Mostrar el registro sencillo del documento

Prototipos y Toolkits: herramientas de la investigación en diseño para facilitar la participación de niños y niñas con discapacidades cognitivas

dc.rights.licenseReconocimiento 4.0 Internacional
dc.contributor.advisorSarmiento Pelayo, Martha Patricia
dc.contributor.authorVillamizar Portilla, Laura Natalia
dc.date.accessioned2022-03-17T17:54:24Z
dc.date.available2022-03-17T17:54:24Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositorio.unal.edu.co/handle/unal/81274
dc.descriptionilustraciones, fotografías, graficas
dc.description.abstractEsta investigación explora, a través de un estudio de caso, cómo el diseño participativo puede ser de valor en la participación social, teniendo en cuenta el uso de herramientas del diseño usadas para develar conocimiento sobre los significados creados en la interacción entre usuarios y artefactos, como una contribución de valor a la investigación en diseño. Este estudio cualitativo explora el papel del prototipado y de los kits de herramientas para facilitar la participación de niños y niñas con discapacidades cognitivas en la construcción de futuros preferibles. Se espera con esto ofrecer oportunidades para participar de manera más significativa en la sociedad más que como receptores pasivos de las decisiones e intervenciones de los adultos. Este estudio resalta la importancia del diseño en la inclusión social. (Texto tomado de la fuente)
dc.description.abstractThis research explores, through a case study, how participatory design can be of value in social participation, considering the use of participatory tools and methodologies to reveal knowledge about the meanings that are created in the interaction user–artifacts as a valuable contribution to design research. The aim of the study was to better gain understanding of children with intellectual disabilities and their contexts and to provide conditions to enable their participation. This qualitative study explores the role of prototypes and toolkits to facilitate participation in the creation of better future imaginaries and empower children with intellectual disabilities to participate in a more meaningful way as active participants in society rather than as the passive recipients of adult decisions and interventions. This research highlights the importance of design in social inclusion.
dc.format.extent130 páginas
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isospa
dc.publisherUniversidad Nacional de Colombia
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
dc.subject.ddc700 - Las artes, bellas artes y artes decorativas
dc.subject.otherNiños con Discapacidad
dc.subject.otherDisabled Children
dc.titlePrototipos y Toolkits: herramientas de la investigación en diseño para facilitar la participación de niños y niñas con discapacidades cognitivas
dc.typeTrabajo de grado - Maestría
dc.type.driverinfo:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesis
dc.type.versioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersion
dc.publisher.programBogotá - Artes - Maestría en Diseño
dc.description.degreelevelMaestría
dc.description.degreenameMagíster en Diseño
dc.identifier.instnameUniversidad Nacional de Colombia
dc.identifier.reponameRepositorio Institucional Universidad Nacional de Colombia
dc.identifier.repourlhttps://repositorio.unal.edu.co/
dc.publisher.facultyFacultad de Artes
dc.publisher.placeBogotá, Colombia
dc.publisher.branchUniversidad Nacional de Colombia - Sede Bogotá
dc.relation.referencesBaxter, P., Susan Jack, & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study Design and Implementation for Novice Researchers. The Qualitative Report Volume, 13(4), 544–559. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874434600802010058
dc.relation.referencesBianchin, M., & Heylighen, A. (2017). Fair by design. Addressing the paradox of inclusive design approaches. Design Journal, 20(sup1), S3162–S3170. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1352822
dc.relation.referencesBinder, T., Brandt, E., & Gregory, J. (2008). Design participation(-s). CoDesign, 4(1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880801905807
dc.relation.referencesBoer, L., & Donovan, J. (2012). Provotypes for participatory innovation. Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference, DIS ’12, June 2012, 388–397. https://doi.org/10.1145/2317956.2318014
dc.relation.referencesBohórquez Reyes, J. C., Guido, S., Rodriguez de Salazar, N., Pinilla, M., Gonzalez, M., Yony, G., Macias, H., Rivera, J., Gutierrez, M., & Toro, I. (2004). Tecnologías de apoyo para la comunicación aumentativa y alternativa. https://docplayer.es/16164474-Tecnologias-de-apoyo-para-la-comunicacion-aumentativa-y-alternativa.html
dc.relation.referencesBolin, A. (2018). Organizing for agency: rethinking the conditions for children’s participation in service provision. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, 13(sup1). https://doi.org/10.1080/17482631.2018.1564515
dc.relation.referencesBredies, K. (2016). Design/Research (Gesche Joo).
dc.relation.referencesChristiansson, J., Grönvall, E., & Yndigegn, S. L. (2018). Teaching participatory design using live projects. 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1145/3210586.3210597
dc.relation.referencesCorrea Montoya, L., & Castro Martinez, M. C. (2016). Discapacidad e Inclusión Social en Colombia: Informe Alternativo de la Fundación Saldarriaga Concha al Comité CDPD.
