Accessibility as a ‘doing’: the everyday production of Santiago de Chile's public transport system as an accessible infrastructure

References

• Alphi, H. C. (2014). Accessibility implementation for disabled students in PMBOLD environments. In Resources Management Association (Ed.), Assistive technologies: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (pp. 1173–1195). Information Science Reference. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-4422-9
   Google Scholar
• Angelo, H., & Hentschel, C. (2015). Interactions with infrastructure as windows into social worlds: A method for critical urban studies: Introduction. City, 19(2–3), 306–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2015.1015275
   Google Scholar
• Barnes, C. (1991). Disabled people in Britain and discrimination: A case for anti-discrimination legislation. C. Hurst & Co. Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Ben-Moshe, L., & Powell, J. J. (2007). Sign of our times? Revis(it)ing the international symbol of access. Disability & Society, 22(5), 489–505. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687590701427602
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, B. (2004). The order of service: The practical management of customer interaction. Sociological Research Online, 9(4), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.973
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castán Broto, V. (2019). Urban Energy Landscapes. University Printing House.
   Google Scholar
• Coutard, O., & Rutherford, J. (2015). Beyond the networked city: Infrastructure reconfigurations and urban change in the North and South. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Dokumaci, A. (2020). People as affordances: Building disability worlds through care intimacy. Current Anthropology, 61(S21), S97–S108. https://doi.org/10.1086/705783
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Garland-Thomson, R. (2011). Misfits: A feminist materialist disability concept. Hypatia, 26(3), 591–609. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2011.01206.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham, S., & McFarlane, C. (2014). Infrastructural lives: Urban infrastructure in context. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hamraie, A., & Fritsch, K. (2019). Crip technoscience manifesto. Catalyst: Feminism, Theory, Technoscience, 5(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.28968/cftt.v5i1.29607
   Google Scholar
• Hartblay, C. (2017). Good ramps, bad ramps: Centralized design standards and disability access in urban Russian infrastructure. American Ethnologist, 44(1), 9–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/amet.12422
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heath, C., Hindmarsh, J., & Luff, P. (2010). Video in qualitative research. Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Hughes, B. (2009). Wounded/monstruous/abject: A critique of the disabled body in the sociological imaginary. Disability & Society, 24(4), 399–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687590902876144
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ingold, T. (1993). The temporality of the landscape. World Archaeology, 25(2), 152–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.1993.9980235
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jirón, P., Imilan, W., & Iturra, L. (2016). Relearning to travel in Santiago: The importance of mobile place-making and travelling know-how. Cultural Geographies, 23(4), 599–614. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474474015622141
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kusenbach, M. (2003). Street phenomenology: The go-along as ethnographic research tool. Ethnography, 4(3), 455–485. https://doi.org/10.1177/146613810343007
   Google Scholar
• Laurier, E. (2014). The graphic transcript: Poaching comic book grammar for inscribing the visual, spatial and temporal aspects of action. Geography Compass, 8(4), 235–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12123
   Google Scholar
• Lawhon, M., Nilsson, D., Silver, J., Ernston, H., & Lwasa, S. (2018). Thinking through heterogeneous infrastructure configurations. Urban Studies, 55(4), 720–732. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098017720149
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, J., & Ingold, T. (2006). Fieldwork on foot: Perceiving, routing, socializing. In S. Coleman & P. Collins (Eds.), Locating the field: Space, place and context in anthropology (pp. 67–86). Berg.
   Google Scholar
• Lewthwaite, S. (2011). Critical approaches to accessibility for technology‐enhanced learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 36(1), 85–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2010.529915
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Massey, D. (2005). For space. SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• McFarlane, C., & Anderson, B. (2011). Thinking with assemblage. Area, 43(2), 162–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2011.01012.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McFarlane, C., & Silver, J. (2017). Navigating the city: Dialectics of everyday urbanism. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 42(3), 458–471. https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12175
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Middleton, J., & Byles, H. (2019). Interdependent temporalities and the everyday mobilities of visually impaired young people. Geoforum, 102, 76–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.03.018
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mol, A. (2002). The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Muñoz, D. (in press). Carrying the rollator together: A passenger with reduced mobility being assisted in public transport. Gesprächsforschung.
   Google Scholar
• Nilsson, D. (2016). The unseeing state: How ideals of modernity have undermined innovation in Africa’s urban water systems. NTM Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Wissenschaften, Technik und Medizin, 24(4), 481–510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00048-017-0160-0
   Google Scholar
• Oliver, M. (1990). The politics of disablement. Macmillan International Higher Education.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H. (1995). Lectures in Conversation. Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Schwanen, T., Banister, D., & Bowling, A. (2012). Independence and mobility in later life. Geoforum, 43(6), 1313–1322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.04.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silver, J. (2016). Disrupted infrastructures: An urban political ecology of interrupted electricity in Accra. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 39(5), 984–1003. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12317
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simone, A. M. (2004). People as infrastructure: Intersecting fragments in Johannesburg. Public Culture, 16(3), 407–429. https://doi.org/10.1215/08992363-16-3-407
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Titchkosky, T. (2011). The question of access: Disability, space, meaning. University of Toronto Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ureta, S. (2015). Assembling policy: Transantiago, human devices, and the dream of a world-class society.. The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Velho, R., & Ureta, S. (2019). Frail modernities: Latin American infrastructures between repair and ruination. Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology and Society, 2(1), 428–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/25729861.2019.1678920
   Google Scholar
• Winance, M. (2014). Universal design and the challenge of diversity: Reflections on the principles of UD, based on empirical research of people’s mobility. Disability and Rehabilitation, 36(16), 1334–1343. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2014.936564
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar