DeafSpace and the principles of universal design

Abstract

Purpose: Recent debates about the epistemological origins of Universal Design (UD) have questioned how far universalist design approaches can address the particularities and diversities of the human form through a series of standardised, technical responses. This article contributes to these debates by discussing an emergent architectural paradigm known as DeafSpace, which articulates a set of design principles originating from the d/Deaf community in the US. Method: Commentary. Results: DeafSpace has emerged as a design paradigm rooted in an expression of d/Deaf cultural identity based around sign language, rather than as a response designed to compensate for, or minimise, impairment. It distinguishes itself from UD by articulating a more user-centred design process, but its principles are arguably rooted in notions of d/Deaf identity based around consensus and homogeneity, with less attention paid to the socio-political contexts which shape diverse experiences of d/Deafness and the exclusion(s) of d/Deaf people from the built environment. Conclusions: While proponents of DeafSpace argue that UD and DeafSpace are not mutually exclusive, nor DeafSpace principles applicable only to d/Deaf people, questions remain about the type of spaces DeafSpace creates, most notably whether they lead to the creation of particularist spaces of and for the d/Deaf community, or reflect a set of design principles which can be embedded across a range of different environments.

Implications for Rehabilitation

• UD as a basis for rehabilitation has been critiqued on the basis that creates “standardised”, or universal solutions, thus negating the particularities of the human form.

• DeafSpace is an architectural paradigm rooted in socio-linguistic understandings of Deafness and the cultural identity of the Deaf community. It challenges UD’s technocratic emphasis on minimising impairment and asserts design which is rooted in a more qualitative understanding of individuals’ relationship with their environment.

• DeafSpace seeks to place the user more centrally in the design process and draw on the experiential knowledge of (Deaf) users. However, it has less to say about the often exclusionary socio-political relations which underlie the built environment and shape the diverse experience of deafness.

• DeafSpace raises questions about how the needs of particular groups can be met through UD principles and in turn whether DeafSpace principles lead to the creation of separate spaces for the D/deaf community.

• Architecture
• cultural identity
• deafness
• DeafSpace
• universalism

Acknowledgements

This article is a revised version of a presentation made at the 1-d seminar, Understanding Universal Design held at King’s College London, 19 April 2013. We would like to thank all the seminar organisers and participants for the very helpful discussion of the ideas set out in the article. We would also like to extend our appreciation to Hansel Bauman for his willingness to share and discuss his understanding of the DeafSpace concept with us.