In this article, we introduce the Design Cookbook Card Deck, a tool designed to facilitate effective co-design in library contexts. This tool provides a structured yet flexible approach that is tailored to accommodate the diverse co-design experience levels of librarians. Here we assess the efficacy of the Design Cookbook Card Deck in supporting co-design projects led by librarians. Our investigation unfolds through a case study involving three co-design teams located in public libraries in different regions of the United States. We utilize a customized version of the card deck to facilitate discussions and programming related to teen mental health within libraries. Through practical use of the card deck and reflections from stakeholders, including librarians, teens, and researchers, we explore the cards’ utility, purpose, adaptability, and ideas for improvement. Our findings reveal that the cards serve as valuable aids, particularly for librarians new to the concept of co-design, and we highlight how the cards supported teens to participate in the activities. We recommend further adaptation and use of the card deck for additional testing in diverse contexts and participating librarians’ collective development of the card deck itself.
BjörlingEACiceroRSankarA, et al. (2019) Thought disposal: Co-designing a virtual interaction to reduce stress in teens. In: Proceedings of the 18th ACM International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, New York, NY, USA, 12 June 2019, pp. 562–567. IDC’19. Association for Computing Machinery.
2.
BossenCDindlerCIversenOS (2010) User gains and PD aims: Assessment from a participatory design project. In: Proceedings of the 11th Biennial Participatory Design Conference, New York, NY, USA, 29 November 2010, pp. 141–150. PDC’10. Association for Computing Machinery.
3.
BoteroAHyysaloSKohtalaC, et al. (2020) Getting participatory design done: From methods and choices to translation work across constituent domains. International Journal of Design14(2): 17–34.
ClarkeRI (2018a) How we done it good: Research through design as a legitimate methodology for librarianship. Library & Information Science Research40(3): 255–261.
6.
ClarkeRI (2018b) Toward a design epistemology for librarianship. The Library quarterly88(1): 41–59.
7.
ClarkeRIAmonkarSRosenbladA (2020) Design thinking and methods in library practice and graduate library education. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science52(3): 749–763.
8.
DabengwaIMRajuJMatingwinaT (2020) Applying interpretive phenomenological analysis to library and information science research on blended librarianship: A case study. Library & Information Science Research42(4): 101055.
9.
DalsgaardP (2012) Participatory design in large-scale public projects: Challenges and opportunities. Design Issues28(3): 34–47.
10.
DruinA (2002) The role of children in the design of new technology. Behavior & Information Technology21(1): 1–25.
11.
EhnP (2008) Participation in design things. In: Participatory design conference (PDC), Bloomington, IN, USA, 2008, pp. 92–101. ACM Digital Library.
12.
EricksonBJKorfiatisPAkkusZ, et al. (2017) Toolkits and libraries for deep learning. Journal of Digital Imaging30(4): 400–405.
13.
FriedmanBHendryD (2012). The envisioning cards: A toolkit for catalyzing humanistic and technical imaginations. In: JonesM (ed.) Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 1145–1148.
14.
GlaserBStraussA (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
15.
GouldingA (2009) Engaging with community engagement: Public libraries and citizen involvement. New Library World110(1/2): 37–51.
16.
HiderPGarnerJGodfreyA, et al. (2024) Designing for communities with communities: A public library codesign project. Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association73(2), 148–176.
17.
Hughes-HassellSMillerET (2003) Public library Web sites for young adults: Meeting the needs of today’s teens online. Library & Information Science Research25(2): 143–156.
18.
IDEO (2009) Human Centered Design: An Introduction, 2nd ed.Palo Alto, CA: IDEO.
19.
IversenOSBrodersenC (2008) Building a BRIDGE between children and users: A socio-cultural approach to child–computer interaction. Cognition, Technology & Work10(2): 83–93.
20.
IversenOSSmithRC (2012) Scandinavian participatory design: Dialogic curation with teenagers. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on interaction design and children, New York, NY, USA, 12 June 2012, pp. 106–115. IDC’12. Association for Computing Machinery.
21.
JaffeJLoebachJ (2024) Fostering youth-enabling environments: A participatory affordance-capability framework for the development and use of youth-engaged environmental assessments. Youth & Society56(1): 164–192.
22.
JiangQNaseemMLaiJ, et al. (2022) Understanding power differentials and cultural differences in co-design with marginalized populations. In: Proceedings of the 5th ACM SIGCAS/SIGCHI conference on computing and sustainable societies, New York, NY, USA, 29 June 2022, pp. 165–179. COMPASS ’22. Association for Computing Machinery.
23.
JohnsonMHyysaloSMäkinenS, et al. (2014) From recipes to meals. . . and dietary regimes: Method mixes as key emerging topic in human-centered design. In: Proceedings of the 8th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. New York, NY: ACM, pp. 343–352.
24.
KimSChoiGCopelandA, et al. (n.d.) Public library-university partnerships in library and information science: Approaches, challenges, implications for translating research into practice. Available at: http://kahyunchoi.com/papers/asist2023_panel_skim.pdf (accessed 12 September 2023).
25.
KimSHChoiGW (2023) Rural librarians as brokers of engineering learning through research-practice partnership and co-design. In: iConference 2023 Proceedings, Barcelona, Spain, 13-17 March 2023. iSchools.
26.
LeeJHBjörlingEMcLeanR, et al. (2024) Supporting youth mental health through co-designing a virtual reality experience: A recipe-based co-design model. The Library Quarterly94(2): 134–158.
27.
