Family Mise en Place
By
Karen Whistler

BA Visual Communication
BA Studio Art
Seattle Pacific University, 2006

A thesis essay submitted in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
of Master of Applied Arts in Design

Emily Carr University of Art + Design

2012
© Karen Whistler, 2012

This work is dedicated to my husband, Nate Whistler.
In addition to endless support, thanks for making
quality meals while I was too busy designing and
writing about food to cook for us.

ii

Abstract
Using whole, unprocessed food (True Food) to make dinner for weeknights can often be a
daunting task for busy families. There are several barriers that keep parents and children
(ages 6-10) from cooking nutritious meals together on a regular basis—the main barrier being
time. This thesis identified the narrow window of time between when a family arrives home
and when they eat dinner as an opportunity to help members of the family to spend valuable
time together. This research poses the question: Can a design system help families involve
their six- to ten-year-old chidren in preparing True Foods for weeknight dinners?
The result is Family Mise en Place, a set of collaborative Meal Cards. This collaborative
cooking system seeks to organize meal preparation so children can contribute equally to
cooking, supporting parents on busy weeknights. Family Mise en Place facilitates inclusive
cross-generational cooking, helping families build dialogue and learn from one another. A
secondary objective is to connect parents and children to the food they eat.
Within this context, family members explore sustainability and health implicitly through
the experience of cooking with True Foods.
Family Mise en Place came together by pairing participant research with theories of
systems thinking, constructivist learning and Information Interaction Design, supported
by an investigation into the history of the North American food system. Research involved
interviewing Current Parents (CP; those raising children ages 6-10) as well as Empty-Nesters
(EN; those fifteen or more years removed from raising pre-teen children). It also involved
a web survey of Current Parents and ethnographic cooking activities with Children (C).
Finally, prototype testing consisted of observing families cooking together using the Meal
Card prototypes. The outcome of this thesis is a toolkit that breaks the cooking experience
into three stages: Gather, Prepare and Cook. Each stage is depicted through a Meal
Framework, which is a series of Meal Cards that uses iconography children can understand,
makes cooking accessible, and enables kids to contribute to preparing the family meal.

iii

Table of Contents
Abstract

iii

List of Figures

v

Acknowledgements

vi

Key terms

vii

Introduction

1

Chapter 1: Framing the Design Opportunity

5

A Systems Approach

10

Limitations and Scope

11

Chapter 2: Contextual Positioning

12

Background & Historical Context

13

Precedents & Market Research

15

Design Context

18

Learning Models

21

Chapter 3: Research Framework

26

Methodology

28

Research Questions

33

Studio Experiments

35

Parts of the System

39

Flexibility and Structure

43

Building a Visual Language

44

Feedback Loops and New Routines

48

Chapter 4: Data Analysis

51

Triangulated Data and Analysis

52

Prototype Findings

54

Reflecting on the Research Questions

55

A Sensory Experience

58

Chapter 5: Summary

60

Appendices

63

References

82

List of Figures
All figures are the original work of Karen Whistler

Introduction:

Figure 3.9 Parts to the system

Figure 0.1 Meal Cards

Figure 3.10 Meal Cards
Figure 3.11 Dividing tasks using the

Chapter 1:

Meal Cards
Figure 3.12 A six year old using a food

Figure 1.1 Stating the problem for families

processor

Figure 1.2 The systemic problem

Figure 3.13 Initial Display with hanging

Figure 1.3 Meal Framework

Meal Cards

Figure 1.4 Storage for Meal Cards
Figure 1.5 Display of Meal Cards

Figure 3.14 Initial icon iteration

Figure 1.6 The ideal scenario

Figure 3.15 Accessible icons used
for prototypes

Chapter 2:

Figure 3.16 Watching a child read
the Meal Card

Figure 2.1 Ten-year-old chopping peanuts

Figure 3.17 Setting of the workspace

Figure 2.2 Eight-year-old measuring

Figure 3.18 Cardboard prototypes
Chapter 3:

Figure 3.19 Diagram of the Family Mise
en Place cooking process

Figure 3.1 Haptic Experiments
Figure 3.2 Methodology of research phases
Figure 3.3 Analysis of narrative interviews

Chapter 4:

Figure 3.4 Sprout

Figure 4.1 Data Triangulation

Figure 3.5 The setting of each station

Figure 4.2 Child adding sauce to a
plated dish

had all tools, ingredients and

Figure 4.3 Child plating unique dish

instructions prepared
Figure 3.6 Participants cooking in pairs

for each family member based

Figure 3.7 A team working together

on her understanding of their

Figure 3.8 Another team working together

preference

v

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the following people and countless others who supported me during
this time. Without their collaboration and support, this thesis would not have been possible.
I am grateful for the community of guidance and encouragement I experienced along the way.
To my advisor, Louise St Pierre: For being a consistent voice of reason and clarity. You
somehow found a way to simultaneously tame my ridiculous ambitions while pushing me
to work smarter (and harder) and accomplish more than I thought possible. I could not
have dreamed up a better advisor.
To my research assistant, Rebecca Nicholls: For being my partner in cooking, the safety
spotter and research photographer. Thank you for volunteering your time and for bringing
your passion into making my project better. I learned much from you and greatly appreciate
the insight you provided.
To my biggest cheerleader and copy editor, Elissa Watts: For your consistent support,
encouragement and loving critique. Thank you for sharing your talents as a chef and a writer
and for helping me grow in those areas. I hope to turn this into a business with you someday.
To my patient and loving husband, Nate Whistler: For talking such good care of me. Thank you
for moving to Canada for this adventure. I am blessed by you daily by the neverending ways you
constantly serve me, encourage me, love me and always point me back to Christ. I love you.
Also, thank you to Deborah Shackleton, Jim O’Grady, Karolle Wall, Marc Baumgartner, Chef
Jelle Vandenbroucke, Sam LeFort, Kara Pecknold, Carol Zyrmiak, Marilee Congo, my parents
and my family. I thank each of you for your many contributions throughout this process. I
would also like to thank the individuals and families who participated in my research.

vi

Key Terms & Definitions
Current Parent: Parent or guardian currently taking care of at least one six- to ten-yearold child.
Child: Person who is to six to ten years old.
Empty-Nester: Parent who is at least 15 years removed from raising a six- to ten-yearold child.
Family: Group of individuals legally or self-identified to be connected as a family. For
this research, families include at least one six- to ten-year-old child.
True Food: Unprocessed and minimally processed whole foods and ingredients.
Cross-generational: When individuals from different generations come together. In
this case, parents and children working with one another.
System: According to Donella Meadows “A system is an interconnected set of elements
that is coherently organized in a way that achieves something” (Meadows, 2008, p. 11).
Systems Thinking: Method of investigation based on viewing parts within the whole
to understand how the elements influence each other.
Interaction: Actions and influences in between people and with objects.
Experience: An interaction between people, with an object, or the observation of
facts or events that leave an impression on someones thoughts or emotions.
Information Interaction Design: Defined by Nathan Shedroff, a design practice
that emphasizes the intersection of Information Design, Interaction Design and
Sensorial Design.
Constructivism: Philosophy that states we all construct our own meaning of the world
through situations and experiences, Constructivism values hand-on learning.
Heuristic: Enabling a person to learn for themselves.
Dialogue: Shared verbal conversation or non-verbal interaction between two or more people.
Narrative: Sequence of events that build a story. Within a family, narrative can be built
over time as the history of events and interaction among family members.

vii

Introduction

“On a practical level,
I’d like to learn how
to organize better.”
-Participant CP 2

Introduction
Many people in North America do not think they have the time or money to cook whole,
unprocessed healthy meals. A Hewlett-Packard (HP) study on the schedules of working
families identified that on weeknights “cooking was seen more as a stressful chore and
source of guilt, than as a pleasure” (Beech et al., 2004, p. 33). This thesis project, Family
Mise en Place, which engaged participant research supports this observation1. One parent
commented, “I feel guilty all the time because if I put [my kids] in front of the television I
can actually make dinner […] but if [I] don’t put them in front of the television then [I’ve] got
screaming kids - that’s even harder” (CP 1). Many parents feel trapped and frustrated by the
need to feed the family on weeknights. The food and family experience become secondary to
the immediate stressors of the dinner hour. Undervaluing our interaction with food overlooks
an opportunity for families to connect and learn from one another.
Participants helped to identify a significant barrier: they perceive that they lack the time to
prepare home-cooked meals during the week. This thesis proposes a creative solution that
addresses this crucial barrier and, in doing so, offers a new view of how families could spend
quality time together. Many parents commented that their children expressed interest in
cooking, but they did not know the best way to include their kids when rushing to get dinner
on the table. One participant observed, “[My son] would probably cook more than I give
him opportunity to” (CP 3). Another explained, “I don’t always say ‘Who wants to help me?’
because it’s just easier not to have kids in the kitchen, but it’s something that I really want to
do more of” (CP 2). Bringing children and parents together around food and cooking creates
a hands-on, cross-generational learning opportunity. The intent of this project is to create
one enjoyable activity that overcomes the identified barriers and addresses the problem of
precious little time with family.
In order to enable parents and children to interact in a routine of cooking and eating dinner
together, I developed a toolkit of Meal Cards titled Family Mise en Place (pronounced miz-onplas). The title is inspired by the culinary term mise en place, meaning “everything in place.”
This is a particular structure that chefs engage in where they gather all necessary utensils and
ingredients, and chop and prepare the food before they begin to cook. My project parallels
this process. Recipes are divided into three stages—Gather, Prepare and Cook—which
are each reflected in the name of the cards (Figure 0.1). The first stage Gather illustrates
1

Participants are coded to protect their identity and are divided into three categories: Current

Parent (CP), Empty Nester (EN) and six- to ten-year-old Child (C).

2

ingredients and utensils. The next card instructs families how to Prepare ingredients through
chopping and measuring in groups. Ultimately, everything is assembled to simplify the final
stage, Cook. This organization invites families to perceive new ways of cooking and eating with
one another through the set of Meal Cards that structure their weeknight experience. At the
heart of this project is the understanding that, throughout history, humans have connected
through creating and sharing food. Enabling families to cook healthy food together is a step
towards creating a sacred space where families learn about food and about each other.

Stir Fry

Gather

Stir Fry

r the
nds and gathe
Wash your ha
ts
ls & Ingredien
following too

before cont

1

inuing:

a sauce.
Please select
e&
Gather, Prepar
then
Cook Sauce,
re.
return he

2

C O OK

a
Please select
e.
noodles or ric
n
Gather, the
re.
he
urn
ret

PREPARE

Wash your ha
nds and prepa
re
the following
ingredients

before cont

2 green
onions

2 heads
broccoli

2 bell
peppers

10-12
mushrooms

it’s time to
Wash your hands,
ients!
cook your ingred

Stir Fry

vegetable or
grapeseed oil

1

+

Heat over
Medium

1 teaspoon

1 tablespoon

inuing:

If using Rice
Preare & Co
ok

Add

te

Stir fry one minu

sesame
oil

fresh
ginger

1 clove
garlic

knife

chopping
board

Wooden
Spoon

+

Add

+
grate 2 teaspoo

ns

wok

two medium
bowls

grater

tes

Stir fry four minu

meal:
assembling the

measuring
spoons

1
+
dice

If using Noodles
Add to wok,
blend with
vegetables

2

Add Sauce Mix
into vegetables

+
cut in strips

cut in half

Figure 0.1 Meal Cards
This thesis project looks at how design can help parents and young (six- to ten-year-old)
children overcome barriers to preparing and sharing wholesome, nutritious meals together.
An underlying assumption of this work is that families who feel in charge of preparing and
sharing quality foods will also be less vulnerable to underlying problems in food culture,
such as fad foods, food as entertainment, and limited ideas about nutrition. Michael Pollan
describes the issue as the “American paradox—that is, a notably unhealthy people obsessed
by the idea of eating healthily” (Pollan 2007, p. 3). Scientist and social theorist Gyorgy
Scrinis also questions our cultural fixation with food’s nutritional elements (calories, fat, etc.)
in favor of distinguishing food’s health based on the level of processing it has undergone.
He uses the term nutritionism to describe the current paradigm. “Nutritionism is defined as
where food is predominantly understood in terms of its nutrient profile and at the expense of

3

other ways of understanding and contextualizing the relationship between food and the body”
(Scrinis, 2007, p. 544). Carlos Monteiro studies the epidemiological patterns of health and
nutrition. Looking at the nutrient density of processed foods, compared to unprocessed, he
observes “diets containing almost no fresh foods, are hardly compatible with survival. […]
Diets that include a lot of ultra-processed foods are intrinsically nutritionally unbalanced and
intrinsically harmful to health” (Monteiro, 2009 p. 730). The historical context for the social
and ecological impact of the North American food system is further discussed in chapter two.
This one small act of families cooking together on a regular basis might attenuate underlying
health problems caused by contemporary food culture, and also influence a ripple of positive
change throughout the currently unsustainable global food system.
There are also systemic problems in our food production system. If families collaborate and
learn about healthy foods together, they might begin to demand a shift in how we currently
produce food in the system of industrial agriculture. Current modes of mass industrial food
production are recognized by the United Nations to be one of the leading contributors to
global warming, eutrophication, ecosystem toxicity, topsoil depletion, and water depletion
(United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, 2007). In addition to departments within
the United Nations—like the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the United Nations Conference on Sustainable
Development (Rio+20)—other organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO),
World Organization for Animal Health (OiE) and the United States Department of Agriculture
Council on Sustainable Agriculture (USDA) note the damaging impact of the global food
system on the biosphere (De Schutter, 2011; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, World Health Organization, & World Organization for Animal Health, 2003; United
States Department of Agriculture Council on Sustainable Development, 2008; United Nations
Rio+20, 2012). Our food system is unsustainable, and an impetus is needed to create
change. Although the toolkit does not specifically address the global food system, research
into industrial agriculture and cultural food trends is implicit in the design of the Meal Cards.
Recipes use unprocessed food ingredients and parents are given further information in
instructional Skill Cards. This enables the family to further discuss issues concerning where
food originates.
The development of Family Mise en Place involved an integrated process that blended
literature review, participant-centered design research, and iterative prototyping. These
three modes of engaging with the problem worked together to build an investigation and
subsequent design system that addresses the needs and desires of busy families. Within the
home, the Family Mise en Place system creates a space for them to not only cook nutritional
meals but also develop new skills, learn about each other, and build a family routine that
shifts their behavior towards a more positive and sustainable impact on the environment.

4

Chapter One:
Framing the Design Opportunity

“I think the first place
that children experience
community is around the
table with their family.”
-Participant EN 2

Chapter One:
Framing the Design Opportunity
Families can develop a shared space to explore cooking and eating with one another. Family
Mise en Place connects food and sustainability by helping busy families build the habit of
cooking together. Often, the most ethical and environmental food choices are often the most
healthy to eat (Pollan, 2009, p. 2). By providing regular interaction with True Foods, parents
and children can investigate personal and ecological health together.

(

)(

)

Figure 1.1 Stating the problem for families
The barrier being addressed is that North American families are not regularly sitting down to
enjoy home-cooked meals made with fresh, whole, True Food ingredients (Figure 1.1). For
Family Mise en Place, True Food is a class of unprocessed whole foods or minimally processed
whole foods whose nutrient properties have not been altered (Monterio, 2009). Literature and
participant research support the notion that the valuable routine of eating home-cooked meals
is threatened by the pressures of modern life (Beech et al., 2004; Pollan, 2009; Snyder et al.,
2007; Thackara, 2006). The end-of-day routine for families can look like:
1. Parent drives to pick children up from school, afternoon activity or daycare, sometimes
from multiple locations.
2. Family arrives home in early evening. They are all exhausted and hungry from a long day.
3. Parents have to figure out what to feed the family. Decide either to get a type of
take-out or put together something quick based on what the kids will eat.
4. Dinner time together either at the table or in front of the TV. Mealtime challenges
include picky eaters and behavioral issues at the table.
5. Kids have homework to do, which often requires help from a parent.

