No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Participatory and Inclusive Assistive Technology Innovation Clinics in Design Schools
Part of:
User-Centred Design
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 July 2019
Abstract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
People living with disabilities can have needs for Assistive Technology (AT) that are out of the scope of occupational therapists, commercial markets and charitable distributions. For such needs, designers, engineers, makers and clinicians in the local community can design and fabricate AT through an inclusive, participatory, user centred design process. By tapping into the skills, creativity, facilities and knowledge of local design, medical, engineering and management schools, we can make clinics for AT innovation, practical design education, business incubation and product provision. Through two case studies, we demonstrate the necessary steps towards this novel approach to compassionately design, fabricate and deliver bespoke and scalable AT innovations. The practice is multidisciplinary, it empowers people with disabilities to creatively challenge their problems, contributes to design education and requires a system to ensure product quality and follow ups. We envision that over years, this practice can become a movement that is able to systematically knit the patched ecosystem for AT, while contributing to the global understanding of design for people with disabilities.
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 3959 - 3968
- Creative Commons
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.- Copyright
- © The Author(s) 2019
References
Barbareschi, G., Holloway, C. and Sprigle, S.H. (2017, June), “Assistive Technology Design Courses: The Mutually Beneficial Relationship between Engineering Education and the Provision of Orphan Devices”, http://www.resna.org/news-events/annual-meeting/annual-meeting-proceedings/annual-conference-proceedings (Vol. 2017), Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North America (RESNA).Google Scholar
Barbareschi, G. (2018), YouTransfer, YouDesign: A participatory approach to design assistive technology for wheelchair transfers, Doctoral dissertation, UCL (University College London).Google Scholar
Borg, J., Lindström, A. and Larsson, S. (2011), “Assistive technology in developing countries: A review from the perspective of the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities”, Prosthetics and Orthotics International, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 20–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309364610389351Google Scholar
Buehler, E., Branham, S., Ali, A., Chang, J.J., Hofmann, M.K., Hurst, A. and Kane, S.K. (2015), “Sharing is Caring”, Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI 15. http://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702525Google Scholar
Buur, J. and Larsen, H. (2010), “The quality of conversations in participatory innovation”, CoDesign, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 121–138. http://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2010.533185.Google Scholar
De Couvreur, L. and Goossens, R. (2011), “Design for (every) one: co-creation as a bridge between universal design and rehabilitation engineering”, CoDesign, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 107–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2011.609890Google Scholar
de Witte, L., Steel, E., Gupta, S., Ramos, V.D. and Roentgen, U. (2018), “Assistive technology provision: towards an international framework for assuring availability and accessibility of affordable high-quality assistive technology”, Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, pp. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2018.1470264Google Scholar
Dynref.engr.illinois.edu. (2019). Four-Bar Linkages. [online] Available at: http://dynref.engr.illinois.edu/aml.html [Accessed 15 Mar. 2019].Google Scholar
Endeavor Trikes (2019). Why Reverse? - Endeavor Trikes. [online] Available at: https://endeavortrikes.com/why-reverse/ [Accessed 15 Mar. 2019].Google Scholar
Federal Policies and the Medical Device Industry (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, OTA-H-230, October 1984)Google Scholar
Hofmann, M., Burke, J., Pearlman, J., Fiedler, G., Hess, A., Schull, J. and Mankoff, J. (2016), “Clinical and Maker Perspectives on the Design of Assistive Technology with Rapid Prototyping Technologies”, Proceedings of the 18th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility - ASSETS 16. http://doi.org/10.1145/2982142.2982181Google Scholar
Hurst, A. and Tobias, J. (2011), “Empowering individuals with do-it-yourself assistive technology”, The Proceedings of the 13th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility - ASSETS 11. http://doi.org/10.1145/2049536.2049541Google Scholar
Kettley, S., Kettley, R. and Bates, M. (2015), “An introduction to IPR as a participatory design research method”, Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers - UbiComp 15. http://doi.org/10.1145/2800835.2807944Google Scholar
Magnier, C., Thomann, G., Villeneuve, F. and Zwolinski, P. (2012), “Methods for designing assistive devices extracted from 16 case studies in the literature”, International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM), Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 93–100. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-012-0143-2Google Scholar
Mitra, S. (2006), “The capability approach and disability”, Journal of disability policy studies, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 236–247. http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2330438.Google Scholar
Moussaïd, M., Kämmer, J.E., Analytis, P.P. and Neth, H. (2013), “Social influence and the collective dynamics of opinion formation”, PloS one, Vol. 8 No. 11, pp. e78433. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0078433Google Scholar
National Research Council (2007), Human-system integration in the system development process: A new look, National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Phillips, B. and Zhao, H. (1993), “Predictors of assistive technology abandonment”, Assistive technology, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.1993.10132205Google Scholar
Radjou, N. and Prabhu, J. (2015), “Frugal Innovation: How to do more with less”, The Economist.Google Scholar
Roozenburg, N.F. and Eekels, J. (1995), Product design: fundamentals and methods, Vol. 2, John Wiley & Sons Inc.Google Scholar
Shah, S.G.S. and Robinson, I. (2007), “Benefits of and barriers to involving users in medical device technology development and evaluation”, International journal of technology assessment in health care, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 131–137. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462307051677.Google Scholar
Smith, R.O., Scherer, M., Cooper, R., Bell, D., Hobbs, D.A., Pettersson, C., Seymour, N., Borg, J., Johnson, M.J., Lane, J.P. and Srinivasan, S.S. (2018), “Assistive technology products: a position paper from the first global research, innovation, and education on assistive technology (GREAT) summit”, Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, pp. 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2018.1473895Google Scholar
Visser, F.S., Stappers, P.J., Van der Lugt, R. and Sanders, E.B. (2005), “Contextmapping: experiences from practice”, CoDesign, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 119–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880500135987Google Scholar
Werner, D., Thuman, C. and Maxwell, J., 1998. Nothing about us without us. Developing innovative technologies for, by and with disabled persons. Palo Alto: Healthwrights.Google Scholar
You have
Access
Open access