Client Briefing: Eliciting Design Preferences from Building Users with Communication Impairments
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Overview of Activity
1.2. Summary of Client and Research Team
1.3. Background to the Experimental Knowledge Capture Process
1.4. Background to Methods Used: Talking Mats and Semi-Structured Questionnaire
- (1) Satisfied
- (2) Quite satisfied
- (3) Ambivalent
- (4) Quite dissatisfied
- (5) Dissatisfied
- (1) Name 3 things you like about your: living room; kitchen; bathroom; garden
- (2) Name 3 things you don’t like about your: living room: kitchen; bathroom; garden
- (3) Name 3 things you would liketo have in your: living room; kitchen; bathroom; garden
- (4) Name 3 things you like to do in your: living room; kitchen; bathroom; garden
National Care Standards | Care Commission Grades | UDSET toolkit for Service Users | UDSET toolkit for Carers | Scottish Government National Outcomes |
---|---|---|---|---|
Dignity | Quality of Care and Support | Feeling Safe | Maintaining Health and Well-being | Improved Health |
Privacy | Quality of Environment | Having Things To Do | Life of their Own | Improved Well-being |
Choice | Quality of Staffing | Seeing People | Positive Relationship with Service User | Social Inclusion |
Safety | Quality of Management and Leadership | Staying Well | Independence and Responsibility | |
Equality & Diversity | Living Life As You Want | |||
Realising Potential | Living Life As You Want | |||
Dealing with Stigma |
2. Results and Discussion: Knowledge Capture
2.1. Sample of Participants and Research Implementation
- (1) Representation across the previous knowledge capture sample in the KTP, taking into consideration the most commonly cited impacts concerning changes to the built environment and their locations.
- (2) Degree of communication difficulty.
- (3) Project geographical location.
ServiceUsers | S/U: Level of communication difficulty | S/U Condition | Scale applied | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
low | medium low | medium | medium high | high | Living Room | kitchen | bathroom | garden | ||
3 | 1 | Mild learning difficulties | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | ||||
4 | 1 | Cerebral palsy and mild learning difficulties | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | ||||
1 | 1 | Moderate learning difficulties | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | ||||
9 | 1 | Moderate learning difficulties | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | ||||
7 | 1 | Cerebral palsy and mild learning difficulties | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | ||||
8 | 1 | Moderate learning difficulties | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | ||||
5 | 1 | Severe learning difficulties | 3 | 5 | 3 | 3 | ||||
6 | 1 | Severe learning difficulties | 3 | n/a | 3 | 3 | ||||
2 | 1 | Down’s syndrome and severe learning difficulties | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | ||||
10 | 1 | Severe learning and physical difficulties | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | ||||
Total | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
- (1) There was an inevitable pre-determination of key issues by the research team in the selection of some Talking Mats symbols. Given the nature of Talking Mats this is unavoidable but this initial use of the mats has led to recommendations (see Section 5—key conclusions and recommendations) on a revised set of symbols. Methods of vocabulary selection in using Talking Mats can be based on literature searches [18] but also conversations with staff [26,27] and focus group interviews [28]. All of these methods were employed in the previous stage of the KTP, with which all the researchers were involved;
- (2) In asking the questions/presenting Talking Mat symbols, the two interviewers were careful to do this in as neutral a manner as possible, albeit expanding upon issues when this seemed necessary to ensure interviewee understanding;
- (3) Any assistance from staff members to the service users in helping the latter understand the questions was noted, given the communication difficulties in each case, and care taken to avoid added interpretation as best as possible;
- (4) When noting responses to the questions asked, the research team also attempted to record as accurately as possible the response in a short sentence, as close as possible to the actual verbal response. It is recognized that in each of the 4 instances above some form of interpretation of service users’ understanding was involved—however the team endeavored to avoid this skewing results. In practice it would be ideal to undertake the exercise more than once to see if the responses vary—and if they do vary, attempt to understand why. Also, inevitably the first use of a system such as this may elicit unusual responses. Some of these issues could be reduced by a regular program of service user interaction using the same techniques over time.
- (1) Only use a three point scale—ignoring the smaller number of respondents who used a five point scale and putting all responses on a three point scale; (1 satisfied; 2 ambiguous; 3 dissatisfied);
- (2) Use a three and a five point scale—map the three point scale on to the five point scale assuming the greatest variation; (1 satisfied; 3 ambiguous; 5 dissatisfied);
- (3) Use a three and a five point scale—map the three point scales onto the five point scales assuming the lowest variation; (2 quite satisfied; 3 ambiguous; 4 quite dissatisfied).
