on making and on how materials and tools can elicit findings. The use of a sensitizing phase is explained as participants performing “a series of small exercises designed to let them think about past experiences…” (Sleeswijk Visser et al., 2005, p.126).

Diary method

Another approach for understanding a target group that inspired this study is the use of diary methods (Bolger, Davis and Rafaeli, 2002). This also offers the benefits of capturing information in real time and in a natural setting for the participants (in their homes, while traveling, and so on). Carter and Mankoff (2005) further elaborate on the use of media in the diary study method. They state that photos can be used later on as cues for associations in, for example, interviews and that the photos often contain crucial information that would not have been available with just a written diary, the background in a photograph for an example.

Play connected to probe design

Generally, play is, for many, perceived as something children do. However, it has been found that play exist across all ages and stages of development. Mouritsen (1998, p.13) argues that “the phasing-out of play is a factor in what we understand as children’s development. This does not mean that adults do not or cannot play. They can and do – more than we are normally aware.”

Play is often described as an activity that is the result of an intent to experience fun and enjoyment (Piaget, 1970); but there exist various different foci and definitions for play. In this research, the definition of play that is followed is in line with that of Mouritsen (1998). However, in a play probe, there are conflicting motivational factors, as the activities do not arise internally but are presented in a specific context. Hence, the probes should contain playful triggers for the purpose of creating enjoyment and supporting playfulness for the participants (Youell, 2008), which could transform into a flow state (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990).

According to Duncan et al. (2009), it is often a challenge to conduct research of a sensitive nature with young people. They highlight, among others, the transition between being parent-led to shifting to a “young personcentered self-management” (Duncan et al., 2009, p.1692), personal characteristics, socio-cultural characteristics, the resistance to adult authority, and the need for increased independency as factors that complicate the carrying out of qualitative research.

To recap, this study investigates the use of play probes as a proposed method to gain deeper insights regarding young people’s daily lives. The concrete approach used in this study builds on the foundation of three interconnected components: design probes, diary methods, and play triggers.

Research approach

During Fall 2020, three ninth grade classes participated in the study. In total, there were 60 students, and each received a play probe, from a researcher they already were familiar with beforehand. They were informed during the handing out of the probes that they should only open their probe when they reached home, and were then encouraged to explore the content. However, it was emphasized that their participation was voluntary and that they could cease their participation at any point and just return the kit as it was. They were also allowed to stop during an activity if they chose to. Finally, the students were also informed that the kit focused on their everyday lives and that they could choose to remain anonymous if they wanted. All this information was sent out to the parents of the young people two weeks before they were presented with the probes. This was carried out with the help of the three class teachers, who also made sure to collect the probes in the end. However, this was mainly due to the Covid-19 situation at that time and the importance of maintaining social distance from the people they did not see regularly.

Close contact was maintained during the weeks that the students had the probes and during the time after they had completed them. The teachers reported back regarding the questions, discussions, and impressions that were generated during this period, as many of the students actively talked about the probes in class. Other purposes for maintaining this contact were in case sensitive material was gathered through the probes, as it was not a continuous study with the young people. The teachers could then follow up with a student in such a case. The only identifying information that the research contained was the first name of the students (if they chose to share it) and which class they belonged to (A, B, or C). Hence, it would not be possible to identify any student without the teachers’ help.

The probes were created based on the intention of using play elements in the kit. A challenge associated with this is that play is often defined as subjective and internally motivated, and, in this case, the students were asked to fill out a probe kit during a specific period of time. They controlled what they did, how they did it, and when they did it within the parameters that had been set for them. However, this might be more dependent on playfulness and play triggers rather than play. It was decided that the probes would be tested with two foci in terms of play:

1. Play as a memory and past experience

2. Play as an active driver

For the first focus, the activities created were based on the students thinking back and using their memory. In the pamphlet, they were to just describe their favorite play activity from when they were children. Further, in the playground map, they were asked to couple this memory with current activities (for more details, see the list of activities in Table 1. For the second focus, different types of play types (Legaard, 2018) were chosen, and the activities were then created mainly as per these types, while also placing emphasis on exploring the value of the materials. This was done because it is believed that, for this research, not all play types were equally engaging across the 60 students. Thus, there was a need to test more approaches to understand and ensure that there were playful triggers within the probe. The diary methods (Bolger, Davis and Rafaeli, 2002; Carter and Mankoff, 2005) inspired the probe activities of the Pamphlets, the Two Spheres, Images of a Week, and Use Your Phone. Both the typical diary forms of writing and describing aspects of a typical week were included, along with photography in two forms and a physical aspect in the Two Spheres activity.

Figure 1: Play probes ready to be handed out

For the analysis, the probes were catalogued and structured to enable a comparison of the activities that had some features in common. This also made it possible to obtain an overview of the material for discovering patterns within the data. Mattelmäki (2006) stated that there is no clear method for conducting the analysis of probes but found a set of guidelines based on ethnographic and qualitative research. Hence, some of the author’s suggestions include following up with interviews, structuring the materials systematically, and being explorative when dealing with those suggestions. The author further presents different foci for the analysis of probes, one being interpretation in terms of the material. This was chosen as the material is at the center of the majority of the activities included in the probe.

As for the case studies (Stake, 1995; Flyvbjerg, 2006), the probes were of a qualitative nature, and, to obtain findings from them, they were first structured, grouped, and then directly interpreted (Stake, 1995). Thereby, different themes arose, of which some seemed to be more emphasized than others. The following table presents the topics and themes that were generated from the probes. On the next page see table 1 and 2 for elaborated overview.

Figure 2. Example of the content, among others the pamphlet and a disposable camera

Table 1. Overview of themes and topics from the probes

Identified selected themes

As previously stated, there were three themes that became clear throughout the probes: (1) family, (2) identity, and (3) relationships. These themes contained both positive, negative, and neutral statements or information, but they paint a picture of what among many other things is possibly going on in the minds of young people. Each of the three themes have been discussed below with examples taken from the probes.

Family

In the probes focused on play memory-based activities, family was often highlighted. This included incidents and specific events, such as a family trip or a holiday, but also included more generic memories as well, such as spending time together as a family. From the teachers’ feedback, the most highlighted factor that the students talked about was that their parents and (older) siblings were curious about the probe and it evoked a lot of conversations over the dinner table. Further, many of the students even happily informed the teachers that their family got involved in the activities from the probe. One of the interviewed teachers said that it was her general impression that young individuals were left alone too often and desired a higher degree of interaction with their family and interest from their families in their lives.

This can also be seen from the probe activities that were focused on the students’ current everyday lives or, rather, from the lack of the presence of their families in those probe activities as compared to the memorybased ones. Although, as stated, family was mentioned in many probes, it does not seem to take up much of the young people’s attention in their everyday life. Friends, sports, and hobbies all receive greater attention.

Table 2. Overview of themes and topics from the probes

The few incidents in which the family was present (out of a total of 54 probes) are listed as follows (translated from original language):

• Pamphlet: On what transpires during a week, girl, 15 years old: Day 1: A movie, Day 2: My family, Day 3: My girlfriend, Day 4: A song, Day 5: first language lesson in school, Day 6: Nature (I was out walking), Day 7: A new song

• Five things to bring to an island: girl, 15 years old: 1.Family, 2. My friends, 3. My pony, 4. My phone, 5. A ship

• Playground map and pamphlet, boy, 14 years old: Pamphlet, about challenges: cycling to school, filling the dishwasher, vacuuming, doing my homework and spending time with my family during the day. In the playground map, about the seesaw: It is where I am together with my five-year-old brother. It makes me happy.

• Two spheres: On activities with others, girl, 15 years old: Playing board games with my family

From some of the activities, there is a clear connection between family, memories, feeling safe, and being home. These elements were connected more than half the time when family was mentioned, mainly in terms of memory and, less often, in activities, as there was greater focus on more current information

Two examples from the probes:

• Playground map: Comparing with a playhouse, girl, 15 years old: The playhouse is my home: safety and family.

• Playground map: Comparing to the slide, boy, 14 years old: It reminds me of when I was with my family in “Djurs Sommerland” (a theme park in Denmark).

Identity

The creations produced from the silk clay activity often contained specific human behaviors or traits that were either directly or indirectly linked to the person carrying out the activity. This seems to reflect either a specific trait that the young people would like to portray or, like in the case with the lizard (see below), contain information about their possible struggles.

Figure 3. A girls’ sketch of her family

The following text examples are translated from original language and were accompanied by creations such as the one shown in Figure 4 below:

Girl, 15 years old, chose a lizard-like creation: “I think of myself as a lizard. It keeps to itself, often in the dark They are sometimes seen; but if they are scared, they lose their tail.”

Girl, 15 years old, chose a dog-like creation: “Because it is mainly happy and believes in the best in other people. I would be a dog, as I can often be a bit naïve.”

Girl, 15 years old, chose an owl-like creation: “My friends said that I should make an owl, because they think that I am clever.” (shown in figure 4)

Boy, 15 years old, didn’t create anything, only described it: “Its name would be Carsten because it is an awesome name. It is a smart monster but sporty. And of course, has a lot of power.”

Boy, 14 years old, chose a hero-like creation, with a round body, small feet, and an antenna: “He is very strong like me.”

One interesting aspect is that social media was mentioned in only two out of the 54 probes. This includes the pamphlet where the students described their interests, inspirations, etc. during a week and all the other probes’ activities. The two incidents where social media was mentioned are as follows: Girl, 15 years old, stating that she would bring her phone, and, hence, social media, as one of the five things she would bring to an island. Another girl, 15 years old, in the Two Spheres activity, states TikTok as something she likes to do on her own. YouTube, computers, and games, on the other hand, were highlighted multiple times.

The lack of the mention of social media can of course be due to many factors, not explored for this paper, such as the following:

• The probe had a physical context to it, and, hence, social media was not in focus.

• Social media might be such an integrated part of their lives that they perceive it as an integrated element of everything else.

• Mentioning the computer or phone (which others do) automatically includes social media

• Social media is not as important to these young people as we think.

Relations

Friends do play a significant role, as mentioned previously, in terms of both physical interactions, such as in the context of parties, fitness, and sports, and being together, e.g. the word “hygge” in the original language (roughly translated to coziness) was mentioned multiple times, often together with friends. Digital platforms

Figure 4. An owl made of silk clay, by one of the students

or interactions are also highlighted across the probe activities, genders, and classes. The majority of the boys mentioned games, and FaceTime, calling each other, and the game “Among Us” was present throughout a large number of the probes.

In the pamphlets aimed toward inspiration, entertainment, and motivation, friends also take up a large amount of space. In contrast, friends are not mentioned at all in the pamphlet focused on frustration. One example stands out; a 15-year-old girl described and drew the following when asked about what challenged her during a typical week in the pamphlet (translated or described and written in chronological order):

Drawing, with no explanation: A measuring tape around a stomach. Written and drawn: “Afraid of being too loud.” “Wanted to hit him.” “I couldn’t sleep.” “It was embarrassing to be the last” (drawing of a goal line). See Figure 5 below, of the sketches.

She also filled out a significant higher number of “activities I like to do alone” (16) compared to “activities I like to do with others” (4) in the Two Spheres activity. Further, she did not mention the word friends anywhere in her probe. Friends were present and explicitly mentioned in all of the other 53 probes in various contexts and activities.

Possible implications

Different themes and statements were identified from the probes. There was significant variation among the probes in terms of what is shared and to what degree; but even in those probes that present limited information, subtle attributes of the individual filling it out, can be seen. For instance, the case of the girl mentioned in the previous section signifies a feeling of solitude. However, this can also be seen in some of the other probes. One of the boys, for instance, presents a considerable number of different struggles through his probe, and not much else; he claims to be tired in school, to have issues at home, and a created a silk clay creature that placed an emphasis on being strong. Whether this is what he perceives or desires is unclear, but

Figure 5. A girls’ sketches of challenges during a typical week

it is the only thing that he presents that has a different character than the struggles. Many of the boys seem to have difficulties regarding sleep; they mention being tired, having difficulty getting up in the morning, feeling tired in school, etc. This seems to be an issue mainly presented by the boys, with only a few girls mentioning sleep as an issue.

It might not be surprising that relationships, family, and identity are the three themes that was clearly seen in the probes given the stage at which the lives of the students are when they filled out the probe. However, the probes can reveal aspects of what lies beneath these themes and what can be further explored. Additionally, it can perhaps also help us acquire an enhanced understanding of the world that they live in. In general, they still need their families and the interaction with them while also having a separate part of their lives that goes on outside the family and inside themselves by finding their own identity. These three themes might be important layers in their process of defining themselves as individuals.

A fourth theme could have been creativity, which occurs across all classes, genders, and type of probes. The existence of a creative outlet, whether it be programming, writing stories, painting, or playing music, is present in a majority of the probes. This also correlates with the tendency observed during the silk clay activity, which seems to have triggered an interest and the investment of time for the participants who were presented with this type of activity.

First findings about play probes

From the 60 probes, 54 kits were handed back, either completely or partially filled out. Below, some of the findings from play probes as a method, have been highlighted and elaborated upon.

The informal interviews conducted with the teachers indicate that the students who participated in this study generally found the activities to be “fun but strange.” During the teacher interviews, all of the teachers mentioned that their students came up to them and talked about the probe informally. Further, a few days before returning the probes, all the teachers had a conversation with their students about the probes. In all three classes, the following feedback was stated multiple times:

• The students enjoyed the fact that the probes encouraged conversations and involvement from their families. The teachers further elaborated on this, as it was their general impression that young people often wished for more interaction with their families.

• The students enjoyed carrying out the activities and shared their thoughts and results with each other.

• They found the activities to be strange and talked curiously about them with others, including teachers, families, and peers.

Probe

kit considerations

There was a tendency that the tasks that focused on the struggles and entertainment in the participants’ lives were filled out more often than those focusing on motivation or inspiration. The richness of the associated information was also (in most cases) deeper. There were more details even in the sketches compared to those that provided information about motivation or inspiration.

The materials seemed to frame the activities, and those asked to create lists, descriptions, etc. during activities often completed the tasks in a different way than those who were directly presented the materials (the Two Spheres, the Dream Job Bag). For example, when asked to fill out what would be in their dream job bag, a computer was often drawn sometimes as the only thing, sometimes together with a few other generic objects, such as a phone (see Figure 6). The influence of the materials could be seen in the Two Spheres activity as well:

Those who were asked to write down a list, on average, wrote down 2.65 things. In the (physical) spheres, the average was 4.3. Often, there was a bit more elaborate description of the activities for the spheres as compared to the list.

One of the ac-vi-es involved silk clay, in which the par-cipants were asked to construct a character. In total, 20 of the probe kits contained this ac-vity. With one excep-on, all of the containers had been opened, and the silk clay had been interacted with. Further, 14 par-cipants had created some version of a character and described its features. The animal-like creatures seemed to have been given the most features that were related to humans.

Selected probes, that were filled out, was presented to i.e., teachers and healthcare-professionals working with young people. During those interviews an emphasis were put on how the young people in general approached the silk clay differently than many of the other ac-vi-es. One example was a boy who in all the ac-vi-es emphasized in different ways – both explicit and implicit, that he found the play probe tedious, however when looking at the silk clay figure, he put more effort both into the crea-on of it and the background-story of it and presented a bit more personal informa-on about himself and his values regarding how to be a friend (see figure 7).

Par-cularly construc-on ac-vi-es, anchored in the ideas of construc-on play and fantasy play (Legaard, 2018), seemed to evoke an interest and involvement from the students. This conclusion is based on the feedback

Figure 6. Two examples from the Dream Job Bag

Figure 7. A dog called Nikolaj Early conclusions on play probes

received from the teachers and the actual probes. They are also the ideal types of play for a probe, as they can be encouraged through the materials and framing.

At this stage, activities with an emphasis on games or physical play have not been tested, and social activities have only tested to a low degree. More tests and research into a variety of play probes are needed.

What can be said though is that there are indications to suggest that a play probe is a useful tool for gaining insights into young peoples’ lives, both directly from the probes and through the playful aspects. The feedback gathered from the teachers supports these indications and the young people overall responded to the probes positively. Through feedback from people working with this target group and the analysis of the probes, there are indications towards positive results, when applying some of the approaches from the play probes, also when working with e.g., mental health in young people.

For the data acquired from the probes to be more detailed, the probes need to be revised in relation to playfulness. The content of the probes should have a more specific focus rather than “everyday lives,” as this tends to be too broad to reach a firm conclusion. Further, interviews with the young people participating would have been optimal afterwards, but it is not possible at this time. The play probes could even be employed for a possible alternative direction for further development: as a conversation tool between parents and their teenager.

Play probes will be continuously explored. The next step will be to take the findings presented in this paper and develop a better framed play probe in collaboration with experts working with young people, such as researchers and/or teachers, in order to use the probes as a tool for depicting a specific field of questioning combined with the use of follow-up interviews with the participants. We imagine, as a second step, that the insights and inspiration attained from the results of the probes can be translated into categories of tangible materials that can be used in cross-disciplinary co-design workshops.

Acknowledgements

A big “thank you” to all the ninth-graders who participated in this study and their teachers. Despite the challenging times, the study was conducted despite the pandemic. You people made this research possible.

References

Bateson, P. (2014). Play, playfulness, creativity and innovation. Animal Behaviour and Cognition. 1(2), pp.99112.

Bolger, N., Davis, A. and Rafaeli, E. (2002) Diary methods: capturing life as it is lived. Annual Review of Psychology. 54, pp.579-616.

Carter, S. and Mankoff, J. (2005). When participants do the capturing: the role of media in diary studies. Proceedings of the 2005 conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI. USA.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: the psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper Perennial.

Duncan, R.E., Drew, S.E., Hodgson, J. and Sawyer, S. N. (2009). Is my mum going to hear this? Methodological and ethical challenges in qualitative health research with young people. Social Medicine. 69, pp.16911699.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry. 12(2), pp.219-245

Gaver, B., Dunne, T. and Pacenti, E. (1999). Design: cultural probes. Interaction. 6(1), pp.21-29.

Howard, J. and McInnes, K. (2013) The essence of play: a practice companion for professionals working with children and young people. UK: Routledge.

Jääskö, V. and Keinonen, T. (2003). In: Mattelmäki, T. (2006) Design Probes. Publication Series of the University of Arts and Design. Helsinki, pp.89-96.

Karoff, H.S. (2013). Play practices and play moods. International Journal of Play. 2(2), pp.76-86.

Legaard, J. (2018). The road to happiness is paved with playful interventions. Proceedings DSR. 6, pp.25722586.

Mattelmäki, T. (2006). Design Probes. Publication Series of the University of Arts and Design. Helsinki. Mouritsen, F. (1998) Child culture-play culture DK: Odense University Printing Office Piaget, J. (1970) Science of education and the psychology of the child. Trans. D. Coltman.

Sanders, E.B.N. and Stappers, P.J. (2014). Probes, toolkits and prototypes: three approaches to making in codesigning. CoDesign. 10(1), pp.5-14.

Skovlund, C.W., Wessing, L.V., Mørch, L.S. and Lidegaard, Ø. (2017). Increase in depression diagnoses and prescribed antidepressants among young girls. A national cohort study 2000-2013. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry.

Sleeswijk Visser, F., Stappers, P.J., van der Lugt, R. and Sanders, E.B.N. (2005) Contextmapping: experiences from practice. International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts. 1(2), pp.119-149.

Stake, R.E. (1995) The art of case study research. California: Sage, Thousand Oaks.

Youell, B. (2008). The importance of play and playfulness. The European Journal of Psychotherapy and Counselling. 10(2), pp.121-129.

