Publications

Assistive products (APs) are broadly defined as “any product (including devices, equipment, instruments, and software), either specially designed and produced or generally available, whose primary purpose is to maintain or improve an individual’s functioning and independence and thereby promote their wellbeing” (Khasnabis et al., 2015). Although the concept of wellbeing is extremely slippery and researchers have yet to agree on a single definition for it, as individuals we instinctively develop mental models about what does, and does not, promote our happiness and wellbeing. Considerations about values, wellbeing and happiness are extremely personal and are shaped by a variety of factors ranging from our age and socio-cultural background to our life experiences (Schwartz & Bardi, 2001).

However, when it comes to assistive technology (AT) research, our focus seems to be primarily geared toward values and activities in the domains of education, employment, transport or health, often framed according to an outcome driven perspective that is heavily influenced by what is seen as useful (often what is measurable), vs what is frivolous (less tangible social or emotional aspects).

This disparity parallels the priorities of the disability rights movement and disability studies research that have helped to shape the research agenda around disability and AT. Often influenced by labor movement politics, or feminism, there appears to have been more concern with public and practical aspects of social life as opposed to the more private and sensitive ones (Shakespeare, 2014). The focus on the public utilitarian function of AT becomes even more evident when we consider AT research carried out in the Global South. In this context the success of an intervention is usually assessed using measures of outcome and impact which can be somehow linked to economic improvement (Alkire, 2016).

In this editorial, we are not suggesting that enabling people with disabilities to gain a good education, obtain a fulfilling job or be able to vote are not important goals for the APs we develop and research. But are those the only worthwhile goals? Should we not also enquire whether existing and future APs could help people with disabilities to develop meaningful friendships, enjoy fulfilling sex lives with their partners of choice, cook sociable dinners, or engage in their favorite hobbies? Although sporadic publications focus on the role of APs in the context of personal relationships, sexuality, or fun and play for people with disabilities do exist, these are rare, and often framed around utilitarian goals. For example, research around AT and play is largely focused on children and often examined in connection to learning outcomes. Similarly, sex and sexuality are often explored solely in connection to dysfunction, abuse or sexual health (Shakespeare & Richardson, 2018).

These unbalanced narratives show how the AT research agenda is dictated by a set of universal priorities that are largely focused on global measurable goals that do not necessarily match the everyday values of people with disabilities. We invite researchers and practitioners to consider ways to find a better balance between public and private aspects of life, and between utilitarian and emotional values. Both approaches have a significant impact on the lives of people with disabilities.

Ultimately, as AT researchers we need to actively engage with people with disabilities to uncover their priorities, understand what different people with disabilities most value in life, and identify how current and future APs might help to make a positive impact on wellbeing. Aspects of life such as friendship, socialization, sexuality, love and play might indeed be more frivolous than practical ones such as education, health, employment and civil rights, but they are inherent to our shared humanity and fundamental to our happiness.

Giulia Barbareschi & Tom Shakespeare (2021) A right to the frivolous? Renegotiating a wellbeing agenda for AT research, Assistive Technology, 33:5, 237, DOI: 10.1080/10400435.2021.1984112

Johan Borg, Wei Zhang, Emma M. Smith & Cathy Holloway (2021) Introduction to the companion papers to the global report on assistive technology, Assistive Technology, 33:sup1, 1-2, DOI: 10.1080/10400435.2021.2003658

Disability interactions (DIX) is a new approach to combining cross-disciplinary methods and theories from Human Computer Interaction (HCI), disability studies, assistive technology, and social development to co-create new technologies, experiences, and ways of working with disabled people. DIX focuses on the interactions people have with their technologies and the interactions which result because of technology use. A central theme of the approach is to tackle complex issues where disability problems are part of a system that does not have a simple solution. Therefore, DIX pushes researchers and practitioners to take a challenge-based approach, which enables both applied and basic research to happen alongside one another. DIX complements other frameworks and approaches that have been developed within HCI research and beyond. Traditional accessibility approaches are likely to focus on specific aspects of technology design and use without considering how features of large-scale assistive technology systems might influence the experiences of people with disabilities. DIX aims to embrace complexity from the start, to better translate the work of accessibility and assistive technology research into the real world. DIX also has a stronger focus on user-centered and participatory approaches across the whole value chain of technology, ensuring we design with the full system of technology in mind (from conceptualization and development to large-scale distribution and access). DIX also helps to acknowledge that solutions and approaches are often non-binary and that technologies and interactions that deliver value to disabled people in one situation can become a hindrance in a different context. Therefore, it offers a more nuanced guide to designing within the disability space, which expands the more traditional problem-solving approaches to designing for accessibility. This book explores why such a novel approach is needed and gives case studies of applications highlighting how different areas of focus—from education to health to work to global development—can benefit from applying a DIX perspective. We conclude with some lessons learned and a look ahead to the next 60 years of DIX.

Kett, M.; Holloway, C.; Austin, V. Critical Junctures in Assistive Technology and Disability Inclusion. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12744. https://doi.org/10.3390/su1322...

Amartya Sen’s seminal Tanner lecture: Equality of What? began a contestation on social justice and human wellbeing that saw a new human development paradigm emerge—the capability approach (CA)—which has been influential ever since. Following interviews with leading global assistive technology (AT) stakeholders, and users, this paper takes inspiration from Sen’s core question and posits, AT for what? arguing that AT should be understood as a mechanism to achieve the things that AT users’ value. Significantly, our research found no commonly agreed operational global framework for (disability) justice within which leading AT stakeholders were operating. Instead, actors were loosely aligned through funding priorities and the CRPD. We suggest that this raises the possibility for (welcome and needed) incoming actors to diverge from efficiently designed collective action, due to perverse incentives enabled by unanchored interventions. The Global Report on Assistive Technology (GReAT) helps, greatly! However, we find there are still vital gaps in coordination; as technology advances, and AT proliferates, no longer can the device-plus-service approach suffice. Rather, those of us interested in human flourishing might explore locating AT access within an operational global framework for disability justice, which recognizes AT as a mechanism to achieve broader aims, linked to people’s capabilities to choose what they can do and be.

Austin, V.; Holloway, C. Assistive Technology (AT), for What? Societies 2022, 12, 169. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc120...