Who Needs to Fit in? Who Gets to Stand out? Communication Technologies Including Brain-Machine Interfaces Revealed from the Perspectives of Special Education School Teachers Through an Ableism Lens

Abstract

Some new and envisioned technologies such as brain machine interfaces (BMI) that are being developed initially for people with disabilities, but whose use can also be expanded to the general public have the potential to change body ability expectations of disabled and non-disabled people beyond the species-typical. The ways in which this dynamic will impact students with disabilities in the domain of special education is explored. Data was drawn from six special education school teachers from one school in Calgary, Alberta. Five sub-themes (social acceptance, not adding to the impairment, fear of judgement by society, pursuing “normality” and meeting the demands of society) were identified that fit under the main identified theme of “fitting in by not standing out”. Findings demonstrate a dichotomy in participant views of non- or socially acceptable communication devices. The perception of BMI technology was also explored among special education school teachers, revealing benefits and challenges with the uptake of this technology for students with disabilities. Perceptions of people with disabilities and ableism are presented as conceptual frameworks to interpret the influence and impact of the findings

Cochlear Implantation, Enhancements, Transhumanism and Posthumanism: Some Human Questions

“…Since ability expectations remain within a medical model, this colors the perceptions of students with disabilities: presenting students with disabilities as ''normal'' as possible may convert to a higher quality of life due to social acceptance (Diep and Wolbring 2013).…”

“…It is asked whether developing new communication technologies for people with disabilities is more to allow the non-disabled to be more at ease interacting with people with disabilities, so that people with disabilities appear ''normal'' to meet the requirements of society and economic efficiency (Diep and Wolbring 2013). Activists question the capability of hearing parents to make rational decisions for their deaf children, especially when they are ignorant of the lives of deaf people.…”

Social Robots, Brain Machine Interfaces and Neuro/Cognitive Enhancers: Three Emerging Science and Technology Products through the Lens of Technology Acceptance Theories, Models and Frameworks

“…Various articles covered perceived usefulness whereby this was mostly discussed within the framework of whether an invasive or non-invasive BMI version is more useful. One study investigating the perception of special education teachers on BMI [41] found that ease of use was a major concern that special education teachers voiced in regards to their disabled students using a BMI. The same study revealed that special education teachers envisioned that BMI's have the potential of being useful by furthering the independence, social participation and quality of life of the special education student [41] but they also believed that invasiveness decreases the usefulness of BMI's.…”

“…One study investigating the perception of special education teachers on BMI [41] found that ease of use was a major concern that special education teachers voiced in regards to their disabled students using a BMI. The same study revealed that special education teachers envisioned that BMI's have the potential of being useful by furthering the independence, social participation and quality of life of the special education student [41] but they also believed that invasiveness decreases the usefulness of BMI's. However special education teachers also voiced other parameters which one would not list under the two parameters of TAM such as affordability, need for being invisible as they feared that their students would get ostracized if their new device were too visible, reliability of the device and concern related to reaction of peers [41].…”

“…The clinical viability of BMI technology for disabled people is determined by a cost (surgical risks, financial accessibility, reliability) benefit (improvement of quality of life) analysis [35][36][37][38]. BMI technology can be used by disabled people to gain functions seen as species-typical [39][40][41] but at the same time also gives disabled people beyond species-typical abilities (therapeutic enhancement). At the same time BMI could also be used by non-disabled people by the -healthy‖ to gain the beyond species-typical abilities (non-therapeutic enhancement).…”