Many studies use research methods that are not designed to enable everyone to participate. This means only some people get heard and for others, researchers aren’t hearing them. Whether it’s academic research or a workplace survey researchers could be missing out on valuable information. Cathy Basterfield makes this point in her short article on who gets heard in research methods .
Co-design processes are another form of research – action research. But will that process include people with intellectual, physical and sensory conditions? If there is a reading component, will everyone be able to read and interpret written information?
Basterfield lists some common problems with surveys: use of difficult vocabulary, imprecise response options, and ableist language or concepts.
People who need Easy English find it confusing to be asked to read a statement and rate their agreement on a scale. They prefer to be asked a direct question.
Expecting every person to have the ability to access websites is another barrier. 25% of Australian adults are digitally excluded according to Basterfield. Some only have a phone and completing surveys requiring text is difficult at the best of times. Basterfield’s tips to help make sure everyone can understand your information:
add prefaces to increase precision or explain context
Policy makers have been talking about population ageing, ageing-in-place and age-friendly communities for several years. But has there been any progress? The focus is still on residential care homes and this is the policy blind spot. Most older Australians are living in their own homes. So how do policies support them? And what about renters?
Three housing researchers analysed 85 policy documents against the World Health Organization’s (WHO) guidelines on age-friendly cities. They found these policies reflected outdated views of older age. That’s because the policy focus in on care and support services. This means less attention to housing, transport, walkability and cultural diversity.
Most older Australians aren’t in aged care – they are living in the community.
Policy blind spots mean they live in communities that aren’t age-friendly.
Being age-friendly for older people means age-friendly for all ages.
The research also reveals a failure to recognise the diversity and impact of the ageing process. In particular, is the lack of recognition of diverse cultural needs.
“There is almost a complete blindness to their impacts on ageing and other social determinants of health.” Regardless most older Australians want to live where they are.
In another study, researchers asked what motivates older homeowners and renters to age where they are or to relocate. It seems older renters are not given a fair choice. For homeowners, family ties matter.
Owners with children living nearby were more likely to want to stay. They might then have a reason to call on their housing wealth and become the “bank of mum and dad”. Renters, however, want the same choice but face the most disruption. Many had to move out of their neighbourhood to find a place to rent.
This is another area where policy change is needed and for many, social housing is the answer. However, social housing is in short supply.
There’s a glimmer of hope on the horizon with the new Livable Housing Design Standard. This mandated Standard in the National Construction Code provides for accessible features such as a level entry into the home. It will support many more people to age in place and reduce the need for costly home modifications.
While it will take many years for new accessible homes to make an impact, it does mean that rental housing will be included in mainstream housing stock. However, states and territories are showing reluctance to adopt this essential Standard in the face of industry lobbying. But none of us is getting any younger.
See CUDA’s short online course which provides all the technical detail for implementing the Livable Housing Design Standard.
Applying universal design principles to playgrounds means that more people will use them. That’s what a study of three playgrounds in the United States found. Two were standard playgrounds meeting ADA standards, and one was universally designed. Result? Not only did the universally designed playground receive higher use, there was also more physical activity overall.
There are many types of disability which means definitions of universal design are open‐ended. Consequently the outcomes are difficult to measure quantitatively, but not impossible. At least the move to make playgrounds more accessible has shifted assumptions that universal design is limiting.
100% of the elevated play components that are typically part of a modular play structure must be on the accessible route. But ADA standards require only 50%.
The three playgrounds in the study were of a similar character. Each had equipment of the same type and manufacturer, and the surfacing was the same including the colour.
What they found
The findings support the hypothesis that applying universal design principles can result in higher rates of playground use than those only meeting ADA standards. This counters the notion that such playgrounds are only for those living with a disability. The universally designed playground in this case study was found to be attractive to all users, It offered the same level of fun and challenge for children. The additional playground activity lead to increased physical activity in other areas of the park.
Another finding was that adults used the playground zones more than the researchers expected. Making them more comfortable for accompanying adults was the key. This last point is something that the Australian Everyone Can Play Guideline factored in from the beginning. Playspaces are for everyone regardless of age.
The Everyone Can Play guide was instrumental in initiating inclusive playgrounds in New South Wales. Taking a universal design approach underpinned this award-winning guide. However, the work of universal design is never done because there are always improvements to be found. Everyone Can Play guide is no exception.
Two researchers used the Everyone Can Play Evaluation Checklist as an assessment tool on playgrounds in Victoria and New South Wales. Destination playgrounds scored higher than neighbourhood playgrounds. Image from Everyone Can Play
Researchers found that the Checklist was not capturing the specific needs of different disabilities as the focus was on mobility. The areas in need of most improvement were wayfinding, layout, signage and sensory and cognitive play opportunities. The researchers note that families and children with disability were not included in the study.
As with all universal design guides, they are not prescriptive. Rather they invite designers to consider the diversity of the population. When it comes to specific disabilities, specific solutions, rather than generic solutions will be required.
Interviews with caregivers revealed that they thought inclusive playgrounds promote physical and social accessibility for children with disability. They encourage social interaction and friendships among children with and without disability.
This research explored the caregivers’ perceptions of children’s social and physical accessibility in inclusive playgrounds. We conducted 11 in-depth interviews with caregivers regarding their perceptions of the accessibility and use of an inclusive playground by children with disabilities and how they perceive interactions between children with and without disabilities while using the playground.
From the interviews, two major themes emerged. The first was physical accessibility, with three minor themes emerging: a) safety and physical accessibility; b) sensory and cognitive safety; and c) variety and options. The second major category was social accessibility, with two minor themes: a) social interactions; and b) building friendships and practicing social skills.
Overall, the participants described the inclusive playgrounds as safe places that include varied play equipment. It encouraged children with and without disabilities to play together, interact verbally, and build immediate friendships.
The findings highlight the importance of inclusive playgrounds as a starting place for enhanced community relationships. We suggest conducting further research that focuses on children’s perceptions including a broader range of children with varying disabilities.
Playgrounds: universal design not enough
Universally designed playspaces bring play into the lives of families with disabilities. They also provide opportunities to champion disability advocacy, and support disabled children in developing critical social skills. However, additional work and resources are needed to achieve full social inclusivity.
Image: Livvi’s Place Carousel
Findings from a Canadian study can help guide designs of future playgrounds and other community spaces to improve inclusivity for everyone.
This paper begins with the playground experience and universal design and then applies this to other public spaces.
Disabled children and their families are often excluded from community play opportunities, including playgrounds. One potential solution is, of course, to design inclusive playgrounds.
This study explores the experiences of parents of disabled and non-disabled children at playgrounds inspired by Principles of Universal Design. Participants were 29 parents (16 with disabled children). They were located across four Canadian cities with newly built inclusively designed playgrounds.
Three themes were identified which provide deeper understandings of ableism in community playspaces and the impact on children and their families. 1. Inclusive playgrounds also act as a platform for disability advocacy. 2. They provide opportunities for social and emotional development. 3. Inclusive play may influence family dynamics.
Findings highlight the value of universal design, but indicate that physical environments alone do not ensure social inclusion, as social barriers can continue to exist even in spaces purposefully designed for disability inclusion.
Whether it’s digital technology, the built environment, or a tourist destination, checklists don’t make an inclusive culture. When it comes to digital accessibility checklists Sheri Byrne-Haber says, “Just say no”. That’s because general accessibility checklists do more harm than good in establishing a good accessibility program. It doesn’t lead to an inclusive culture.
“… requiring accessibility or guilting or punishing people for failing to provide accessibility is at the bottom half of the accessibility motivation hierarchy.”
According to the Hierarchy, Guilt is about not caring enough. The threat of Punishment is based on, “Do this or you will get sued”. Require focuses on technical requirements – the minimum required by law. Rewards, such as certification statements, awards, and badges can bring about change. However, they are often for the benefit of the maker or designer rather than the user.
Enlightenment comes when people see that accessibility is not just the smart thing to do, or the right thing. When people are motivated for good, that’s enlightenment. This is when they can see the powerful benefits end users gain. A better product emerges and business improves so not being accessible doesn’t make sense.
“Inspiration occurs when you see and experience the distinct impact the accessibility (or lack thereof) of your product can have on the lives of an individual with disabilities.”
Byrne-Haber discusses the issues of checklists from the perspective of digital technology, but her arguments apply across the built environment as well. Indeed, you could also add businesses that are claiming Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) credentials. WebAIM’s effectiveness pyramid, Hierarchy for Motivating Accessibility Change, puts it into perspective.
When are checklists OK?
Once an inclusive culture is established, targeted checklists are appropriate for guiding new people to make sure they don’t “break the system”. In the website world, Byrne-Haber says that people adding material to a website need some do’s and don’ts. But this could also apply in other areas too. Maintaining the inclusive design intent of a building requires all stakeholders to keep to the theme. So, for example, a checklist for interior designers might be appropriate in these circumstances.
How do you measure diversity and inclusion in the workplace if people don’t identify as being in a defined or separate category? And why should they? Diverse from what or whom? What is the baseline measure and who is doing the measuring? And is disability or ageing considered part of the diverse workforce population? A research team in Italy had a look at workplace diversity, design and strategy to assess the state of play.
“The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted how much the physical environment can affect people’s well-being, mental health, social relationships, customs and habits.”
In their paper, the researchers discuss examples of workplaces that claim to promote a culture of diversity and reduced discrimination. Many have created positions for “Diversity and Inclusion Managers” to asses the mismatch between company and employee perceptions of inclusion. Details of the research methodology include diversity types, design features, workplace policies and strategies.
Disability, race, gender
Company reports embrace and list diversity features. The most cited diversity feature is disability, followed by ethnicity/race, gender, sexual orientation and age. However, ignoring this listing and focusing on inclusion and accessibility provides other measures of success.
Inclusion is when “an employee feels a sense of community and belonging in a work system, being accepted by others for their unique characteristics and treated as an insider.”
Companies focus on HR policies for inclusion but don’t address aspects such as workspace design. This separation neglects the role of architectural and interior design. However, there is research on the physical elements of workplace design. Floor plans, acoustic comfort, choice of materials and green building certifications all have a role to play.
Diversity and inclusion is more than a policy or strategy. Organisations need to join the dots between employment practices and the design of the workplace. For people with disability in particular both are essential. An inclusive corporate culture together with an appropriately designed physical environment is what’s required. That’s universal design in action.
While organisations of all types claim to be implementing diversity strategies in the workplace, it isn’t easy to measure their validity. The video from the UK is a parody on employers who say their organisations are diverse.
From the abstract
This paper explores how scientific literature and company reports address inclusive workplace design and strategies. It asks the following question: To what extent is inclusion present in workplace design and related strategies?
We analysed 27 scientific papers and 25 corporate social responsibility reports of the highest-ranked companies in the Great Place to Work global ranking. We disentangled the main aspects related to workplace design and strategies for promoting inclusion.
This paper reports on four macro-categories of diversity that support the development of inclusive workplace design. These are psychophysical; cultural; socio-economic conditions; and ability, experience and strengths.
Although diversity, equity and inclusion (DE&I) is key in many organizations, it remains unclear how DE&I principles are applied in workspace design and strategies. This scoping review integrates scientific knowledge and practice-based approaches which address this matter independently.
School to work transition
The transitioning from school to work report indicates that outcomes can be improved for young people with disability. But only when mechanisms are in place to enhance what is usually available within schools, post school education and in the disability employment ecosystem.
Despite a policy context in Australia that professes to policy goals of increased employment for people with disability and successful school to work transition, people with disability remain less likely to complete year 12, attend university, or gain work experience and employment than their peers.
In 2012, Ticket to Work commenced as an initiative to change these outcomes and bring evidence-based transition practice to Australia. It’s an innovative approach aimed at improving transition to work from school for young people with disability.
This report:
Brings together the international research evidence about elements that result in successful transition from school to work for young people with disability
Provides an analysis of the ecosystem in which young people with disability experience transition from school in Australia, and
Gives a description of the Australian transition initiative, Ticket to Work and its impact on transition for this group
Digital technology is here to stay but not everyone has the talent for it. Gregg Vanderheiden says there is a difference between digital skill and digital talent. Skill is something you can learn, but talent, like a sporting or musical talent is inherent. So this might explain why some people find websites, smartphones and computers difficult to master.
