The dissertation is about how designers create things for
blind people to make their day to day life more easier and to compare why
designers do not take into consideration of the blind when designing new things
(buildings, public spaces, products).
Please come up with a question as the title of this
dissertation, check page 4 below for guidance.
(e.g. how can we design a city with the blind in mind)
Reference everything under the Harvard method!
An
argumentative-styledwriting (debates/opinions involved) and challenging topics
to be covered with the writer’s choice.
Some questions are below to
consider perhaps?
Intelligent design is done by blind people.
Why is braille the only option for blind people as
most blind people cannot read braille
How can we design with the blind in mind
How does blind people help the world in design?
Blind Privilege – why blind people use their
disability to help the world
Inclusive design makes better and easier living
The blindness of a non-blind person
Aesthetics of the city, objects, surrounding and how
Non-blind people only consume the aesthetics aspects and neglect the depth of
these things
How blind people use their other sense and non-blind
people don’t use them but only rely mostly on sight
Are blind people much more superior designers as
they can see things from a different perspective (using their other senses that
a non-blind will not be able to use)
Do we include and consider blind people when we
design things (e.g. public transport, navigating and getting around a shop)
As a designer, Do we focus on aesthetics over the
function and other purposes of a product/concept.
We are becoming a generation that focuses on the
visual appeal on things, but where does that leave blind people?
Why are blind people
suffering around the world?
How can designers
improve the life of blind people?
Why are non-blind
people not doing much about this?
Why is designing for
blind people neglected and not considered?
The suffering of blind
people and why normal people are ‘blind to the suffering’ ?
blind vs non blind
– how there is seperation between blind people
and non blind
– social unacceptable that blind people face
– mental health of a blind person
– children being blind and their life of
struggle
– being blind is seen as a curse in some
countries perhaps like Pakistan and India
– how designers can help blind people with a
better living
– why we dont consider blind people when
designing and why we are so artificial and superficial when designing
products/lifestyle
– why we always focus on aesthetics and the
physical looks of things over function and depth
Keywords to give an idea
about my topic/discussion in my dissertation:
Inclusive design
Blind people
Visual impairment (colour blind, partially blind,
fully blind)
Movement around space
Senses
Non Blind VS Blind people
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTERS (main body of text)
CONCLUSION
BIBLIOGRAPHY (not included in word count)
MUST
Include literature text or case studies
Everything must be Harvard referenced
and IN-TEXT CITATION.
40 reference plus
A+, A High standard of writing
My brief is
followed below with some examples of text.
Choosing a Thesis Topic (and Defining a Research Question)
Your topic will become your ‘research question’.
The subject you pick must in some way connect to the area of art, design and
visual culture. Consider your subject very carefully; it needs to hold your
interest over several months! Many students make false starts at the proposal
stage by choosing subjects that are too big, too vague or too complex. Students
may also start by picking subjects that aren’t realistically researchable
because of a lack of reliable data. You need to consider what resource
materials will be available to you (finding this out will be part of your
proposal research). Do not rely on personal experience for information. Your
tutor will help you refine your topic area.
Your choice of topic will be assessed in the
marking of your final Thesis. The key points are focus and challenge. A strong
topic might receive the comments: Topic
well focused and intellectually challenging. Choice of topic suggests
considerable critical awareness and understanding.
A weak topic might receive this: Topic limited in approach, purely
descriptive, lacking an issue based subject OR inappropriately ambitious.
Examples of Problematic Research Questions
1. What is
the history of pattern in design?
The question is too broad to be manageable. This is the subject of a very large
book (at least). All this could achieve is a superficial potted history that
wouldn’t allow for any analysis or critical engagement of your own. If the problem with this topic is that it is
too broad then it needs to be made more specific. Better examples could be:
Can the revival of pattern in design be considered postmodern?
Or
How did postwar British textiles reflect the era?
Or
Wearing Dutch Wax: an expression of African authenticity or colonial
legacy?
2. Should
printmakers be environmentally aware?
This question is too narrow. The answer is presumably “yes”. Any question that has
an easily available -or obvious – right answer falls into the ‘too narrow’
category. In this example it may be
that the basic topic area is fine but that the question needs to be made more
interesting. You may think if your general topic area is fine but the title
isn’t right yet there’s nothing to worry about.
