Architecture and Culture

ISSN: 2050-7828 (Print) 2050-7836 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rfac20

[Re]Mixing Space: Charting Sonic Accessibility and

Social Equity in Creative Urban Contexts

William Renel

To cite this article: William Renel (2020): [Re]Mixing Space: Charting Sonic Accessibility
and Social Equity in Creative Urban Contexts, Architecture and Culture, DOI:
10.1080/20507828.2019.1632619

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/20507828.2019.1632619

Published online: 07 Jan 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 27

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rfac20
1

ARCHITECTURE
AND CULTURE

William Renel
Helen Hamlyn Centre for
Design, Royal College of Art,
[Re]Mixing Space: Charting Sonic
London, UK
William.renel@network.rca. Accessibility and Social Equity in
ac.uk

Keywords: sound, inclusion,

urban design, auraldiversity
pp. 1–18
DOI:10.1080/20507828.
2019.1632619
No potential conflict of
interest was reported
by the author.
© 2020 Informa UK
Limited, trading as Taylor &
Francis Group
Creative Urban Contexts
William Renel
ABSTRACT Sonic inclusion – the ways in which sound includes people
in space – has received little attention in the design of the built envir-
onment. It is proposed that the design and management of contempor-
ary urban space is grounded in an “auraltypical” perspective where the
primary focus is those with “otologically normal” hearing. This position
is driven by an idealized model of hearing that frames design through
the binary positioning of “good/bad” ears and leads to spaces that are
socially exclusive. In contrast, the emerging paradigm of “auraldiversity”
acknowledges the diversity of human hearing and the multitude of ele-
ments that place the hearing modality within a state of constant flux.
This article presents a case study of Remixing the Globe, a participatory
sound mapping workshop and exhibition held at Shakespeare’s Globe,
London in 2017. The workshop brought together a cohort of disabled
adults, each with self-identified lived experience of sonic exclusion. The
group utilized digital technologies, such as binaural microphones, pres-
sure sensors and smartphone-activated sound stickers, to map sonic
objects, environments and experiences throughout the building. Specific
focus was given to mapping the elements of the environment that were
understood as pertinent to the inclusion or exclusion of d/Deaf and dis-
abled people. Findings emphasize the important role that sonic
cartography can play in examining accessibility in urban space. The art- 2

icle calls for a new politics of sound mapping in which d/Deaf and dis- [Re]mixing Space
ability embodiment is foregrounded and through which a critical William Renel
examination of sound and social inclusion in urban spaces can begin
to emerge.

Mapping sonic inclusion

In mapping the sonic components (objects, environments or otherwise) of
an urban space, we begin to engage the complex web of political
relationships that exist between people, sound and space. This
engagement provokes important questions with regards to the (auditory)
norms and values through which urban space is made and remade.
Buildings are not stagnant loud or silent structures in which humans
simply exist and interact. Instead, they (re)produce the divergent lived and
embodied sonic experiences of their inhabitants, in turn leading to a
negotiation of auditory barriers around which structural inequalities are
contested. From the placement of speakers, height of service counters
and dominance of visual cues for wayfinding, to the normative
expectations of hearing embedded in acoustics legislation, the bodies,
ears and minds of citizens are continuously produced and reproduced,
prioritized and silenced by the design of the built environment. Within this
politics of space and place,1 the multiplicity of ways that sound and
hearing influence accessibility and social equity – sonic inclusion2 –
remains under researched in design and narrowly represented in
accessibility legislation.3 This article will develop such issues by
presenting a case study of Remixing the Globe – a participatory sound
mapping workshop and public exhibition held at Shakespeare’s Globe
Theatre, London in 2017. The case study positions sound mapping as a
methodological tool through which to examine sonic exclusion in urban
contexts and proposes that by foregrounding the perspectives of d/Deaf
and disabled people in the sound mapping process, new opportunities for
socially and sonically equitable design can emerge.