LeeKJLeeJHYipJC (2021) Pre-service Librarians’ Perspective on the Role of Participatory Design in Libraries with Youth. In: Diversity, Divergence, Dialogue: 16th International Conference, iConference 2021, Beijing, China, 17–31 March 2021, Proceedings, Part I 16, pp. 562–574. Springer International Publishing.
28.
LeeKJRoldanWZhuTQ, et al. (2021) The show must go on: A conceptual model of conducting synchronous participatory design with children online. In: Proceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, New York, NY, USA, 7 May 2021, pp. 1–16. CHI ’21. Association for Computing Machinery.
29.
LeeKJKimYRoldanW, et al. (2023) Caring for the community: An academically based community service course in LIS. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science55(1): 232–245.
30.
LeeVRPhillipsAL (2018) Reconceptualizing Libraries: Perspectives from the Information and Learning Sciences. London, UK: Routledge.
31.
LeeVRLewisWSearleKA, et al. (2017) Supporting interactive youth maker programs in public and school libraries: Design hypotheses and first implementations. In: Proceedings of the 2017 conference on interaction design and children, New York, NY, USA, 27 June 2017, pp. 310–315. IDC ’17. Association for Computing Machinery.
32.
MatternEJengWHeD, et al. (2015) Using participatory design and visual narrative inquiry to investigate researchers’ data challenges and recommendations for library research data services. Program: Electronic Library and Information Systems49(4): 408–423.
33.
MehraBSikesESSinghV (2020) Scenarios of technology use to promote community engagement: Overcoming marginalization and bridging digital divides in the Southern and Central Appalachian rural libraries. Information Processing & Management57(3): 102129.
34.
MiettinenV (2018) Redefining the library: Co-designing for our future selves and cities. Public Library Quarterly37(1): 8–20.
35.
MikkelsenTHSøndergaardJKjærNK, et al. (2024) Designing a tool ensuring older patients the right medication at the right time after discharge from hospital–the first step in a participatory design process. BMC Health Services Research24(1): 511.
36.
MullerMJDruinA (2012) Participatory design: The third space in human–computer interaction. In: Human Computer Interaction Handbook, pp. 1125–1153. CRC Press.
37.
MusaeusLHPetersenMGKlokmoseCN (2024, March) Bringing teachers and researchers together through participatory design and cooperative prototyping in computing education. In: Proceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V, Portland, OR, USA, 20–23 March 2024, pp. 902–908. Association for Computing Machinery.
38.
NelsonMLEslerSL (1997) TRSkit. Journal of Internet cataloging1(2): 41–55.
39.
ReidHHowardV (2016) Connecting with community: The importance of community engagement in rural public library systems. Public Library Quarterly35(3): 188–202.
40.
RogersWAKadylakTBaylesMA (2022) Maximizing the benefits of participatory design for human–robot interaction research with older adults. Human Factors64(3): 441–450.
41.
ShainerGWildeTLuiP, et al. (2013) The co-design architecture for exascale systems, a novel approach for scalable designs. Computer Science – Research and Development28(2): 119–125.
42.
ShankJDBellSZabelD (2011) Blended librarianship: [Re]Envisioning the role of librarian as educator in the digital information age. Reference & User Services Quarterly51(2): 105–110.
43.
SomervilleMMNinoM (2007) Collaborative co-design: A user-centric approach for advancement of organizational learning. Performance Measurement and Metrics8(3): 180–188.
44.
SteenMManschotMDe KoningN (2011) Benefits of co-design in service design projects. International Journal of Design5(2): 53–60.
45.
SubramaniamMBraunLW (2021) Crisis-related research in service to practice: Researchers step up. The Library Quarterly91(1): 5–18.
46.
SubramaniamMHoffmanKMDavisK, et al. (2021) Designing a connected learning toolkit for public library staff serving youth through the design-based implementation research method. Library & Information Science Research43(1): 101074.
47.
SungH-YHepworthMRagsdellG (2013) Investigating essential elements of community engagement in public libraries: An exploratory qualitative study. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science45(3): 206–218.
48.
TevaniemiJPoutanenJLähdemäkiR (2015) Library as a partner in co-designing learning spaces: A case study at Tampere University of Technology, Finland. New Review of Academic Librarianship21(3): 304–324.
49.
TrischlerJKellyK (2016) Chapter 11—User involvement in the design of new library services: Learning from the application of codesign on library service design projects. In: AtkinsonJ (ed.) Quality and the Academic Library. Oxford, UK: Chandos Publishing, pp. 111–120.
50.
WalshGFossEYipJ, et al. (2013, April) FACIT PD: A framework for analysis and creation of intergenerational techniques for participatory design. In: JonesM (ed.) Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 2893–2902).
51.
YipJCLeeKJLeeJH (2020) Design partnerships for participatory librarianship: A conceptual model for understanding librarians co designing with digital youth. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology71(10): 1242–1256.
52.
YoungSBrownotterC (2018) Toward a more just library: Participatory design with native American students. Weave Journal of Library User Experience1(9). DOI: 10.3998/weave.12535642.0001.901.
53.
Zechmeister-KossIAufhammerSBachlerH, et al. (2023) Practices to support co-design processes: A case-study of co-designing a program for children with parents with a mental health problem in the Austrian region of Tyrol. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing32(1): 223–235.
54.
Zbiejczuk SucháLMinaříkováPNovotnýR, et al. (2016) Librarians as Designers: Case Studies on Improvement of Library Services. Brno, Czechia: Masarykova Univerzita.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
