Publications

The aim of this research was to undertake a Country Capacity Assessment (CCA) to inform a more integrated approach to Assistive Technology (AT) provision in England. The results aim to support policymakers in identifying actions to strengthen service delivery to better meet disabled people’s needs, improving outcomes for AT users and reducing inefficiencies in the current approach.

The research was undertaken from November 2022 to March 2023 and led by the Global Disability Innovation (GDI) Hub, which is the World Health Organization (WHO) Global Collaborating Centre on AT access, using WHO tools in the Assistive Technology Assessment (ATA) suite.

Suggested Citation: Austin, V, Patel, D, Danemayer, J, Mattick, K, Landre, A, Smitova, M, Bandukda, M, Healy, A, Chockalingam, N, Bell D, and Holloway, C; Assistive Technology Changes Lives: an assessment of AT need and capacity in England; Cabinet Office, HMG; 2023

• COVID-19 has conferred new experiential knowledge on society and a rare opportunity to better understand the social model of disability and to improve the lives of persons with disabilities.
• The COVID-19 experience may offer contextual knowledge of the prepandemic lives of persons with disabilities and foster greater social awareness, responsibility and opportunities for change towards a more inclusive society.
• Information, family and social relationships, health protection and healthcare, education, transport and employment should be accessible for all groups of the population. The means must be developed and deployed to ensure equity – the deployment of resources so that people with different types of needs have the same opportunities for living good lives in inclusive communities.
• We have learnt from COVID-19 that inclusive healthcare and universal access should be the new normal, that its provision as a social good is both unifying and empowering for society as a whole.

Ebuenyi ID, Smith EM, Holloway C, et alCOVID-19 as social disability: the opportunity of social empathy for empowermentBMJ Global Health 2020;5:e003039.

Assistive technology is a critical component of maintaining health, wellbeing, and the realization of rights for persons with disabilities. Assistive technologies, and their associated services, are also paramount to ensuring individuals with functional limitations have access to important health and social service information, particularly during a pandemic where they may be at higher risk than the general population. Social isolation and physical distancing have further marginalized many within this population. We have an opportunity to learn from the COVID-19response to develop more inclusive and resilient systems that will serve people with disabilities more effectively in the future. In this Current Issues piece, we present a starting point for discussion, based on our experiences working to promote access to assistive technologies through inclusive and sustainable systems and policies.

Emma M. Smith, Malcolm MacLachlan, Ikenna D. Ebuenyi, Catherine Holloway & Victoria Austin (2021) Developing inclusive and resilient systems: COVID-19 and assistive technology, Disability & Society, 36:1, 151-154, DOI: 10.1080/09687599.2020.1829558

Amartya Sen’s seminal Tanner lecture: Equality of What? began a contestation on social justice and human wellbeing that saw a new human development paradigm emerge—the capability approach (CA)—which has been influential ever since. Following interviews with leading global assistive technology (AT) stakeholders, and users, this paper takes inspiration from Sen’s core question and posits, AT for what? arguing that AT should be understood as a mechanism to achieve the things that AT users’ value. Significantly, our research found no commonly agreed operational global framework for (disability) justice within which leading AT stakeholders were operating. Instead, actors were loosely aligned through funding priorities and the CRPD. We suggest that this raises the possibility for (welcome and needed) incoming actors to diverge from efficiently designed collective action, due to perverse incentives enabled by unanchored interventions. The Global Report on Assistive Technology (GReAT) helps, greatly! However, we find there are still vital gaps in coordination; as technology advances, and AT proliferates, no longer can the device-plus-service approach suffice. Rather, those of us interested in human flourishing might explore locating AT access within an operational global framework for disability justice, which recognizes AT as a mechanism to achieve broader aims, linked to people’s capabilities to choose what they can do and be.

Austin, V.; Holloway, C. Assistive Technology (AT), for What? Societies 2022, 12, 169. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc120...

Kett, M.; Holloway, C.; Austin, V. Critical Junctures in Assistive Technology and Disability Inclusion. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12744. https://doi.org/10.3390/su1322...

Johan Borg, Wei Zhang, Emma M. Smith & Cathy Holloway (2021) Introduction to the companion papers to the global report on assistive technology, Assistive Technology, 33:sup1, 1-2, DOI: 10.1080/10400435.2021.2003658

Assistive products (APs) are broadly defined as “any product (including devices, equipment, instruments, and software), either specially designed and produced or generally available, whose primary purpose is to maintain or improve an individual’s functioning and independence and thereby promote their wellbeing” (Khasnabis et al., 2015). Although the concept of wellbeing is extremely slippery and researchers have yet to agree on a single definition for it, as individuals we instinctively develop mental models about what does, and does not, promote our happiness and wellbeing. Considerations about values, wellbeing and happiness are extremely personal and are shaped by a variety of factors ranging from our age and socio-cultural background to our life experiences (Schwartz & Bardi, 2001).

However, when it comes to assistive technology (AT) research, our focus seems to be primarily geared toward values and activities in the domains of education, employment, transport or health, often framed according to an outcome driven perspective that is heavily influenced by what is seen as useful (often what is measurable), vs what is frivolous (less tangible social or emotional aspects).

This disparity parallels the priorities of the disability rights movement and disability studies research that have helped to shape the research agenda around disability and AT. Often influenced by labor movement politics, or feminism, there appears to have been more concern with public and practical aspects of social life as opposed to the more private and sensitive ones (Shakespeare, 2014). The focus on the public utilitarian function of AT becomes even more evident when we consider AT research carried out in the Global South. In this context the success of an intervention is usually assessed using measures of outcome and impact which can be somehow linked to economic improvement (Alkire, 2016).

In this editorial, we are not suggesting that enabling people with disabilities to gain a good education, obtain a fulfilling job or be able to vote are not important goals for the APs we develop and research. But are those the only worthwhile goals? Should we not also enquire whether existing and future APs could help people with disabilities to develop meaningful friendships, enjoy fulfilling sex lives with their partners of choice, cook sociable dinners, or engage in their favorite hobbies? Although sporadic publications focus on the role of APs in the context of personal relationships, sexuality, or fun and play for people with disabilities do exist, these are rare, and often framed around utilitarian goals. For example, research around AT and play is largely focused on children and often examined in connection to learning outcomes. Similarly, sex and sexuality are often explored solely in connection to dysfunction, abuse or sexual health (Shakespeare & Richardson, 2018).

These unbalanced narratives show how the AT research agenda is dictated by a set of universal priorities that are largely focused on global measurable goals that do not necessarily match the everyday values of people with disabilities. We invite researchers and practitioners to consider ways to find a better balance between public and private aspects of life, and between utilitarian and emotional values. Both approaches have a significant impact on the lives of people with disabilities.

Ultimately, as AT researchers we need to actively engage with people with disabilities to uncover their priorities, understand what different people with disabilities most value in life, and identify how current and future APs might help to make a positive impact on wellbeing. Aspects of life such as friendship, socialization, sexuality, love and play might indeed be more frivolous than practical ones such as education, health, employment and civil rights, but they are inherent to our shared humanity and fundamental to our happiness.

Giulia Barbareschi & Tom Shakespeare (2021) A right to the frivolous? Renegotiating a wellbeing agenda for AT research, Assistive Technology, 33:5, 237, DOI: 10.1080/10400435.2021.1984112