How Materiality and Language Intertwine to Encourage Further Use of Available Broad-Wool Fibres for Fashion

Textiles are “warm, soft to the touch, and completely flexible; thus, they take up any desired shape without resistance. They are also usually hard-wearing” (Cook, 2001, p. pg.xv).

Fibres as single threads are typically described technically to enable the observer to understand their properties, such as flexibility, fineness, and length-to-width ratio (Spencer, 2001, p. 1). However, when a fibre transforms into a piece of cloth, it takes on a new form as a textile and can evoke many personal responses. This can be highly emotional for both the maker and the owner, particularly once in the form of a garment. Thus, textiles often elicit descriptive language and emotional responses from those who interact with them (Dolan & Holloway, 2016).

The relationship between textiles, tactility, and language has been discussed among practitioners and philosophers.

It shapes how individuals and societies perceive materials, artefacts, and processes, serving as a means of both portraying and understanding them. Consequently, this research aimed to determine whether utilizing acceptable descriptive terms could serve as an alternative method for investigating the properties of a single fibre type: broad-wool. It set out to develop a library of accessible and understandable sensory descriptors that characterize broad wool, with the goal of promoting the positive qualities of its handle and encouraging further use of these fibres in fashion and textiles.

Many knitted fabrics created from different combinations of single-breed broad-wool fibres were analyzed using the library of terms to develop a detailed understanding of the handle of each fibre type and the sensory experiences they evoke when handled. The descriptors were categorized to make the language easier to interpret and facilitate the assessment of how soft the knitted structures feel to the touch. It is anticipated that these sensory descriptors could be consistently applied to characterize the tactility of various fibre types in the future, thereby enhancing the use of these natural fibres already available in our ecosystem but often overlooked due to their perceived “coarse,” “prickly,” or “itchy” handle.

Sneddon et al. (2011a) uncovered many factors influencing consumers when purchasing a broad-wool garment. Critically, they discovered that consumers automatically categorize products as they experience them, based on artefacts they already recognize (Delong, Marshall, & Larntz, 1986). Those purchasing everyday fashion garments tend to prefer a woollen fabric that is soft and comfortable. Softness, comfort, and aesthetics are all significant factors in a consumer's purchasing decisions (Park & Stoel, 2005). Consumers rarely assess a garment solely on its functional attributes, such as durability and physical properties (Ahirwar & Behera, 2022). Instead, the aesthetics and tactility of the garment are subconsciously evaluated through the perceiver's sensory and emotional responses to the garment and the material from which it is made. These responses will vary from person to person, and many will not be aware they are making such assessments (De Klerk & Lubbe, 2008).

Australian Wool Innovation (AWI) funded research on wool’s tactility. Sneddon et al. (2011a; 2011b) evaluated wool from a marketer's perspective, while a team from Deakin University in Australia (Mcgregor & Naebe, 2013) studied its physical properties. Their studies revealed that over 50% of consumers identified wool’s “prickle” or “itch sensation” as its biggest drawback. The team uncovered why this was; wool’s so-called “prickly feeling” is caused by “mechanical stimulation of pain receptor nerve endings caused by protruding fibre ends applying a force to the skin” (McGregor et al., 2014; McGregor et al., 2015). Thus, the Wool Comfort Meter (WCM) and the Wool Handle Meter (WHM) were developed to measure wool comfort objectively (Wang, 2013; Naebe et al., 2018; Sun, Du, & Naebe, 2018). The meters were tested during many wearer trials, which assessed how the wearer responds to numerous types of knitted garments (predominantly fine gauge) with a wool content of over 85%. The trials discovered that wool does not make the skin itch; it feels prickly to touch.

The researcher’s own experience as a knitwear designer substantiated this: they could design and sample a garment in various materials, but if the company's fit model perceived an “itchy” sensation while wearing the garment during fitting, it would not progress to production. Therefore, if British wool is to be further utilized for apparel, its tactility must be considered and, if possible, improved.

Hebrok et al. (2016) agreed that a consumer’s perception of wool is often unfavourable and discovered many attributes influencing one's experience with wool, including performance, value, physical appearance, style, past experience, and nostalgia (Hebrok & Klepp, 2014). Hebrok et al. (2016) explored the average person’s “knowledge” of wool, discovering that many view wool as “traditional” rather than “trendy,” describe wool as itchy, and express a low tolerance for wearing wool next-to-skin. The study revealed that consumers hold preconceived notions about fabrics they like or dislike, which can stem from memories of previous garments they have worn, comments from loved ones, and personal experiences with clothing, whether positive, negative, or nostalgic. These are subjective, emotional perceptions of a fabric. For example, a person may have previously worn garments made of wool and experienced a prickly sensation. As a result, they may assume that all wool garments are the same. In contrast, someone with positive memories of a wool garment may not associate wool garments with prickliness or discomfort, making them more open to wearing a similar garment (Doyle, Tester, & Thompson, 2014).

Consequently, it can be determined that sense is influenced by more than just physical properties.

The same wool garment can be adored and worn by one person while causing discomfort to another. The literature summarizes that consumers do not evaluate fabrics technically; instead, they depend on a complex mix of emotional and sensory responses. Consumers frequently avoid clothing made with wool because they perceive it as itchy, prickly, or uncomfortable. Thus, when evaluating fabrics for their perceived tactility, it is important to consider both the materials' sensory attributes and their technical and physical characteristics. Language serves as a valuable tool in facilitating this assessment.

The term “Handle” describes physical, psychological, and social responses when touching a fabric (Yim & Kan, 2016, p. 467). “Fabric hand” refers to the sense of touch and the responses that surface when fabrics are touched, squeezed, rubbed, or handled (Jevsnik et al., 2014). It is, therefore, the subjective perception one acquires by feeling fabric to interpret its properties. When one handles a fabric, touch and movement combine to create a physiological sensation that leads to a subjective fabric evaluation (Sun et al.,2019). Thus, fabric handle is an interaction between both objective and subjective consciousness.

There are many systems for conducting subjective and objective technical fabric handle evaluation. The KES-F system, developed by Kawabata in the 1970s, assesses the material's physical attributes: fibre diameter, bending and stability properties (Jimba, et al., 2020; Carrera-Gallissa, Capdevila, & Valldeperas, 2016). These systems do not consider how one engages with the materials, the sensations one encounters, and how one expresses them. When the fabric is handled:

Both factors are required to assess fabric through subjective touch.

The sense of hand is a phenomenological interpretation of fabric tactility. Phenomenology examines subjective experiences and endeavours to understand how people engage with or perceive these experiences through sense and language. Husserl (1997) and Merleau-Ponty (1942) both developed theories exploring the psychology of perception, vision, touch, and tactility. Husserl discusses tactile properties, including the sensations of smoothness and roughness, and explains that by touching an object, one gains a sense of smoothness; this sense is an individual, subjective perception (Husserl, 1997, p. 47). The experiences of touch are combined with the sensation of bodily self-movement, which, as Husserl explains, “The object experienced is assembled out of our experiences: colour, shape, texture, etc.” (i.e. its properties) “and bodily movements such as the hand, head, or eyes moving” (Moran, 2015, pp. 216-217). Husserl discloses that there is no sensory experience without bodily movement, and tactile qualities such as roughness and smoothness disappear if movement is eliminated (Moran, 2015, p. 228).

Merleau-Ponty (1942) considers that fibres such as wool are perceived as itchy or prickly because when a surface is handled, one retains a memory of its tactility. He refers to such perceptions as tactile memories (Merleau-Ponty M., 1942, p. 11). Merleau-Ponty suggests that when the hand grasps an object, the object's properties and the subject's intention merge to form a new whole. Consequently, one develops a sense of what that surface feels like and will expect that sense when handling that material in the future. This substantiates the findings by Hebrok et al. (2016) that touch can be both objective (e.g., touching a sharp object and stating it is so), and subjective (e.g., describing a type of fabric as itchy). Usually, touch is oriented to the objective, but in the case of pain—such as prickliness or itchiness—the subjective sense predominates. This preconceived sensory response is triggered when the person encounters the material again (Moran, 2015, p. 228). Thus, the senses are intertwined; when one perceives an object, both objective and subjective senses are used. Through the act of touching an object, one’s understanding and perception of it develop. Therefore, while a single descriptor may give an objective description of a fabric, multiple descriptors help to create a broader understanding of what one senses when engaging with the fabric.

Merleau-Ponty believed that thinking could occur through spoken word and embodied language (Murray & Holmes, 2013). John Austin, a British philosopher of language, agreed that linguistic forms are meaningful; not in isolation, but when applied to real situations when the words take on “operative meanings” (Leeten, 2022). Merleau-Ponty (1942, p. 11) suggests that when the hand grasps an object, the object's properties and the subject's intention merge to form a unified whole. This refers to the relationships between the body and mind, the perceived world and the perceiving subject, and language and the speaker (Okamoto-MacPhail, 2018). This new perception experienced by the subject is expressed and evaluated through the language spoken. Merleau-Ponty identifies the body as a whole, and every combined sensory experience contributes to our sense of objects in the world (Moran, 2015, p. 229). Thus, the objects we perceive are not constant but dependent on an individual’s multi-sensory perception (Roxburgh, 2021, p. 181). In summary, it is through the combination of one’s sensory experiences and the language utilized to describe it that one’s perception of an object is formed.

