Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
logo of JHTR

Research articles

Vol. 4 (2026)

Universal design: Thinking and designing through the lens of postphenomenology

DOI
https://doi.org/10.59490/jhtr.2026.4.8329
Submitted
August 21, 2025
Published
2026-09-29

Abstract

In recent years, there has been an increasing focus on Universal Design (UD) – design that aims to make the world more accessible to all people, regardless of ability. Through the research project ‘Shared Spaces – Life Between the Buildings from a Universal Design Perspective’, we explored how UD can be conceived and designed through a postphenomenological lens. The aim was to examine how the creation of inclusive stabilities and increasing the multistability of design can influence the way we experience ourselves, each other, and the world around us. In the project, 17 participants with varying abilities participated in Universal Design walks and interviews to identify the barriers they encounter in a public housing area in Denmark. Based on their perspectives, ten temporary urban experiments were developed and tested to address the needs identified by the participants. Three of these experiments are presented in this article. Through these experiments, the mediating effects of design are examined – not only what inclusive design is, but what it does. The article concludes with a proposal for five design criteria that can be integrated into how we conceive and design UD to create better conditions for inclusion in public space through increased multistability.

References

  1. Aalborg Universitet. (n.d.). AAU forskningsetiske principper, regler og forretningsorden [AAU research ethics principles, regulations and rules of procedure]. https://www.forskningsservice.aau.dk/forskningsetisk-komite/forskningsetiske-principper-regler-og-forretningsorden
  2. Akrich, M. (1992). The de-scription of technological objects. In W. E. Bijker, & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 205-224). The MIT Press.
  3. Ash, J. (2019). Post-phenomenology and space: A geography of comprehension, form and power. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 45(1), 181–193. https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12331
  4. Ash, J., & Simpson, P. (2014). Geography and post-phenomenology. Progress in Human Geography, 40(1), 48–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132514544806
  5. Beekmans, J., & de Boer, J. (2014). Pop-up city: City-making in a fluid world. BIS.
  6. Boolsen, M. W. (2025). Grounded theory. In S. Brinkmann, & L. Tanggaard (Eds.), Kvalitative metoder: en grundbog [Qualitative methods: A foundational textbook] (4th ed., pp. 373–411). Hans Reitzels Forlag.
  7. Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
  8. Bråten, L. N. (2024). Temporary temporariness? The (mis)use of tactical urbanism from the ‘open city’ framework. Urban Studies, 62(5), 809–827. https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980241263436
  9. Dolph, E. (2021). The developing definition of universal design. Journal of Accessibility and Design for All, 11(2), 178–194. https://doi.org/10.17411/jacces.v11i2.263
  10. Campbell, F. K. (2009). Contours of ableism: The production of disability and abledness. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230245181
  11. Coeckelbergh, M. (2019). Technoperformances: Using metaphors from the performance arts for a postphenomenology and posthermeneutics of technology use. AI & Society, 35(3), 557–568. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-019-00926-7
  12. Crowther, P. (2016). Temporary public spaces: A technological paradigm. The Journal of Public Space, 1(1), 63-74. https://doi.org/10.5204/jps.v1i1.11
  13. de Melo-Martín, I. (2022). Genomic technologies: The need for a feminist approach. In W. A. Rogers, J. L. Scully, S. M. Carter, V. A. Entwistle, & C. Mills (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Feminist Bioethics (1st ed., pp. 276–290). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003016885-24
  14. Dokumaci, A. (2023). Activist affordances. How disabled people improvise more habitable worlds. Duke University Press.
  15. Doorley, S., Holcomb, S., Klebahn, P., Segovia, K., & Utley, J. (2018). Design thinking bootleg. Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford University. https://dschool.sfo3.digitaloceanspaces.com/documents/dschool_bootleg_deck_2018_final_sm2-6.pdf
  16. Falster, E. S. (2024). Ableisme: Magt, menneskesyn og myten om den normale krop. [Ableism: Power, conceptions of humanity and the myth of the normal body]. Samfundslitteratur.
  17. Frandsen, A. K., Bonfils, I. S., & Olsen, L. (2023). Universal design allows everyone to take part. In A. K. Frandsen, I. S. Bonfils, & L. Olsen (Eds.), Universal design: Cross-disciplinary perspectives in theory and practice (pp. 11-32). Aalborg University Press.
  18. Giamarino, C., O’Connor, P., & Willing, I. (2023). The impacts of hostile designs on skateboarding as a form of active transportation and recreation: comparing perspectives from public university spaces in Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Cities & Health, 7(3), 416–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/23748834.2022.2158769
  19. Gissen, D. (2022). The architecture of disability: Buildings, cities, and landscapes beyond access. University of Minnesota Press.
  20. Guinand, S., Franz, Y., Riegler, J., & Velkavrh, Z. (2020). Co-creative temporary use in public spaces: The process is everything. In J. Riegler & J. Bylund (Eds.), Unfolding dilemmas of urban public spaces: Recommendations by JPI Urban Europe’s AGORA (pp. 55–59). JPI Urban Europe. https://jpi-urbaneurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/AGORA_PublicSpaces_PolicyPaper_Online.pdf
  21. Hamraie, A. (2016). Universal design and the problem of “post-disability” ideology. Design and Culture, 8(3), 285–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/17547075.2016.1218714
  22. Hamraie, A. (2017). Building access: Universal design and the politics of disability. University of Minnesota Press.
  23. Harrits, G. S., Pedersen, C. S., & Halkier, B. (2012). Indsamling af interviewdata [Collecting interview data]. In Klemmensen, R., Andersen, L. B., Hansen, K. M., & Jensen, K. L. (Eds.), Metoder i statskundskab. [Methods in political science] (2nd ed., pp. 144–172). Hans Reitzel Forlag.
  24. Hasse, C. (2008). Postphenomenology: Learning cultural perception in science. Human Studies, 31(1), 43–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-007-9075-4
  25. Hasse, C. (2015). An anthropology of learning: On nested frictions in cultural ecologies. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9606-4
  26. Ihde, D. (1990). Technology and the lifeworld: From garden to earth. Indiana University Press. https://doi.org/10.2979/3108.0
  27. Ihde, D. (1993). Postphenomenology: Essays in the postmodern context. Northwestern University Press.
  28. Imrie, R. (1996). Disability and the city: International perspectives. Sage Publications.
  29. Imrie, R. (2011). Universalism, universal design and equitable access to the built environment. Disability and Rehabilitation, 34(10), 873–882. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2011.624250
  30. Jensen, O. B. (2019). Dark design: Mobility injustice materialized. In N. Cook, & D. Butz (Eds.), Mobilities, mobility justice and social justice (pp. 116-128). Routledge.
  31. Jensen, O. B. (2020). Atmospheres of rejection: How dark design rejects homeless in the city. Proceedings of the 4th International Congress on Ambiances, Litteraturliste Alloaesthesia: Senses, Inventions, Worlds (pp. 326-331). Réseau International Ambiances. https://doi.org/10.48537/hal-03220334
  32. Jensen, O. B. (2023). What if?/What now?: “Futuring” mobilities research by engaging with design. Transfers, 13(1-2), 128-143. https://doi.org/10.3167/TRANS.2023.13010210
  33. Jones, P., Bunce, G., Evans, J., Gibbs, H., & Ricketts Hein, J. (2008). Exploring space and place with walking interviews. Journal of Research Practice, 4(2), Article D2.
  34. Kudina, O. (2021). “Alexa, who am I?”: Voice assistants and hermeneutic lemniscate as the technologically mediated sense-making. Human Studies, 44(2), 233–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-021-09572-9
  35. Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2015). Interview: Det kvalitative forskningsinterview som håndværk [Interview: The qualitative research interview as craft] (3rd ed.). Hans Reitzels Forlag.
  36. Lydon, M., & Garcia, A. (with Duany, A.). (2015). Tactical urbanism: Short-term action for long-term change. Island Press.
  37. Madanipour, A. (2017). Temporary use of space: Urban processes between flexibility, opportunity and precarity. Urban Studies, 55(5), 1093–1110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098017705546
  38. Marling, G. (2003). Urban Songlines: Hverdagslivets drømmespor [Urban Songlines: The dream paths of everyday life]. Aalborg University Press.
  39. Marling, G. (2005). Bangkok Songlines: Spaces, territories, mobility. Aalborg University Press.
  40. Molbæk, M., & Hedegaard-Sørensen, L. (2023). Universal design for learning: fleksible og inkluderende læringsmiljøer for alle [Universal design for learning: Flexible and inclusive learning environments for everyone] (1st ed.). Dafolo.
  41. Murawski, W., & Gulløv, C. S. (2024). Co-teaching & universal design for learning: differentierede og inkluderende undervisningsstrategier [Co-teaching & universal design for learning: Differentiated and inclusive teaching strategies] (1st ed.). Dafolo.
