Design Research Society DRS Digital Library
DRS Biennial Conference Series DRS2002 - Common Ground
Sep 5th, 12:00 AM
Dialogue in participatory design
R. Luck School of Construction Management, University of Reading, UK
Follow this and additional works at: https://dl.designresearchsociety.org/drs-conference-papers
Citation Luck, R. (2002) Dialogue in participatory design, in Durling, D. and Shackleton, J. (eds.), Common Ground - DRS International Conference 2002, 5-7 September, London, United Kingdom. https://dl.designresearchsociety.org/drs-conference-papers/drs2002/researchpapers/52
This Research Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Conference Proceedings at DRS Digital Library. It has been accepted for inclusion in DRS Biennial Conference Series by an authorized administrator of DRS Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Dialogue in participatory design
R. Luck School of Construction Management, University of Reading, UK Abstract
The study of participatory design has been an active research field for several decades (Cross 1971; Sanoff 1973) an acknowledgement that direct involvement in the design and decision making of physical environments has a positive influence and that there is continued value, new insight and knowledge from its investigation. During this time there has been a maturation of the subject and subtle shifts in the field: recognising participatory design as a process with many approaches and techniques, rather than a particular research method and the flexibility of participatory methodologies. Sanoff's (2000) continued involvement and development of the field have shown that participatory design techniques can be used for different scales of project, different units for analysis, to design and develop communities as well as individual buildings.
Sanoff's (1988) extensive research in this area stems from the methodological concept of action research (Lewin 1946) which integrates theory and practice. In this way the diversity of views expressed by people during the design decision-making process can influence the final outcome of a project. The democratic principle underpinning participatory design is demonstrated through the involvement of different users during design dialogues and their potential equal contribution to the design outcomes. The egalitarian, non-discriminatory principles of participatory design are common with an 'inclusive' approach for the design of environments: which should not discriminate on accessibility.
This paper will draw on interview data gathered during conversations between an architect and the users of a future building to comment on the language used during the design dialogues and its effect on a participatory design process.
Durling D. & Shackleton J. (Eds.) Common Ground : Design Research Society International Conference 2002, UK. ISBN 1-904133-11-8 1 Dialogue in participatory design
Introduction This paper draws on current research using data gathered from interviews to comment on the dialogue between the architect and building user early in the design process and how user needs and preferences can be part of that process. These data are used to illustrate some of the themes that emerge from the architect-user conversations that are part of the briefing process and questions whether participatory design approaches have potential to enrich the dialogue and the exchange of information between the architect and building user.
Participatory design research, originating in 1960s, has evolved progressively, expanding beyond the design of a single building to the design of communities; the dwellings as well as engaging the people of the community in the process. In this way participatory design is more than a collection of design methods to influence the built form, it also has a human dimension and can engage the people who form the community in the process. The participatory design approaches are considered to reflect design as a social process, illustrating that the sphere of the design activity extends beyond the designer. As part of a participatory design workshop the people who attend are part of the social process of design and play an active part in the issue/problem raising, discussion and decision making processes that are part of the early design stage of a project. The people who are commonly known as the 'users' are active participants in the design process and the boundary between 'designer' and 'user' becomes blurred. This has similarities with Hill's (1998) research that recognises that a building user's presence in a space will change the properties of that space; making their own alterations, decoration and through the act of occupation they change the space. He acknowledges that through occupation the user is designing space. This position challenges the finality of the design process as well as the role of the 'architect'. He explores this concept further; playing with the legal definition of an architect, he introduces an 'illegal architect' into the picture, a non-architect designing space.
Returning to Professor Sanoff's work, his position as a frontrunner in participatory design (PD) is recognised (Teymur 2002) because of his continued application and refinement of PD methods. He clearly grounds the methodological basis for participatory design in the action research methods of Lewin, (1946) where the engagement of the test participants (I'm consciously avoiding the term test subjects as the approach belongs to the interpretive, not functionalist paradigm) allows new knowledge to be created. The process is iterative and knowledge and understanding emerge as a consequence of the verbal exchange of ideas, the social process that is critical during the early concept, pre-briefing stages of design.
