Voice, communication technology, disability, and art: an interdisciplinary scoping review and reflection

Abstract

This article describes findings of a transdisciplinary scoping literature review process that acknowledges assistive technology-users’ contributions to disability arts by clarifying the key concepts of ‘voice’, ‘communication technology’, ‘disability’, and ‘art’. Driven by the early stages of a participatory research project involving young disabled artists, the literature search was carried out between April 2019 and August 2019. The studies selected for this review (n = 14) were analyzed through a thematic narrative approach, which revealed seven overlapping themes that reflect the inseparability and transdisciplinarity of the key concepts. Later consultation with young disabled artists based on this literature review prompted changes in our research process. We conclude that nuanced research related to voice, communication technology, disability, and art is better situated in the radical expression of artists themselves, rather than in formalized research labs and codified studies such as that which housed this inquiry.

Points of Interest

• Persons who use assistive technology contribute to disability arts and arts-related research but are underrepresented in literature about these topics

• This article synthesizes the findings of 14 research articles on the overlapping concepts of ‘voice’, ‘communication technology’, ‘disability’, and ‘art’

• This article considers the six main steps of a scoping literature review, and argues that the final step of community consultation is most significant

• This synthesis of academic literature shows that people who communicate in many ways make significant contributions to disability arts, and the greatest predictors of knowledge in this area are found in the expressions of artists themselves—even more so than might be documented in academic literature.

Keywords:

• voice
• complex communication
• assistive technology
• art
• scoping review
• research inclusion

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Mitacs; Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.