Autism and Building Design - Research Survey

[Craigmc23]

I don't mean to be a pain, but I'm very literal including language. Perhaps it's a difference between the usage and meanings of the word "important" in the UK vs. the U.S.? I would not want to answer that fluorescent lights are "important" (ie a thing that I want, like, need, etc) when for me the opposite is true and wish that they were not in the workplace and in public places in general.

Ok so the question is more so about what you feel is important for designers to consider when designing workspaces for autistic people in the future. If we take the example of lighting, it's not whether or not fluorescent lighting is important as it currently is from your perspective but rather that you feel that that is an important element of building design that you feel needs further consideration going forward. Hope this helps to clarify things.

 

[Craigmc23]

No, as I understood it, it means that this is a part of building design that affects you a lot, either in a positive or negative way. And then in the next field you can describe why you chose this.

For example, if fluorescent lighting bothers you, you select “important”. If you like fluorescent lighting and want it in an office, you also select “important”. If you don’t care about fluorescent lighting either way and the presence of it doesn’t affect you, you don’t tick the box and move to the next subject.

Yes this is what the question is referring to, if this is a design element that affects you more than others in a positive or negative way then you would select it as one of your 3-5 most important design considerations and then you have the opportunity to explain your reasoning for that in the following question.

 

[Craigmc23]

Hello, for those who haven't seen my previous post from a few days ago, I am a Master's student studying Architectural Design in the UK and I was diagnosed with ASD around one year ago. As a result of this, I have spent my final year of study looking at the way in which the design of buildings affects autistic users. I am currently looking for participants to take part in a short online survey as part of a wider investigation looking at the relationship between the design of workplaces and the low employment rate among autistic adults. (All responses to the survey will remain anonymous throughout).

For this reason, I am only looking for participants who have been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) / Asperger's Syndrome, are aged 18 or over and have been employed at some stage in their life. If you do not fit within this criteria then please do not take this survey. If you do fit within this criteria then more information can be found on the introduction page of the survey, the link for which can be found below;

Space for the Spectrum: Investigating the lack of autism-inclusive architecture in user work-spaces

Thank you for reading this post and if you can spare a few minutes to complete this survey it would be much appreciated. And a big thank you to those who have already completed the survey as the responses so far have been great!

 

[Craigmc23]

Hello, for those who haven't seen my previous posts from a few days ago, I am a Master's student studying Architectural Design in the UK and I was diagnosed with ASD around one year ago. As a result of this, I have spent my final year of study looking at the way in which the design of buildings affects autistic users. I am currently looking for participants to take part in a short online survey as part of a wider investigation looking at the relationship between the design of workplaces and the low employment rate among autistic adults. (All responses to the survey will remain anonymous throughout).

For this reason, I am only looking for participants who have been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) / Asperger's Syndrome, are aged 18 or over and have been employed at some stage in their life. If you do not fit within this criteria then please do not take this survey. If you do fit within this criteria then more information can be found on the introduction page of the survey, the link for which can be found below;

Space for the Spectrum: Investigating the lack of autism-inclusive architecture in user work-spaces

Thank you for reading this post and if you can spare a few minutes to complete this survey it would be much appreciated. And a big thank you to those who have already completed the survey as the responses so far have been great!

 

[Judge]

From my own perspective I honestly don't see a real or profound connection between autistic people and a workspace relative to whether or not they are employed. That the most obvious barriers to being hired lie within the interview process- not the environment one might be working in.

Granted if an autistic person is in fact hired, at that point maybe they might be concerned about the environment they work in, yet no differently that Neurotypicals concerned with basic ergonomics. If social inadequacies keep one from even being hired, it's always going to be academic when it comes to their actual working environment.

Now if you're really focused on a debate over work environments that are inherently designed to be communal in nature, that I can see as an issue. Where cubicles are torn down and replaced with common workspaces that may or may not be separated by low glass enclosures...there's a point be made there. However even that remains a consideration that I seriously doubt explains low-employment figures for autistic people. That the crux of the matter remains within the realm of the complexities of socialization first and foremost as opposed to communal work environments.

No matter what our social inadequacies may be relative to a neurotypical world, like our neurological countrerparts most of us still need a job with adequate compensation.

 

[Craigmc23]

From my own perspective I honestly don't see a real or profound connection between autistic people and a workspace relative to whether or not they are employed. That the most obvious barriers to being hired lie within the interview process- not the environment one might be working in.

Granted if an autistic person is in fact hired, at that point maybe they might be concerned about the environment they work in, yet no differently that Neurotypicals concerned with basic ergonomics. If social inadequacies keep one from even being hired, it's always going to be academic when it comes to their actual working environment.

Now if you're really focused on a debate over work environments that are inherently designed to be communal in nature, that I can see as an issue. Where cubicles are torn down and replaced with common workspaces that may or may not be separated by low glass enclosures...there's a point be made there.

However even that remains a consideration that I seriously doubt explains consistent low-employment figures for autistic people. That the crux of the matter remains within the realm of socialization first and foremost as opposed to communal work environments.

Thank you for your response. Of course there are numerous issues we face with regards to employment that it's outwith the ability of architecture to resolve and that is a limitation of the research. However, there are many ways in which the design of buildings impact autistic users and workspaces are no different. The purpose of the investigation is not so much to try and bridge the low autistic employment rate through architectural interventions alone but rather to try and develop strategies which aim to create more autism-inclusive workspaces in the hope that this can play some role in addressing the employment issue. The responses so far have been really informative with regards to the issues people face in their working environment due to their autism and so already it's becoming clear that there is a problem there to be addressed whether it solves the wider issue of bridging the employment gap or not. Hope this helps clarify the nature of the project somewhat.

 

[Alaric593]

From my own perspective I honestly don't see a real or profound connection between autistic people and a workspace relative to whether or not they are employed. That the most obvious barriers to being hired lie within the interview process- not the environment one might be working in.

Granted if an autistic person is in fact hired, at that point maybe they might be concerned about the environment they work in, yet no differently that Neurotypicals concerned with basic ergonomics. If social inadequacies keep one from even being hired, it's always going to be academic when it comes to their actual working environment.

Now if you're really focused on a debate over work environments that are inherently designed to be communal in nature, that I can see as an issue. Where cubicles are torn down and replaced with common workspaces that may or may not be separated by low glass enclosures...there's a point be made there.

However even that remains a consideration that I seriously doubt explains consistent low-employment figures for autistic people. That the crux of the matter remains within the realm of socialization first and foremost as opposed to communal work environments.

I would agree with that about the interview. I have a mild case and the interview process for my current position was incredibly intense. I had eight interviews over two days ending with a five attorney panel interview. I was utterly wiped out by the end.

As of now, we're able to work from home or the office and set our own hours so long as the hours are worked and work is done with diligence and time constraints managed, my leadership is unconcerned how we structure the day. In the office they have quiet offices where anyone can work if needed.

 

[Judge]

The purpose of the investigation is not so much to try and bridge the low autistic employment rate through architectural interventions alone but rather to try and develop strategies which aim to create more autism-inclusive workspaces in the hope that this can play some role in addressing the employment issue.

One thing to consider is that you are soliciting the opinions of an international audience. Not merely those from the UK.

Frankly I see that as a consideration relative to each and every individual employer. With the reality being that few private-sector employers are seriously going to be concerned with fiscal impacts of accommodating people who amount to a less-than two percent minority who have yet to be hired. Worse perhaps if such expenses must be justified on a quarterly basis to corporate boards of directors and ultimately their shareholders.

No differently than workers compensation underwriters who dictate ergonomic requirements for employees determined on an individual basis as opposed to demanding fixed and possibly permanent architectural considerations. Ones which wouldn't likely "fly" on this side of the pond short of them being legally inclusive within the American Disabilities Act (which it isn't).

In essence, what you are proposing likely has exponentially more hurdles to deal with on our side of the pond than yours. I see it as a nice; even compassionate proposition. However one that isn't particularly realistic in an economic environment where businesses are so often indifferent to the long-term welfare of employees, regardless of neurological considerations.