Interdependence as a Frame for Assistive Technology Research and Design
Cynthia L. Bennett, Erin Brady, Stacy M. Branham · 2018 · Proceedings of the 20th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS 2018) · doi:10.1145/3234695.3236348
Summary
This influential paper introduces interdependence as a complementary frame to the traditional focus on independence in assistive technology research and design. The authors argue that "independence" — long the unquestioned gold standard of AT design — can be misrepresentative and even harmful when taken as the sole goal. Drawing on Disability Studies scholarship and disability justice activism, they note that independence is a myth: all people are interdependent, and the difference is that non-disabled people's dependencies (roads, electricity, eyeglasses) are normalized while disabled people's are stigmatized. The paper adopts Alison Kafer's political/relational model of disability, which views disability not as located within a body or in infrastructure, but as produced through interactions between people, environments, and technologies. The authors propose four tenets of an interdependence frame for AT: (1) it focuses on relations between people, technologies, and environments; (2) it reveals simultaneous forms of assistance happening concurrently; (3) it foregrounds the often-invisible contributions of people with disabilities in creating access; and (4) it challenges ability-based hierarchies that rank people by capability. The paper is grounded not only in academic theory but in the work of disability justice activists like Mia Mingus, who coined "access intimacy" to describe the deep attunement developed through interdependent access work, and the Disability Justice Collective, whose members — predominantly LGBTQ people of color with multiple marginalizations — use interdependence as a survival strategy.
Key findings
The paper demonstrates the interdependence frame through three richly detailed cases from the authors' own research. Case 1 observes William and Emily, a visually impaired couple shopping with guide dog Jasmine — their navigation through a store involved constant, fluid exchanges of information and assistance, with each person (and the dog) contributing unique abilities. An independence frame would miss how their access was collaboratively achieved. Case 2 examines three colleagues with different disabilities (blind, hard of hearing, wheelchair user) in a government workplace who developed "cross-ability cooperation" — Abby pushed Crissy's wheelchair while Crissy described visual information; they delegated tasks based on complementary strengths rather than ranking abilities. Crucially, Abby's six years of relationship-building with non-disabled colleagues eventually led an entire team to begin producing accessible PDFs — access work that would be invisible under an independence frame. Case 3 analyzes the 2017 Disability March, an online alternative to the Women's March created by disabled women who found physical marching inaccessible. This case shows disabled people as organizers and creators of access, not recipients, leveraging existing expertise (e.g., always including alt text on images) to build a platform that highlighted the limitations of the original march's accessibility assumptions.
Relevance
This paper is one of the most cited from ASSETS 2018 (306 citations) and has fundamentally shifted how accessibility researchers think about their goals. For practitioners, the interdependence frame has immediate design implications. It suggests that AT should be designed not just to help individuals accomplish tasks alone, but to support collaborative access — enabling people to work together, share access strategies, and contribute their strengths. It challenges systems like BeMyEyes that frame blind people as passive "requesters" while overlooking the significant work they do to capture photos, contextualize their needs, and negotiate visual barriers. It encourages navigation systems to support multiple simultaneous forms of assistance rather than directing users in isolation. And it argues that crowd work platforms should recognize people with disabilities as both requesters and workers, rather than maintaining a one-directional hierarchy. Beyond specific design implications, the paper asks the AT community to examine whether its pursuit of independence inadvertently reinforces the idea that needing help is a failure, and whether technologies designed to eliminate human assistance might actually eliminate valued human connection.
Tags: disability studies · assistive technology · interdependence · independence · disability justice · inclusive design · social model of disability · accessibility theory · co-design