Wool is a keratin-based animal fibre derived from the soft, crimpy hairs that form a sheep’s fleece (Taylor, 2004, p. 30). It has many inherent properties: it is breathable, and absorbs large amounts of water, vapour, and odours. It is naturally designed to keep the sheep warm through the thousands of tiny air pockets that are trapped between the fibres (Miller, 1992, p. 28; Woolmark, n.d.). Wool has existed for many millennia, co-existing within the ecology of the land which the sheep inhabit. Historically, local wool was used to clothe and keep people warm. Fisherman's ganseys, traditionally worn by fishermen up and down the coast of the British Isles, are one such example (Pearson, 2015).

It is estimated that there are 1,400 sheep breeds worldwide (Robson & Ekarius, 2011, p. 4). The wool from these sheep is classified into three main types: fine wools, medium or crossbred wools, and broad-wools. Fine wools like Merino wool are known to be soft, lustrous, and suitable for next-to-skin wear, whereas yarns produced from crossbred or broad-wool sheep are not perceived so favourably. Wool fibres are classified by length and diameter, with the most desirable fibres producing staples [1] twelve centimetres or longer in length and smaller than 22 microns [2] in diameter (The Woolmark Company, 2023). Thus, theoretically, fine, long fibres produce softer handling yarns than fibres with short stapes and a high micron count.

The UK only has a handful of merino sheep, yet it boasts one of the world's most diverse sheep populations. These sheep are predominantly broad-wool (> 22.6-micron fibre diameter) (The Woolmark Company, 2023). Therefore, the wool produced from the fleece of these sheep is coarser, thicker, and feels rougher than wool originating from fine wool sheep. Unfortunately, this leads to meagre financial returns for British sheep farmers. Recently, the cost of wool processing has exceeded the commercial value of British wool, leading to the disposal or composting of unprocessed fleeces. Thus, the financial return is limited to meat production (Mahy, 2020). For this reason, it is important to explore different avenues for utilizing British wool because it is a resource that already exists and is renewable since sheep grow a new fleece every year (IWTO, 2022).

Researching broad-wool fibres aligns with current sustainable fashion and textile studies. For fashion to remain viable in the future, it must establish connections with the communities in which materials and artefacts are produced and become more localized and specialized (Williams, 2018).

Localism emphasizes the utilization of nearby resources, place-specific knowledge, and community and social assets within an area to shape a more resilient local economy (Fletcher & Tham, 2019; Walker, 2007).

Although localism is not new, the British fashion industry has largely neglected it over the past century. However, embracing localism could significantly enhance fashion’s relationship with the environment. British wool meets these criteria, as it is bred within communities with distinct flocks, resulting in fleeces with distinct attributes that have been historically utilized by those communities. Shetland Fair Isle knitting exemplifies this (Pearson, 2015, pp. 172-218).

This paper discusses seven breed-specific British broad-wool fibres. These fibres were chosen based on several specific criteria. Most critically, the yarns had to be available on a cone in the correct yarn count to knit on a Brother domestic knitting machine. Selecting yarns that met the requirements of the knitting machine enabled responsive design, where the researcher responded to the yarn's requirements. The yarn counts most appropriate ranged from 2/6Nm to 2/15Nm. All selected yarns have a micron count of < 22.6. The researchers sought fibres already being spun to evaluate their potential for commercial use in the fashion market. While various 100% British wool coned yarns are available, details such as the breed, quality, blend, and whether the yarn is recycled are often not specified. Thus, the project aimed to increase the understanding of British wool fibres as a comfortable, affordable, and sustainable fashion option through breed-specific yarns (Wilmott, 2024).

Table 1 lists the seven selected yarns and summarizes their properties, providing an overview of each fibre's tactility before they are blended through the pattern on the knitting machine.

table 1

summarizes the properties and softness of each yarn type.

The research project was a practice-based textile design study, with the creative direction of the project determined by the selection of appropriate patterns. As such, the practice began by investigating suitable pattern types. Due to the constraints of the knitting machine, single-bed fabrics [3] were chosen because they offer many commercial advantages. They are more economical to produce in terms of yarn usage compared to double-bed fabrics. The fabric's characteristics are preferable as the material is relatively light and less prone to stretching than rib fabrics, and the structure is simpler to shape through knitting (Hurley, 2019, pp. 149-150).

An infinite number of patterns could be explored, but to ensure each pattern was explored in depth, five patterns were selected: stripes, float-jacquard, tuck jacquard, hand-manipulated tuck, and inlay structures. The fabrics were created before language was utilized as a method of analysis.

This approach is an alternative to traditional blending processes, such as spinning and twisting, because it utilizes weft-knitted pattern structures to combine two, three, or more yarn types together. Each yarn type is knitted through a single feeder, with the blending occurring in the same way that a pattern on the knitting machine combines different colours. Successfully blended fabrics exchange yarn types regularly to incorporate different fibre types effectively.