The Dominance of Physical–Visual Accessibility

Inclusive Design aims to remove barriers that create undue effort and
separation, enabling everyone to participate equally, confidently and
independently in everyday activities.4 We can understand contemporary
Inclusive Design as a rapidly evolving discipline through which designers
are challenging societal issues in a multiplicity of contexts beyond the
established perspectives of age and ability, toward gender, immigration,
economic exclusion and neurodiversity.5 Despite the emergence of
socially engaged practices such as Inclusive Design in the UK6 and
Universal Design in the USA,7 and events such as the passing of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) and The Equality Act (2010), a
limited understanding of sonic in/exclusion persists in the design and
development of the urban world. Accessibility legislation, building
3 regulations and the ideology of designers and architects who bring
legislation into practice are dominated by physical and visual concerns
that foreground the perspectives of people with physical or visible
impairments. This ocularcentric approach engenders a culture of
designing disability8 that fails to represent the diversity of lived and
embodied experiences within the population of society that identifies as
d/Deaf or disabled.9 Feminist disability theories have questioned the
prioritization of physical accessibility and visible impairment, contending
that addressing solely physical–visual concerns in urban design will fail
to meet the needs of people with invisible, sensory or cognitive
impairments.10 Recent scholarship in the USA has called for a more
critical perspective to Inclusive and Universal Design.11 This move toward
critical access studies strives to dilute a depoliticized perception of
disability and difference, to counter the prioritization of non-disabled
normative bodies and minds in the design of the built environment, and
to oppose the ableist agenda that disability is a problem to be solved,
resolved or removed.12 Such claims exist alongside recent work in
accessibility policy,13 acoustics legislation14 and holistic approaches to
urban soundscape design,15 all of which mark important changes in how
sound in public space is designed and maintained. In addition, the
emerging paradigm of “auraldiversity”16 in the UK contends that every
citizen’s hearing is different and diverges continuously under an
abundance of factors including age, neurology and profession. The
paradigm suggests that an increased understanding of the auraldiversity
of the population will enable new perspectives on social inclusion in the
built environment to emerge.17 Collectively, the perspectives outlined
interrupt the established trajectory of physical–visual accessibility and
sound a societal call to action to reframe knowledge and understanding
in relation to the social repercussions of sound in urban space. This call
to action was the impetus for Remixing the Globe, a participatory sound
mapping workshop and exhibition held at Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre,
London in 2017.

Remixing the Globe

Remixing the Globe was a two-day participatory sound mapping workshop
and exhibition created by William Renel – an Inclusive Design Researcher
based at the Helen Hamlyn Centre for Design, in partnership with
community interest company Touretteshero.18 The Helen Hamlyn Centre
for Design, part of the Royal College of Art, is an international leader in
Inclusive Design and Design Thinking. The center has its origins in the
DesignAge action research program, which was founded in 1991 and
became a fully-fledged research center in 1999. Since then, the center
has used people-centered design to address challenging social issues,
building a worldwide reputation by collaborating across community,
business and industry. Touretteshero is a disabled-led organization that
celebrates disability arts and campaigns for social justice. Since 2010,
Touretteshero has reached over 20 million people worldwide and has 4

collaborated with 150 artists and partner organizations to develop a [Re]mixing Space
knowledge base of inclusive practice that positions the organization as a William Renel

sustainable, national force for positive change across the creative

industries. Remixing the Globe took place at Shakespeare’s Globe, an
internationally renowned performance center and educational
establishment dedicated to the exploration of William Shakespeare's
work and the playhouse for which he wrote. Shakespeare’s Globe
welcomes visitors from all over the world to take part in workshops,
lectures and staged readings, to visit the exhibition and tour the Globe
Theatre, and to watch productions, ranging from original performances to
world premieres of new writing19 (Figure 1).
The aim of Remixing the Globe was to engage d/Deaf and disabled
people, with lived experience of sonic exclusion, in a participatory sound
mapping workshop in order to better understand the multiplicity of ways
that sound might include or exclude people from urban spaces. Over two
days, the group worked together to co-create a series of interactive sound
maps which highlighted elements of Shakespeare’s Globe that the group
felt were pertinent to the inclusion or exclusion of d/Deaf and disabled

Figure 1
Remixing the Globe Event
Poster. © Author, 2017.
5 people. The workshop culminated in an exhibition in which the sound
maps were presented to the public and staff from Shakespeare’s Globe.
The workshop adopted the human-centered design ethos of the Helen
Hamlyn Centre by positioning people with lived experience at the heart of
the research and design process. Theoretically, the workshop was
contextualized by what Anja Kanngieser describes as a sonic geography
of voice, in which sound acts as an affective and politicized medium
through which to engage in, and elaborate upon, contemporary globalized
political landscapes.20 In addition, the event was informed by Jacqueline
Waldock’s critique of the normative sound map – dominated by male,
technologically competent perspectives.21 In this regard, the event
positioned sound maps as social reproductions of relational and
subjective data inherently tied to intersectional audiosocial
predeterminations22 such as impairment, class, race, gender and
sexuality. The following will introduce the three main phases of the
workshop before examining the key findings that emerged in relation to
sonic inclusion.

Collaboration agreement
During the opening phase of the workshop, participants worked together
to co-author a series of agreements to define how they wished to
collaborate throughout the event. This phase was informed by
approaches to co-creation from within the arena of Inclusive Design.23
Particularly relevant were collaborative approaches that foregrounded the
co-creation of working environments where participant agency is
prioritized, toward equity as a catalyst for innovation.24 The principles
that the group defined included the following:

 Respond naturally to tics (involuntary movements and noises

made by members of the group).
 Everyone’s opinions matter.
 It is fine to wear headphones (several members of the group
were sensitive to loud sounds or sudden changes in sonic
environment).
 Make the space work for us.
 Be positive about each other’s ideas.
 Support each other if we have any challenging experiences.

Sound mapping and data collection

During the second phase of the workshop, participants collected data to
populate the sound maps using a range of devices including
the following:

 Binaural microphones: Roland CS 10EM, Sennheiser Ambeo

Smart Headset.
  Handheld digital audio recorders: Zoom H5 and H6. 6

 Handheld data-logging sound-level meters: Faber Acoustical [Re]mixing Space

SoundMeter Pro App.25 William Renel
 Smartphone-activated sound stickers: Mayfly Stickers and
related app.26
 Photographic Cameras: Canon PowerShot G1.

Participants were given a tour of the Globe building and provided

with maps to aid navigation through the different public and non-public
spaces. The goal of the sound mapping phase was to chart the elements
of Shakespeare’s Globe that the participants felt were pertinent to the
inclusion or exclusion of d/Deaf and disabled people. Particular focus was
given to individual sonic objects (such as the loud bell in the foyer during
the interval) and environments (such as toilets and the cafe ). Participants
were also invited to record their lived experiences of sonic exclusion.
Phase two was informed by specific approaches within Sound Studies
that utilize sonic cartography as a tool to better understand the
intersections of sound, space and identity,27 as well as wider auditory
epistemology concerned with technology, sound and space.28 The sound
mapping phase drew a political influence from Brandon LaBelle’s
conception of sonic agency,29 which Labelle describes as a mechanism
through which people locate themselves in and around dominant orders,
providing a conceptual framework to better understand how individuals
and communities negotiate systems of domination through sounding and
unsounding an acoustics of assembly and resistance30 (Figure 2).

Discussion
During phase three, participants were invited to share their recordings
and photographs with the group and discus their experiences of the data
collection process. Methodologically, this phase draws upon qualitative
approaches to focus group research where a small number of
participants engage in an informal group discussion around a specified
theme,31 thus enabling the effective collection of data from multiple
participants simultaneously through an inherently social activity.32 The
group discussed the diversity of sonic environments within Shakespeare’s
Globe. This included the foyer and cafe which before and after
performances are a hive of auditory activity, with languages from across
the world merging with individual sonic objects such as the pre-show bell
within the long reverberation time of the foyer acoustic. Downstairs from
the foyer, outside the Nancy W. Knowles lecture theater, the acoustic is
dampened by carpet and lower ceilings, providing a quieter space with a
low ambient noise threshold. Even when the foyer upstairs is busy and
loud before and after performances, the participants at Remixing the
Globe described this downstairs space as a “sonic safe zone.” The piazza
outside the Globe Theatre offers a different sonic environment entirely,
composed not only of the sounds of audience conversation and staff
7

Figure 2
Remixing the Globe Sound
Mapping Workshop. © Danny
Hester, 2017.

selling food and drinks, but by the changing soundscape of central

London, the river Thames and airplanes on route to London’s
Heathrow Airport.
Although existing acoustic surveys of Shakespeare’s Globe33
consider traditional acoustic measurements such as reverberation time
and rapid speech transmission index within the theater’s auditoriums, the
participants at Remixing the Globe commented on the value of producing
new forms of auditory information to ensure audiences were aware of the
different sonic environments available during their visit. One participant
commented: “if I could have a map that showed me how loud the
different spaces at the Globe were, and how these might change from day
to day or across the year, that would help me come into the building with
more confidence and independence.” This idea resonates with
contemporary thinking within urban sound design that promotes
sociocultural soundscape assessment tools alongside traditional
 8

[Re]mixing Space
William Renel

Figure 3
Visualizations Presented at
the Remixing the Globe
Exhibition, 2017.

psychoacoustic surveys to support the design and management of

contemporary urban soundscapes.34

Exhibition
Three interactive physical–digital sound maps detailing key sonic objects,
environments and experiences concerning social inclusion and relating to
different areas of the Globe building were created by the group. An
exhibition of the maps was held in the Sackler Studios at Shakespeare’s
Globe in order to “make public”35 the outputs of the workshop and to
create increased opportunities for further discussion between the
participants, members of the public and staff from Shakespeare’s Globe.
The maps showed the different areas of the Shakespeare’s Globe building
and contained pressure sensors embedded in photographs and
smartphone-activated sound stickers to enable people visiting the
exhibition to trigger binaural records captured during the workshop
process. The exhibition also included large visualizations generated in
real time during the workshop discussions (Figure 3) and poetry written
and performed by the participants.

Key Findings
The following section will examine three key findings presented in the
Remixing the Globe exhibition: communicative disablement, non-ocular
navigation and the “Sonic Story.”

Communicative disablement
Participants at Remixing the Globe discussed how the physical design of the
built environment can create sonic barriers in relation to communication.
9 Service counters are often designed at the normative height of a standing
adult person, therefore placing people such as wheelchair users or those
with dwarfism in a disabling position of being talked down to, or limiting
their access to elements of the service such as card machines. Assistive
listening systems such as induction loops are often only installed at
specific points of interest within a building, thus providing limited
communicative access to an environment for a person with hearing loss.
These considerations have been theorized as “communication
disablement,”36 understood through the social model of disability37 as
barriers, created by an object, environment or service, to an individual’s
ability to communicate. During Remixing the Globe, participants used
binaural microphones to capture a conversation at a cafe  service counter
from dual perspectives of a standing adult and a wheelchair user. The
recordings highlight how the physical service counter creates a clear
 staff from the perspective of a
reduction in the audibility of cafe
wheelchair user.

