Engaging the Business/Industrial Sector in Accessibility Research: Lessons in Bridge Building

Abstract

This article examines challenges of engaging the business/industry sector in research on the use of information technology to enhance accessibility for people with disabilities in two areas of common interest—to employment and to public and retail services. The data presented arise from the joint effort of two research teams who independently encountered challenges in engaging private sector firms in their respective projects. Using a case study approach, the experiences of both groups were examined for themes representing factors that inhibited collaboration between research and business sectors, and those that enhanced collaboration. Trustworthiness of themes was established by submitting them for critique and feedback to key informants knowledgeable in both business and research. From a social systems theory perspective, findings suggest that the most important differences between research and business systems reside in the meaning of communication each uses, and differences in assumptions about and value placed on factors such as pursuit of new knowledge, the importance of marketability of findings, and so on. Additional complications arise in pursuit of research related to disability. Factors to build on when seeking research collaboration include an understanding of the language and culture of business systems, and the very real possibility of developing disability research into secondary goals that business systems typically pursue once the prime need for profitability has been at addressed (the notion of satisficing). Implications for communication between disability research and business systems are identified.

Keywords:

• business research
• collaboration
• cooperation
• disability and accessibility
• disability and employment
• information and communication technology
• new economy
• research context

We gratefully acknowledge support for this research through the Disability and Information Technology (Dis-IT) Research Alliance funded by Canada's Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council through an Initiatives in the New Economy grant.

Notes

NOTES

1. Uses of the terms “people with disabilities” and “disabled people” have somewhat different rationales in the international disability movement, with the former emphasizing the import of placing the person first and the latter emphasizing that disability arises from social and physical barriers to accessibility. Consistent with the practice of a growing number of authors, these terms are used interchangeably in this document to highlight these distinctions.

2. The draft Convention is awaiting passage by the United Nations General Assembly as of writing.

3. Statistics Canada reported labor-force participation rates for the years 1986, 1991, and 2001 for disabled people were, respectively, 48, 56, and 49%, compared to 78, 80, and 79% for nondisabled people. Australian 1998 labor-force participation rates were: 53% persons with disabilities, 76% nondisabled people. “Labor-force participation” means either working (full-time or part-time) or unemployed and looking for work.

4. A related field of inquiry on efficacy of public subsidy of private-sector R&D has been of interest in recent literature, this representing a different type of public/private-sector collaboration. See, for instance, Falk (2006) or Guellec and de la Potterie (2003).

5. An English-language summary of Luhmann's work, along with a series of critiques, can be found in Acta Sociologica 2000; 43(1).

6. Community Rehabilitation and Disability Studies Program, University of Calgary.

7. Neil Squire Foundation and British Columbia Institute of Technology, respectively.

8. See URL: www.dis-it.ca.

9. The writings of the noted management and organizational theorist Henry Mintzberg provide a case in point. His book The Structuring of Organizations (Mintzberg, 1979) draws on research from both public-and private-sector organizations, with common concepts derived from and applied to both. The same has been true of other notable theorists such as Argyris, Galbraith, McGregor, Simon, and others.

10. Two of many writings arguing the importance of such broader corporate values are those of C. Argyris, Organization Man: Rational and Self-Actualizing (1973), and T. Peters and N. Austin (1985) in their book A Passion for Excellence: The Leadership Difference.

11. Dupont, for example, has a justified reputation for concern over the welfare of its employees, one that began long before current organization theories argued the merits of doing so. Its origin as a producer of gunpowder contributed to a corporate emphasis on safety, and a culture recognizing that safe workplaces require a satisfied and healthy workforce.