Practical wisdom, knowledge and experience is a key factor in co-design processes. People with disability have their own lived experience of cities which is essential knowledge for the ongoing design and redesign of urban environments. But it has to mesh with other wisdoms and experiences and here we find tensions between stakeholders. A study from Sweden revealed three kinds of knowledge at play.
Workshops held in three Swedish cities revealed three kinds of knowledge. They are: fact based knowledge, professional knowledge, and practical wisdom (episteme, techne and phronesis).
Knowledge creation is an ongoing endeavour and collaboration between stakeholders is essential for overcoming tensions and working for good outcomes. But personal experience is not well regarded as it cannot be ‘measured’ and quantified.
Tensions and practical wisdom
‘Officials viewed personal narratives about disability as the source of valuable knowledge, helping them understand the reasons behind accessibility requirements – ‘understand in practice’, as one official said. She recommended this for practitioners as a way to avoid building errors.’
Structural tensions centred around resources and who had access, including disability organisations. This creates power imbalances. In some municipalities officials sent people with disability questions to confirm their decisions. Other structural tensions are more mundane such as the best time of day to get the best citizen participation rate. People with disability reported officials’ resistance to applying accessibility standards as another factor.
Categorical tensions centred around the notion that accessibility is an overarching label as being for people with impairments. Proposals about roads, public art or street furniture did not belong to accessibility. Categorising accessibility as a minority interest made it a ‘soft issue’, not like emergency services – a firm box to tick.
Tensions around interpretation revealed uncertainties about judging personal stories in relation to urban experiences.
‘What we can perhaps see as the disadvantage of this way of working: being on site with a somewhat small group – is that it depends a lot on the people involved. After all, it is your personal opinion that you are expressing. And it can then vary, we think, from project to project depending on who is involved … There is still a risk that we interpret something wrong … You don’t know if it’s personal opinions … It’s hard to know whose voice you’re hearing.’
Universal design seen as disability design
So, where does universal design fit into the discussion? While universal design encompasses more than disability, it remains closely associated with it. When interpreted as accessibility, it becomes an afterthought at the end of the process. However, a universal design approach takes inclusion seriously from the outset of a project.
What cannot be quantified and measured “rationally” is seen as ‘soft’ evidence by officials. Nevertheless, universal design endeavours to explain the reasons behind access requirements and why minimum compliance is insufficient.
The title of the paper is, Practical wisdom for accessible cities: Creative tensions in universal design processes for Swedish urban development. An important exploration into why we cannot move past minimum compliance both in Sweden and Australia.
From the abstract
This paper explores knowledge creation in universal design processes that aim to make cities accessible to all. It contributes insights into the practice of urban development in Sweden. Workshops and qualitative interviews were conducted in three mid-sized cities re-designing a city square, a street, and a new library.
We found that different kinds of knowledge were in play in local collaboration. Universal design was akin practical wisdom. Imbalances of power and divisions between stakeholders caused tensions. The perception that accessibility is limited to a specific target group also played a part. To overcome these tensions, we propose that disability organizations be contributors rather than commentators.