6

6. Bedtime routine of pajamas, brushing teeth, reading a story. This often lasts much
longer than expected.
7. Parents have end-of-the-day chores such as picking up the house or preparing lunches
for the next day.
According to John Thackara, a busy, rushed lifestyle does not accomodate space for holistic
health (Thackara, 2006). Participant research for Family Mise en Place supports theories that
mealtime is where children learn lifelong lessons about food. Equally important, preparing food
and dining with one another create a sacred space for families to learn together.
Mary Spagnola and Barbara H. Fiese are psychologists who have written extensively about the
impact of family routines, particularly mealtimes, on a range of childhood developmental factors.
They state that “embedded in the complexities of day-to-day family life, family routines and
rituals provide a context for the development of children” (Spagnola & Fiese, 2007, p. 285).
Specifically to the importance of routine interactions with food, Spagnola & Fiese observe that
“over time routine gatherings, such as mealtime, form the foundation for rituals that are built
upon emotional connections” (Spagnola & Fiese, 2007, p. 290). One participant from my
research put it this way, “Part of my belief is that something truly spiritual happens when people
sit around a table to eat” (EN 2). Schedules and eating habits have changed for families, but
the importance of eating together remains the same.
Families experience this barrier because of cultural, time pressures. These behaviors also
support the North American food system, which is damaging the environment (Figure 1.2).
“Food production isn’t separate from energy; it isn’t separate from natural resources; it isn’t
separate from political and economic systems” (Roberts, 2008, p. 61). Systems of food
production are complex and intertwined, involving social, cultural, and ecological factors to
impact one another. Therefore, there is a need to improve the sustainability of our food choices.
According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, one-third of the global
greenhouse gas emissions contributing to global warming is from the global food system (United
Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, 2007). Harmful processes include transportation,
toxic nitrogen fertilizers contributing to soil erosion, food waste and overproduction, packaging,
and industrial food processing (Figure 1.2).

7

)

(
Figure 1.2 The systemic problem

A robust design strategy is necessary to address the environmental problems caused by the
current food distribution chain. It must use emergent and innovative practices. “Routine design
operates within existing paradigm, whereas inventive design proposes a new paradigm that
may eventually replace the old” (Crilly, 2010, p. 60). Family Mise en Place responds to this
challenge through combining theories of design and learning with participant research. Based
on initial interviews and surveys, it became obvious that Meal Cards could provide a structure
and potential solution to both the social and environmental concerns related to family cooking.
This thesis will primarily focus on these cards and how elements of content, form and style
contributed to their design. These cards establish a scenario in the home where families can
be empowered to shift their experience of weeknight cooking.

Gather Prepare

Cook

MEAL CARDS

MEAL
FRAMEWORK
Option
X

Option
Y

Figure 1.3 Meal Framework
A toolkit of Meal Cards was used as an ethnographic research probe. This was a method of
isolating and testing aspects of the final outcome. Family Mise en Place contains a system of
elements; the individual Meal Cards belong to a Meal Framework (Figure 1.3). Each framework
is a collection of cards that include the main meal as well as options to customize the meal.
Every component of the meal utilizes the Gather, Prepare, Cook, structure. The system also
includes Storage for the cards (Figure 1.4) and a Display for optimal viewing of the cards while
cooking (Figure 1.5).

8

STORAGE
Figure 1.4 Storage for Meal Cards
Successful implementation of Family Mise en Place includes parents and children understanding
where their food comes from and how it gets to their home (Figure 1.6). Families work together
on busy weeknights to make True Food meals with the Meal Cards and eat them as a family.
In addition to the physical space, there is a relational context where parents and children come
together to prepare dinner. They would share in a time of cross-generational learning and
dialogue with one another to build family narrative.

DISPLAY
Gather

Prepare

Cook

Figure 1.5 Display of Meal Cards
Family Mise en Place provides parents with tangible tools and activities to align their lifestyle
to their identity and values. Sometimes it is difficult to pinpoint the small actions that lead to
undesirable habits, such as not having time for a family meal. “Habitual and routine behavior
contributes to the […] gap between environmental and social values and everyday interaction

9

with products” (Bhamra et al., 2009, p. 4). My participant research has identified minor
adjustments families can make during mealtime to move toward habits that better reinforce their
values and desires. In order to make sense of the intricacies of the role food plays in a family’s
life, theories of systems thinking informed methods of discovery. For addressing the context of
parents and children learning about food and cooking together, Family Mise en Place is a holistic
response to this multifaceted challenge.

(

)

Figure 1.6 The ideal scenario

A Systems Approach
Systems thinking was used to understand the complexity of family mealtime. This method
unpacks a problem holistically and finds the actual root causes to address with a design
solution. A system is an “interconnected set of elements that is coherently organized in a
way that achieves something,” says Donella Meadows—the author of Thinking in Systems
(Meadows, 2008 p.11). This means that when you view the whole system, you experience
something greater than any combination of individual elements or connections. Systems
thinking was used as a research method for understanding the complexity of the industrial food
system and the role of food in the daily life of families. Techniques of diagramming and mapping
demonstrated how individual elements within the system are connected and related.
Systems thinking was also explored through attempts to design a solution that is itself a system.
These types of solutions are often Product Service Systems which typically include specifically
designed services along with the products. Ezio Manzini calls it “planning activities whose
objective is a system” (Thackera, 2006, p. 19). Rather than creating a single product, the
objective is to design the user’s experience with the product or service, considering how they
would engage with the system throughout the products lifetime. Details of how this thesis
integrated systems design will be explained further in this paper.

10

Limitations and Scope
When dealing with systems, it is necessary to choose the amount of complexity to address
(Meadows, 2008). The problem at hand could be approached at many different scales. The
relationship of the agricultural system and the consumer could be explored. This work could
challenge the industrial unpackaged food business directly. One could also choose to focus on
the material cycle of restaurant takeout containers to encourage more sustainable packaging
without challenging the family context of time. Counter advertising could be designed to expose
misconceptions about food being taught through media. There are many places to intervene
and design for change within this system. I am choosing to focus on the family dynamics in
household kitchens during mealtime.
Family Mise en Place does not directly address choices made at the grocery store, focusing only
on time spent in the kitchen. This approach has an impact on the system that is bottom-up,
one family at a time. Culturally, there is an underlying shift in this direction. This project can
maximize on a greater social movement of individuals seeking to explore the relationship
to food, the land, and community.
I am limiting the scope by focusing on the interactions between two user groups: parents and
children aged six to ten. The routine of cleaning up the kitchen, although important, is outside
the scope of this research. Because the goal is to get families to cook together, my objective is
not to dictate what families should eat. The structure of Family Mise en Place introduces a level
of awareness to the health and sustainability of food through encouraging whole, unprocessed
choices. Although suggestive, foods with this system should not be prescriptive (Just and
Wansink, 2009, 2012). This is a design endeavor, not an exploration into fields of scientific
nutrition or gastronomy.

11

Chapter Two:
Contextual Positioning

“As a relatively new nation
drawn from many different
immigrant populations, each
with its own food culture,
Americans have never had a
single, strong, stable culinary
tradition to guide us”
- Michael Pollan

Chapter Two:
Contextual Positioning
Where our food comes from and how it gets to our table is a culturally relevant topic. The
historical context of this systemic problem is rooted in the industrialization of North America.
Understanding our history provides insight into developing a successful design strategy. In
order to address the system surrounding food and families, it is crucial to first unpack how
society has arrived at the dilemma of dependence on processed, industrial food. One parent
responded in the survey that one of her biggest challenges during grocery shopping was
“finding pre-packaged items that [were] of decent nutrition for [her] kids to have in their
lunches” (CP 1). Focusing on the convenience of packaged food is evidence of the problems
disconnecting us from the foods we eat. Building a habit of using whole, unprocessed True
Foods and making cooking a collective family activity will lead to the necessary shift in
relationship to food.

Background & Historical Context
Investigation for Family Mise en Place examined the interconnections between historical and
social themes in North American society. Data was collected from sources in Canada and the
United States and it was found that food patterns in both countries are similar. In both cases,
notions of convenience trump culinary tradition. The literature surveyed builds the story of how
the dialogue of food and sustainability has shifted since World War II. “The growth of the food
processing industry in the decades after World War II was part of what some scholars have
called the ‘Consumer Revolution,’ in which food, like so much else in modern American life,
was reengineered to maximize choice, speed, and convenience” (Paradowsky, 2011). Since
the ‘Consumer Revolution,’ there’s been a shift in how families form ideas about nutritional
values from internal family tradition to external science and marketing influences (Pollan
2009, p. 3). According to a survey conducted in 2000 by the American Dietetic Association,
“Forty percent [of U. S. Consumers] claim they know they should be eating a healthy diet but
aren’t” (Morris, 2000, p 1). Michael Pollan describes this as the “American paradox—that
is, a notably unhealthy people obsessed by the idea of eating healthily” (Pollan 2007, p. 3).
Consumption patterns today are a byproduct of this post-World War II food system.
Trends are a reflection of a cultural attitude towards food and another sizeable indicator
of priorities. Consumer research on food trends reveals multiple themes on health and
environmental factors such as functional foods, weight control, health value, sustainability,
and the relatively undefined idea of ‘local.’ There is also a strong force of trends that reveal

13

perceived barriers to health and sustainability. Food trends demonstrate that buyers value
ease and speed of preparation, which typically come in the form of processed, packaged
foods. (Hebert, 2011; “Knowledge Insider: Consumer Trends,” 2009; Morris, 2000;
Rehfield 2000). Diane Morris uses the term eatertainment, referring to the trend of food as
entertainment value. “This trend may have major, long-term implications for food and nutrient
intake among children, because the focus is almost exclusively on the pleasure of eating
(having fun), while the purpose of eating (ensuring an optimal intake of essential ingredients
and other compounds that benefit health) is virtually ignored” (Morris, 2000, p. 5). Moreover,
“as a relatively new nation drawn from many different immigrant populations, each with its
own food culture, Americans have never had a single, strong, stable culinary tradition to guide
us” (Pollan, 2007, p. 5). Lacking a foundational food culture generates a problem for North
America. This has opened the door for suggestive marketing messages to influence families’
food choices towards processed food through purported health claims.
The term True Food is being used in this thesis as a deliberate response to the cultural fixation
on nutrient elements and “functional foods.” The industrial food system uses processing and
packaging to market health claims. This system involves enhancing or fortifying processed
foods with nutrient additives and then advertising the additional health benefit such as
“lowers cholesterol.” Gyorgy Scrinis says that:
“One of the characteristics of the nutritionism paradigm is that, by focusing
on food at the level of its nutrient and biochemical composition, and on the
quantification of nutrients as the primary means of evaluating the relationship
between food and the body, it transcends and blurs other important qualitative
distinctions, such as the distinction between processed and unprocessed
foods”(Scrinis, 2008, p. 545).
For Family Mise en Place, the level of processing is examined to determine a food’s value
towards health and sustainability. I propose the designation of minimally processed whole
foods defined by Professor Carlos A. Monteiro be adopted to the term “True Food.” He
describes how this class of food consists “of whole foods that have been submitted to some
process that does not substantially alter the nutritional properties of the original foods which
remain recognizable as such, while aiming to preserve them and make them more accessible,
convenient, sometimes safer, and more palatable” (Monteiro, 2009, p. 729). Minimal
processing includes activities such as cleaning, freezing, drying or bottling but not extracting,
adding or altering the substance. Michael Pollan uses the term “Pastoral” to distinguish
unprocessed foods from the industrial chain of processing and would categorize this minimal
processing as “Supermarket Pastoral” (Pollan, 2007). Pollan is critical of the industrialization

14

of organic and natural foods but the reality is that this category of foods is more accessible
to families. Relying solely on unprocessed foods outside of an industrial supply chain is also
less realistic when looking at the global food supply (Roberts, 2008). True Foods, by this
definition, provide an alternative to processed foods that are still accessible and realistic
for busy families.
Family Mise en Place recipes primarily utilizes True Food ingredients so that families
can become familiar with using minimally processed ingredients when cooking. Monterio
summarizes his recommendation that “the best dietary advice is to base diets on fresh
and minimally processed foods, and on dishes and meals made up from such foods with
the addition of refined ingredients extracted from whole foods” (Monterio, 2009, p.731).
To support this habit, Meal Cards ingredients are selected on the principle of True Foods.

Precedents & Market Research
In addition to historical themes, there are presently organizations and products contributing
to the conversation about food and families. Precedent research has focused around three
main categories: cross-generational learning, market research of products geared towards
food education, and North American movements around food and agriculture.

Cross-generational Programs
First, the cross-generational precedents around food are primarily academic programs that
engage groups by inviting them to university events. Cross-generational programs often
focus on field environments, not households. Some universities host programs to teach
practical aspects of farming and agriculture. Examples of these are University of British
Columbia’s Intergenerational Landed Learning project and Harvard University Hospitality
and Dining Services Food Literacy Project. In these community outreach programs, learning
takes place on-site but does not provide lasting impact on the participating families’
behaviorin their homes.
Another example of a cross-generational learning project is the Dublin City University’s
Grandmother’s Day. This event encourages grandmothers to gather their grandchildren
and teach them a skill, such as baking. The day is promoted as an opportunity to capture
forgotten skills and wisdom of older generations. In collaboration with Alice Waters and Slow
Food Ireland, the philosophy of this program is that “learning is a two-way street… a great
opportunity for both the young and old to the instructors and learners” (Corrigan, 2010).
Drawing attention to cross-generational learning is beneficial, but this is only a one-day event.
Family Mise en Place seeks to build on these ideas through establishing habitual patterns

15

within the family’s home. Another issue with these precedents is the academic context may
be less relevant to families.

Consumer Products
The second significant attempt at education about food is found within consumer products.
Design research for this project revealed how products that simultaneously emphasize fun
and education for children are popular. I saw an emphasis on products that encourage kids to
explore different aspects of food such as gardening, grocery shopping, and cooking. Examples
of these products are Klutz© books, Dunecraft© gardening kits and Discover This© science kits.
Children’s books and kits often include engaging instructions and tools but do not emphasize
cross-generational collaboration with parents. Products focus only on the child’s learning.
Additionally, recipes for kids typically do not address health or sustainability.
I purchased and experimented with many of these products as part of my research. The
children’s cookbook, Cook it in a Cup!© gives kids the parameters of a silicon cup to delimit
the learning activity of cooking. The idea of limiting parts of the activity, to make it more
accessible and manageable for kids, was intriguing. This allows room for play within the
framework of the cups if kids want to experiment on their own once they are familiar with
how this system works. Upon testing the recipes, the cup added beneficial structure to
cooking but, like other products, is geared strictly to children. Recipes often fell into the trap
of becoming “kid food”, relying on lots of cheese or added sugar. They missed an opportunity
to broaden the conversation of cooking to helping children make balanced, nutritious True
Food choices.
Mollie Katzen’s series of children’s cookbooks addresses the problem of “kid food.” Books
such as Honest Pretzels target children but include many recipes with fruits and vegetables
such as the “Tossed Green Salad.” The concept behind these books is to promote a child’s
autonomy in cooking. Parental involvement is viewed as a final resource only when the child
feels they need help, overlooking the benefits of cooking as a family activity. It also aligns
with the notion of cooking as a recreation, not a necessary daily habit. Katzen’s books offer
a compelling precedent for how illustrations help kids relate to cooking, but the images are
supplemental, therefore children still need to have foundational reading skills to participate.
Katzen’s books are effective in helping children develop an interest in cooking, but provide
an oversimplified approach to the complex scenario of making dinner on a busy weeknight.
It appears that current products do not seek to respond to how a family engages with food
and cooking at a holistic system-level. Products that deal with skills of cooking tend to focus

16

singularly on parent or child demographics. The context for inclusiveness of families and
valuing collaborative input of all ages is more likely to be found in local communities.