- (1) Satisfied
- (2) Quite satisfied
- (3) Ambiguous
- (4) Quite dissatisfied
- (5) Dissatisfied
2.2. Method for Analysis of Responses
- (1) Identifying the three options service users were most satisfied with and the three options service users were least satisfied with, for each location. (E.g, livingroom; kitchen; bathroom; and garden).
- (2) Analysing respondents’ overall combined Talking Mat scores for all four locations.
- (3) Comparing respondents’ overall combined Talking Mat scores for all four locations for participants living in community homes, (six in number) with participants living in individual homes (four).
- (4) Comparing respondents’ overall combined Talking Mat scores for all four locations in relation to levels of communication difficulty. (E.g, low/medium low; medium and high/medium high levels of communication).
3. Experimental Section: Findings
3.1. Findings from Talking Mats
3.2. Findings from the Questionnaire
3.3. Comparing Findings
Service User | S/U: Level of communication difficulty | Number of questions | Number of responses | Corresponding option | No appropriate option | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
low | medium low | medium | medium high | high | |||||
3 | 1 | 45 | 26 | 21 | 3 | ||||
9 | 1 | 45 | 23 | 18 | 5 | ||||
1 | 1 | 45 | 22 | 18 | 4 | ||||
4 | 1 | 45 | 21 | 15 | 4 | ||||
6 | 1 | 45 | 20 | 14 | 1 | ||||
8 | 1 | 45 | 18 | 13 | 2 | ||||
5 | 1 | 45 | 15 | 10 | 3 | ||||
7 | 1 | 45 | 15 | 9 | 2 | ||||
10 | 1 | 45 | 15 | 12 | 3 | ||||
2 | 1 | 45 | 8 | 8 | 0 | ||||
Total | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 450 | 183 | 138 | 27 |
Percentage | 75% | 15% |
3.4. Overall Findings
4. Conclusions
4.1. Findings of Relevance to the Specific Case Study
4.2. Findings of Wider Relevance
References and Notes
- Kelly, J.R.; MacPherson, S.; Male, S. The Briefing Process: A Review and Critique; RICS: London, UK, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Tweed, C.; Wooley, T. User participation in design; Techniques for dialogue. Arch. Comport./Arch. Behav. 1992, 8, 253–264. [Google Scholar]
- Jenkins, P.; Forsyth, L. Architecture, Participation and Society; Routledge: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Scott, I. Designing learning spaces for children on the autism spectrum. GAP J. 2009, 10, 36–51. [Google Scholar]
- 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. [Google Scholar]
- 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.
- 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). [Google Scholar]
- Murphy, J.; Cameron, L. The effectiveness of talking mats for people with intellectual disability. Br. J. Learn. Disabil. 2008, 36, 232–241. [Google Scholar]
- 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. [Google Scholar]
- Oliver, T.M.; Murphy, J.; Cox, S. See what I think. J. Dement. Care 2011b, 19, 39. [Google Scholar]
- Macer, J. Talking Mats: Training for care home staff. J. Dement. Care 2011, 19, 37–39. [Google Scholar]
- 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. [Google Scholar]
- 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.
- 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. [Google Scholar]
- Gillespie, A.; Murphy, J.; Place, M. Divergences of perspective between people with aphasia and their family caregivers. Aphasiology. 2010, 24, 1559–1575. [Google Scholar] [Green Version]
- Boa, S.; Murphy, J. The Scottish—Chinese connection speech and language therapy bulletin. Learn. Disabil. Pract. 2010, 13, 22–24. [Google Scholar]
- Cameron, L. Yes we can: Reflections on the speech and language therapy profession in Kenya. Speech and Language Therapy in Practice. 2010, 19–21. [Google Scholar]
- Brewster, S. Putting words into their mouths? Interviewing people with learning disabilities and little/no speech. Br. J. Learn. Disabil. 2004, 32, 166–169. [Google Scholar]
- Kelly, G.A. The Psychology of Personal Constructs; Norton: New York, NY, USA, 1955. [Google Scholar]
- Stringer, P. Architecture, psychology the games the same. In Architecture, Psychology; Canter, D., Ed.; RIBA: London, UK, 1970. [Google Scholar]
- Stringer, P. Repertory grids in the study of environmental perception. In Explorations in Interpersonal Space; Slater, P., Ed.; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1976. [Google Scholar]
- 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. [Google Scholar]
- Aspinall, P.; Ujam, F. A projective approach to designing with children. Landsc. Res. 1992, 17, 124–131. [Google Scholar]
- 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.
- 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.
