What difference does tech make? Conceptualizations of Disability and Assistive Technology among Kenyan Youth
Giulia Barbareschi, Norah Shitawa Kopi, Ben Oldfrey, Catherine Holloway · 2021 · Proceedings of the 23rd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS '21) · doi:10.1145/3441852.3471226
Summary
This paper examines how young Kenyans without disabilities conceptualize both disability and assistive technology (AT), addressing a significant gap in accessibility research that has predominantly focused on Global North perspectives. While over 80% of people with disabilities live in the Global South, research on disability stigma and AT perception has largely been conducted in Western contexts. The study involved 25 participants aged 18-26 across five digital focus groups, each representing a different region of Kenya (Nairobi/Central Kenya, Coast Region, Rift Valley, Western Kenya, and Nyanza). Focus groups were conducted via WhatsApp between October and November 2020, moderated by a Kenyan researcher. The research was part of the AT2030 programme, co-developed by the UCL Global Disability Innovation Hub and Shujaaz Inc., a Kenyan social enterprise. Participants were deliberately recruited without requiring prior contact with people with disabilities, capturing the full spectrum of attitudes from those with family members with disabilities to those with only superficial encounters. The study used thematic analysis to disentangle how non-disabled youth portray disability separately from how they view AT, examining how these interconnected conceptualizations might enhance or reduce stigma. The WhatsApp format allowed naturalistic conversation while incorporating visual prompts — participants were shown pictures of different AT devices and asked to describe them, and were presented with hypothetical social scenarios involving people with disabilities.
Key findings
The portrayal of disability was predominantly shaped by negative emotions of pity and sympathy, with participants initially describing disability as a permanent condition of suffering and dependence. Language used included derogatory terms like "lame" and "crippled," though such usage was rare. However, when discussing barriers and solutions, participants attributed far more responsibility to society than to individuals — viewing employment discrimination, inaccessible environments, and lack of education as societal failures rather than consequences of impairment. Regarding AT, perceptions were strikingly different from Global North findings. While ATs were seen as markers of disability, they were simultaneously interpreted as signs of privilege and access to resources — in a context where poverty stigma can exceed disability stigma. Participants viewed AT as an almost magical "fix" that could eliminate functional limitations, overestimating AT capabilities while underestimating the skills disabled people develop to use their devices. Most participants could only identify simple mobility devices (crutches, wheelchairs, canes) and strongly associated specific ATs with specific disabilities, with no awareness that mainstream technologies like smartphones could serve as AT. Notably, participants could not name any AT for communication or cognitive disabilities. In dating scenarios, about half said they would not date someone with a disability, primarily due to fear of societal judgment rather than personal objections.
Relevance
This research has profound implications for how accessibility technology is designed, distributed, and promoted in the Global South. The finding that AT is perceived as both a disability marker and a wealth indicator creates a unique dynamic absent from Global North research — suggesting that the quality and appropriateness of AT provision matters enormously for reducing stigma. Substandard or ill-fitting AT reinforces negative perceptions, while well-designed, context-appropriate technology can elevate social status. The study challenges the dominant approach of targeting accessibility interventions solely at people with disabilities, arguing that non-disabled people — who hold the power to create or dismantle barriers — should also be the focus of stigma reduction efforts. For accessibility practitioners working internationally, this research highlights how Western frameworks for understanding AT adoption and disability stigma may not transfer to contexts where poverty, cultural beliefs, and limited AT awareness create fundamentally different dynamics. The rigid association between specific ATs and specific disabilities also suggests that promoting mainstream accessible technology could help reduce stigmatization.
Tags: disability stigma · assistive technology · Global South · Kenya · youth attitudes · disability perception · qualitative research · social model of disability