Line Gad Christiansen

Designschool Kolding, Denmark lc@dskd.dk

Line Christiansen is a PhD fellow at Design for Play, Design School Kolding (Denmark). With a background as an (playful) interaction designer and her work with children and young people both with and without special prerequisites, her focus is now play, safe spaces and learning. She aims to understand and evoke playful behaviour for young people through design and materials, and depict the possible benefits hereof.

Sune Klok Gudiksen

Designschool Kolding, Denmark skg@dskd.dk

Sune Gudiksen is Associate Professor at Design for Play, Design School Kolding (Denmark). He is lead of several research projects investigating how play and game-based design methods can be used to support innovation activities and organizational development. His research interest is in play and game-based design methods, that supports reframing and imagination of better design, innovation and learning processes in the industry.

Play p robe: An approach that reveals emergent identity building in youth

Line Gad Christiansen*, Sune Klok Gudiksen

Design

School

Kolding, Design for Play, Denmark

*Corresponding author e-mail: lc@dskd.dk https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2022.572

Abstract: This paper explores the gradual use and development of play probes as an approach to gain insights about young people and identity development. Recent studies, which are part of a larger research project, have suggested that play probes can be useful for professionals attempting to gain insights about young people. The approach can also provide participants with an enjoyable experience. The aim of this study was to identify the most important principles to consider when designing a play probe and which types of play triggers are most effective at producing insights about young people 14-17 years old An analysis of play probes revealed that tasks involving play triggers from construction play and fantasy play worked well in the probes However, flexibility in terms of materials was important for enabling young people to express themselves. Finally, supplementing probes with written tasks generated deeper insights.

Keywords: probes; play; youth; participation

1. Introduction

Since Gaver et al. (1999) introduced the cultural probe, a variety of different probe method takes, have been proposed and used in research and design contexts. This study builds on previous research and argues that combining probes with play triggers, can reveal emergent aspects of identity building, in young people and advance design research for this target group. The development and use of play probes for young people are explored to strengthen the link between the complex world of young people (Duncan, Drew, Hodgson, & Sawyer, 2009; Kjeldgaard & Askegaard, 2006) and professionals wanting to gain insights into this world. Research on this target group has tended to focus on methods such as interviews and data collection from phones, observations, and questionnaires; however, as Duncan et al. (2009) point out, young people are reluctant to share information with professionals. A play

probe is not only an exploration of what will happen if the focus is on providing a benefit to both involved parties, but also a more hands-on and playful approach to information sharing.

The play probe approach was explored in a larger research project; in two other papers (Christiansen & Gudiksen, 2021; Christiansen, 2022), we focus on the types of expressions and outcomes the probes yielded in young people, and how this can lead to a better understanding of them. The first paper (Christiansen & Gudiksen, 2021) had a twofold focus: introducing early findings from the play probes’ first tests and presenting the findings they revealed about young people. The second paper (Christiansen, 2022) describes the relevance of play probes from a youth perspective and results of approaching young people in research differently. The two papers present the following findings in detail:

• Play probes were effective at getting young people to open up, and young people expressed enjoyment in the interaction with the probe

• The probes enabled increased communication with peers and family.

• The participants used the probes to share their perceptions of themselves, details about their lives, and even intimate details about themselves, such as worries and frustrations.

This paper aims to identify a strong approach to designing play probes and seeks to extract design principles from this process. A series of use tests with a play probe aimed at young people (14–17 years old) was conducted. In total, 71 probes were filled out, namely those from a first test with four participants, 14-16 years old. A second test with 54 ninth graders from a public school in Denmark, 15-16 years old. And a third test with 13 tenth graders from a different public school in Denmark, 15-17 years old

In what follows, we provide a brief outline of youth and the (dis)connection to play, followed by an overview of previous probe variations used in design research and related fields We then describe and explain the research method used in this study, the analysis of three use test situations, and the probe kit’s transformations along the way. The paper ends with a discussion of the challenges and potential benefits of using play probes and a summary of the findings.

2. Youth, play, and probes in design research

This paper builds on three combined theoretical streams: 1) research related to youth target groups and concerns and circumstances surrounding them, 2) the connection between youth and play, and 3) a short review of earlier probe approaches in design research. Through this outline, we seek to demonstrate why we combined these research streams in the first place.

2.1 Youth

Bucholtz (2002) and Simonsen (2003) both state that the term “youth” lacks a clear distinction and, therefore, can refer only to teenagers or also include people even in their thirties. In this study, “youth” refers to teenagers, as the participants were between 14 and 17 years old.

There is general agreement across many fields that researching and understanding young people can be complex (Duncan et al., 2009; Kjeldgaard & Askegaard, 2006; Simonsen, 2003) This may be due to many factors, including those pertaining to the individual young person and those in the surrounding culture, whether local or global (Amit, 2001; Kjeldgaard & Askegaard, 2006). This was confirmed in this study during interviews with different professionals who work with young people, including teachers, social workers, and researchers, all of whom reported difficulties with getting young people to open up.

Cultural changes for youth, global or local, can occur rapidly and influence young people on an individual and group level (Kjeldgaard & Askegaard, 2006). Since getting young people to open up can be a challenge and their cultures change quickly, it might be beneficial to find new approaches to gaining insights about this age group, either as stand-alone methods or by combining them with more traditional methods, such as interviews or observation. This paper proposes using elements from play as triggers to motivate young people to open up through the use of play probes, as play is something that people do across ages, cultures, etc. (Huizinga, 1955; Mouritsen, 1998).

2.2 Considerations of how to approach play as a concept for youth

Huizinga (1955) relates play directly to fun, as the element of fun characterizes the essence of play (Huizinga, 1955, p. 3). Play is a space in which to explore things, such as limits, boundaries, and aspects of life (Huizinga, 1955), and e.g., can take the form of fighting with each other for fun or roleplaying a family. Play is ambiguous, and there are as many depictions of play as there are researchers working on it But what is generally agreed upon is that play is connected to fun and enjoyment, requires a degree of voluntary participation, and is linked to learning or exploring a certain area, though learning is often not the aim of the act of playing (Huizinga, 1955; Sutton-Smith, 2001). Play probes align with this understanding of play, as the playful activities in the probe must be voluntary and provide the participants with control over how and what they interact with. Additionally, the aim of incorporating playfulness, is to provide participants with a degree of enjoyment and hence increase their motivation for participating.

2.3 Probes in design research

As stated earlier, probes were introduced in Gaver et al.’s (1999) work on cultural probes, which aimed to give participants the chance to share insights through various small activities

they worked on from home. The cultural probes were then used to inspire designers to create new solutions or approaches when designing for a target group. Additionally, cultural probes should encourage a playful attitude in participants (Gaver et al., 1999; Mattelmäki, 2006)

The play probe is inspired by the concept behind cultural probes, but rather than just having a playful attitude, the play probes surrounds play in both the framing, the choices of materials, a possibility of disrupting the activities and taking point of departure in play first, when choosing which activities should be present. It is also inspired by other more recently developed probes, such as design probes (Mattelmäki, 2006), which are used more directly for analysis and data collection, including in interviews. Mattelmäki (2006, p. 58) argues that probes can be used for different purposes such as to gain inspiration for designers or to provide the user with an opportunity to participate in ideation. The purpose of the play probe, will depend on the aim of the research. It should be a flexible tool, useful for different purposes, and hence the main focus lies on the target-group and finding appropriate ways to getting them to open up through playful triggers.

A probe consists of different tasks chosen for the research in question. These tasks can take different forms, have various requirements from the participant and approaches to answering them: “In broad sense, probe tasks are open questions” (Mattelmäki, 2006, p. 65). Tasks can involve various kinds of objects, such as disposable cameras, maps, pictures, or diaries. Carter and Mankoff (2005) state that diary studies can be used to explain a participant’s behavior and intent in situ, which makes them both relevant and easy to apply to probes, as the contexts share similarities, e.g., filling out at home. Sanders and Stappers (2020) use the concept of different levels of knowledge. They argue that through different methods focusing on, i.e: what people say and think, do and use, and know, feel, and dream, different types of knowledge can be accessed. Such knowledge ranges from explicit and easily accessible information to tacit and latent depictions of what people know, feel, or dream, which can sometimes be more difficult to access using standard methods, and hence involving a generative session involving making as a technique, as toolkits for expression, is useful (Sanders & Stappers, 2020). Making as a technique shares similarities to the concept behind probes, and this paper positions these two concepts in line with each other, believing that the expected outcome from generative sessions can be – dependent on the framing –similar in a probe; informing about deeper layers of knowledge.

According to Sanders and Stappers (2020), there has been increased focus on people as users of not only products but also environments; they refer to it as “design research” (Sanders & Stappers, 2020, p. 18). They describe the relationships between different design research concepts, and design probes are placed as strongly design-led and participatory, where participants are co-creators; i.e., they have a large degree of ownership or control.

Play probes are similar to design probes, as the participants are intended to have control over how, when, and what they chose to share. This paper expects play triggers to require voluntary participation and the possibility to disrupt the activities in some degree, e.g. a small bag with different materials are present in the probe, which have no clear purpose. The bags are labeled “materials that you might use”, inviting the users to go outside the materials and framing in each activity. It is believed that handing over control to young participants will have a positive influence of their approach to the play probe

2.4 Youth, play, and probes as a foundation

The play probe approach we present in this paper aims to motivate young people to participate in activities that activate different levels of knowledge (Sanders & Stappers, 2020) by involving written words through e.g., a pamphlet with pages for writing diary (Carter & Mankoff, 2005), expressions through generative tasks with different materials (Gaver et al., 1999; Sanders & Stappers, 2020), and play elements as triggers for motivation (Sturm et al., 2011). The probes are set to be interacted with at home to provide ownership to the participants (Gaver et al., 1998) and followed up on in interviews (Mattelmäki, 2006). The activities are inspired by play types (Legaard, 2018; Sturm et al., 2011) and other probes (Carter & Mankoff, 2005; Gaver et al., 1998; Mattelmäki, 2006) to access different levels of knowledge (Sanders & Stappers, 2020). To determine whether the approach to developing play probes is suitable for the target group, an iterative process was implemented.

3. Research method

The play probes were developed over an extended period, with three tests as the main basis for further development. The methods applied for data gathering, the process, and the analysis are presented below.

3.1

Data gathering

Based on the aforementioned theories on play, young people, and probes, an initial test was conducted with four participants to determine whether the concept of play probes would be suitable for the target group. The participants’ ages ranged from 14 to 17 years old. The first test was followed up on with semi-structured interviews, which were transcribed and used to further develop the play probes (Sharp et al., 2010).

The second test was conducted with students from three ninth-grade classes at a public school in Denmark. To develop the play probe, changes were made according to the feedback and results from the first test, which are discussed in more detail in Section 4.2. There were 60 pupils, and all of them were given a version of the play probe. They were asked to open the play probes at home, and it was clearly stated that participation was completely voluntary; i.e., at any point they could stop participating. After three weeks, 54

probes were returned, either completely filled out or interacted with to a degree that still made analysis possible. The test should have been followed up on with interviews, but due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this was impossible. Instead, interviews with the teachers responsible for the classes were conducted to discover the young people’s experiences from the teachers’ perspectives, during the time the participants had the probes.

Interviews with a number of professionals who work with young people were arranged. For these interviews, nine probes were introduced. The nine probes were chosen to represent as broad a range of results and approaches to the play probe as possible. The professionals consisted of a teacher who knew the participants beforehand, a teacher with no prior knowledge about the participants, a social worker from a municipality, and a doctor and researcher focusing on mental health among young people.

The last test was conducted with a new class: a tenth-grade class at a different public school in Denmark. In total, 17 probes were distributed with similar instructions to those in the previous test. After three weeks, 13 probes were returned, either completely filled out or interacted with to a degree that still made analysis possible. Since the COVID-19 pandemic was still a limiting factor, instead of interviews, individual questionnaires with images from their specific probes, open questions pertaining to their probes, and space for reflections or feedback were distributed to the participants who had filled out the probes.

3.2 Iterative design-based action research

The process is iterative and focus on actively exploring what the different versions of the play probes might entail. This is similar to action research, in which, according to Sanders

Figure from of probes being pupils

Play Probe: an approach that reveals emergent identity building in youth and Stappers (2020, p. 29), “a key element of the approach is an iterative sequence of interventions in work practice, and learning from this by critical reflection.” It follows a type of intervention experiment in which participants try out new user-centered methods. This type of intervention experiment and series of tests is related to Schön’s (1983) notion of exploratory experiments, in which an action is undertaken only to see what follows, and move-testing experiments, in which there is an end in mind. Schön’s reflection-on-action is used as a reflexive way of presenting the test, by reflection after each test, in relation to future changes and development

3.3

Ethics

Since the two main tests were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, considerations and changes had to be made to ensure the safety of everyone involved. This influenced the original plans for the research, but since the probes were to be filled out in the participants’ homes either way, the data retrieved from the two main tests should still apply.

3.4

Analysis

Mattelmäki (2006) argues that there is not one clear approach to analyzing a probe. However, applying analytic methods from different areas can be useful. The approach chosen, is based on the need for dealing with different types of data and with no prior structure existing, as the data can be ambiguous and requires an open mind during analysis (Gaver et al., 1999). The data were logged and gone through without a predefined scheme. The data were then structured according to what arose from thematizing the probe-content (Jordan & Hendersson, 1995). Examples of themes are: family, relations and identity. Other themes occurred as well. They were defined, by categorizing words and sentences from the probes.

4.A series of tests to improve the design of the play probe

In this section, we analyze the interactions and outcomes of each test and the interview with professionals, with a focus on what elements lead to what in the probe and what could be removed, adjusted, and replaced in the next version of the play probe.

4.1 The design of the play probe

A probe as a method, has a constrained format, both in the time one can expect that the participants will invest in it, on the framing to ensure a result that can be used for the intended purpose, as it has to be formulated as open questions, while still having specific foci, and that a probe often is something people should fill out alone or with few selected others. This could arguably conflict with the concept of play, and we acknowledge that the play probe did not encourage play in its pure form. However, playful elements are emphasized and implemented as triggers for fun, to provide participants with an enjoyable

experience. The following play types were in focus: construction play, fantasy play, and (later on) game play (Legaard, 2018). These were chosen due to the aforementioned constraints on the probes, and the play triggers were explored through these types in relation to what works well with young people and probes. Play was also in focus, when defining the activities, choosing materials, when adding the small bag with extra materials and in the memory-based activities. Though many of the activities share similarities with other probeactivities, they are formulated and designed with play in focus, and that makes the main difference; that play was in focus all through. To give an example, the wooden construction was chosen firstly based on an intention to use construction- and fantasy-play. The materials (different pieces of wood), where used with inspiration from e.g., Fröebels gifts (Provenzo, 2009), the framing of the activity was tested with different formulations: one focused on playful activities, this did not work well, another focused on hobbies and worked better. This informed about the importance on not using play explicitly, but instead to make an attempt, to tap into the young people’s current world and use words from there, has a better effect

As young people are not typically associated with playing (Mouritsen, 1998), dealing with play and young people through the play probe, requires careful attention to the decisions made for the playful activities and how the probe is introduced. The play types chosen are intended not to require too much from the participants, as the probes should be experienced as enjoyable safe spaces. Therefore, there are no tasks asking the participants to play out something or set up play activities. Instead, elements from the different play types are incorporated into many of the tasks to varying degrees, such as constructing a character or coming up with a narrative. Hence containing playful triggers based on play to achieve a sense of enjoyment when participating (Youell, 2008). For this reason, participation was emphasized as being voluntary, as there is a greater chance of feeling enjoyment when participation is based on intrinsic motivation, which can only exist when people are free to do what they feel (Hektner & Csikzentmihalyi, 1996). Both in the tasks and in the presentation of the probe, the word play is almost non-existent, only being present when directly related to childhood memories, which some tasks surrounds. This approach was chosen, as play is something from which young people tend to distance themselves (Mouritsen, 1998), and hence looking back at childhood memories about playing, might be a safer way to explore play and guide the participants toward a certain mindset. The playful approach was also inspired by Sturm et al. (2011), who implemented play triggers to encourage physical activity in young people, as opposed to encouraging the actual desired behavior, physical activity, directly.

Table 1: Examples of tasks in the probes

4.2 Test situation 1

Tasks involving silk clay reminded the participants of early childhood, and three out of the four enjoyed these types of tasks. The last participant explained that he did not feel capable of creating something good and therefore did not interact with the silk clay; however, he did the activity by creating a story about a shape-changing hero called slime-girl (see Figure 2) who could change into any form. He therefore found a way to deal with the perceived obstacle by focusing on fantasy play. This, he explained, was fun, as it challenged him in an

Figure 2: Probe from the first test, including "slime-girl" in the right bottom corner

They all found the playground map easy to do and fun to think about, and it was one of the first things they all did. A selection of different decoration activities was present, but the participants all felt that these were too difficult to approach. Small notebooks with tasks written inside, similar to diaries, but with an emphasis on specific topics, such as frustrations, motivations, etc., were also included in the probes. The participants all worked on these, but twice the notebooks were described as a bit intimidating due to the number of pages and their size. None of the participants did the digital activity that involved their phones. When asked about it during the interview, they could not answer why they avoided the activity, except for one participant, who felt that the phone was such an incooperated part of his day, taking pictures with it and sending it to a number or email felt boring, and the activity itself took less effort than the part where he had to send it.

Table 2: Findings from the first test

4.3 Test situation 2

Due to the large number of participants (n = 60), exploring what framing and different words in the probes would encourage or influence was tested. For example, three different foci for the silk clay activity were tested; they were asked to either create a monster, a hero, or an animal-like creature that told something about themselves.

The positively toward the probes during often came to the teachers with comments and reflections, and many the participants highlighted an increased interaction with their families based on ,” and they talked to peers during day about the probes

Table 3: Findings from the second test

Second test: Reflection-on-action

In the probes, the following could be seen:

• The clay construction worked well, and almost all the participants who had this activity did it. The same goes for some of the “Build it” activities, especially those with different materials present, in contrast to those with only one type of material—in this case matchsticks.

• Yet again, the decoration activity, in this case, “Your Bird House,” did not work. Some left it untouched, while in other cases a few drawings or stickers were put on the birdhouses, and then it was left. No descriptions were written.

• The digital activity “Use Your Phone” had few respondents, and no one described the ideas behind the pictures they took.

• The “Images of a Week” activity involving a disposable camera was used in all but one case, and the number of images ranged from 5 to 27 for each participant. They shared images of their rooms, friends, and other things that were important to them, such as pets or trophies.

Figure

• A “Dream Job Bag” activity where they should use materials, to inform about their dream job, was interacted with to some degree, including the version in which they had to choose between materials and the one with a drawn bag they had to fill out. But the descriptions often tended to be superficial and uninformative.

• For the “Two Spheres” activity, including a physical element clearly increased interaction and the level of shared information, compared to participants who has the same task but with a list to write on.

• A “Social Lego” activity, which was a light activity where they should build together with someone else, had a high rate of interaction, and the participants seemed to enjoy it; however, the constructions made did not contain any clear information about the participants; they were just creations.

• The “Playground Map” and “Five Things on an Island” tasks both worked fine as warmup activities. Many participants wrote in their pamphlets that they chose one of these or both as the first activities they did, and they provided some information about their values and memories.