Grassroots and Government Movements
The third and final type of precedent research explores how many North American activist
movements around food and agriculture have surfaced in recent years. The USDA Agricultural
Marketing Service reports a steep increase in farmers markets across the country. In 1994,
there were 1,755 markets. In August of 2011, there were 7,175 registered markets, a
seventeen percent rise over 2010 (United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural
Marketing Service, 2011).
During the 2008 United States Presidential campaign, the Better World Campaign created
an online forum called On Day One. This online community asked Americans to propose and
then vote on the issue that the next President should make top priority for the first day of his
presidency. First place in that contest was a video suggesting that the White House lawn be
turned into an organic garden (Conan, 2009). Michelle Obama took the lead, and two months
after the Obama inauguration she began planting the White House Victory Garden. She
continued in this direction making children’s nutrition a focal point through a campaign
called “Let’s Move!” (Hoag, 2012; Mulligan, 2009).
Smaller, but often more effective, initiatives are emerging in other areas across North America.
Community-based movements are bringing neighborhoods together, providing opportunities
for individuals to engage in the growing, preparing and eating food. Groups such as Kitchen
Gardeners International and The Center for the Public Interest are providing information
and organizing citizens in the movement toward the transparency of food production. These
public efforts to transform food awareness have been successful in bringing issues of food to
a national platform, but they do not facilitate methods to implement daily change in eating
habits for families. The big picture scale of these movements may feel disconnected to
individual families trying to find time and organization to cook weeknight meals.
A number of urban agriculture and food awareness programs exist in Vancouver. City Farmer
began as a newspaper and now publishes online articles on urban farming. They also maintain
a Compost Demonstration Garden and provide education to the public. FoodTree is an app
that invites people to share photos of local food from farmers markets and restaurants to
open the discussion about “real food.” As food advocates, they are leading the organization
of a database that encourages “open data” on food (Ashe, 2011). SOLEfood is an urban

17

farm located in downtown Vancouver that trains and employs inner-city residents and then
distributes the food at farmers’ markets and local restaurants. The many groups within the
Vancouver urban agriculture movement provide comprehensive resources for awareness and
education but for a family trying to find time to cook and eat True Foods, participating in or
supporting urban agriculture may appear too extreme and out of reach, especially considering
the time and financial limitations.
All of these efforts in bridging the gap between food and families have positive intentions,
but fall short in creating something that helps families develop regular habits of cooking and
eating True Foods. These movements demonstrate the public’s desire to understand how and
where their food originates. Acknowledging the landscape of current products and programs
centered around food and community, Family Mise en Place responds to the complexity of
this issue. There is an opportunity to address this problem through design that changes
cooking choices and behavior in homes.

Design Context
In “Generations in Design Methodology,” John Broadbent discusses the historical progression
of the territory of design (Broadbent, 2003). Design has evolved to deal with larger, more
social, issues. “Design is now less about creating artifacts and more about creating and
staging a new, compelling story for people to experience” (Crossley, 2003, p. 35). Looking
beyond material knowledge to elements that build culture, the work behind Family Mise
en Place uses design to affect a cultural context. How children and parents relate to one
another in the home is a topic that could be explored by many scientific fields. One thing that
distinguishes design from any social science inquiry is “the legitimacy of its propositions is
related to its ability for self reflection, communication and transformation” (Narváez, 2000,
p. 44). As the territory of design becomes more complex and immaterial, the scope of the
situation expands creating greater potential for impact. Reviewing the history of the position
of design within culture, John Broadbent states “it appears… that consecutive generations of
design methodology have been towards more complex, higher-level, and more influential roles
for design in society” (Broadbent, 2003, p. 11).

Systems Design
Systems design is an indispensable part of the progression towards addressing social,
environmental and material complexity. The best place to impact the system is altering the
mindset or paradigm under which the system arises, driving behavior (Meadows, 1997).

18

Margaret Wheatley describes a cyclical, bottom-up process. She says creating change starts
when one notices a problem, then takes small but progressive actions. Most importantly,
the process of influencing change includes failure and perseverance. This process leads to
exponential change (Wheatley, 2009). In order to create change, you must first understand
the current system you are attempting to shift as well as what the desired system will look like
if your design is successful. Systems can include material flows, Product Service Systems with
services attached to material products, or intangible community systems.
Product Service Systems are a key part to the move towards sustainability “The transition to
a light and sustainable economy means moving from an economy of transactions—selling
and buying things—to an economy in which quality of services, not the acquisition of goods,
begins our measure of well-being” (Thackera, 2006, p. 208). The goal of Family Mise en
Place is to help families achieve the goal of “aligning [their] desires with the way [they]
consumes products” (Jedlicka, 2010). Barriers can be addressed through examining multiple
dimensions of the material system of food and the social system of family interactions. Family
Mise en Place employed a systems thinking foundation to create a new scenario in the home,
seting the stage for families to engage in the experience of cooking together.

Information Interaction Design
Nathan Shedroff coined the term Information Interaction Design to describe “the intersection
of the disciplines of Information Design, Interaction Design, and Sensorial Design” (Shedroff,
1994, p.1). The specific field of Interaction Design is most often associated with digital
technologies, but actually includes a broader context of how the designed elements engage
with people using the product. In terms of Family Mise en Place, tactile exploration and
experimentation within the experience of cooking provided a foundation to understand the
role of experience in this work. Given the haptic nature of cooking and the relational dynamics
of moving through a kitchen to cook together, it is determined that designing a physical
interaction is more appropriate than a digital interface.
Family Mise en Place relies heavily on communicating information in the form of instructions.
“The best information design acknowledges and uses the interactive nature of communication
to convey meaning and heighten understanding among all parties involved” (Jacobson, 1999
p. 2). Information is simplified and made visually concise through the use of icons, a clear
grid system and a limited color-palette. Recipes are designed so that children as young as
6 can understand the instructions and interact with cooking. It is essential to recognize and
“emphasize that designers cannot design the subjective experience, only the context may be
designed” (Battarbee, 2003, p. 730). Through employing multiple modes of design, many
aspects of the experience were addressed and accounted for to create a cooking experience
improved by design.

19

The physicality of the experience is built as a design consideration. “Interaction design is
at the center of the new design space that has emerged in response to new communication
technologies. It is a space where information surpasses form in importance” (Sanders, 2001,
p. 5). This notion has applications beyond the scope of digital technologies. In order for
Family Mise en Place to be successful, information about tools, ingredients and timing must
be communicated in a way that it determines how the family interacts with the food, kitchen
space and one other. Spacial interaction is an important component to the Family Mise en
Place design because:
“Information does not necessarily only come in the form of words and pictures.
It comes through a coherent sequence and flow of events, such as moving through
an environment, using a product or interacting with a person. The aim is for a more
comprehensive and holistic view of the user experience” (McDonagh, 2004, p. 53).
The ultimate goal was to use subtle cues with physical cards that influence the intangible
interaction a family has with one another. If this interaction is enjoyable, it can lead to
building a pattern of behavior that consistently includes collaborative cooking with True Food.

Choice and Autonomy
Designers should be responsible for considering the behaviors that their messaging and
products establish. “Good design research, aimed at solving a performance problem,
often uncovers a social problem… design problems are not only technical, they are above
all, human” (Frascara and Winkler, 2008, p. 12). The subtleties of designing for social
problems mean solutions must provide choice and autonomy. “We need to make information
available, help people […] understand new possibilities, and give them the tools to make
their own decisions. But we can’t change their behaviors for them” (Shedroff, 2009, p. 370).
Particularly when it comes to kids, choice is imperative according to David R. Just and Brian
Wansink. Both study Behavioral Economics in Child Nutrition Programs. They look at how
small shifts in the display of choices within an environment can influence decision makers.
Individual behaviors are connected to the larger make-up of a person’s emotional intelligence
(Goleman, 2006, 2011). “Building emotions in design involves careful attention to how
relationships are built and the way people are involved in the process” (Crossley, 2003, p. 44).
Opportunity to make a selection is also an opportunity for individuals to learn. Building on
the work of Just and Wansink, many parents who participated in my research described how
their children reject instruction or being told what to do. They prefer the opportunity to learn
through self-discovery. One parent stated, “[my child] really doesn’t like to be told how to

20

do anything. She hates being instructed. She has to figure it out herself” (CP 1). Another
parent commented that her son learns best “when he isn’t aware that he’s being taught
something. If he thinks it’s being fed to him […] then there is a resistance to that” (CP 4).
The Constructivist learning model recognizes this desire to learn through experience.The
philosophy of Constructivism is based on the idea that we all construct our own meaning of
the world through situations and experiences. In this project, a cross-generational approach
is implemented, through looking into educational theory, so that the design responds to both
parents’ and children’s desires to discover new knowledge.

Learning Models
Educational theories, such as Constructivism and Cross-Generational learning, can be
paired with philosophies of design to establish new routines. This framework helps ask better
questions when exploring the interaction being elicited. Family Mise en Place capitalizes
on the interactions taking place in the kitchen: between people, the space, and the tools
and ingredients they use. This is the developmental context and learning opportunity. The
kitchen experience exemplifies bottom-up change and demonstrates the importance and
effectiveness of storytelling in learning (Ryan, 2008). “Interaction design, which is essentially
story creating and telling, is at once both an ancient art and a new technology. To have
informational value, it must be organized, transformed, and presented in a way that gives
meaning” (Shedroff, 1994, p. 3). An effective way to learn is through hands-on experiences.
Because of the haptic nature of cooking, it is a suitable framework to explore Constructivist
ideas about sensory learning.

Constructivist
John Dewey laid the foundation for Constructivist philosophies. In his book, Experience
and Education, he describes interaction as an interplay of internal and external (situational
and environmental) conditions (Dewey, 1938). Further, he proposes that the experience of
interactions is the foundation for learning throughout one’s life. Dewey emphasizes a social
process where individuals take active ownership for learning. Building on Dewey, other
philosophers such as Frederic Bartlett, Jean Piaget and Maria Montessori developed the
theory of knowledge that is “based on the premise that we all construct our own perspective
of the world, through individual experiences and schema. Constructivism focuses on preparing
the learner to problem solve in ambiguous situations” (Mergel, 1988, p. 2). Constructivist
philosophy is overall, a way of understanding how we experience the world and are applicable
to both formal curriculum and informal learning.

21

David Lebow makes the argument that the curriculum method of Instructional Systems Design
benefits from Constructivist philosophies. Lebow’s five principles of Instructional Systems can
be applied to creating the context for informal learning in the home through an Information
Interaction Design experience. They are:
1. “Maintain a buffer between the learner and the potentially damaging effects
of instructional practices.
2. Provide a context for learning that supports both autonomy and relatedness.
3. Embed the reasons for learning into the learning activity itself.
4. Support self-regulation through the promotion of skills and attitudes that
enable the learner to assume increasing responsibility for the developmental
restructuring process.
5. Strengthen the learner’s tendency to engage in intentional learning processes,
especially by encouraging the strategic exploration of errors” (Lebow, 1993, p. 5).
These principles easily apply to Family Mise en Place. They build on each another to create
a context for experiential learning that is fun as well as educational. Each principle is also
particularly relevant to cooking. Looking at principle three, one has to cook to learn the skills
required and become comfortable in the kitchen. Principle two is explored through giving
each person in the kitchen autonomous tasks that contribute to a collective meal.
Lebow’s principles are investigated as vital components of participatory research as well as a
desired outcome of the Family Mise en Place system. Participatory design research activities
were conducted to develop Constructivist methods of learning that resonated with parents and
children. When asked how their children learned best, parents responded that hands-on was
the best approach. “Kids love hands-on, right? And he’s no exception to that” (CP 4). Another
replied, “Doing, that’s how he’s going to learn and have a joy about it” (CP 3). Family Mise en
Place responds to the parents observation about how their children learn.
Generating hands-on ethnographic cooking experiments created a learning environment that
allowed participants to uncover fundamental cooking knowledge. Subsequently, the design
responded to participants’ experiences so that Family Mise en Place better functioned
as a Constructivist tool. Waldorf educational methods were adapted for use in the home
environment. Many aspects of these methods can be used to guide learning for parents and

22

children. Rudolf Steiner, the creator of Waldorf Education appears to have mastered the
balance between strict and exploratory temperaments as well as engaging the emotional
core of a person (Ruenzel, 1995).
According to Waldorf Education, the educational system follows developmental paths. For
children under age 6, the emphasis is on the will. For ages 7-14, it is on the feelings and
for those over fifteen, the emphasis is on the thinking. Each phase provides the building
blocks for the next stage of development. “The healthy, well-educated adult, then, is not so
much characterized by the intellect but rather is someone who comes to place the intellect
alongside human will and feeling as essential aspects of the ‘whole’ human being” (Ruenzel,
1995, p. 25). Waldorf philosophy warns against over-emphasizing thinking and intellect in
the development of children. Understanding experiences through how they engage the “hands,
heart, and head […] bringing into play the physical, emotional, and thinking dimensions of
the human experience” (Ruenzel, 1995, p. 25). Family Mise en Place provides an opportunity
to develop beneficial emotional connections between parents, children, food and cooking.

Figure 2.1 Ten-year-old chopping peanuts
Another aspect of this work inspired by Constructivist philosophy is placing value on the
process or journey of cooking together, instead of purely focusing on how a meal turns out.
The end goal of learning, whether about food or sustainability, is not as valuable as the act of
cooking together. This is supported by the Constructivist value that, “means and ends become
isomorphic and the desired results and preferred techniques appear as reflections of the same
whole” (Lebow, 2010, p. 14).

23

Philosophies of Constructivism work to understand how the individual experience of
interacting with objects, environments and others can lead to learning. An important part of
constructing knowledge is the social experience of interacting with others. In Family Mise en
Place, the interaction brings different generations together through the experience of cooking.

Cross-Generational
It is common knowledge that children benefit when their parents are involved in their
education. “The notion of family learning is growing in significance. Policy-makers see
parental involvement as a key way of enhancing children’s educational performance”
(Schuller, 2004 p. 10). What is often overlooked is that parents benefit from the same
experience. Policy makers also see “collective learning through family units as a means of
motivating adults to learn themselves” (Schuller, 2004, p. 10). Through learning together,
parents and children share in a mutually beneficial social experience.
Communication is a fundamental building block for collaborative activities. “Designing an
effective way of communicating ensures consumers know how to use the product efficiently
through a range of design interventions such as providing information, choice, feedback or
behavior spur” (Bhamra, et al., 2011, p. 436). Communication within cross-generational
activities inherently creates a context of community and therefore, the design should foster
collaboration. “We are beginning to see that collective creativity can be very powerful and
can lead to more culturally relevant results than individual creativity does” (Sanders, 2001,
p. 1). As families create meals together, they learn more effective ways to collaborate and
communicate with the other generation.

Figure 2.2 Eight-year-old measuring

24

Because Family Mise en Place is a cross-generational project, it must take into account
the way different age groups create meaning from interaction with objects and activities.
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi reflects on his generational research saying, “it is clear that the
younger generations [respond] to the activity potential of the objects—to what they could do
with them, while older generations [turn] to things that evoke contemplations, or preserve
the memories of the events, experiences or relationships” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1991, p. 27).
Through examining how the historical role of food has changed within the North American
household, Family Mise en Place can better identify with each generation as well as mediate
how the generations work with one another while cooking.
Reviewing past and current cultural trends helps to identify a momentous shift in awareness
about the foods we eat and how they are produced. Systems thinking can help make sense of
the complexity of the economic, social and environmental web that makes up the industrial
food system. One factor that influences the food system is the fast pace of modern life in
North America. Within this scenario are countless families who desire to make dinners on
weeknights but often struggle with the time to make meals with True Food ingredients (Beech
et al., 2004; Snyder et al., 2007). Family Mise en Place is a tangible demonstration of what
happens when systems and Information Interaction design are paired with learning theories.

