Staging co-design processes for self-care technologies

Søsser Brodersen; Hanne Lindegaard

doi:10.1080/15017419.2015.1127286

Staging co-design processes for self-care technologies

Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research

Volume 18 (2016): Issue 4

By: Søsser Brodersen and Hanne Lindegaard

Open Access

|Jan 2016

Abstract

Many new healthcare technologies are currently being implemented in people's homes in order to facilitate self-care. Socially innovative design is challenging, since it requires an intimate understanding of people's abilities and daily practices. In this article, we highlight the need to perform field studies in people's homes and discuss how to stage design processes with people who are actually going to use the self-care technologies – not only end-users, but also other actors, such as relatives, caregivers, and municipality and company staff. Specifically, we describe how challenges associated with inscribing self-care into healthcare technologies can be overcome by staging co-design processes.

References

Akrich, M. 1992. “The Description of Technical Objects.” In Shaping Technology/Building Society, edited by W. E. Bijker, and J. Law, 205–224. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Archer, B. 1965. Systematic Method for Designers. London: COID.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Archer, B. 1969. “The Structure of the Design Process.” In Design Methods in Architecture, edited by G. Broadbent, and A. Ward, 76–102. London: Lund Humphries.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Barnes, C. 1996. “Disability and the Myth of the Independent Researcher.” Disability and Society 11 (1): 107–112. doi: 10.1080/09687599650023362
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Brandt, E., M. Johansson, and J. Messeter. 2005. “Design Lab – Re-thinking What and How to Design.” In Design Spaces, edited by T. Binder, and M. Hellström, 34–43. Finland: IT-Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bratteteig, T., and J. Gregory. 2001. “Understanding Design.” The Information Systems Research Seminar in Scandinavia, Ulvik, Norway: IRIS 24.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Brodersen, S., M. Hansen, and H. Lindegaard. 2015. “Script of Healthcare Technology – Do Design of Robotic Beds Exclude or Include the Users?” Design Issues 31 (2), 16–28. doi: 10.1162/DESI_a_00319
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Brodersen, S., and H. Lindegaard. 2013. “Ability or Disability – Design for Whom?” Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research. doi:10.1080/15017419.2013.803499.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bury, M. 2000. “On Chronic Illness and Disability.” In Handbook of Medical Sociology. 5th ed. edited by C. E. Bird, P. Conrad, and A. M. Fremont, 173–183. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Clausen, C., and Y. Yoshinaka. 2007. “Staging Sociotechnical Spaces: Translating Across Boundaries in Design.” Journal of Design Research 6 (1–2), 61–78.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Cowan, R. 1987. “The Consumption Junction: A Proposal for Research Strategies in Sociology or Technology.” In The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, edited by W. Bijker, T. Hughes, and T. Pinch, 254–272. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Cross, N. 1980. The Recent History of Post-Industrial Design Methods. London: The Design Council.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Cross, N., ed. 1984. Developments in Design Methodology. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Easton, K. 1993. “Defining the Concept of Self-Care.” Rehabilitation Nursing 18 (8), 384–387.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Finkelstein, V. 2001a. A Personal Journey into Disability Politics. The Disability Studies Archive UK, Centre for Disability Studies: University of Leeds. http://www.independentliving.org/docs3/finkelstein01a.pdf. Accessed December 21, 2015.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Finkelstein, V. 2001b. The Social Model Repossessed. The Disability Studies Archive UK, Centre for Disability Studies, University of Leeds. http://disability-studies.leeds.ac.uk/files/library/finkelstein-soc-mod-repossessed.pdf.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
George, J. B. 1980. Nursing Theories. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ghislaine, M. L. 2001. “Hospital Beds by Design: A Socio-Historical Account of the ‘King's Fund Bed’, 1960–1975.” Ph.D. Thesis, University of London.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hanlon, G., T. Strangleman, J. Goode, D. Luff, A. O'Cathain, and D. Greatbatch. 2005. “Knowledge, Technology and Nursing: The Case of NHS Direct.” Human Relations 58 (2): 147–171. doi: 10.1177/0018726705052179