Vanderheiden explains that low digital affinity is not the same as intelligence. Some very bright people have trouble using digital interfaces. This is like being tone deaf and being unable to sing in tune. Or unable to be athletic because of poor coordination.
Image: Professor Gregg Vanderheiden
Consequently, as the digital world expands into all sections of life, some people will face limitations to their independence in everyday activities. People who rely on digital assistive technologies such as screen readers, and read and write programs are likely to be further challenged by technology.
Making it easier to use computers
Computers and technology have transformed the lives of many people with disability. This is largely due to additional technologies loaded onto their computers and smartphones. However, unlike others, unless they take their computer everywhere with them, they cannot access computers in libraries and at school. That is, unless they have a computer dedicated to them which probably means others can’t use it. Vanderheiden has a solution.
Morphic is an extension to Windows and Mac operating systems to make it easier to use a computer. Morphic is open source software with a great add-on. What if the settings for your home computer were able to follow you around in the Cloud? And what if it gave you confidence you wouldn’t “break” the computer?
“Assistive Technology on Demand” or AToD, is a companion service to Morphic. It allows users to have the assistive technologies they need on any computer at any place, any time. When you log out of the computer, your settings disappear and the computer goes back to the original settings.
New employees can set up on their first day at work
If computer fails or is lost, a new one can be set up in no time
IT departments can save time – all computers can have AT when needed without needing to install anything
With one click Morphic retrieves your assistive settings and when you leave the computer your settings completely disappear. That leaves the computer free for others to use in the library, university, or school. It is also good for people who struggle with technology because their device can be set up specifically for their requirements. This could be something as simple as creating one click to join the family Zoom meeting.
A one page review of Vanderheiden’s keynote from 2020 explains in more detail how it works. At the AAATE 2023 conference, Vanderheiden describes the roll-out to 7000 computers in major universities. AT users now have the ability to access computers in the same way as their peers. This gives them a new level of digital equity so they can better compete and succeed in all aspects of life, work and education.
Tech and older adults
The stereotype of grandchildren helping grandparents with their phone or remote controller is often perpetuated by older people themselves. Skill in using phones and websites depends on the motivations for using them. Younger people can have different interests from older adults meaning they use different apps and software. This doesn’t mean tech and older adults don’t belong together.
“Grandma cannot use her phone because it was not designed for her. Ubiquitous mass-market tools should not present obvious and avoidable hurdles to everyday users.” Robert Schumacher.
The stereotype is not based inevidence, and it might not be the tech that’s the barrier – poor vision or hand dexterity can also cause problems with using phones and computers.
It’s about mental models
According to Schumacher, the main difference between younger and older generations is when their mental models of how things work was formed. He explains how these mental models can widen any gap in understanding in how things work. Every generation has its own mental models of the world.
Schumacher’s article discusses more on this topic and how to remedy the situation. More testing with older adults is essential. Their mental models aren’t the same as the developer’s – what’s intuitive for a seasoned tech user is not intuitive for everyone. However, it doesn’t mean older people are averse to using technology or too “stuck in their ways” to learn.
The concept of designing tech from the perspective of mental models is a factor in a research project for autonomous vehicles. As concepts evolve, eventually the need to design in-vehicle interfaces will be minimal with presets for each rider. In the meantime, touchscreens and audio controls will still be needed. These need to be co-designed with users to develop prototypes.
This is not your average home. This one goes beyond even enhanced features in the Livable Housing Design Standard. However, it shows what is possible with creative design thinking. Depending on where you live, the key features will be embedded in all new homes under the Livable Housing Design Standard. And it’s good for home renovations too.
Contrary to the many myths, introducing universal design features into a home doesn’t compromise aesthetics.
The video below is from O’Shea and Sons Builders that showcases a high-end of the market home. The additional costs are in the automation, the elevator and some of the fixtures and fittings. However, the key features are possible in mainstream homes at little, if any, additional cost.
As Nick O’Shea says, “… an absolutely amazing home where functionality and style means absolute beauty”. A really great example of universal design in action dispelling the myth that accessibility and functionality are ugly.