The fabric collection was created over four separate phases of making, with a period of reflection and interpretation at the end of each phase. The research team chose two methods for recording this data. First, they utilized a softness ranking from 1 to 5. Second, they recorded three sensory descriptors (adjectives) that the researcher felt best interpreted their perception of the fabric’s tactility. Those fabrics demonstrating potential in terms of knittability, bendability, or softness were further developed.

The project progressed through four phases. The first phase explored the properties of each yarn type and the potential of various pattern structures. The second phase focused on combining two yarn types in many pattern structures to ascertain the most successful combinations. The third phase explored combining three yarn types together or testing structural variations to the more successful patterns. The final stage focused on integrating the yarn types to ensure the most successful outcomes (Wilmott, 2024).

To interpret tactility with language effectively, an understanding of the language used to describe tactility within materials research was necessary. Thus, an extensive range of journal articles were examined to identify language used to portray the sensorial properties of fabrics; this language is what Xue et al. (2016) describe as “Sensory Descriptors.”

The most influential research article on the study was “A Review of Fabric Tactile Properties and Their Subjective Assessment for Next-to-Skin Knitted Fabrics” by Mahar et al. (2013). The softness rating system, presented in Table 1, was derived from the tactility charts used in this study. The areas selected for assessment were compared to research studies conducted by Wiskott et al. (2018) and Choi and Ashdown (2000), both of which examine the tactile qualities of weft-knitted pattern structures.

The study by Mahar et al. (2013) is one of the few articles discussing the same type of sensory descriptors as this study. It became apparent that most journals use the same form of descriptive language as objective testing systems, such as KESF. This technical terminology includes terms such as compressibility, bending properties, tensile properties, stability, fabric shear, and surface friction. However, the researchers considered this language too specialized, inaccessible, and challenging for the broader population. Instead, they documented any language that disclosed a person's personal reaction to handling fabric. The two most common descriptors used to characterize tactility were softness and thickness. Other frequent descriptors included rough/ roughness, smooth/ smoothness, stiffness, warmth, and lightweight. The research team concluded that these terms are universally accepted within academia as sensory descriptors, yet they are also accessible to a broader audience.

The sensory descriptors were compiled into a word bubble. To facilitate the process of identifying appropriate terms, they were categorized as either positive or negative. However, in hindsight, one outcome of the research was that some negative descriptors may be used positively, and vice versa. This is further discussed in the results section.

Figure 1

The “Sensory Descriptors” are arranged into positive and negative categories.

Over four making phases, 368 fabrics were created, and three sensory descriptors that captured each fabric’s tactility were recorded. Table 2 lists the 20 most frequently used terms. The terms are relatively similar due to the fabric's comparable properties and yarn counts. Even the most innovative blend combinations were unlikely to evoke a sense of surface qualities that were shiny, reflective, or sparkly.

“Fuzzy” was the most popular term, recorded 104 times. Table 1 shows the varying proportions of fuzz, staples, and kemp [4] protruding from each fibre strand, which were subsequently knitted into the fabrics. “Fuzzy” could be considered a neutral term, suggesting warmth and comfort or a fabric with a pilling texture. Therefore, this term alone does not clearly define the material or its tactile qualities, so three words were used to visualize each material more exactly.

table 2

The 20 most frequently used sensory descriptors.

Figures 2 and 3 rearrange some of the frequently used terms to provide a visual overview of the tactile qualities of the fabrics considered softest and coarsest within the fabric collection.

Figure 2 suggests the potential tactility of broad-wool fibres when suitable patterns and yarn blends are combined. 28 descriptors are visualized in total, with “spongy” standing out, describing 17 of the 30 fabrics. While spongy has neutral connotations, the term illustrates how one interacts with the fabric. This descriptor is frequently used due to the pattern structure, specifically the tuck jacquard, whose structure mimics the properties of a traditional fisherman’s rib with its thick, spongy, squishy texture. Consequently, spongy objectively represents the tactile experiences of handling a tuck jacquard fabric.

Other notable words include light, hairy, smooth, drapey, silky, and fluffy. These terms contradict typical chunky wool garment descriptions. Silky is rarely associated with broad-wools, but Blue-faced Leicester is an exception, as it is very smooth and knits with a silky sheen.

Figure 3 contrasts Figure 2. The language used does not visualize a fabric one would choose to wear next-to-skin. Many of these “coarse” fabrics were created during the first making phase, when the practice was still very exploratory, and none contained Blue-faced Leicester; instead, they were combinations of Kent Romney and White-faced Woodland or Kent Romney and Southdown. The softer yarn combinations and more effective pattern structures were identified through testing various yarn and pattern combinations. Thus, the sensory descriptors compiled in Figure 3 provided valuable insights into fabrics that were not effective or provoked negative emotional responses.

