Goggin tasa2014digitaltechdisabilityaustraliansociallife

Digital Technology and Disability inAustralian Social Life

The Australian Sociological Association (TASA) conference, 25-27 November

2014, UniSA, Adelaide

Gerard Goggin @ggoggin

Dept of Media & Communications

University of Sydney

digital technology, disability & Australian social life

Argument of paper (1):

• technology is key to contemporary social life in Australia

• technology is vital to the lives of Australians with disabilities; & to the project of justice, equality & democracy as it

• disability & impairment have intimate relationships with technology

digital technology, disability & Australian social life

Argument of paper (2)

• disability has much to tell us about the social relations of technology & indeed what technology is & how it is made (& reproduced)

• For example, much technology has its origins (its imaginaries) in disability – such as the telephone; yet these (disability) histories of general technologies are obscured/illegible

Digital technology, disability & Australian social life

Argument of paper (3):• If we know little about sociologies of technology

in Australia (true?), then we know even less about sociology of disability & technology

• If we cared about such a sociology, how would we go about it?

• in the meantime, assuming the importance of technology to social life (that comprehends & is reconstructed by understandings of disability & diversity), what does our social policy concerning technology look like? Is it good enough? (No.)

Overview of research (1)

• this paper is part of my ARC Future Fellowship project (2014-2017) Disability and Digital Technology: Accessible Design, Global Media Policy, and Human Rights

• Project explores disability & digital technology - & how these unfold in relation to global notions of human rights, media policy, & technology production & design

• Project builds on 20+ years of work with disability activists & DPOs, consumers & NGO & policy makers on disability & digital technology – see Gerard Goggin & Christopher Newell, Digital Disability (2003)

Overview of Research (2)

The Disability & Digital Technology project has 4 parts:1) Cultural & media histories of disability & technology2) Disability human rights & technology (e.g. how did the

rights to technology get written into the UN Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities? What do they mean? What’s excluded?)

3) Accessible technology & design case studies: how is mobile phone being designed for disability/accessibility (or not) in countries such as India, Indonesia, Mexico, China (e.g. global South, which is changing the face of how we understand Internet & mobiles)

4) Activating rights for better technology design: what is role of policy (in media policy; technology policy; human rights policy) & domains of practice

Overview of Research (3) – papers so far

Meryl Alper, Liz Ellcessor, Katie Ellis, and Gerard Goggin. ‘Reimagining the Good Life With Disability: Communication, New Technology, and Humane Connections.’ In Communication and the Good Life, edited by Helen (Hua) Wang. New York: Peter Lang, 2015. Katie Ellis and Gerard Goggin. ‘Disability, Locative Media, and Complex Ubiquity.’ In Ubiquitous Computing, Complexity and Culture, edited by Ulrik Ekman, Jay David Bolter, Lily Diaz, Morten Søndergaard, and Maria Engberg. New York: Routledge, 2015Gerard Goggin. ‘Communication Rights and Disability Online: Policy and Technology after the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS),’ Information, Communication & Society (2015). DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2014.989879Gerard Goggin. ‘New Ideas for Digital Affordability: Is a Paradigm Shift Possible?’ Australian Journal of Telecommunications and the Digital Economy 2.2 (2014), article 42, http://doi.org/10.7790/ajtde.v2n2.42

Technology & Disability

in Australian Society

& Sociology

wide view of technology

techniques, tools, systems, objects, artefacts, infrastructures, networks

• planes, roads, bikes, strollers, wheelchairs

• garden & farm tools, milking machines, cheese factories, solar power, coal seam gas

• health, medical & hospital technology, pharmaceuticals, mobile health apps

• print, radio, TV, screen print, digital art & design, Internet, mobiles, Internet of things

disability + tech: everyday life

• Disability is now recognized as a significant part of social life, identity, and the life course

• Over the past twenty years, digital technology –especially computers, the Internet, mobile media, social media, apps, geolocation technologies, and now, wearable computers, and even technologies such as driverless cars – have emerged as a significant part of the mediascape, cultural infrastructure, social support system, and personal identity and repertoire of many people with disabilities.

technology in social life

• from specialized & assistive technology to mainstream

• from exceptional to ordinary, everyday – tools for living, information, communication, entertainment, relationships, pleasure

• contemporary disability – and society broadly - involves technology; so everyone has a stake in it

