Disability Studies as a Source of Critical Inquiry for the Field of Assistive Technology
Jennifer Mankoff, Gillian R. Hayes, Devva Kasnitz · 2010 · Proceedings of the 12th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS 2010) · doi:10.1145/1878803.1878807
Summary
This keynote-style paper argues that the assistive technology (AT) research community should draw more deeply from disability studies scholarship to improve both the problems it chooses to address and its research methods. The authors — two of whom identify as disabled — review the historical development of disability studies from the disability rights movement of the 1970s through the social model of disability, which shifted understanding from individual medical deficit to societal barriers. They contrast the medical model (disability as individual pathology requiring cure or rehabilitation) with the social model (disability as a product of environmental and social barriers) and discuss how these frameworks lead to fundamentally different research questions and technology designs. The paper presents two case studies. The first examines educational technology for autistic children, where the authors found that a disability studies lens revealed how "outcomes-based" special education reduces children to measurable behaviours, how labelling practices can harm, and how the autism community itself is divided between cure-oriented and neurodiversity perspectives — all of which shape what technology should be built and for whom. The second case study discusses designing for accessibility, where simulation of disability (e.g. using a wheelchair temporarily) was used in teaching to build empathy, though the authors acknowledge this approach treads a fine line and can reinforce misconceptions.
Key findings
The paper identifies several concrete ways disability studies changes AT research practice. First, it challenges researchers to question whose problems they are solving — a project may have clear technical merit but still fail to address the priorities of disabled people themselves. Second, it highlights the importance of language and framing: labels like "autistic" versus "person with autism" carry political weight, and researchers should understand these debates rather than defaulting to clinical terminology. Third, the authors argue that AT research should include disabled people not just as participants but as co-researchers, collaborators on scoping and design, and as students being trained in the field. They recommend specific disability studies journals (Disability & Society, Disability Studies Quarterly) and conferences, and suggest teaching AT courses alongside disability studies content. The paper also notes that disability studies has not sufficiently engaged with assistive technology as a subject of inquiry, and that the gap runs in both directions. Two of the authors describe how their own experiences of disability directly informed their research agendas and their ability to identify problems that non-disabled researchers might overlook.
Relevance
This paper remains one of the most important theoretical contributions to the ASSETS community, making the case that technical accessibility work cannot be separated from the social, political, and cultural dimensions of disability. For practitioners, the key message is that building assistive technology without engaging with disability studies risks solving the wrong problems, reinforcing deficit-based narratives, or creating tools that disabled people do not actually want. The recommendation to include disabled people throughout the research process — not just as test subjects — anticipates the "nothing about us without us" principle that has become central to modern accessibility practice. The paper's discussion of how the medical and social models lead to different technology designs is essential reading for anyone working in digital accessibility, as it explains why framing matters as much as technical implementation.
Tags: disability studies · assistive technology · social model of disability · medical model · critical theory · inclusive design · participatory research · disability rights · autism · accessibility research
Standards referenced: WCAG