Filming by Unveil Media
O’Shea Builders have built other accessible homes so this is not the first. The Independent Builders Network in Queensland has other members doing good work as well.Queensland was also the first stateto implement the new Livable Housing Design Standard.
Online learning – Livable Housing Design
CUDA has the licence from the Australian Building Codes Board to run their course on the Livable Housing Design Standard. The course is based on the Handbook and the Standard. This is a technical course for home-building professionals. Find out more about this online course. Only $35.00 inc GST.
It covers the various ways to create level entries, doors, circulation spaces, showers and toilets.
People with intellectual disability continue to be excluded from research practices. This is often due to social and economic factors such as limited education opportunities and access to services. Exclusion is easily perpetuated when you add systemic bias to the list.
Ethics approval processes often view people with intellectual disability as “vulnerable”. This makes their inclusion more difficult for researchers.
The design of research methods systemically excludes people with disability and other marginalised groups. Consequently, their voices are unheard in health, employment, education and independent living research.
According to an article from the US, approximately 75% of clinical trials have directly or indirectly excluded adults with intellectual disabilities. Just over 33% of the studies have excluded people based on cognitive impairment or diagnosis of intellectual disability.
New methods needed
In response to the ethics and research design challenges, researchers are finding new ways to adapt their methods. The article discusses three approaches:
1. Adapting research materials and processes into individualised and accessible formats.
2. Adopting inclusive research participation methods.
3. Community participation and co-researcher engagement.
Although inclusion strategies are making progress, researchers are lacking helpful guidance. Consequently, including people with intellectual disability in research in a meaningful way requires more work.
A related article on co-designing with people with intellectual disabilities looks at developing technologies. Here is an excerpt from the abstract:
Involving people with intellectual disabilities on issues relating to their mental wellbeing is essential for developing relevant tools. This research explores the use of inclusive and participatory co-design techniques and principles.
Individuals with intellectual disabilities participated in a co-design process via a series of workshops and focus groups. The workshops helped participants explore new technologies, including sensors and feedback mechanisms that can help monitor and potentially improve mental wellbeing. The co-design approach developed various interfaces suited to varying ages.
People with intellectual disability and support workers
Abuse of people with intellectual disability focuses on extreme forms of violence at the expense of everyday indignities. Humiliation, degradation, and hurt have a negative effect on identity and makes it more difficult to recruit research participants.
An article by a group of Australian researchers recommends taking action to support both workers and people with disability for improved wellbeing. Here are the key points from their article:
Everyday harms are the little things that upset people, such as making unkind jokes about you, being ignored, or disrespected, are not treated as abuse
In our project, we called this misrecognition.
We looked at when misrecognition happened between young people with disability and their paid support workers.
Much of the time, people did not intend to cause harm, but the other person was still hurt by the things they did or said.
We can improve the way that people with disability and support workers work together if people understand how their actions affect other people.
This study aims to demonstrate how disability theatre contributes to inclusive research practice with people with intellectual disability. The title of the article is Disability Theatre as Critical Participatory Action Research (CPAR). Here is an excerpt from the abstract:
This article describes how self-advocates (individuals with intellectual disability), theatre artists, researchers, and a community living society create social justice disability theatre as critical participatory research. It demonstrates how disability theatre can contribute to and advance inclusive research practice.
Disability justice-informed theatre as CPAR has direct relevance to people with intellectual disabilities. It also offers a platform where self-advocates’ diverse ways to communicate and be in the world are honoured. Mentorship generates opportunities for self-advocates to learn, practice, and develop research skills.
The theatre creation process (devising, developing, and refining scenes) is research in itself where tensions are recognized as sites of possibility. Future research should explore strategies, and protocols for power sharing and problem solving within disability theatre.
Professor Ilaria Garofolo writes an interesting essay on the role of universal design and inclusion. Garofolo claims technical handbooks based on regulations related to accessibility have reduced built environmental barriers but they haven’t resulted in inclusiveness. The outdated focus on compliance remains an underpinning feature of design culture.
“Taking into consideration the needs and preferences of persons should be the core of design, and in particular the design for inclusion…”
Built environment professionals argue that universal design is a good principle, but difficult to practice. The belief that universal design costs more doesn’t help matters. Providing readymade solutions or schematics are not the answer either. Such schematics contain stereotypes and generalisations referring to disability. While they might guarantee compliance they limit the continuing improvement aspect of universal design.