• technology itself is about social/power relations –technology can be regarded as ‘congealed social relations’ or ‘society made durable’ (Bruno Latour, 1991); or involvement in technologies of governmentality (e.g. work of Paul Henman)

but for technology … life

• Many of us, including people with disability, rely on technology, e.g. – Internet for a very wide range of people

– Screen readers for Blind people

– Tablet computers for people with cognitive impairments

– Sensors & switches in ‘intelligent homes’, to enable people with dexterity/mobility impairments to control their home environments

– Medical & health technologies

technology & citizenship

possibilities of our lives

intimacies we nurture & cherish

ways that we exercise citizenship in our communities (locally, nationally & internationally)

have a strong relationship with technology

citizenship under technological conditions

1. technology is how we practice politics

2. technology is the setting in which citizenship is defined

Darrin Barney

Canadian political philosopher

theory/research problems • Theories & traditions of social research & social policy have not seen

technology as central – technology neglected in sociology; though starting to catch up with ‘digital

sociology’ turn; tech has thrived in ‘STS’ (science & technology studies) & 4Ss (Society for Social Studies of Science)

– The career of disability in sociology has been also a fitful/sequestered process– scant disability studies work on technology (now starting to emerge, e.g. with

work of Jonathon Sterne, Liz Ellcessor, Katie Ellis, Mara Mills; pioneers like Kate Seelman)

• we lack something summative & ground-breaking like Judy Wajcman’sFeminist Confronts Technology (1991)

• classic disability & technology work centres in rehabilitation sciences, engineering, medicine, health sciences, professions; little work on disability & technology in sociology, communication, cultural & media studies (emerging here too);

• Interestingly enough, there is a thread of work on ageing & technology in sociology; &, of course, strong relations between ageing & disability

• A really good but dated study that suitably renovated & modified could inspire an Australian study is Sandra Tanenbaum’s Engineering Disability: Public Policy & Compensatory Technology (Temple UP, 1986

Policy problems: everyday techology

• In technology, disability has been seen as ‘specialized’, not mainstream – needing intervention of professionals, specialized engineers and professionals

• Technology & disability also typically seen in Manichean terms –salvation (‘revolution’ of iPad for people with intellectual disabilities vs. juggernaut/cultural violence of cochlear implant for Deaf communities)

• In social policy, technology has been seen as specialized topic –matches the dominance of ‘assistive technology’ industry & paradigm as approach to disability and technology

• Tech emerges in mainstream social policy 1990s with importance of telecommunications affordability and accessibility, then Internet ‘disability digital divide’ - see Paul T. Jaeger, Disability and the Internet: Confronting a Digital Divide (2012)

• This should have now altered dramatically – technology should be (but isn’t really) a pivotal topic in social policy

The majority of people want access to the same market-leading devices that the rest of the population use. They want to choose from the same library of apps and participate in the same activities online.

Scott Hollier, “Opinion: Do we still need specialist technology?” Media Access, 13 June, 2013, mediaaccess.org.au

From ‘specialized’, ’assistive’, ’compensatory’ to mainstream?

From ‘specialized’ to ‘mainstream’ technology: case study of histories & development of location technology

Based on Katie Ellis and Gerard Goggin. ‘Disability, Locative Media, and Complex Ubiquity.’ In Ubiquitous Computing, Complexity and Culture, edited by Ulrik Ekman, Jay David Bolter, Lily Diaz, Morten Søndergaard, and Maria Engberg. New York: Routledge, 2015

sonic pathfinder (Tony Heyes, Melbourne-based)

Since being totally blind I feel much more traffic vulnerable, not so much getting lost or anything, just getting run over. And I have a secondary fear of actually causing injury to another pedestrian when I'm run down. So the mobility stuff [using an ultrasound sensor] is highly valued.

-- Tom, a 46 year old Blind man, from Adelaide, South Australian

Quoted in Deborah Lupton and Wendy Seymour, “Technology, Selfhood and Physical Disability,” Social Science & Medicine 50 (2000): 1856.

A dog is far more suitable than using something like a mote sensor and a sonic pathfinder, for example, which are electronic aids that are either hand-held, or one actually sits on your head, like a head band with ear plugs and a big thing across the forehead and stuff … [I]t’s socially frightening to a lot of people … Whereas, for example, to walk around with a dog is completely and utterly socially acceptable. And I think with technologies, the more obtrusive it is, the more offensive it can become to some people.-- Margie, a 24 year old Blind woman

Quoted in Lupton and Seymour, “Technology, Selfhood and Physical Disability”, 2000

In the event of service disruption [to public transportation], the disabled traveller needs information in an appropriate form about suitable alternative methods of reaching their destination … Mobile phones equipped with cameras can also be used to send visual and location information to a service centre where an operator can then guide the user to their desired destination.