This is a mistake because your question should drive your research and structure
your Thesis/case. A better example could
be:
What are the implications for environmentally sound printmaking?
This kind of Thesis question would probably
involve a substantial amount of self-directed primary research; a thorough
investigation of materials, an understanding of what aspects of printmaking
have environmental implications (and what these precisely are), an
investigation into the technical research and development by manufacturers to
address the issues, case studies and so on. After considering exactly what kind
of research you will need to do to answer your question you may decide that you
are unable to take it on.
When developing a research question you need to
work out all the different, relevant factors
that will inform a convincing analysis. In other words you need to break your
question or topic down into sub-questions. These sub-questions will then help
you form the structure of the Thesis.
Further Modifying Your Topic
You will continue to modify your topic
throughout the research process. How you modify your topic will depend on:
Whether there is
too much information
Whether there is
too little information
Whether new issues
arise in the research process that need to be addressed
If you want to change topic radically (i.e. not
just a minor re-focusing within the original topic) after the proposal has been
signed off you must go through the proposal stage again i.e. submit a written
proposal for approval by your tutor.
Check List for Choosing a Topic
Have you chosen a
topic which will hold your interest for a sustained period?
Do you know what
the current issues relating to this topic are?
Have you found out
who the leading experts / key writers are in this field and what reviews of the
topic already exist?
Do you have the
support of your supervisor for your topic?
Where are you
going to find the appropriate background reading and other sources of
information you need for this topic?
Have you checked
their availability?
Are you going to
do primary research? What access do you
have to your area of interest?When are you going to do it? Have you discussed the practicality of it
with your supervisor?
Have you a clearly
articulated position which you aim to test? (if appropriate)
Are you sure that
your topic is sufficiently focused?
Does it respond to
a question and/or present an argument?
Have you a clear,
manageable research question?
Week 2
Writing
a
Literature Review
Why
do you need to review the literature for your thesis?
A review of the
literature has the following functions:
·
To justify your choice of
research question, theoretical or conceptual framework, and method
·
To establish the importance
of the topic
·
To provide background
information needed to understand the study
·
To show readers you are
familiar with significant and/or up-to-date research relevant to the topic
·
To establish your study as
one link in a chain of research that is developing knowledge in your field
The review
traditionally provides a historical overview of the theory and the research
literature, with a special emphasis on the literature specific to the thesis
topic. It serves as well to support the argument/proposition behind your
thesis, using evidence drawn from authorities or experts in your research
field.
Your
review of the literature may be
·
stand-alone, or
·
embedded in the
discussion, or
·
segmented into a series of
chapters on several topics
The review must be
shaped by a focus on key areas of interest, including research which provides a
background to the topic (depending on whether it is for an Honours thesis or
for a PhD). It should also be
selective. A common mistake in writing the review is to comment
on everything you have read regardless of its relevance. In your writing it is
useful to think of the
review as a funnel – start wide with the overview and then
quickly narrow into discussing the research that relates to your specific
topic.
·
Another way of looking at
the process, particularly if you are examining several topics (or variables),
is to think of yourself as a film director (Rudestam and Newton, 1992). You can
think of providing your audience with:
·
long shots to provide a solid sense of the background
·
middle distance shots where the key figures and elements to be examined are
brought clearly into view
·
close-up shots where the precise focus of your work is pinpointed
‘Literature’ can
include a range of sources:
·
Journal articles
·
Monographs
·
Computerized databases
·
Conferences proceedings
·
Dissertations
·
Empirical studies
·
Government reports and
reports from other bodies
·
Historical records
·
Statistical handbooks
A number of these
may be on the web. You should approach such material with the same critical eye
as you approach printed material.
Example Literature Reviews
Example 1
Literature Review ‘Face Hair, Gender and Agency’, Dene October 2009
With
the growing importance gender theorists attach to practices of body
adornment, it is hardly surprising that men’s shaving ephemera and
advertising,
of
the nineteenth
and twentieth centuries, is undergoing re-evaluation
in terms of its connection to the construction of masculinity.
In
an attempt to highlight the complicated relationship
between reading shaving promotions and the practice
and performance
of gender,
rather
than assume the inescapability of dominant
gender ideologies,
some
studies have focused
on
concordance
(Condit,
1994). This approach stresses the shared interests
of
producers,
consumers
and
disseminators
of
face-hair
promotions,
in shaping
cultural
values
as well
as fashions.
Much
of the early work on masculinity emphasised the dominance of social regulations.
Bourdieu’s
(1984/2001)
work on habitus was marked by his insistence that pre-linguistic codes and
patterns locked gender participants into (what appear as) ‘natural’ ways of thinking
and feeling (le sens pratique), symbolism
which he claims proves resistant to post-modem
language games. Gender hegemony can be said to rely on the repetition of
patterns.
Butler’s
(1990)
work
on performativity, has
evolved over several
books
to
underline
the
importance of
agency in evaluating
gender.
For
Butler,
it is the very repetition of repeat acts that provides the
potential
forradicalization and gender reform. Drawing on such
thinking,
Connell
(1995)
focuses on the practices of so-called subordinate and plural masculinities.
This
change of focus from disenabling to enabling agency, has permitted
an opportunity to review men’s readership of fashion promotion.
Body-related
messages from the early twentieth century clearly reflect
cultural
values of class and masculinity (Breward, 1990) but how the readership reacts to
these messages
is
now
made
a subject
of
debate.
Consumption
may
include
creative reinterpretation
of
gender practices, if not radical challenge.
For
example, Beechy (2000) has studied, how some subcultural
responses
to female facial
hair invest it with new symbolic meaning, celebrating rather than concealing
its transformative potential. October (2008) looks at how, during the cultural
shift
from barbershop
to domestic shaving, codes of hegemony as masculinity begin to break down amid
the increase in competitive promotional imagery.
October’s
work
makes use of Marchand’s (1985) study of
American
advertising during
the
early
half
of
the
Twentieth
century
as
well
as
Frank’s
(1997)
argument
that
countercultural
influences
worked
on
Madison Avenue at the same time as they
did on subcultural groups like the Beatniks and Hippies. Hence October
concentrates on
the transgressive challenge of face hair fashions to the modem clean-cut
look —
an
emblem of hegemonous masculinity — concluding that variety and domestic experimentation
permitted men to ‘play at transgressing gender restraints’.
Although
October’s
work argues that consumer and producer were in concordance
in bringing
to the fore manifestations of plural masculinities in shaving promotions, it is also
evident that
there
remains a powerful
dimension
to gender
that
makes
agency problematic
(what Butler
describes as a regulatory
framework).‘
For
example, despite
Beechy’s
claims,
female
face hair
remains a taboo subject, one which cosmetics producers resource and police
in
the design
of their
promotions. Clearly there is scope for research that:
—
is based more on women’s shaving practices and products over the same period
as October’s
study;
—
operates with a stronger focus on the complexity
of gender’s
regulatory
frames;
—
identifies cultures whose face hair imagery
and
customs
are at odd to emerging globalised images;
—
emphasises the output of a specific brand over several decades;
—
involves
a closer analysis
of a particular subculture’s mixture of face hair and other fashions.
Bibliography
Beechy,
D A 2004 How Facial
Hair Influences
Women’sEveryday
Experiences,
Unpublished
PhD thesis,
Centre
for Humanistic Studies, Farmington, Michigan Bourdieu,
P
1984
Distinction:
A
Social
Critique
of
the
Judgement
of
Taste
Cambridge:
Harvard
UP
Bourdieu,
P
2001 Masculine
Domination
Cambridge:
Polity
Breward,
C
1995 The Culture
of
Fashion:
A
New History
of
Fashionable
Dress
Manchester
University Press
Butler,
J
1990 Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity London:
Routledge
Condit
C M 1994.