4.4 Interviews

All the professionals emphasized the level of information shared and the seriousness with which the participants had approached it. The teachers expected, especially the male participants, to make fun of the activities and fill them out with jokes, etc. They also stated their surprise about what the participants shared through their Silk-clay and wooden constructions. Compared to the rest of the tasks, the creations and supplemental descriptions (see Table 1 for an overview over the main activities) offered different perspectives on the individuals who made them, as they tended to share deep reflections on various aspects of their lives.

All the professionals reflected on how the play probe could benefit their specific work with young people: for the social worker as conversation tool, for the researcher and doctor as a different way to get young people to open up when gathering data about them, and for the teachers as a different approach to getting the young people to reflect on topics such as the future or well-being.

4.5 Test situation 3

The probes were created based on lessons from the previous two tests. The decoration activities were phased out due to their limited results. The Two Spheres, Silk-Clay, Playground Map, Five Things to Bring on an Island, and disposable camera tasks, were left unchanged. For the Construction activities with wood (see Table 1 for an overview over the main activities), a greater diversity in the shapes, sizes, and forms was included to give the

participants more freedom of expression One new “warm up” activity was implemented. It was based on the rich pictures (Sanders & Stappers, 2020) idea, where different half-finished sentences are presented, and participants are prompted to finish them (e.g., “I feel happy, when…”). An activity combining physical movement and the game mechanic search quest (Spierling, Kampa, & Stöbener, 2016) was also added; it was inspired by Carter and Mankoff (2005) and their festival tokens and changed to fit the context of the play probes. Here, the participants were given a small bag, asked to take a walk in their neighborhood, and find different items that expressed something about themselves, their homes, or their childhood. The hope was to discover how physical movement would influence an activity for this target group.

A last attempt to frame the digital activity differently based on the two earlier tests was made. This time, the activity was only framed around the participants’ own rooms, as the few who did this activity in the previous test all focused on their own rooms. Three out of 13 participants did this activity, but they did not describe it.

Figure 4: A boy using the "Take a walk" activity to describe his relationship with his brothers

Table 4: Findings from the third test

5. Current version and first findings

In summary, the following lessons are based on the iterative process of developing play probes for young people; however, it should be emphasized that many other approaches could have been taken, both in terms of the materials chosen and the types of activities. Based on the different versions and test situations, the findings suggested which materials and types of activities work well and which do not. For example, we found that involving their phones can be challenging, and young people might not be open to it This might depend on the way they are supposed to share their work and the novelty of a task, as they responded to using a disposable camera with enthusiasm. Tasks that move from a focus on construction to fantasy by creating a backstory worked well across all rounds of tests and formulations. The young people expressed enjoyment while doing these tasks and generally stated, the tasks, being experienced as fun. The results from these activities also tended to indicate deeper levels of reflection from the participants, showing details about them related to tacit and latent levels of knowledge (Sanders & Stappers, 2020). However, the materials should be flexible to reach the diversity in how young people prefer to express themselves.

Figure 5: Two creations showing (on the left) a girl describing her quirkiness and strength through her creation and (on the right) a boy describing that he sometimes is a bit lazy but on other occasions very energetic through the creation of a frog-man.

Tasks that involved a combination of construction and narrative tasks provided deeper insights than other tasks. Although some young people express a degree of resentment toward written tasks in general, they tended to fill out quite a bit of information in the pamphlets and other written tasks. The highest degree of interaction occurred in tasks that combined a material element, such as the construction or Two Spheres activities, with written elements.

The introduction of how to interact with the probe is important to consider. Based on the tests, ensuring that participation is voluntary and open to the young people’s preferences and approaches positively influences the level of participation. Although this introduces more uncertainty and gives researchers less control, the young people tended to have positive attitudes toward the probes and took them seriously when filling them out, while still expressing enjoyment in the process.

5.1 Further research

A deeper analysis of the play probe process and questionnaire responses from the last test session are needed. Further exploration of how to strengthen the play triggers and new directions for play types could be beneficial, as this study only focused on some play types as triggers. For example, exploring parody and dark play (Karoff, 2013) or the effects of a concept such as provotyping (Boer, 2011) as a task might interest young people and therefore could be appropriate next steps for research on this specific target group.

6. References

Amit, V. (2001). The study of youth culture: Why it’s marginal but doesn’t need to be so. Journal of the Europeanist

Boer, L. (2011). Participation provocation? Participatory Innovation Conference, 2011, Track 1: Making design an analysing interaction.

Carter, S. & Mankoff, J. (2005). When participants do the capturing: The role of media in diary studies. Proceedings of the 2005 conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI. USA.

Christiansen, L. G. & Gudiksen, S. K. (2021). Play probes: understanding young people through playful expressions. Conference proceedings of DRS: LearnXDesign, China

Christiansen, L. G. (2022). Meaningful Participation – motivation young people’s participation through play probes BUKS Journal 66

Deci, E. L., Koestner R., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in education: Reconsidered once again. Review of Educational Research, 71(1), pp. 1–27.

Duncan, R. E., Drew, S. E., Hodgson, J., & Sawyer, S. N. (2009). Is my mum going to hear this? Methodological and ethical challenges in qualitative health research with young people. Social Medicine, 69, pp. 1691–1699.

Gaver, B., Dunne, T., & Pacenti, E. (1999). Design: Cultural probes. Interaction, 6(1), pp. 21–29.

Jordan, B. & Hendersson, A. (1995). Interaction Analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of Learning Science, 4(1), pp. 39-103.

Hektner, J. M. & Csikzentmihalyi, M. (1996). A longitudinal exploration of flow and intrinsic motivation in adolescents. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association, ERIC, New York.

Huizinga, J. (1955). Homo Ludens: A study of the play element in culture. Beacon

Karoff, H. S. (2013). Play practices and play moods. International Journal of Play, 2(2), pp. 76–86.

Kjeldgaard, D., & Askegaard, S. (2006). The glocalization of youth culture: the global youth segment as structures of common differences. Journal of consumer research, 33(2), pp. 231-247

Legaard, J. (2018). The road to happiness is paved with playful interventions. Proceedings DSR, 6, pp. 2572–2586.

Legaard, J. (2020). Designing aesthetics for play(fulness). NordDesign, Denmark

Mattelmäki, T. (2006). Design Probes. University of Arts and Design, Helsinki.

Mouritsen, F. (1998). Child culture-play culture. DK: Odense University Printing Office.

Provenzo, E. F. (2009). Friedrich Fröebel’s gifts: Connecting the spiritual and aesthetic to the real world of play and learning. American Journal of Play, pp. 85-99

Sanders, E. B. N., & Stappers, P. J. (2020). The convivial toolbox. BIS Publisher, The Netherlands Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books, US Sharp, H., Rogers, Y., & Preece, J. (2010). Interaction design, beyond human–computer interaction. Wiley, US

Simonsen, B. (2003). Ungdomsbegrebet/Perspektiver på ungdom og krop CEFU, Denmark

Play Probe: an approach that reveals emergent identity building in youth

Spierling, U., Kampa, A., & Stöbener, K. (2016). Magic equipment: Integrating digital narrative and interaction design in an augmented reality quest. ICCCS, 16, pp. 56-61

Sturm, J., Tieben, A., Deen, M., Bekker, T., & Schouten, BAM. (2011). Playfit: Designing playful activity interventions for teenagers. Proceedings of DiGRA Conference, Netherlands

Sutton-Smith, B. (1997). The ambiguity of play. Harvard University Press, England.

Tassy, A., Nielsen, M. B., & Jakobsen, D. T. (2018). IT-anvendelse i befolkningen, 2018. Danmarks Statistik. Retrieved Nov. 12th 2021, at: www.dst.dk/Publ/ItBefolkning

Youell, B. (2008). The importance of play and playfulness. The European Journal of Psychotherapy and Counselling, 10(2), pp. 121–129.

About the Authors:

Line Gad Christiansen moves in the space between play, motivation and children and young people. She currently works on a PhD defining and refining the play probes, but has also worked on e.g., how to implement play in learning situations for young people

Sune Klok Gudiksen is Associate Professor at Design School Kolding, Denmark. He has worked for over 10 years with co-design in a variety of domains and organizational contexts. He has published a number of books, articles and papers within the subject.

Line Gad Christiansen

Meaningful Participation – Motivating young people’s participation through play probes

Abstract

This paper explores the use of playful triggers when doing research with young people 14-17 years old, with the aim of providing a meaningful and mutual outcome, where both participants and the researchers gains value, this is done through Play Probes. As there seem to be a challenge when doing research with young people (Duncan, Drew, Hodgson & Sawyer, 2009) and there is a general agreement that young people are going through a complex period in their life (Kjeldgaard & Askegaard, 2006; Amit, 2001; Simonsen, 2003), this paper presents a take on how to provide a safe space for expression, for young people, that through playful triggers in the probe activities can intrinsically motivate young people to participate (Hektner and Csikzentmihalyi, 1996). 54 play probes have been filled out by young people from a Danish public school, and based on this, there are indications that the play probes can evoke motivation for participation, while also providing information to the researcher.

Keywords young people; play; probes; motivation; participation

Line Gad Christiansen

Introduction

BUKS #66/2022

Tidsskrift for Børne- & Ungdomskultur

A focus on involving young people in design-processes has increased recent years (Iversen & Hansen, 2013), this happens through approaches such as participatory design, interaction design and similar. However, when working with young people, spoken and written words tend to be the main – if not only – communication form, in the everyday work-life involving young people (Social worker, Municipality, Denmark). In research using interviews, questionnaires etc. it seems that this might not always be the optimal way of learning about young people’s lives (Duncan, Drew, Hodgson & Sawyer, 2009). In this research, there is an indication that young people also seem to be more inspired and willing to share, when involving different opportunities for expressing themselves, which is supported by a doctor and researcher focusing on young people’s mental health, stating that there is a discrepancy between what can be seen from the statistics showing the rates of young people with e.g. anxiety, and what the young people chose to share when involved in research or being asked (Doctor and researcher, Social Science, University, Denmark).

This paper presents a method aimed at young people 14-17 years old; Play Probes. The research puts emphasis on that the outcome should go both ways; not only should the person setting up the research get an outcome, but the young people should as well. A focus on play and design was hence chosen due to their attributes:

Design was chosen due to the diverse methods and use of materials, one example is the Say, Do and Make tools and techniques (Sanders & Stappers, 2020), where the research, dependent on the aimed knowledge, could benefit from different types of methods. Interviews tends to inform about the surface of a person; what they say and think, shared explicit. Whereas generative sessions involving materials and a process of making (something), tends to open up for more in-depth knowledge about a person, such as what they feel and dream.

Figure 1: Methods of »Say, Make and Do«. Sanders & Stappers, 2020, p. 67.

As previously stated, young people are often met with spoken and written words in research, but not as often with »Make«, and hence exploring this category through Generative Sessions (Sanders & Stappers, 2020) – for the play probes, generative expression forms, might be valuable to explore combined with play.

Play can be defined and presented in many different ways, however there seem to be a general agreement that play can benefit the one playing, both short-term and more longitudinal (Sutton-Smith, 1997), e.g., there are indications towards a link between play,

Line Gad Christiansen

BUKS #66/2022

Tidsskrift for Børne- & Ungdomskultur

enjoyment and the ability to cope with obstacles, such as difficulties in school (Sutton-Smith, 1997). Huizinga (1955) argues that play can be seen as the area where exploration of the real world can happen, but in a mutual and safe way, e.g., fighting as play. Extrapolating on this, play – or at least playful elements (Sturm, Tieben, Deen, Bekker and Schouten, 2011), could create a space where the participants, if met with appropriate playful triggers, will feel a sense of enjoyment and through that an increased motivation for participating. This paper positions in line with this suggestion, as the purpose is to provide an enjoyable experience during which, young people feel safe to express themselves, while also opening up for more in-depth perspectives for those conducting the research.

Thus, the emphasis is on providing young people different forms of expression when participating in research, through the play probes. It searches to open up for young people’s perspectives, and accommodate for their individual preferences of expression, while also enabling a sense of enjoyment for the participants, through playful triggers. Therefore, this paper searches to answer the following:

• In what way can generative forms of expression make the participation meaningful for both the participant and recipient of data, when doing research with young people?

• How can playful triggers be used, when doing research with young people?

The complex Youth

During the transition from child to adult, it is generally acknowledged that the teenage-year people go through, is highly complex and influenced by many different factors (Simonsen, 2003), such as school, family, friends but also expectations and prejudice from the society, media and community (Amit, 2001). When focusing on young people in research, Duncan et al. (2009) argue that this target-group is more complex to work with than others, as they are in a complex cross-field, both internal and external. Kjeldgaard & Askegaard (2006, p.232) support the external complexity, as they state:

»Youth is thought to constitute an in-process identity that is enacted at the individual level… as well as at a cultural level… on the one hand, marketers praised the continuously innovating youth culture as an engine for market expansion and profits; on the other hand, public policy makers and moral watchdogs condemned youth cultural practices as threats to the social order or problematized youth as a vulnerable population desperately in need of adult stewardship«. (Kjeldgaard & Askegaard, 2006, p.232).

Amit (2001) supports this, by stating that youth culture is not merely something that depends on the youth alone, but also the operation in wider networks across ages and statuses. Hence the culture of youths, are both something influenced internally, externally, locally and globally. The target group for this research, are between 14 and 17 years old, as the emphasis is on the group of young people who are still, in Denmark, following the public school-program, but are soon to get more autonomy regarding their future choices, relating to education, accommodation, friends etc. As there are indications that getting young people to share in-depth knowledge about feelings, dreams, etc. (Sanders & Stappers, 2020), can be a challenge (Duncan et. al, 2009), and this age-group being complex in different levels

Line Gad Christiansen

BUKS #66/2022

Tidsskrift for Børne- & Ungdomskultur

(Kjeldgaard & Askegaard, 2006; Amit, 2001; Simonsen, 2003), enabling them to express themselves through a making-process could, as previously stated, be beneficial. Additionally, by using elements from play to trigger enjoyment and motivation this process could then also be of value for the participants and even encourage them to stay within the process for a longer time.

Hektner and Csikzentmihalyi (1996) argue that people can be considered intrinsically motivated if they are free to do what they want, simply due to them enjoying it, rather than being pressured into doing it. They (Hektner & Csikzentmihalyi, 1996) further state that a benefit of young people being intrinsically motivated, are the experiences of both enjoyment and a more positive self-esteem, and explain that: »A key dimension of intrinsic motivation is interest, a positive affect that occurs in the interaction between a person and an activity«. (Hektner & Csikzentmihalyi, 1996, p. 4). Interest demands for need, desire and capabilities to be met in an appropriate degree, which can be achieved through novelty and optimal challenge (Hektner & Csikzentmihalyi, 1996). Hektner & Csikzentmihalyi (1996) also found that when researching intrinsic motivation for young people in 7th to 10th grade in the US, the young people devoted more time to something when feeling intrinsically motivated.

Sturm et al. (2011) used playful persuasion through playful mechanisms, to encourage physical activity for teenagers, but with the motivational factor aimed at it being fun, not because it was good for them: The health benefits came secondary in the experience, though it was the overall purpose. This research positions in line with both Sturm et.al (2011) and Hektner and Csikzentmihalyi (1996), as the young people should be motivated to interact with the probes because it is fun, more than because of the research. The play probes should therefore have content with different types of challenges, while also incorporating aspects of novelty, in order to enable intrinsic motivation within the young people, both for them to engage in the probes and hence provide stronger data to the recipient, but also letting the young people enjoy their interaction with the activities. Therefore, a focus on playful triggers as the motivation for participation was chosen for the play probes.

Play and young people

Mouritsen (1998) argues that play is perceived as something just for children: »This does not mean that adults do not or cannot. They can and do – more than we are normally aware. But it means that the way the concept of adulthood is constructed in our culture does not involve play as a project, as meaning-bearing in adult life. Other values take priority. Here adulthood is contrasted with childhood, when play is seen as a primary medium and project for the children«. (Mouritsen, 1998, p. 13). This can perhaps explain the ambiguity of young people and play, when talking to young people, the word play is almost non-existing, though during the research for this paper, spending just a few moments with young people in their context such as free time at school, playful moments occurred on a regular basis, e.g: teasing each other, coming up with dance-moves, playing »tick« or jumping upon each other’s backs and running around. If play is generally perceived as something that is a project of children (Mouritsen, 1998), then young people might feel a need to distance themselves from that, in relation to them distancing themselves increasingly from being a child, and hence the resistance towards play might be more culturally based than based on whether or not they actually play, as in the case of adults.

Line Gad Christiansen

From probes to play probes

BUKS #66/2022

Tidsskrift for Børne- & Ungdomskultur

Probes have first been presented in the research of Gaver, Dunne & Pacenti (1999) as a way to evoke inspiration for designers, through different activities done by participants in their own homes, such a probe-kit could include postcards to fill out, disposable cameras with an assignment or even a diary with a specific framing (Carter & Mankoff, 2005). The play probe is inspired by this concept, but also applies aspects from newer-defined probes such as design probes (Mattelmäki, 2006), where the probes are used more directly in analysis and as a part of a larger data-gathering, e.g., interviews. While the design probes are used to influence a design-process and the cultural probes are aimed at inspiration for designers, the play probes have a different intention. Here the participants’ shared information is the »product« either on its own or combined with e.g., interviews. Thus, the play probes take inspiration from both the cultural probes (Gaver, Dunne & Pacenti, 1999) and the design probes (Mattelmäki, 2006), and in terms of activities, it contains different types of diaries through either photo, words or visuals (Carter & Mankoff, 2005). But the play probes are with play in focus, in how the activities are framed.

While the play probes, in their nature, have a constricted framing, they are still designed towards certain play types. The play probes contain activities with playful elements as triggers. These are based on construction-play, fantasy-play, game-play and/or physical-play (Legaard, 2018), together with tasks based on childhood memories on play and supported by descriptive materials, such as diaries. The memory-based play activities are often used as the easy accessible activities, enabling the participants to quickly getting a feeling of achievement. Whereas some of the activities involving playful triggers, require more effort from the participants, which is in line with the approach from Gaver, Dunne and Pacenti’s (1999) cultural probes, where they implement both time- and focus-demanding activities and the activities that are easy and quick to do.

of something important to them, in this case friends.

Figure 2: Two images of content from the play probes. Left: a map of a playground. The participants are asked to map those activities to current activities. Right: An example of creations. The participants were asked create a representation

Line Gad Christiansen

From construction to fantasy

BUKS #66/2022

Tidsskrift for Børne- & Ungdomskultur

One example on how the activities are designed, is presented below together with some of the underlying research.

Through play, it is possible to separate from the real world, while still dealing with or creating an explanation of a (real) situation, which makes play a space that gives an opportunity for safe exploration of something that might else not have been conceived as safe, e.g., animals biting each other in play to learn about something that later in life might be a matter of life and dead (Karoff, 2013; Sutton-Smith, 1997) or, for the play probes, to open up to something that might be difficult to talk about for the participants, in a way that gives the participants control over how and what they choose to share, thus creating a safe space for expressions.

Legaard (2020) who deals with aesthetics affording different types of play, such as the four types mentioned in the previous section, states that when involving in play forms within construction, if at one point the playful practitioner during construction-play has a certain imaginary space in mind, that they are building towards, the gap between the imaginary world and the real world starts diminishing. When that happens, there is a chance for a degree of what he calls »…investigative storytelling«: meaning that an exploration of what story the playful practitioner wants to tell, can emerge. This is what is aimed for, in the constructiveactivities within the play probe, as the participants will start out with materials and only a short and open-framed description, telling them which direction to move towards, e.g: »… create and describe a creature that informs something about you«. During the process of making, they are asked to define the back-story of their creation, by giving it a name and specific features or abilities relating to themselves. Through the exploration of the material provided, together with an abstract framing (e.g. using the word creature), the participants hopefully will get ideas about what to create encouraged not only by their reflections and thoughts, but also the sensory experience of the material(s).