John Gill, “Priorities for Technological Research for Visually Impaired People,” Visual Impairment Research 7 (2005): 59-61.

Google, ‘WalkyTalky’, https://www.google.com.au/accessibility/on-the-go.html

Google, ‘Android Explore by Touch’, https://www.google.com.au/accessibility/on-the-go.html

Exchange Telstra blog, 1 May 2014

“OK Glass, what’s this?” With four short words, 31-year-old Kelly Schulz, 97 per cent blind since birth, is given a glimpse of what’s in front of her. Google’s head-mounted computer snaps a photo and a reads a description into her right ear. “It is a male bathroom”, a computerised voice tells her. Other times, “it is a $20 note”, “a bottle of skim milk”, or “a can of BBQ baked beans”. Schulz trialled a prototype app on Glass for a day, and though shestresses that the best piece of technology has fourlegs, a wet nose and responds to the name Gallia, she says Glass has massive potential.

“Google Glass and Telstra come to the help of the disabled,” News.com.au, 5 May, 2014

Google Glass has the potential to radically impact the lives of people with disabilities. Will you partner with us in making Google Glass more accessible?

-- Indiegogo crowdfunding platform campaign

“Make it Happen! Google Glass for People with Disabilities,” December, 13, 2013, http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/make-it-happen-google-glass-for-people-with-disabilities.

Policy problems: assistive tech part of solution but not whole framework

‘Recent developments in Australia illustrates that new human rights legislation has successfully changed conditions into problems and has shifted discourse to whole of life outcomes and entitlement, thus broadening and legitimating the role of AT beyond independence and function’With NDIS as ‘policy window’:‘The task now is to inform the enactment of this major policy framework with the expertise of the AT sector, including perspectives of consumers; AT Practitioners; and the AT supply industry. This task was commenced by the peak body for AT in Australia, the Australian Rehabilitation and Assistive Technology Association (ARATA)’ Layton, ‘Problems, Policies & Politics’, p. 4

A number of reports have critically examined current AT service delivery in the light of current human rights and social justice developments, and found it wanting in terms of resource allocation and priority setting and scope of provision. Overall, ‘‘people with various disabilities are unable to access the aids, equipment and technology essential to their daily functioning, and are unable to access the support required to get them out of bed in the morning’’Natasha Layton, ‘Problems, Policies and Politics: making the case for better assistive technology provision in Australia’, Disability and Rehabilitation, 2014

Theory/research problems: everyday technology

• Theories & traditions of social research & social policy have not seen technology as central – Technology neglected in sociology; though starting to catch

up with ‘digital sociology’ turn; tech has thrived in ‘STS’ (science & technology studies) & 4Ss (Society for Social Studies of Science) – but not in mainstream sociology

– scant disability studies work on technology (now starting to emerge, e.g. with work of Jonathon Sterne, Liz Ellcessor, Katie Ellis, Mara Mills; pioneers like Kate Seelman);we lack something like Judy Wajcman’s Feminist Confronts Technology (1991); classic disability & technology work centres in rehabilitation sciences, engineering, medicine, health sciences, professions; little work on disability in communication, cultural & media studies (emerging here too)

disability techology as ‘specialized’ (not pervasive, everyday, mainstream)

• In social policy, technology has been seen as specialized topic – matches the dominance of ‘assistive technology’ industry & paradigm as approach to disability and technology

• Tech emerges in mainstream social policy 1990s with importance of telecommunications affordability and accessibility, then Internet ‘disability digital divide’ - see Paul T. Jaeger, Disability and the Internet: Confronting a Digital Divide (2012)

• this has altered dramatically – tech now pivotal topic in social policy

The National Disability Insurance Scheme is notdesigned to provide direct support for allAustralians with a disability … The NDIS will aimto provide an entitlement for aids, equipment, personal attendant care and other non-incomesupports to around 460,000 Australians withsignificant non-age related disabilities. Theobjective of the NDIS is to address the chronicunmet need of a group of people who havebeen under-supported for decades.