There are two main reasons for considering the application of Sanoff's PD methods to a current project; firstly because the study focuses on the iterative, verbal exchange of design ideas and secondly, digging deeper, because of the underpinning philosophy of PD. Sanoff's work clearly articulates that PD methods form part of the broad democratic philosophy of participation of people in decision-making processes, politics etc. This aspect is of particular interest to the project described as it parallels the principles of participation advocated by disability theorists (Finkelstein 1993) that people with disabilities should be in an empowered consultative position in more aspects of their lives, the design of environments being a key area of concern. The social model of disability view, that environments disable people and that some consultative processes are placatory not emancipatory (Imrie 1999) are part of this argument and discussed within (Luck 2000).
Durling D. & Shackleton J. (Eds.) Common Ground : Design Research Society International Conference 2002, UK. ISBN 1-904133-11-8 2 The project briefing and data collection process The project described within this paper uses interview data gathered from people with a range of disabilities to illustrate the themes discussed and the range of ideas exchanged verbally during the early design stage. The project is a multi-functional building at the University of Reading, being designed following inclusive design principles, where the accessibility, use and experience of the building should not be influenced by a persons' abilities. The project is described more fully within Luck et. al. (2001) and the method for gathering interview data based on (Taylor 1999).
The interviews were conducted with future building users as part of the briefing process, to develop a written project brief and to understand their user's wants, needs and expectations from the building. The number of people interviewed was small, just six. Amongst this user group people with a range of disabilities; two people with hearing impairments, one person with mobility impairment, a wheelchair user and a visually impaired person were interviewed. Two others, with no impairments, were also interviewed as they interact with a range of people with disabilities.
The design of the briefing process was considered in detail; the aide memoire prompts used to gather user need information, the structure to the decision-making process for filtering process the ideas generated from the interview consultation process and how these would be taken forward within the written brief. The briefing process had distinct stages and the findings from one stage feed into the next. The stages were; semi-structured interviews - for gathering data, the feasibility study - producing a document with the views of all the people consulted (there were conflicting ideas and suggestions within this document) using this in the third Steering Committee stage - to discuss which ideas would be taken forward when preparing the written brief. Documenting the process meant that a decision could be reviewed and revisited at a later stage. In this way the briefing procedures reflected an iterative decision-making process (as occurred in reality) rather than a post-hoc, smooth sequential process. The method used for the briefing design stage has been discussed in more detail within (Luck, Haenlein et al. 2001). Other advantages of this approach were that the briefing process was informed by the needs of actual building users rather than generalisations from a non-representative group and that the architect wasn't designing on behalf of people with needs beyond their own experience. This fits with the emancipatory, participatory model advocated by disability theorists.
Semi-structured interviews The method used to gather information was to individually interview respondents using a semi- structured approach and a checklist of headings to steer the discussion. The checklist of headings was developed through experience in architectural practice, developing an understanding of the information needed to design different types of projects (Luck, Haenlein et al. 2001). The headings link to aspects of a building and prompt the respondent to generate ideas for the building being designed. The headings also prompted comments on other buildings and their experience of other environments, as well as qualitative judgements on the relative merit of these environments. It was this rich information which was invaluable knowledge for the architect and impossible to quantify.
The interviews were conducted using the same checklist for each person interviewed. This allowed consistency across the sample of people interviewed but didn’t impose a structure as to how an individual should respond. The responses were the unprompted, unbounded ideas of the person interviewed. This approach generated rich data of personal perceptions of their experience of buildings and suggestions for improvements to the built environment. Interviewing people individually had the advantage that their ideas were personal and not affected by group pressures and influences.
Durling D. & Shackleton J. (Eds.) Common Ground : Design Research Society International Conference 2002, UK. ISBN 1-904133-11-8 3 A key issue explained to each respondent was that there was no correct response. Each response was an expression of their personal wish list for the building based on their own experience. In this way the response was individual and was not assumed to represent the needs of one type of disability. The comments were considered to be personal perceptions of the built environment rather than representing a larger percentage of the population.
Analysing the interview data The interviews varied in duration and took between 1 hour and 21/2 hours to complete. The interviews were taped and transcribed into a text document. The sample size, the numbers of interviews conducted were small, so the analysis was manual rather than using the qualitative data analysis software, Nudist or Atlas ti. The method used to analyse the text was thematic content analysis (Smith 1992) taking a grounded theory approach (Strauss and Corbin 1997). This approach was appropriate for this study of the language use as the method allows text to be grouped according to themes that emerged from the data, then comparing the groups of responses and commenting on any themes within the data. This meant that the researcher had to become familiar with the data, the participants’ interpretation of the prompt and their response; the texts were re- read several times. The response was in the interviewee’s own terms, using phrases and vocabulary they were familiar with.