dc.relation.referencesDruin, A. (2002). The role of children in the design of new technology. Behaviour and Information Technology, 21(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290110108659
dc.relation.referencesDruin, A. (2015). Cooperative Inquiry. The A-Z of Social Research, 14(99), 592–599. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412986281.n51
dc.relation.referencesFernández Moreno, A. (2017). Luchas por el Reconocimiento y las discapacidades en Colombia. Onteaiken: Boletín Sobre Prácticas y Estudis de Acción Colectiva, 23, 70–82.
dc.relation.referencesFisher, S. R. (2014). A Review of “Children, Citizenship, and Environment: Nurturing a Democratic Imagination in a Changing World.” The Journal of Environmental Education, 45(4), 258–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2014.928251
dc.relation.referencesGaver, B., Dunne, T., Pacenti, E., & Claims. (1999). Design: Cultural probes. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/291224.291235
dc.relation.referencesGreen, M. (2014). Transformational design literacies: children as active place-makers. Children’s Geographies, 12(2), 189–204.
dc.relation.referencesHart, R. (1993). La Participación de los niños: de la participación simbólica a la participación auténtica (p. 10).
dc.relation.referencesHemmings, T., & Crabtree, A. (n.d.). Ethnography for Design ?
dc.relation.referencesKnutz, E., Markussen, T., & Thomsen, S. M. (2019). Materiality in probes: three perspectives for co-exploring patient democracy. CoDesign, 15(2), 142–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2018.1445759
dc.relation.referencesKoskinen, I., Zimmerman, J., Binder, T., Redström, J., & Wensveen, S. (2012a). Constructive Design Research. Design Research Through Practice, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-385502-2.00001-8
dc.relation.referencesKoskinen, I., Zimmerman, J., Binder, T., Redström, J., & Wensveen, S. (2012c). How to Work with Theory. Design Research Through Practice, 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-385502-2.00007-9
dc.relation.referencesKronqvist, J., Leinonen, T., & Erving, H. (2013). Cardboard Hospital - Prototyping patient-ventric environment and services. Nordic Design Research Conference, 293–301.
dc.relation.referencesKumar, V. (2013). 101 Design Methods. A structured approach for driving innovation in your organization. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.
dc.relation.referencesLatour, B. (2015). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. (ACLS Humanities E-Book.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
dc.relation.referencesLee, Y. (2008). Design participation tactics: the challenges and new roles for designers in the co-design process. CoDesign, 4(1), 31–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875613
dc.relation.referencesLundy, L. (2007). “Voice” is not enough: Conceptualising Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. British Educational Research Journal, 33(6), 927–942. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920701657033
dc.relation.referencesMadden, D., Cadet-James, Y., Atkinson, I., & Watkin Lui, F. (2014). Probes and prototypes: A participatory action research approach to codesign. In CoDesign (Vol. 10, Issue 1, pp. 31–45). Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2014.881884
dc.relation.referencesMattelmäki, T. (2008). Probing for co-exploring. CoDesign, 4(1), 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875027
dc.relation.referencesMeroni, A., & Fassi, D. (2013). Design for social innovation as a form of designing activism. An action format. Nesta, November, 1–15.
dc.relation.referencesMüller, F. (2020). Design Ethnography Epistemology and Methodology Translated by Anna Brailovsky (Issue December). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60396-0
dc.relation.referencesMurillo, J., & Hernández, R. (2011). F . Javier Murillo Torrecilla y Reyes Hernández Castilla. Revista Iberoamericana Sobre Calidad, Eficacia y Cambio En Educación, 9(4), 7–23. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/551/55122156002.pdf
dc.relation.referencesNussbaum, M. C. (2007). Frontiers of justice.
dc.relation.referencesParsons, S., & Cobb, S. (2014). Reflections on the role of the “users”: Challenges in a multi-disciplinary context of learner-centred design for children on the autism spectrum. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 37(4), 421–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2014.890584
dc.relation.referencesParsons, S., Millen, L., Garib-Penna, S., & Cobb, S. (2011). Participatory design in the development of innovative technologies for children and young people on the autism spectrum: The COSPATIAL project. Journal of Assistive Technologies, 5(1), 29–34. https://doi.org/10.5042/jat.2011.0099
dc.relation.referencesPhillips, L. (2011). Possibilities and Quandaries for Young Children’s Active Citizenship. Early Education and Development, 22(5), 778–794. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2011.597375
dc.relation.referencesPierre Johnson, M., Ballie, J., Thorup, T., & Brooks, E. (2017). Living on the Edge: design artefacts as boundary objects. Design Journal, 20(sup1), S219–S235. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1352771
dc.relation.referencesPoggenpohl, S. H. (2005). Design moves: approximating a desired future with users. In Jorge Frascara (Ed.), Design and the social sciences: making connections (pp. 66–83). Taylor & Francis.