25

Chapter Three:
Research Framework

“Every member of
the family needs to
contribute to make
a successful family.”
-Participant CP 3

Chapter Three:
Research Framework
When two or more people cook together, an atmosphere of conviviality is fostered. “Cooking
with your children forms a bond that will provide a life time of memories for both you and
them” (Day and Bleimeister, 2011, p. xi). Studio exploration and prototyping methods were
used to understand and respond to the complexity of how a family interacts with food.
The overarching questions that guided the research were:
• How can design enable cross-generational learning around food as a catalyst for
personal and ecological well-being?
• Can pre-teen (6-10 year old) co-creators help to establish the right conditions for this
learning to take place?
• What are the barriers for parents to engage in cooking activities with their children?

Figure 3.1 Haptic Experiments
A core problem being addressed is the perceived barrier that some families have against
cooking True Foods because they might involve unreasonable time and effort. The desired
outcome of Family Mise en Place is that parents transition from saying things like, “I don’t
have time to cook or even take extra time to include my kids in cooking” to saying, “Cooking
on weekdays is attainable because the kids are able to share the workload and contribute.
Cooking dinner has become our nightly family time together.”

27

There is also an opportunity to engage children in cooking, establishing the home as a place
of learning for both parents and children. The primary mode for testing ideas was through
prototyping small parts of the system. Focusing on how one aspect impacted the experience
was beneficial for expanding and testing larger components with more complicated prototypes.
Family Mise en Place uses Constructivist activities so that everyone in the family can experience
learning for themselves. A hands-on outcome requires a design process that recognizes the role
sensory experience plays in our daily experiences with food. The explorations for Family Mise
en Place began by conducting haptic experiments. One instance was where users felt their
way through the texture of a recipe: starting with flour, sugar, then a butter mixture, finally
kneading the dough. Participants were then able to eat and experience the texture of freshly
baked pastry (Figure 3.1). It was a way to quickly experience the process of baking.
Involving parents and children as participants to the design process was key to building a
system that addressed their true habits rather than perceived needs. “Observational research
methods can uncover unconscious behaviors, habits, routines, attitudes and beliefs […]
illuminating the gap between what people actually do what they say they do” (Young, 2010,
p. 19). Engaging participants revealed that users held the key to the solution for how design
could impact how families experience of weeknight cooking.

Methodology
The methodology for this thesis is founded on a combination of literature, theory, participant
research methods, and work produced in the studio. Theories of system design and
Information Interaction Design come together to create a physical product that addresses
the needs of families by facilitating shared experiences.
Methods of participant research and studio prototyping played off one another in a cyclical
process. For example, a research session of cooking with a family influenced a revision
of the structure of the activities. The refined activity was then used to cook with a new
family and then revised even further. This became an iterative process of learning through
participant research and studio work. Participant research was conducted in four phases:
narrative interviews, a web survey, ethnographic research cooking with kids, and prototype
testing (Figure 3.2).
First, narrative interviews were held in participants’ homes to get a sense of the role that
food played in each family. These interviews were with Current Parents with the goal being
to understand the barriers to cooking on weeknights with their kids. Participants turned out
to be a spectrum of families: from those who struggled around food and mealtime, to those

28

who were quite successful in integrating healthy views of food into their family dialogue. Some
families even employed methods for including their children in weeknight dinner preparation.
“I’d say he is helping probably five times a week [with dinner]” (CP 4).
“If kids are around looking for something to do or getting on each others nerves then I
will pull them in to help me” (CP 2).
“Every member of the family needs to contribute to make a successful family” (CP 3).
research
PHASE ONE

research
PHASE TWO

research
PHASE THREE

research
PHASE FOUR

Literature
Review

Precedent
Reserch

Supplemental
Literature

Full System
Prototype

Physical
Mock-ups

System
Mapping

Meal Card
Prototypes
Studio
Experiments

Narrative
Interviews
(CP & EN)

Content Source:

Final
Prototype

Iconography
& Visual Style

Survey
(CP)

Literature

Ethnographic
(C)

Participant

Prototype
Testing
(CP+C)

Studio Work

Figure 3.2 Methodology of research phases
Empty-Nesters were also interviewed. This group, now removed from the hectic lifestyle of
raising children, was able to reflect on how food played a role in their family schedules when
their children were young. Narrative interviews with Empty-Nesters helped identify the family
dinner table as the pivotal center of family life. One participant reflected: “I realize that
probably one of the best things I gave my children was dinnertime together. It’s powerful,
profound really” (EN 2). Many participants described the dinner table as the place for family
dialogue and connectedness. It is also where food behavior is learned and where ideas about
health and food are formed. “It was the one time we all got together, around the table”
explained one participant (EN 1). Another described “Family dinner…there is something even
more vital than [food], involving cultural values” (EN 4).

29

One way to bring families around the dinner table is through emphasis on the meal. These
participant responses guided the direction of design refinement so that it facilitated meal
planning. Both narrative interview and survey participants identified the burden of organizing
as a barrier to home-cooked meals.
“I think scheduling can be an issue that interferes with meal time” (CP 2).
“It (our hectic schedule) requires a high degree of organization and collaboration within
the family” (CP 4).
“Time-schedule [is a challenge], we’ve really changed what our after-school and evenings
look like” (CP 2).
Analysis for the interviews employed color-coded index cards containing hand-written quotes
from the recorded interviews (Figure 3.3). Each color card represented a different participant
family. They were grouped and rearranged using topical filters that helped show similarities
and differences between the families. This method is similar to the information sorting
outlined by Gery W. Ryan and H. Russell Bernard in the article Techniques to Identify
Themes in Qualitative Data. “[An] advantage to the cutting and sorting technique is that
the data can be used to systematically describe how such themes are distributed across
informants. […] Theme identification is one of the most fundamental tasks in qualitative
research. It also one of the most mysterious” (G. W. Ryan & Bernard, 2000, p. 9). Most
importantly, analyzing phrases helped identify barriers and opportunities for design. It also
defined criteria for success through examining ways that some parents were successful in
creating a healthy culture around food that engaged their children.

Figure 3.3 Analysis of narrative interviews

30

The second phase of participant research was an online web survey that investigated the
family schedule. The purpose of the survey was to learn from successes and struggles they
had around food and meal time. Survey questions identified opportunities to productively
involve children in cooking on weeknights. Details of the family schedule, grocery shopping,
and meal preparation habits confirmed some assumptions about the pace of family lifestyles.
For the survey, the sample size was smaller than expected (23 respondents) but did include
some valuable qualitative data. Nearly all respondents valued the regular family meal, and
many had established a routine that included home cooking on most nights. The survey
indicated that the average meal prepared at home took 30-60 minutes to cook. Nearly
one-third of the parents even indicated that children participate in weeknight cooking on
some occasions. Many parents commented on meal planning challenges due to picky eaters
and specialty diets.
“My son is a very picky eater, I usually make extra food for him, as he rarely eats what
the rest of us do” (CP 16).
“Gluten-free diet (myself), Dairy-free (both myself and older daughter). Husband is pescatarian
(mostly vegetarian who occasionally eats fish). Our meals are complicated” (CP 22).
For eating dinner, the survey showed a combination of either eating primarily at a dining table
or occasionally in front of the TV. Most families’ dinner meals lasted an average of 25 minutes.
Parent responses demonstrated a narrow window of time between when all family members were
home and when the children go to bed. Participants noted that this time often includes making
and eating dinner, running errands, taking part in extra-curricular activities, finishing homework
and doing bedtime rituals. Frustrations were expressed about weeknight mealtimes.
“I call 5-6pm the bewitching hour for parents…kids are hungry and jumpy and getting tired.
You hate to just plop them in front of the TV to provide peace…Usually my girls ‘do projects’
before dinner. For them that usually means coloring” (CP 8).
“I am tired and kids are hungry” (CP 3).
“[It’s] hard to hold a baby and chop vegetables at the same time… meanwhile older two are
often fighting about something…” (CP 11).
“Children complain about leaving TV to eat dinner, and we have trouble getting them to stay
at the table without crying” (CP 1).

31

The survey added further validation to the narrative interviews in demonstrating that family
mealtime is a point of frustration. A cursory glance at families’ schedules and comments
from parents shows that dinner can be tremendously stressful, but research also shows
that it does not have to be (Spagnola & Fiese, 2007). The narrative interviews and survey
clearly identified both the need and barriers. During this research, I responded to the insight
of my participants with studio experiments and prototypes. Design activities included
storyboarding the scenario and developing low-res mock ups of potential responses to the
issues that parents were identifying.
The third phase of research was ethnographic. It involved testing design prototypes by cooking
with kids. Cooking sessions included bringing designed meal instructions, ingredients and
tools into the participants’ homes. This was the first iteration of the Meal Cards that became
integrated into the final system. Children were given a verbal overview of the process and
asked if they would like to cook dinner for their family. A meal was then cooked with the
researcher and the children. Once the meal was completed, the family sat down to eat what
the children had made. Emphasis was placed on the child as an equal partner and leader of
segments within the activity. Each session was videotaped for analysis and reviewed to see
how all parties moved about the kitchen throughout the duration of the activity. Analysis also
included revisiting and revising parts the activity and the design of the Meal Cards for the
next participant session. Kids learned techniques of cooking through fully participating in a
meal and making decisions such as sauce flavors and starch options. “Learning to respect the
creativity of users usually happens very quickly with a hands-on approach” (Sanders, 2001, p.
2). Participant Children were given creative opportunities through taste testing and adjusting
sauce flavors. This ethnographic research was a test phase for implementing the Meal Cards
for parents and children to cook together.
The fourth and final phase of participant research for Family Mise en Place included rounds
of prototype testing. Parents and children were given a meal kit prototype and asked to cook
together. The kits included instructions, tools, food and directions. These sessions were also
recorded on video for future analysis. For this phase, each family had already participated in
the ethnographic cooking activity using the Meal Card system that included Gather, Prepare
and Cook. This familiarity with the Family Mise en Place framework reduced cooking time and
led to more enjoyable experience.
The variety of methods employed by this thesis built a methodology that explored crossgenerational collaboration, community building, the cultural relationship with food, and how
to move toward more sustainable practices. Selecting a narrow scope (facilitating parents and
children working together to make weeknight meals) was beneficial for deeply exploring the
interactions in this context.

32

Research Questions
The process of identifying a manageable scope led to developing questions that guided the
study in a direction that met the true needs of families. The main question addressed was
this: Can a design system help families involve their six- to ten-year-old children in preparing
True Foods for weeknight dinners? To support this question, three sub-questions were
developed:
• How can design structure the experiences of parents and children when cooking
together?
• What are the barriers preventing parents from engaging in cooking activities with
their children, and how can design help overcome those barriers?
• How can pre-teen (six- to ten-year-old) participants participate in cross-generational
cooking?
Assumptions are also an important component of building a foundation for investigation.
These assumptions support the questions in providing a frame of reference. All of these
assumptions are supported by literature, participants and experience prototypes.
• Cooking with True Foods connects people to planetary issues and helps them
build personal health.
• Food is a significant focal point and builder of individual and shared narratives.
• Cooking together is frequently convivial.
• When two people do an activity together, such as cooking, they learn from one another.
Barriers were identified to prepare for potential roadblocks or negative responses to this
research and the final outcome. First of all, food can be a very personal topic. Also, anything
involving parents and children learning has the potential to critique a parent’s methods.
The research for Family Mise en Place sought to respect parents while providing for growth.
The response from the participant activities was primarily positive and encouraging, but it is
important to be sensitive and not assume that potential participants or users would agree with
the premise of this project.

33

Families may perceive that their daily schedule is too busy to accommodate additional
activities, which may prevent the adoption of Family Mise en Place. This barrier was unpacked
through participant research. A primary benefit of conducting the narrative interviews and
survey was to identify ways design could respond to the percieved lack of time.
There is also an underlying cultural problem of the emphasis on weight loss or weight
management as a top role of food. This detracts from the value of making food communally
and eating it together. This view of food causes people to focus inwardly, not collectively,
about what foods to eat and where they originate. Media reinforces these ideals. Even
programs that discuss family mealtime as well as sustainable aspects of food, such as
Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution, do so as a side note secondary to the dangers of obesity
(Oliver, 2011).
Rival interests may be found in challenging the expected roles of parents and children in
society. There is a prevailing notion that the parents are always the main holders of knowledge
and main overseers of all family activities. Family Mise en Place does not want to challenge
the authority of parents but seeks to allow space for situational context where children are
given responsibility and are contributing to their parents’ learning (Just & Wansink, 2012;
Ruenzel, 1995; Spagnola & Fiese, 2007).
A major factor for children that works against Family Mise en Place is marketed ideas of
“kid food.” Advertising and packaging sell a vision of what kids will and won’t eat, fostering
a common excuse for packaged and processed food to infiltrate the family dinner table.
Recipes on the Meal Cards challenge notions of what kids eat through testing the concept
that kids are more likely to try new foods if they have been a part of making them. In contrast
to North America, the well-established food culture found in France, does not distinguish a
child’s food choices from adults.
“There are no ‘kid’s foods;’ kids eat what adults eat. […] Two-year-old kids eat blue
cheese and braised endives with gusto, and talked (sic) about the food. That’s
a big part of the French secret: to engage kids with preparation of food, and
discussing food. The main principle is you don’t have to eat it all, you just have
to taste it” (Druckerman, 2012, p. 17).
Even in North America, mealtime involves more than eating. “Within the structure of the
meal, families discuss events of the day, share stories about the past, and make plans for the
future, all while ensuring that members are well fed (and well-mannered!). Mealtimes provide
opportunities to reconnect, organize, and structured dialogue” (Spagnola & Fiese, 2007,
p. 286). Emotional development occurs for the children and families grow in unity through
establishing a stable routine over time.

34

Studio Experiments
Before involving participants, the design process began in the studio. The project began
with a focus on systems of community engagement and the role of food in culture. Within
the topic of food behavior, a connected system was explored that included the physical
production system of North American food as well as cultural notions of how an individual’s
emotional relationship with food is formed. Experiments started by looking broad and big
and experimenting with a Product Service System.

Figure 3.4 Sprout
From the beginning of figuring out the design strategy, the system-level problem was
examined, as was how to offer a system solution that addressed the issue on multiple levels.
One of the earlier experiments was a Product Service System called Sprout which contained
four modes of engagement. From this, I was able to detail aspects of that system that I
could work at in more depth. Sprout was based around products and services that helped
communities to interact through cross-generational activities. In a process of delimiting the
scope of this work, I choose to move forward to simply develop the activities the Product
Service System was based around. Then, the singular activity of parents and children cooking
together was selected as the key direction for continuing research, design and development.
Cooking is viewed as an integrated part of transforming lifestyle, not a form of recreation or

35

entertainment. From this perspective, participant research was constructed to identify the
point in the daily life where families had the most need for design to construct a more
positive experience.
The narrative interviews helped to identify cultural shifts in eating and dining as a family.
The survey provided information on the family schedule and how food is used in the home.
Busy weeknights were identified as ideal scenario for intervention. Studio explorations
involved scenario building, cardboard prototypes, system mapping, instruction design,
and testing out ideas in prototype form. Learning from these studio explorations was then
applied into cooking with kids.

