Contextualism and the emancipatory view of knowledge

Contextualism is an epistemological framework that regards knowledge and knowledge attribution as context specific. In other words, whether somebody is regarded as knowing something depends on the context in which they are placed. “In epistemology, ‘contextualism’ denotes a wide variety of more-or-less closely related positions according to which the issues of knowledge or justification are somehow relative to context” (DeRose, 1999, p. 187). This type of framework is key to voicing the experiences of disabled people, who regardless of their actual knowledge and experience, are often “dismissed on the basis of their perceived incapacity… and those of people with learning difficulties of the basis of their perceived intellectual deficiencies” (Mercer, 2004).

When working with disabled and non-verbal people as co-producers it is necessary to identify means by which mutual experience might be communicated and shared with the least possible ambiguity. This research uses approaches drawn from Intensive Interaction, a practical approach designed for use with people with learning disabilities and people with multi-sensory impairments. Central to Intensive Interaction is that the “teacher person builds the content and flow of activity by allowing the learner basically to lead and direct, with the teacher responding to and joining in with the behaviour of the learner” (Intensive Interaction Institute, 2017). Over the course of this research disabled C-Ds were regularly consulted as primary sources of feedback about the design process, progress and viability of their BMIs. At each stage of design, verbally and gesturally related ideas, drawings and models were shared with C-Ds who were asked to state their likes and dislikes, and to indicate their personal preferences towards design

68 development. These consultations were undertaken in the presence of familial and/or professional primary care and support givers. By working closely with C-Ds over time in this manner, and by further regular communication and creative interaction with C-Ds at JOS music sessions, relationships of mutual trust, understanding and appreciation developed. A shared language of non-verbal expression and signage developed by process of interpersonal experience.

Where ambiguity about the expressed meaning of non-verbal participants arose for any reason, or in cases of disagreement between participants about assumed meaning, then C-Ds were centrally involved in discussions and contributed towards resolve. In instances where additional clarifications were required, C-Ds’ familial or key care workers, or JOS appointed BMI project liaisons were consulted for second opinion. During process when no clear and mutually agreeable sign of affirmation was given by non-verbal C-Ds questions were reframed or approaches modified. As all participating C-Ds were able to express discernible facial and bodily gestural signs, their co-creative input into the design process was assured.

An ongoing process of increasing familiarisation, mutual awareness and confidence building by association of shared intent and purpose produced a language based in shared experience between all members of the C-D team.

This process applied to relationships and interactions between disabled and non-disabled project participants alike. Whist the prime focus of the research centred on intensive interactions with the disabled BMI C-Ds, communications with non-disabled participants were often non the less complex and difficult to determine. To maximise potentials for accuracy of interpretation and understanding I have used multiple data sets gathered in a variety of contexts in order to minimise ambiguity and corroborate agreement by providing means for triangulation. The production of each BMI included input from an interdisciplinary design team centred on each BMI C-D. Each team was unique though with some overlaps. Team members were invited and recruited from a variety of social, academic, professional and creative contexts that enabled a broad scoping of information and viewpoints to be revealed and recorded.

69

2.1.3. Evaluating an emancipatory research project

Noel’s (2016) evaluation of supposedly emancipatory design initiatives reveals that projects which purport to benefit the socially disadvantaged are not always emancipatory. This makes the case for developing criteria against which a project claiming to be emancipatory can be evaluated. I have isolated two such sets of criteria drawn from the different fields of disability, and design research, and have amalgamated them into a list of criteria that provides a thorough and rigorous aid to the evaluation of this research. Stone and Priestly’s (1996, pp.

10-11) criteria focus on emancipatory research in the disability sector. Noel’s (2016, p. 4) criteria are specific to design research, and linked to emancipatory theory’s ontological, epistemological, and methodological assumptions. I have amalgamated and adapted Stone and Priestly’s and Noel’s criteria here into the following set of principles, which have informed my research design.

• I have undertaken this research in the belief that it will be of practical benefit to the self-empowerment of disabled participants, and towards the removal of disabling barriers for individual participants and disabled people generally (Stone & Priestly, 1996).


• The research aims to facilitate the voice of individual disabled participants, whilst giving focus to the collective political commonality of individual disabled people’s experiences (Stone & Priestly, 1996).


• The research is accountable primarily to disabled participants, and to their familial and professional care and support networks and organisations (Stone & Priestly, 1996).


• I have used the social model of disability as the knowledge basis for research production (Stone & Priestly, 1996).


• The research uses multiple methods of data collection and analysis in response to the needs of disabled participants (Stone & Priestly, 1996).

• The language of the research seeks to be grounded in shared experiences of participants (Noel, 2006).

• Disabled participants and researchers interact as co-designers. People at the periphery of the research are invited, encouraged and facilitated

70 to play an active and equal co-productive role in the creation of knowledge (Noel, 2006).

• The research makes no claim to objectivity, in being committed to the struggles of disabled participants towards their self-emancipation (Stone & Priestly, 1996).

• As researcher I have considered and accepted how my knowledge and personal viewpoint may be construed as representing a dominant group of non-disabled people. I have therefore devised my research methods to facilitate, acknowledge and include the voice of disabled participants as being equal to any other and central to their BMI design (Noel, 2006).

• I have attempted to be aware of and sensitive to the personal, social and historical contexts of the environments in which my research is grounded, and to approach my research interventions in manner sensitive to issues which may potentially arise within these contexts (Noel, 2006).

71 2.2. Design principles

Whilst the emancipatory research paradigm has underpinned this research, a number of related design principles have influenced my approaches to the production of the Bespoke Music Instruments. In this section, I give an overview of those design principles, and state how they have influenced the direction of the work.