Some language-use themes emerging from the data The participants’ responses are used to illustrate the different interpretation of prompts that occurred during the interviews. Some of the themes discussed have been grouped according to the aide memoire prompt and are shown in Table 1 below.
Durling D. & Shackleton J. (Eds.) Common Ground : Design Research Society International Conference 2002, UK. ISBN 1-904133-11-8 4 Interview Person 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Prompt
Not Traditnal, Reflects Futuristic Not outlandish Aesthetics extreme not 21st futuristic century
Access PEEPS, For all Touch Auto-door and no refuges disablties sensitive manufacturers to escape doors be involved, often unreliable
Very Encourge Spaces Prefers Open plan for Flexibility much in social grouped designted ease of favour interaction by noise areas for movement in a over-lap level functions, wheelchair of spaces with visual links
Good mix, Timber, Solid Glass, Tarmac good. Materials envrnmtly but can floor, no transpncy Grass is an friendly look vibrations. and visual effective barrier shabby Timber links are for wheelchair floor looks important users. spacious
Table 1: Semi-structured interview comments, grouped according to interview prompt.
1 Comments from people with the same disability The lighting within the future building was discussed by only two of the people interviewed, both people had a hearing impairment.
“I prefer natural lighting. I don’t like of strip-lighting…. Lighting mustn’t cast shadows.” (Person 5)
The second person with a hearing impairment also thought “shadows should be kept to a minimum.” (Person 4)
These two were the only people that discussed noise and vibration within the building. They both gave insight into the importance of vibration to deaf and hard of hearing people as an alerting mechanism for movement, when someone is approaching and their heightened sensitivity to physical vibration.
“Movement and vibration within the building should be minimised. Hearing impaired people are more conscious of vibrations than most and use this as a method for sensing when someone is approaching. “ (Person 5)
Durling D. & Shackleton J. (Eds.) Common Ground : Design Research Society International Conference 2002, UK. ISBN 1-904133-11-8 5 “The building should have a solid floor to reduce vibrations within the building. The disturbance caused by Concord and people walking within a building should be kept to a minimum.” (Person 4)
These two quotes illustrate that people with the same disability can make common observations and may cite the same problem. People will have common experiences but generalisation from value judgements must be treated with caution. Even observations made by people with the same disability cannot be extrapolated to represent the views of a broader population, as described below.
2 Contradictory preferences from people with the same disability These quotes illustrate that the views expressed by people with the same disability didn’t always present a coherent picture.
“An issue for deaf people is knowing whether they should stop working and be involved when new people arrive in a space. Working in a glazed open space can be distracting. This uncertainty results in lost concentration and effective working. An allied confusing situation is when people just appear and you haven’t been notified, which can be quite distressing”. (Person 5)
“I’d encouraged the use of glass. Deaf people need to be able to see and access people. The shape is not so important but transparency and visual links with others are important.” (Person 4)
“Use of glass and lighting will have an effect on deaf peoples' ability to lip read. The idea of using glass to divide spaces within the building is appealing, so there is visual contact over long distances. People will be aware of others within the building and can acknowledge each other over those distances. Signing often occurs over these longer distances.” (Person 3)
These quotes illustrate that extrapolating information from interview data concerning user needs of a particular disability group is not always an effective way to make generalisations about user needs. One of these quotes was from a hearing person working with deaf people, who in everyday situations interacts and observes the behaviour of many people with a hearing impairment. His comment was similar to the view of one person, who thought the transparency of glass would make it a useful material to separate spaces for people with a hearing impairment, but did not reflect the view of the other person. This illustrates the problem of ‘presumptive’ designing, assuming a knowledge of a user group and also the fact that people’s preferences are not always predictable or constant.
3 Different use of space and spatial preferences The people interviewed were asked to describe how they use space and to describe the space they’d like to work in.
