As human-robot interaction (HRI) research increasingly involves children and their care-ecosystems, researchers must decide how to navigate complex ethical, logistical, and practical challenges surrounding robots in real life. Given the diversity of backgrounds of these researchers, we refer to those involved in this work as roboticists. Despite the growing presence of research and commercial applications of child-robot interaction (CRI), there is limited structured guidance to help researchers engage responsibly with vulnerable populations, including children and their care ecosystems. In this WiP report, we propose a guide that addresses this gap by providing key reflection points across all stages of research, from study design to post-study considerations. Aligned with the IDC community's commitment to ethical and inclusive interaction design, this work serves as a starting point for discussions on best practices tailored to child-robot interaction research. Through expert feedback and future collaborations, we aim to refine and expand this guide, ultimately shaping a valuable resource for the broader HRI field.
Notably, research guides exist that are designed to help researchers choose a research question, a framework, the appropriate methodology, and conduct ethical research including children [14,19,25]. However, very few prioritize the 'behind-the-scenes' (or as a roboticist may refer to as 'nuts-and-bolts') of research processes and the invisible responsibilities researchers engage in. While this report is framed as one take on 'best practices,' we recognize that there is no 'right' or 'best' way to do research, and particularly in the field of CRI, it is infeasible to promise answers. Hence, in this report, we share reflections and questions that can assist the process of ethical and inclusive decision making in CRI research. First, we will review general guides to working with children. Then, we will frame questions that we believe are fundamental for roboticists who aim to work with children.
Most 'Practical Guides' for Doing Research with Children are structured to elucidate the choice of design questions, sampling methods and data collection, data analysis, including quantitative, qualitative, or mixed method approaches, and how to report their findings [14,19,25]. While such guides are practical and foundational part of good research practice, they will not be the central focus of our proposed 'Practical Roboticist's Guide'. Instead, we draw on the responsibilities that become relevant once these research practices are chosen. We are also aware of similar efforts within the research community focusing specifically ethical practices within child-robot interaction research or involvement of family and care ecosystems in child-robot interaction. However, in our work, we aim to broaden the scope to a holistic framework including logistics, ethics, inclusive communication, and beyond. Notably, we hope to make implicit choices made on a day-to-day basis into explicit recommendations for carrying out research with children and robots.
Both Research with Children by Christensen and James [8] and an EU report 'Best practice research guide: how to research children and online technologies in comparative perspective' [19] motivate our work due to their holistic focus on research practices [8]. Both guides recognize the need to adapt when things do not go as planned (i.e., we will refer to this as 'being prepared for the unexpected'). Lobe et al. [19] in particular presents testimonials from a large number of researchers in their field, highlighting reasons behind particular research choices and contextualizing their use with specific experiences. In this work, we similarly argue that the addition of testimonials humanizes the research process and elevates the idea that researchers are storytellers beyond facilitators.
Many of these available guides reflect highly collaborative approaches in authorship and contribution, with some targeting the collaborative spirit as a goal of their guide [19]. Practical tips align with communities that are collaborative and collaboration is often successful if decisions on logistics, documentation, and methodology are made in clear and communicative ways. For example, the 'ManyManys' is a large, interdisciplinary, and inter-institution collaboration network in comparative cognition and behavior that values templates and documentation for reproducible and collective work [9]. The field of human-robot interaction is similarly highly interdisciplinary, and collaboration within a team is not only encouraged, but can be imperative for success [23]. We also take inspiration from design tools provided for developing technology with children in mind. Two such tools include the Playful by Design card deck which applies children's rights to digital products [21] and the RITEC Design Toolbox which provides game design features through card decks, infographic posters and business cases to promote children's well-being in the design of digital play. Both of these tools are targeted towards practical use by professionals. While fruitful, we hope to tailor some of the questions and tools for helping roboticists conduct ethical and playful child-robot interaction.
