The Myth of Neutral Technology
The meaning that assistive technology (AT) holds for the user is a key determinant of whether the device will be used or abandoned. Two concepts, stigma and liminality (existing in a state of transition), are used to frame users’ perceptions of the assistive technology they use, as generated through research projects investigating aspects of assistive technology use. Implications of the meaning of AT to the design and selection process are described. Assistive technology that is seen as a tool, as just another way of achieving a desired activity is much more likely to be assimilated into the user’s daily life. Technology perceived in this manner enables people to share activities with others and augment their personal abilities. Alternately, technology can be seen as a visible sign of disability, reinforcing stigma associated with a disability and the perception of the AT user as existing somewhere between health and illness. Individuals with this view of technology may avoid or resist use of technology, resulting in avoidance of meaningful activities and both social and physical isolation. These findings support the conclusion that technology is not neutral. Inclusion of users in both the design and selection process and understanding the meaning that AT use holds are integral to the development of assistive technology that achieves the desired outcome of enabling participation in daily life.
KeywordsOccupational Therapy Assistive Technology Smart Home Spinal Cord Tumor Geriatric Rehabilitation
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Fong Lee D, Ryan S, Polgar J, Leibel G (2002) Consumer based approaches used in the development of an adaptive toileting system for children with positioning problems. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics 22(1):5–24Google Scholar
- 2.Goffman E (1963) Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Simon and Schuster, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 3.Johnson J, Davenport R, Mann W (2007) Consumer feedback on smart home applications. Topics in Geriatric Rehabilitation 23(1):60–72Google Scholar
- 4.Miller Polgar J, Ryan S, Coiffe M, Barber A (2003) Development of a toileting system for adolescents with severe positioning problems: Feedback from consumers. In: 26th International Conference on Technology and Disability: Research, Design, Practice and Policy (RESNA), Atlanta, GAGoogle Scholar
- 5.Miller Polgar J, Winter S, Howard S, Maheux K, Nunn J (2009) The meaning of assistive technology use. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Seating Symposium, Orlando, FL, p 75Google Scholar
- 6.Morgan-Webb S (2005) Understanding the informal caregiver’s experience with the use of assistive devices. Master’s thesis, Occupational Therapy, University of Western OntarioGoogle Scholar
- 7.Murphy R (1990) The body silent. W. W. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 8.Scheer J (1984) They act like it was contagious. In: Hey S, Kiger G, Seiden J (eds) Social aspects of chronic illness, impairment, and disability, Willamette University, Salem, ORGoogle Scholar
- 9.Spencer C (1998) Tools or baggage? Alternative meanings to assistive technology. In: Gray DB, Quantrano L, Lieberman ML (eds) Designing and using assistive technology: The human perspective, vol 2, Paul H. Brookes, MD, pp 89–98Google Scholar
- 10.Wilcock A (2006) An occupational perspective on health, 2nd edn. SLACK, Thorofare, NJGoogle Scholar