dc.relation.referencesPrellwitz, M., & Skär, L. (2006). How children with restricted mobility perceive the accessibility and usability of their home environment. Occupational Therapy International, 13(4), 193–206. https://doi.org/10.1002/oti.216
dc.relation.referencesPress, M. (2016). The resourceful social expert: defining the future craft of design research. In Design As Research : Positions, Arguments, Perspectives.
dc.relation.referencesRipat, J., & Becker, P. (2012). Playground Usability: What Do Playground Users Say? Occupational Therapy International, 19(3), 144–153. https://doi.org/10.1002/oti.1331
dc.relation.referencesRivera, J., & MacTavish, T. (2017). Research through provocation: a structured prototyping tool using interaction attributes of time, space and information. Design Journal, 20(sup1), S3996–S4008. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1352902
dc.relation.referencesRuecker, S. (2015). A Brief Taxonomy of Prototypes for the Digital Humanities. Scholarly and Research Communication, 6(2), 1–12.
dc.relation.referencesSalamanca, J. (2013). Modeling socially apt smart artifacts. 122.
dc.relation.referencesSanders, E. B. N. (2016). Where are we going? an inspirational map. In Design As Research : Positions, Arguments, Perspectives.
dc.relation.referencesSanders, E. B. N., & Stappers, P. J. (2014). Probes, toolkits and prototypes: Three approaches to making in codesigning. In CoDesign (Vol. 10, Issue 1, pp. 5–14). Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2014.888183
dc.relation.referencesSarmiento-pelayo, M. P. (2015). Co-design : A central approach to the inclusion of people with disabilities. 63, 149–154.
dc.relation.referencesSarmiento-Pelayo, M. P., & Fernández-Moreno, A. (2020). Justicia social y diseño. Bitácora Urbano Territorial, 30(2), 11–24.
dc.relation.referencesSchon, D. A. (1991). The reflective practitioner. Ashgate Publishing.
dc.relation.referencesSimon, H. A. (1968). The sciences of the artificial (Karl Taylo). Cambridge, M.I.T. Press.
dc.relation.referencesSuchman, L. A. (1989). Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human Machine Communication. Contemporary Sociology, 18(3), 414. https://doi.org/10.2307/2073874
dc.relation.referencesTironi, M. (2018). Speculative prototyping, frictions and counter-participation: A civic intervention with homeless individuals. Design Studies, 59(July), 117–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2018.05.003
dc.relation.referencesTonkinwise, C. (2015). Design for Transitions ‒ from and to what? . Design Philosophy Papers, 13(1), 85–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/14487136.2015.1085686
dc.relation.referencesTonkinwise, C. (2016). Everyday homeopathy in practice- Changing desig research. In Design As Research : Positions, Arguments, Perspectives.
dc.relation.referencesVélez-Latorre, L., & Manjarrés-Carrizalez, D. (2020). The education of subjects with disabilities in Colombia: Historical, theoretical and research approaches in the global and Latin American context. Revista Colombiana de Educacion, 1(78), 253–298. https://doi.org/10.17227/rce.num78-9902
dc.relation.referencesWensveen, S., & Matthews, B. (2014). Prototypes and prototyping in design research. The Routledge Companion to Design Research, November, 262–276. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315758466-25
dc.relation.referencesWensveen, S., & Matthews, B. (2019). Prototypes and prototyping in design research. The Routledge Companion to Design Research, January, 262–276. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315758466-25
dc.relation.referencesWolf, B. (2016). Text / Object. In Design As Research : Positions, Arguments, Perspectives (pp. 4–6).
dc.relation.referencesZimmerman, J., & Forlizzi, J. (2008). The Role of Design Artifacts in Design Theory Construction. Artifact, 2(1), 41–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/17493460802276893
dc.rights.accessrightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subject.proposalDiseño participativo
dc.subject.proposalPrototipos
dc.subject.proposalInfancia con discapacidad
dc.subject.proposalParticipatory design
dc.subject.proposalPrototypes
dc.subject.proposalChildren with disabilities
dc.subject.proposalToolkits
dc.subject.proposalToolkits
dc.subject.unescoIntegración social
dc.subject.unescoDiseño de proyecto
dc.title.translatedPrototypes and toolkits: design research tools to enhance social participation of children with Intellectual disabilities
dc.type.coarhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_bdcc
dc.type.coarversionhttp://purl.org/coar/version/c_ab4af688f83e57aa
dc.type.contentText
dc.type.redcolhttp://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/TM
oaire.accessrightshttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
dcterms.audience.professionaldevelopmentEstudiantes
dcterms.audience.professionaldevelopmentInvestigadores


Archivos en el documento

Thumbnail
Nombre:
1.032.457.173. 2022.pdf
Tamaño:
3.136Mb
Formato:
PDF
Descripción:
Tesis de Maestría en Diseño
Descargar

Este documento aparece en la(s) siguiente(s) colección(ones)

Mostrar el registro sencillo del documento

Reconocimiento 4.0 InternacionalEsta obra está bajo licencia internacional Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial 4.0.Este documento ha sido depositado por parte de el(los) autor(es) bajo la siguiente constancia de depósito