“Fixed areas for specific functions are preferred to temporary ones. There is a need for barriers between spaces but these may include a visual link of activities. In a public space you’re always keeping a watchful eye for people trying to attract your attention.” (Person 5)
“Open plan, hot-desking could be encouraged by having points throughout the building so a computer can be connected to a network. Separate partitioned quiet rooms with vision panels and windows to see whether people can be disturbed are needed.” (Person 4)
Durling D. & Shackleton J. (Eds.) Common Ground : Design Research Society International Conference 2002, UK. ISBN 1-904133-11-8 6 “A decision needs to be made whether the building will be organised so firms work autonomously within the building or whether similar functions and activities, e.g. ‘office space’ could be linked together. We could group activities according to the level of noise generated by each person. It should be similar and kept to a minimum.” (Person 4)
The responses were again diverse. One person had a distinct preference for a fixed space of their own, a view they defended by describing the disturbance they experience when others wander near to where they're working. It would be interesting to understand whether this personal preference, ‘work space construct’ was held because of the type of activities their work involves or for other reasons. Person 4 was conscious of people’s differing needs and preferences and suggested a problem solving approach to group activities together. To understand user needs it is more appropriate for personal preferences to be given, rather than a solution as it is restrictive and may provide only a limited design answer, often at the expense of innovation (Fisher, Bowman et al. 1999).
4 Revealing tacit knowledge This approach, using dialogue to better understand user needs, has been successful for revealing tacit knowledge (Polanyi, 1996) for an individual to share their personal perceptions, and based on their experience give the designer insight into the issues that influence a disabled person's experience of an environment.
“Loss of balance is a common problem for those with a hearing impairment which can be easily assisted by the inclusion of strong horizontal features within spaces, horizontal bands of tiling etc.” (Person 4)
This information may assist the designer when specifying finishes to decorate a space.
The comment that : “Different disability groups tend not to mix”. (Person 3) was particularly revealing. The designer may want to verify this by asking other people or observing the use of space in buildings shared by people with different disabilities. The use of this information may have a strong influence on people's satisfaction with the completed building. Designing the layout of spaces to encourage interaction between people with different disabilities, e.g. sharing amenities within the building may make people feel uncomfortable. This comment may raise other questions; of validity, the need to investigate the cause, establish a satisfactory separation distance and other fundamental environmental psychology questions.
Revealing tacit knowledge through dialogue was an intention and major advantage of this approach. This information is based on personal experience, which without dialogue wouldn’t be available to the designer.
5 Metaphors, descriptive narrative and conjecture The flexibility of use of the new building prompted a different style of response.
“A good model is the Californian Centre for Deafness where there are outer perimeter rooms which don’t have windows. The central room was sunlight from overhead. What's the ideal height for the concourse area? We’d like a height so the space has a buzz and activity but don’t want the effect of a chimney. The concept of a cyber cafe is appealing, people working in an interactive environment.” (Person 3)
Durling D. & Shackleton J. (Eds.) Common Ground : Design Research Society International Conference 2002, UK. ISBN 1-904133-11-8 7 The description of buildings or environments they had visited that had left strong impressions was encouraged. Narrative and metaphors were considered positive language use for this exercise to illicit tacit knowledge and allow the designer to gain insight into the mindset of the user. Here Person 3 described a central, sunlit space which they enjoyed and within their narrative questioned the best height for the space so it doesn’t have ‘the effect of a chimney’.
“An open plan building will appeal to the user groups in different ways. The building's acoustics may need special consideration, absorbing surfaces to counter act the effect of a big space. Perhaps visually impaired people would prefer smaller spaces. Is there a way of giving more immediate local information within a large open space.” (Person 6)
The prompt, 'flexibility of use of space', was interpreted by many as meaning an open-plan spatial arrangement. These quotes illustrate that people also considered and rationalised the needs of others, sometimes for people with different disabilities, in their response. The need to provide blind people with local information to navigate through this space was a concern expressed by people with hearing impairments. This again raises the issue of assuming an understanding of the needs of another person. Tacit information, when a person gives insight into their particular experience of the world with a disability was of great value to the designer. Expressing concern for the needs of people with another disability may highlight an issue and bring it to the designers attention but is presumptive conjecture, less valuable information.
6 Interpreting a prompt differently Several prompts provoked different interpretations of meaning from those interviewed. This was an accepted characteristic of this approach to allow people to interpret the prompt in their own terms, with the intention that the priorities that were most important to them would be represented and others, significant to a different person, may be represented during a separate interview.
Illustrations of this were the responses to the prompt 'The environment'. The prompt was deliberately non-specific. Person 2 discussed an individual's ability to locally regulate aspects of the internal environment to suit each individual.