Table 2 and Figure 2 show that many positive sensory descriptors were recorded, but Figure 3 highlights that terms such as flat, prickly, thick, and rough were also recorded repeatedly. Initially, it was disappointing to realize the frequency in which these terms were used. “Prickly” is a term with negative perceptions. The literature highlights researchers who spent considerable time working to improve the perceived “prickle” sensation. Indeed, even Merleau-Ponty used the sensation of prickle as an example of subjective pain (Moran, 2015, p. 228). However, upon reflection, the word “prickle” has not been used to describe a painful sensation; instead, it depicts the material the perceiver is handling objectively.

Revisiting the data revealed that several fabrics expressed as prickly were not perceived as coarse or uncomfortable. The reasons for this are discussed in the examples below.

Figure 4 visualizes the softest fabric in the fabric collection, ranked using the fabric matrix metrics. It features a tuck jacquard pattern structure, further manipulated with intricate hand-manipulated ladders and pointelle. It is knitted from a combination of Blue-faced Leicester 2 and Teeswater. The fabric demonstrates that combining the softest yarns and a version of the most successful pattern type creates soft-handling, tactile fabrics. Although the metrics concluded that the fabric is soft, the sensory descriptors provide further insights into the material's tactility and properties. The three terms described in the fabric are “plush,” “hairy,” and “cozy.” These words evoke the sensation of a thick, soft, high-quality, luxurious fabric that is comfortable to wear daily.

Figure 5 is the second softest fabric, a tuck jacquard structure with ladders knitted in a Blue-faced Leicester 2 and Kent Romney combination. It is described as spongy, smooth, and silky. Kent Romney is a yarn with an average handle. Still, the language evokes a sense of a comfortable fabric that feels cozy and smooth against the skin rather than stiff or scratchy. Consequently, the research demonstrates that this pattern structure is successful and has improved the fibres' softness when combined.

figure 4

A 2x1 rib-look tuck jacquard structure with hand-manipulated ladder and pointelle. Knitted in Blue-faced Leicester and Teeswater.

figure 5

A 2x1 rib-look tuck jacquard structure with ladders. Knitted in Blue-faced Leicester 2 and Kent Romney.

Figure 6 is also very soft [5]. It is a stripe with intricate ladder and pointelle hand-manipulation. It is described as light, drapey, and delicate, indicating a shift in terminology, despite similar yarn types: Blue-faced Leicester 1, White-faced Woodland, and Kent Romney. When analyzing the metrics from the fabric matrix alone, Figures 4, 5 and 6 appear similar. The language reveals several differences, providing a sense of its perceived tactility, its weight, drape, and the handler's response to the fabric.

Figure 6

A lace and ladder knit stripe structure knitted in three yarn types.

Figure 7 shows a hand-manipulated tuck knitted in a Blue-faced Leicester 1 and Teeswater blend. It’s described as fluffy, stretchy, and prickly. The fabric is soft, aesthetically appealing and commercially viable due to its structure. However, it feels prickly against the skin due to the long, hairy staples protruding from the Teeswater fibre. While the long staples did not affect the fabric's handle in Figure 4, they do in Figure 7; hence, one can assume that this is due in part to the structure of the knit. This fabric demonstrates that combining three descriptors with its softness rating provides a more precise depiction of the fabric. In this case, it is both prickly and soft, aesthetically attractive, but unsuitable for next-to-skin wear if knitted in this yarn combination.

figure 7

A hand-manipulated tuck structure knitted in Blue-faced Leicester and Teeswater.

The rib-look float jacquard pattern consistently produced fabrics with a soft handle throughout the project. Still, the version visualized in Figure 8 (4x1 structure) is described as rough, spongy, and thick. The fabric is a blend of White-faced Woodland and Kent Romney, which were the coarsest of the yarns experimented with. No Blue-faced Leicester was added, nor was the pattern structure further manipulated. Thus, it can be assumed that this yarn combination requires one of these applications. “Spongy” and “thick” are used here to describe the structure, and “rough” describes the combined handle of Kent Romney and White-faced Woodland; hence, the terminology is not overtly negative. The fabric is not soft but blends the yarns well and is knitted in a successful structure. It can be determined that the pattern has incrementally improved the handle. However, this is one of the roughest yarn combinations and not a commercially viable fabric. [6]

In contrast, Figure 9 is knitted in a similar structure (2x1), but the White-faced Woodland has been replaced with the softer, Blue-faced Leicester 2 fibre (Blue-faced Leicester and Kent Romney). The descriptors are “smooth,” “spongy,” and “cozy,” evoking the perception of a soft, comforting fabric suitable for winter knitwear or next-to-skin wear. This fabric successfully blended yarn types to create a soft-handling, aesthetically pleasing, commercial fabric

figure 8

A 4x1 rib-look structure.

figure 9

A 2x1 rib-look structure.