In this work, we build on recommendations from the human-robot and human-computer interaction communities which focus on human-centered and value-centered methodologies and frameworks [6,10,13]. Our work is inspired by similar guides, for example, those characterizing three years of HRI methodology and reporting recommendations, by Baxter et al. [1], as well as lessons learned from in-the-wild child-robot interaction experiments, by Ros et al. [22]. Recommendations such as: legal and administrative considerations, the experimental environment, working with children (briefing, debriefing), and planning the interaction (testing, preparing for the unpredictable, having backup strategies) all align closely with our proposed guide, however, our goal is to expand on these recommendations by proposing practical and actionable steps and considerations within HRI. Practicality, however, is closely linked to being able to report and reproduce past research in our field. Work reviewing reproducibility in human-robot interaction identifies the technical challenges as well as the research and social biases that emerge in this field and threaten the ability to reproduce studies [11]. A review on reproducibility in child-robot interaction specifically identifies the further importance of reporting recruitment and exclusion criteria, considering ethical considerations related to trust and deception, data privacy and security, and the multidisciplinary nature of research teams that demand documentation and clarity of responsibility [24]. While these reviews give valid recommendations, we hope to fill in more gaps on practical recommendations for how roboticists -especially early-career roboticists-can fulfill these expectations to improve success as well as reproducibility.
In this work, we conducted an exploratory analysis approached in two main steps: (1) affinity diagramming and experience-based exploratory ideation based on the first and second authors' practical research experience in designing, conducting, and mentoring several child-robot interaction studies (2) synthesis and refinement of these experiences situated within existing literature and similar guides. We share our positionality statements to contextualize how our past research experiences shaped this guide.
The co-lead authors of this paper were considered the leading experts in child-robot interaction in their respective research laboratories. Both authors have led, collaborated, and mentored several projects that involved designing interactive systems of social robots to be used by children and/or their care ecosystems.
Candidate at Indiana University Bloomington advised by Dr. Selma Šabanović and Dr. Christena Nippert-Eng. Previous to her time at IU, she received a dual Bachelor's degree from the University of California Berkeley in Data Science and Psychology. Her experiences as an educator and caregiver coupled with her understanding of technology and past experiences as a researcher in children's language and cognitive development influenced her decision to study embodied agents. Over the course of her PhD, she has established herself as a passionate advocate for youth's rights to privacy with social robots. In her work, she uses participatory co-design and interviews with children and stakeholders in their care ecosystem to learn about the appropriate roles for robots in youth spaces [16][17][18]. She has also helped co-organize the 3rd and 4th iterations of Privacy Sensitive Robotics Workshops at the IEEE/ACM HRI Conference [12,15].
Wisconsin-Madison's People and Robots Lab, advised by Dr. Bilge Mutlu. She began her research on child-robot interaction in 2019 through a participatory design study [3]. Her 10+ years of experience with FIRST Lego League situates her understanding of childrobot interaction and continues to inform her approach to CRI research. Her PhD minor in Human Development and Family Studies, broadens her focus to include children's care ecosystems in HRI. She has led and collaborated on projects using co-design, ethnographic observation, and in-the-wild deployments to explore how people interact with robots. She has also chaired workshops on family-centered design at IDC and CHI [4,5], and continues community engagement through similar workshops (e.g., mobile tech and teens [7] and care-ecosystem-centered design (IDC2025, in print)). She applies qualitative and design-based methods to center the evolving needs of children and their support networks.
3.1.3 Dr. Selma Šabanović and Dr. Bilge Mutlu, the last two authors, have provided mentoring for the first two authors and contribute to this work by bringing a perspective from the greater HRI research field. Both Dr. Šabanović and Dr Mutlu have over 20 years of experience working with robots and were involved in the early establishment of the HRI research community. Both advisors have significant experience in designing interactive systems tailored for different populations such as older the automation industry, well-being, healthcare, and children.
