To consider the problem of how we can avoid stigma and broadened the normality area I think it is good to write a bit about how I understand stigma and normality.
Stigma occurs when a person feels ashamed or hopeless because of an attribute that person possesses. People with impairments and disabilities can often relate to this since other people sometimes or often label them after their illness. Stigma is different depending on the environment that a person is in. For example, a person with a physical impairment is probably not stigmatized in an environment with other physical impaired people.
Normality is what is to be considered normal by the majority of the population. As with stigma, normality is different depending on the environment or the circumstance. A person can be considered normal in most cases, but might be abnormal in other cases. For example, a person in a wheelchair might be considered normal while talking to someone over the phone because the person on the other end is unaware of the impairment. At the same time, the person probably is viewed upon as abnormal while riding the bus because the person might require special help in order to get on board on the bus.
In my opinion broadening of normality results in avoidance of stigmatization because if anything is to be considered normal, nothing can cause stigma. However, avoidance of stigmatization does not necessarily mean that the normality area has been broadened. People can still have the same misconceptions about illness or whatever the circumstance is, even if the stigma around it is gone. To try to come up with an answer to this problem I have chosen to look closer into people that have physical impairments that require them to use a wheelchair.
I do not think it is an easy task to design things in a way that they are completely destigmatized for people with a special condition. Lars told an example in one of the lectures we had and if I remember correctly it was about a kid that had to use a mini elevator in order to move up and down to different levels at the same floor in a building. This elevator was designed in a way that made it look cool, which led to that other kids wanted to use it as well. It is a perfect example of how you can use design in order to avoid stigmatization. However, I think it is easier avoid stigmatization when the design is meant for kids. Intuition tells me that a design that is cool in childrens’ eyes is most likely awkward if used for a grown up. I am not denying that design looks is important to grown ups as well, but I feel like the functionality of the tool is more of importance. For example, if a grown up were to use the same elevator as the kid in the previous example, it is probably more important that it not takes more than 20-30 seconds to use and less important how it looks.
Because of the fact that stigma is caused by the norms in the society I think it is important to remember that what appears to be a good design for one person might not be for another. Design should be used as tool to make people feel included most of the time. There are many real life examples where design is used to make people feel included. We have several times talked about how a person in a wheelchair often times have to enter a building on the backside. Ramps are sometimes installed so that people in wheelchairs can use them, and I do not know why it is not installed in every building that hosts some kind of events. As long as it is physically possible I think whether or not a ramp should be installed is a no-brainer. It would not be stigmatizing for a person in a wheelchair, since people without impairments can also use the ramp. Neither does the ramp require supervision when someone uses it, nor does it take significant extra time in comparison to just walk up the stairs. In general, a tool that is developed to help a person should be easy to use. If the tool is to difficult to use or understand it is possible that it will cause even more stigma. A tool should not extend the process of what intends to do by a significant amount of time, if possible, in comparison to how other people perform the same task.
There is obviously no perfect recipe for a good design. I think questioning the social norms is a must in order to get a more broadened normality area. A good example is to raise awareness of what impairments do to people. For example, when I was in elementary school we had a day where we could try wheelchairs and other types of equipment. It was of course hard for me to use a wheelchair, but after a few hours of training I felt more and more comfortable. We have to realize that people with physical impairments are capable of doing regular things.
During one of the lectures someone mentioned that Special Olympics and the Olympic Games are not played at the same date, which obviously is true. I think this is one of many problems that directly increases stigmatization. Why would you not schedule Special Olympics and the Olympic Games at the same time? Is it too much? Would the event become too big? I highly doubt that, but I do not have an answer. If that was the case I would argue that it would be better to merge the Special Olympics and the Olympic Games but instead have two events over four years. Another possibility would be to still have an event every four year, but instead extend the time period for the event.
As a conclusion: I think it is important to make people with impairments feel included so that they can have a nice life experience without having to worry about stigma and normality every day.
Non-excluding Design 