The difference compared to other probe-activity might not be visible at first, but in the play probes the emphasis lies upon the framing of the activities with play in mind, both when defining the activities, choices of materials, by providing opportunities for the participant to disrupt the framing (e.g. a small bag with different types of materials with no direct purpose, are present in all the play probes) and in the diversity of the activities.

As stated, probes have some constraints in its own nature, that could arguably conflict with the state of play experienced, which meant that not all types and approaches towards play would be doable, especially considering the target-group and their reluctant perception of play. Therefore, the type of activities is chosen attentive to the intended experience for the participants.

First example of this, is two construction- and fantasy-play activities: one with silk-clay and one with wooden-bricks, where the participants are to create something, e.g., a monster, animal-like creature or object, that informs something about themselves. The participants are to choose what, how and to which degree they interact with the activity, hence they have a high degree of control. When they have made their creation, they can fill out a small note stating different features about their creations, such as a name or title, if there are special features or powers etc. Thus, moving from construction-play over to fantasy-play (Legaard, 2020).

Meaningful Participation

Line Gad Christiansen

BUKS #66/2022

Tidsskrift for Børne- & Ungdomskultur

Another example is a »go and explore« activity, where the participants are given a plastic bag, that they are asked to bring with them. They should then search and find different objects on their trip, that represents somethings about e.g., their home or their childhood, that they are to put in the bag and describe. This activity is based on a combination of the idea of physical-play, the game-play-mechanic »search-quest« (Spierling, Kampa & Stöbener, 2016) and similar probe-activities, e.g., a festival study by Carter and Mankoff (2005), where the participants are to collect items as small tokens during a festival.

Method

A pilot test was designed to explore which types of play activities, resonated best within the young people (Sharp, Rogers & Preece, 2010), and based on that, different probe activities were developed and tested by young people from three 9th grade classes at a school in Denmark.

For the main test, 60 pupils in a public school in Esbjerg, Denmark, were handed probekits containing between five to seven small activities. Each activity was present in 20 probes: Some of the activities had very similar content but with different word-phrasing, while others were based on the same play-type, such as construction-play, but with different materials. 54 probes were handed back either completely or partially filled out, whereas six probes where either not handed back or not interacted with.

There are not a clearly depicted way of analyzing probes, as the analysis of these subjective and aesthetically materials are often in research presented as subjective and ambiguous (Gaver, Dunne & Pacenti, 1999; Mattelmäki, 2006; Carter & Mankoff, 2005). Therefore, the content from the 54 probes, were categorized, summarized and used to find patterns and outliers to discover tendencies. This approach was chosen as it can be used for complex datasets, in this case due to the content being a combination of different types of data (Sharp, Rogers & Preece, 2010; Jordan & Hendersson, 1995). Highlighted themes and tendencies extrapolated from this, are presented under Empirical Findings.

Nine selected probes that represented i.e., seven general probes in terms of what was filled out and gender while also containing different activities and two outliers were the probes in some way indicated a different level of information, were displayed for different professionals chosen due to their work with young people. These were: Different teachers, a social worker (SW) from a municipality, responsible for the division working with young people in need of guidance or help, and a doctor and researcher (DR), researching young people’s mental health. They all work with young people, but on different levels; the teachers meet all types of young people, SW works specifically with young people in need of help and DR focuses on learning about young people and meet them through his research. Based on these presentations, semistructured interviews (Sharp, Rogers & Preece, 2010) with the professionals were conducted. Go to Figure 3 on the next page, to find the nine probes.

Line Gad Christiansen

Tidsskrift for Børne- & Ungdomskultur

3: The nine selected probes, presented for professionals

Empirical findings

As previous stated, 54 out of the 60 probes provided to the participants, were interacted within various degrees when handed back, all of them applicable for further analysis. The participation was emphasized as being voluntary, as the purpose of the test, was to discover how young people would approach the play probe and the activities and materials within the probe. Across the three classes who got the probes handed out, the six who did not participate are evenly spread out, and the same goes when looking at gender.

Feedback from the teachers

During the three weeks, where the participants had the probes, the teachers in their classes responded that the young people often talked to the teachers about the probes. The following two aspects were highlighted from all the teachers, as aspects that many of the young people shared with the teachers across the three classes:

The young people were happy about the probes, as they experienced their families, both parents and siblings, being curious about the probes and in some cases even joining in on the activities in the probe. All the teachers got the impression through the conversations, that the young people longed for more interaction with their families, and the fact that the probes provided a curiosity in the families, supported this desired interaction.

The young people were surprised by the content of the probes, as many of the activities were not similar to what they meet in their everyday-life. Some associated the activities to fun things they did when they were younger, e.g., making their own slime (probably related to the silk-clay). The teachers stated that many of the young people talked about the probes as being

Figure

Meaningful Participation

Line Gad Christiansen

BUKS #66/2022

Tidsskrift for Børne- & Ungdomskultur

»…strange, but also fun« and that the probes often were a topic of conversations between peers, hence in some way evoked an interest or curiosity.

Empirical exploration

When looking upon the findings, different tendencies arose. Some based on the materials and framing of the activities, other tendencies appeared from the information the young people shared in the probes. Both types of tendencies are presented below.

Themes

Different themes arose through the analysis of the probes. For this paper, the relevant themes, are shown below together with just some of the keywords the young people shared in their probes and then presented more in-depth in relation to which tendencies could be extrapolated from the probes:

Figure 4: Some of the themes and their keywords, from the play probes

Relations was often presented as a theme surrounding leisure-time and in connection to friends especially, e.g., often the male participants connected friends to one of the two themes: Exercise and Gaming (which were not emphasized as much for the female participants).

Identity tended to have a deeper level of reflection upon who they are and how they are perceived or how they perceive themselves. One example can be found in Figure 5, from a 15-year-old female who describes that she attempted to create a house, as it represents herself: she describes the house (herself) as inviting and with room for everybody, but also a bit different when you get to know her/get inside the house as it looks different from the outside than on the inside.

Some of the words had a critical nature, using words such a naïve, embarrassed, isolated, being different etc. These words were present, mainly in the probes from females, and in only few incidents, from male participants. Male participants on the other hand, seemed to emphasize words such a strong and loyal. However, they did not use words for being smart or clever, this could be connected to the tendency from the probes, that the males often associated the theme School with words such as tired, boredom and frustration. An example on this, can also be found in Figure 5, a 16-year-old male participant drew his school as something that challenged him, he continued on the following pages by drawing different courses and homework, that too, challenged him.

Meaningful Participation

Line Gad Christiansen

Figure 5: Two probe activities. Left: A house created by a female. Right: A drawing of a school, made by a male participant

For the themes Home and Family, there was a clear tendency that the emphasis was on being together and the sense of belonging and feeling safe, presented in many different forms in the probes. A few incidents were more ambiguous when describing the family, such as »… different on the outside compared to the inside«, where it could be understood in different ways, but held against the rest of the content from that specific probe, with positive aspects of home and family represented there, it indicates a certain direction. There was also a tendency that Home and Family, and the theme Creative had a connection, especially for the female »I like to write poems and sketch, when I’m . Some even supported this by sharing drawings in the probes, see the two

6: Two different girls, who both expressed that they like to be creative, drew as part of their probes

Figure

Meaningful

Participation

Line Gad Christiansen

Technological representation

BUKS #66/2022

Tidsskrift for Børne- & Ungdomskultur

There were only few incidents where their phones were in focus. This can be due to many reasons or a combination thereof, e.g., the materialistic nature of the probes, but it could also be due to their phones being some form of a natural extension of them and hence not perceiving it as an object on its own, as the times where it was present usually was through other mediums, such as TikTok and Youtube or under frustrations during a week, one mentioned that he was missing his charger. This would require a further study into the underlying reason, but it is a surprising outlier from the themes, given the target-group. The computer and/or »gaming« on the other hand, is mentioned regularly in the probes from the male participants, both as something they do on their own and, more often, with their friends.

Play triggers in probes

As previously mentioned, there is a clear tendency that the activities involving creative outlet, evoked a deeper level of reflection and investment of time. This is also evident, if compared to those play probes, that did not contain this type of activities: The general level of involvement in all the probe activities seemed higher, based on the outcome, for those probes that contained one or two construction-based activities, than those which did not.

The same tendency is shown if looking at activities that only had a descriptive nature, e.g., writing a list of things the participants liked to do on their own and with others, compared to the same framed activity involving two spheres that the participants was intended to fill with the information. If the goal is to get the young people to share as much as possible, there is a clear tendency, across gender, that involving a physical element, evoked a higher degree

Figure 7: An example of a creation from a play probe, made with silkclay

Meaningful Participation

Line Gad Christiansen

BUKS #66/2022

Tidsskrift for Børne- & Ungdomskultur

of data, based on comparison between these two types of activities. See Figure 8, for two examples of this activity with and without spheres.

One of the activities involving construction, was different. Twenty of the participants were presented of an activity, that involved wooden pieces, glue etc. The activity had different types of framing, all aimed at representing aspects of the young person’s life or personality, or something important for them. Different wooden materials were tested for this, some with only one type of piece (matchsticks) and some with different forms and sizes (small bricks, balls etc.). In the case of the activity with matchsticks, it could be seen that all participants had attempted to create something, but with only two exceptions, where the participants chose to involve other materials from different activities, all the others did not complete this. It seemed that the materials where too difficult to deal with and hence, though clearly an attempt was made to create something, no information could be extrapolated from these cases. This is in line with Csikzentmihalyi (1996), who argue that there must be a correlation between challenge and competences, as the materials chosen, seemed to influence whether or not the participants could succeed in this activity.

Are the probes providing a safe space?

Based on the interviews with teachers, both some who knew the participants and one who did not, they all expressed surprise about the level of involvement from the young people in the classes. That 54 out of the 60, actually participated though it was emphasized that it was voluntary, and that even the male participants filled out the probes without making a mock out of it, was not expected from their side. In the contents from the probes, many of the participants chose to share reflections about themselves, that both contained involvement

Figure 8: Two versions of the same activity. Left: Written as a list. Right: Put into spheres

Line Gad Christiansen

BUKS #66/2022

Tidsskrift for Børne- & Ungdomskultur

and vulnerability, which in some degree indicates that the probes, did create some version of a safe space for them to express something about themselves.

Considerations for the future

One thing missing, is the interviews with the participants. To ensure that the play probes, are doing what they were intended to do; creating a safe space for expression, while also providing meaning for the participants, the study would benefit from the voice of the young people being emphasized more. However, as this is a part of a larger study, and the test took place during Covid-19, it was not possible to conduct interviews with the participants at this point.

An element that could be considered in implementing, is the use of parody: »Parody offers a safe space in which flirting with what students know to be politically incorrect is sanctioned«. (Duncum, 2009, p. 237). Looking at parody from the perspective of play practices, it creates a space for exploring elements of the play practice exceeding, where boundaries can be pushed while still expressing something valuable (Karoff, 2013).

Conclusion

There are clear indications towards benefits from rethinking research with young people: involving playful triggers in a probe to encourage intrinsic motivation and fun (Sturm et.al., 2011; Hektner and Csikzentmihalyi, 1996) seem to contain possibilities. The play probes show tendencies towards creating a meaningful experience for the young people, as they indicate having a desire to interact with it and that they enjoyed the participation, at least some of it, this could also be seen in the number of participants though it being a voluntary activity presented through their school. Even their teachers did not expect, for one that so many chose to participate and secondly that they did so, in an honest way – the teachers revealed that they were concerned that some of the participants would respond in silly or even inappropriate ways, but no one did. The majority of participants even decided to share more intimate details about themselves, such as feeling different and how being under pressure, could lead to losing some of oneself (as the lizard loses its tail).

Based on both the number of participants, the information they shared and the reactions observed by the teachers, it seems that the participants actually, to some degree, enjoyed participating. Follow-up interviews are however necessary to be able to distinguish what worked well and did not work as well within the play probes, which will be a future study based on the findings presented in this paper. When presenting the content of the filled-out play probes to professionals working with young people, they all responded positive towards seeing the potential they could get out of the method, and hence the play probes seem to create a space where both involved parties can get something out of the method.

Meaningful Participation

Line Gad Christiansen

References

BUKS #66/2022

Tidsskrift for Børne- & Ungdomskultur

Amit, V. (2001). The study of youth culture: why it’s marginal but doesn’t need to be so. Journal of the Europeanist

Carter, S. and Mankoff, J. (2005). When participants do the capturing: the role of media in diary studies. Proceedings of the 2005 conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI. USA.

Christiansen, L. G. and Gudiksen, S. K. (2021). Play probes: understanding young people through playful expressions. Conference proceedings of DRS: LearnXDesign, China

Hektner, J. M. and Csikzentmihalyi, M. (1996). A longitudinal exploration of flow and intrinsic motivation in adolescents. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association, ERIC, New York

Deci, E. L., Koestner R., and Ryan, R. M. (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in education: reconsidered once again. Review of Educational Research, 71(1), p.1-27.

Duncan, R.E., Drew, S.E., Hodgson, J. and Sawyer, S. N. (2009). Is my mum going to hear this? Methodological and ethical challenges in qualitative health research with young people. Social Medicine. 69, p.1691-1699.

Dzidowski, A. (2016). Form follows fun: the workspace as a playground. 4th international biennial of interior design, INAW2016

Gaver, B., Dunne, T. and Pacenti, E. (1999). Design: cultural probes. Interaction. 6(1), p.2129.

Jordan, B. & Hendersson, A. (1995). Interaction Analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of Learning Science, 4(1), pp. 39-103.

Karoff, H. S. (2013). Play practices and play moods. International Journal of Play 2(2), p. 76-86

Kjeldgaard & Askegaard (2006). The glocalization of youth culture: the global youth segment as structures of common differences. Journal of consumer research

Legaard, J. 2018. The road to happiness is paved with playful interventions. Proceedings DSR. 6, pp.2572-2586.

Legaard, J. (2020). Designing aesthetics for play(fulness). NordDesign, Denmark

Mattelmäki, T. 2006. Design Probes. Publication Series of the University of Arts and Design. Helsinki.

Mouritsen, F. 1998. Child culture-play culture. DK: Odense University Printing Office.

Sanders, E. B. N., & Stappers, P. J. (2020). The convivial toolbox. BIS Publisher, The Netherlands

Sharp, H., Rogers, Y., & Preece, J. (2010). Interaction design, beyond human–computer interaction. Wiley, US

Simonsen, B. (2003). Ungdomsbegrebet/Perspektiver på ungdom og krop. CEFU, Denmark

Skovlund, C.W., Wessing, L.V., Mørch, L.S. and Lidegaard, Ø. (2017). Increase in depression diagnoses and prescribed antidepressants among young girls. A national cohort study 20002013. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry.

Spierling, Kampa & Stöbener, (2016). Magic Equipment: Integrating digital narrative and interaction design in an augmented reality quest. ICCCS ´16

Sturm, Tieben, Deen, Bekker and Schouten (2011). Playfit: designing playful activity interventions for teenagers. DiGRA Conference

Sutton-Smith, B. (1997). The ambiguity of play. Harvard University Press, England.

Meaningful Participation

Line Gad Christiansen

Biography

BUKS #66/2022

Tidsskrift for Børne- & Ungdomskultur

Line Gad Christiansen is a PhD-fellow at the Designschool in Kolding, at the laboratory Design for Play. At Design for Play, she has among others worked with teachers from public schools and high school, in how to use design and play in teaching, and with companies working with children and young people, in how to include the users, more specifically children and young people, in a design-process. In her PhD she is exploring the use of play triggers and materiality when working with young people, by developing play probes to gain insights to young people. This paper is a part of the underlying research for the PhD. She has a background from Aalborg University surrounding interaction design and user experience, with a special focus on young people and children, both with and without special prerequisites, touching upon topics such as motivation, learning and play.

CROSS COMPARISON AND DISCUSSION

Following the three presented articles, I take a deeper look at their insights as a basis on which to unfold the results. My hope is to open up the many layers of analysis and discuss of some of this work’s main findings. Accordingly, in this chapter, I discuss different aspects from the full study.

I perceive the current state of the probes as a method that can be useful, assuming that those who decide to apply them change the probes to suit their own contexts. In the first two articles, my focus was primarily on the practicalities of these probes, referring to RQ1 and to a lesser degree RQ2. In the third article, the main focus was the value from the participants’ point of view to answer why researchers should even take this approach and what can we expect to gain from doing so. This is closely connected to RQ2 and somewhat also to RQ1.

The two research questions are addressed in the cross comparison and discussion below, with emphasis first on RQ1 and then RQ2, which are:

1. What are core principles to consider when designing probes with play for young people?

2. What kinds of themes emerge when gaining access to the life world of youths through probes with play?

The first section of the cross comparison discusses the making of the probes, while the other section compares insights to explore what the participants shared about themselves.

POSSIBILITIES AND LIMITATIONS OF THE PROBES

One aspect of this research that required consideration was the probes’ setup. Some of the participants from the third test responded to personalized surveys that they felt the probes were like homework. The majority did not share this experience and knew their participation was voluntary, however, as was emphasized when handing out the probes. But that this pressure existed at all indicates a failed assumption that highlighting the research’s voluntary nature when handing out the probes was enough for the participants to understand the premise. I should have realized this beforehand, as young people have a lot going on in their lives. A quick solution in future studies could be to explicitly write the voluntary aspect on the probes’ front label. Another potential influence was the setting where the probes were handed out: the school. There were several reasons for this decision. The purpose of this study was to test a method, so accessing a diverse group of young people was more beneficial than only having a few who were carefully chosen. I wanted as broad a representation as possible, and with this in mind, going through public schools was one way to make the sample somewhat random and broad, this also seemed fitting during a time of Covid where the physical contact therefore could be limited to a minimum Still, this came with the consequence that the participants from the second and third tests potentially connected the probes to the school setting. This may have also influenced how they participated, despite the emphasis on it being voluntary. On another note, the participants from the first test, might have felt pressure due to them being in my (private) network. Some of the teachers shared a related concern: due to the probes being anonymous and voluntary, they feared that some of the young people would not take them seriously and complete them in a ridiculing way. This did not happen even once, however

VOLUNTARY NATURE

How important might the aspect of voluntary participation be? I cannot say for sure, but I can speculate based on my findings and the feedback I received over the three rounds of tests. The first thing to consider is that in general, people working with young people face the challenge of gaining access to this target group (Duncan et al., 2009). However, that a vast number of participants returned the probes interacted with indicates that many young people do not mind participating. Going through the feedback, many also reported that they found the probes “strange but fun” and that they liked their creative nature. I thus propose that young people’s desire to participate is based more on incitement and intrinsic motivation than physical rewards. They received no prize, competition, or gifts from participating in this study except a small piece of candy in each probe that they could take without doing anything more. Indeed, many of those who returned probes that had been opened but interacted with either a little or

not at all did not take the candy. Hence, the treats did not seem to be important to the participants. Though they might have been a nice surprise in the kit, overall, I could not find a clear correlation between treats and participation. I have not tested the probes with play as non-voluntary or without emphasizing this aspect, but it did not seem to devaluate the participants’ experience.