Based on our collective experiences in child-robot interaction and colored by the motivations described, our research is guided by the following questions:
(1) What methods, theories and tools should roboticists apply when involving children and their care ecosystems in designing and conducting child-robot interaction (CRI) research? (2) How do roboticists and their robots empower children and utilize inclusive communication in CRI research? (3) How should robots be introduced to a child and how have children reacted in response? Which kinds of behaviors further ensure children feel comfortable during the study? (4) Which kinds of values and biases should roboticists be aware of that may be involved/discovered while studying CRI? What additional obstacles (SES, ethnicity, language) may discourage or challenge children and their care ecosystems from participating or sustaining long-term participation? (5) What does a 'to-do' list look like on the day of or the day before a study? What do typical materials and resources look like? How is this different in controlled vs 'in-the-wild' studies? (6) What are the pros and cons of having more or less control on the research environment? What about the pros and cons of autonomy and control over a chosen robot's behaviors (e.g., generative AI, wizard-of-oz studies)? (7) How can roboticists tailor activities and research practices to the different backgrounds, ages, and needs of children and their care ecosystems? How, when and where is it appropriate to involve stakeholders beyond children themselves in the research process? (8) What is the flow and general timeline of such research, and how is it influenced, if at all, by the robots involved? (9) How do CRI methods compare to others in the general HRI or CHI fields? (10) What are roboticists' reflections on the future impact of CRI studies? How can researchers engage, inform, and communicate research results in a way that is understandable and valuable to non-academic audiences? (11) What are common learning curves, roadblocks, bottlenecks while establishing a CRI research study? (e.g., including challenges related to software, hardware, or practical challenges) (12) What kinds of collaborations are important for CRI? How might the diversity (or lack of) of backgrounds on a CRI research team affect the project? 3.3 Elements of "A Roboticist's Practical Guide to Working with Children"
Guided by these questions, the first two authors met weekly between September 2024 until the time of the submission of this WiP report (April 2025) to participate in affinity diagramming and experience-based exploratory ideation. Later, the first two authors synthesized and refined these experiences situated within existing literature and similar guides. We split the research process into three stages: 1) Pre-study, 2) During-Study and 3) Post-Study. From there, the brainstorming process revealed three core themes for the proposed guide: (a) logistics (b) inclusive communication, and (c) ethics that were either research-oriented or user-oriented. Figure 1 represents an example of the level of detail within the brainstorming process for one of the stages and themes (access Miro board to see the full brainstorm at: https://bit.ly/idc25-rguide).
In future work, we plan to extend these core themes to include: (d) study context and location specific elements (e.g., research lab, home, school, health clinic etc.), (e) population sampling and stakeholder involvement, and (f) robot-specific characteristics. To cater to the varying needs and experiences of roboticists (e.g., technicalfocused roboticists and developers, child-centered roboticists and experimenters), we consider tailoring the guide for different 'levels of involvement' with children and robots.
In this work, we argue for the power and importance of practical recommendations, grounded in the philosophy that children can participate actively in research and guided by reflections and testimonials of roboticists like the authors of this paper. In the pursuit of making a larger impact, the first two authors share the vision of conducting a survey among researchers in CCI, HRI, and child development research communities including early career and experienced researchers, to collect testimonials reflecting on the trials and tribulations of their research process involving children. Below we enumerate the plans we have to formalize this guide through engaging with interdisciplinary communities:
(1) IDC Community: Piloting this method as part of the Workshop Protocol at IDC 2025 (accepted, in-print) using Playful
transcriptions, reading kids handwriting Post-Study (analysis, write-up, dissemination) Logistics Data Storage: Do we have all the paper and digital formats of data. How can I ensure that this is stored correctly and Research-Centered Logistics User-Centered Logistics Robotcentered Sending compensation if it did not yet happen (keeping track of whohas or has not been compensated) conduct a "postinterview" if it fits within your study design Which tool is the best to analyze this data? Video / Text / artefacts? What is the analysis approach we should take follow through on sending them materials-such as if you wanted to show them other work you have done to give them a sense of what it is you write about / the style of research they are contributing to Do we have a picture/video that shows the study setup and robot's capabilities? Should we do an illustration or mock representation (to protect privacy) during study or right after -collecting pseudonyms from children (giving them more agency so they know whe=o they are in the study, but no one else does" how long will it take me to upload all my data to an encrypted location / scan in physical copies? Have I downloaded materials from the robot and deleted it so its not accessible to others? Having open-access folder (OSF) for study materials, robot technical capabilities If thematic analysis -who are you analyzing with? which research frameworks are you using (ex: grounded theory, inductive or deductive etc) take "vignette" notes of how the study went for you. what went well or what went wrong. the longer you wait to reflect, the harder it will be to remember for the write-up or for the next study. What's the right community to disseminate these findings? What is your submission goals? What kind of venue? if participatory action research, do you have a plan for the youth to help you analyze the data?
