A Framework for Transitioning Designerly Ways: Interrogating 50 Years of Inclusive Design for Paediatric Mobility

Figures & data

Figure 1. Three predominantly used Inclusive Design approaches (Clarkson and Coleman 2015).

Table 1. Classification of IPM design contributions.

Interventional	Theoretical	Methodological	Empirical
New or improved products, services, systems, or artefacts. I.1 - Intervention was implemented or commercialized. I.2 - Intervention remained a concept or prototype.	T - Conceptual models, frameworks, policies, principles or important variations on those that already exist (e.g. disability studies).	M - Novel or refined methodologies, methods, processes, or techniques with sufficient detail to be replicated by others.	E - Data sets, surveys, arguments or findings based on empirical research which reveal formerly unknown insight and analysis of behaviours, capabilities, or interactions with interventions.

Table 2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Inclusion criteria	Exclusion criteria
Contributions from 1970 onwards (The field of IPM design field emerges soon after this time).	Interventions which do not provide a means of independent mobility (e.g. passive mobility via attendant).
Functionally novel or significant designerly contributions (i.e. excluding incremental updates and copycat products)	Contributions which lack record of the context of their creation.
Contributions relating to or developed for at least one child aged ≤18 years with a mobility disability.	Studies involving only non-disabled/fully mobile children or adults.
The development of technologies and gadgets specifically for the IPM field.	Non-English language publications with no English translation available.

Table 3. Contribution analysis objectives translated into high-level questions.

Objective	Question
Investigate levels and types of design contributions.	What is the type of design contribution? i.e. I.1, I.2, T, M, E (CLASSIFICATION)
Investigate if design contributions have increased/decreased/fluctuated/remained constant throughout history.	When have designerly contributions been made to the field of IPM? (YEAR)
Investigate the balance of contributions from stakeholder groups and explore diversity of perspectives and types of contribution.	Which discipline or stakeholder group does the contribution come from? (CONTRIBUTOR)
Investigate where in the world IPM contributions have come from and reasons why.	Where have designerly contributions been made to the field of IPM? (GEOGRAPHY)
Investigate the design approach used and if/how this influences the commercial success or impact of the contribution.	Which inclusive design approach has been used to develop it - User Aware, Customizable/Modular or Special Purpose (DESIGN APPROACH)

Figure 2. Reflection-for-Transition framework of Designerly Ways.

Figure 3. Illustrative map of designerly contributions in IPM between 1970 and 2020, based on type of contribution and contributor’s stakeholder group(s).

Figure 4. The disciplinary data integration spectrum (Jensenius 2012).

Figure 5. Reflection-for-Transition framework of Designerly Ways; 50 years of IPM Design.

Clarkson, J., and R. Coleman. 2015. “History of Inclusive Design in the UK.” Applied Ergonomics 46 (B): 235–247. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2013.03.002.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Jensenius, A. R. 2012. “Disciplinarities: Intra, Cross, Multi, Inter, Trans”. Accessed 05 May 2020. http://www.arj.no/2012/03/12/disciplinarities-2/

 Google Scholar