Keywords

1 Participation in Working Life of People with Disabilities

1.1 Introduction

This chapter analyzes the use and impact of technical assistance to promote professional participation for people with intellectual disabilities and high needs for support. Ensuring fair participation for all social groups is a universally recognized political, legal, and ethical goal. All members of society must be able to see themselves as free and equal, not as excluded or superfluous. Enabling everyone to participate in working life on an equal and dignified basis is an important dimension thereof. Every person of working age should be able to earn their living through work of their own choosing. Participation in the world of work is essential to be considered a full member of society. That is, nobody should be permanently excluded from working life. Therefore, initiating steps towards an inclusive working world is crucial so that each person can live a good and prosperous life at their own responsibility.

However, people with intellectual disabilities and a high need for support are mainly excluded from the labor market. As the challenges of life and labor in the 21st century are becoming ever more complex and the demands of production and business stricter, even in sheltered workshops, this group of people is excluded from working life. As a result, people with intellectual disabilities and a high need for support often fall off the radar in current inclusion efforts and – in spite of legal obligations – do not receive adequate support for professional participation.

Against this background, this article examines inclusion mechanisms and obstacles in the world of work. In a first step, we shed light on the socio-political background of professional participation. In a second step, the heterogeneous group of impaired and disabled employees will be defined in more detail. Thirdly, individual dimensions of professional participation will be explored and different ways of inclusion will be presented. We propose, finally, that new technologies at the workplace provide opportunities for people with disabilities to participate in working life. Supporting people with disabilities and special needs through technical assistance in the workplace enables them to carry out demanding work steps independently without being constantly overtaxed with typical symptoms such as mental fatigue, stress, and dissatisfaction. Thus, using technical assistance at the workplace ensures the usefulness of work performance and enables permanent participation in working life. Numerous research focuses on the transition of people with disabilities into the general labor market but not yet on practical implementation using modern technologies from the user’s perspective.

1.2 Situation Analysis and Socio-political Background: The Necessity for Regular and Sheltered Workplaces

A declared political goal of the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) is to ensure full participation in society for the entire population. One important subject of equal participation is the world of work (cf. Heine 2005; Frehe 2005; Keupp et al. 2008; Buchmann 2017; Blesinger 2018; Behrendt 2018). As Article 27 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which has been valid legislation in Germany since 2009, states: “States Parties recognize the right of persons with disabilities to work, on an equal basis with others” (UN 2006, art. 27, para. 1). However, a system of vocational rehabilitation, including facilities of sheltered workshops for people who are classified as “fully incapacitated for work”, existed in Germany long before. As they offer an environment for participation in working life to all those people with disabilities who cannot (yet) be (re)employed in the general labor market without special support, sheltered workshops are an exceedingly significant institution to ensure social participation (SGBFootnote 1 IX, §136, para. 1, sentence 2).

It should be noted that the CRPD obligates the States Parties to take appropriate measures to guarantee all the rights of persons with disabilities set out in the agreement, including the right to work (art. 27), as mentioned above. Supranational rules also require national implementation and application, which is achieved in Germany through a corresponding federal law. As a result, the Convention as an intergovernmental body of rules and regulations – a complex of norms under international law – has acquired the rank of federal laws. Thus, it does not take precedence over federal German social law, instead both stand on an equal footing. Buchmann (2018) critically points out that it is still unclear “who checks the implementation of these normative requirements and under what conditions and gives them assertiveness” (ibid., p. 1, own trans.).

Since the CRPD came into force, a clear upheaval and a paradigm shift can be observed in the German rehabilitation system for people with disabilities, especially for employees working in sheltered workshops. The everyday political vision and guidelines for inclusion seem to find expression in the organizational policy objective of promoting people with disabilities so that they can switch to jobs subject to social insurance contributions in the general labor market. The latter is almost unreservedly considered the sole rehabilitation goal that guarantees the highest degree of normality and self-determination. The services provided by sheltered workshops are thus evaluated based on whether the efforts of these rehabilitation facilities lead to inclusion in the general labor market (cf. Detmar et al. 2008; Weber 2012).

However, from a differentiated view, it is apparent that framework conditions for possible participation in the general labor market are lacking, especially for the group of people with intellectual disabilities and high support needs. Barriers caused by normative, economic, and structural obstacles impede their participation in an increasingly competitive, i.e., exclusive labor market (cf. Weber 2009; Wansing 2012; Kubek 2012; Weber 2012).

