Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
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.
Edwards et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: