Digital Inclusion for People with an Intellectual Disability

Chadwick, Darren; Chapman, Melanie; Caton, Sue

doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198812746.013.17

Cited by 24 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Adding to Chadwick et al . 's (2019) consideration of the influence of multilevel systems (based on the Bronfenbrenner's ecological model), we argue that inclusion practices focusing on access to ICTs will not necessarily lead to a more satisfying or ‘better’ life for people with ID, nor will they necessarily lead to inclusion in society. Instead, inclusion practices could focus on identifying the unique factors leading to individuals' othering and challenging wider social structures impacting a more satisfactory inclusion.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…Marien and Prodnik 2014; Teachman 2016), research that has critically explored the complexity of digital inclusion (Seale and Chadwick 2017; Chadwick et al . 2019) and other work on the psychosocial effects of enduring engagement with digital technologies on identity (e.g. Turkle 1995) and sociality (e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The discourse of digital inclusion begins with the assumption of exclusion and lack: lack of social opportunities and networks, lack of self‐esteem and self‐worth, lack of access to information and lack of work/education or leisure (Chadwick et al . 2019). Relatedly, Barlott et al .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2017; Chadwick et al . 2019), which argues that bridging the digital divide for people with ID is a dynamic and complex process that cannot occur by simply providing individuals with access to ICTs. Adding to Chadwick et al .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A socio‐emotional analysis of technology use by people with intellectual disabilities

Setchell

Barlott

Torres

2020

J intellect Disabil Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundAccess to information and communication technologies (ICTs) is often thought to enhance the lives of people with intellectual disabilities (ID) and is considered an important aspect of digital inclusion. However, inclusion practices often fail to address societal inequalities that lead to and sustain exclusion. The aim of this research was to enhance understandings of the relationships people with ID form with technology by critically analysing the underlying assumptions of inclusion practices.MethodWe employed a post‐qualitative approach to reanalyse previously collected data from face‐to‐face interviews with 10 Australian adults with ID who attended a community literacy programme about their technology use in their daily lives. Two of social theorist Sara Ahmed's key concepts were used to analyse these data: (1) ‘stickiness’ of emotions, where certain (socially dominant) emotions are considered to attach to objects over time (e.g. mobile phone use is normal/good) and (2) ‘fit’ between people and objects, where there is a sense of comfort when objects are designed for people like you – those outside the ‘norm’ experience discomfort and a sense of being ‘othered’ in their interactions with such objects which do not fit them.ResultsOur analysis identified how people with ID often attributed positive feelings to technology even when they had seemingly negative interactions with their devices (e.g. they could not use certain features, caregivers acted as gatekeepers to access). The positive associations were likely the outcome of implicitly held understandings that society highly values technology (Ahmed's stickiness of emotions). Although some participants accessed technology without difficulty, others experienced discomfort due to difficulties using devices that were not designed for them (Ahmed's fit between people and objects). Importantly, some participants had access to technology and the technical skill to use ICTs, but other factors, such as not having many friends, impacted their ability to use their devices in meaningful ways.ConclusionOur analysis suggests that digital inclusion practices focused on providing access to technology may unintentionally harm in ways that are not immediately apparent when working with people with ID. Harms might include further marginalisation or ‘othering’ of people with ID. It is important to recognise that well‐meaning attempts to encourage use of ICTs may be counterproductive if they lead to experiences of marginalisation. To avoid this, inclusion practices could focus beyond access to devices, and the ability to use them, to include considerations of the multiple socio‐emotional effects. What is a good fit is not entirely predeterminable, exploration of the possibilities for what will work well for any individual requires experimentation and creativity, and a careful attention to unintended effects. Beyond this, the development of new technology should consider how to diversify devices that often fail to fit people with disabilities.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A socio‐emotional analysis of technology use by people with intellectual disabilities

Setchell

Barlott

Torres

2020

J intellect Disabil Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, people with intellectual disabilities (PID) are at a high disadvantage and continue to be socially excluded online and offline (Dobransky & Hargittai, 2016;Kozma et al, 2009). Studies indicate that PID have limited access to the Internet and are therefore less represented on SNS (Caton & Chapman, 2016;Chadwick et al, 2019;Fox, 2011;Guo * et al, 2005). According to the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities, participation of people with disabilities must be guaranteed in all areas of society, including media (German Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, 2011;Welke, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

More Inclusion Through Participation?

Nikolova

Stelzmann²

2021

Conjunctions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Due to their high user number, social network sites can be regarded as a public sphere and should be accessible to all democratic citizens. Nevertheless, there are some underrepresented social groups such as people with mild intellectual disabilities. This qualitative study investigates how young people with mild intellectual disabilities in Germany access, interact and participate on social network sites. Therefore, we conducted 8 qualitative interviews with young people with mild intellectual disabilities (and their caregivers, n=7) and analyzed the transcribed interviews with an inductive qualitative content analysis technique. Our participants described various ways of accessing, interacting and participating online (e.g., sharing their own content). Furthermore, our participants gathered both positive (e.g., gaining new friends) and negative (e.g., hate speech) experiences there. Moreover, our results give information about aspects of social network sites that should be altered so that a positive social change based on the inclusion principle can take place.

show abstract

Buddy - A Personal Companion to Match People with Cognitive Disabilities and AT

Heumader¹,

Murillo-Morales²,

Miesenberger³

2022

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a novel web-based repository and recommender system to match the requirements of users with cognitive disabilities with available AT solutions when working on the web. Based on personal data from users (questionnaire, simple games) stored in a profile and tool data provided by AT solution providers and AT vendors, Buddy recommends tools supporting particular cognitive needs of target users. Buddy intends to bridge the gap between the growing amount of AT solutions and the actual low level of uptake by involving all stakeholder groups in the value chain on the Buddy platform.

show abstract

Digital Inclusion for People with an Intellectual Disability

Cited by 24 publications

References 0 publications

A socio‐emotional analysis of technology use by people with intellectual disabilities

A socio‐emotional analysis of technology use by people with intellectual disabilities

More Inclusion Through Participation?

Buddy - A Personal Companion to Match People with Cognitive Disabilities and AT

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About