“There should be the opportunity to control the internal environment from one zone to another. Those with a disability are less active and need different environmental conditions. We need testing equipment to monitor the physical and emotional effects of the internal environment and consider other aspects of the environment that need to change, as well as the temperature and humidity”. (Person 2)
Another person discussed the environment in terms of the effect that many people occupying the same space had on their ability to concentrate.
“It is often difficult to concentrate when there are many activities within a room. It is easier to concentrate when there are just 1 or 2 people within a room, perhaps we need areas for sole working.” (Person 5)
7 Inability to articulate personal preferences The people interviewed were prompted using the word 'aesthetics' to give their thoughts and preferences on the appearance of the final building. These comments gave insight into people's perceptions of the environment and the visual appeal of buildings.
Durling D. & Shackleton J. (Eds.) Common Ground : Design Research Society International Conference 2002, UK. ISBN 1-904133-11-8 8 Several people interviewed were conscious that a purpose built ‘accessible’ building shouldn’t be linked with a ‘futuristic’ appearance, conventional buildings can be used by people with differing needs as well.
“Building needs to be relatively traditional, whatever that is. Should be attractive and appealing, achieved through relatively traditional styling rather than futuristic, so that other people would feel they could design a similar building, have sympathy and feel comfortable with the building.” (Person 2)
A similar view was expressed; “The building can be modern, using new technologies, but its appearance shouldn’t be too outlandish. The design fires others to realise that accessible design is not out of the ordinary and is achievable.” (Person 6)
“It is essential that the design is not unusual, to show that you can have accessible environments in normal buildings. Accessibility doesn’t require a lot of money. It should be an attractive aesthetic statement without being extreme.” (Person 1)
Other people interviewed favoured a modern ‘futuristic’ appearance; “The building should be a ‘futuristic’ design rather than something traditional. ‘Futuristic’ in the sense that it is innovative and forward-looking. The building should represent an international cause, different cultural backgrounds”. (Person 5)
“Building that blends into the landscape but reflects the 21st century, something a bit different. The Louvre is modern but has a resonance with the surrounding buildings”. (Person 3)
In these dialogues the users' descriptions of a building’s appearance were limited to one ‘construct’, the traditional-futuristic polemic and most peoples’ view was at either extreme. Here the vocabulary used was limited and the participants' understanding and familiarity with the language of architecture meant that they couldn't articulate their views on the appearance of buildings.
These comments illustrate not only differing views amongst those interviewed, which unsurprisingly were unrelated to a person’s disability, but also some difficulties for participants to verbally articulate their views and to share these with another person. Some terms used were ambiguous, without precise definition, ‘traditional’ and ‘futuristic’. One of the people interviewed was conscious of the deficiency but didn’t attempt to explain his interpretation of the term ‘traditional’. This observation highlights that dialogue and the exchange of concepts between designer and user can be limited by the use of common terminology, interpreted in the same way by all parties to the dialogue. A common vocabulary isn’t enough to share meaning, the constructs of the dialogue should be similar, demonstrating a level of understanding that extends beyond semantic correctness. This view parallels recent thinking in discourse analysis that the context of the dialogue has a bearing on the meaning of the exchanges as well as linguistic correctness (Jaworski and Coupland 1999).
A theme to be explored in greater detail by the author is the issue of 'common vocabulary'. The view of the author is that there are several 'languages' of architecture that can be used by an architect; architectonics, developed from semiotic theory (Mitchell 1999) the language of architectural form and also a 'coded language' used to discuss architectural theory. Although in linguistic terms architecture is not a language, the two 'languages of architecture' described won't be 'languages' the architect can share with most building users. The notion of an architect discussing a building with a future user using a common language is limited to everyday vocabulary and
Durling D. & Shackleton J. (Eds.) Common Ground : Design Research Society International Conference 2002, UK. ISBN 1-904133-11-8 9 mediating a meaning for specific terms through dialogue. This position will be developed further and is considered to parallel the doctor-patient model where there is also a knowledge and power imbalance and complex medical conditions are explained using 'everyday' language and a vocabulary, words with particular meanings, are developed through dialogue.
Conclusion This paper has drawn on interview data to observe the discussion of user needs during the dialogue between the architect and building users. The social process of dialogue facilitated the exchange of information and enhanced the designer's understanding of the needs and expectations of future building users. Several themes emerged from this review;
• That generalisation, extrapolating user preference to a broader population, should be approached with caution. • Tacit knowledge, giving insight into user experience of an environment, can be revealed through discussion. • Descriptive narratives and metaphors can reveal tacit knowledge. • Users suggesting 'solutions' can limit a design solution. • In some situations, discussing the appearance of the building, language use was limited and the absence of a common vocabulary or architectural language, limited the discussion to very basic constructs.