Many participants positively reflected on the probes in the first and third tests, where I got to ask them various questions about the kits. When asked about how they felt about the probes after their completion, many wrote sentences (translated from Danish) such as “fun and creative” (girl, 15 years old), “interesting, strange but good” (boy, 16 years old), and “fun, different, and weird” (girl, 16 years old). Comparing these sentences with one from a participant who did not interact with the probe at all, there is a clear difference. When asked about his expectations of the kit before receiving it, one boy (15 years old) wrote that he expected it to contain toys, elaborating that once he did open the probe, “it looked boring ” His reply to what he thought about the kit afterward was similar: “without matter, childish and boring ” He further responded that he did in fact open the kit at home and talked to his parents about it but knowing that he was not obligated to complete the activities, he chose not to. According to this pupil’s own statements, he perceived the probe negatively before even opening it, and this belief was confirmed once he saw what the probe with play contained. He emphasized that he understood that participation was voluntary, which might have influenced his decision to fill out the probe as well. But as the kit was already met with negative expectations, he might not have shared anything either way. As such, the voluntary aspect might ensure that participation is of a certain quality in terms of the insights shared.

CURIOSITY

To ensure participation if it is voluntary, it must rely on other aspects to garner interest. The act of giving something unexpected and exciting seemed to evoke curiosity according to many of the participants and teachers across the three tests. This indicates the exploitation of the novelty that probes with play might have (Elston, 2021). Due to the participants likely not being exposed to probes numerous times and the probes differing in content and activities, their novelty can be perceived as a benefit in these specific cases. Some of the participants’ responses about the kits support this idea, as can be seen in the following two quotes: “Fun and different.” (girl, 16 years old) and the other quote by a 15 years-old boy: “I expected it to be fun and exciting.”

In the second test, the teachers reported that many of their pupils talked to each other and to them about the probes. Some even happily reported to the teachers how they got to talk with their parents and siblings during dinner about the kit and how these talks were nice to have on a more general level. The teachers had a clear impression that the pupils genuinely enjoyed talking to their families but missed doing so in their everyday lives. I return to this point later on in a different context, but for now, it indicates that the probes and the curiosity surrounding the probes did not only occur at school but also at home for the participants. This is supported by the reports from participants in the third test, with many stating that they talked to their parents about their kit. Hence, making the probes a bit interesting or even secretive in how they were initially presented seemed to have a positive effect on participation. In all three rounds of tests, the probes were put in closed silver-colored bags, and the pupils were asked to open them when they got home. Many shared that they could not wait to open it and did so at school. Very few did not open the probes at all, as occurred in the second test with a girl who the teachers expressed general concern about. She did not show up very often at school, expressed a dislike of going to school, and seemed to have personal challenges to deal with. Hence, something presented through the school context was probably not ideal in her case, though she might have had some insights to share

PARTICIPATION

One means of garnering participation in this research was to get the young people to open the bags and explore their contents, which seemed to be encouraged to a high degree by curiosity. Another way was to get the young people to actually do the activities within the bag. Of the 81 probes handed out throughout the three tests, 71 were returned interacted with to a degree that made them usable for the analysis. Only some of the 10 other probes had not been opened or were not returned at all, so I lost some participants in this step, which is to be expected. Still, the majority of the 10 incomplete probes had been opened and explored to some extent For instance, the small bags had been opened, a pen was missing

from a probe after it had been handed back in, and initial interaction with the activities, such as starting to write things down in the pamphlet or opening the silk clay, had occurred. I propose that consideration of how the probes is presented is important in terms of directions for it being voluntary, the time it will take, encouraging the participants to wait to open the bag, and how the bag looks. Some of the participants even reported that they felt like they were being gifted the bag, though they knew already at that point that they were going to return it. One girl said that the bag felt like being given something from her hairdresser with presents in it.

The other aspect of participation related to the probes’ contents. When opening the probes, hopefully participants are interested in exploring and interacting with the activities. This means that the activities need to meet both their interests and skill level (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002), as well as evoke a degree of curiosity to actually do the activities (Valk et al , 2012). Some of the activities in this study that were reported on most positively were the silk clay and disposable camera tasks. These likely represented two different triggers, as the silk clay was often described as reminiscent of childhood. For the disposable cameras, many pupils expressed surprise, as they had never used one before, which again highlights novelty. Other activities that were generally well-received were the light activities that were quick to finish and did not require too much time or effort, such as the playground map. However, one participant expressed that he felt that he did not understand his light activity and therefore chose not to complete it and few expressed boredom related to that activity

Some of the activities did not receive the same degree of positive feedback. One aspect that might indicate an unsettled balance is the activities framed around the participant’s own phone. I expected the phone to be an ideal tool to involve, partly based on Odem et al.’s (2011) exploration of the use of phones in research, but also because young people often value their phones and bring them along as they go about their lives. It would have been easy to bring out the phones, take pictures of something framed from the task, and send them to me. However, despite many attempts to formulate this activity in a balanced manner, it was too simple, first by asking the participants just to take pictures during their week of things that inspired, frustrated, entertained, or motivated them. In other attempts, the images were intended to be used in different contexts, such as in a collage or as clues for a treasure hunt. I also explored different mediums for the participants to share the images to increase their response rate (directly to my phone, via email, or through filesharing tools). No matter the framing or image sharing possibility, the vast majority of pupils did not take pictures, as defended by their interview responses in test 1, what the teachers picked up in conversations in test 2, and the personalized surveys in test 3. In an interview after the first test, a boy said that he used his phone so much every day that he did not feel like involving it in this very different type of undertaking. He liked that the probes were different from what he was used to doing in school and at home, but the phone was not interesting for him to use. When asked to elaborate, he stated that his phone was such a natural extension of himself that it felt both too mundane and too private to use in the probe activities. This might be a general experience, as those who received disposable cameras found the activity fun and shared plenty of images from their lives, such as of friends, family, homes, and their rooms (see Figure 17 and 18 below for examples of images taken with the disposable cameras) As such, the act of sharing images from their private lives was not an obstacle to the young people’s participation, meaning the issue with the mobile phones probably lay within the medium itself, that is, the phone.

Figure 17: Images taken by girl, 15 years old. The image of friends is blurred for anonymity.

A final aspect of participation that I would like to bring forward is how the participants were able to disrupt the activities. Disruption was not explicitly stated as an instruction but encouraged by adding a small bag of extra materials to the probes. These materials included pens, glue, and other practical elements to help complete the probes without having the participants supply them on their own. However, they also included non-related materials with or without purpose (see Figure 20).

Figure 18: Images taken by a girl, 15 years old, blurred for anonymity

Figure 19: Images taken by a boy, 16 years old. The second image is blurred due to the social security card laying on the table

Figure 20: Examples of materials and probe with play content

Some of these disruptive materials were small googly eyes, plastic hats, or ears that could support the participants’ making processes, but also pipe cleaners, feathers, small pieces of fabric, and similar items Additionally, no task specified that the pupils were to only use specific materials or included instructions on how to do the activity in a certain way, felt the need to do the activities differently or use new materials, they could “wrong” according to the framings. Some while others chose to do some of the activities in different ways than intended, did the “take a walk” task without bringing the bag, but she had with her mother on that walk. Many used some of the additional materials to make their own extra creations for their probe with play ticipants, and not all of the participants follow probes in this way because young people often are met with high expectations from restriction through voluntary amples of additional creations from the probes can be seen below

One of my considerations when deciding which activities to put into the probes with play was how to balance the participants’ requirements, that is, balance between easy (light) activities and those that require more effort (see “balance” under the section “Making the Probes”). I aimed to have at least 2 light activities and a total of 5–6 main activities in each probe, together with the pamphlet and small notes for writing details about each creation. In general, this number of activities seemed to work well, as no one said that they felt the probe to be too much However, a few participants, mainly boys, reported that they felt that many of the activities in their probe with play were boring. The idea behind the light activities was, as mentioned earlier, to make the interaction with the probes easy to start, and many participants from the third test indicated that they started with either their light activity or the silk clay. It seems that those two activities either evoked curiosity or invited the participants to complete something. The light activities all had a written form (e.g., the deserted island or playground mapping activities) that correlated to the participants’ current activities. This could be further explored through a more tactile light activity to better invite participants into the probes, as it could combine the curiosity from the silk clay task and the fast completion of, for instance, the playground map.

Figure 21: Two examples of creations that participants created outside the activities BALANCE

The last activity that was highlighted as being the one the participants focused on firstly when introduced to their probes, and considered fun by the participants was the disposable camera activity, though it required a strict framing of how the images were to be taken and perhaps even background information for it to be (more) useful than other activities. In general, those who got a disposable camera used it and reported that they enjoyed it, both to the teachers in the second test and in the personalized survey in the third test. But the disposable camera is a costly activity, and without concrete framing, it risks little use afterward. Balance here thus lies not only in consideration of the time and focus that the activities require but also in making sure that the activities are positively accepted by the participants. Additionally, the activities need to be framed in a way that ensures the overall aim of the study. Activities involving materials such as silk clay and disposable cameras can be more difficult to analyze afterward, but if framed appropiately, they have the opportunity to provide an enjoyable experience for the participants as well as deeper insights into the target group. The silk clay activity, for example, was formulated a bit too open in the first test, as it required the participants to create a hero, monster, or creature but without the extra layer of this creation informing about the participant. In the second and third rounds, the hero, monster, or creature was required to share a trait with the participant in some way, which added much value to the use of the creations. In the first test, for instance, a girl created Harry Styles (musician) as her hero. We therefore know who her idol is, but she would probably not be reluctant to share that information in a different way either. In the second and third tests, where the additional layer was applied to the activity’s framing, different creations were made that told something that could have been difficult to ensure through typical questions; this iteration seemed to contain a higher level of reflection from the participants (see Figure 22 and 23).

Figure 22: Harry Styles, created by a girl from the first probe test. It says: “Harry Styles is a lifestyle for me.”

In the case of the stood in different ways depend seems happy, and she finishe a trait that she might not feel exclusively negative about. may have shared s features and the accompanying a mood around the statement that might have been difficult to establish without the creation. Additionally, activity as the most fun of all those in her probe with play of course share relevant information from those designing the probes, but must not neglect the importance of the activities being perceived as fun and enjoyable. Hence, dedicating a little more time to materials and framings that are more than just text-based can help ensure participation and willingness to share insights.

Turning to the balance of both the level of play, how it was present and types of play involved in the probes with play there are different considerations. From those who shared statements about play, the majority of participants responded to play in a positive manner, but a few were for specific activities linked to their current age group. Some were age-neutral in their statements (e.g., “something that is fun and that includes everyone,” boy, 15 years old). Some of the different words that occurred multiple times in the statements connected to play as follows: “friends” (58%), “fun” (58%), “movements” (50%), “entertainment” (25%), “hygge” (Danish word loosely translated as “cozy”; 25%), and “toys” (17%). “Kids” or words connected to kids such as “kindergarten” were mentioned in 33% of the cases. Per Proyer’s (2013) positioning, this means that when assessing play and young people, a certain degree of conscious sensitivity

Figure

is required to avoid any confusion, as there are many different conceptions and associations of the word on its own.

The need to be conscious and even careful when involving play and young people in this research has already been established the section “Play in the lives of young people”, but in the probes, explicit play was mainly a reference to the participants’ childhood. In the case of one participant who did not interact with the probe but replied to the personalized survey, the probe was considered boring and childish, and the participant expected there to be toys inside the probe (see the digital Appendix under Pers. Surveys). Despite play not being mentioned in the handout, this participant got the association anyway, but it resulted in a negative approach that led to him or her not interacting with the probe. In other cases, play did not seem to influence the responses in a negative way, such as with the silk clay activity or the playground map being associated with childhood The probes did not have a clear tendency of being completed less either. Hence, play was, as stated earlier on, something that meant different things to the participants.

This section has described different considerations and reflections about the probes with play’s design. There are minor aspects (e.g., of specific activities) that are not presented here, as the aim is to discuss the main considerations for further development of the probes with play. These range from the participants’ involvement with the probes resulting from it being voluntary and how it was presented to them to being more concrete about the actual activities within the probes and how they are framed. The goal here is to present the findings and reflections in a way that enables others to take this information and apply it in their own contexts of working with young people, whether it be in relation to mental health, school life, or as part of a larger research procedure.

Considering the combination of playful triggers and probes with inspiration from design probes (Mattelmäki, 2006) and cultural probes (Gaver et al., 1999), among others, my overall analysis across the three articles and the additional perspectives presented in this research points toward a new addition to the probe method. I call this direction play probes to highlight and open up further exploration of the potential of explicitly using play in probes. Play probes still fall under the general probe umbrella and are connected to generative design research. How I implemented play in the play probes can be found in “The Play in the Probes”. Table 1 below shows the findings from the three articles, as well as what I elaborated on, compared, and discussed in this section, with focus on the findings about the method rather than insights about young people.

Table 1 : A summary of findings and discussion hereof in the three articles as well as this section WHERE IT CAN BE FOUND /THEMES

Play probes – understanding Y.P. through playful expressions

2. Play probe – an approach that reveals emergent identity building in Y.P.

In general, there was no difference in materials, framing, etc., whether the probe was given to a male or female participant

There was a difference in how the probes were filled out based on the presence of certain materials

Most participants were intrigued by the physical aspects of the probes, such as the disposable cameras, Silk clay, etc.

Pamphlets focusing on struggles and entertainment had more responses than those focusing on motivation or inspiration

The silk clay evoked different types of insights than other activities

The involvement of the phone did not work well

The framing, materials, and balance between skills and requirement matter

The light activities used as warm-up exercises were often

3. Meaningful participation –motivating young people’s participation through play probes

Possibilities and limitations of the play probes

Whereas the activities with the phone did not work, the participants were open to sharing images taken with the disposable cameras

That the probes were voluntary did not seem to decrease the number of participants compared to reports from other studies

The small treats and lack of rewards did not seem to influence the probes much

Many participants who expressed joy about the probes described them as fun and strange/weird/ different

Many of the participants were surprised by the content and activities in the probes and expressed enjoying them.

The probes were sometimes described as strange or different

The activities were sometimes associated with childhood activities

Physical materials seemed to increase interaction and investment

The teachers from the second test and the professionals who provided feedback on the probes all expressed surprise at the level of participation from the young people, as well as the amount of information they shared through the probes

Some of the materials had a degree of novelty that made the participants curious

The probes evoked curiosity

The participants’ families also seemed curious about the probes, which the participants from the second test expressed joy about, as they talked more with their families.

The involvement of phones proved challenging; however, getting the participants to share images of friends, home, and important things was not. Those with disposable cameras seemed happy to use them.

The flow of the gathered probes seemed to matter, as the light activities were used. However, the participants seemed most invested in the activities with (surprising) materials

Being open to disruptions to how the activities are solved did not conflict with the content of the play probes and instead encouraged more time investment

the first activities to be interacted with

Combination the play types of construction and fantasy in activities worked well

The balance between skills and time needed was important to consider ensuring participation.

INSIGHTS ABOUT Y OUNG P EOPLE FROM THE P LAY P ROBES

In this section, I delve into the themes that were presented through the probes and that the participants shared about different aspects of their lives. The section focuses on aspects from RQ2 through findings

from the probes’ outcomes rather than findings about the method specifically, as in the preceding section. The different themes are somewhat connected to those presented in the articles, but of those, I chose just a few as the main topics and elaborate upon them. This is based on both the occurrence of the themes and the nuances that the participants provided. Examples of themes that are not explicitly addressed are exercise and nature, which occurred multiple times throughout the different probes, but not beyond mention as something the participants enjoyed or did. In contrast, other themes received more attention from the participants, such as their relationships with family and friends. This is not to say that exercise, nature, and other basic-level themes did not take up much of the young people’s focus, but from the probes, other themes received more emphasis.

EMERGENT IDENTITY AND THE TRANSITIONAL STAGE OF BEING YOUNG

One of the findings that occurred especially in test 2 was the teachers reporting many of the participants expressing happiness that they got to talk with their families more than usual. It was the teachers’ general impression that young people would like to talk more with their parents and siblings but find it difficult. Throughout the different probes, there was a visible theme surrounding the transition from childhood to adulthood and being in the middle teenage stage. The participants did not write explicitly about this theme, but, for instance, relationships with friends and family were highlighted in almost every probe. Aspects of identity were also frequently present, such as the silk clay creatures describing the participants as being naïve (Figure 25), keeping to themselves, or knowing that it is important for them to be a good friend (in their own words). Some stated that there is more going on than can be seen at first (Figure 24) or that it is sometimes difficult to talk with their families. Hence, in many of the probes, small vignettes indicated the participants’ consciousness of the need for a social life with both friends and family, as well as knowledge of their transition and changes in terms of who they are sometimes being challenging.

Figure 24 (on the left): “I made a book because I’m easy to read, but there‘s a lot going on between the lines. And I also like to read books (=“

Figure 25 (on the right): “Dog. A dog is mostly happy and believes in the best in people. I would be a dog, as I can be pretty naïve

26: “Inside: card games, cozy, eating, talking. Swing: Sometimes I just need a push. Digging: Underneath the surface lies the real me. Sliding: Up and down like my feelings. Seesaw: It goes up and down like my beliefs and attitude ”

There was also a tendency for family to represent something safe for the participants, as seen in the playground maps with words such as hygge (Danish word for being cozy) and sensations of feeling safe, at home, or being in a place where everyone is together. In Figure 26, a girl described sensitive aspects about herself in her playground map, but in the case of the playhouse, her descriptions changed from being more abstract to concrete by mentioning card games, hygge, eating, and talking. So, while the rest of her map showed metaphors connected to feelings and her well-being, the playhouse was the place where she relaxed the most. The playhouse represented these types of activities for other participants as well, as can be seen in the following examples in Figure 27.

While the participants put effort into defining who they are and their personal traits, their homes and family represented something safe, memories about being a child, and a place for relaxation. Though the examples and the content from the probes did not explicitly state that it is difficult to be in this stage of life, there were indications of the participants feeling this way The probes did not focus on exploring the difficulties of being a young person but were more open toward the participants’ everyday lives, allowing them to choose to emphasize any information they wanted and exclude anything they did not

Figure

Figure 27: “1. At home with my family. 2. House – my home, safety, family. 3. The house is relaxing for me because I do that at my house?”

want to share. However, challenges did take up focus in some of the participants’ everyday lives based on the probes. This might seem obvious with or without the probes, as has been established earlier in this research (Duncan et al., 2009). However, it is interesting to see what themes and tendencies arose and which did not in the probes. Combined with the information from the teachers that the participants expressed joy about talking more with their families due to the probes, this area could be explored even further.

The probes also tended to emphasize identity as complex or “not as it seems ” This was especially the case with the silk clay creatures and other physical creations, which many participants gave multiple layers. Two examples appear in Figure 24 with the book representing the participant as easy to read while also having a lot going on between the lines, and in Figure 25, which shows how the participant, like a dog, is mostly happy and sees the best in people, but can also be naïve. These small nuances with different layers are shown often and tend to represent two different perspectives. Two other examples demonstrate this multifaceted nature. The first is in Figure 28, which depicts a creature with horns described as being ugly but beautiful on the inside. The participant went on to tell what we can learn from this creature about inner beauty rather than judging by looks. The second example is in Figure 29, with the creature described as looking cute, but capable of getting angry if hurt. It was important to many of the participants to emphasize these different layers or nuances when sharing through the probes. This is in line with the complexity of being young, as stated by Kjeldgaard and Askegaard (2006) and Ernst et al. (2019), but it also indicates that the young people participating in this research wanted to share some of these considerations and perspectives if asked in a way that motivated them a general challenge when doing research with young people (Drew et al., 2010; Duncan et al., 2009). Blenkinsop et al. (2006) stated that it is of value to young people participating in research to have enough time to make decisions, and it seems that the probes provided a space for both time and reflections, thereby enabling the participants to share what they had on their minds or valued as important.