The term inclusion should define the orientation of society towards people. However, the term is often juxtaposed, and sometimes even confused, with the word integration. Unlike integration, which tends to counter the differences, inclusion entails the acceptance of all diversities and peculiarities of the individual.
Co-design
The understanding of the relationship between people and their built environment is often missing. Participatory co-design methods, particularly with people with disability, are the way to overcome this divide. All the technical knowledge and expertise does not provide knowledge on how design impacts everyday living.
Fostering universal design through education
Diverse and dedicated subjects and master classes have arisen in higher education worldwide.
Although universal is increasingly permeating design education, it remains difficult to interpret as anything more than a set of good intentions.
Experiential learning is an important part of the universal design curriculum as well as interdisciplinary collaboration. Personal experience and design workshops with users and trained designers provide a practical understanding of universal design.
“To design inclusively means to educate professionals to think inclusively and to work in collaborative teams composed of diverse groups of people.”
The level of inclusion of all members of society in community activities is a fundamental indicator of a civil society’s progress. There is increasing evidence that diversity and inclusion are linked to positive outcomes.
The universal design approach is increasingly recognized as the one that helps to shape physical and virtual environments. That’s so that it can be accessed, understood, and used to the greatest extent possible by all people, regardless of their diversity. Thus, making a more inclusive society for all.
This short essay summarizes some reflections resulting from studies, research and field practices reported by literature, and also experienced by the author in her training as a researcher and university professor.
Attention is focused on some critical issues and implications inherent in the practical application of universal design principles. Also, the importance of its multidisciplinary dimension, which also entails a different attitude towards the training of professionals.
Large scale events such as the Olympic and Paralympic Games are contentious because of the cost of preparation. However, with careful planning, these events can leave a legacy of lasting benefits for communities. That’s the aim of the Brisbane 2032 Legacy Strategy.
Vision: “By 2042, we will live in an inclusive, sustainable and connected society, with more opportunities in life for everyone.”
Universal design is mentioned as an underpinning principle for inclusion and accessibility as if they are inherently the same thing. Consequently, the language defaults to “universal accessibility”. This term is often interpreted as meeting disability access standards in the built environment, which do not guarantee inclusive outcomes.
Similar to other policy documents, universal design is explained at the very end. If universal design is an underpinning principle of all aspects of the Games, it should be at the front of the document. Nevertheless, “universal design” is found under each of the focus areas.
Focus of the strategy
The strategy focuses on society, economy, connectivity and environment. The strategy, titled Elevate 2042, uses the Paralympic Games as the platform for “advancing accessibility and empowering people with disability”.
“Elevate 2042 is the catalyst to create a truly inclusive society for all. From universal design underpinning everything we build to providing sport for every Queensland child with a disability, I cannot wait to see what we have achieved by 2042.” Dr Bridie Kean
Inclusion and accessibility
By definition, the Paralympic Games must be inclusive and accessible, and the concepts considered across all aspects of both Games. Co-design processes are mentioned in relation to people with disability but not other marginalised groups.
The key points listed on the Paralympics Australia website for “Advancing accessibility and empowering people with disability” are:
People with disability can participate fully in the community
And have a voice on housing, transport, education, employment and sport
With accessible, inclusive sports infrastructure and events
Queensland’s Disability Plan 2022-2027: Together, a Better Queensland
Australia’s Disability Strategy 2021-2031
Image from the Paralympics Australia website
Previous Games and their legacies
Simon Darcy charts the whole process andthe disability politics of the Sydney Games. Raju Mahto connects tourism with Olympic Games to show how accessibility supports both the event, the legacy and tourism for all. His paper, “Games Events, Accessible Tourism – A Mile to Go with Special Reference of Paralympics”, has some key findings that apply to any major event. By taking a universal design approach Mahto recommends:
Tourism operators must understand the needs of customers who have a disability
Accommodation establishments should have several accessible rooms
Public transportations systems should consider parallel services and ensure easy access to transport hubs
Tourism operators need to partner with Games organisers, the community and the private sector.