Are all team members involved in analysis familiarized with the data?
Transition from During to "Post" -Housekeeping before Analysis Inclusive Communication Pre-Study (planning, conceptualizing, values) Inclusive Communication During-Study (data collection and facilitation) Ethics During-Study (data collection and facilitation) Ethics IRB Pre-Study (planning, conceptualizing, values) How do we define ethics? dimension of researcher and generally towards the families? Research-Centered Ethics User-Centered Ethics Research-Centered Communicati on User-Centered Communicati on Plans for maintaining anonymity. Plans for storing data properly. plans for sharing data. Research-Centered Ethics User-Centered Ethics "Assent" making sure the children also understand what is expected and that they can leave at any time Plans for being transparent about what information is collected and why? --> Avoiding technical jargon, and having a child-centered voice Making sure it is clear which data is being collected for RESEARCH Making sure it is clear which data is being collected by the ROBOT Playful Learning approaches?: I wonder if there is opportunities to create a child-centered toolbox for communicating ethical implications to chilren. Prioritizing the physical and emotional safety of the participants Co-design vs User Study ethics: Planning what, how much, and when to communicate ethics might be different ensuring that researchers consider how the robot/intervention will impact the child Making room to adjust research methods/interventi on based on what feels most appropriate (adaptability) given the unknown about child-robot interaction Legal liability to report abuse What are some practical dimensions or categories of Ethics? are ethics subjective? (yes) but across what dimensions? tension between "legal" requirements (on the research and robot level) and then what is socially right? terran Mott (from CU school of mines) paper IRB: not too specific but not too broad. Phrases like "including, but not limited to" Templates for IRB consent forms, recruitment forms. What can be altered, and what cannot? https://dl.acm.org/doi/ 10.1145/3628516.3655 789 Applying children's rights to digital products: Exploring competing priorities in design are ethics best described through questions to ask?
Making sure IRB processes are followed as reported properly. Data Storage, collection.
Adjusting the activities when discomfort or unintended consequences arise
Checking in with participantsreminders of assent and making sure they are doing it with their own free will and not because they feel there would be adverse consquences if they dont.
Reportable events might happen. (e.g., accidental break of anonymity within participants) Keep note of it and report back Being aware of power dynamics on children (researchers and parents). Are certain roles being more dominant?
Not offering too much incentive, but also offering enough privacy preservation (pseudonyms, file storage, uploading everything ASSAP making sure there are enough trained researchers to support all children -so that the study is not only effectively conducted, but also reliable. (this may include a "Script" for interacting with robots and participantw.
Reminding children that they can take a break or leave any time.
In a home setting, making sure that all members "recorded" have provided consent.
If a member prefers to be opted out, open communication to prevent any misunderstandings will underpin usercentered ethics. have an "exit strategy" if participants become too attached to the robot. (sometimes, work with parents to figure out this exit strategy. how do these ethics change based on the age of the child? They also change based on the public or private nature of the area? contexts: age, institution, demographic, study design (user vs codesign) the way that we brainstormed these questionsas a self reflective activity questions that need to be an individual vs team decision. How to publish papers with partici faces enough for children? Should in any publication? Are there alte protect anonymity (e.g., GenAI im illustrative fi What are the pro's and con's of h papers? Should we go back to the f ask them if they are comfortable version? Is this alw "blind review" and peer review a Using video recordings in value to incorporate it into the resarch the practice vs the guiding philosophies and values playful by design miro board https://miro.com/app /board/uXjVPNjaB6I=/ Recruitment emails and flyers should not be deceiving -or overpromising. Set accurate expectations Using He/She/They pronouns in stimuli materials--represent different identities that children have Using "Guardians" instead of parents in communication with adults in charge / in publications Participatory Action Researchunderstanding that children are actors in their own right and assuming they have important things to say. -as an attitude
Recruitment is often through parents --> child.