Figure 28: “Its name is Nova. It looks evil and ugly, but it is good and beautiful inside. It teaches us that we shouldn’t judge people by their looks. It can look through people, read their thoughts and protect (like a guardian angel). It does magic like no one else ”

Figure 29: “It can teleport, so it has time to do much more. It can look into the future. It is sweet to look at, but gets angry if hurt ”

The last example I would like to show comes from a 15-year-old boy who used the silk clay activity a bit differently than those above, but similar to the beforementioned boy from test 1. He did not create anything physical but did take time to define a creature that informs about himself. He stated that his creature was “Carsten (because it is a cool name). It is smart, but still sporty (: and of course, someone in power.”

It seems that this participant wanted to portray a dual-sided version of himself through the creature he defined, as in the case of the two creations above. While his portrayal was different and focused on appearance and attributes (smart, sporty, and in power), he focused more on aspects that related to his outside world connected to how other perceive him.

In this section different indications and tendencies that led to how the young people participating expressed aspects of themselves resenting something safe. In many of the cases , the participants chose to share details about themselves that out this research is the importance of creating a safe space for expression and ple

EXPRESSING

T on the everyday lives of the participants. It was also emphasized to the participants that participation was completely voluntary and that they could stop their interaction with the probes at any point. This gave the participants full control over what they shared and how much. What I find interesting about this is the level of information and insights that some of the participants chose to share.

Of course, there were completed probes that only contained surface information, as in the examples below in Figure 31

Figure

The creation Mr. Fly as shown in Figure 31 (right) does not contain much information about the participant who created it; however, the participant invested time and effort in creating it, even after it had dried, by decorating it with black marker. The other example in Figure 31 (left) shared a bit of information about that participant’s interest volleyball and though the participant could have chosen just to write with a small drawing, again putting some effort into the creative ven in these cases, the participants actually wanted to express themselves.

many chose to use the have chosen not to put they did indicates that enabling different means for expression is of value those who chose not who chose to share more in-depth insights (Silk clay,

loneliness. Across her appeared, as well represented in other ways, such as in

Figure 31: Two examples from the play probes

In this participant’s probe, the content from all the different activities created an indication of someone who was alone quite a bit. The probe did not state anything about being lonely, so the participant might not have experienced it that way, but compared to the other probes, hers stood out for its lack of focus on friends or being social with peers in a positive way. One of the other activities from her probe was the two spheres. Where many other participants’ spheres showed them being either very social and doing things with others or a balance in both spheres of activities together with others and on their own, this participant reflected a majority of activities done on her own. Even the things she used that represented what she likes to do with others differed. For comparison, her spheres are shown in Figure 33 alongside another participant’s. In both cases, the things the participants like to do with others are on top and the things they like to do on their own are on the bottom of the images. Further examples from her probe, can be found on the full page before the “Introduction” as well as in multiple instances throughout this body of work.

When showing this probe to the researcher/doctor working with young people and their mental health, he replied that one of the things he worked on quite a lot on was creating a safe space for young people to express the issues they had. One of those issues was loneliness, which seems to be an increasing problem among young people. If the play probes here were used in connection to follow-up conversations or events, this participant could have been one of those to receive extra focus. She might not be lonely or struggling, but her probe could have been used as a point of departure to further explore the indications of loneliness that are present. As previously mentioned, I did not follow up with the participant in this case due to Covid-19 affecting the second test but should this have been her way of expressing loneliness, I still chose to reach out to her teacher. The only information I had on this girl was the name and age she shared in her pamphlet, which I told the teacher to help identify her. The teacher agreed to talk to the participant confidentially about this, but what happened after that, I do not know. What I can take from this probe is the participant’s willingness to share sensitive and conflicting aspects of her life.

Another example of a participant sharing possibly sensitive information about herself appeared in a silk clay lizard creation (Figure 34). In other aspects of her probe, the participant stated that she was interested in psychology, life and death, and illusions, and she even questioned whether life is an illusion. As

Figure 33: Two completed spheres from the play probes “Katrine’s” on the left.

opposed to the example above, this participant wrote on a note in her sphere that “when I’m alone, I enjoy being alone ” Her probe also explicitly mentioned friends, and she wrote that her dream job was being a psychologist. While she shared intimate information about who she is, how she sees herself, and how she might lose part of herself if scared (through the silk clay creation of a lizard, Figure 34), she was also explicit about being social as well as enjoying her own company in other activities. For her, being alone was complex, which could be interesting to explore further, as the lizard she made keeps to the dark, which sounds negative, but her description of enjoying her own company sounds positive.

Based on the completed probes, there are indications toward some of the participants using the play probes as an outlet for either frustrations in the here and now or more personal traits that they are already aware of. Many of the participants did not share anything out of the ordinary and addressed things such as having difficulties getting up in the morning, not liking to do the dishes, or liking to be together with friends. But since the probes were handed out through a public school, it could not be expected for every participant to share deep frustrations or sensitive aspects about themselves Still, discovering those signs opens up pathways for further exploration of the use and development of play probes for young people. In relation to what the participants shared and how they did so, the next section touches on certain narratives and the participants’ process of taking something internal and sharing it externally through the probes.

NARRATION, SENSEMAKING, AND SYNTHESIS

As stated by Murray (2008), we use narratives both to understand and define our lives. In particular, how we use narratives about ourselves influences how we perceive our lives (Mihailidis, 2015; Murray, 2008). As such, if a probe has a negative connotation, it might be an indication that the participant also has a general negative perspective on their life. The same applies to positive connotations Kolko (2010) explained how the process of externalizing something internal can seem magical if we do not see the process. He used the example of designers, where the result might seem to happen magically, but often a synthesis of sensemaking based on different tools and approaches happens before reaching the result. Kolko (2010) further described how sensemaking is an internal process and synthesis is an externalizing

Figure 34: “A lizard because they keep to themselves mostly. They sometimes come out but lose their tail if scared.”

process. In the case of this study’s participants, the sensemaking was the investigation and exploration of the activities, materials, and what the participants wanted to narrate about themselves. The synthesis was when they decided to create their solutions to the activities. This process required the participants to position themselves in relation to what they wanted to share and make decisions on both form and narrative. In the following section, I elaborate on what can be found in the probes regarding the narration and indications of the participants’ experience in going from their internal to external worlds through the probes.

One indication that could help further explore narrative perspectives came from a boy (15 years old). Though he described challenges both internally about himself and externally from school or at home, he had a humoristic and positive approach toward them As seen in Figure 35, he created a frogman, stating

The boy also described some of his challenges by, for instance, using the sandbox from the playground map to explain how he is creative and has to find something to do when he is bored. He used the swings to describe how when the week goes by fast, it feels like being on a swing. In the pamphlet (Figure 36, to the right), he also wrote how he loves when it is Friday because it means that he is off from school; that he laughs at monkey videos; that he does not like to do the dishes after dinner; and that his dream is to see the whole world. Some of these elements, such as time flying by and being bored, could have taken up different weighting, but in this participant’s case, they did not take up much (negative) focus. In general, he seemed to be a typical, humoristic young person who thinks school and chores are a bit boring but has dreams and ways of dealing with struggles.

Figure 37: The playground map filled out by a girl from the second test

In this participant’s other activities, there were not as clear indications of a certain type of narration; however, when describing her dream job through materials, she focused on the need for storage protection when traveling (Figure 38) She stated that she wished to work internationally with media and marketing and therefore chose materials representative of storage protection for when she travels. The need for this whether it be random, due to past traveling an indication of a perceived need for protection. Put together with the playground ma opened her perspectives on her everyday life in general.

Another example of a probe struggles one that has been used several times before: the case of the 15-year-old girl “Katrine” who drew her struggles across a whole week. In her probe, this participant also filled out the playground map, and she correlated the swing to her ups and downs and the seesaw to how discussions go back and forth. The three other playground activities were a bit more neutral: the house was the place where the family meets, she did not know what the sandbox meant, and the slide was all her good memories.

Figure

the participant wrote the narrative of

Figure

In the express . In relation to this aspect, I wanted to explore if I could find indications of filling out the probes that fun (and strange alized surveys

In reported that the activities pushed him to think about his everyday life in a new way, which he enjoyed. that many of the participants reported enjoying how they got to talk to their parents and siblings about themselves through the probes. From the third test, there is not much indication about the impact of the reflections, but statements here and there showed that the participants had at least some awareness of themselves throughout the process. For instance, a girl stated in her personalized survey that “it was nice to play with modeling clay as 16-years old” (translated from Danish; for the original version, see the personalized surveys in the digital Appendix, marked “Mille”). She also said that the “five things on a deserted island” activity was “nice because it got me thinking.” In other cases, the participants explicitly stated that they did not reflect much in doing the activities, such as a girl saying that filling out her answers to the playground map “came to me quickly” (translated; for the original, see the personalized surveys in the digital Appendix, marked “Freja”).

THEIR SOCIAL WORLD AND THE DIVIDE

One of the pivotal aspects of this research was the risk of an “us and them” divide. As young people have their own special youth culture (Hair et al , 2009) that is changing all the time in correlation to other global and local changes, such as the evolution of technology (Murray, 2008), it might be difficult to understand and support young people if they are struggling. This difficulty is challenged even more by the complexity in getting young people to open up. As the researcher/doctor from the professional interviews said, “we just don’t know what is really going on in their lives” (translated from Danish). Through the play probes, however, the participants did seem to want to share aspects of their lives, in some cases even challenging areas such as feeling alone, body awareness, or problems with school or friends. Though there might very well be cases of participants who might have had more to share, than what they chose to in this case. What could be elucidated from the probes, while not necessarily surprising, was the

participants using a lot of time and energy on their relationships with their peers, exercise and sports, being creative, gaming future

One theme that part of activity probe would mention these areas couraged even more in sharing period of time, as many of the participants did share other types of intimate details. Another reason could lie in the would insights with me unless spec with them intimate aspects they had shared and hence be contradictory on its own. Further research to draw more solid conclusions

Friends probes, and influence of friends and peers. up a general focus for the participants. In these examples, friends do not seem to but are more presented as a very large part of the participants

laughs with or at. When completing the sentence

The have been shown earlier friends were a major part of the participants’ focus and that the participants found it important not just to have friends also be a good friend to others.

One example of some of the more negative aspects that I have mentioned multiple times comes from the 15-year-old girl “Katrine” who drew some of the challenges she had during a week. One of the examples where peers took on a role was in a drawing of how it was embarrassing to come last in a race (Figure 45 on the next page):

Figure a boy and girl from the second

The feeling of being embarrassed related to her peers and them reaching the goal before her. This could indicate some of the challenges with peers and relationships that young people face. They not only provide fun or security but also internal pressure or at least a focus on fitting in. Other participants also touched upon this focus on being different or standing out, with one example from a girl from the second test who created a tiny house in a wood-based construction activity (Figure 46). She stated that she tried to create a house because she (she used herself to describe the house instead of the other way around) is inviting and ha that she can be a bit different until you get to know her, like a house can look completely different on the inside.

Figure

Figure but that the outside and inside can differ

I now present another theme to consider in terms of young people’s relationships with peers and other generations, as well as those generations’ understanding of young people with regard to the possible divide, as perceived by young people. Early in the study, I asked an unrelated class of eighth-grade pupils to fill out short anonymous notes about the things that they experienced difficulties with when communicating with adults. Between the statements of having no trouble communicating with adults, many described different challenges, with some listed below (translated from Danish; for images of the original notes, see the digital Appendix “Notes from young people”):

“That they [adults] don’t see things from my perspective, but from their own adult perspective.” (girl)

“When something is difficult ” (boy)

“I tend to be very overprotecting and cautious, and that can be difficult for me to talk about ” (girl)

“There are some things I don’t want to talk about, and sometimes I cannot really express things, it is difficult.” (girl)

“Divorce ” (boy)

In the third play probe test, a girl expressed difficulties with talking about feelings through her probe. This emerged in a light activity, which tended not to include much in-depth perspectives from the participants (Figure 47) The participant’s reflection was only a short sentence in this case, but it differed from many of the other answers to this activity. She stated that she does not like to talk about feelings but loves when everything is running as it should. This also differed from the other participants’ answers, which were often something like “I love to laugh,” “I love to be with friends,” and “I love to win in soccer.”

small indication of something deeper or even d that she is motivated by her without them. Hence, she described her friends as a means to an end rather than her being motivated by being together with them.

, such as the sandbox representing getting stuck with something and the seesaw the act of balancing school, friends, and

In the personalized survey, this participant reported that she felt that the play probe was fun and that she liked to do the majority of activities, but it was also a bit demanding. She was not sure how to do the playground map activity either. She got a disposable camera as one of the activities and took pictures at her home, such as the inside of the fridge, her dog, her phone, and her computer. She also brought the camera to school and took pictures of peers. In Figure 50 on the next page are two examples of the images she took.

Figure 49: The playground map from the same 16-year-old girl’s probe content from the third test.

At first glance, the participant seemed to have filled out her probe in the same way as many others, but when going deeper into the words she used and how she approached the activities, there are indications of something that could be explored further through an interview. It might not be anything of importance, but that she does not like to talk about feelings, loves when everything is going as it should, and portrayed her friends as drivers of her work and brings out a challenge in balancing friends, school, and family, could contain indications of something to be explored The images she took, which seem to be divided into two very different categories, would also be interesting to have her elaborate on.

In the follow-up professional interviews conducted after the second test, there was a tendency for them to express an impression of aspects taking up much of the energy of the young people they worked with on a daily basis. They also highlighted the challenges they had in getting young people to open up, even when they knew that a young person was struggling. Especially the social worker and researcher/doctor expressed difficulties with getting young people to open up, whereas the teachers could draw on the many hours they spent with the young people to gain insights on how and when to talk to them. Still, even the teachers expressed that it can be difficult at times to get young people to open up depending on the topic

In this section, I presented and discussed some of the incidents where relationships to either peers or others are present, as well as perspectives on what young people might find difficult about talking to adults and how this is a challenge for professionals across different fields of expertise. This emphasizes the need for new approaches and conversation starters to gain insights about young people. This serves as the last section of this chapter, as I have touched upon the four main areas of insights that I found through the play probes, ranging from indications to statements about how the participants present themselves and define their identity in their youth. I also touched upon how and what they expressed that has a sensitive nature and whether or not the play probe provided a safe space for this expression. Aspects of how the participants used narratives through the probes to create or portray their everyday lives and if there could be indications of the participants getting something out of this process intrinsically were also discussed. This section ended with a perspective on adults and young people being part of different social worlds and how this can be both positive and contain a challenge or frustration. In Table 2 (on the next page) an overview of the points addressed in this section and in the three articles can be found in accordance with the four themes presented here in the Cross Comparison and Discussion.

Figure 50: Two examples of the disposable camera pictures taken by the same 16

Table 2: A summary of findings and discussion hereof in the three articles as well as this section

WHERE IT CAN BE FOUND /THEMES ADDRESSED

1. Play probes – understanding Y.P. through playful expressions

EMERGENT IDENTITY AND THE TRANSITIONAL STAGE OF BEING YOUNG

Through some of the probes, it was visible that who the participants are and their relation to others’ expectations are present in their everyday lives

They talked to their peers about the probe and activities within it and seemed to utilize each other to solve the activities

EXPRESSING SENSITIVITY AND SAFE SPACES

Especially the silk clay creations evoked reflective responses that shared insights on intimate aspects of their identity.

NARRATION, SENSEMAKING, AND SYNTHESIS

The participants generally found the activities fun and were curious about them, as well as seemed to enjoy the process of sharing insights about themselves and the required sensemaking process

THEIR SOCIAL WORLD AND THE DIVIDE

Family was expressed mainly in the memorybased activities compared to people related to the participants’ current everyday lives

However, according to the teachers’ feedback, the participants enjoyed increased interest from their families during the time they had the probes

Friends, meanwhile, were present to a high degree in the majority of the probes

2. Play probe – an approach that reveals emergent identity building in Y.P.

3. Meaningful participation – motivating young people’s participation through play probes

Family and home were generally connected to being safe, creative, or together.

The participants were reluctant to involve their phones in the test One explained that it was such an integral part of his life that it did not feel natural for him to involve it in something new

Expressions through materials evoked enjoyment and memories from childhood about playing with playdough

Some shared aspects of their lives or identity of a vulnerable nature, such as frustrations, issues with sleeping or getting up in the morning, being alone, challenges with peers, and doubting oneself.

A participant felt challenged in how to define himself through the activities as fun and valuable

The participants generally found it fun to reflect on themselves through the playground map

Mainly female students used words that could be thought of as negative, such as “naïve,” “embarrassed,” and “alone,” but words such as “smart” or “clever” were also primarily present in their probes.

Male participants, meanwhile, used words such as “strong” or “loyal,” which were not present in the female participants’ probes

Male participants often connected friends with gaming and exercise.

Only male participants used words such as “boring,” “challenging,” or “being tired” in connection to school.

WHERE IT CAN BE FOUND /THEMES ADDRESSED

Insights about young people from the play probes

EMERGENT IDENTITY AND THE TRANSITIONAL STAGE OF BEING YOUNG

Friends and family are connected to different aspects and words (e.g., family with “home,” “safety,” and “being cozy” and friends with “gaming,” “exercise,” “shopping,” etc.).

The pupils expressed challenges connected to being a young person (e.g., emotions going up and down).

EXPRESSING SENSITIVITY AND SAFE SPACES

The participants used the probes differently and had many forms of expression (words, drawings, and creations).

Some expressed sensitive or personal topics through the probes, such as keeping to oneself.

NARRATION, SENSEMAKING, AND SYNTHESIS

How the participants used narration to define themselves differed: some used words with a negative association, while others used humor or mentioned strengths when describing themselves.

Small indications were present in relation to the participants’ experiences and thoughts about the process of filling out the probes/having an outlet for their internal thoughts.

THEIR SOCIAL WORLD AND THE DIVIDE

Love and relationships were almost never present.

Friends were often deemed important in relation to activities outside the home. Family often connected to activities inside the home.

Some participants experienced challenges with peers (e.g., being embarrassed, challenged, or pressured in different ways).

Some expressed difficulties with communicating with adults.

CONCLUSION

Having worked with over 70 young people and their teachers, talked to professionals working with young people in their everyday lives, and engaged in many, many conversations with other researchers and people working with young people across different fields, I now aim to present what learning can be taken from these results. The purpose of this study was to provide young people a voice through research that was worth their time and participation. Exploring the use of materials and play as tools to open up insights into the deeper layers of knowledge offers potential in terms of working with young people. In this chapter, I put forward the learnings I have taken away about designing play probes for young people I address these in accordance with the research questions and hence divide the first part of the conclusion into two sections, one for each question. This is followed by a perspective on future considerations.

CORE D ESIG N P RINCIPLES TO C ONSIDER WHEN D ESIGNING P LAY P ROBES FOR Y OUNG P EOPLE

In this section, I delve into the different principles that I have extrapolated from this research that surround the play probes as a method.