Figure 3.5 The setting of each station had all tools, ingredients and instructions prepared

Figure 3.6 Participants cooking in pairs

36

Focusing on the experience and how instruction can manipulate that experience, a cooking
prototype was created for my classmates in the studio. A portable kitchen was assembled to
test out various construction styles to cooking a meal with others (Figures 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7).
Classmates were paired together and each pair was given a station with ingredients, tools
and a set of instructions. The instructions facilitated the team interaction and impact of
the individual cooking experience. Styles of instruction and division of tasks were tested in
addition to the ability to make a meal with the time constraint of 20 minutes. The activity
was carefully planned and demonstrated how cooking can be easy, fun, delicious, nutritious
as well as open a conversation about more sustainable food choices.
Upon reflection and conducting an analysis discussion with the class, we came to some
conclusions. The first was that cooking is a shared activity that leads to conviviality,
conversation, and a community spirit. This activity opened the opportunity for dialogue,
storytelling and learning among teams that cooked together. The instructions gave each
team a different dynamic. Some teams intentionally had to work together to divide the
tasks, others had instructions that divided cooking in a way that facilitated supporting one
another, and one group was given two sets of separate instruction that combined to create
one meal component. Upon discussion, we confirmed that those who work together were
more engaged in the activity. Those who had to work apart ended up more anxious about
cooking and had a less enjoyable experience. A key finding in all circumstances was that
cooking can be enjoyable, even for novices, when carefully planned.

Figure 3.7 A team working together

37

Through this experiment, some assumptions that I had about the best way to arrange
instructions for cooking were tested. Some findings were:
• In every group, the list of recipe ingredients was integrated into the instructions in
a sequential narrative format. Feedback confirmed that this method of following
instructions helped make their cooking experience more relaxed and enjoyable.
• In groups where one of the partners was very inexperienced with cooking, the more
skilled individual felt the need to monitor their partner.
• Some basic cooking fundamentals, that were assumed, needed to be explained for
the inexperienced participants (things such as teaspoon versus tablespoon). This
scenario alluded to a potential dynamic between parents and young children.
• In the simpler recipes, teams were more inclined to personalize recipes because
they felt comfortable that they could add things without ruining the dish.
• With unfamiliar recipes, the teams were less confident in cooking and were wary
about making mistakes.
Findings from the studio experiment validated the Family Mise en Place endeavor and
influenced the direction of following experiments. This round of cooking provided cues
that the way the information is laid out on the meal instructions is critically important.
Flaws within the current display of recipes were identified and supported moving forward
with restructuring the experience of cooking through focusing on the way tasks are divided.

Figure 3.8 Another team working together

38

Parts of the System
Gather Prepare

Cook

MEAL CARDS

Gather

Prepare

MEAL
FRAMEWORK
Option
X

Option
Y

Cook

DISPLAY

STORAGE

Figure 3.9 Parts to the system
Family Mise en Place comprises three parts; a Display, the Meal Framework cards and Storage
for the cards for building a collection of Meal Card instructions over time. Meal Frameworks
are the title for the entire meal. It is called a framework because the recipe includes options
for families to navigate in designing their own meal. Meal Frameworks are each based around
a type of dish, such as Stir Fry, and provide choices for elements such as sauces, flavor
profiles or starches.

Figure 3.10 Meal Cards

39

Meal Cards divide the experience into Gather tools and ingredients, Prepare food and Cook
an entire meal. The Display space publicly shares current meal information to facilitate
participation from the whole family. Storage houses Meal Cards when not in use as well as
the Instruction Cards and Skill Cards—which contain helpful tips on cooking as a family
and a visual glossary of terms. Primary design attention focused around the Meal Cards and
exploring their potential to shape the cooking interaction. As the cards developed, they began
expressing the potential role of design to facilitate experience through instruction.
A pitfall of traditional recipes is they often include hidden preparation steps within the list of
ingredients. Recipes also assume a base level of proficiency in the kitchen. The instructions
in Family Mise en Place strips out all presumption in a tone that does not talk down to the
novice cook. Based on participant responses, a key to families successfully making dinner at
home and eating it together is planning. This thesis responds to that barrier through a detailed
structuring of the meal.
To make recipes more accessible to children, the process of cooking a Meal Framework is
divided into three steps on a series of Meal Cards.
• Meal preparation begins with Gather, finding all ingredients and tools then bringing
them together in one location.
• Once everything is in its place, the next step is Prepare; this includes all chopping,
mixing and arranging of ingredients prior to adding any heat. An important aspect
of Prepare is that ingredients are grouped and filtered through the use of bowls or
cookware that facilitate the simplest possible experience during the final stage.
• Cook includes the steps of making and assembling the meal. Cook is often as simple
as “Add bowl one into pan, cook over medium 5 minutes. Add bowl two into pan…”
and so on.
Dividing cooking into manageable chunks helps family members at all skill levels get involved
and work together. This model demonstrates how “complexity can be made clear through
effective organization and presentation […] Clarity includes the focus on one particular
message or goal at a time, rather than an attempt to accomplish too much at once” (Shedroff,
1994 p. 9). By focusing on one phase at a time, cooking becomes clear and accomplishable
by anyone.

40

Figure 3.11 Dividing tasks using the Meal Cards
As explained earlier, this construct of dividing cooking tasks is closely related to the French
culinary method of mise en place. Although primarily utilized in professional kitchens, this
philosophy of preparing all components in a meal is interpreted as a way to lower the barrier
for children to engage in meal preparation. Involving children in the mise en place ritual is
an entry point into cooking. I discussed the application of professional mise en place into a
family environment with a chef. He described how “[kids] definitely should be involved in
doing the mise en place because that makes them more responsible instead of just stirring
the pot. You want more out of them than that” (Vandenbroucke, 2012). They are able to
contribute with their current skills and then build up new skills over time, in partnership
with their parents.
Another way to look at the concept of mise en place is a method for organization.
Communication Design typically deals with the structure of information into an organized
form. “Information Design addresses the organization and presentation of data: its
transformation into valuable, meaningful information” (Shedroff, 1994, p.1). Family Mise
en Place is an example of how the organization of data can translate to the organization of
an activity and subsequent experience.
Not only is the information organized, but it also provides an opportunity for choice. Both
Liz Sanders and John Thackara describe scaffolding experiences that provide frameworks

41

for individuals to act within. This is a shift from designing completed solutions to designing
contexts for people to respond within” (Thackara, 2006). If you think of products, interfaces
and spaces as being scaffolds on which ordinary people can create their own experiences, the
design challenge changes” (Sanders, 2001, p. 5). Structuring the instructions of cooking into
a framework provides space for choice and creativity. Behavioral economists David R. Just and
Brian Wansink cite choice as the highest motivating factor for a child’s change in behaviors in
regards to food. “Self-attribution [is] when people feel as if they have freely and consciously
made a decision, they take ownership of that decision and tend to have a greater enjoyment
of the outcome” (Just & Wansink, 2009, p. 2). Subtle cues in how two options are presented
can guide choices and build healthy habits.
Particularly with Gather, children can take ownership of the task and complete the first stage
of preparation before the parents engage in the meal for the evening. David Lebow explains
“environments that provide choice, minimize performance pressure, and encourage initiation
tend to support intrinsic motivation, meaningful learning, and self-esteem” (Lebow, 1993,
p. 8). Participant research revealed that children enjoy getting things from the refrigerator
and cupboards as an act of establishing independence. One parent described the process her
daughter goes through to get a snack on her own. “She will take out the stepladder, she will
move it to the refrigerator, she will climb up the stepladder, pull out the container…she does it
herself. I’m not giving [her] permission to do it, she’ll just do it” (CP 1). Family Mise en Place
responds by finding a constructive way for children to independently explore the cupboards in
collaboration with their parents.

Figure 3.12 A six year old using a food processor

42

Flexibility and Structure
Building recipes that are designed for choice and flexibility is a challenging task. Parents
experienced in cooking may feel comfortable experimenting, but often novice and average
cooks depend on strictly abiding by a step-by-step recipe. This was evident in the studio
cooking experiment where unfamiliar recipes or ingredients caused anxiety. Many aspects
of cooking require explicitly providing instructions on the foundational steps and techniques
of a recipe that are necessary to make the dish successful. The Meal Cards need to give
a balance between setting families up for success and allowing self-expression and play.
After showing the Meal Cards to the chef, he responded “Gather, Prepare, Cook is brilliant
because as fundamental and as basic as you can is how you want to present cooking to [kids]”
(Vandenbroucke, 2012).
This is where heuristic discovery is significant. In Understanding Comics, Scott McCloud
describes the balance between providing content and allowing the reader to make the mental
leap, filling in the gaps between frames. With the example of comics, “nothing is seen
between the two panels but experience tells you that something must be there” (Mccloud,
1994 p. 67). Feeling ownership in the midst of graphical incompleteness allows participants
to embody the ideas because they are presented in a way that provokes them to fill in gaps.
There is a slim territory of liminal space where the design is robust enough to be trusted as
authoritative and worthwhile, but not overly prescriptive.
“Participation is a powerful force in any medium. Filmmakers long ago realized the
importance of allowing viewers to use their imagination. The unfinished aesthetic
creates the space for users to feel comfortable with their freedom to add, play and
experiment” (Mccloud, 1994, p. 69).
The goal in this work is that the design takes the participant halfway and in completing the
ideas, through experience the participant feels ownership over the activity. For Family Mise en
Place, choice is achieved through a series of meal decisions. The weeknight dinner involves
selecting a Meal Framework, such as stir fry or soup. Within each Meal Framework are a series
of choices to compile the full meal. In the example of stir fry, the first Meal Card instructs
families to select and make a sauce, then select rice or noodles. The timing of various choices
is often integrated into the main Meal Framework to provide a cohesive experience and a
successful final dish.

43

Building a Visual Language
Early on, it was identified that developing a visual language of iconography was an entry
point for including children in cross-generational cooking. In the first cooking prototype,
conducted in the studio space, different kinds of content were given specific type treatments
to distinguish items like ingredients from measurements, and so on. One finding from the
studio cooking activity was the notion that when I adjusted it for cooking with kids, children
should have choices in the meal as well as the opportunity to lead.
Developing a visual style of type icon and structure was vital to the impact of the Meal Cards.
“The use of images might be divided into three categories: as illustration; as evidence; and as
heuristic” (Schuller, 2004, p.1). These icons illustrate necessary tools and ingredients as well
as facilitate heuristic learning of new foods and cooking processes.

Figure 3.13 Initial Display with hanging Meal Cards
Specific ways icons can be used to imply instruction were explored in creating Family Mise
en Place. To begin, meals were laid out using a range of type and layout variations within the
constraint of the Display accommodating a hanging folded Meal Card as a way to open up my
visual direction was to investigating iconographic styles. (Figure 3.13 The first set of Meal
Cards used these highly polished icons (Figure 3.14) that did not resonate with both parents
and children. They also did not imply a sense of experimentation in the kitchen.
Through this process, it became clear that it was necessary to create a cross-generational style
of icon that communicated collaboration and playfulness for weeknight cooking (Figure 3.15).
I worked with physical form of the Meal Cards in addition to layout, type and the experience

44

of instruction within the format. The structure of the elements and physicality of the Family
Mise en Place system also reinforced theories of adoption and learning. The revised form of
the Meal Cards suggests reassembling, choice, and personal investment, leading to a feeling
of ownership of the activity.

Figure 3.14 Initial icon iteration

Figure 3.15 Accessible icons used for prototypes

45

For the Display system, participant research gave insight into my studio decisions. The obvious
choice of the refrigerator as the interface was a nice place to start. Within the ethnographic
cooking sessions, the placement of the Meal Cards was experimented with and observed.
Cards started out adhered to the refrigerator in many homes as well as propping thick Meal
Cards against the compost bin. In one instance, a thin paper card was moistened and stuck
to the microwave at the eye level for adults and children. I observed how people moved about
the kitchen while cooking, making it clear that more exploration for the Display was necessary.
One finding was that the setting of the workspace is crucially influential when cooking with
children. Because they were beginners, it was necessary to provide help, as well as monitor
everything the children were doing.

Figure 3.16 Watching a child read the Meal Card
At first, too much attention was given to making the child a part of every single thing that
happened in the kitchen (Figure 3.16). Then it was recognized that the goal of Family Mise
en Place is to develop a partnership, a collaboration between adults and children. The adult
is the driver of getting the meal accomplished and the skilled expert at most tasks. The child
is vitally involved in accomplishing the meal but can start out with individual tasks and work
up to leading as their skills develop.
In ethnographic research sessions, the children and I were able to work closely side-by-side
because we had all of our ingredients and tools right in front of us. This meant I was easily
able to accomplish separate tasks quickly while observing what the children were doing and

46

being available to help instruct (Figure 3.17). In turn, the proximity allowed them to observe
what I was doing and imitate my techniques. This provided multiple opportunities for learning,
such as teaching knife skills.
How the workspace layout facilitates collaboration is an aspect of Family Mise en Place’s
success that is highly dependent upon the individual family’s kitchen. I was able to work
in a number of different sizes and arrangements of kitchens, and was able to figure out in
each scenario the arrangements that would best facilitate chopping and preparing in a
shared space.

Figure 3.17 Setting of the workspace
Given that this was academic research, the Research Ethic Board required an assistant on
site to monitor for safety at every cooking session. On occasions where the research was done
with multiple children, my research assistant, Rebecca, and I ended up falling into a balance
similar to two parents cooking with their children. She was able to instruct and monitor safety
while I kept all the components moving forward and cleaned tools and spaces. Navigating
the balance between personally getting tasks done and facilitating the children’s involvement
in accomplishing tasks is tricky. This harmony could only be refined through many research
phases of trial and error.
It was also difficult to balance productivity with monitoring the children, these solutions
were found through iterations of the cooking activity as well. This discovery revealed that it
was necessary make the instructions explicit. Stepping back to review how the format of the
activity is presented led to developing the Skills Cards. These provide a space for refining

47

kitchen skills such as knife techniques and proper hand washing. The necessity for a clear set
of instructions that demonstrate collaborative methods for including parents and children was
also validated.
For the Storage, an earlier concept was to integrate the system into the family cookbook
shelf. The initial iteration was based on modeling the scale after something that would be
both familiar and dominant on the shelf. The Joy of Cooking is a standard book that is known
for being authoritative and large in size. I first made a cardboard shape the size of the Joy of
Cooking to give myself a frame of reference. I then used that scale to create a form that had a
pull-out story-book of reference material and a space to accumulate meal cards (Figure 3.18).
This studio exploration demonstrated that I needed to focus attention onto the Meal Cards
first, and that the main purpose of the Storage system is to make the cards accessible and
easy to find within the home.

Figure 3.18 Cardboard prototypes

Feedback Loops & New Routines
Research participants demonstrated satisfaction in the activities; they enjoyed the work
together and connected with one another. At that point, the meal becomes an added bonus to
the enjoyable time spent cooking. This is an example of a positive, constructive feedback loop
for Family Mise en Place (Meadows, 2008). “Typically, experiences with high interactivity offer
high levels of feedback and, at least, some control” (Shedroff, 1994, p. 10). The Meal Cards
allow control through selecting components within each Meal Framework. Cooking is physically
interactive while providing immediate, positive feedback of a meal to eat together.

48

G

A
GP

B
GP

C

A
GP

C

Main

#1

GP

B
GP

C

G
P
C

C

#1B

#2

G
P

P
C

#2A

C

Main

Dinner

C

3.

Meal Framework
Ingredients,
Tools &
Utensils

1.

KEY
Choice
Material Flow

2.

Information Flow

Family

G

Gather

P

Prepare

C

Cook

Figure 3.19 Diagram of the Family Mise en Place cooking process
Demonstrated in Figure 3.19, a family first selects a Meal Framework then chooses the
A or B options within that framework. Then, they Gather the ingredients and tools, Prepare,
and Cook each part of the meal together. Finally, they sit down to dinner and enjoy their
meal as a family.
Satisfaction and removal of barriers was clearly evident in the feedback from one participant.
The parent concluded, “[My son] was so excited and eager to participate in the preparation of
a meal, and was very proud of his accomplishment when the process was completed. As [his]
mother, I took note that he was a ‘willing participant’, and that I need to put forth additional
effort that will enable him to work alongside me as we prepare the evening meal” (CP 3). As
this family uses the meal cards repeatedly, they can choose a new combination or repeat a
meal they enjoyed while improving it to fit their tastes as they cook.
Daniel Pink lists autonomy, mastery and purpose as the motivating factors for behavior (Pink,
2010). Nathan Shedroff puts it in the context of providing options to structure content for
themselves. “It is precisely the ability to see the same set of things in different organizations
that allow people to uncover the patterns in the relationships between these things. Ideally,
people should be able to rearrange the organizations themselves or be provided with different
arrangements so they can begin to understand these patterns for themselves” (Shedroff,
1994, p. 8).

49

Building new behavioral habits is a part of each family adopting cooking as a part of their
daily lives. “Naturally occurring family routines and meaningful rituals provide both a
predictable structure that guides behavior and an emotional climate that supports early
development” (Spagnola & Fiese, 2007, p. 284). Providing accessibility for parents and
children to contribute to interaction is key to adoption “because they enjoy what they’re
doing to the extent that the experiencing the activity becomes its own reward” (Locher,
Overbeeke and Wensveen, 2010, p. 71).
Positive experiences can lead to adoption of Family Mise en Place and families regularly
cooking together as skills develop. “The feelings, intuitions, attitudes, values, interests,
significant relationships, and commitment of learners cannot be separated from the
learning process” (Lebow, 1993, p. 10). The value of learning, within the context of
where the knowledge or skills can directly be applied, contributes to the experience created
by this project. For Family Mise en Place, this means learning about food in the context
of cooking. Also, it means learning about building the family dynamic through time spent
together. “Repeated family gatherings offer the opportunity to create strong emotional bonds
and an investment in maintaining connections into the future” (Spagnola and Fiese, 2007, p.
6). Consistently problem solving the weeknight dinner as a family provides the context for this
emotional learning to occur.
Deep understanding develops through repetition, movement, rhythm, sustained concentration
and storytelling that creates a heart connection to the material. This mirrors Rudolph Steiner’s
Waldorf education ideals featured in Waldorf Schools. In my research, many people who enjoy
cooking and have been successful in involving their children in weekday dinner preparation
employ Rudolf Steiner’s methods in the act of cooking. The family meal is a catalyst for
dialogue and interaction (Shedroff, 1994; Spagnola & Fiese, 2007). This work demonstrate
how planning intentional activities can help a family transition to a consistent lifestyle of
health and sustainability. The goal of these activities is that the action of parents and children
cooking together through physically moving around the kitchen space will build a positive
emotional experience, leading to adoption of the system on a regular basis.

50

Chapter Four:
Data Analysis

“[The kids] seemed
to be naturally
interested in food
and preparing food.”
-Participant EN 4

Chapter Four:
Data Analysis
Family Mise en Place incorporates primary data from participants with literature and making
work in the studio. Analysis of the information occurred throughout the research process and
often included space for reflection. The data was interpreted by reviewing the images and
video from participant research to observe new insights. Analysis was also done in the form
of studio response and writing. I maintained a critical process-book on my website throughout
the entire program of study. (These posts are located at www.karenwhistler.com/mastersthesis). From the outset, the research was defined to ensure triangulated data by utilizing
multiple methods of collecting data.
The research methodology was validated through the four research stages and a review of
Meal Card prototypes by a professional chef. The design of Family Mise en Place is heavily
influenced by many types of participant involvement to ensure that the actual needs of
families are being addressed (Sanders & Stappers, 2008; Sanders, 2001). Understanding
family behaviors and how people feel about their schedule through multiple modes of
observation was valuable.

Triangulated Data & Analysis
The Multiple Methods approach described by Hillary Collins in her book, Creative Research,
is implemented in this project. Collins describes how each method of data collection has
limitations but “if you use a variety of data collection methods you can ‘see’ the responses
from different perspectives” (Collins, 2010, p. 48). In this project, Multiple Methods
also allowed me to focus on one aspect of the scenario at a time. For example, by doing
ethnographic cooking activities with children, I was able to focus observation on the children
and better clarify their role in making dinner. I experienced how Family Mise en Place might
impact the parents while cooking. From this understanding, I built a more robust prototype
for parents and children to work together.
Data is triangulated by reviewing literature, making studio work and conducting participant
research. Figure 4.1 demonstrates how each type of content is supported by a triangulation
of methods. The methods overlap to illustrate how comparative analysis took place in the
research and design process. For instance, qualitative research data from participants is
supported by literature and compared to findings from working in the studio.

52

Theory

Market
Research

Historical
Precedents

Literature &
References

Studio
Experiments

Mapping &
Visualizations

Studio
Making

Narrative
Interviews

Participant
Research Data

Iterative
Prototyping

Web
Survey

Ethnographic
& Prototype
Testing

Analysis
Content Source:

Literature

Participant

Studio Work

Analysis

Figure 4.1 Data Triangulation

Qualifications
Some qualifications based on application of theory were developed as a way to validate the
benefits of this project. These criteria included creating a design that embodied practical
use of these concepts and theories:
• Constructivist learning
• Hands-on activities
• Heuristic or “self” discovery
• Interaction design
• Narrative building
• Cross-generational interaction
Based on participant responses, this attempt at applying hands-on theory into practice was
positive. Hands-on cooking between parents and children created a space for discovery,
learning, and cross-generational collaboration.

53

Context of the Research
By observing my level of interaction during the ethnographic research, I was able to identify
ways to design myself out of the system so that it would be self-sustaining for families. The
research involving cooking with families in their homes presented a complexity that would
not exist in the ideal scenario of parents and children using Family Mise en Place on their
own. The fact that I was playing the role of the parent in an unfamiliar kitchen added time
that would not exist any end-user scenario. Also, many kids took time to get acquainted with
me, which made the cooking process longer than it would otherwise be.

Prototype Findings
Participant research and the interaction with the Meal Card prototypes led to specific findings.
After identifying that organization and time management were barriers to cooking meals, it
became clear that the design should include a framework of meals to help families establish
a system (the Meal Framework). This simultaneously assists families without a recipe
repertoire and encourages the use of True Foods. The goal of the Meal Framework is that
families who consistently use Family Mise en Place gain confidence to experiment and add
other meal ideas to their weeknight rotation. This depends on the strength of the framework
and the quality of the instruction. Confidence is something that builds over time, but a sense
of inclusiveness and accomplishment will be evident after the first time a family cooks with
Family Mise en Place.
Within the specified age group of six- to ten-year-olds, there were some clear sub-distinctions
in each child’s capacity to participate. The ability to focus on cooking, and stay attentive for
the entire process, was appropriate for the range of six- to ten-year-olds. I did cook with one
five-year-old, technically outside of my target range. There were opportunities to engage him
in tasks, and he preformed quite well for his age. The one noticeable difference was his
attention span. He would join us in cooking, get bored and go play, and then return when
we started a new activity. This worked out well because his sibling and I were able to continue
with the meal, and make space for him to jump in when he wanted. This flexibility saved
time and maintained a positive environment for everyone involved, regardless of their ability
and level of interest. I did not experience disengagement with any other child participant, so
it appears—based on the cooking sessions—that six years old is the appropriate age for the
children to become equal contributors to cooking weeknight meals.
Six and seven-year-olds contributed well to cooking the meal and stayed attentive and
excited throughout the process. Children in this age range required assistance reading

54

and often requested confirmation that they had read icons properly. A discussion of
fractions and measurements was helpful for this group. They often wanted to be shown
which measuring cup or spoon to use. My objective was to show them and then explain the
difference so that by the end of the meal they could identify and select the correct unit. This
information is beneficial on a Skill Card so that children can build their understanding of tools
used in the kitchen. What distinguished the older group, eight-to-ten year olds, was how their
confidence in reading translated to a more confident approach to the kitchen. Most children
in this age group had some experience baking and had a basic understanding of kitchen skills
such as measuring. A few even had some familiarity cutting with knives and were open to
more advanced tips on developing knife skills.
Most children benefited from some instructions on knife skills and measuring techniques.
The moments where I paused to demonstrate, assist, and encourage the children were
worthwhile investments of time. Parents cooking with Family Mise en Place may need to
use the Skill Card and take small amounts of time upon initially cooking with their children,
but it will lead their children to develop skills and provide bigger contributions to the meal
preparation over time.

Reflecting on the Research Questions
The findings of this research were a result of careful planning, guided by specific research
questions. The proposed questions of employing design to facilitate shared family meal
preparation and cross-generational learning provided a valuable foundation that was then
refined as research developed. It is valuable to reflect upon the final questions and note how
the research findings respond to their objectives.

Can a design system help families involve their six- to ten-year-old children in preparing True
Foods for weeknight dinners?
After conducting ethnographic research and responding with design iterations, it was found
that Family Mise en Place did help families involve their children in preparing weeknight
dinners. Further, I discovered that it was also beneficial to involve children. All participant
children were eager to cook. In early research phases many parents commented that their kids
would cook more often if allowed. Even those parents who had trepidations about cooking with
their children on busy weeknights were motivated to involve their children more often after
cooking with Family Mise en Place, due to how the design system functions.

55

Families found that thanks to the organization of the system and the additional help from their
children, it was easier to cook with true foods than they had initially estimated. By cooking
with True Foods in the participant research, kids gained tactile experience of ingredients. They
loved to taste the raw vegetables, smell the sauces, taste and feel things as they cooked. This
experiential, heuristic, learning created a valuable connection to the foods they ate.

How can design structure the experiences of parents and children when cooking together?
After the final prototype testing, parents responded that the meal cards specifically helped
them to structure the activity and involve their children. The design was able to guide the
experience so that children were meaningful participants.
Several aspects of the meal card design (see appendix two) proved to be key to structuring
the experience:
• They were easy to use by both parents and children.
• They sorted and organized complex layers of information in a clean simple layout.
• The sorted information helped parents facilitate the cooking and delegate tasks to
younger children.
• The flexible presentation of some of the instructions helped older children take
leadership in directing the cooking process.
• The process of cooking was described with clear systematic instruction.
• The recipes on the cards provided opportunities for choice of ingredients and flavors.
• The physical format supported the possibility of multiple people moving about the
kitchen when cooking.
• The form and layout of the cards allowed multiple people to read instructions
simultaneously and work on different tasks at the same time.
One child participant reflected on using the Meal Cards saying, “well the cards helped me and
they are useful. I also enjoy how it says you can choose…It kinda makes me want to invent
new things“ (CP 5, age 8).

56

What are the barriers preventing parents from engaging in cooking activities with their
children, and how can design help overcome those barriers?
From Narrative Interviews and the Survey, parents identified the perceived barriers that
cooking with children takes longer and makes a huge mess. Many parents commented that if
they do cook with their children, it is usually something they feel is simple enough for the kids
to participate in-such as baking cookies-and it requires an entire weekend afternoon.
These barriers were addressed through design. The activity was structured and organized to
include children. Recipes were simplified with a busy weeknight in mind. Estimated times,
with children, were tested and placed on the cards to help families plan. During testing, no
meal took more than an hour to prepare, and the average time was 30 to 45 minutes. Families
affirmed that this was a manageable amount of time for them on a weeknight.
The structure of Gather, Prepare and Cook helped the kitchen to remain organized and
provided transition times where families naturally tidied up between stages. Additionally,
messages on the best times to clean up were also added to help encourage a neat workflow.

How can pre-teen (six- to ten-year-old) participants participate in cross-generational cooking?
As stated earlier in the analysis, six- to ten-year-olds are the ideal age to engage in cooking
dinner. They proved able to participate in most activities that adults can do such as gather,
chop, measure, read and follow instructions, and stir things on the stove. Six-year-old children
require the most supervision and guidance but can quickly learn skills and patterns of cooking
through repeated involvement. Ten-year-olds are capable of leading parts of the activity
and can be more autonomous in completing their own tasks. In one participant family with
three children (aged ten, eight and six), the ten-year-old was able to take clear leadership in
preparing the meal. She read the instructions aloud, helped delegate tasks to her siblings and
monitored rice cooking on the stove. She also organized the Prepare stage so that the bowls
were centrally located so everyone could reach to combine their chopped vegetables.
The findings in response to this question were quite encouraging. Cross-generational cooking
with six- to ten-year-old children can be a partnership. Parents were often surprised at the
capability of their children to participate and pleased to learn how beneficial it is to involve
their kids in cooking.

57

A Sensory Experience

Figure 4.2 Child adding sauce to a plated dish
Not everything with cooking involves hard skills. The research confirmed that children also
need freedom to be creative and spontaneous in the kitchen. One finding was that kids love
presentation and plating. In this research, they often wanted to tailor the blend of food on
each plate. As kids plated each dish, they treated them like works of art and were proud of
their aesthetic accomplishment as well as their sensory experience. Typically, this looked like
more veggies for the parents and more starches for the kids. However, the assumption that
kids are more likely to try unfamiliar foods if they have made them was confirmed in all but
one case.
Family Mise en Place is visually and physically tactile. Visual and haptic mental processes
work together to influence experience. This is particularly applicable to cooking. Paul Walker,
Kees Overbeeke, and Stephan Wensveen describe the cognitive process of engaging with
an object in detail in “Aesthetic Interaction: A Framework.” The authors cite neuroimaging
studies that show how the visual and haptic experience of an object stimulates the brain in
such a way that “ tactile information can affect the aesthetic evaluation of artifacts” (Locher,
Overbeeke, & Wensveen, 2010, p. 75). Cooking inherently involves all of the senses: touch,
sight, smell, taste and sound. The connection between tactile and visual is further reinforced

58

by Family Mise en Place and the use of representational iconography. By connecting visual
images to the tactile sensations of physical objects, parents and children experience the
processing of cooking in a new way.

Figure 4.3 Child plating unique dish for each family member based on her understanding
of their preference
The outcomes of working with participants affirmed written theories and ideas from multiple
fields and disciplines. At the conclusion of this study, there were many indications that the
participant families would involve children in cooking on a more regular basis.

59

Chapter Five:
Summary

“What you put into your
body is actually going
to be what you get out
of your life.”
-Participant EN 1

Chapter Five:
Summary
Major discoveries that emerged from deep engagement with participants facilitated a robust
and iterative design process. The research experience of interviews, survey and ethnographic
activities validated ideas that cooking together builds relationships, community and dialogue
faster than simple conversation. Practical experience cooking with the children reinforced
the validity of the Meal Cards and stimulated ideas for developing Instruction Cards and
Skill Cards. As participants became familiar with the structure—Gather, Prepare, and Cook—
cooking time was reduced and parents found it easier to delegate tasks to children. The
sequential involvement of participants through several iterations of the design provided
both theoretical insights and applicable design innovations.
I uncovered some general principles of cooking in order to develop a Meal Card system
that structured the critical components of a dish and encouraged flexibility and play with
the variables. Using some Waldorf principles, with other Constructivist learning theories,
Family Mise en Place hopes to help parents and children to discover their food intuition,
particularly those who think cooking is a skill they lack. Simultaneously, cooking can engage
children in learning within their stage of development, to connect with food, and contribute to
cooking the weeknight family meal. The Waldorf method sees the role of learning as bringing
out the capabilities within each person (Ruenzel, 1995). Everyone has the ability to do
anything well; they just need to discover or rediscover that ability. This is a valid philosophy
when applied to cooking.
Participant responses to the cooking activities supported the theories of Family Mise en Place.
One participant stated that they plan on changing their mealtime ritual to include the child
regularly in nightly dinner preparation. “I look forward to [my son] making tomorrow evening’s
dinner with me as we prepare for friends to come over later this week for a meal prepared
and cooked by [my son]” (CP 3). The structure of the system successfully helped parents and
children construct their experience around meal preparation.
One qualification for success is that participant actions and experiences are primarily guided,
rather than dictated, by the Family Mise en Place system. The flexibility of the design
framework encourages parents and children to feel ownership of the system. This focus may
lead to greater adoption and interest in the cooking activities. Ideally, parents and children
would work together to make the meals every week. The role of children would be meaningful
participation and will relieve the burden on the parents as the sole meal preparer. Family Mise
en Place could advance the role of the children as valuable contributors to cooking through
instruction and constructive engagement.

61

There are some barriers to building a cooking ritual. Many children are unfamiliar with
cooking; it is possible that a family’s initial experience with Family Mise en Place could be
just as challenging, and time consuming, as a typical weeknight. When kids are learning
many new skills at once, they may take more time to complete tasks. Even though the entire
system helps with time management, parents need to consciously allow space for the children
to learn without too much performance pressure. Practice with Skill Cards can facilitate this
development. The research showed that children were familiar with expectations and working
smoothly by the second or third time they engaged with the system.
One benefit of using Family Mise en Place on a regular basis is that, through repetition,
patterns of behavior would build over time. The activity would become familiar and more
efficient within the family, alleviating the stress of weeknight meal times and creating a
space for learning and relationship building. If Family Mise en Place is successful in the
home, both parents and children would be supported to learn from one another and have
a deeper relationship with food from a personal and ecological perspective. A successful
adoption of the system would mean families buying fresh groceries of True Foods.
The state of North American food culture is a global issue that will require a collaboration
of multifaceted efforts to improve. While the complete solution for shifting food culture
necessitates proper time and attention to each part of the broken system, changing family
habits is one good place to intervene in the system. Alice Waters states in the documentary
“Ingredients” that “eating food with your family and friends that is locally grown, sustainably
farmed—this is what people have been doing since the beginning of time. This isn’t a fad.
It’s a civilizing ritual that gives meaning to life” (Bates, 2009). Through focusing on families
in the home, Family Mise en Place facilitates building an enjoyable habit for parents and
children to explore health and experience community with one another.

62

Appendices:

63

Appendices:
Appendix One Research
This appendix includes Reseach Ethics Board approval letter and an outline of each stage
of participant research.
1. Narrative Interviews
2. Online Survey
3. Ethnographic Research
4. Prototype Testing

64

65

Narrative Interviews:
Interview Questions for Parents:
The purpose of this interview is to talk about how food plays a role in your family’s scheduleboth positive and negative- and maybe identify some barriers or frustrations in the conflict
between your schedule and eating the way you’d like to. There will be a few demographic
questions then a section on your schedule. This will be followed by questions on mealtime
rituals and finally a section on how you and your children learn best.
#on video confirm consent form
Demographic Information
Your age
Number and ages of children
Are you raising your children with a partner or spouse?

Understand Family Schedule
Can you describe the schedule of a typical weekday for you and your family?
To understand things you like and don’t like about schedule:
• What part of the day are you most satisfied?
• What part of the day are you most exhausted or overwhelmed?
Now that I am beginning to understand your schedule, more important to my project is how
food fits into that schedule, the next questions will Identify your mealtime rituals.
• What time do you typically eat dinner?
• Describe how a typical weeknight meal is prepared
• What is your favorite meal?
• What is your children’s favorite meal?

66

Tell me about the process of shopping for food
• Do you make a list?
• Is there any priority or filter you use for the foods you buy? (price, local, natural)
When everything is crazy, what is your fallback meal or plan?
How often do your kids participate in cooking and what are those experiences like?
Does everyone in your house eat the same things at dinner or is something prepared for any
individuals?
• Why?
• How is this managed?
• What is the time involved in specializing?
any other mealtime challenges that you struggle with or that you’ve found solutions for?

A part of building on your family schedule and what food is like in your home with children is
about learning. One aspect of this research is how kids and parents learn about food. I would
be interested to discover Where/How Informal Learning Takes Place.
As their parent. how do you see your children learning best?
What types of issues do you, as a parent, seek information about?
• What ways does your lifestyle imitate how you or your partner were raised?
Where do you go to learn about new ideas for your family?
Can you describe a situation where your child proposed something that your family tried
implementing?
• What did it look like to have your child contribute to how the family runs?

67

In your own words (and own definitition of the following terms), what are your thoughts on
sustainability and food?
In your opinion, what does healthy eating look like for a family?
Any questions for me or my research, or anything else you want to add?

Interview Questions for Empty Nesters:
The purpose of this interview is to reflect on when your children were young, about ages 6-10.
I am interested to hear how food played a role in your family’s schedule. There will be a few
demographic questions then a section on what your schedule was like. This will be followed by
questions on mealtime rituals and finally a section on how you and your children learned best.
#on video confirm consent form

Demographic Information
Your age now
Number and ages of children now
When your children were young (6-10) were you raising your children with a partner or spouse?

The next few questions are about your schedule and what is important to my project is how
food fit into that schedule. The next questions will Identify your mealtime rituals. (Learn
typical schedule and how children were engaged in food.)
When your children where school age (6-10), what did a typical weekday look like for your
family?
What time did you typically eat dinner?
Was there a meal you would consider the ‘family staple’ that was made most often?
What was one motivating factor in what your family ate for dinner?
Did you have any frustrations or barriers to cooking?

68

Can you describe what the process of shopping for food was like?
• What types of considerations influenced your choices (price, local, opinion of ingredient
value)
How much input did your children have over what foods you purchased and prepared?
Did you have a garden where you grew any food or herbs?
Did your household have a ‘philosophy of eating’?
How often did you cook with your children?
• What types of things would you make?
• When they joined in cooking, what tasks would you give the children?

A part of building on your family schedule and what food is like in your home with children
is about learning. One aspect of this research is how kids and parents learn about food.
These questions investigate how you received and implemented parenting information from
outside sources.
When you had young children (6-10 yr old), what types of issued did you seek information
about?
• Where did you go for information about those issues (whose parenting advice
did you trust)?
What habits did you employ for raising your children that you learned from your parents or
grandparents?
• How did traditional family recipes play a role in your home?
• How do you feel the lineage of those recipes or habits get passed down?
Can you describe a situation where your child proposed something that your family tried
implementing?
• What did it look like to have your child contribute to how the family runs?

69

What are your thoughts on sustainability and food?
In your opinion, what does healthy eating look like for a family?
Any questions for me in my research or anything else you want to add?

Online Survey Questions for Parents:
Survey consent form, required name, email address and date as signature of confirmation.
---Please confirm that you are a parent or guardian of at least one 6-10 year old child.
Check Box
(Continue)
----Age:
0 below 25

0 25-30

0 30-35

0 35-40

City and Country
[

] (open ended box)

Sex:
0 male 0 female
How many children live in your home?
1 2 3 4 5- over 5
Please list their ages
[

] (drop down number)

[

] (drop down number)

[

] (drop down number)

[

] (drop down number)

Are you raising your children with a partner or spouse?
0 yes		

0 no

----------content section break------ Family Schedule
On average, what time do you wake up on weekdays?
[

][

] <--- drop down

70

0 over 40

On average, what time do your children wake up on weekedays?
[

][

] <--- drop down

Typically, what time do you leave the house or begin homeshcool?
[

][

] <--- drop down

Where does your family typically eat breakfast (check all that apply)?
0 we do not eat breakfast
0 at a restaurant/fast food/cafe
0 at the dining table
0 in the car/ on transportation/ on the go
0 child(ren) eat at school
0 other: specify __________
Do your children attend before school care?
0 yes		

0 no

How many weekdays do your kids eat lunch
012345
Typically, where does the meal come from? (check all that apply)
0 my partner or I pack lunch

0 my child packs their lunch

0 come home for lunch		

0 school cafeteria

0 fast food or restaurant		

0 other: specify _________

How many weekdays do you eat lunch?
012345
When you eat lunch where do you most often get the food? (check all that apply)
0 coffee shop			

0 grocery store

0 restaurant - sit down		

0 fast food

0 bring from home		

0 other: specify _________

Where do you eat lunch most often? (check all that apply)
0 at your desk or at work		

0 at home

0 in a restaurant		

0 in your car or on transit

0 in a workplace cafeteria

0 other: specify _________

71

Do your children attend after school care?
0 yes		

0 no

Are your children involved in structured afternoon activities such as sports or lessons?
0 yes		

0 no

If yes, how many weekdays does your family attend after school activities?
012345
On average time do your children arrive home for the day?
[

][

] <--- drop down

Typically, what time do you get home for the day?
[

][

] <--- drop down

Generally, what time does your family eat dinner each day?
[

][

] <--- drop down

On average, how many days per week is dinner prepared at home?
01234567
Typically, how much time do you spend preparing dinner when you cook at home?
0 > 15 minutes			

0 15-30 minutes

0 30-45 minutes		

0 45-60 minutes

0 60-75 minutes		

0 + 75 minutes

Are there any dietary considerations that need to be made for individuals within your family?
Open ended_______________
How much time on average does your family spend eating dinner?
0 < 5 minutes			

0 5-15 minutes

0 25-35 minutes		

0 35 + minutes

When at home, where does your family eat dinner?
Check all that apply.
0 Living room:			

0 In front of TV

0 Dining table			

0 Office or in front of computer

0 Deck or patio outdoors		

0 Bedroom

0 other: please specify _________

72

How much time is spent each night on homework?
Please fill in each child from youngest to oldest
[

][

] <--- drop down minutes

[

][

] <--- drop down minutes

[

][

] <--- drop down minutes

[

][

] <--- drop down minutes

What time do your children go to bed?
If different children have unique bedtimes, please use multiple time boxes provided
[

][

] <--- drop down

[

][

] <--- drop down

What point of the day are you most overwhelmed as a parent?
0 morning		

0 after school

0 homework		

0 dinner time

0 bed time		

0 other: specify _________

Please describe:
________________________________________________________________

----------content section break-----How often do you purchase groceries for your home?
0 > every 2 weeks		

0 every 2 weeks

0 Once a week			

0 Twice a week

0 3 times a week		

0 More than 3 times a week

Do you use a bulk store to buy items in large quantities?
0 yes		

0 no

If so, how often do you visit these stores?
0 Once a week			

0 2 times a week

0 3 times a week		

0 4 times a week

0 + 4 times a week
How many locations/stores do you purchase groceries from?
0 one		

0 two		

0 three		

0 more than three

73

If you go to more than one, please briefly list reasons why:
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________

When buying produce, rate the following considerations from 1- 8
0 something you like to eat 		

0 something your child requests/like

0 nutrition or health value		

0 price

0 appearance of freshness		

0 organic certification

0 distance produce travelled		

0 product is in season

When buying poultry or meat rate the following considerations from 1 -8
0 something you like to eat		

0 something your child requests/like

0 Nutritional Value			

0 Ease of Preparation

0 Product Health Claims		

0 Price

0 Weight control or dieting		

0 Organic or Free Range certifications

When buying pre-made or packaged food, rate your considerations from 1-8
0 brand					

0 something you like to eat

0 something your child requests/like

0 Nutrition or health claim

0 Ease of preparation			

0 price

0 organic ingredients			

0 Weight control or dieting

----------content section break------LEARNING
Do your children have curriculum around food choices at school
0 yes		

0 no

Please describe what activities they do at school to learn about food
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________

74

Do any of your children have curriculum about the following topics at school
(check all that apply)
0 climate change			

0 air pollution

0 water pollution			

0 toxic chemicals

0 sustainable transportation		

0 nutrition

0 energy conservation
What is your opinion of your child learning these topics in school?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

Do you supplement this teaching with your own views on the subjects?
0 yes			

0 no

if yes, please describe ____________________________________

----------content section break-----Please provide any additional comments:
_____________________________________________________________________
----end---Thank you for participating in this survey. Your contribution to this thesis research is very
valuable and appreciated.
If you are interested in continuing with this research, please submit your email below. The
next phase of research involves participating in a set of activities, such as cooking, with your
children.
email:
-----Then each participant was emailed a pdf of the consent form.

75

Ethnographic Research:
Each ethnographic research session followed this outline of events. The Meal Cards used were
updated for each session, reflecting the latest design iteration.

1.

Researcher brings all tools and ingredients to participants’ home, including
kid-safe knives.

2.

Assistant accompanies researcher to supervise safety and monitor children.

3.

Parent(s) and researcher go over the consent form, parent signs consent as well as
model release on behalf of their children.

4.

Video camera is set up and turned on to record the activity.

5.

Children are given aprons and instruction on safety and knife handling.

6.

Children and researcher each set up a workstation of cutting board and knife.

7.

Children and researcher follow the cards to make a meal in the gather,
prepare, cook structure.

8.

Assistant supervises and steps in as necessary to assist or when unsafe
behavior is noticed.

9.

Children and researcher finish preparing the meal and wash the dishes.

10.

Children plate the meal for their family.

11.

Children and parent(s) sit down and enjoy the meal while researcher
packs up and leaves.

76

Prototype Testing:
Each prototype testing research session followed this outline of events. The Meal Cards
used were updated for each session, reflecting the latest design iteration.
1.

Researcher brings all tools and ingredients to participants’ home,
including kid-safe knives.

2.

Parent(s) and researcher go over the consent form, parent signs consent
as well as model release on behalf of themselves and their children.

3.

Video camera is set up and turned on to record the activity.

4.

Children are given aprons and instruction on safety and knife handling.

5.

Researcher hands meal cards to family and observes as the meal is prepared.

6.

Researcher acts as safety monitor to step in only when unsafe behavior is noticed.

7.

Children and parents finish preparing the meal.

8.

Researcher asks follow-up questions while family cleans kitchen (as food cooks).

9.

Children and parent(s) sit down and enjoy the meal while researcher packs up
and leaves.

77

Appendices:
Appendix Two Design
This appendix includes an overview of the final design solution.

Final book with instructions and pockets for each meal.

FOLD LINES

fmaisemenipllayce
helps parents
a collaborative cooking system that
on busy days.
& children make dinners together

e
welcom
y mise
to famil

e! how do the recipes work?
en plac

options. Each part includes
Each meal has three parts* and includes
that stands on its own. why are ther
e options?
gather, prepare & cook on a tri-fold card

1

finally, you create the main dish.

3

main dish

*

tler
author & illustrator: karen whis

78

Options allow
you and your
children to take
while learnin
owner ship of
g principles
the meal
of cooking. All
example, most
recipes are loose
quantities should
and flexible.

then gather, prepare &
cook your selection.

start by selecting the starch
or grain from two options.

al
1
tive me
collabora
er.
starch
tem of
k togeth
ce is a sys
or grain
n to coo
e en pla
to
ng childre
options
Family mis
and you
plenty of
parents
tions and
ken into
option
ruc
cards for
bro
option
inst
s are
B
,
A
s simple
g. Recipe
es; gather
It include
your likin
three stag
meal to
ided into
tailor the
and div
le pieces
repeat the process to create your
manageab
sauce, selecting from two options.
k.
& coo
ds is to
prepare
new foo
try
to
2
will
for kids
dren, you
best way
sauce
your chil
nd
ieve the
king—a
m. With
We bel
king the
d and coo
t in coo
s of foo
dinner!
take par
al aspect
weeknight
option
foundation
option
making
B
A
explore
all while
ether—
tog
fun
have

it?
what is

g

p cards give you everything you needbe adjusted for the size of your family.For
The
to make a succes
requir ing strict
sful dinner withou
instructions.
c
Family mise en
t
with
place encou
your food; add
rages you to
your favorite
play
veggies, taste
experiment
and adjust sauces
with new ingred
, and
ients. A good
once, then make
way to start
is to try a recipe
it again and
add your own
The one thing
creativity. (Kids
we encourage
are great at
is that
this!)