Hegemony
in
a mass-mediated
society:
Concordance
about
Reproductive
Technologies
in
Critical Studies
in Mass Communication, issue 77 pp. 205-230
Connell,
R
W 1995
Masculinities
University
of
California
Press
Frank,
T
1997 The
Conquest
of
Cool:
Business
Culture,
Counterculture,
and
the
Rise
of
Hip Consumerism University
Of Chicago
Press
Marchand,
R 1985 Advertising
the
American
dream:
Making
Way
for
Modernity,
1920-1940
University
of California Press
October,
D
2008 The Big
Shave:
Fashions
In
Modern
Male
Facial
Hair
in BiddlePerry &Cheang
[Eds] Hair: ‘Styling,
Culture
and
Fashion.London:
Berg
Notes
In
the
literature
review
above,
I
refer
to myself
in
the
third
person.
This
is
only
because
I
wanted
to give
a sample
of
what
your
review
might
look
like.
If
I was
writing
this
for
a publication,
I
would refer
to my
previous
work
in
the
first
person.
Note
the way
that
paragraphs
deal
with information
provision,
starting
with
a wide
relationship
to the themes
and
concluding
with
targeted
and focused
information.
This
could
be
likened
to an upside-down
pyramid,
which
delivers
information
down
gradually
from
a
wide
base
to
a
specific
point.
Note
the
way that
each
paragraph
deals
with
a
unit
of
logic.
Each
might
be
summarised
as’
follows:
a)
gender:
hegemony
or
concordance?
b)
contemporary
theories
on
masculinity
c)
how
an
account
of
‘agency’
effects
theories
of
consumption
d)
summary
of October’s
study
(ie
any
reading
that
is
particularly
recent
or
valuable
to
you)
e)
the
problems
of
the
previous
approach
and
your opportunities.
Even
if you
don’t
fully understand
what the
text
is
about,
read
the
review
a few times;
try
and
get
feel for its rhythm and organisation. Maybe it just doesn’t
appeal.
After
all,
it
is
only
one way
to
write
a literature
review.
Example 2
Language and Gender: a brief literature
review
Source: http://ecdev.hku.hk/acadgrammar/litrev/examples/litex3.htm
Here is an example of a Literature
review, on the subject of Language & Gender. It was written
by Alastair Pennycook, as an example for his students.
TASK:
1.
Work out
•
the comparison the writer establishes in the review
•
the sequence to his review (why that sequence?)
•
what the writer’s own perspective is
2.
Note
•
the use the writer makes of each
of the sources he refers to
•
how, in his language particularly, he avoids a “black and
white”, right/wrong type of judgement of the positions he reviews
LANGUAGE AND GENDER: A brief Literature Review
With the general
growth of feminist work in many academic fields, it is hardly surprising that
the relationship between language and gender has attracted considerable
attention in recent years. In an attempt to go beyond
“folklinguistic” assumptions about how men and women use language
(the assumption that women are “talkative”, for example), studies
have focused on anything from different syntactical, phonological or lexical
uses of language to aspects of conversation analysis, such as topic nomination
and control, interruptions and other interactional features. While some
research has focused only on the description of differences, other work has
sought to show how linguistic differences both reflect and reproduce social
difference. Accordingly, Coates (1988) suggests that research on language and
gender can be divided into studies that focus on dominance and those that focus
on difference.
Much of the
earlier work emphasized dominance. Lakoff’s (1975) pioneering work suggested
that women’s speech typically displayed a range of features, such as tag
questions, which marked it as inferior and weak. Thus, she argued that the type
of subordinate speech learned by a young girl “will later be an excuse
others use to keep her in a demeaning position, to refuse to treat her
seriously as a human being” (1975, p.5). While there are clearly some
problems with Lakoff’s work – her analysis was not based on empirical research,
for example, and the automatic equation of subordinate with `weak’ is
problematic – the emphasis on dominance has understandably remained at the
centre of much of this work. Research has shown how men nominated topics more,
interrupted more often, held the floor for longer, and so on (see, for example,
Zimmerman and West, 1975). The chief focus of this approach, then, has been to
show how patterns of interaction between men and women reflect the dominant
position of men in society.
Some studies,
however, have taken a different approach by looking not so much at power in
mixed-sex interactions as at how same-sex groups produce certain types of
interaction. In a typical study of this type, Maltz and Borker (1982) developed
lists of what they described as men’s and women’s features of language. They
argued that these norms of interaction were acquired in same-sex groups rather
than mixed-sex groups and that the issue is therefore one of (sub-)cultural
miscommunication rather than social inequality. Much of this research has
focused on comparisons between, for example, the competitive conversational style
of men and the cooperative conversational style of women.
