What is our primary purpose when we provide people with assistive technology (AT) products? Is it to fix them and make them more able-bodied, or is it to offer them the means to do desired tasks as easily and comfortably as possible? Technoableism is the subject of a 2023 book that views assistive technology (AT) products primarily as a means of ‘eliminating disability’ and encouraging people with disabilities to strive to lead ‘nondisabled ways of life’ [Citation1]. Emerging from critical disability theory, technoableism sees disability as an outcome of social biases and influences, not merely the consequence of a medical condition or the result of permanent or temporary functional loss. Assistive technology products, therefore, are tools to fix the individual and the means to help them function more like able-bodied individuals and not supports to enable accomplishment of daily life activities.
This was not an uncommon perspective in the 1970s and 80’s, a time Technoableism characterizes more than it does the world today. In the United States, for example, space exploration resulted in new technological discoveries and the end of the Cold War freed defense scientists and engineers to turn their attention to technologies for daily living, transportation, etc. This, in turn, led to successive advancements in product design and materials. Continued improvements and refinements resulted in assistive technology products that were more streamlined, efficient, and effective. This was the heyday of innovation from which the field of assistive technology took shape and became organized.
The path of advancement was not always a smooth one, however, and there were product failures. Some people with disabilities felt like they were guinea pigs and being made into bionic people. Many ended up putting their discarded products in the basement or closet, often with an accompanying sense of frustration and even anger. Service providers were as frustrated as their consumers and the accumulation of wasted resources came under scrutiny.
My desire to do something about that is what drove me to conduct research into the reasons why people with disabilities used or did not use their assistive technology products. The findings of my efforts are detailed in three books [Citation2–4] and resulted in the Matching Person and Technology Model and accompanying assessment process (MatchingPersonandTechnology.com).
I was certainly not alone in these undertakings and steadily a person-first, comprehensive and integrated approach to AT provision took hold where the person with a disability is not just a member of the team and a partner in it but directs the person-centered AT selection process. Thus, the selected AT products better enabled people with disabilities to pursue life goals such as participation in school, employment, the performance activities of daily living without undue stress or fatigue, and participation in a wide variety of events and life roles. Yes, people with disabilities can lead ‘able-bodied lives’ thanks to technology.
The readers of this journal know the story of this AT journey all too well. They often work overtime and are underpaid for providing services that enable the AT user to pursue the activities they want and to lead a life they choose. Globally, they work in under resourced areas where assistive technology products and providers are scarce. While people in areas with plentiful resources can chooses to use AT products or not, people in under resourced areas do not often have that choice and experience technoscarcity. In low- and middle-income countries, access can be as low as 3% of the need for AT. Such findings were the driving force behind the General Assembly of the World Health Organization’s 2018 resolution on Improving Access to Assistive Technology (WHA71.8) throughout the world and the commissioning of a global report on effective access to assistive technology [Citation5].
Do AT products objectify people with disabilities and push them to strive to be like able-bodied individuals as technoABLEISM believes? Or are AT products quality supports that people with disabilities can choose to employ to enhance their functioning, as technoENABLEISM advocates. Are both the case, or neither? I encourage the readers of this journal to submit their thoughts and have a dialogue about technoABLEISM versus technoENABLEISM. Through such conversations we can advance shared knowledge and encourage the formation of productive partnerships.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Additional information
Funding
Notes on contributors
Marcia J. Scherer
Marcia J. Scherer, Ph.D., MPH is Editor-in-Chief of Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology and Co-Editor of the book series for CRC Press, Rehabilitation Science in Practice Series. She is a research rehabilitation psychologist and founding President of the Institute for Matching Person &Technology. Dr. Scherer is also Professor of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation at the University of Rochester School of Medicine & Dentistry.
References
- Shew A. Against technoableism: rethinking who needs improvement. New York: W. W. Norton & Company; 2023.
- Scherer MJ. Living in the state of stuck: how assistive technology impacts the lives of people with disabilities., First Edition. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books. (Second Edition published in 1996; Third in 2000 and Fourth in 2005); 1993.
- Scherer MJ. Connecting to learn: educational and assistive technology for people with disabilities. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association (APA) Books; 2004.
- Scherer MJ. Assistive technologies and other supports for people with brain impairment. New York: Springer Publishing Co.; 2012.
- World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). 2022. Global report on assistive technology. Geneva: https://www.unicef.org/reports/global-report-assistivetechnology; https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240049451. World Health Organization. License: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.