Non-ocular navigation
There is a wealth of research and practice that considers interfaces and
systems to aid non-ocular navigation, particularly from within the fields
of assistive technology38 and human–computer interaction.39 Despite
this, participants at Remixing the Globe observed that the majority of
navigational cues to aid orientation and wayfinding within the building
were visual (signs, screens, etc.). The group discussed multimodal cues
for navigation such as audible and tactile considerations, and concluded
that these should be embedded alongside graphic and visual information
within a building that aims to offer equitable experiences to different
patrons or visitors. Recent British accessibility legislation40 states that
public institutions should facilitate suitable orientation and wayfinding
for a range of people with different sensory preferences, affording a clear
legibility of space in which key facilities and different routes of navigation
are identifiable and predictable through different sensory channels.
Participants at Remixing the Globe mapped keynote sounds41 and points
of auditory interest, such as the coffee machine in the cafe  and the
interval bell in the foyer, and placed these on the exhibition maps to
highlight the existing elements of the building that they felt could be
utilized to aid non-ocular orientation and wayfinding.

The Sonic Story

As part of their accessibility provision, Shakespeare’s Globe provides a
“Visual Story” (Figures 4 and 5) described as a document to “help you
prepare for your visit.”42 The Visual Story provides information about the
building and performance that visitors may find useful prior to and during
their visit. The Visual Story format was established through the relaxed
performance movement in the UK, formalized by the Relaxed Performance
10

[Re]mixing Space
William Renel

Figure 4
Hamlet Visual Story (Front
Cover). © Shakespeare’s
Globe, 2018.

Figure 5
Hamlet Visual Story (Stage).
© Shakespeare’s
Globe, 2018.
11

Figure 6
Sonic Story – As You Like It,
Shakespeare’s Globe. ©
Author, 2018.

Project in 2012 where a network of theaters and other creative

organizations piloted relaxed performances and a “relaxed inclusion”
methodology across a number of cultural institutions.
Participants at Remixing the Globe observed a clear lack of sonic
information available in relation to the building and performances. In
response, they recorded sounds from across the building, including hand
dryers in the toilets and average noise thresholds in the bar area before
and during a performance. Pressure sensors and wireless portable
speakers were then used to embed these elements within the exhibition
sound maps in order for the maps to narrate the “Sonic Story” of the
building. Following the Remixing the Globe exhibition, Shakespeare’s Globe
has continued to work with the Helen Hamlyn Centre to create Sonic
Stories for a number of performances (Figures 6 and 7). These graphics
serve as visual sound maps which represent the key auditory elements of
a performance that are particularly loud (e.g. gunshots) or quiet (e.g. solo
 12

[Re]mixing Space
William Renel

Figure 7
Sonic Story – Hamlet,
Shakespeare’s Globe. ©
Author, 2018.

singing). The method is designed for anyone who might benefit from
increased information about a sonic environment prior to or during their
visit, such as a person with a learning disability or autism, a person who
experiences social anxiety or anyone with a specific interest in sound.
Drawing on these key findings, Figure 8 provides a summary of
significant areas identified during the Remixing the Globe workshop as
future directions for work surrounding the inclusive design of sound in
public space.

Conclusion
Sonic inclusion has received little attention in the design and
management of the built environment, yet the case study of Remixing the
Globe highlights the multiplicity of ways that sound might create design
exclusion43 for citizens in urban spaces. Findings from the workshop and
exhibition emphasize the important role that sonic cartography can play
in examining new perspectives on accessibility in urban environments by
13

Figure 8
Future Directions of Sonic
Inclusivity in The Built
Environment.

enabling the experiences of d/Deaf and disabled people to be heard

through an acoustic politics of voice.44 The case study outlined considers
sound mapping as a tool to explore sonic exclusion in the context of one
multipurpose urban institution in London. However, an inclusive approach
to sound mapping led by d/Deaf and disabled people has the potential to
be applied in wider contexts such as accessibility on transport or in
hospitals and rural areas. Careful considerations should be made in such
circumstances to avoid the normativity that has been described as
entrenched in the developing methodological approaches to sound
mapping.45 Jon Wargo provides a contemporary example of inclusive
sound mapping approaches by discussing sonic cartography as a vehicle
through which to examine personal injustice, homophobia and misogyny
from the perspective of a 17-year-old self-identified “queer
Latina lesbian.”46
The opportunity for sound mapping to develop further as a tool
through which to enact a more sonically inclusive future is supported by
wider discourse within Inclusive Design and Sound Studies. The British
Accessibility Standard “Design of an Accessible and Inclusive Built
Environment Part 2” calls for the inclusion of a dedicated quiet space
within built environments such as theaters where individuals might find
peace and calm in order to manage sensory or neurological processing
needs.47 The standard also promotes the principle of at least two senses
where audible, tactile and visual modalities are incorporated in the design
of information and wayfinding cues in public spaces. The European
Cooperation in Science and Technology action TD0804 – Soundscape of
European Cities and Landscapes represents a paradigm shift within 14