While some of
the more popular work of this type, such as Tannen (1987), lacks a critical
dimension, the emphasis on difference has nevertheless been valuable in
fostering research into gender subgroup interactions and in emphasizing the
need to see women’s language use not only as ‘subordinate’ but also as a
significant subcultural domain.
Although Coates’
(1988) distinction is clearly a useful one, it also seems evident that these
two approaches are by no means mutually exclusive. While it is important on the
one hand, therefore, not to operate with a simplistic version of power and to
consider language and gender only in mixed-group dynamics, it is also important
not to treat women’s linguistic behaviour as if it existed outside social
relations of power. As Cameron, McAlinden and O’Leary (1988) ask, “Can it
be coincidence that men are aggressive and hierarchically-organized
conversationalists, whereas women are expected to provide conversational
support?” (p.80). Clearly, there is scope here for a great deal more
research that
is based on empirical data of men’s and women’s
speech;
operates with a complex understanding of power
and gender relationships (so that women’s silence, for example, can be seen
both as a site of oppression and as a site of possible resistance);
looks specifically at the contexts of language
use, rather than assuming broad gendered differences;
involves more work by men on language and gender,
since attempts to understand male uses of language in terms of difference have
been few (thus running the danger of constructing men’s speech as the ‘norm’
and women’s speech as ‘different’);
aims not only to describe and explain but also to
change language and social relationships.
References
Cameron,
D., F. McAlinden and K. O’Leary (1988). “Lakoff in context: the social
and linguistic function of tag questions.” In J. Coates and D.
Cameron (op. cit.). pp. 74-93.
Coates,
J. and D. Cameron (Eds.) (1988) Women in their speech communities.
Harlow: Longman.
Coates,
J. (1988). Chapter 6: “Introduction.” In J. Coates and D. Cameron
(op. cit.) pp. 63-73.
Lakoff,
R. (1975) Language and Woman’s Place. New York: Harper and Row
Maltz,
D.N. and R.A. Borker (1982). “A cultural approach to male-female
miscommunication.” in J. Gumperz (Ed.), Language and socialidentity.
Cambridge: Cambridge U.P.
Tannen,
D. (1987). That’s not what I meant. London: Dent.
Zimmerman,
D. & C. West (1975) “Sex roles, interruptions and silences in
conversation” in B. Thorne & N. Henley (Eds.) Language and sex:
difference and dominance. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.
Introducing the Author
to the Reader
Examples
of introducing the author to the reader, so the reader knows that the author
knows who they are talking about.
Signal
Phrases: Using a clear introductory phrase before all quotations; introduce
the author thoroughly (use full name and establish credentials) the first
time the source is used.
Example:
Ryan
Barthe, professor of sociology at NYU, claims weak gun laws will lead to
greater lawlessness: “An increase in handguns will results in more senseless
deaths.” (Author Date Page citation)
Example:
In
his seminal work on Second Amendment rights, Harvard scholar Herbert Miles
claims, “America is founded on the idea of personal defense” (Author Date
Page citation)
Example:
Walter
Carter and Mark Smith, staff reporters for The Economist, argue that “defense
of the home begins in the home” (Author Date Page citation) Quotations: Using the exact words from
a text
Example:
Gary
Miles indicates that, “public schools represent a key blind-spot for law
enforcement because of the relative helplessness of the students” (Author
Date Page citation)
Example:
A
recent study by civil rights attorney Jonathan W. Grimes shows the problems
with such a limited perspective:
Yes,
children can be taught to respect (and even to avoid) guns, but not all parents
are equally responsible in teaching such respect. The problem lies with
liability: if my child is visiting your house, you are legally responsible
for his safety, and it’s not my job to teach him to respect the firearms
stored in your closet. (Author Date Page citation)
If
a portion of the text has been removed, ellipsis marks (. . . if the omission
is within a sentence; . . . . if the omission crosses over sentences) are
used to indicate the omission.