Against the background of the current challenges of the 21st-century living and working world, industrial companies and sheltered workshops face increasing demands on the production side. Mainly due to their increasingly frequent function as suppliers and the associated production strategies, the requirements regarding the performance of sheltered workshops, and thus the self-image of these companies, are continually changing (cf. Bächler 2017). In addition, complex products require increasingly better qualified and “more efficient” employees – again in both regular companies and sheltered workshops (cf. Reinhart and Zäh 2014).

However for most employees with a high need for support, the legally defined mandate to participate in these work activities under current conditions cannot be guaranteed. Thus, sheltered workshops can be regarded as “nursing facilities without any integration or participation perspective” (Gröschke 2011, p. 189, own trans.) for this group. Due to societal transformation processes, employees with a high need for support do not have sufficient space within the sheltered workshops to develop and unfold their potential. As a result, they are denied the opportunity to participate in working life.

Thus, it is important to develop measures that enable this group’s participation in working life – also within sheltered workshops. Accordingly, Lisop and Huisinga (2004) raise the question: “Are there ways, not against, but with the new technologies, to increase autonomy, creativity, professional competence, and social commitment in thinking, feeling, wanting and action?” (ibid., p. 10, own trans.). We claim that successful participation in working life cannot be measured only by a transition to the general labor market. Rather, it must also be pursued within sheltered workshops for people with disabilities to counteract disregard of the deprivation and to gain acceptance of the majority of sheltered workshop employees.

In the following part, we will show how new technologies provide helpful support for professional participation for the group of people with intellectual disabilities and a high need for support (cf. Bächler 2017; Behrendt 2018).

1.3 Who is Affected: It All Depends on the Context

Advanced age, disabilities, and health restrictions significantly increase the risk of exclusion from the world of work. However, as Mathilde Niehaus has argued persuasively, focusing too strictly on legal categories can sometimes be confusing because people with a formally ascribed disability status do not necessarily have to be unable to perform their tasks. On the other hand, however, there are also cases in which a health restriction or impairment significantly reduces work activity without the employees being recognized as severely disabled by law (Niehaus 2005, p. 75). The actual number of people affected is therefore difficult to estimate.

However, it is helpful to distinguish between “impairment”, which indicates the loss of a body function, and “disability”, which refers to something that cannot be done in one’s environment as a result of an impairment. Because the correct attribution depends on the formal criterion of functional ability, this view expresses a functionalist understanding of disability and illness. Since functional capability is, in turn, seen as the result of multiple interrelations between the person with an impairment and their environmental and personal factors, the term “bio-psycho-social model” has become established interdisciplinary (cf. Hollenweger 2003).

An internationally influential classification based on this bio-psycho-social perspective is the “International Classification of Functioning” (ICF), developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2001. The ICF was first published in 1980 as the “International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities, and Handicaps” (ICIDH), amended in 1999 to ICIDH2, and extensively revised in 2001 by a large committee of international experts. This most recent understanding of illness and disability, which the WHO is now developing, focuses on the affected individual and their opportunities to participate in given social positions and goods (cf. WHO 2001).

By adopting the distinctions of this model, it is possible to consider both intrinsic and relational aspects: a person’s permanent absence of a body function is a stable characteristic. However, this biological fact does not necessarily imply a disability. From a functionalist point of view, it depends on what can or cannot be done with an impairment in concrete circumstances – that is, on the interaction of the actor with a more or less accommodating social and material environment. Thus, persons with the same physical, mental or emotional impairments can be considered disabled or not depending on the specific context. Consequently, the decisive factor is whether an impairment of functional ability is present or whether effective participation can be realized despite it. Typically, people are therefore not either disabled or not disabled, but only to a greater or lesser extent and in more or fewer circumstances. The same can be said according to the salutogenic model for the related phenomena of health and illness, according to which “all people are to be regarded as more or less healthy and at the same time more or less ill” (Bengel et al.1998, p. 24; own trans.).