acoustics that transcends physical measurements and incorporates [Re]mixing Space

factors from human and social sciences – such as perception – to William Renel
account for the diversity of soundscapes across cultures. The action
develops a holistic approach to soundscape design which considers
environmental sounds as a resource rather than a waste. This approach
includes sociocultural soundscape assessment tools to support planning
and redevelopment of innovative urban sonic space.48 The International
Standard “Definition and Conceptual Framework of Soundscape”49 has
been updated to include factors such as hearing loss which may cause
human hearing to fluctuate. Drever describes this as a “sea change” in
how an acoustics standard regards hearing not as a static entity, but as a
divergent and dynamic modality.50 Finally, the emerging paradigm of
auraldiversity51 contends that every citizen’s hearing is different and
diverges continuously under the influence of an abundance of factors
including age, neurology, profession, culture and the psychophysical
system. Collectively, these perspectives afford a new politics of sound
mapping in which d/Deaf and disability embodiment is foregrounded and
through which a critical examination of sound and social inclusion in
urban spaces can begin to emerge.

Dr William Renel’s practice as an inclusive design researcher emerges at

the junctions between sound, interaction and social inclusion research.
Renel is a postdoctoral innovation fellow at the Helen Hamlyn Centre for
Design, a company director of community interest company Touretteshero
and a member of the Heart n Soul at the Hub research team at Wellcome
Collection, London.