So internally acknowledge that there is a power dynamic from the beginning. Just because parents are interested, might not necessarily mean the child will be interested.
Brainstorm ways to mitigate this challenge.
Open Questionscheck the framing to make sure you remove bias of what a participant may say I tend to say "youth" or extend teen to "pre-teen" so that teens are not perceived as younger than they feel. Youth somehow feels more mature than child/kid Usage of girls / boys vs male / female in recruitment material Check your cultural references and make sure any references are easily explainable as not to isolate those from different generations/countries Consider having a child-centered recruitment flyer. Ask parents to share it with the kids to Consider pronoun usage for the robot? Have open-ended gender box for prescreening materials. Often parents selfreport child's gender Make sure the robot , if it does speech recognition, has good grasp of names -it feels worse for a robot not to be able to pronounce your name Not using Jargon -plain language, accessible language Not assuming the SNAF (standard north american family) structure. (e.g., Mom & Dad + average of 2 kids) Sitting at eye level Can all the kids in my age category read? if not ALL, make sure that it is easily accessible through an oral communication method. More extroverted vs introverted Research-Centered Communicati on User-Centered Communicati on Shorten informatioshorter attention spans for kids values? less tangible? and more questions than suggestions JEDI? tension for "western" influences and the right way / the ethics you should follow -how can we mitigate this so that the questions make space for different researcher ethics? Write Up process: Ho to report gender, age family structure. Name Tags (if an in person workshop) same considerations for the robot and the researchers towards users in terms of communication style consider ableism of your participant users pseudonym Is inclusive communication a subset of logistics? how do you speak practically with families about robots? Choosing the "size" and features of the robot to be child friendly Child appropriate language -how to talk to them in an explainable / honest way Child appropriate language -how to talk to them in an explainable / honest way Can I communicate and disseminate study findings to the families? How can I translate the research paper into accessible and simple language format that's digestible? by Design book, getting feedback on this LBR through our engagement with the CCI community, and piloting with roboticists and research labs that actively conduct childrobot interaction research. (2) HRI Community: Proposing an ACM HRI 2026 workshop to transfer our insights from IDC to HRI community, to engage with researchers and collect insights and testimonials from experienced and novice roboticists. (3) Child Development Community: Proposing a poster or extended abstract at one of the following communities: Cognitive Development Society, Children and Screens, Play Make Learn. (4) Delphi Study: After engaging with IDC, HRI, and childdevelopment communities regarding this framework, we intend to consolidate a list of questions, recruit 10-15 domain experts from each community, and conduct a Delphi study [2, 20]. This process will allow us to systematically solicit perspectives from child-development experts and roboticists. We also hope to value the reflections of early-career roboticists (in pursuit of writing their dissertation, or recently finished their dissertation) to participate in the ideation and contribute ideas, examples/testimonials, and lessons learned from their own experiences. (5) Dissemination: Collaborate with the research community in an effort to elucidate practical guidelines for successful child-robot interaction, including the organizers or attendees from the proposed IDC and HRI workshops.
In conclusion, we are inspired to use our and other early-career roboticists' experiences and positionality to create practical guides and tools for how to conduct child-robot interaction. In this work, we outline our motivations, our positionality, our guiding questions, and the systematic brainstorm of how research is done throughout the time-span of a research study. We outline our plans to work in conjunction with the IDC, child-development, and HRI community to take this brainstormed guide and turn it into a usable and practical 'Roboticist's guide' for how to work with children.