Absolutely! “Neuro-positionality” is a term I have coined to represent the synthesis of two key interdisciplinary concepts: “neurodiversity” and “positionality.” Neurodiversity, in a nutshell, is a way of conceptualizing psychological variation (the likes of autism, ADHD, antisociality, borderline personality, etc.) as more of a different way-of-being, rather than explicitly a disease to be cured. Positionality, in a nutshell, is a way of self-reflecting and introspecting about one’s own identity and life experiences in relation to the discursive systems that they interact with, rather than a prescriptive quality of oneself. Neuro-positionality, then, invites designers to self-reflect and introspect about their notions of the normality of their own mind – to question how and why they think the way they do, and to recognize/accept how those patterns of information processing may differ from others. Put differently, disability-accessible design under a neuro-positional framework must approach the information architecture of the mind as a primary consideration – one that preempts and transcends other cultural norms, including those of the designer themselves.
To that effect, here are some readings I would recommend:
Neurodiversity
Benham, J. L., & Kizer, J. S. (2016). Aut-ors of our experience: Interrogating intersections of autistic identity. Canadian Journal of Disability Studies, 5(3), 77. doi: 10.15353/cjds.v5i3.298
Heilig, L. (2020). Ways to move, ways to map: Neurodiversity in interaction design. (Doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University).
Yergeau, M. (2017). Authoring autism: On rhetoric and neurological queerness (thought in the act). Duke University Press.
Positionality
Alcoff, L. (1988). Cultural feminism versus post-structuralism: The identity crisis in feminist theory. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 13(3), 405–436. doi:10.1086/494426
Jones, N. N., Moore, K. R., & Walton, R. (2016). Disrupting the past to disrupt the future: An antenarrative of technical communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 25(4), 211-229. doi:10.1080/10572252.2016.1224655
gettog
1 year ago
Definitely a useful study, but from this, I don’t quite get a sense of what a “praxis of neuro-positionality in accessible design” might look like. Can you explain a bit more about what this might entail in practical terms? For example: how would this form be redesigned with your praxis in mind, do you think?
Practically speaking, neuro-positionality introduces two very important steps to the design process: (1) an almost autoethnographic self-interrogation of thinking and doing things with a given design and (2) the user-generated development of an alternative information architecture. I discuss this in greater detail in another comment, but I suspect that card-sorting may be a good way to visualize how neurodiverse patterns of information processing operate – or rather, a good way to allow those users to express how those patterns operate. Supplementary to card sorting, another technique may be helpful is journey mapping, albeit again with a focus on user-generated journeys rather than designer-conceived ones.
In the case of the SDS website, a neuro-positional redesign would, based on the results I had, do a few counterintuitive things. First, it would eliminate unnecessary freedom in the questionnaire – removing the ability to access the whole application at once, removing “Is there anything else you’d like us to know?” fields, and other instances of misinterpreted social pressure. Second, it would present open-ended opportunities to self-define disability status, rather than have it selected from a list. Third, it would reduce the reliance on, if not eliminate, the open-ended description of disability-related struggles and accommodations – instead allowing users to select from a predetermined list of challenges that are known to be culturally common, or even rate their degree of agreement/disagreement with said challenges. Finally, in the instances that open-ended questions could not be eliminated, it would rephrase those prompts to be fully “open” (i.e. “How does your disability make you feel in school?”) rather than specific in their request (i.e. “Tell me about a time your disability interrupted your ability to learn.”).
I was wondering if you could explain a little more about how these findings push back against the heuristics of “user control over system control” as a component of your critique of universal design. I get that the participants wanted pre-written options for the why of the accommodation instead of a text box, but that strikes me as a change that would follow the premise of universal design in that, I would imagine many users – including neuro-typical – would want that change.
Sure! Here is a more thorough overview of the two issue areas I identified:
User Control vs. System Control
In general, neurodiverse users did not want to be involved with controlling the system navigation, such as the progression freely from question to question, the choice of which questions to answer (or not answer), and the amount of detail to provide in the answers. Usually, neurotypical users would see those features as helpful, allowing them to complete the questionnaire however they see fit. However, rather than feel empowering or freeing as intended, these flexible design choices created an uncomfortable feeling of pressure and need-to-perform – merely the presence of a choice triggered the anxiety of making the “wrong” choice.
