Tackling reflexivity in human-centred design research to benefit user needs and sensitivities
Article Sidebar
- design methodology
- reflective practitioner
- practice-based research
- design for well-being
- pragmatic paradigm in practice
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Downloads
Main Article Content
Abstract
Longevity research highlights complexities of assessing the elderly’s future needs and impact of design solutions. Especially, the potential for (self-) transformation within human relations or interactions through design work (e.g., through technology) highlights the importance of design (researchers) being more aware of their design decisions and research impact and finding ways to discuss their application of reflexivity; standards of practices still lacking in research communities. This paper presents a ‘work-in-progress’ reflexivity-method for conducting front-end user experience research with participants characterised by highly diverse user needs and sensitivities. During a PhD project, this method evolved from grounded research and four case studies with 120 mixed-gender pre-schoolers, 2.5—6-years, at a kindergarten. The goal was to improve a researcher’s reflexivity when developing activities, tools, and environments by prioritising context-based discovery of relational, emotional, and social vulnerabilities impacting user well-being. Video and audio materials indicate that a researcher’s reflexivity concerning sensitivities and paradigm awareness are beneficial design strategies to encourage motivation, expression skills, and mastery. This paper offers a dialogue tool for practising precise reflexivity. Its innovative framework may spark discussions on how child-centred methods can inform reflexive standards, practices, and the impact of designing for vulnerable adult groups, such as the elderly.
Article Details
References
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing Grounded Theory. (2nd ed.). SAGE
Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research Design International Student Version – Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking. Bergpublishers
Danner, D. D., Snowdon, D. A., & Friesen, W. V. (2001). Positive emotions in early life and longevity: Findings from the nun study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(5), 804 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.5.804
Davis, L. J. (2013). The End of Identity Politics and the Beginning of Dismodernism: On Disability as an Unstable Category. In L. J. Davis (Ed.), The Disability Studies Reader (4th ed.). (pp. 231-42). Routledge
De Wit, B. & Meyer, R. (2005). Strategy Synthesis – Concise Version- Resolving Strategy Paradoxes to Create Competitive Advantage. Cengage Learning EMEA
Denzin, N. K. (1998). The art and politics of interpretation. In N.K. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), (2011), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp.313-371). SAGE
Dindler, C. (2010). The construction of fictional space in participatory design practice. CoDesign, 6(3), 167-182 https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2010.493941
Desmet, P., & Hassenzahl, M. (2012). Towards happiness: Possibility-driven design. In M. Zacarias, & J.V. Oliveira (Eds.)., Human-computer interaction: the agency perspective (pp.3-27). Springer
Engelen, L., Rahmann, M., & de Jong, E. (2022). Design for healthy ageing – the relationship between design, well-being. Building Research and Information 50(21):1-17 https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2021.1984867
Fava, G. A. (2016). Well-being Therapy: Treatment Manual and Clinical Applications. S. Karger AG
Frappier, M., Meynell, L., & Brown, J. R. (Eds.). (2013). Thought experiments in philosophy, science, and the arts (Vol. 11). Routledge
Friedman, B., & Hendry, D. G. (2019). Value-sensitive design: Shaping technology with moral imagination. MIT Press
Friedman, B., & Nissenbaum, H. (1996). User autonomy: who should control what and when?. Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI’96 Association for Computing Machinery, 433
Gale, R.A. & Bond, L. (2007). Assessing the Art of Craft. The Journal of General Education, 56 (2),126-148 https://doi.org/10.2307/27798072
Gandini, L. (2003). Values and principles of the Reggio Emilia approach. In L. Gandini, S. Etheredge, & Hill, L. (Eds.). (2008), Insights and inspirations from Reggio Emilia: Stories of teachers and children from North America (pp.25-27). David Publications
Garcia-Garcia, I., Donica, O., Cohen, A. A., Nusslé, S. G., Heini, A., Nusslé, S., ... & Draganski, B. (2023). Maintaining brain health across the lifespan. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 105365 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2023.105365
Genova, A.C. (1992). Kant’s Complex Problem of Reflective Judgement. In R.F. Chadwick, & C.C. Cazeaux, (Eds.), (1992), Immanuel Kant: critical assessments. Routledge
Gewirth, A. (1978). Reason and morality. University of Chicago Press
Gibson, J.J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Inc
Gillespie, T. (2014). The relevance of algorithms. Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society, 167(2014), 167. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9042.003.0013
Glaveanu, V. P. (2013). Rewriting the language of creativity: The Five A's framework. Review of General Psychology, 17(1), 69-81 https://doi.org/10.1037/a002952
Gorelick, P. B., Furie, K. L., Iadecola, C., Smith, E. E., Waddy, S. P., Lloyd-Jones, D. M., ... & Zerna, C. (2017). Defining optimal brain health in adults: a presidential advisory from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke, 48(10), e284-e303. https://doi.org/10.1161/STR.0000000000000148
Hart, S. (2018). Brain, Attachment, Personality. An introduction to neuroaffective development. First published 2008 by Karnac Books. Routledge
Heidegger, M., (with Von Herrmann, F. W.). (1977). Sein und Zeit (Vol. 2). M. Niemeyer
Hill, T.E., Jr. (1991). Autonomy and self-respect. Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge
Kuhn, T. S. (with Hacking,I.). (2012). The structure of Scientific revolutions (4th ed.). Originally published 1962.The University of Chicago Press, Ltd.
Latour, B. (1996). Symposium – ON Interobjectivity. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3(4), 228-245.