The yarn combination was the most influential factor in determining tactility among the four other pattern types. Each pattern type enabled consistent blending of yarns using the stripe formations as the base structure. Thus, the clouds are comparable, with minor variations. Figure 11d has fewer terms, but exposes the most positive language, reflecting the softness of this fabric group. If someone interprets this cloud without first observing the fabrics, one wonders whether they would realize that the fabrics are made from British wool, or if they would assume that a softer fibre, such as lamb’s wool, merino, or cotton is being described. This is an area for further research to determine whether the language used in the study is informative enough to convey a specific fibre type, such as wool, without the fabrics being present.

The float jacquard (Figure 11b), hand-manipulated tuck (Figure 11c) and Inlay (Figure 11e) word clouds are more predictable. They all utilize the words “fuzzy,” “spongy,” “hairy,” “rough,” and “thick.” Figure 11c shows that “bumpy” and “knobbly” are prevalent descriptors; these terms communicate the fabric’s structure. Figure 11e documents that “light” and “flat” are more commonly used to depict the inlay pattern structure. Consequently, the clouds reveal that the language has formed a sense of the fabric's structure. In this instance, the research aligns with the existing literature, suggesting that fabric handle evokes visual and tactile responses, and the aesthetics of cloth are intricately intertwined with the perceived handle of the material (Dolan & Holloway, 2016).

Figure 11b encapsulates the practice undertaken in this pattern type; it was extensive, and the outcomes range from several of the softest fabrics within the collection to the roughest; thus, the language is expansive and diverse. Generally, the language that stands out is encouraging, reflecting the overall fabric collection positively. It is characterized by terms such as “fuzzy,” “hairy,” “spongy,” “woolly,” and “thick.”

The broader research study determined that broad-wools are suitable fibres for fashion when the correct yarn combination and pattern types are used together. This paper highlights that:

• The language researched and used during the project is appropriate, accessible, and understandable.

• Categorizing descriptors made the language easier to understand and interpret, thus facilitating the assessment of fabric softness.

• Language evokes the essence of a fabric both descriptively and objectively (i.e. the fabric is prickly to touch). [7]

• The sensory descriptors effectively visualize emotional and sensory responses to the fabrics.

• A detailed understanding of the handle of each yarn and the sensory experiences it evoked when handled was created; this was visualized with word clouds.

• Language is an appropriate method for interpreting tactile data and analyzing fabric perception.

• It is anticipated that developing accessible and understandable descriptors will encourage greater use of broad-wool fibres in fashion, as both designers and consumers will better understand and engage with their properties.

The examples discussed in the results demonstrate that language can interpret the tactility of broad-wool fibres, giving those perceiving them a clearer sense of their handle and suitability for next-to-skin wear. The examples illustrate that while a single sensory descriptor can accurately describe the property of the fibres from which the material is made, or a sensation felt by those perceiving the fabric, utilizing three sensory descriptors presents a much clearer image of its tactility.

While some descriptors carry negative connotations, they do not suggest that the fabric is undesirable. Instead, they provide deeper insights into the fabric's properties. This information should be accessible so that anyone can decide whether they can envision themselves wearing or using the fabric. Therefore, to promote the use of British Wool in clothing, it would be helpful to label distinct yarn types with sensory descriptors that convey their tactility. This approach gives designers and makers insights to better understand how distinct fibres handle when transformed into a garment and thus assess their suitability.

The sensory descriptors used are relatively similar, as the seven types of wool share comparable properties. These fibres are typically classified as coarse and rarely considered luxurious. However, the nuances among each set of three descriptors emphasize the differences between each breed-specific fibre and the effect that varying pattern structures have on the tactility of the resulting fabric. Therefore, exploring different yarn combinations and pattern types is essential when determining the most appropriate patterns to enhance the handle of each fibre.

The research aligns with Merleau-Ponty’s theory, which states that when one perceives a fabric, one utilizes multisensory experiences when responding to it. One's perception of each fabric is formed through this multi-sensory perception (Roxburgh, 2021, p. 181). Thus, examining fabrics solely through objective testing methods, such as KES-F or the Wool Comfort Meter, removes the emotive response to the fabric which everyone possesses. Although using language to describe fabrics is subjective, it enables a richer interpretation of fabric tactility, particularly when combined with other testing measures, such as the sense of hand.

Ahirwar, M., & Behera, B. K. (2021). Fabric hand research translates senses into numbers - a review. The Journal of the Textile Institute, 113(11), 2531 - 2548. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405000.2021.1982190

Australian Wool Innovation (n.d.). Wool.com. https://www.wool.com/.