In the context of the world of work, we are dealing with a very heterogeneous group of people with the most varied forms of health impairments and resulting disabilities, which can hardly be adequately quantified. Rather than speaking in general terms of employees with health impairments and disabilities, following Klaus Wieland (1995), we would like to describe persons who have health impairments that are significant for their previous work activities and with whom it is no longer possible to carry out this work without restriction as “performance converted”. Accordingly, inclusion efforts must not only be aimed at employees with legally recognized disability status but must also include the group of performance-converted employees (cf. Niehaus 2005, pp. 73–75).

2 Participatory Justice: Finding One’s Place in Working Life

2.1 Inclusion and Exclusion: Institutional, Intersubjective, and Material Manifestations

While an exhaustive analysis of the complementary terms “inclusion” and “exclusion” cannot be carried out here, at least central characteristics shall be highlighted (see also for the following Behrendt 2017). The concepts of “inclusion” and “exclusion” represent two opposite poles of social participation. When someone is successfully included, they participate in social life to a greater extent than before. The process of inclusion aims to increase social participation, which is achieved as a state after successful realization. On the continuum of social participation, inclusion and exclusion can consequently be determined complementary.

The phenomenon of social participation refers directly to socially established practices. The availability of social roles is the linchpin of social inclusion. Being included means having access to the existing social positions within an established practical context, which must be mutually recognized by all participants (including the executing agent) in their interrelated activities once the corresponding positions have been taken. According to the analysis proposed here, the extent to which a particular person is effectively included in a social practice therefore depends on their ability to take up the positions available for a specific practice. Participating in social life thus means for the individual to be included in a qualified way in the interpersonal practices of their lifeworld. Accordingly, inclusion and exclusion processes always occur relative to the existing role arrangements of a given practical context. Social practices represent the main reference parameters of social participation.

In today’s working society, full membership in society is only available to those who can participate in the world of work (cf. Krebs 2002; Keupp 2005; Lelgemann 2009). This ideal of an inclusive working world requires that all working-age people effectively participate in working life, because professional participation is crucial for the status of an equal member of society. Thus, social justice requires that no one should be permanently excluded from working life. In this context, participation in the world of work means that people find their place in everyday working life, i.e. that they are professionally included. This means that participation in working life usually takes place as an employee in a corresponding professional role. The subject of professional participation is therefore jobs that are institutionalized in companies mainly as wage employment relationships.

This connection proves problematic for the group of persons who cannot fulfill the requirements for participating in working life (cf. Lelgemann 2009; Becker 2014; Becker. 2016). Some sheltered workshop employees have the opportunity to contribute their labor and thus be part of society. However, for others, especially those with intellectual disabilities and a high need for support, the opportunity of contributing to labor and thus participation does not exist. They cannot participate in working life due to a lack of support. As a result, to become equal members of society it is important to find adequate means of support that enable them to participate in (sheltered workshop) work. This is a crucial demand of social justice since work opens up opportunities for participation and social contacts to varying degrees and enables the individual to create and participate in meaningful structures. Those who cannot participate in sheltered workshop processes also experience social exclusion processes within a sheltered workshop (see Lelgemann 2009; Bächler 2020), as will become apparent later.

Inclusion can take place on three complementary levels (cf. von Kardorff et al. 2013 Chapter 2; Behrendt 2017). The first level is institutional. It reflects that participation is always related to certain institutionalized roles of an existing structure. Only where there are social practices that provide positions in which one can be included or from which one can be excluded, is participation possible at all. The necessary role competencies to successfully occupy a particular position determine the formal inclusion mechanism. It determines whether someone can legitimately claim participation in a role. Thus, formal inclusion is given when someone fulfills the institutionalized requirements for potential role holders. Since it is important for the fulfillment of formal inclusion that the individual characteristics of the inclusion subjects correspond to the institutionalized inclusion rules of a practice, it can be realized either 1) by adapting the characteristics of the actor to the inclusion rules, or vice versa, 2) by adapting the inclusion rules of the practice to the existing characteristics of the affected subject. In the first case, one can speak of “structure-preserving inclusion”, in the second of “structure-changing inclusion”.

The second level is intersubjective. It takes into account the fact that all participants must also mutually recognize each other in the roles they each take on so that these can be given practical validity. Only the general acceptance of the role bearers by their respective reference groups enables effective participation in the position taken. Accordingly, informal inclusion aims to ensure the necessary intersubjective attitudes between the participants in concrete interactions. This concerns the reduction of prejudices and aversions on a cognitive, affective and/or practical level (negatively framed) as well as the advocacy of mutual recognition and appreciation (positively framed).