One of the more extreme examples of this phenomenon that arose was centered on the user’s ability to add additional information to a few questions through “Is there anything else you’d like us to know?” fields. These fields are conventionally considered a user-friendly design, in that they allow a questionnaire to account for edge cases and tangential (but important) information that may not be adequately addressed in prescribed questions. However, the neurodivergent users found these forms to be extremely distressing, and all of them struggled to come up with “something to say” in response to those fields, because they felt that they needed to do so.
Content Recognition vs. Information Recall
This issue area was more complex than an overarching preference for content recognition or information recall. In instances of self-identification (i.e., of disability status), the users wanted to recall information freely, rather than pick an identifier off a list. However, in instances of problem identification (i.e., of accommodations needed), the users wanted to just check a box or two. My interpretation of this result is that neurodiverse users are happy to talk about their disability when it is framed in a positive way, like self-identification, but less comfortable elaborating on the ways in which their disability inconveniences them.
Furthermore, the particular phrasings of these open-ended questions created an interesting problem unto itself. The prompts of the disability questionnaire were very direct and targeted, such as asking for specific instances in which the user’s disability interrupted their ability to learn. In general, this would make them well-designed questions with little room for misinterpretation of the prompts. However, the neurodivergent users expressed discomfort with these questions. The neurodivergent users found that the clarity of the question made it possible to get a “wrong answer,” so to speak. For example, one user specifically mentioned that “Tell me about your disability” would have been a desirable question.
dcard
1 year ago
Excellent research here, Ian! I’ve been reading a lot lately about “inclusive design” and see lots of resonance. How would you position the praxis of neuro-positionality relative to design and testing methods we as a field typically use? I.e., can we bring this framework to our existing toolkit? Relatedly, would love to hear any additional thoughts on design processes or results that successfully embrace difference in the way you advocate.
Yes, I am inclined to believe that the principles of neuro-positionality can be integrated into existing design practices, albeit with some caveats. For example, the framework of user-centered design tends to emphasize design choices that are most suitable for the end-user, even if these choices are not, necessarily, favorable in the designer’s own opinion. It seems intuitive that this concept can be applied to concerns of neurodivergent information processing, though it would necessitate a considerable amount of introspection and self-reflexivity. Ergo, it is not sufficient to simply ask “What does the user want/think/experience?” but rather ask “What are my wants/thoughts/experiences, and how do they differ from the user?” From this positionality, one can then apply open-ended response tools like think-aloud protocols, sentiment surveys, card sorting, etc. I think that the lattermost example has the most potential, as card-sorting allows users to create literal “maps” of their ideal information architecture – which should make it easier to visualize how neurodiverse information processing operates in a categorical sense.
You are also correct that the spirit of this work is resonant with the objectives of “inclusive design” and “design for everyone” and other similar phrases that occur in the literature of accessibility studies, though I am not quite satisfied with those terms. There is, ironically, a certain erasure of disability in this language of inclusion/universality, in that the framing of “everyone” defocuses the purpose of the work away from users with disabilities – it misses the point somewhat, in my view. While it is true that making quality-of-life improvements for people with disabilities often results in improving the world for everyone (most able-bodied people benefit from the elevators, automatic soap dispensers, smooth sidewalks with ramps, and other infrastructure improvements brought about by the Americans with Disabilities Act), I am not rhetorically satisfied with retroactively accommodating users with disabilities into the mishmash of “everyone.” I would instead prefer to focus on designing for people with disabilities in a way that places them at the forefront of the work, in both the design of the research and the discursive choices we make in communicating about it. This is particularly important for people with information-processing disorders because, as my results indicate, their design needs/preferences may not be structurally compatible with the needs/preferences of people without those conditions.
Yes, I feel the same dissatisfaction with the way “design for everyone” and UD are often deployed, but I’ve seen an interesting mix when it comes to “inclusive design.” In some cases it might as well be a synonym for universal design, but in others it would might be more appropriate to call it “exclusive design” — that is, designing exclusively for and with a particular group that experiences exclusion.
At any rate, there is a lot of important research to do in this area. I look forward to seeing more of your work in the future!
Thank you, Ian, for a useful case study. Can you please explain a bit more about the quantifiable results? For example, regarding the reactions of product reaction cards, what is the percentage of users who selected “simple” and “complicated” respectively? What are some of the other reactions?
ameliachesley
1 year ago
this is a fascinating pilot study. do you envision expanding this to gather data from more students about more universities’ disability services sites and processes? I could see this being so valuable and important to pursue and develop more widely.
Can you provide literature on neuro-positionalty that informs your study? It is interesting, and I would like to read more on this design approach.