Carrera-Gallissa, E., Capdevila, X., & Valldeperas, J. (2016). Correlation Analysis Between the Kawabata System (KES-F) and the UPC Ring Methods of Fabric Analysis. Journal of Engineered Fibers and Fabrics, 11(2). doi:10.1177/155892501601100201

Choi, M. & Ashdown, S. P. (2000). Effect of Changes in Knit Structure and Density on the Mechanical and Hand Properties of Weft-Knitted Fabrics for Outerwear. Textile Research Journal, 70(12), pp. 1033-1045. https://doi.org/10.1177/004051750007001201

Cook, J. G. (2001). Handbook of Textile Fibres Vol. 1 Natural Fibers (6th ed.). Woodhead Publishing Ltd.

De Klerk, H.M., & Lubbe, S. (2008). Female consumers' evaluation of apparel quality: exploring the importance of aesthetics. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 12(1), 36 -50. https://doi.org/10.1108/13612020810857934

Delong, M. R., Marshall, B., & Larntz, K. (1986). Use of Schema for Evaluating Consumer Response to an Apparel Product. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 5(1), 17-26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887302X86005001

Dolan, A., & Holloway, S. (2016). Emotional Textiles: An Introduction. TEXTILE, 14(2), 152- 159. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759756.2016.1139369Doyle, E. K., Tester, D., & Thompson, J. (2014). A simple sleeve test worn during exercise to quantify skin feel and willingness to pay for wool garments. Textile Research Journal, 85(11), 1131-1139. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040517514553

Fletcher, K. & Tham, M. (2019). Earth Logic: Fashion Action Research Plan. The JJ Charitable Trust.

Hebrok, M., & Klepp, I. G. (2014). Wool is a Knitted Fabric that Itches, isn't it?. Critical Studies in Fashion and Beauty, 5(1), 67-93. https://doi.org/10.1386/csfb.5.1.67_1

Hebrok, M., Klepp, I. G., & Turney, J. (2016). Wool, You Wear it? – Woollen Garments in Norway and the United Kingdom. Clothing Cultures, 3(1), 67-84. https://doi.org/10.1386/cc.3.1.67_1

Husserl, E. (1997). Ding and Raum. Vorlesungen 1097: Thing and Space Lectures: Lectures of 1907. In T. b. Rojcewicz (Ed.), Husserl Collected Works VII. Kluwer.

IWTO. (2022). IWTO_Choose Wool. https://iwto.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/04/IWTO_Choose-Wool.pdf

Jevsnik, S., Kalaoglu, F., Saricam, C., Eryuruk, S., Bahadir, S., Fakin, D., & Zoran, S. (2014). Fabric hand of a dry-finished wool fabric. Fibers and Polymers, 15(12), 2671-2678. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12221-014-2671-9

Jimba, N., Ishikawa, T., Yanagida, Y., Mori, H., Sasaki, K., & Ayama, M. (2020). Visual ratings of "softness/hardness" of rotating fabrics. International Journal of Clothing Science and Technology, 32(1), 48-62. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCST-07-2018-0088

Leeton, L. (2022). Ordinary Language Philosophy as Phenomenological Research: Reading Austin with Merleau-Ponty. Philosophical Investigations, 45(3), 227-251. https://doi.org/10.1111/phin.12306

Mahar, T. J., Wang, H., & Postle, R. (2013). A review of fabric tactile properties and their subjective knitted assessment for next-to-skin knitted fabrics. The Journal of the Textiles Institute, 104(6), 572-589. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405000.2013.774947

Mahy, E. (2020, July 17). Coronavirus: Sheep wool 'barely worth selling anymore.' BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-53421546

McGregor, B. A., & Naebe, M. (2013). Effect of fibre, yarn and knitted fabric attributes associated with wool comfort properties. The Journal of The Textile Institute, 104(6), 606-617. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405000.2013.770596

McGregor, B. A., Doughty, A., Thompson, J., Naebe, M., & Tester, D. (2015). Effects of variation in wool fibre curvature and yarn hairiness on sensorial assessment of knitted textiles. Textiles Research Journal, 85(11), 1153-1166. https://doi.org/10.1177/00405175145661

McGregor, B. A., Naebe, M., Wang, H., Tester, D., & Rowe, J. (2014). Relationships between wearer assessment and the instrumental measurement of the handle and prickle of knitted wool fabrics. Textile Research Journal, 85(11), 1140-1152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040517514551460

Merleau-Ponty, M. (1942). La Structure du Comportement (1st ed.). Presses Universitaires de France.

Merleau-Ponty, M. (2005). Phenomenology of Perception (5th ed.). Routledge.

Miller, E. (1992). Textiles: Properties and Behaviour in Clothing Use (New ed.). Batsford.

Moran, D. (2015). Between Vision and Touch: From Husserl to Merleau Ponty. In R. K. Tranor (Ed.), Carnal Hermeneutics (pp. 214-234). Fordham University Press.

