Universal design for stuttering

Stigma about disability can be effectively combatted through universal models. These reject the dichotomy between disabled and nondisabled people. There are two ways in which the rejection can be supported. The first is associated with Irving Zola, who observed that everyone will become disabled at some point. Thus, across the lifespan, everyone is “at risk” and disability becomes universal. The second route, associated with Jerome Bickenbach, is through the observation that all humans have multitudinous capabilities situated differently along various metrics. No human has a complete repertoire of capabilities optimal for any scenario. Thus, everyone is more disabled in some respects and less disabled in others.

Universal models can be illustrated through the classic disability studies example of wheelchair ramps. Although such ramps were famously popularised as an example of social versus medical models, they were just as much an example of universal versus minority models of disability. This is because ramps are not just useful for wheelchairs. Ramps are also invaluable for prams, scooters, wheeled suitcases, bicycles, trolleys, roller skates, buggies and anything else which rolls or can be rolled. Ramps are useful for everyone. Because they are universally useful, stigma attached to the installation or use of ramps falls away. Addition of ramps makes the environment better for everyone.

Stuttering could benefit from a universal model. However, it is not straightforward to think of accommodations which would not only improve the environment for stutterers, but could also be beneficially used by everybody else in society. In this regard, a recent example from the UK is worth highlighting. An employee at the retailer Marks and Spencer asked her employer to produce a badge indicating that her speech might not be as expected. This was achieved through a graphic placed onto the badge showing a person talking.

Although the badge is obviously useful for stuttering, it is not restricted to stuttering. Anyone who is experiencing difficulty with spoken communication could wear the badge. In this way the badge is universal. For example, everyone will at some time experience a period during which they do not adhere to linguistic convention. Such experiences do not only happen for people who stutter! There are various reasons why people might want to indicate that their presence in a public space is not an indication to prospective listeners that conversational norms will be adhered to. Reasons might include a recent relationship break-up, a neurodivergence, a bereavement, hoarseness, lack of facility in a locally dominant language, a dental operation, and so forth. Listeners cannot reasonably be expected to anticipate and automatically adjust to any and all such eventualities. Doing so would amount to mind-reading on the part of the listener. Cueing up the possibility that linguistic conventions may not be adhered in a potential encounter can help to manage listener expectations, and thereby make for better interactions.

A drawback of the Marks and Spencer badge is that it requires stutterers to do something. They have to wear the badge. This need be no major issue if you work at Marks and Spencer and are required to wear a badge anyway as part of your uniform, as was the case for Megan Tomkies. In such a circumstance, availability of a graphic symbol for communication offers clear advantages for a range of employees. There is moreover a situation in which wearing a badge at Marks and Spencer is mandatory, but adopting the graphic symbol for communication is not mandatory. Thus, it is conceivable that employees could have two badges. One badge would contain the graphic symbol for communication, and the other badge would not. Employees could wear either badge depending on their mood on a particular day.

Outside the workplace, universal elements of this particular badge design could make it desirable over alternatives. For example, the graphic symbol for communication does not require the stuttering minority identification of “I stutter” T-shirts or cards. Nor does it require the slightly wider minority identification of initiatives such as the Sunflower lanyard for hidden disabilities. Of course, there is nothing wrong with minority identification as disabled! However, a requirement for badge wearers to identify as minorities does not achieve a key aim of universal design, which is that no-one has to opt in. Returning to the example of ramps for building access, no-one had to opt in to use the ramps. Rather, ramps have been included as a design feature for all public buildings. Once ramps are in place, offering advantages to all accessing public buildings, there is no need to identify as a minority when using them. Such an arrangement reduces stigma according to the universal model.

What other types of universal design could be beneficial for those who stutter? Comments are open!