A Posthuman Approach to Agency, Disability, and Technology in Social Interactions

References

• Agboka, G. Y. (2013). Participatory localization: A social justice approach to navigating unenfranchised/disenfranchised cultural sites. Technical Communication Quarterly, 22(1), 28–49. doi:10.1080/10572252.2013.730966
   Google Scholar
• Agboka, G. Y. (2014). Decolonial methodologies: Social justice perspectives in intercultural technical communication research. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 44(3), 297–327. doi:10.2190/TW.44.3.e
   Google Scholar
• Alper, M., Ellcessor, E., Ellis, K., & Goggin, G. (2015). Reimagining the good life with disability: Communication, new technology, and humane connections. In H. Wang (Ed.), Communication and the “Good Life” (pp. 197–212). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett, J. (2010). Vibrant matter: A political ecology of things. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Booher, A. K. (2010). Docile bodies, supercrips, and the plays of prosthetics. IJFAB: International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics, 3(2), 63–89.
   Google Scholar
• Colton, J. S., & Holmes, S. (2018). A social justice theory of active equality for technical communication. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 48(1), 4–30. doi:10.1177/0047281616647803
   Google Scholar
• Elmore, K. (2013). Embracing interdependence: Technology developers, Autistic users, and technical communicators. In L. Meloncon (Ed.), Rhetorical accessability: At the intersection of technical communication and disability studies (pp. 15–38). Amityville, New York: Baywood.
   Google Scholar
• Foley, A., & Ferri, B. A. (2012). Technology for people, not disabilities: Ensuring access and inclusion. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 12(4), 192–200. doi:10.1111/jrse.2012.12.issue-4
   Google Scholar
• Garland-Thomson, R. (2011). Misfits: A feminist materialist disability concept. Hypatia, 26(3), 591–609. doi:10.1111/hypa.2011.26.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibson, B. E. (2006). Disability, connectivity and transgressing the autonomous body. The Journal of Medical Humanities, 27(3), 187–196. doi:10.1007/s10912-006-9017-6
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gibson, B. E., Carnevale, F. A., & King, G. (2012). “This is my way”: Reimagining disability, in/dependence and interconnectedness of persons and assistive technologies. Disability and Rehabilitation, 34(22), 1894–1899. doi:10.3109/09638288.2012.670040
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goggin, G., & Newell, C. (2006). Editorial comment: Disability, identity, and interdependence: ICTs and new social forms. Information, Communication & Society, 9(3), 309–311. doi:10.1080/13691180600751272
   Google Scholar
• Grue, L., & Heiberg, A. (2006). Notes on the history of normality - Reflections on the work of Quetelet and Galton. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 8(4), 232–246. doi:10.1080/15017410600608491
   Google Scholar
• Haas, A. M. (2012). Race, rhetoric, and technology: A case study of decolonial technical communication theory, methodology, and pedagogy. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 26(3), 277–310. doi:10.1177/1050651912439539
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haas, A. M., & Eble, M. F. (2018). Introduction: The social justice turn. In A. M. Haas & M. F. Eble (Eds.), Key Theoretical frameworks teaching technical communication in the twenty-first century (pp. 3–19). Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hornof, A. (2008). Working with children with severe motor impairments as design partners. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 69–72), New York, NY, USA. ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, N. N. (2016). The Technical communicator as advocate: Integrating a social justice approach in technical communication. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 46(3), 342–361. doi:10.1177/0047281616639472
   Google Scholar
• Jones, N. N., Moore, K. R., & Walton, R. (2016). Disrupting the past to disrupt the future: An antenarrative of technical communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 25(4), 211–229. doi:10.1080/10572252.2016.1224655
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Judge, S. L. (2000). Accessing and funding assistive technology for young children with disabilities. Early Childhood Education Journal, 28(2), 125–131. doi:10.1023/A:1009507722653
   Google Scholar
• Kröger, T. (2009). Care research and disability studies: Nothing in common. Critical Social Policy, 29(3), 398–420. doi:10.1177/0261018309105177
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Light, J., Page, R., Curran, J., & Pitkin, L. (2007). Children’s ideas for the design of AAC assistive technologies for young children with complex communication needs. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 23(4), 274–287. doi:10.1080/07434610701390475
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mara, A., & Hawk, B. (2010). Posthuman rhetorics and technical communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 19(1), 1–10. doi:10.1080/10572250903373031
   Google Scholar
• McNaughton, D., & Light, J. (2013). The iPad and mobile technology revolution: Benefits and challenges for individuals who require augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 29(2), 107–116. doi:10.3109/07434618.2013.784930
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNely, B., Spinuzzi, C., & Teston, C. (2015). Contemporary research methodologies in technical communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 24(1), 1–13. doi:10.1080/10572252.2015.975958
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meder, A. M., & Wegner, J. R. (2015). iPads, mobile technologies, and communication applications: A survey of family wants, needs, and preferences. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 31(1), 27–36. doi:10.3109/07434618.2014.995223
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meloncon, L. (2013). Rhetorical accessability: At the intersection of technical communication and disability studies. Amityville, NY: Baywood.