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Høst, M., and Jensen, L. 2012, Spring. Badelift til kørestolsbrugere. Bachelorproject, Technical University of Denmark.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Law, J. 1994. Organizing Modernity. Oxford: Blackwell.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lie, M., and Sørensen, K. H. 1996. Making Technology our Own? Domesticating Technology into Everyday Life. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Mort, M., C. May, and T. Williams. 2003. “Remote Doctors and Absent Patients: Acting at a Distance in Telemedicine?” Science, Technology and Human Values 28 (2): 274–295. doi: 10.1177/0162243902250907
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Moser, I. 2006. “On Becoming Disabled and Articulating Alternatives.” Cultural Studies 19 (6): 667–700. doi: 10.1080/09502380500365648
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Namioka, A., and Schuler, D. 1990. “Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility.” PDC ‘90: Proceedings of the Participatory Design Conference, Palo Alto.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Oliver, M. 1990. “The Individual and Social Models of Disability.” Paper presented at the Joint Workshop of the Living Options Group and the Research Unit of the Royal College of Physicians on People with Established Locomotor Disabilities in Hospitals, July 23.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Oliver, M. 1992. “Changing the Social Relations of Research Production.” Disability, Handicap, and Society 7 (2): 101–114. doi: 10.1080/02674649266780141
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Oliver, M. 1997. “Emancipatory Research: Realistic Goal or Impossible Dream?” In Doing Disability Research, edited by C. Barnes, and G. Mercer, 15–31. Leeds: The Disability Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Oliver, M. 2004. “If I had a Hammer: The Social Model in Action.” In The Social Model of Disability – Theory and Research, edited by C. Barnes, 7–12. Leeds: The Disability Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Orem, D. (1991). Nursing Concepts and Practices. 4th ed. St. Louis, MO: Mosby-Year Book.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Oudshoorn, N., M. Brouns, and E. van Oost. 2005. “Diversity and Distributed Agency in the Design and Use of Medical Video-Communication Technologies.” In Inside the Politics of Technology, edited by H. Harbers, 85–105. Amsterdam: University Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Regeringen, K., and Regioner, D. 2013, September. Digital Velfærd: En Lettere Hverdag – Fællesoffentlig Strategi for Digital Velfærd 2013–2020.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Rose, D. 2001. “Reconceptualizing the User(s) of – and in – Technological Innovation: The Case of Vaccines in the United States.” In Technology and the Market: Demand, Users and Innovation, edited by R. Coombs, K. Green, A. Rich-ards, and W. Walsh, 68–89. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Sanders, E., and P. J. Stappers. 2008. “Co-creations and the New Landscapes of Design.” Co-Design 4 (1): 5–18.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Silverstone, R., D. Morley, A. Dahlberg, and S. M. Livingstone. 1989. “Families, Technologies, and Consumption: The Household and Information and Communication Technologies.” CRICT discussions paper, Brunel University.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Sørensen, R. 2013. “Velfærdsteknologi – Status og strategi.” Paper presented at Boligkonferencen 2013 Tilgængelighed og implementering af velfærdsteknologi 27. August 2013, Hotel Scandic, Vejle. Socialstyrelsen.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Star, S. L. 1991. “Power, Technologies and the Phenomenology of Conventions: On Being Allergic to Onions.” In A Sociology of Monsters? Essays on Power, Technology and Domination. Sociological Review Monograph 38, edited by J. Law, 26–57. London: Taylor & Francis.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Steen, M., Kuijt-Evers, L. and Klok, J. 2007. “Early User Involvement in Research and Design Projects – A Review of Methods and Practices.” Paper from 23rd EGOS (European Group for Organizational Studies) Colloquium, Vienna.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Thomas, C. 2004. “How is Disability Understood? An Examination of Sociological Approaches.” Disability and Society 19 (6): 569–583. doi: 10.1080/0968759042000252506
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Williams, S. 1999. “Is Anybody There? Critical Realism, Chronic Illness and the Disability Debate.” Sociology of Health and Illness 21 (6): 797–819. doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.00184
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15017419.2015.1127286 | Journal eISSN: 1745-3011

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 354 - 368

Submitted on: Jun 4, 2015

Accepted on: Nov 30, 2015

Published on: Jan 4, 2016

Published by: Stockholm University Press

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Keywords:

Self-care,

staging design processes,

healthcare technologies,

co-design

© 2016 Søsser Brodersen, Hanne Lindegaard, published by Stockholm University Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Volume 18 (2016): Issue 4