Notes

1 Chiara Certoma  , Nicola Clewer, and Doug Rychta rikova

Elsey, eds., The Politics of Space and
Place (Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars
Publishing, 2012).
2 William Renel, “Auraldiversity: Defining a
Hearing-Centred Approach to Socially
Equitable Design of the Built
Environment,” Built Environment
44 (2018).
3 Ann Heylighen, Monika Rychta  rikova
, and
Gerrit Vermeir, “Designing for Every
Listener,” Universal Access in the
Information Society 9 (2009); Ann
Heylighen, Monika Rychta  rikova, and
Gerrit Vermeir, “The Sound of Inclusion: A
Case Study on Acoustic Comfort for All,”
in Designing Inclusive Futures, ed. P.
Langdon, J. Clarkson, and P. Robinson
(New York: Springer, 2010); and Monika
, Jasmien Herssens, and
Ann Heylighen, Towards More Inclusive
Approaches in Soundscape Research: The
Soundscape of Blind People (New York:
Inter-Noise, 2012).
4 Howard Fletcher, The Principles of
Inclusive Design (London: Commission for
Architecture and the Built Environment,
2006), 1.
5 Rama Gheerawo, “Socially Inclusive
Design: A People-Centred Perspective,”
in The Routledge Companion to Design
Studies, ed. P. Sparke and F. Fisher
(London: Routledge, 2016).
6 Roger Coleman, et al., Design for
Inclusivity: A Practical Guide to
Accessible, Innovative and User-Centred
Design (London: Routledge, 2016); and
Jordana L Maisel, et al., Inclusive Design:
15 Implementation and Evaluation (London:
Routledge, 2018).
7 Ron Mace, “Universal Design: Barrier-
Free Environments for Everyone,”
Designers West 33 (1985).
8 Elizabeth Guffey, Designing Disability:
Symbols, Space, and Society (New York:
Bloomsbury Academic, 2018).
9 Jos Boys, Disability, Space, Architecture:
A Reader (London: Routledge, 2017).
10 Mairian Corker, “Sensing
Disability,” Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist
Philosophy 16 (2001); Aimi Hamraie,
“Designing Collective Access: A Feminist
Disability Theory of Universal Design,”
Disability Studies Quarterly 33 (2013);
and Aimi Hamraie, Building Access:
Universal Design and the Politics of
Disability (Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota Press, 2017).
11 Aimi Hamraie, “Universal Design and the
Problem of ‘Post-Disability’
Ideology,” Design and Culture 8 (2016).
12 Alison Kafer, Feminist Queer Crip
(Bloomington: Indiana University
Press, 2013).
13 BS8300-2, “Design of an Accessible and
Inclusive Built Environment – Part 2”
(London: British Standards Institute, 2018).
14 BS ISO 12913-1, “Acoustics –
Soundscape – Part 1: Definition and
Conceptual Framework of Soundscape”
(Geneva: International Organization for
Standardization, 2014).
15 Jordon Lacey, Sonic Rapture: A Practice-
led Approach to Urban Soundscape Design
(New York: Bloomsbury, 2016); and Jan
Kang and Brigette Schulte-Fortkamp,
Soundscape and the Built Environment
(Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2016).
16 John Levack Drever, “The Case for
Auraldiversity in Acoustic Regulations
and Practice: The Hand Dryer Noise
Story” (paper presented at the 24th
International Congress on Sound and
Vibration, London, UK, July 23–27, 2017).
17 Renel, “Auraldiversity.”
18 “Touretteshero,” www.touretteshero.com
(accessed September 1, 2018).
19 “Shakespeare’s Globe,” www.
shakespearesglobe.com (accessed
November 1, 2018).
20 Anna Kanngieser, “A Sonic Geography of
Voice: Towards an Affective Politics,”
Progress in Human Geography 36 (2012).
21 Jacqueline Waldock, “Soundmapping:
Critiques and Reflections on this New
Publicly Engaging Medium,” Journal of
Sonic Studies 1 (2011). Available online:
http://journal.sonicstudies.org/vol01/
nr01/a08
22 Steve Goodman, Sonic Warfare: Sound,
Affect, and the Ecology of Fear
(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2010).
23 John Clarkson, et al., Inclusive Design:
Design for the Whole Population (London:
Springer, 2003); and R. Coleman et al.,
Design for Inclusivity.
24 Oliver Marlow and Dermot Egan,
Codesigning Space – A Primer (London:
Artifice Books, 2013).
25 “Faber Acoustical,” www.faberacoustical.
com (accessed November 1, 2018).
26 “Mayfly,” www.mayflysound.com
(accessed September 01, 2018).
27 Walter S. Gershon, “Sonic Cartography:
Mapping Space, Place, Race and Identity
in An Urban Middle School,” Taboo: The
Journal of Culture and Education
13 (2013).
28 Barry Blesser and Linda Salter, Spaces
Speak: Are You Listening? Experiencing
Aural Architecture (Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press, 2009); Michael Bull, Sounding Out
the City: Personal Stereos and the
Management of Everyday Life (Oxford:
Berg, 2000); and Andrew J. Eisenberg,
“Space,” in Keywords in Sound, ed. D.
Novak and M. Sakakeeny (Durham, NC:
Duke University Press, 2015).
29 Brandon LaBelle. 2018. Sonic Agency –
Sound and Emergent Forms of Resistance
(London: Goldsmiths Press, 2018).
30 Ibid., 4.
31 Sue Wilkinson, “Focus Group Research,” in
Qualitative Research: Theory, Method, and
Practice, ed. D. Silverman (Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage, 2004).
32 Richard A. Krueger and Mary Anne
Casey, Focus Groups: A Practical Guide
for Applied Research, 3rd ed. (Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage, 2000).
33 Russell Richardson and Bridget M.
Shield, “Acoustic Measurement of
Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre, London,”
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America 105 (1999).
34 Jan Kang, et al., COST Action TD0804 –
Soundscape of European Cities and
