This paper reports on recent experience of engaging with building users who have communication difficulties, as a potential part of client briefing. The users were residents of a specialist Scottish Housing Association (HA) providing social housing and care services; the residents having a wide range of complex needs, predominantly learning difficulties. Many of these residents have communication difficulties, ranging from mild to very severe. The challenge presented was to effectively engage with a representative sample of residents to ascertain how they value their living environment. The researchers’ involvement was based on prior research into how different participants engage in the architectural design process.
References
[1]
Kelly, J.R.; MacPherson, S.; Male, S. The Briefing Process: A Review and Critique; RICS: London, UK, 1992.
[2]
Tweed, C.; Wooley, T. User participation in design; Techniques for dialogue. Arch. Comport./Arch. Behav. 1992, 8, 253–264.
[3]
Jenkins, P.; Forsyth, L. Architecture, Participation and Society; Routledge: London, UK, 2010.
[4]
Scott, I. Designing learning spaces for children on the autism spectrum. GAP J. 2009, 10, 36–51.
[5]
Scott, I. Analysis of a project to design the ideal classroom undertaken by a group of children on the autism spectrum and students of architecture. Good Autism Pract. 2011, 1, 13–25.
[6]
Knowledge Transfer Projects (KTP)s are one to three year projects funded by the UK Government and other relevant research agencies and are set up between a company and a university, aiming to facilitate the transfer of knowledge and/or technology and the spread of technical and business skills to the company.
[7]
Jenkins, P.; Smith, H.; Pereira, M.; Challen, A. Underpinning reflective practice in social care and housing provision through collaborative knowledge exchange. J. Hous. Built. Environ. 2012. (forthcoming).
[8]
Murphy, J.; Cameron, L. The effectiveness of talking mats for people with intellectual disability. Br. J. Learn. Disabil. 2008, 36, 232–241, doi:10.1111/j.1468-3156.2008.00490.x.
[9]
Oliver, T.M.; Murphy, J.; Cox, S. ‘She can see how much I actually do!’ Talking Mats？: Helping people with dementia and family carers to discuss managing daily living. J. Hous. Care Support 2011a, 13, 27–35.
[10]
Oliver, T.M.; Murphy, J.; Cox, S. See what I think. J. Dement. Care 2011b, 19, 39.
[11]
Macer, J. Talking Mats: Training for care home staff. J. Dement. Care 2011, 19, 37–39.
[12]
Murphy, J.; Gray, C.M.; Cox, S.; van Achterberg, T.; Wyke, S. The effectiveness of the Talking Mats Framework with People with Dementia. Dement. Int. J. Soc. Res. Pract. 2010, 9, 454–472.
[13]
The term ‘learning disability’ has been used in literature quoted in this paper, although the term ‘learning difficulty’ is preferred, the former is used here only when referring to its use by others.
[14]
Macer, J.; Fox, P. The use of a low tech communication framework to facilitate annual GP health screening consultations: Supporting people with learning disabilities and mental health needs to express their views. Learn. Disabil. Pract. 2010, 13, 22–24.
[15]
Gillespie, A.; Murphy, J.; Place, M. Divergences of perspective between people with aphasia and their family caregivers. Aphasiology. 2010, 24, 1559–1575, doi:10.1080/02687038.2010.500810.
[16]
Boa, S.; Murphy, J. The Scottish—Chinese connection speech and language therapy bulletin. Learn. Disabil. Pract. 2010, 13, 22–24.
[17]
Cameron, L. Yes we can: Reflections on the speech and language therapy profession in Kenya. Speech and Language Therapy in Practice. 2010, 19–21.
[18]
Brewster, S. Putting words into their mouths? Interviewing people with learning disabilities and little/no speech. Br. J. Learn. Disabil. 2004, 32, 166–169, doi:10.1111/j.1468-3156.2004.00319.x.
[19]
Kelly, G.A. The Psychology of Personal Constructs; Norton: New York, NY, USA, 1955.
[20]
Stringer, P. Architecture, psychology the games the same. In Architecture, Psychology; Canter, D., Ed.; RIBA: London, UK, 1970.
[21]
Stringer, P. Repertory grids in the study of environmental perception. In Explorations in Interpersonal Space; Slater, P., Ed.; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1976.
[22]
Honickman, B. Construct theory as an approach to architectural and environmental design. In Explorations in Interpersonal Space; Slater, P., Ed.; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1976.
[23]
Aspinall, P.; Ujam, F. A projective approach to designing with children. Landsc. Res. 1992, 17, 124–131, doi:10.1080/01426399208706375.
[24]
It would obviously be impossible to use a visual-based technique such as Talking mats with those with severe visual impairment, however this issue was not a key focus on the study which was to test TM as an innovative technique for possible use by the HA with the majority of its service users/residents.
[25]
The researchers involved in the study worked under the research ethical guidance of their institutions. In addition the Housing Association had its own ethical guidance for staff and people accessing residents/service users, which were also complied with in the study.
[26]
Cameron, L.; Murphy, J. Views of young adults at the time of transition. Communication Matters J. 2001, 15, 31–32.
[27]
Cameron, L.; Murphy, J. Enabling young people with a learning disability to make choices at a time of transition. Br. J. Learn. Disabil. 2002, 30, 105–112, doi:10.1046/j.1468-3156.2002.00165.x.
[28]
Cameron, L.; Watson, J.; Murphy, J. Talking Mats: A focus group tool for people with learning disability. Communication Matters J. 2004, 18, 33–35.