2

meals stay full
kids are challen
some sauces may only require
of vegetables
ged to try new
and that
things.
gather & prepare.

g t are
wha
the role
whenpcooking s of parents & children
together?
c
parents: Adults
drive the meal
forward. They
working to compl
delegate tasks
ete each stage.
to children while
When cookin
a tendency to
g with childre
slow down to
n, there is
then gather, prepare & cook. the
involve them
you start them
in each step—
the meal!
final step is to assemble
out with smalle
we recommend
r tasks while
As you regular
you push forwar
ly cook with
d on the meal.
family mise en
for a greater
place,
your kids will
contribution.
develop skills

g

p

c

children: Kids
are partners
and contributors
need extra monito
to the meal.
ring and mome
At first, they
may
nts of instruc
children are
tion. It is recom
givensosmall
helpful
it istasks
in format
mended that
at each stage
skills develo
note: some meals vary from the starch/sauce/ma
of the meal
cards.
of included
p they can
meal for a list
prepar ation.
play a more
to review the introduction for each
As their
active role in
keeping the
meal on task.

3

Each stage of Gather, Prepare, Cook is on one tri-fold card.

Each set of cards is color-coded by meal and has its own pocket
in the book.

parchment pillows
abou

t

5

minu

g
1

tes

ut
min

es

select a grain

5

2b

about

5

parchment pillows

tes
herb lemon sauceminu
> gather

5

minutes

3-4 pats of butter

whisk

select a
servi
protein per ng of
person

rice vinegar

parsley

small
bowl

measuringchicke
n breast
spoons

zucchini

extra-firm
tofu

around 7-10
mushrooms

small
bowl

Mesh
rosemary
Strainer

one
large
bowl

black bean
sauce

Liquid
Measuring
Cup

white wine
vinegar

or another favorite

sugar

salt &
pepper

1 or more
cloves garlic

once the dish is complete, you cut open the top
a
Brown rushing out, making
white orcomes
and all the steam
Medium Pot
Rice
with Lid
big show! enjoy.

this meal contains the following cards:

Mesh
Strainer

2b. sauce: ginger black bean
3. main dish

Liquid
Measuring
Cup

don’t forget to wash your hands!

79

about 1-3
carrots

scissor s

parchment
paper
(substitute:
foil)

+ add favorite

t pillows

main dish

baking
sheet

fish fillet such
cod or salmon as

measuring
spoons

Medium Pot
with Lid

thyme

a fluffy pillow.
grain
select ainto

parchmen

fresh
cilantro

dill

orzo pasta

3

pillows

ginger black
bean
sauce > gather

vegetable
oil

whisk

select a few herbs:

quinoa

parchment

about

fresh
ginger
root

extra
virgin
olive
oil

1 clove
garlic

white or Brown
Rice

this dish is based on the classic french recipe fish
en papillote. protein and veggies are placed in
a parchment and topped with sauce. then the
package is sealed tight by folding. as it bakes, the
steam cooks the food and puffs up the parchment

orzo pasta

grain >

salt &
pepper

grain > gather

2a. sauce: herb lemon

2a

about

s
pillowtes
parchmentmigather
nu

3-4 lemons

parchment pillows

uinoa
q
quinoa
1. grain

ggg g
1

t

5

abou

onion

veggies!

> gather

There are six meals and one desert, aptly named for engaging children.

wonder-wok stir fry

pasta delizioso

rainy day soup

frittata fiesta
parchment pillows

mix + match meal
gooey fruit crumble

80

The layers of commuication within the final meal cards demonstrate
how a complex amount of information can be displayed with simple
form and clean structure.

a b ou t

5

estimated time
for this stage

minu

g

tes

flexible language
to build intuition

2a

order of
components

parchment pillows

sauce a > gather

orientation
& navigation

extra
virgin
olive
oil

3-4 lemons

salt &
pepper

3-4 pats of butter

indicates stage,

whisk

select a few herbs:

such as gather

measuring
spoons

parsley

selection area

dill

with meal
customization

rosemary

simple,

small
bowl

line-drawn

thyme

choices

icons

white wine
vinegar

or another favorite
sugar

about

5

minu

each part of the
meal is divided
into gather,
prepare & cook.

g p c
3

tes

wonder-wok stir fry

main veggies > gather

2 green
onions

about

8

minu

1-2 bell
peppers

wonder-wok stir fry

main veggies > prepare

tes

1 or more
cloves garlic

sesame
oil

+

+

Wooden
Spoon

wonder-wok stir fry
main veggies > cook

tes

dice the broccoli

finely dice the garlic

vegetable or
grapeseed oil

10

minu

7-10
mushrooms

fresh
ginger

1-2 heads
broccoli

about

chop the green onion

+

cut peppers into
strips

+

cut mushrooms
into quarters

grater

small bowl

grate 2 teaspoons of ginger

place these ingredients
in the large bowl

Heat wok over
medium

add about 1 tablespoon of oil and
about 1 teaspoon of sesame oil

add everything from the small bowl
& stir fry 1-2 minutes

add vegetables from the large bowl
& stir fry 3-5 minutes

when vegetables are starting to soften, add the sauce you made.

measuring
spoons

wok

large bowl

+ add more favorite veggies!

place these ingredients
in the small bowl

81

if you selected noodles, add them in to the
wok and continue cooking 2-3 minutes.
if you selected rice, plate the dish in a bowl,
placing vegetables over a mound of rice.

References
Ashe, R. (2011, November). Open Food

Buchanan, R. (1996). Wicked Problems

Hackathon at The Treehouse December 3rd.

in Design Thinking. In H. Clark & D. Brody

Foodtree Blog. Vancouver, B.C. Retrieved

(Eds.), Design studies: a reader (pp. 96–

from http://blog.foodtree.com/2011/11/17/

102). Oxford & New York: Berg Publishers.

open-food-hackathon-at-the-treehouseCollins, H. (2010). Creative Research: The

december-3rd/

Theory and Practice of Research for the
Bates, R. (2009). Ingredients. Documentary,

Creative Industries. AVA Publishing.

Optic Nerve Productions.
Conan, K. (2009). Victory Garden
Battarbee, K. (2003). Co-experience:

Visions. Diner’s Journal Blog. Retrieved

the social user experience. CHI ’03

from http://dinersjournal.blogs.nytimes.

extended abstracts on Human factors

com/2009/01/30/victory-garden-visions/

in computing systems, CHI EA ’03 (pp.
730–731). New York, NY, USA: ACM.

Crilly, N. (2010). The Structure of Design

doi:10.1145/765891.765956

Revolutions: Kuhnian Paradigm Shifts in
Creative Problem Solving. Design Issues,

Beech, S., Geelhoed, E., Murphy, R., Parker,

26(1), 54–66.

J., Sellen, A., & Shaw, K. (2004). The
Lifestyles of Working Parents: Implications

Crossley, L. (2003). Building Emotions in

and Opportunities for New Technologies. HP

Design. The Design Journal, 6(3), 35-45.

Laboratories Bristol.

doi:10.2752/146069203789355264

Bhamra, T., Lilley, D., & Tang, T. (2011).

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Design ad

Design for Sustainable Behaviour: Using

Order in Everyday Life. Design Issues, 8(1),

Products to Change Consumer Behaviour. The

26-34.

Design Journal, 14(4), 427–445. doi:10.275
2/175630611X13091688930453

Day, M., & Bleimeister, M. D. and E. (2011).

Broadbent, J. (2003). Generations in Design

Meals. iUniverse.

Cooking Together: Making Memories and

Methodology. The Design Journal, 6(1), 2-13.
doi:10.2752/146069203790219335

De Schutter, O. (2011). Agroecology and the
Right to Food (Report to the United Nations
General Assembly No. A/HRC/16/49). United
Nations Human Rights Council.

82

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education.

Hoag, C. (2012, February 1). First lady

Kappa Delta Pi.

Michelle Obama promotes access to healthy
food at future Calif. market site. The

Druckerman, P. (2012). Why the French are

Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.

better parents. Retrieved from http://www2.

washingtonpost.com/business/industries/first-

macleans.ca/2012/02/10/why-the-french-

lady-to-promote-access-to-healthy-food-with-

do-it-better-and-why-your-toddler-should-be-

stop-at-future-calif-market-site/2012/02/01/

eating-braised-endives/

gIQAV094gQ_story.html

Food and Agriculture Organization of the

Jacobson, R. (Ed.). (1999). Information

United Nations, World Health Organization,

Design. The MIT Press.

& World Organization for Animal Health.
(2003). Joint FAO/OIE/WHO Expert Workshop

Jedlička, W. (2010, November 17). Paradigm

on Non-Human Antimicrobial Usage

Shifts and Other Dance Moves. Emily Carr

and Antimicrobial Resistance: Scientific

University of Art & Design.

assessment.
Just, D. R., & Wansink, B. (2009). Smarter
Frascara, J., & Winkler, D. (2008). Jorge

Lunchrooms: Using Behavioral Economics

Frascara and Dietmar Winkler On Design

to Improve Meal Selection. Choices: The

Research. Design Research Quarterly, 3(3),

Magazine of Food, Farm and Resource

1, 4–13.

Issues, 2009(3rd Quarter), 3.

Goleman, D. (2006). Emotional intelligence.

Just, D. R., & Wansink, B. (2012). School

Random House of Canada.

nutrition: A kid’s right to choose. latimes.
com. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.

Goleman, D. (2011). The Brain and

com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-just-

Emotional Intelligence: New Insights

wansink-a-better-approach-to-healthy-

(1st ed.). Northhanpton MA: More Than

fo-20120203,0,79540.story

Sound LLC.
Knowledge Insider: Consumer trends.
Hebert, M. (2011). Examining Current

(2009). Farm Credit Canada.

Research on Local Food: A Review. Studies
by Undergraduate Researchers at Guelph,

Lebow, D. (1993). Constructivist values

4(2), 88–92.

for instructional systems design: Five
principles toward a new mindset. Educational
Technology Research & Development, 41(3),
4–16. doi:10.1007/BF02297354

83

Locher, P., Overbeeke, K., & Wensveen, S.

Mulligan, M. (2009). Michelle Obama to

(2010). Aesthetic Interaction: A Framework.

create an organic “victory” garden at the

Design Issues, 26(2), 70-79. doi:10.1162/

White House. The Guardian. Retrieved from

DESI_a_00017

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/
mar/20/michelle-obama-garden

Mccloud, S. (1994). Understanding Comics:
The Invisible Art. Harper Paperbacks.

Narváez, L. M. J. (2000). Design’s Own
Knowledge. Design Issues, 16(1), 36–51.

McDonagh, D. (2004). Empathic Design:

doi:10.1162/074793600300159583

User Experience in Product Design: I.
Koskinen, K. Battarbee and T. Mattelmaki

Oliver, J. (2011). Jamie Oliver’s Food

(eds). The Design Journal, 7(3), 53-54.

Revolution. jamieoliver.com.

Meadows, D. H. (1997). Places to Intervene

Paradowski, R. J. (2011). Food-processing

in a System. Whole Earth, Winter 1997,

industries. american-business.org.

78–85.
Pink, D. H. (2010, 27). Drive: The surprising
Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in

truth about what motivates us. RSA.

Systems: A Primer (First Printing.). Chelsea

Retrieved from http://www.thersa.org/events/

Green Publishing.

audio-and-past-events/2010/drive-thesurprising-truth-about-what-motivates-us

Mergel, B. (1998). Instructional Design &
Learning Theory. University of Saskatchewan.

Pollan, M. (2007). The Omnivore’s Dilemma:
A Natural History of Four Meals. Penguin.

Monteiro, C. A. (2009). Nutrition and
health. The issue is not food, nor nutrients,

Pollan, M. (2009). In Defense of Food: An

so much as processing. Public Health

Eater’s Manifesto (1st ed.). Penguin.

Nutrition, 12(5), 729–731. doi:10.1017/
Roberts, P. (2008). The End of Food:

S1368980009005291

Investigating a Global Crisis. Acres USA: The
Morris, D. (2000). Today’s Food Trends: Are

Voice of Eco-Agriculture, 38(10), 56–62.

Consumers Eating to live…Or Living to Eat?
(Vol. XI, number 6, pp. 25-30). Presented

Ruenzel, D. (1995). The Waldorf Way.

at the International Bison Conference,

Teacher Magazine, 7(2), 22-27.

Edmonton: Smoke Signals. Retrieved

Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2000).

from http://www.bisoncentre.com/index.

Techniques to Identify Themes in Qualitative

php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2

Data. Analytic Technology. Retrieved from

47:todays-food-trends-are-consumers-eatingto-liveor-living-to-eat&catid=61:economics-ofraisng-bison&Itemid=431

http://www.analytictech.com/mb870/
Readings/ryan-bernard_techniques_to_
identify_themes_in.htm

84

Ryan, P. (2008). Narrative Learning/

at the Designing Pleasurable Products and

Learning Narratives: Storytelling, Experiential

Interfaces,, Helsinki, Finland: University of

Learning and Education. George Ewart Evans

Art and Design Helsinki.

Centre for Storytelling (p. 13). University of
Spagnola, M., & Fiese, B. H. (2007). Family

Glamorgan.

Routines and Rituals. Infants & Young
Sanders, L., & Stappers, P. J. (2008).

Children, 20(4), 284-299.

Co-creation and the new landscapes
of design. CoDesign, 4(1), 5 — 18.

Thackara, J. (2006). In the Bubble:

doi:10.1080/15710880701875068

Designing in a Complex World. The
MIT Press.

Sanders, L. (2001). Collective Creativity.
LOOP: AIGA Journal of Interaction Design

United States Department of Agriculture

Education, 1(3), 6.

Agricultural Marketing Service. (2011).
Farmers Market Services. United

Schuller, T. (2004). Visual imagery, lifecourse

States Department of Agriculture.

structure and lifelong learning. Studies in the

Retrieved from http://www.ams.usda.gov/

Education of Adults, 36(1), 72-85.

WholesaleFarmersMarkets

Scrinis, G. (2007). Gyorgy Scrinis:

United States Department of Agriculture

Publications on Food, Nutritionism,

Council on Sustainable Development.

Functional Foods, Agriculture, GM Foods,

(2008). ARS Science for Sustainability

Nano-Foods, Nanotechnology and Techno-

and Impacts. United States Department of

Science. Retrieved February 5, 2012, from

Agriculture.

http://www.gyorgyscrinis.com/
United Nations Food and Agriculture
Shedroff, N. (1994). Information Interaction

Organization. (2007). United Nations Joint

Design: A Unified Field Theory of Design.

Press Kit foBali Climate Change Conference.

Vivid Studios. Retrieved from http://www.

Presented at the Bali Climate Change

nathan.com/thoughts/unified/

Conference, Bali.

Shedroff, N. (2009). Design Is the Problem:

United Nations Rio+20 The Future We Want.

The Future of Design Must be Sustainable

(2012). Retrieved March 26, 2012, from

(1st ed.). Rosenfeld Media.

http://www.un.org/en/sustainablefuture/food.
shtml

Snyder, M., Zimmerman, J., & Forlizzi, J.
(2007). Your Dinner’s Calling: Supporting

Vandenbroucke, J. (2012). Interview with

Family Dinnertime Activities (p. 5). Presented

Chef Jelle.

85

Wheatley, M. (2009). What is Our Role in

Young, G. (2010). Design Thinking and

Creating Change? Retrieved from http://www.

Sustainability, 27.

margaretwheatley.com/writing.html

86