These observations of language use when gathering user need information have highlighted many factors associated with knowledge transfer between the user and designer, issues that prevent the extant transfer of knowledge. These observations are sympathetic with those of (Gill 1994) that design knowledge cannot be completely represented in a propositional, non-contextual form.
In epistemological terms different forms of user requirement knowledge has been revealed, created and exchanged (Polanyi 1966) (Nonaka 1994) during this process. The semi-structured interview revealed explicit and tacit knowledge through the social process of discussion. Explicit knowledge is readily available to designers in design codes and guides but the revealing of tacit knowledge is of particular value to the designer, knowledge that otherwise wouldn't be available. Without the ontological, social process of dialogue this knowledge would not have been transferred from the user to someone who may be able to use this knowledge for the users' benefit.
The last bullet-point observation is of particular interest as it illustrates that some concepts are difficult to discuss. Different knowledge and 'languages' used by the user and architect are suggested as reasons for the need to mediate the definition of specific terms through dialogue. Based on these observations more detailed discourse analysis, where the context, the social dimension and the situational meaning of a concept are considered is proposed for these data.
Durling D. & Shackleton J. (Eds.) Common Ground : Design Research Society International Conference 2002, UK. ISBN 1-904133-11-8 10 References
Cross, N., Ed. (1971). Design Participation: proceedings of the Design Research Society's Conference. Manchester, Academy Editions.
Finkelstein, V. (1993). The commonality of disability. Disabling barriers, enabling environments. J. Swain, Finklestein, V., French, S. and Oliver, M. London, Sage.
Fisher, N., N. Bowman, et al. (1999). Better briefing- Capturing user requirements for buildings, a clients' project definition tool. Reading, University of Reading.
Gill, S. P. (1994). Dialogue and Tacit Knowledge for Knowledge Transfer. Department of Experimental Psychology. Cambridge, University of Cambridge: 243.
Hasdogen, G. (1996). "The role of user models in product design for assessment of user needs." Design Studies(17): 19-33.
Hill, J. (1998). Occupying architecture- between the architect and the user. London, Routledge.
Imrie, R. (1999). "The role of access groups in facilitating accessible environments for disabled people." Disbaility & Society 14(4): 463 - 482.
Jaworski, A. and N. Coupland, Eds. (1999). The Discourse Reader. London, Routledge.
Lewin, K. (1946). "Action research and minority problem." Journal of Social Issues 2: 34-36.
Luck, R. (2000). Does inclusive design require an inclusive design process? Co-Designing 2000 Conference, Coventry University, Springer.
Luck, R., H. Haenlein, et al. (2001). "Project briefing for accessible design." Design Studies 22(3): 297-315.
Mitchell, W. J. (1999). "Architectonics of humanism: essays on number in architecture." Environment and Planning B-Planning & Design 26(5): 788-789.
Nonaka, I. (1994). "A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation." Organization Science 5(1): 14-37.
Polanyi, M. (1966). The Tacit Dimension. London, Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Sanoff, H. (1973). Integrating user needs in environmental design. Raleigh, North Carolina State University, National Institute for Mental Health.
Sanoff, H. (1988). "Community arts facilities." Design Studies 9(1): 25-39.
Sanoff, H. (2000). Community Participation Methods in Design and Planning. New York, John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Durling D. & Shackleton J. (Eds.) Common Ground : Design Research Society International Conference 2002, UK. ISBN 1-904133-11-8 11 Smith, C. P. (1992). Motivation and Personality: Handbook of Thematic Content Analysis. New York, University Press.
Strauss, A. and J. Corbin (1997). Grounded theory in practice. London, Sage Publications.
Taylor, G. (1999). "Empowerment, identity and participatory research: using social action research to challenge isolation for deaf and hard of hearing people from minority communities." Disability & Society 14(3): 369-384.
Teymur, N. (2002). "Book Review." Design Studies 23(1): 103-105.
Durling D. & Shackleton J. (Eds.) Common Ground : Design Research Society International Conference 2002, UK. ISBN 1-904133-11-8 12 Durling D. & Shackleton J. (Eds.) Common Ground : Design Research Society International Conference 2002, UK. ISBN 1-904133-11-8