Senator Mitch Fifield, Assistant Minister for Social Services, National PressClub Address, November 2013

Policy problems: everyday technology

• In public policy, economic approaches have dominated, e.g. productivity approach to technology, seen in Productivity Commission seminal report Disability Care and Support (2011), which shaped NDIS

‘Many tasks performed by carers cannot be easily substituted with aids and appliances, and so the scope for dramatic increases in productivity from more intensive use of capital and technological innovation cannot be expected over the short term. In a report entitled ‘How many wheelchairs can you push at once?’, Allen Consulting (2008, p. v) argued that there was poor scope for short-run productivity improvement in Victorian social services … ‘

Productivity Commission, Disability Care and Support (2011, vol. 2, pp. 730)

The wheelchair example oversimplifies the scope for productivity gains over the longer run. The history of the wheelchair illustrates the progress of technology for people with a disability. Prior to the Second World War people with a disability only could get heavy manual wheelchairs, which would often have required the aid of a support person. However, with the invention of the motorisedwheelchair during WWII … people have had access to increasingly sophisticated and lighter wheelchairs over which they have complete control. Productivity Commission, Disability Care and Support (2011, vol. 2, pp. 730)

‘Equally, modification of motor vehicles and driver training has allowed some people with a disability to be mobile without having to use specialist disability transport services. Moreover, increased mobility can enhance labour market and social participation …’

Productivity Commission, Disability Care and Support (2011, vol. 2, pp. 730)

‘some forms of assistive technology that improve quality of life, productivity and participation already exist, but their adoption is limited through rationing, which should be relieved significantly with the establishment of the NDIS’

‘the greater scope for competitive pressures under the NDIS will tend to shift people from less productive agencies to more productive’

‘after their initial introduction, manufactured aids and appliances tend to decrease in price over time, encouraging their wider adoption. This process may be enhanced by bulk purchasing or other procurement strategies used by the NDIA or DSOs’Productivity Commission, Disability Care and Support (2011, vol. 2, pp. 730)

‘innovation will come from people with a disability as users of generic technologies’

‘Technological aids will also make it easier for a broader range of workers to support people with a disability’

‘The Commission has recommended the creation of an “innovation fund” for service providers to encourage productivity in the disability sector’

Productivity Commission, Disability Care and Support (2011, vol. 2, pp. 730, 733)

economic-influenced public policy on disability & tech

• good recommendations from Productivity Commission 2011 report, influencing & being implemented in NDIS/NDIA processes

problems: everyday technology

• lack of research – base line picture on use & consumption by technology of people with disabilities is missing– textured picture of distinctive uses/non-uses of technology (e.g. qualitative, participatory, ethnographic research) is missing– dispersed, incomplete picture on role of technology in social & political participation

Audit of Disability Research in Australia (Centre for Disability Research & Policy, May, 2014) finds that research on ‘safety and security, transport and communication, housing and the built environment, social relationships and community and civic participation’ is ‘significantly under-represented in ‘research base’

• on the upside, much more engagement & voices & perspective of people with disabilities in public sphere, especially through online means (blogs, social media) & also engagement in consultation, advocacy, activist, debate

ABS data on technology?

‘Q22: Does the person ever need someone to help with, or be with them for, communication activities? • Issues: This question invites an ambiguous or contradictory

reading – most communication activities involve being with someone else.

• It also again invites a perverse outcome and is based on a pre-technological conception of disability support. This question would mean that a person who is blind and has someone read them a book would answer yes, while another person who is blind borrowing an audio book or downloading one over a specialised device would answer no.’

PWD 2013 submission to ABS on 2016 Census

Productivity Commission on tech research priorities

Participants’ views: area for research• Innovation in assistive technology, particularly, computer-based

technology …• The benefits of assistive technology for older people and people

with disabilitiesParticular areas that the Commission considers should be a priority for research• relate to capacity building of the community, NDIS participants and

providers; the• use of technology; employment and social participation; and early

intervention

Productivity Commission, Disability Care and Support (2011, vol. 2, pp. 586-587 )

Problems: everyday technology

• Access to tech– reasons to suggest access remains major problem– meanings of access need to be thought about/discussed in their complexity, especially when it comes to design

• Accessibility of tech– bound up with access; also a major, ongoing problem– e.g. web accessibility is perhaps the best known area of effort & policy (e.g. National Transition Strategy) – yet many govt & private websites remain inaccessible; and mobile web/device accessibility of websites is still not a major goal– a key issue is the proliferation of technology, devices, software, etc; this implies that accessible interfaces are crucial, as a translation zone between technology (e.g. accessible operating systems like the Apple OS on its computers, smartphones, and tablets)