  42. Nielsen, C. H. (2024). Typologization of exclusionary design: An exploration of design interventions excluding unhoused people from urban public spaces. Design Studies, 93–94, Article 101264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2024.101264
  43. Pors, J. G., & Husted, E. (2021). Når problemer kalder på samtænkning - indledende tanker om eklekticisme som samfundsfaglig analysestrategi [When problems call for cross-thinking: Introductory reflections on eclecticism as a social science analytical strategy]. In E. Husted, & J. G. Pors (Eds.), Eklektiske analysestrategier [Eclectic analytical strategies] (pp. 13–38). Nyt fra Samfundsvidenskaberne.
  44. Preiser, W. F. E., & Smith, K. H. (with Ivy, R.). (2011). Universal design handbook (2nd ed.). Mcgraw-Hill.
  45. Rasmussen, J. D. (2023). Towards a more-than-human architecture: Exploring the notion of inclusivity. In M. Mostafa, R. Baumeister, M. R. Thomsen, & M. Tamke (Eds.), Design for inclusivity: Proceedings of the UIA world congress of architects Copenhagen 2023 (pp. 659-665). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-36302-3_48
  46. Rosenberger, R. (2016). Notes on a nonfoundational phenomenology of technology. Foundations of Science, 22(3), 471–494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-015-9480-5
  47. Rosenberger, R. (2017). Callous objects: Designs against the homeless. University of Minnesota Press.
  48. Rosenberger, R. (2019). On hostile design: Theoretical and empirical prospects. Urban Studies, 57(4), 883-893. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098019853778
  49. Rosenberger, R. (2020). But, that’s not phenomenology!: A phenomenology of discriminatory technologies. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 24(1/2), 83-113. https://doi.org/10.5840/techne2020210117
  50. Rosenberger, R., & Verbeek, P.-P. (2015). Introduction. In R. Rosenberger & P.-P. Verbeek (Eds.), Postphenomenological investigations: Εssays on human-technology relations (pp. 1-6). Lexington Books. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781978726208.0004
  51. Rosenberger, R., & Verbeek, P.-P. (2015). A field guide to postphenomenology. In R. Rosenberger & P.-P. Verbeek (Eds.), Postphenomenological investigations: Εssays on human-technology relations (pp. 9-42). Lexington Books. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781978726208.ch-001
  52. Ryhl, C. (2023). Preface. In A. K. Frandsen, I. S. Bonfils, & L. Olsen (Eds.), Universal design: Cross-disciplinary perspectives in theory and practice (pp. 9-10). Aalborg University Press.
  53. Ryhl, C. (2024). Universal design in architecture: On enabling and empowering a diverse population. The Danish Architectural Press.
  54. Schaller, S., & Guinand, S. (2019). Popup landscape design and the disruption of the ordinary. In P. Aelbrecht, & Q. Stevens (Eds.), Public space design and social cohesion: An international comparison (pp. 242-259). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429489150
  55. Shakespeare, T. (2006). Disability rights and wrongs. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203640098
  56. Shew, A. (2023). Against technoableism: Rethinking who needs improvement. W. W. Norton & Company.
  57. Steiner, E., & Zeller, S. (2024). Design for all? New Perspectives on inclusive design. In E. Steiner, & S. Zeller (Eds.), Design for all? Inclusive design today (pp. 13-33). Spector Books.
  58. Steinfeld, A., Zimmerman, J., & Tomasic, A. (2019). Universal design and adaptive interfaces as a strategy for induced disabilities. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.1904.06134
  59. Steinfeld, E., & Maisel, J. L. (2012). Universal design: Creating inclusive environments. John Wiley & Sons.
  60. Titchkosky, T. (2011). The question of access: Disability, space, meaning. University of Toronto Press.
  61. Verbeek, P.-P. (2005). What things do: Philosophical reflections on technology, agency, and design. Pennsylvania State University Press. https://doi.org/10.5325/j.ctv14gp4w7
  62. Verbeek, P.-P. (2011). Moralizing technology: Understanding and designing the morality of things. The University of Chicago Press.
  63. Wickramathilaka, S., Grundy, J., Madampe, K., & Haggag, O. (2025). Accessibility recommendations for designing better mobile application user interfaces for seniors. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2504.12690
  64. Winance, M. (2014). Universal design and the challenge of diversity: Reflections on the principles of UD, based on empirical research of people’s mobility. Disability and Rehabilitation, 36(16), 1334–1343. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2014.936564
Update cookies preferences