Murray, S. J., & Holmes, D. (2013). Towards a Critical Ethical Reflexivity: Phenomenology and Language in Maurice Merleau-Ponty. Bioethics, 27(6), 341-347. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12031

Naebe, M., McGregor, B., Dowling, M., & Tester, D. (2018). Prickle discomfort assessment of commercial knitted wool garments. International Journal of Clothing Science and Technology, 30(1), 73-81. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCST-03-2017-0023

Okamoto-MacPhail, A. (2018). Development Melodieux: Sense and Sensed in Maurice Merleau-Ponty. Contemporary French and Francophone Studies, 22(3), 283-290. https://doi.org/10.1080/17409292.2018.1501875

Park, J., & Stoel, L. (2005. Effect of brand familiarity, experience and information on online apparel purchase. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 33(2), 148-160. https://doi.org/10.1108/09590550510581476

Pearson, M. (2015). Traditional Knitting: Aran, Fair-isle and Fisher Ganseys (2nd ed.). Dover Publications.

Robson, D., & Ekarius, C. (2011). The Fleece and Fibre Sourcebook (1st ed.). Storey Publishing.

Roxburgh, M. (2021). Design Does/ Does Not Solve Problems. In E. Igoe (Ed.), Textile Design Theory in the Making (pp. 173-186). Bloomsbury.

Sneddon, J. N., Lee, J. A., & Soutar, G. N. (2011a). Making sense of consumers' wool apparel preferences. The Journal of the Textile Institute, 103(4), 405-415. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405000.2011.580545

Sneddon, J. N., Lee, J. A., & Soutar, G. N. (2011b). Exploring consumer beliefs about wool apparel in the USA and Australia. The Journal of the Textile Institute, 103(1), 40-47. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405000.2010.542012

Spencer, D. J. (2001). Knitting Technology (3rd ed.). Woodhead Publishing.

Sun, F., Du, Z., & Naebe, M. (2018). Determination of model parameters for predicting handle characteristics of wool-rich suiting woven fabrics based on the Wool HandleMeter and KES-F. The Journal of the Textile Institute, 109(2), 147-159. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405000.2017.1334308

Sun, Y., Zhang, M., Liu, G., & Du, Z. (2019). Measurement of fabric handle characteristics based on the Quick-Intelligent Handle Evaluation System for Fabrics (QIHES-F). Textiles Research Journal, 89(16), 3374-3386. https://doi.org/10.1177/004051751881194

Taylor, M. A. (2004). Technology of Textile Properties (3rd ed.). Forbes Publishing.

The Woolmark Company. (2023). Learn About Wool: Wool the Fibre. https://www.learnaboutwool.com/globalassets/law/resources/factsheets/secondary/gd3270-secondary-fact-sheet_2019_a.pdf

The Woolmark Company. (n.d.). Wool Fibre Facts and Benefits. https://www.woolmark.com/fibre/

Twigger Holroyd, A. & Hill, H. (2019). Fashion Knitwear Design. (1st ed.). The Crowood Press.

Wang, X. (2013). Comfort and photostability of wool. Journal of the Textile Institute, 104(6), 571-571. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405000.2013.794996

Walker, S. (2007). Cack-Handed Design Design-Centred Approaches to Process and Product for Sustainability. The Design Journal, 10(3), pp. 28-40. https://doi.org/10.2752/146069207789271948

Williams, D. (2018). Fashion design as a means to recognize and build communities in-place. University of the Arts London.

Wilmott, J. (2024). "Refashioning a Sustainable Classic." An exploration into blending through pattern and structure as a method to improve the use of broad-wool fibres in commercial fashion fabrics. PhD Thesis. Northumbria University. https://researchportal.northumbria.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/177393475/JuliaMaryWilmottThesisUNN

Wiskott, S., Weber, M. O., Heimlich, F., & Kyosev, Y. (2018). Effect of pattern elements on weft knitting haptic preferences regarding winter garments. Textiles Research Journal, 88(15), pp. 1689-1709. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040517517708535

Xue, Z., Zeng, X., & Koehl, L. (2016). Development of a method based on fuzzy comprehensive evaluation and genetic algorithm to study relations between tactile properties and total preference of textile products. The Journal of the Textile Institute, 108(7), 1085-1094. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405000.2016.1263142

Yim, K., & Kan, C. (2016). A statistical analysis of low-stress mechanical properties of warp-knitted fabrics. Textile Research Journal, 88(4), 467-479. https://doi.org/10.1177/00405175166819

Author Bio

Article Citation

Wilmott, Julia. (2025). “How Materiality and Language Intertwine to Encourage Further Use of Available Broad-Wool Fibres for Fashion.” Unravelling Fashion Narratives, special issue of Fashion Studies, vol. 5, no. 1, 2025, 1-30. 10.38055/UFN050108.