Publications

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...

Purpose

Explicitly monitoring the need, use and satisfaction of assistive product (AP) provision is essential to support population health and healthy longevity in ageing/aged countries, like Korea. We present findings from the 2017 Korea National Disability Survey (NDS) on AP access and compare them to international averages, introducing Korea’s data into the wider coherence of global AP research.

Materials and methods

Using data from Korea’s 2017 NDS, surveying 91,405 individuals, we extracted and calculated AP access indicators, including needing, having, using and being satisfied with 76 unique APs, by functional difficulty and product type. We compared satisfaction and unmet need between the National Health Insurance System (NHIS) and alternative provision services.

Results

Prosthetics and orthotics had high rates of under-met need, and lower satisfaction rates, from 46.9% to 80.9%. Mobility APs overall had higher rates of under-met need. There was either low (<5%) or no reported need for most digital/technical APs. Among main products, those provided through the NHIS had lower unmet need (26.4%) than through alternative providers (63.1%), though satisfaction rates were similar (p < .001).

Conclusions

The Korean survey findings align with global averages calculated in the Global Report on Assistive Technology. Low reported needs for certain APs may reflect low awareness about how these products could benefit users, emphasizing the importance of data collection at each stage of the AP provision process. Recommendations to expand access to APs are given for people, personnel, provision, products, and policy.

Implications for rehabilitation

• Access to assistive products (APs) is an essential part of physical and occupational therapy services and rehabilitation. Monitoring population-level data on disability and AP access can inform policymakers about a key aspect of population health and healthy ageing, and demonstrate the need to expand access by including APs and associated services in primary/universal healthcare packages.
• Stratifying findings about AP access by type of functional difficulty and further by specific device helps identify the populations for whom needs are not being met. These domain-level and device-level indicators inform efforts to support specific groups within the population of people with disabilities, which has implications for how rehabilitation services are provisioned, targeted and made more accessible.

Jamie Danemayer & Myung-Joon Lim (2023)

Assistive technology in Korea: Findings from the 2017 National Disability Survey, Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology,

DOI: 10.1080/17483107.2023.2225565

Globally persons with disabilities have lower employment rates compared to the general population due to systemic barriers particularly in the formal sector. In developing countries, 80 percent to 90 percent of people with disabilities of working age are unemployed. There has been limited research in low-income and middle-income countries focused on the barriers to access and retain formal employment for persons with disabilities. The aim of this paper, based on desk research, is to analyse the barriers to access and retain formal employment of persons with disabilities which are framed in three categories according to where the barriers primarily manifest: 1. In the workplace among employers and co-workers without disabilities, 2. Among persons with disabilities seeking or engaged in formal employment and 3. In the wider social, physical and policy environment. Although the study mainly focuses on Kenya and Bangladesh other countries’ literature on access to and retention of employment of persons with disabilities were reviewed where relevant. In the current context where the global pandemic is breaking barriers to remote working one part of the solution will be to empower persons with disabilities with appropriate access to Information and Communication Technology, assistive devices and services, digital skills, creating more accessible and inclusive digital platforms for persons with disabilities which also hold the potential to improve working conditions and productivity for the whole workforce as well as enhancing resilience to potential future shocks.

Jahan & Holloway, 2020, Barriers to Access and Retain Formal Employment for Persons with Disabilities in Bangladesh and Kenya, GDI Hub Working Paper Series Issue 01

Living in informality is challenging. It is even harder when you have a mobility impairment. Traditional assistive products such as wheelchairs are essential to enable people to travel. Wheelchairs are considered a Human Right. However, they are difficult to access. On the other hand, mobile phones are becoming ubiquitous and are increasingly seen as an assistive technology. Should therefore a mobile phone be considered a Human Right? To help understand the role of the mobile phone in contrast of a more traditional assistive technology – the wheelchair, we conducted contextual interviews with eight mobility impaired people who live in Kibera, a large informal settlement in Nairobi. Our findings show mobile phones act as an accessibility bridge when physical accessibility becomes too challenging. We explore our findings from two perspective – human infrastructure and interdependence, contributing an understanding of the role supported interactions play in enabling both the wheelchair and the mobile phone to be used. This further demonstrates the critical nature of designing for context and understanding the social fabric that characterizes informal settlements. It is this social fabric which enables the technology to be useable.

Giulia Barbareschi, Ben Oldfrey, Long Xin, Grace Nyachomba Magomere, Wycliffe Ambeyi Wetende, Carol Wanjira, Joyce Olenja, Victoria Austin, and Catherine Holloway. 2020. Bridging the Divide: Exploring the use of digital and physical technology to aid mobility impaired people living in an informal settlement. In Proceedings of the 22nd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 50, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/337362...

Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Education has been said to have the potential for building more personalised curricula, as well as democratising education worldwide and creating a Renaissance of new ways of teaching and learning. Millions of students are already starting to benefit from the use of these technologies, but millions more around the world are not. If this trend continues, the first delivery of AI in Education could be greater educational inequality, along with a global misallocation of educational resources motivated by the current technological determinism narrative. In this paper, we focus on speculating and posing questions around the future of AI in Education, with the aim of starting the pressing conversation that would set the right foundations for the new generation of education that is permeated by technology. This paper starts by synthesising how AI might change how we learn and teach, focusing specifically on the case of personalised learning companions, and then move to discuss some socio-technical features that will be crucial for avoiding the perils of these AI systems worldwide (and perhaps ensuring their success). This paper also discusses the potential of using AI together with free, participatory and democratic resources, such as Wikipedia, Open Educational Resources and open-source tools. We also emphasise the need for collectively designing human-centered, transparent, interactive and collaborative AI-based algorithms that empower and give complete agency to stakeholders, as well as support new emerging pedagogies. Finally, we ask what would it take for this educational revolution to provide egalitarian and empowering access to education, beyond any political, cultural, language, geographical and learning ability barriers.

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