Problems: everyday technology

• Disability still an ‘add-on’ in much technology; inclusive design approaches still have a long way to go

• the technology market has been remarkable, but the ‘business’ of technology for disability often lacks (perceived) profitability

• Business cultures still often lack in understanding opportunity for disability innovation

disability tech social policy framework:

current elements

• National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) –responsibility: NDIA, Minister for Social Services

• National Broadband Network (NBN, such as it is): responsibility: NBN Board, Minister for Communications

Cf. Robert Morsillo, One Down, Two to Go: Public Policy in Service of an Available, Affordable and Accessible NBN for People with Disabilities, Telecommunications Journal of Australia, 61.2 (2011)

• Web accessibility (National Transitional Strategy) responsibility: AGIMO (Aust Govt Info Management Office, Dept of Finance)

• Telecommunications affordability (phones really, & bit of mobiles & internet): responsibility: Telstra, industry; Minister for Communication

Cf. Justine Humphreys, Homeless and Connected 2014 report – on homeless people with disabilities & mobile Internet tech

disability tech policy framework: current elements

• Assistive technology – responsibility: state governments, Fed govt, NDIS/NDIA

• Standards setting - responsibility: various, Standards Australia

• Procurement policies on accessible technology –responsibility: Federal & state govts setting framework

Wayne Hawkins, ‘Australia’s Missing Accessible Information and Communications Technology Procurement Policy’, Telecommunications Journal of Australia, 2011, William Tibben & Gunela Astbrink, Accessible Communications: Tapping the Potential in Public ICT Procurement Policy, 2013 report

• Technology in education – responsibility: providers, education depts, Human Rights Commission

• Technology in workplace – responsibility: providers, industry associations, HRC

disability tech policy framework: current elements

• Community informatics, technology in civil society –responsibility: NGOs, peak bodies, limited govt & private funding

• Statistics & research – little systematic & publicly available responsibility: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; agencies (esp. now NDIS); regulators (e.g. ACMA – Aust Communications & Media Authority); NGOs providing much (e.g. ACCAN – AustCommunications Consumer Action Network, Media Access) also industry associations

• Social media platforms – responsibility: social media companies such as Facebook, Twitter, Google

Disability tech policy framework

• Innovation policy

-- is existing national policy adequate?

- What are specific disability aspects to innovation? (e.g. case of Google Glass) – what can economic incentives to innovative with disability & technology, esp. for social policy purposes?

Disability tech policy framework

• The disability design turn – design as cross-cutting area of focus for disability, justice, participation – doing diversity differently

– Graham Pullin, Disability Meets Design (MIT, 2009)

– Jos Boys, Doing Disability Differently (Routledge, 2014)

Ideal elements of social policy framework for disability & technology• Comprehensive and articulated across major

policy areas & life domains for technology– UN CRPD good starting point

• Cross-referenced against, articulated via, social policy objectives

• Proper research base and statistics on technology & disability

• Support for inclusive design approaches• Important of co-design, participatory design,

users involvement in design

referencesMeryl Alpers, ‘Augmentative, alternative, and assistive: Reimagining the history ofmobile computing and disability’, IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, forthcomingEllcessor, E. (2014). <ALT=”Textbooks”>: Web accessibility myths as negotiated industrial lore. Critical Studies in Media CommunicationKatie Ellis & Gerard Goggin. Disability and the Media (Palgrave, 2015)

Gerard Goggin. ‘Innovation & Disability.’ M/C: Media and Culture 11.3 (2008)

McNaughton, D., & Light, J. (2013). The iPad and mobile technology revolution: Benefits and challenges for individuals who require augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 29, 107-116.Mills, M. (2011). Deafening: Noise and the engineering of communication in the telephone system. Grey Room, 43, 118-143.Moser, I., & Law, J. (2003). Making voices: New media technologies, disabilities, and articulation. In G. Liestøl, A. Morrison, & T. Rasmussen (Eds.), Digital media revisited: Theoretical and conceptual innovation in digital domains. Cambridge, MA & London: MIT Press.Rodan, D., Ellis, K., & Lebeck, P. (2014). Disability, obesity and ageing: Popular media identifications. London: Ashgate.Jonathan Sterne and Dylan Mulvin,‘The Low Acuity for Blue: Perceptual Technics and American Color Television’, Journal of Visual Culture 13:2 (August 2014): 118-138.