MAKING YOUNG PEOPLE INVEST TIME AND EFFORT

Generally, the participants did not seem to mind that the probes required time and effort as long as a balance between the two was upheld. Concretely framing the creation-based activities (e.g., “make an animal that informs of something about yourself”) made them easy for the participants to understand and seemed to evoke interest in completing them. There are more layers to this that I address later in this chapter, but the primary takeaway is that young people are open to spending time on doing the activities. They are also open to working on abstract activities that might require focus and consideration despite being quick to fill out, such as the playground map in the case of tests 1 and 2. In the third test, the participants were accepting to doing the quick activities that required a bit of reflection as well, such as the “finish the sentences” task. The activities being voluntary throughout their participation was also important for the participants, as they reported awareness of this fact in the personalized surveys. Interestingly, many chose to participate despite involvement being voluntary. Hence, other factors might be more important than “forcing” participation when working with young people. Having small treats in the probes was not in the participants’ focus or something they spoke about either based on the teacher’s feedback, the interviews, and the personalized surveys. Some participants even left the treats untouched in the probes once they returned them. Of course, the effect of having external rewards such as gifts could be explored, but in general, this was not a missing component for the participants based on the findings. The experience during participation seemed to be much more in focus, and many expressed enjoyment according to the teachers from the second test.

CREATING A BALANCE IN TIME, PLAY TYPES, SKILLS, AND REQUIREMENTS

Including different approaches to playful elements in the play probes seemed to work. Having activities based on making and construction with fantasy elements was often well-received as long as the task in itself did not require too much investment. Using play as a trigger to encourage participation and sharing did seem to have an effect on many of the participants, as one of the words about the probe that occurred again and again was “fun ” This is despite some of the activities failing to achieve a balance. The birdhouse activity, for instance, required too much from the participants, in terms of creative expression and aesthetics, and only one participant considered it fun, with the explanation that she loved being creative. It was too abstract and required too much of the participants, so even without solving it, they often ranked it as boring.

INVOLVING MATERIALS MATTERS

The probes were impacted by the different materials put into it. Silk clay worked well as a material in the probes: it is easy to form, resembles modeling clay from when the participants were children, does not create a mess, and through the negotiation the participants had with it seemed to encourage reflections and the sharing of insights. Additional materials for disruption were often used in different ways as well,

either directly in the activities or as additional creations that did not necessarily provide any insights but did show that the participants often chose to invest more time than needed in the probes. Wooden constructions were not as successful and hence might have failed in the aforementioned balance, but exploring that further could be useful, as especially male participants seemed to partake in the activity. Letting the participants find their own materials could be beneficial to explore further, as few of the participants who did the activity “take a walk” shared items that showed something about the relationships that are important to them. The majority of participants did not do the activity and it seems that asking the participants to take a walk, did not fit with that particular age group, however providing the participants with the possibility of finding their own materials have not been tested thoroughly for its potentials.

EXPLOIT SURPRISE AND CURIOSITY

When designing the play probes for young people, one thing that worked really well was the element of surprise and the novelty effect. The participants were used to working in very different ways than what the probes encouraged, so the probes did not feel similar to things they normally do. This was useful to exploit when doing research with this particular target group, as it supported the experience of the play probes as being “fun ” Many also reported that the probes were “strange,” “weird,” or “different ” While these words might not be something we tend to associate with design goals, they perhaps should be when working with young people. This could be in line with the idea of play for young people as humor, parody or being silly (Barnett, 2006; Glynn & Webster, 1992; Sutton-Smith, 1997). Their curiosity was seemingly often evoked by the beforementioned qualities, i.e., fun, strange, weird and different. Many did not even wait until they got home to open the probes. This initial impression of the probes, as supported by its surprising or different materials and playfully formulated activities, seemed to keep the participants interested enough to invest their time in the probes to various degrees.

EMERGENT T HEMES ABOUT YOUNG PEOPLE F OUND THROUGH THE PLAY PROBES

From the probes, there was a tendency for the participants to respond positively to being challenged to reflect and make sense of aspects of their lives through abstract activities. The synthesis of this process was shown in multiple probes in several ways. The participants felt safe enough to share insights about themselves that they would perhaps otherwise not have shared through more classical data gathering methods, such as interviews. Through the probes, the participants had the opportunity to distance themselves from the information they chose to share, (e.g., through the lizard silk clay creation, the playground map, or adding notes in the two spheres). Focus did not lie on what they shared at that point, but more on the acts required by the activities. Whether or not this distance was enough to create a safe space for expression is difficult to say, but there are indications of it working. Some themes also arose from the probes about what it can mean to be young today, as presented next.

RELATIONSHIPS

From this research, it is safe to conclude that relationships are important for young people. This topic came across multiple times throughout the probes, but in very different ways, sometimes even within the same probe. This indicates that relations are something that young people focus on quite a lot, including relationships with peers in terms of both friendship and struggles. In only two cases was a romantic relationship brought up. With peers, there were also expectations either from friends or what the individuals considered to come from society that the participants tried to live up to. Traits such as being smart, sporty, and social were important to different participants. One participant, for instance, brought up worries of being too loud and being embarrassed of coming last in a race. Others highlighted the importance of being a good friend and staying loyal to their peers. Many of the participants used their friends and peers for inspiration throughout the time they had with the probes, with some explicitly stating that they used ideas proposed by their friends to respond to certain activities, such as in the response, “I created an owl because my friends think I’m clever ”

Another narrative that came into focus concerned family, which was generally portrayed as connected to memories from childhood, playing with siblings, or the feeling of being at home or safe. An indication

toward a need for more conversations and interest from the family was present, as based on the participants’ positive responses when their families showed increased interest in talking to the participants about the probes.

NARRATIVES

In line with Murray (2008), it is evident from the words and emphasis used in the probes that the participants had different ways of creating a narrative about themselves. Some (mainly males) used humor, while others (again mostly males) emphasized being strong, powerful, or used similar words related to strength. The areas that most often came up in terms of challenges and struggles for the male participants were school and sleep. When looking at the female participants’ probes, however, many portrayed aspects of themselves or their lives in relation to struggles, such as being embarrassed, emotions going up and down, and not showing the “real me ” Of course, some of the female participants also emphasized their strengthens, often in relation to school, such as being clever or creative.

Many of the participants expressed or indicated joy in participating, and those who elaborated upon that sensation tended to state that it was fun to perceive themselves and their everyday lives through the activities. For example, it was fun to use the playground map to connect past and present activities, and the abstract concepts of trying to define something about themselves through silk clay reminded them of childhood. Not all participants expressed these aspects, but many had a positive attitude toward the probes. Some did not enjoy participation, however, instead finding it boring or even not participating at all. This was to be expected due to the voluntary nature of this research, but it was more an exception than a tendency.

DUAL-SIDED IDENTITIES

Many participants used the probes to show the different aspects of their everyday lives and of themselves, such as being “lazy, but sometimes full of energy” or strong but also fun. Others described different perspectives by stating that there is more to who they are than what meets the eye or that the “real me lies under the surface”.

While it was not expected for the participants to only contain one version of themselves or have a “simple personality” and therefore logical aspects, it is interesting that there was this tendency to show different sides of themselves. This indicates an awareness among young people that could be explored further. They had something at heart that they wanted to share, as further supported by, for instance, how their peers were portrayed in their probes, often as friends with whom they spend a large amount of their leisure time. But the peer aspect also contained some struggles and pressure that were important to their lives. This was present as well in families both representing a possible need for more interaction and the feeling of being at home, safe or comforted.

FUTURE POSSIBILITIES

Part of this conclusion touches upon the potential I see in future work on play probes. These are some of the aspects that I found while developing and testing the play probes that contained new or potentially improvable directions when getting young people to open up in a safe and mutually beneficial way. These directions involved areas to explore based on the insights from the participants, as well as new aspects when developing the play probe, as this research is a “here and now” glimpse of what the play probes can do.

DESIGNING FOR PLAY

Play probes should contain elements of play. Therefore, careful consideration of how to add play elements or playful triggers to gather data while not overloading the participants with activities is important.

During the three rounds of tests, I found different tendencies that inform this consideration. An example, as mentioned in the section “Making the probes”, was involving others in activities from the first and second tests, as the physical results in the probe did not yield much information to analyze. However, during the interviews for the first test and the teacher feedback in the second test, the participants

expressed joy about sharing and talking with their parents and siblings. Though this result was not within the scope of this project, it indicates a possibility and perhaps even a need in young people that could be addressed later on. In the third test, there were no activities asking the participants to cooperate with or involve others due to the activities’ limited physical results, but the participants completed the probes with the same positive response from their families. Whether this represents a pattern or is pure coincidence is difficult to say, but it shows that when designing play probes, things that might not contribute directly to the results might still contribute to the participant’s experience and hence might have reason to be included.

For the play triggers in the probes, I mainly used the theory of the Play Blueprint (Legaard, 2018), which contains three factors to consider when designing toward play: playfulness, activities, and motive orientation. These can also be used if analyzing play objects or play concepts. In this case, I tested different elements of playfulness (i.e., disruption, humor, chance, and imagination) Some received a higher degree of emphasis, such as imagination. It could be argued that while designing for play for young people, imagination might not be an ideal choice of playfulness, as this generation is in a state of life where disruption, chance, and humor might be closer to the type of play in their everyday lives. However, attempts to employ these in the play probes did not work as well compared to imagination. This can be the result of many factors, such as the framing of the different activities, me failing to appropriately design activities within the other types of playfulness, or imagination being easy for the participants to access when at home and on their own. This stands for further exploration to make the play probes even more playful.

The different types of activities that the Play Blueprint introduces are construction, bodily activity, investigation, and storytelling. Legaard (2020) explained how to combine these, as they rarely stand on their own, and I explored them in different ways as presented in the “Play in the Play Probes” section. It could be argued that the play probes relied too much on one theory to implement play, but there is very little theory on this particular area, and the types of activities correlate with many other perceptions of play, as introduced in the section “Probes with play”. Hence, the theories underlying the Play Blueprint were deemed acceptable and even highly relevant in this specific context. Testing the different play types could have been done in many ways; in this case, the most appropriate and best fitting types were construction and storytelling. The other two (bodily activity and investigation) could be more useful in the current state of the play probes but require further exploration to find the right approach to them. The last factor from the Play Blueprint, motive orientation, was used mainly when framing the activities but also to understand how the participants approached the activities to evaluate the different iterations of the play probes.

RETROSPECTIVE AND FUTURE PERSPECTIVES

The professionals who partook in the second round of probe tests came with different perspectives on what they saw from the probes. The teachers emphasized the seriousness the participants had chosen to approach the probes with and that they actually used the probes as an outlet for their thoughts, struggles, and perspectives. The researcher/doctor expressed how he often struggled to get young people to participate openly, as they usually do not share what is on their mind, at least based on statistics of how many are given different mental health diagnoses. His research on young people surrounded creating a safe space for them to talk freely, which was challenging. He therefore focused on how many chose to participate and what they chose to share and expressed interest in while exploring the play probes further. Lastly, the social worker stated that young people are often met with words alone, either through talk or text, when getting information from adults and when adults need information from them. She perceived this tendency as a potential gap that could be diminished by the use of the probes or at least by taking inspiration from them in terms of materials for expressions.

The professionals’ statements and perspectives about the potential use of probes and those that the participants completed have been highlighted. The potential of involving professionals could have been explored more in depth, however, as they came with valuable feedback both on how they saw the content and the future perspective of the probes. Using professionals in, for instance, co-design workshops in different phases of the probes’ development could possibly strengthen the probes even further depending on their purpose.

Having professionals on board through workshops to define themes and formulate activities could loan value to the play probes. For instance, the social worker had extensive experience with which challenges could be present when aiming to gain insights into aspects of young people’s lives, but she was also able to depict themes from the probes based on that experience that others might not have seen, such as with the girl who created the yellow owl (in the first article, on page 66).

The social worker found indications of this girl being in high need of being in control based on her probe. Whether the probes are intended as conversation starters with young people, to develop research about young people, or for therapy, professionals have experience that based on the interviews with the four participating in this research can be quite useful.

REFERENCES

Archer, B. (1995). The nature of research. Co-design, Interdisciplinary Journal of Design, 2(1), 6–13. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1991). Participatory action research and action science compared: A commentary. In W. F. Whyte (Ed.), Participatory action research (pp. 85–96). Sage. Barnett, L. A. (2006). The nature of playfulness in young adults. Personalities and Individual Differences, 43, 949–958.

Bateson, P. (2014). Play, playfulness, creativity and innovation. Animal Behavior and Cognition, 1(2), 99–112.

Blenkinsop, S., McCrone, T., Wade, P., & Morris, M. (2006). How do young people make choices at 14 and 16? National Foundation for Educational Research.

Boehner, K., Vertesi, J., Sengers, P., & Dourish, P. (2007). How HCI interprets probes. In CHI proceedings, designing for specific cultures, San Jose, USA (pp. 1077–1087). ACM.

Bolger, Davis, & Rafaeli. (2002). Diary Methods: capturing life as it is lived. Annual Review Psychology, 54, 579-616.

Bruselius-Jensen, M., & Nielsen, A-M. W. (2020). Veje til deltagelse – Nye forståelser og tilgange til børn og unges deltagelse (roads to participation – new understandings and accesses to children and youths participation). CEFU. https://www.cefu.dk/emner/publikationer/publikationer/veje-til-deltagelse-–nye-forstaaelser-og-tilgange-til-facilitering-af-boern-og-unges-deltagelse.aspx Buchanan, R. (1998). Education and professional practice in design. Design Issues, 14(2), 63–66. Buchanan, R. (2001). Design research and the new learning. Design Issues, 17(4), 3–23.

Buonamici, F., Carfagni, M., Furferi, R., Volpe, Y., & Governi, L. (2021). Generative design: An explorative study. Computer-Aided Design & Applications, 18(1), 144–155. Carter, & Mankoff. (2005). When participants do the capturing: the role of media in diary studies. In CHI proceedings, human factors in computing systems, Oregon, USA (pp. 2-7). ACM. Cross, N. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies, 3(4), 221–227. Cross, N. (1999). Design research: A disciplined conversation. Design Issues, 15(2), 5–10.

Dankl, K., Akoglu, C., & Egelund, K. B. (2022). A contemporary framework for probing in social design: On continuous dialogues and community building. International Journal of CoDesign in Design and the Arts, 19(1), 14-35.

Drew, S., Duncan, R. E., & Sawyer, S. M. (2010). Visual storytelling: a beneficial but challenging method for health research with young people. Qualitative Health Research, 20(12), 1677-1688.

Duncan, R. E., Drew, S. E., Hodgson, J., & Sawyer, S. N. (2009). Is my mum going to hear this? Methodological and ethical challenges in qualitative health research with young people. Social Medicine, 69, 1691–1699.

Edwards, H. M., McDonald, S., & Zhao, T. (2011). Exploring teenager’s motivation to exercise through technology probes. In Proceedings of HCI, the 25th BCS Conference on Human Computer Interaction, 25, 104–113.

Elston, D. M. (2021). The novelty effect. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 85(3), 565–566. https://www.jaad.org/article/S0190-9622(21)01987-3/fulltext

Ernst, A. E., Würtz, J., Lakmann, C., Nielsen, S. A., & Sørensen, L. M. (2019). Hårtab, angst og søvnmangel: højt tempo i samfundet skaber øget mistrivsel blandt unge (Hairloss, anxiety and sleepdeprivation: high speed in society creates decreased thriwing among youth) DR News. https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/politik/folketingsvalg/haartab-angst-og-soevnmangel-hoejt-tempo-i-samfundet-skaber-oeget#!/ Fischer, T., & Herr, C. M. (2001). Teaching generative design. In Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Generative Art, Milan, Italy. (pp. 147–160). Milan University. Foundation Tagkærgaard. Narrativ tilgang og metode (Narrative approach and method). https://www.tagkaergaard.dk/paedagogiske-metoder/narrativ-tilgang-og-metode.aspx Fossey, E., Harvey, C., McDermott, F., & Davidson, L. (2002). Understanding and evaluating qualitative research. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 36(6), 717–732. Frankel, L., & Racine, M. (2010). The complex field of research: For design, through design and about design. In D. Durling, R. Bouschati, L. Chen, P. Gauthier, T. Poldma, S. Roworth-Strokes, & E. Stolterman (Eds.), Design and Complexity – DRS International Conference Proceedings 2010, Montreal, Canada Gaver, W. W., Boucher, A., Pennington, S., & Walker, B. (2004). Cultural probes and the value of uncertainty. Interactions 11(5), 53-56. Gaver, W. W., Dunne, A., & Pacenti, E. (1999). Cultural probes. Interactions, 6(1), 21–29.

Ghitis, F. (2022). Opinion: the relentless bravery of Iranian protesters is a moral test for the Western world. Newspaper article, retrieved at January 10th 2023, from: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/10/29/opinions/iran-protests-mahsa-amini-support-ghitis/index.html

Gilbert, M. V. (2023). Som psykolog er mit hovedfokus at lære unge at åbne sig overfor deres venner og familie (as a psychologist it is my main focus to aid young people in opening up to their friends and familiy). Information, chronic. https://www.information.dk/debat/2023/02/psykolog-hovedfokuslaere-unge-aabne-venner-familie Girl Talk. Du er altid god nok (You are always good enough). https://www.girltalk.dk Graham, C., Cheverst, K., & Rouncefield, M. (2005). Whose probe is it anyway? ozCHI, contribution to conference, workshop on appropriate methods for design in complex and sensitive settings. Canberra. Glynn, M. A., & Webster, J. (1992). The adult playfulness scale: An initial assessment. Psychological Reports, 71(1), 83–103. Graham, C., Rouncefield, M., Gibbs, M., Vetere, F., & Cheverst, K. (2007). How probes work. In CHI Proceedings, entertaining user interfaces, OZCHI, Adelaide, Australia (pp. 29–37). ECITE Gray, P. (2011). The decline of play and the rise of psychopathy in children and adolescents. American Journal of Play, 3(4), 443–463. Godin, D., & Zahedi, M. (2014). Aspects of research through design: A literature review Design’s Big Debates, DRS 2014, Sweden.

Hagemann, S. (2022). Stigende mistrivsel blandt unge: vi er nødt til at gøre noget markant anderledes. BUPL. https://bupl.dk/paedagogik-og-profession/paedagogisk-forskning/stigende-mistrivselblandt-unge-vi-er-noedt-til

Hair, E. C., Moore, K. A., Ling, T. J., McPhee-Baker, C., & Brown, B. V. (2009). Youth who are “disconnected” and those who then reconnect: Assessing the influence of family, programs, peers and communities. Child Trends.

Hansen, E. I. K., & Iversen, O. S. (2013). You are the real experts!: studying teenagers’ motivation in participatory design. In IDC Proceedings on Interaction Design and Children, New York, USA (pp. 328-332). ACM.

Heidemann, C. H. (2022). Vi må forstå at følelserne hører til hos den unge, mens støtten hører til hos os (we must understand that emotions belong to the young person, while the support belongs to us). ALT. https://www.alt.dk/sundhed/vi-maa-forstaa-at-foelelserne-hoerer-til-hos-den-unge-mens-stoetten-hoerer-til-hos-os

Henricks, T. (2016). Playing into the future, chapter 10. In Patte, M. M. & Sutterby, J. A. (2016). Celebrating 40 years of play research: Connecting our past, present and future. (pp. 169-183). Rowman and Littlefield.

Horton, M., Read, J. C., Fitton, D., Toth, N., & Little, L. (2012). Too cool at school – Understanding cool teenagers. Psychology Journal, 10(2), 73–91.

Huizinga, J. (1955). Homo Ludens: A study of the play element in culture. Beacon Hulkko, S., Mattelmäki, T., Virtanen, K., & Keinonen, T. (2004). Mobile probes. In Proceedings of NordiCHI, Tampere, Finland. (pp. 43–51).

