This blog post is going to be talking a bit about the type of research I do in terms of how I do it and my overall approaches. I am going to be discussing two main topics which will be user centred design, and participatory research. I will also touch a bit on something called Crip Theory as part of providing some context but it won’t be the main topic of discussion. Hopefully this post will give you a bit of insight into the mentality I use when approaching my research and especially how I approach designing studies and working with participants.

So, as mentioned this post is a bit about the methods I use, or the ways I approach data gathering and how I design studies. That means these principles aren’t specific to my research topic of ADHD and digital accessibility, but the methods people use are often just as important as the topic in which they are being deployed.

To start let’s talk about user centred design. This concept is a fairly self-explanatory one as it basically means thinking about your users when you design something. This can look a few different ways depending on who you want your user to be. For some things you could have a very specific user group in mind, such as a special tool for industry to be used by highly trained professionals, or it might be something that is used by the general public as part of everyday life. Keeping these different groups of people in mind during your design process guides the choices that should be made, and in research it guides who we involve in our research and what needs we are thinking about. In the industry setting we might focus more on efficiency and how effective something is at completing its task, while in the general public we might be putting more focus on things being easier to use and understand.

The next aspect of this post is about participatory research, which isn’t always used in user centred design, but does compliment it quite well. Participatory research takes a similar approach in terms of identifying a user group and trying to keep them in mind as part of the research or design process. However, participatory research is more about the practical focus of how to achieve user centred design and essentially means involving your users directly. The way this is done can vary. It can be using surveys, focus groups, interviews or any number of methods, but the key consistency is that you are working directly with the people you want to support. The purpose of this approach is to ensure that your design isn’t based on assumptions or what people currently think in research but is rooted in working with the people who are going to use what you make or be impacted by it. So, to again use the industry specialist example, rather than assuming they will only care about the function and efficiency, participatory design might identify an extra consideration such as making sure it can be stored alongside other tools the professional might need. By using participatory approaches you don’t just get the core information of what you are doing, you also get the additional lived experience of the people you want to help and understand how they will use it, often leading to better designs.

So, at this point I have mainly talked about how we think about people when we design stuff, an interesting topic but also fairly surface level perhaps, which leads us to how Crip Theory comes in. Crip Theory has its roots in Queer Theory and feminist studies and essentially can be boiled down to thinking about how as a society we make assumptions. In Crip Theory the discussion focuses on how as a society we make an assumption of able-bodiedness and assuming everyone has the same level of capacity as each other. It describes how we have a preconception of what is normal, such as how heterosexuality and being cisgender are considered the norm in society, so too is being able-bodied. Crip Theory goes on to challenge this assumption in many ways but calls on us to consider that there is no normal standard and needs can vary considerably between different people. Assuming such a standard can be significantly detrimental to those in society who do not fit that norm one way or another. It is an important contribution to how we view the world we live in in both society and research and the way that world is designed for this hypothetical normal character.

So, now we have introduced this new lens to look at design through, how does it change the things we have already talked about?

Well, with our industry specialist, we have only been thinking about how a tool needs to work. We might have gained some extra considerations through participatory approaches about how they need to use it, but who is our participant that has given us this insight? Is it someone who is fit and average height, someone who can stand up for an hour or two without any issue, someone who has no issues maintaining focus? All these things can often be assumed in the design process, even when using a participatory approach. Unless we imagine a more diverse user in our initial user centred design considerations, it is very hard to envision how they fit in. And this is not limited to disability with even gender having an impact in terms of who we assume is doing what job and what we assume their body looks like. Take for example someone who is short who works in a lab. Lab benches are often designed for an average height man, and therefor someone who is shorter has difficulty performing standard tasks due to not being able to easily reach everything they might need.

The reason this matters, and I am writing about it, is that in our society we have spent years designing things for this mythical average person who doesn’t really exist. A lot of people can still use things, but overall it leads to many things being inaccessible to large groups of people.

So, how do we fix it? Well, we do what we have been doing already, but with a twist. We look at our scenario, we look at our anticipated user, and then we add an extra step and consider what different needs might they have. This could be done by looking at existing research on accessibility and usability to gain an understanding. My preferred method however is by reaching out to currently marginalised users and learning about their experiences to understand how we can better design for them going forward. This is the reason that my own research works specifically with users with ADHD to understand their experiences and understand what about current design doesn’t work for them, and what does. By using this approach, we ensure we can include that group meaningfully and ensure their voices are heard and considered when we are making things for them. Taking this approach is especially important in research around designing for users with ADHD, as much of the existing work focuses on teachers and parents rather than actual users with ADHD.

Given the incredible diversity of people and needs within our society, making anything which considers and works for each individual is challenging, if not impossible, when considering the conflicts in access needs for different disabilities. However, if our design processes seek out as many different types of people as possible, and importantly remain open to feedback, we can reduce the barriers experienced by those with disabilities and from other marginalised communities. By making these values a core part of our design process, we can grow beyond our imagined “normal user” and focus on making our designs and our research, beneficial to all in our society.