Landscapes (Oxford: Soundscape-COST,
 2013); and Kang and Schulte-
Fortkamp, Soundscape.
35 Bruno Latour and Peter Weibel. Making
Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy
(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005).
36 Kevin Paterson, “It’s About Time!
Understanding the Experience of Speech
Impairment,” in Routledge Handbook of
Disability Studies, ed. N. Watson, A.
Roulstone, and C. Thomas (London:
Routledge, 2016).
37 Colin Barnes and Geof Mercer, Disability:
Key Concepts (Cambridge: Polity Press,
2003); Colin Barnes and Geof Mercer,
Implementing the Social Model of
Disability: Theory and Research (Leeds:
The Disability Press, 2004); and Tom
Shakespeare and Nick Watson,
“Defending the Social Model,” Disability
and Society 12, no. 2 (1997).
38 Steven La Grow, “The Use of the Sonic
Pathfinder as a Secondary Mobility Aid
for Travel in Business Environments: A
Single-Subject Design,” Journal of
Rehabilitation Research and Development
36, (1999); and David A. Ross and Bruce
B. Blasch, “Wearable Interfaces for
Orientation and Wayfinding,” in
Proceedings of The Fourth International
ACM Conference On Assistive
Technologies , Arlington, Virginia, USA,
November 13–15, 2000.
39 Anke Brock, et al., “Interactivity Improves
Usability of Geographic Maps for Visually
Impaired People,” Human–Computer
Interaction 30 (2015); Florence Gaunet
and Xavier Briffault, “Exploring the
Functional Specifications of a Localized
Wayfinding Verbal Aid for Blind
Pedestrians: Simple and Structured
References
– Barnes, Colin, and Geof Mercer. 2003.
Disability: Key Concepts. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
– Barnes, Colin, and Geof Mercer. 2004.
Implementing the Social Model of
Disability: Theory and Research. Leeds: The
Disability Press.
– Blesser, Barry, and Linda Salter. 2009.
Spaces Speak: Are You Listening?
Experiencing Aural Architecture.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Urban Areas,” Human–Computer 16
Interaction 20 (2005); and Florian Grond
[Re]mixing Space
and Piet Devos, “Sonic Boundary
William Renel
Objects: Negotiating Disability,
Technology and Simulation,” Digital
Creativity 27 (2016).
40 BS8300-2, “Design.”
41 R. M. Schafer, The Tuning of the World
(New York: Knopf). Reprinted as Our
Sonic Environment and the Soundscape:
The Tuning of the World (Rochester, VT:
Destiny Books, 1994). Schafer defines
“keynote sounds” as those which are
heard by a particular society
continuously or frequently enough to
form a background against which other
sounds are perceived (ibid., 272).
42 “Shakespeare’s Globe.”
43 Clarkson, et al, Inclusive Design; and S.
Keates and J. Clarkson, Countering
Design Exclusion: An Introduction to
Inclusive Design (London: Springer, 2004).
44 Kanngieser, “A Sonic Geography
of Voice.”
45 Waldock, “Soundmapping.”
46 Jon M. Wargo, “#SoundingOutMySilence:
Reading a LGBTQ Youth's Sonic
Cartography as Multimodal (Counter)
Storytelling,” Journal of Adolescent and
Adult Literacy 62 (2018).
47 BS8300-2, “Design,” 154.
48 Kang et al., COST Action TD0804; and
Kang and Schulte-
Fortkamp, Soundscape.
49 BS ISO 12913-1, “Acoustics.”
50 Drever, “Case for Auraldiversity.”
51 Renel, Auraldiversity; and Drever, “Case
for Auraldiversity.”
– Boys, Jos. 2017. Disability, Space,
Architecture: A Reader. London: Routledge.
– Brock, Anke M., Philipe Truillet, Bernard
Oriola, Delphine Picard, and Christophe
Jouffrais 2015. “Interactivity Improves
Usability of Geographic Maps for Visually
Impaired People.” Human–Computer
Interaction 30, no. 2: 156–194.
– BS ISO 12913-1. 2014. “Acoustics –
Soundscape – Part 1: Definition and
Conceptual Framework of Soundscape.”
17 Geneva: International Organization for
Standardization.
– BS8300-2. 2018. “Design of an Accessible
and Inclusive Built Environment – Part 2.”
London: British Standards Institute.
– Bull, Michael. 2000. Sounding Out the City:
Personal Stereos and the Management of
Everyday Life. Oxford: Berg.
– Certoma, Chiara , Nicola Clewer, and Doug
Elsey, eds. 2012. The Politics of Space and
Place. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars
Publishing.
– Clarkson, John, Roger Coleman, Simeon
Keates, and Cherie Lebbon. 2003. Inclusive
Design: Design for the Whole Population.
London: Springer.
– Coleman, Roger, John Clarkson, Hua Dong,
and Julia Cassim. 2016. Design for
Inclusivity: A Practical Guide to Accessible,
Innovative and User-Centred Design.
London: Routledge.
– Corker, Mairian. 2001. “Sensing Disability.”
Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy
16, no. 4: 34–52.
– Drever, John Levack. 2017. “The Case for
Auraldiversity in Acoustic Regulations and
Practice: The Hand Dryer Noise Story.”
Paper presented at the 24th International
Congress on Sound and Vibration, London,
UK, July 23–27.
– Eisenberg, Andrew J. 2015. “Space.” In
Keywords in Sound, edited by D. Novak
and M. Sakakeeny, 193–207. Durham, NC:
Duke University Press.
– “Faber Acoustical.” www.faberacoustical.
com. (accessed November 1, 2018).
– Fletcher, Howard. 2006. The Principles of
Inclusive Design. London: Commission for
Architecture and the Built Environment.
– Gaunet, Florence, and Xavier Briffault.
2005. “Exploring the Functional
Specifications of a Localized Wayfinding
Verbal Aid for Blind Pedestrians: Simple
and Structured Urban Areas.”
Human–Computer Interaction 20, no. 3:
267–314.
– Gershon, Walter S. 2013. “Sonic
Cartography: Mapping Space, Place, Race
and Identity in an Urban Middle School.”
Taboo: The Journal of Culture and
Education 13: 21–45.
– Gheerawo, Rama. 2016. “Socially Inclusive
Design: A People-Centred Perspective.” In
The Routledge Companion to Design
Studies, edited by P. Sparke and F. Fisher,
304–316. London: Routledge.
– Goodman, Steve. 2010. Sonic Warfare:
Sound, Affect, and the Ecology of Fear.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
– Grond, Florian, and Piet Devos. 2016.
“Sonic Boundary Objects: Negotiating
Disability, Technology and Simulation.”
Digital Creativity 27, no. 4: 334–346.
– Guffey, Elizabeth. 2018. Designing
Disability: Symbols, Space, and Society.
New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
– Hamraie, Aimi. 2013. “Designing Collective
Access: A Feminist Disability Theory of
Universal Design.” Disability Studies
Quarterly 33, no. 4.
– Hamraie, Aimi. 2016. “Universal Design
and the Problem of ‘Post-Disability’
Ideology.” Design and Culture 8, no. 3:
285–309.
– Hamraie, Aimi. 2017. Building Access:
Universal Design and the Politics of
Disability. Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota Press.
– Heylighen, Ann, Monika Rychta  rikova
, and
Gerrit Vermeir. 2009. “Designing for Every
Listener.” Universal Access in the
Information Society 9, no. 3: 283–292.
– Heylighen, A., M. Rychta  rikova
, and G.
Vermeir. 2010. “The Sound of Inclusion: A
Case Study on Acoustic Comfort for All.” In
Designing Inclusive Futures, edited by P.
Langdon, J. Clarkson, and P. Robinson,
75–84. New York: Springer.
– Kafer, Alison. 2013. Feminist Queer Crip.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
– Kang, Jan, Kalliopi Chourmouziadou,
Kostantinos Sakantamis, Bo Wang, and
Yiying Hao. 2013. COST Action TD0804 –
Soundscape of European Cities and
Landscapes. Oxford: Soundscape-COST.
– Kang, Jan, and Brigette Schulte-Fortkamp.
2016. Soundscape and the Built
Environment. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
– Kanngieser, Anna. 2012. “A Sonic
Geography of Voice: Towards an Affective
Politics.” Progress in Human Geography 36,
no. 3: 336–353.
– Keates, S., and J. Clarkson. 2004.
Countering Design Exclusion: An
Introduction to Inclusive Design. London:
Springer.
– Krueger, Richard A., and Mary Anne Casey.
2000. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for
 Applied Research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
– LaBelle, Brandon. 2018. Sonic Agency –
Sound and Emergent Forms of Resistance.
London: Goldsmiths Press.
– Lacey, Jordan. 2016. Sonic Rapture: A
Practice-led Approach to Urban
Soundscape Design. New York:
Bloomsbury.
– Latour, Bruno, and Peter Weibel. 2005.
Making Things Public: Atmospheres of
Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
– La Grow, Steven. 1999. “The Use of the
Sonic Pathfinder as a Secondary Mobility
Aid for Travel in Business Environments: A
Single-Subject Design.” Journal of
Rehabilitation Research and Development
36, no. 4: 333–340.
– Mace, Ron. 1985. “Universal Design:
Barrier-Free Environments for Everyone.”
Designers West 33, no. 1: 147–152.
– Maisel, Jordana L., Edward Steinfeld,
Megan Basnak, Korydon Smith, and Beth
Tauke. 2018. Inclusive Design:
Implementation and Evaluation. London:
Routledge.
– Marlow, Oliver, and Dermot Egan. 2013.
Codesigning Space – A Primer. London:
Artifice Books.
– “Mayfly.” www.mayflysound.com.
(accessed November 1, 2018).
– Paterson, Kevin. 2016. “It’s About Time!
Understanding the Experience of Speech
Impairment.” In Routledge Handbook of
Disability Studies, edited by N. Watson, A.
Roulstone, and C. Thomas, 165–177.
London: Routledge.
– Renel, William. 2018. “Auraldiversity:
Defining a Hearing-Centred Approach to
Socially Equitable Design of the Built
Environment.” Built Environment 44, no. 1:
36–51.
– Richardson, Russell, and Bridget M.
Shield. 1999. “Acoustic measurement of
Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre, London.”
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of 18
America 105, no. 2: 1044.
[Re]mixing Space
– Ross, David A., and Bruce B. Blasch. 2000.
William Renel
“Wearable Interfaces for Orientation and
Wayfinding.” In Proceedings of the Fourth
International ACM Conference on Assistive
Technologies, New York, NY, USA:
193–200.
– Rychtarikova, Monika, Jasmien
Herssens, and Ann Heylighen. 2012.
Towards More Inclusive Approaches in
Soundscape Research: The
Soundscape of Blind People. New York:
Inter-Noise.
– Schafer, R. M. 1977. The Tuning of the
World. New York: Knopf. Reprinted as Our
Sonic Environment and the Soundscape:
The Tuning of the World. Rochester, VT:
Destiny Books, 1994.
– “Shakespeare’s Globe.” www.
shakespearesglobe.com. (accessed
November 1, 2018).
– Shakespeare, Tom, and Nick Watson.
1997. “Defending the Social
Model.” Disability and Society 12, no. 2:
293–300.
– “Touretteshero.” www.touretteshero.com.
(accessed November 1, 2018).
– Waldock, Jacqueline. 2011. “Soundmapping:
Critiques and Reflections on this New
Publicly Engaging Medium.” Journal of
Sonic Studies 1, no. 1. Available online:
http://journal.sonicstudies.org/vol01/nr01/
a08 (accessed October 01, 2018).
– Wargo, Jon M. 2018.
“#SoundingOutMySilence: Reading a
LGBTQ Youth's Sonic Cartography as
Multimodal (Counter)Storytelling.” Journal
of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 62, no. 1:
13–23.
– Wilkinson, Sue. 2004. “Focus Group
Research.” In Qualitative Research: Theory,
Method, And Practice, edited by D.
Silverman, 177–199. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.