Hutchinson, H., Bederson, B. B., Druin, A., Plaisant, C., MacKay, W., Evans, H., Hansen, H., Conversy, S., Beaudouin-Lafon, M., Eiderbäck, B., Lindquist, S., Sundblad, Y., & Westerlund, B. (2003). Technology probes: Inspiring design for and with families. In CHI ‘03, Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 5(1), Florida, USA. (pp. 17–24).

Iversen, O. S., & Nielsen, C. (2003). Using digital cultural probes in design with children. IDC 2003 7/03, UK.

Karoff, H. S. (2013). Play practices and play moods. International Journal of Play 2(2), 76-86 Kjeldgaard, D., & Askegaard, S. (2006). The glocalization of youth culture: The global youth segment as structures of common difference. Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 232–247.

KLK. (2019). Fælles mål og løsninger – hvad siger de unge selv? (Translated: Shared goals and solutions –what do the young say themselves) https://www.kl.dk/media/22018/kommunal-ungeindsats-hvadsiger-de-unge-selv.pdf

Knutz, Markussen, & Thomsen. (2018). Materiality in Probes: three perspective for co-exploring patient democracy. CoDesign 15(2), 142-162.

Kolko, J. (2010). Abductive thinking and sensemaking: The drivers of design synthesis. MIT’s Design Issues, 26(1), 15-28. https://www.jonkolko.com/writing/abductive-thinking-and-sensemaking

Københavns Kommune. Metodiske Tilgange, den korte snor (Methodological approaches, the short leash). https://udsatteogkriminalitetstruedeunge.kk.dk/vores-tilbud/den-korte-snor/til-fagfolk/metodiske-tilgange

Legaard, J. F. (2018). The road to happiness is paved with playful intensions. DRS, 2018.

Legaard, J. F. (2020). Designing aesthetics for play(fulness). NordDesign, 2020.

Livingstone, S., & Helpser, E. (2007). Graduations in digital inclusion: Children, young people and the digital divide. New Media & Society, 9(4), 671–696.

Loomis, D. K., & Paterson, S. (2018). A comparison of data collection methods: Mail versus online surveys. Journal of Leisure Research 49(1), 1-17.

Luusua, A., Ylipulli, J., Jurmu, M., Pihlajaniemi, H., Markkanen, P., & Ojala, T. (2015). Evaluation probes. In CHI Crossings, Rethinking Evaluation for Today’s HCI, Korea (pp. 85–95).

Matos, S., Silva, A. R., Sousa, D., Picanco, A., Amorim, I. R., Ashby, S., Gabriel, R., & Arroz, A. M. (2022). Cultural probes for environmental education: Designing learning materials to engage children and teenagers with local biodiversity. Plos ONE. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0262853

Mattelmäki, T. (2006). Design probes. Publication series of the University of Arts and Design. Mattelmäki, T. (2008). Probing for co-exploring. CoDesign, 4(1), 65–78.

Mattelmäki, T., & Battarbee, K. (2002). Empathy probes. Proceedings of Participatory Design Conference, Malmö.

Mihailidis, P. (2015). Digital curation and digital literacy: evaluating the role of curation in developing critical literacies for participating in digital culture. E-learning and digital media 12(5-6), 443-458. Mission Australia (2021). Understanding young people. https://www.missionaustralia.com.au/whatwe-do/children-youth-families-and-communities/understanding-young-people Morrow, V. (2008). Ethical dilemmas in research with children and young people about their social environment. Children’s Geographies, 6(1), 49–61.

Mouritsen, F. (1998). Child culture – play culture. Odense University Printing Office. Murray, M. (2008). Narrative psychology. In J. A. Smith (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods (2nd ed., pp. 111–132). Sage.

Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2002). The concept of flow. In Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 89–105). Oxford University Press

Nielsen, L. (2010). Personas in co-creation and co-design. In Proceedings of the 11th Danish Human-Computer Interaction Research Symposium, Copenhagen, Denmark. (pp. 38–40).

Nitecki, E., & Chung, M-H. (2016). Play as place: A safe space for young children to learn about the world. International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, 4(1), 25–31.

Odom, W., Zimmerman, J., & Forlizzi, J. (2011). Teenagers and their virtual possessions: Design opportunities and issues. In CHI 2011, Session: Digital Content and Collections (pp. 1491–1500).

Ormerod, F. & Ivanic, R. (2002). Materiality in children’s meaning-making. Visual Communication 1(1), 65-91.

Paulos, E., & Jenkins, T. (2005). Urban probes: Encountering our emerging urban atmospheres. In CHI: Design Thoughts and Methods, Oregon, USA (pp. 341–350). ACM

Proyer, R. T. (2013). The well-being of playful adults: Adult playfulness, subjective well-being, physical well-being, and the pursuit of enjoyable activities. European Journal of Humour Research, 1(1), 84–98. Qian, X. & Yarnal, C. (2011).The role of playfulness in the leisure stress-coping process among emerging adults: an SEM analysis. Leisure 35(1), 191-209.

Resnick, M. (2017). Lifelong Kindergarten – cultivating creativity through projects, passion, peers and play. MIT Press

Ribeiro, J., Andrade, P., Carvalho, M., Silva, C., Ribeiro, B., & Roque, L. (2022). Playful probes for design interaction with machine learning: A tool for aircraft condition-based maintenance planning and visualization. Mathematics, 10(9), 1604–1624.

Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., & Preece, J. (2011). Interaction design: Beyond human-computer-interaction. Wiley and Sons.

Saggers, S., Palmer, D., Royce, P., Wilson, L., & Charlton, A. (2004). Alive and motivated: Young people, participation and local government. National Youth Affairs Scheme. Sanders, E. B. (2000). Generative tools for co-designing. In Collaborative design: Proceedings of Codesigning (pp. 3–12). Springer

Sanders, E. B.-N., Brandt, E., & Binder, T. (2010). A framework for organizing the tools and techniques of participatory design. PDC 2010, Australia.

Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, D. J. (2014). Probes, toolkits and prototypes: Three approaches to making in codesigning. CoDesign, 10(1), 5–14.

Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2020). The convivial toolbox. BIS Publishers.

Sjøvoll, V., & Gulden, T. (2016). Play probes – As a productive space and source of information. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education, Aalborg, Denmark (pp. 342–347).

Skovlund, C. W., Wessing, L. V., Mørch, L. S., & Lidegaard, Ø. (2017). Increase in depression diagnoses and prescribed antidepressants among young girls. A national cohort study 2000-2013. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry 71(5), 378-385

Staempfli, M. B. (2007). Adolescent playfulness, stress perception, coping and well being. Journal of Leisure Research 39(3), 309-330.

Sturm, Tieben, Deen, Bekker, & Schouten. (2011).

Sundhedsstyrelsen, Epinion (2021). Undersøgelse blandt forældre til teenagere (study among parents to teenagers). https://www.sst.dk/-/media/Faelles-om-ungelivet/Undersoegelse-blandt-foraeldre-tilteenagere Epinion-_2021__FINAL.ashx

Sutton-Smith, B. (1997). The ambiguity of play.

Swann, C. (2002). Action research and the practice of design. Design Issues, 18(2), 49–61.

Tellis-James, C., & Fox, M. (2016). Positive narratives: The stories young people with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties (SEBD) tell about their futures. Educational Psychology in Practice, 32(4), 327–342.

Thastum, R., Svendsen, A. M. B., Hovgaard, E. M., Bien, N., & Haahr-Pedersen, I. (2022). Børn og Unge kæmper for at passe ind, analyse fra Boerns Vilkaar (Children and young people fight to fit in, analysis from Childrens Welfare). Børns Vilkar. https://bornsvilkar.dk/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Boern_og_unge_kaemper_for_at_passe_ind_29082231.pdf

Thomas, J., & McDonagh, D. (2013). Emphatic design: Research strategies. Australasian Medical Journal, 6(1), 1–6.

UU Danmark, (2021). Unge med Kant (youth with edge). https://ungemedkant.dk

Valk, L. D., Rijnbout, P., Bekker, T., Eggen, B., Graaf, M. D., & Schouten, B. (2012). Designing for playful experiences in open-ended intelligent play environments. IADIS, International Conference Game and Entertainment Technologies. van Leuween, & Westwood. (2008).

Vygotsky, L. (1966). Play and its role in the mental development of the child (C. Mulholland, Trans.). Voprosy Psikhologii, 6. Wallace, J., McCarthy, J., Wright, P., & Olivier, P. (2013). Making design probes work. CHI 2013, France. Wicks, S., Berger, Z., & Camic, P. M. (2019). It’s how I am…It’s what I am…It’s a part of who I am: A narrative exploration of the impact of adolescent onset chronic illness on identity formation in young people. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 24(1), 40–52.

Youell, B. (2008). The importance of play and playfulness. The European Journal of Psychotherapy and Counselling, 10(2), pp. 121–129. Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J. & Evenson, S. (2007). Research through design as a method for interaction design research in HCI. In CHI: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. California, USA. (pp. 493-502). ACM

Zimmerman, J., Stolterman, E., & Forlizzi, J. (2010). An analysis and critique of research through Design: Towards a formalization of a research approach. DIS 2010.

APPENDIX

As the participants in this study are minors, many of the images etc. are not included here in the thesis. In the following, are those documents that can be shared.

SORTING OF THEMES

First step:

Third step:

I went from an analogue approach to categorizing it further digitally, this also enabled me to continuously adding to the categories and/or changing according to new findings when getting new probes.

THEMES TOPICS

SPORT AND HOBBIES

Horse-riding, skateboarding, golf, soccer, gymnastics, dance, athletics, karate, guitar, handball, fashion, swimming, diving, piano

EXERCISE Running, fitness, training, using weights, bicycling, handball

GAMING

VACATION

CREATIVE

RELATIONS

FAMILY

HOME

BEING ALONE

NATURE

IDENTITY

RESPONSIBILITIES

SCHOOL

PlayStation, Computer, Among Us, Counter Strike, Mario, Fifa

Djurs Sommerland (theme park), camping trip, skiing, familytrips, beaches, wanting to see the world/ dreaming of traveling the world

Painting, sewing, writing poems, sketching, singing, singing alone, playing music, writing stories, editing pictures, styling clothes, “music inspires both when doing homework, walking the dog and when being together with friends”, creating jewelry

Friends, parties, gossiping, being together, “hygge,” watching TV, laughing, shopping, trying new things, alcohol, talking, eating, inspiration, going to the beach, playing computer games, wanted to hit him, embarrassed, friends saying I´m clever, going up and down, girlfriend, going out to eat, motivated by friends in school, relaxing together, “love when people around me are happy”, going to see shows, Halloween-party, preparations for party together, doing homework together, having deep conversations with friends

Board games, discussions, cleaning, travelling, siblings, shopping, eating, card games, ups and downs, together, walking, memories, bored , motivated by parents to do good, big-brothers being hard on the outside, but soft on the inside, parents are like flowers, watching television together, school-meetings with parents (skole-hjem samtale)

House, safety, different on the outside compared to the inside, relaxing, family, being together, friends coming over, pets, “being at home when it rains”

Homework, watching TV, being creative, spa treatments, reading books, cooking, baking, sleeping, listening to music, programming, singing, playing games, computer, dancing

Walking alone, walking the dog, being outside, running, walking with mom, bored, walking the dog in all kinds of weather

“Beneath the surface lies the real me,” “I often feel different and that is okay,” “My feelings go up and down,” “I often change my opinion”, feeling: embarrassed, being smart, strong, powerful, different, naïve, isolated, loyal, clever, friends’ statements: “my friends say I am clever”, “I have weird shaped ears”, dreaming of being “the best I can be”, dreaming of being rich, being both outgoing, talkative but also a bit crazy and colourful

Cleaning, homework, working, siblings, feeling busy all the time, having difficulty getting up in the morning, school, money, bored, “balancing friends, family and school”, my dog, doing dishes after dinner

Homework, tired, frustrating courses, boredom, inspiring courses, being clever, “fun to be at school with my friends, but mostly in recess”

PHONES TikTok, social media, FaceTime, Pinterest

CHALLENGES

Talking about emotions, embarrassed of being last, wanting to hit him, difficult to sleep, scared of being too loud, people lying, the week sometimes goes by too fast, sometimes being lazy, having diabetes, exams, doing homework, getting out of bed, school, work, eating salad

SUMMARY

IN ENGLISH

This PhD incorporates the research fields of young people, design, and play with the aim of developing methods that are directed toward young people as a means of expression through materials. As such, this PhD records the development and exploration of a probe that uses playful triggers and materials, with reflection on what motivates young people to open up about their experiences and perspectives.

That play is not just for children but also for adults and young people was a crucial focal point in the creation of an equally safe and joyful experience for the young people as they participated in the probes. This research therefore aimed to explore the core principles that were present when designing probes that are playful for young people while also depicting the themes emerging from the completed probes tested throughout the study.

Different activities were developed and tested through three iterations of the probes with over 60 young people. From the different iterations, the learnings and tendencies that occurred were used to further develop the probes. In this regard, the overall goal of this study was twofold. The first goal was to explore different approaches to playful activities and find a proper balance between them, the time and investment they required from the participants, and the influence of play and materiality when analyzing the probes from each test. The other focus lay in what the young people shared about themselves, and which themes arose in their probes.

From the findings, three articles were published about the process and iterations of the probes’ development. These articles are presented and elaborated on in this PhD to discuss aspects of how to develop the probe method, so the probes are voluntary, evoke curiosity, and through that encourage participation, all while stressing the importance of maintaining a balance in the probes themselves. Another focus is exploring what findings the young people chose to present through the probes within topics such as identity, sensitive insights about themselves, and the narrative, sensemaking, and synthesis that could be found from the probes. The discussion ends with findings on indications about young people’s social world and the divide they might experience from other generations. This leads to a proposal to define the method developed and explored as play probes

As a conclusion, the study touches on the overall findings from the probes, again separated into two areas: how to make a play probe and what insights the participants shared. The first area depicts how the young people still participated in the study to a high degree despite the probes being voluntary. It also highlights the importance of having a proper balance of probe activities, both in time and requirements, and how designing toward evoking curiosity seems to have a positive influence on young people’s participation. The other area involves different aspects and themes that seem important to young people based on the completed probes. Notably, young people consider relationships important, yet complex. They seek out and focus on their relationships with friends while also expressing how peers can place pressure on their lives. Family is important as well and generally represents safety for the participants. Moreover, some of the probes had a clear narrative throughout their content, such as girls focusing on their struggles. Hence there were tendency of sharing insights about their traits, values and other aspects of their personal lives. Play probes therefor have indications towards being a useful tool for gaining insights to young people, but it also shows directions for further research.

IN DANISH

Denne PhD omhandler unge mennesker, design og leg. Med et fokus på udviklingen af en metode der er målrettet unge mennesker, foreslår dette arbejde en måde at give unge et talerør gennem materialer blandt andet. Alt dette har ført til undersøgelse og udvikling af et probekit der involverer legende elementer og materialer, med henblik på hvad vil motivere unge til at åbne op omkring deres oplevelser og tanker.

Da leg ikke blot er forbeholdt børn, men også noget voksne og unge gør, var det vurderet som en god mulighed at udforske hvorvidt legene elementer kunne skabe et miljø der var sikkert at udtrykke sig i under deltagelsen. Studiet fokuserer derfor på at udforske de primære principper når man skal designe probes der er legende, til unge mennesker, og samtidigt også undersøge og definere de tematikker der opstår ud fra indholdet af de udfyldte probes.

Forskellige aktiviteter er blevet udviklet og testet gennem tre iterationer af proben, sammen med over 60 unge mennesker. Fra de forskellige iterationer, er de tendenser og den læring der opstod, brugt til at udvikle på proben yderligere. I fokus for analysen af dette, var to områder: Det ene var at udforske tilgange til legende aktiviteter, samt at finde en god balance hhv. mellem aktiviteter, i den tid og investering der kræves af deltagerne såvel som den påvirkning leg og materialerne havde fra hver test. Det andet fokus lå på hvad de unge delte af informationer om dem selv og hvilke tematikker der opstod fra probene.

Tre udgivet artikler om dette studie er præsenteret og derefter uddybet i diskussionen, gennem opståede aspekter af den metode der er udviklet og anvendt. Disse omhandler effekten af at det var frivilligt at deltage, hvordan probene kan skabe en nysgerrighed i deltagerne og derigennem opfordre til deltagelse, der præsenteres også vigtigheden af at finde en god balance i probene. Et andet fokus lå på at udforske den læring der kunne findes gennem probene omkring de unge. Emnerne der var i særligt fokus i deres probe, var identitet, hvordan de unge brugte probene til at udtrykke følsomme og sensitive indsigter, samt hvordan de brugte narrativer. Til slut uddybes den læring der indikerer noget omkring unge’s sociale verden og den kløft de kan opleve mellem generationer. Dette leder til et konkret forslag om at definere metoden som Play Probes (lege probe).

Til slut opsummeres hovedpunkterne fra den læring og indsigter der er opstået gennem studiet, igen delt i to fokusområder: hvordan man kan skabe en lege probe til unge samt hvilke indsigter de unge har delt omkring dem selv. Det første aspekt er derfor hvordan deltagerne i høj grad stadig valgte at deltage på trods af at de frit kunne vælge hvorvidt det var noget de ville eller ej. Et andet aspekt der præsenteres, er vigtigheden af en god balance af aktiviteter både i tid og hvad der kræves af de unge. Ved at designe mod at vække nysgerrighed, virkede til at have en positiv indvirkning på de unge deltagelse. De andre områder der præsenteres, er forskellige aspekter og tematikker der virkede vigtige for de unge, baseret på de udfyldte probe: forhold er vigtige, men dog komplekse, for de unge. De søger og fokuserer på deres forhold til venner, men samtidigt gav flere udtryk for udfordringer omkring det pres de kan opleve fra jævnaldrende. Familie er også vigtige for de unge og er generelt præsenteret i forbindelse med en følelse af at føle sig sikker og tryg. Nogle af probene havde en tydelig narrativ gennem indholdet, såsom nogle piger der fokuserede på de udfordringer de oplever – særligt omkring deres følelsesliv. Baseret derpå var der en tendens til at de unge delte indsigter omkring personligheds træk, værdier og andre aspekter af deres personlige liv. Lege probe virker derfor til at have gode muligheder i anvendelse med unge mennesker, men mere forskning kan styrke udviklingen af dem.

These last three pages are summing up how to use the findings to make play probes. They are meant for you to use if you are planning to make your own version of the play probes.

EARLY PRACTICALITIES

ACCESS:

Consider the appropriate way of gaining access to the participants.

THEME:

MAKING THE PLAY PROBES

CREATE A BALANCE:

USE OF LIGHT ACTIVITIES:

GETTING THE NUANCES:

PLAY AS TRIGGERS

USE CONSTRUCTION/STORYTELLING:

LIMIT BODILY ACTIVITY: ACTIVITIES

INVITE FOR DISRUPTION: -

THE CONTAINER:

TEST: participation.

TIME:

target-group, before using the probes with the participants

MATERIALS-CONTENT

DISPOSABLE CAMERA RATHER THAN PHONE:

PLAYFULNESS THROUGH HUMOR AND IMAGINATION: young people

QUALITY MATTERS: MAKE IT SURPRISING: USE SILKCLAY OR SIMILAR: ONLY SMALL NOTEBOOKS ETC:

HANDING OVER

EMPHASIZE VOLUNTARINESS: HOW TO INTRODUCE AND APPLY THE PLAY PROBES WITH YOUTH

ENCOURAGE EXPLORATION: AVOID “PLAY”: CONTACT: Present the probes to the participants, either in person or by proxy. Either deciding on participation certain ways

USING THE PLAY PROBES