- Cameron, L.; Murphy, J. Views of young adults at the time of transition. Communication Matters J. 2001, 15, 31–32. [Google Scholar]
- 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. [Google Scholar]
- Cameron, L.; Watson, J.; Murphy, J. Talking Mats: A focus group tool for people with learning disability. Communication Matters J. 2004, 18, 33–35. [Google Scholar]
Appendices
Aspects of Place Experience | KPI | Frequency | |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Sunny/ daylight | Health & Well-Being | 8 |
2 | Decoration | Quality of Environment (QOE) | 6 |
3 | Safety | Safety | 6 |
4 | Access to garden | Choice | 5 |
5 | Spaciousness | Dignity | 5 |
6 | Peace & Quiet | Dignity | 4 |
7 | Privacy | Privacy | 4 |
8 | Modern Design | QOE | 4 |
9 | View of Garden | Well-Being | 3 |
10 | Noise | Dignity | 3 |
11 | Tidiness | Dignity | 3 |
12 | Cleanliness | Dignity | 3 |
13 | Internal access | Dignity | 3 |
14 | Garden Quality | QOE | 3 |
15 | Comfort | Well-Being | 2 |
16 | Fresh air | Well-Being | 2 |
17 | Wildlife | Well-Being | 1 |
18 | Wind & Rain | Well-Being | 1 |
19 | Vandalism | Dignity | 1 |
20 | Normality | Dignity | 1 |
21 | Insects in garden | Safety | 1 |
22 | Vehicle access | Independence | 1 |
23 | Personal care | Dignity | 1 |
Elements | KPI | Frequency | |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Shower | Health & Well-Being | 8 |
2 | Seating | Well-Being | 5 |
3 | Bath | Health & Well-Being | 5 |
4 | Planting indoors | QOE | 5 |
5 | Pictures | Choice | 4 |
6 | BBQ | Choice | 4 |
7 | Garden Furniture | Well-Being | 4 |
8 | Chair lift/ hoist | Well-Being | 4 |
9 | Kitchen cupboards | QOE | 3 |
10 | Kettle | Well-Being | 3 |
11 | Lights | QOE | 3 |
12 | Tables | Well-Being | 3 |
13 | Decking | QOE | 3 |
14 | Garden planting | QOE | 3 |
15 | Broken elements (TV/ Window) | QOE | 3 |
16 | Flooring | QOE | 2 |
17 | Windows | QOE | 2 |
18 | Toilet facilities | QOE | 2 |
19 | Hanging flower baskets | QOE | 2 |
20 | Kitchen sink (good size) | QOE | 2 |
21 | Grab rails | Safety | 2 |
22 | Curtains | Privacy | 1 |
23 | Rug | QOE | 1 |
24 | Cooker | QOE | 1 |
25 | Microwave | Choice | 1 |
26 | WC | Health & Well-Being | 1 |
27 | Cushions | QOE | 1 |
28 | Washing line | Independence | 1 |
29 | Old fashioned design | QOE | 1 |
30 | Anti-slip mats | Safety | 1 |
31 | Book case | QOE | 1 |
32 | Light cord switch | QOE | 1 |
33 | Window blinds | Well-Being | 1 |
Activities | KPI | Frequency | |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Watching TV/ DVD | Choice | 13 |
2 | Eating// Drinking | Well-Being | 12 |
3 | Listening to music | Well-Being | 10 |
4 | Cooking/ Baking | Independence | 10 |
5 | Cleaning | Dignity | 9 |
6 | Sitting in the garden | Well-Being | 7 |
7 | Having a BBQ | Well-Being | 5 |
8 | Relaxing | Well-Being | 4 |
9 | Arts & Crafts | Well-Being | 4 |
10 | Singing/ Dancing | Well-Being | 2 |
11 | Computer Games | Choice | 2 |
12 | Talking to Friends | Social Inclusion | 2 |
13 | Not watching TV | Choice | 1 |
14 | Going to bed | Health & Well-Being | 1 |
15 | Loading dishwasher | Dignity | 1 |
16 | Dining | Health & Well-Being | 1 |
17 | Exercise | Health | 1 |
18 | Sewing | Independence & Responsibility | 1 |
19 | Gardening | Independence & Responsibility | 1 |
© 2012 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).
Share and Cite
Jenkins, P.; Scott, I.; Challen, A. Client Briefing: Eliciting Design Preferences from Building Users with Communication Impairments. Buildings 2012, 2, 83-106. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings2020083
Jenkins P, Scott I, Challen A. Client Briefing: Eliciting Design Preferences from Building Users with Communication Impairments. Buildings. 2012; 2(2):83-106. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings2020083
Chicago/Turabian StyleJenkins, Paul, Iain Scott, and Andy Challen. 2012. "Client Briefing: Eliciting Design Preferences from Building Users with Communication Impairments" Buildings 2, no. 2: 83-106. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings2020083