   Google Scholar
• Millen, L., Cobb, S., & Patel, H. (2010). Participatory design approach with children with autism. International Journal on Disability and Human Development, 10(4), 289–294.
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell, D. T., & Snyder, S. L. (2000). Narrative prosthesis: Disability and the dependencies of discourse. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mol, A., Moser, I., & Pols, J. (2010). Care: Putting practice into theory. In A. Mol, I. Moser, & J. Pols (Eds.), Care in practice: On tinkering in clinics, homes and farms (pp. 7–25). Bielefeld, Germany: transcript-Verl.
   Google Scholar
• Moore, K. R., Jones, N., Cundiff, B. S., & Heilig, L. (2018). Contested sites of health risks: Using wearable technologies to intervene in racial oppression. Communication Design Quarterly Review, 5(4), 52–60. doi:10.1145/3188387.3188392
   Google Scholar
• Moser, I. (2001). against normalization: Subverting norms of ability and disability. Science as Culture, 9(2), 201–240. doi:10.1080/713695234
   Google Scholar
• Moser, I. (2006). Disability and the promises of technology: Technology, subjectivity and embodiment within an order of the normal. Information, Communication & Society, 9(3), 373–395. doi:10.1080/13691180600751348
   Google Scholar
• Oswal, S. K. (2013). Multimodality in motion: Ableism. Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy, 18(1). Retrieved from http://kairos.technorhetoric.net/18.1/coverweb/yergeau-etal/pages/ableism/index.html
   Google Scholar
• Oswal, S. K. (2018). Can workplaces, classrooms, and pedagogies be disabling? Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 81(1), 3–19. doi:10.1177/2329490618765434
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oswal, S. K., & Meloncon, L. (2014). Paying attention to accessibility when designing online courses in technical and professional communication. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 28(3), 271–300. doi:10.1177/1050651914524780
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palmeri, J. (2006). Disability studies, cultural analysis, and the critical practice of technical communication pedagogy. Technical Communication Quarterly, 15(1), 49–65. doi:10.1207/s15427625tcq1501_5
   Google Scholar
• Richards, D. P., & Moore, K. R. (2018). Introduction. In K. R. Moore & D. P. Richards (Eds.), Posthuman praxis in technical communication (pp. 1–20). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Rose, E., & Cardinal, A. (2018). Participatory video methods in UX: Sharing power with users to gain insights into everyday life. Communication Design Quarterly Review, 6(2), 9–20. doi:10.1145/3282665
   Google Scholar
• Rose, E. J., & Walton, R. (2018). Factors to actors: Implications of posthumanism for social justice work. In K. R. Moore & D. P. Richards (Eds.), Posthuman praxis in technical communication (pp. 91–117). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Siebers, T. (2001). Disability in theory: From social constructionism to the new realism of the body. American Literary History, 13(4), 737–754. doi:10.1093/alh/13.4.737
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tucker, B. (2017). Technocapitalist disability rhetoric: When technology is confused with social justice. Enculturation, (24). Retrieved from http://enculturation.net/technocapitalistdisability-rhetoric
   Google Scholar
• von Tetzchner, S., & Basil, C. (2011). Terminology and notation in written representations of conversations with augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 27(3), 141–149. doi:10.3109/07434618.2011.610356
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walton, R. (2016). Supporting human dignity and human rights: A call to adopt the first principle of human-centered design. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 46(4), 402–426. doi:10.1177/0047281616653496
   Google Scholar
• Winance, M. (2010). Collective agency and care. In A. Mol, I. Moser, & J. Pols (Eds.), Care in practice: On tinkering in clinics, homes and farms (pp. 93–118). Bielefeld, Germany: transcript-Verl.
   Google Scholar