Absolutely! “Neuro-positionality” is a term I have coined to represent the synthesis of two key interdisciplinary concepts: “neurodiversity” and “positionality.” Neurodiversity, in a nutshell, is a way of conceptualizing psychological variation (the likes of autism, ADHD, antisociality, borderline personality, etc.) as more of a different way-of-being, rather than explicitly a disease to be cured. Positionality, in a nutshell, is a way of self-reflecting and introspecting about one’s own identity and life experiences in relation to the discursive systems that they interact with, rather than a prescriptive quality of oneself. Neuro-positionality, then, invites designers to self-reflect and introspect about their notions of the normality of their own mind – to question how and why they think the way they do, and to recognize/accept how those patterns of information processing may differ from others. Put differently, disability-accessible design under a neuro-positional framework must approach the information architecture of the mind as a primary consideration – one that preempts and transcends other cultural norms, including those of the designer themselves.
To that effect, here are some readings I would recommend:
Neurodiversity
Benham, J. L., & Kizer, J. S. (2016). Aut-ors of our experience: Interrogating intersections of autistic identity. Canadian Journal of Disability Studies, 5(3), 77. doi: 10.15353/cjds.v5i3.298
Heilig, L. (2020). Ways to move, ways to map: Neurodiversity in interaction design. (Doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University).
Yergeau, M. (2017). Authoring autism: On rhetoric and neurological queerness (thought in the act). Duke University Press.
Positionality
Alcoff, L. (1988). Cultural feminism versus post-structuralism: The identity crisis in feminist theory. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 13(3), 405–436. doi:10.1086/494426
Jones, N. N., Moore, K. R., & Walton, R. (2016). Disrupting the past to disrupt the future: An antenarrative of technical communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 25(4), 211-229. doi:10.1080/10572252.2016.1224655
Definitely a useful study, but from this, I don’t quite get a sense of what a “praxis of neuro-positionality in accessible design” might look like. Can you explain a bit more about what this might entail in practical terms? For example: how would this form be redesigned with your praxis in mind, do you think?
I am interested in this question, as well. What “best design recommendations” would you provide to align with neuro-positionalty design?
Practically speaking, neuro-positionality introduces two very important steps to the design process: (1) an almost autoethnographic self-interrogation of thinking and doing things with a given design and (2) the user-generated development of an alternative information architecture. I discuss this in greater detail in another comment, but I suspect that card-sorting may be a good way to visualize how neurodiverse patterns of information processing operate – or rather, a good way to allow those users to express how those patterns operate. Supplementary to card sorting, another technique may be helpful is journey mapping, albeit again with a focus on user-generated journeys rather than designer-conceived ones.
In the case of the SDS website, a neuro-positional redesign would, based on the results I had, do a few counterintuitive things. First, it would eliminate unnecessary freedom in the questionnaire – removing the ability to access the whole application at once, removing “Is there anything else you’d like us to know?” fields, and other instances of misinterpreted social pressure. Second, it would present open-ended opportunities to self-define disability status, rather than have it selected from a list. Third, it would reduce the reliance on, if not eliminate, the open-ended description of disability-related struggles and accommodations – instead allowing users to select from a predetermined list of challenges that are known to be culturally common, or even rate their degree of agreement/disagreement with said challenges. Finally, in the instances that open-ended questions could not be eliminated, it would rephrase those prompts to be fully “open” (i.e. “How does your disability make you feel in school?”) rather than specific in their request (i.e. “Tell me about a time your disability interrupted your ability to learn.”).
Great. Thanks!
I was wondering if you could explain a little more about how these findings push back against the heuristics of “user control over system control” as a component of your critique of universal design. I get that the participants wanted pre-written options for the why of the accommodation instead of a text box, but that strikes me as a change that would follow the premise of universal design in that, I would imagine many users – including neuro-typical – would want that change.
Sure! Here is a more thorough overview of the two issue areas I identified:
User Control vs. System Control
In general, neurodiverse users did not want to be involved with controlling the system navigation, such as the progression freely from question to question, the choice of which questions to answer (or not answer), and the amount of detail to provide in the answers. Usually, neurotypical users would see those features as helpful, allowing them to complete the questionnaire however they see fit. However, rather than feel empowering or freeing as intended, these flexible design choices created an uncomfortable feeling of pressure and need-to-perform – merely the presence of a choice triggered the anxiety of making the “wrong” choice.
One of the more extreme examples of this phenomenon that arose was centered on the user’s ability to add additional information to a few questions through “Is there anything else you’d like us to know?” fields. These fields are conventionally considered a user-friendly design, in that they allow a questionnaire to account for edge cases and tangential (but important) information that may not be adequately addressed in prescribed questions. However, the neurodivergent users found these forms to be extremely distressing, and all of them struggled to come up with “something to say” in response to those fields, because they felt that they needed to do so.
Content Recognition vs. Information Recall
This issue area was more complex than an overarching preference for content recognition or information recall. In instances of self-identification (i.e., of disability status), the users wanted to recall information freely, rather than pick an identifier off a list. However, in instances of problem identification (i.e., of accommodations needed), the users wanted to just check a box or two. My interpretation of this result is that neurodiverse users are happy to talk about their disability when it is framed in a positive way, like self-identification, but less comfortable elaborating on the ways in which their disability inconveniences them.
Furthermore, the particular phrasings of these open-ended questions created an interesting problem unto itself. The prompts of the disability questionnaire were very direct and targeted, such as asking for specific instances in which the user’s disability interrupted their ability to learn. In general, this would make them well-designed questions with little room for misinterpretation of the prompts. However, the neurodivergent users expressed discomfort with these questions. The neurodivergent users found that the clarity of the question made it possible to get a “wrong answer,” so to speak. For example, one user specifically mentioned that “Tell me about your disability” would have been a desirable question.
Excellent research here, Ian! I’ve been reading a lot lately about “inclusive design” and see lots of resonance. How would you position the praxis of neuro-positionality relative to design and testing methods we as a field typically use? I.e., can we bring this framework to our existing toolkit? Relatedly, would love to hear any additional thoughts on design processes or results that successfully embrace difference in the way you advocate.
Thanks for sharing this important work!
Yes, I am inclined to believe that the principles of neuro-positionality can be integrated into existing design practices, albeit with some caveats. For example, the framework of user-centered design tends to emphasize design choices that are most suitable for the end-user, even if these choices are not, necessarily, favorable in the designer’s own opinion. It seems intuitive that this concept can be applied to concerns of neurodivergent information processing, though it would necessitate a considerable amount of introspection and self-reflexivity. Ergo, it is not sufficient to simply ask “What does the user want/think/experience?” but rather ask “What are my wants/thoughts/experiences, and how do they differ from the user?” From this positionality, one can then apply open-ended response tools like think-aloud protocols, sentiment surveys, card sorting, etc. I think that the lattermost example has the most potential, as card-sorting allows users to create literal “maps” of their ideal information architecture – which should make it easier to visualize how neurodiverse information processing operates in a categorical sense.
You are also correct that the spirit of this work is resonant with the objectives of “inclusive design” and “design for everyone” and other similar phrases that occur in the literature of accessibility studies, though I am not quite satisfied with those terms. There is, ironically, a certain erasure of disability in this language of inclusion/universality, in that the framing of “everyone” defocuses the purpose of the work away from users with disabilities – it misses the point somewhat, in my view. While it is true that making quality-of-life improvements for people with disabilities often results in improving the world for everyone (most able-bodied people benefit from the elevators, automatic soap dispensers, smooth sidewalks with ramps, and other infrastructure improvements brought about by the Americans with Disabilities Act), I am not rhetorically satisfied with retroactively accommodating users with disabilities into the mishmash of “everyone.” I would instead prefer to focus on designing for people with disabilities in a way that places them at the forefront of the work, in both the design of the research and the discursive choices we make in communicating about it. This is particularly important for people with information-processing disorders because, as my results indicate, their design needs/preferences may not be structurally compatible with the needs/preferences of people without those conditions.
Yes, I feel the same dissatisfaction with the way “design for everyone” and UD are often deployed, but I’ve seen an interesting mix when it comes to “inclusive design.” In some cases it might as well be a synonym for universal design, but in others it would might be more appropriate to call it “exclusive design” — that is, designing exclusively for and with a particular group that experiences exclusion.
At any rate, there is a lot of important research to do in this area. I look forward to seeing more of your work in the future!
Thank you, Ian, for a useful case study. Can you please explain a bit more about the quantifiable results? For example, regarding the reactions of product reaction cards, what is the percentage of users who selected “simple” and “complicated” respectively? What are some of the other reactions?
this is a fascinating pilot study. do you envision expanding this to gather data from more students about more universities’ disability services sites and processes? I could see this being so valuable and important to pursue and develop more widely.