Example:
Controversial director Michael Moore insists, “The NRA needs to be held
responsible . . . for the deaths of these children. . . . They supported the
legislation, after all.” (Author Date Page citation)
If
the original source contains a grammatical error, follow the error with
[sic]
.
Example:Margaret
Taylor claims, “These permits are a rite [sic], not a privilege.”(Author Date
Page citation)
From:
KYLE BISHOP
http://www.suu.edu/hss/english/writingcenter/pdf/updated/MLA%207th%20Citations.pdf
Week 3
Overview of CTS 2 Research Methods Seminars
During Year Two during your
Options you have looked at the following list of Research Methods. You should
consider these when writing your Thesis Proposal to help you with the
methodology section. You should consider how these different methods might help
you to answer your research question. Not all of the methods listed here will
be useful for your thesis and there might be other methods and approaches not
listed here that might also be useful for your particular study.
An introduction to Design Research
Methods
Methods,
methodologies, ontology and epistemology, defining key terms and concepts
Quantitative
and qualitative analysis (textual, image etc…)
Reading:
Boradkar, P. (2010) “Theorizing Things:
Disciplinary Diversity in Thinking about Objects”, Designing Things: A Critical Introduction to the Culture of Objects.
Available at: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DrAKE8XRlEsC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
Blaxter, L., Hughes, C. and Tight, M. (2010) “How
to Research” Maidenhead: Open University Press, pp. 99 – 133
Questionnaires,
Interviews, Focus group (Ethical
Debates)
Key words,
calculative options, opinion quantification, social science methods
Reading:
Gregory,
I. (2003) “Ethics in research” London: Continuum
Edwards,
R. and Holland, J. (2013) What is
qualitative interviewing? Bloomsbury. Available at: http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/3276/1/complete_proofs.pdf
The Case Study (chose whichever
are appropriate for your option)
Historical
trajectory, present position, implications for the future
Reading:
Riley, R. (2015) Reflections on research
through design: the evolution of science studies in material thinking.
Available at: https://www.materialthinking.org/papers/209
Explore Design Research Society
proceedings, papers and reports online: http://www.designresearchsociety.org
Using Online Sources and Archives
Resources:
http://www.arts.ac.uk/study-at-ual/library-services/collections-and-archives/
http://www.bfi.org.uk/archive-collections/searching-access-collections/archive-resources-online
Visual Ethnography (Participant
Observation)
Reflectivity/reflexivity,
observation, documentation, anthropological analysis
Reading:
Pink, S.
(2001) “Doing Visual Ethnography: images, media and representation in
research” London: Sage
Explore Visual Ethnography Journal. Available
at: http://www.vejournal.org/index.php/vejournal
Spradley,
JP. (1980) Participant Observation.
Long Grove, Illinois: Waveland Press, inc.
Oral Histories and Soundscapes
Community
narratives, public history
Reading:
Perks, R.
and Thomson, P. (2006). The Oral
History Reader. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.
Explore
British Library oral history archive and London
China Town Oral History Project. Available at: http://www.london-chinatown.org.uk/home/mission-statement,
Cities and Memory: global collaborative sound project
Identity Discourse
Constructing gender and identity in
discourse analysis
Reading:
Ehrnberger, K., Räsänen, M., & Ilstedt, S. (2012) “Visualising Gender Norms in Design: Meet the Mega Hurricane Mixer and
the Drill Dolphia” Dec 20. International Journal of Design
[Online] 6:3. Available at: http://www.ijdesign.org/ojs/index.php/IJDesign/article/view/1070/531
Watch:
Psychogeography (Experiential
Research)
Situationists movement, derive, Guy Debourd and contemporary
influences
Reading:
Debord, Guy (1958) The Theory of The Dérive Available
at: http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/2.derive.htm
Plant, S. The Most Radical
Gesture Available at:
http://www.geog.leeds.ac.uk/people/a.evans/psychogeog.html
Wood, D. “Lynch Debord: About Two Psychogeographies”, Cartographica (volume 45, issue 3),
pp. 185–200 Available at: http://www.deniswood.net/content/papers/Carto45_3_003.pdf
Situationist website www.nothingness.org
The post Dissertation Writing Services- Blind People and Design: An Architectural and Design Thesis appeared first on Precision Essays.