This intersubjective level is important not only for merely nominally aspired participation but also for actually putting participation into practice. Practices structure social relations according to the respective context in temporal, material and social terms by institutionalizing generalized behavioral expectations. However, reciprocal behavioral expectations are only effectively institutionalized to the extent that claim and reality do not diverge too often. In other words, the actual behavior of all participants must also be predominantly oriented to the given role structure. The practice participants must have all the motives for taking on and fulfilling the necessary tasks and obligations that are internally linked to their mutual role expectations. A distinction must be made between two cases of informal inclusion: In the first case, a participant has an institutional status, but in the “eyes of the possible interaction partners from the group of the majority no equal intersubjective status” (Ikäheimo 2014, p. 125; own emphasis). From the opposite perspective, on the other hand, there is only an intersubjective status without a corresponding institutional status. When social positions are exercised without the normative backing of the constitutive rules of a practice or, as in the opposite case, when those are rejected for interpersonal reasons, despite formal entitlement, this represents a serious inclusion deficit that demands to be resolved in one direction or another.

The third level is material. It results from the fact that the specific design of the material framework of a social practice has a lasting effect on the individual’s opportunities for participation. This often comes about simply because the materializations of practices are designed to fit the typical characteristics and abilities of the average role bearer. People whose individual characteristics atypically deviate from this average are sometimes excluded from effective participation simply because they cannot enter the relevant context in the first place due to obstacles that are difficult for them to overcome. For example, buildings with only stairs and narrow doors are difficult for wheelchair users to access; the same applies to buses or trains that lack appropriate assistance for boarding and alighting from. Therefore, structural inclusion depends on the material components of a practice being designed to be barrier-free, i.e., entirely usable, for all those involved. If one understands a barrier-free practice to be one in which no one who is formally entitled to participate is excluded from full participation or makes it disproportionately difficult, then a distinction can be made between various measures for implementing barrier-free practice: These measures can range from legal provisions and financial support policies to scientific expertise and raising social awareness (cf. Bethke/Kruse/Rebstock/Welti 2015). Whether someone is effectively open to access to the positions of a practice is thus, in addition to the conditions of an institutional and intersubjective nature already introduced, also a question of the material design of the relevant context. Accessibility is an essential structural prerequisite for effectively realizing the individual’s social participation.

Social exclusion can now simply be defined in relation to these provisions: If institutionalized role requirements exclude certain individuals or groups from existing positions, we are dealing with formal exclusion. On the other hand, if there is a formally justified claim to participation that is de facto disregarded by those involved through negative attitudes, this constitutes informal exclusion. Finally, the facts of structural exclusion are fulfilled when the assumption and exercise of a social role are made disproportionately difficult or entirely prevented by barriers.

3 Identify and Prevent Mechanisms of Professional Exclusion

3.1 Structural Barriers

One reason for the pronounced tendency towards the professional exclusion of people with disabilities is the presence of various barriers in job environments. One such barrier is the inability to perform a particular professional role properly, despite possessing the formal role competencies. While well-known structural obstacles like stairs instead of ramps or lifts can limit access, typical barriers that are less visible in the professional context also exist. For example, if people with a visual impairment lack a computer speech output or if deaf people do not have access to a sign language interpreter, this represents a considerable inclusion threshold in many professions and thus drastically limits the opportunities for professional participation.

Barriers can be reduced through targeted interventions at the workplace to enable affected employees to participate adequately (cf. Oostrom/Boot 2013). Interventions that focus on changes in workplace design can include adjustments to working furniture, tools, materials, or machines necessary to perform the work tasks. For example, desk height that is too low can cause chronic pain, leading to a long absence of the worker. Changes in work organization are also possible, including changes in work schedules and task profiles or employee communication processes. The work situation, such as contractual regulations on working hours and remuneration, and the working environment, such as noise pollution, lighting, etc., can also be adapted to the special needs of employees with inclusion requirements to remove potential barriers to successful inclusion.

3.2 Intersubjective Exclusion

In addition to structural barriers, informal exclusion mechanisms also play a decisive role in the working lives of employees. A study commissioned by the German Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency has shown that a lack of education and information among employers and colleagues in particular, as well as a general social disregard for and stigmatization of disability and illness in general, still characterize the working lives of many of those affected: “When it comes to accessing the labor market and the employment system, as well as securing jobs for disabled and chronically ill people, manifest and even more so latent prejudices and negative attitudes act as decisive” exclusion mechanisms (Kardorff/Ohlbrecht/Schmidt 2013, pp. 28–29; own trans.). In particular, the (assumed or actual) reduced performance capacity of those affected plays a significant role in their lack of recognition and exclusion in the workplace among colleagues and superiors.

An important instrument of intersubjective inclusion to counteract this and promote acceptance and appreciation of employees with disabilities and health restrictions are regular training courses and sensitization measures, both for colleagues directly affected and for the other people generally involved in the company. Changes in the work situation and organization must also be considered at this level. In addition to the reference to an adapted remuneration system to “reduce envy and competitive thinking”, Niehaus (2005, p. 78, own trans.) also observes that “acceptance of limited performance […] is most likely to be guaranteed if the employee […] has already belonged to the group concerned for a long time and if there is no increased number of employees with handicaps in one area, but an approximately equal distribution across different working groups”.

3.3 Institutional Requirements

Structural and informal inclusion measures in a company can improve the occupational participation situation of people with disabilities. However, successful rehabilitation aimed at ensuring long-term participation in working life cannot be achieved without precautions against formal exclusion mechanisms in the world of work. The personal aptitude of the worker is a decisive factor for the success of formal inclusion. Thus, employees must meet the specific performance requirements of the related job to make a productive contribution to the company. In a general sense, these necessary role competencies of a professional role refer on the one hand to the necessary technical rules of conduct or procedures. According to Claus Offe (1970, p. 29, own trans.), this can be understood as the “totality of physical performance, performance skills and performance knowledge gained from experience and practice”, “which are necessary at a particular workplace to be able to perform the corresponding work task”. On the other hand, they include the necessary normative orientations to fulfill the respective role in the company. This in turn can be summarized as “all norms, values, interests, and motives […] which are expected to be followed in the institutional framework of the work process” (ibid.; own trans.). The role competencies mentioned above express what can also be called the applicant’s “personal suitability” for a corresponding professional role. It must be possible to cope with these demands on the execution of work independently, otherwise the person concerned is not sufficiently competitive as an actor in the internal and external labor market.

At this level, two dominant strategies for formal inclusion in the working world exist: the internal search for a free, performance-adequate job and/or the early and permanent professional qualification of employees. The aim of the search for a vacant position with performance adequacy is the job-preserving new placement of affected employees in the company. As Schmal and Niehaus (2004, p. 228) state, the willingness of the direct superior, who is usually responsible for this, is decisive for the measure’s success. In order to determine adequate jobs, the ability profiles of the affected employees must be compared to the requirement profiles of the existing jobs, for which the necessary technical infrastructure is rarely provided. It is therefore much easier for highly or multiply qualified employees to find a suitable job than for less qualified employees, which is why a high degree of internal mobility must be a prerequisite for inclusion success (cf. Ibid., p. 229). Since the search for jobs with adequate performance is more successful if those affected are appropriately qualified, vocational (further) training offers are critical preventive measures that increase the chances of successful reintegration. The European Commission created a corresponding framework by giving lifelong learning a prominent status as a so-called cross-cutting objective (Commission of the European Communities 2003; cf. Niehaus 2005, p. 78).

In this context, technical assistance can also be a suitable tool for promoting professional participation. Its use in the workplace improves the users’ performance, as shown shortly.

4 Technical Assistance to Support Work Participation of People with Intellectual Disabilities and High Support Needs

4.1 Technical Assistance Design and Development

In the area of assistive technology, innovations and changes are needed for people with intellectual disabilities (Sauer, Parks and Heyn 2010). Previous research shows why particularly people with intellectual disabilities could benefit from technical assistance in assembly operations. This study presented below, therefore, includes people with intellectual disabilities within a sheltered workshop.

This section of our paper describes the evaluation of a technical assistance system for people with intellectual disabilities developed within a multidisciplinary research project. The employees receive assistance from the system, which provides a memory aid using in situ projection during the work process. The assistance system consists of a projector, which displays contour visualizations of instructions directly into the worker’s field of vision (in-situ), and a depth sensor, which monitors the execution of work activities in order to give context-aware feedback (compare Fig. 1). Employees with intellectual disabilities could thus perform complex assembly processes step by step, as the system recognizes mistakes and gives subsequent steps only if previous steps have been carried out correctly (compare Fig. 2).

Fig. 1.
figure 1

The assistance system (Bächler, Bächler, Kölz, Hörz and Heidenreich 2015).

Full size image
Fig. 2.
figure 2

The assistance system using in-situ projection (Bächler, Liane).

Full size image

4.2 Field Research Process

The present field research process adopts a multi-method research strategy and uses exploratory research methodology to support knowledge acquisition (cf. Amann and Hirschauer 1997). Based on a field study and using differentiated methodological approaches, for example participatory observation, field interviews, problem-centered interviews with people with intellectual disabilities, and expert interviews with specialized staff in a sheltered workshop, the use of technical assistance to promote work participation for people with intellectual disabilities and high support needs were investigated. The results of the 13 interviews with sheltered workshop employees with intellectual disabilities and a high need for support provide an insight into the process-open research process and clarify the subjective perspective of the target group. However, methodological aspects cannot be dealt with in detail here (cf. Bächler 2020).

5 Results

5.1 Promotion of Independent Work Participation Through Technical Assistance

The following results show how the use of technical assistance to support work participation is experienced from the users’ point of view, particularly sheltered workshop employees with intellectual disabilities and a high need for support – and how this affects this group of people with regard to the promotion of work participation. The focus here is on the experiences of this group of people with regard to promoting work participation. The results represent only an extract of the research process and can be seen in further detail in Bächler (2020).

Field observations and interviews document the effects with regard to the work participation of sheltered workshop employees with intellectual disabilities and a high need for support. This analysis clearly demonstrates that the use of technical assistance encourages work participation for this group of people. Through the technical support and its guidance, they are enabled to perform the simplest sequences of work activities typical in their working environment (here: assembly tasks) and successfully assemble a product under technical instruction.

The use of technical assistance for sheltered workshop employees with intellectual disabilities and a high need for support meets with positive astonishment within the sheltered workshop. On the part of the specialized personnel the surprise is clearly due to the fact that exactly the group within the sheltered workshop considered as “only able to participate in work with difficulty” (FG_FE_Fp_2) is now able to actively participate.

Technical assistance shows that work participation is not inevitably linked to personal characteristics, as these do not always depend on individual but also on social, societal and technological circumstances, such as adequate support for work participation.

The results from observations at different time periods and different types of conversations provide information on the needs and necessities of the sheltered workshop employees with intellectual disabilities and a high need for support. They directly indicate the positive promotion of work participation through technical assistance for this group of people in the sheltered workshop.

Independence through technical assistance

At the beginning of the interviews, the interviewees were asked about their previous work participation within their working environment, the sheltered workshop. All interviewees pointed out that they were successfully supported in their work participation by the offer of technical assistance.

The technical assistance helped all those involved in the study to carry out an assembly process for a product with this form of instruction enabling them to participate. The use of technical assistance makes it possible, through adequate instruction, to carry out simple work activities independently, something the group of people was previously not able to do in this manner or form.

At many points in the field surveys (in field talks and interviews), users of technical assistance have reported that they can now work “on their own”.

These statements refer to their own performance of the work activity, which they can now perform independently with the help of technical assistance. In a field interview a user mentions:

“I did that very well. Made it myself” (FG_FP_I_9).

A positive accomplishment through successfully independently performed work activities enables regular success experiences and recognition through appreciation for the individual. It also made previously hidden skills and individual knowledge visible.

A successful independently executed work activity brings about self-esteem which goes far beyond working hours, as the following interview excerpt documents:

“I told the dormitory that I am working at a new workplace and how many parts I have already made. They can’t believe it (laughs)” (FP_II_PZI_2).

By adequately supporting the group of people to participate in work, they experience a feeling of independence. The field discussions and interviews highlight that the group of people analyzed is also expanding its social circle.

Safety in the performance of work activities with technical assistance

Sheltered workshop employees with intellectual disabilities and a high need for support report a feeling of security when using technical assistance.

“I feel quite safe. The system shows me what I have to do. I can trust it. Before I never knew what to do and was always unsure if I was doing it right. Sometimes I always did everything wrong. Then the part was also wrong. I only noticed that at the end” (FG_FP_I_4).

This indicates that people with intellectual disabilities and a high need for support require close guidance, which is difficult to ensure within the working world. The assistive technology to participate at work provides user-centered guidance that enables users to experience safety, even when performing multiple tasks.

“Up to now, these people were only able to carry out activities consisting of very few steps. Even these were a challenge for many of them, since it is always a matter of maintaining a correct sequence or the correct placement of individual parts. Often, however, the order or the correct placement is forgotten, so that nothing is done for a long time. This unsettles our employees, of course, if they realize they are doing something wrong or cannot retain what should be done and forget it over and over again” (FG_FP_I_Fp_7).

Social isolation and disregard by not supporting work participation of sheltered workshop employees with intellectual disabilities and high need for support within the sheltered workshop

Through the use of technical assistance, a group of sheltered workshop employees becomes visible, who up to now have spent a large part of their day not participating in work, completely isolated from the rest of the sheltered workshop group.

These are not spatially isolated as they sit in the middle of the activities, i.e. in a sheltered workshop production and manufacturing hall, but are clearly recognizable, have no share of sheltered workshop work and are thus excluded by their special position.

The interviewees talk about experiences of disregard within the sheltered workshop. They relate these experiences to the fact that they were unable to work and that this inability meant they were also not part of the sheltered workshop ‘community’:

“We are not paid as much attention as the others who can work” (FP_II_PZI_1).

“They can’t be bothered with us that much. It always has to go fast. And then it is too fast for me” (FP_II_PZI_4).

Likewise discussions with technical personnel highlight the situation of this particular group:

“Sure, we can’t take care of everybody at the same time. Everyone is important to us. No question about it, but the orders we have taken on have to be carried out. The strong employees are going up the wall, if bored or there are problems with the machines. We have to look after them primarily. (Extract from FG_FP_II_Fp_6).

“A lot has happened in recent years. There have been many concepts that should have made working possible for the weakest employees, but many remain unsuccessful” (FG_FP_I_Fp_4).

Enhanced visibility of a previously isolated group of people by promoting work participation through technical assistance

All interviews and field discussions show that the isolated group of people analyzed within the sheltered workshop – although somehow part of the sheltered workshop community are “not quite” integrated (FP_II_PZI_2).

Interview participants confirm field observations in the following words and refer to the help through technical assistance to realize the work participation:

“I can work with the light signals. Without light signals I do nothing. Then I always just sit here” (FP_II_PZI_3).

“That helps me. I always know what I have to do” (FP_II_PZI_1).

Field observations, as well as field discussions with technical personnel from the sheltered workshop, prove that there were previously almost no target group-specific offers for this group to promote support and work participation.

Meaningful work participation for sheltered workshop employees with intellectual disabilities and high support needs through the use of technical assistance

The sheltered workshop employees who worked with the help of technical assistance commented, that they “now also do something useful” (FP_II_PZI_2). These and other similar remarks show that work participation through technical assistance can serve a meaningful purpose, as it enables multi-step work sequences to create a product for this group of people.

Identification with the product was also noticeable and the pride in having produced it:

“Then everyone in the DIY store will be happy if they buy that one. If they knew who made it! (laughs)” (FG_FP_II_N_1).

With technical assistance, sheltered workshop employees with intellectual disabilities and a high need for support are on the one hand enabled to participate in work at all and on the other hand supported to participate in much more detailed work activities. This enables the production of a complete product. Without technical assistance, they are given monotonous work activities through highly fragmented task steps whose meaning and purpose they cannot comprehend.

6 Conclusion

We have examined inclusion mechanisms and obstacles to employment and rehabilitation. The multi-dimensional nature of this issue has shown that measures must be taken at a formal, informal, and structural level to increase opportunities for participation for people with disabilities. Firstly, targeted interventions were suggested for the workplace in question to reduce structural barriers. Secondly, the importance of intersubjective inclusion strategies to overcome prejudices and negative attitudes towards those affected has been emphasized. Thirdly, as we have highlighted, lasting participation in working life can only be ensured if, in addition, institutional precautions are also taken, such as the search for vacant jobs in the company that are suitable for the employee’s skills, as well as offers for lifelong vocational training.

The subject-oriented approach within the present work assumes a creative ability in each person. This speaks out for the necessity and addition of innovative ideas regarding the individual perspective of action in order to promote participation in work for people with intellectual disabilities and a high need for support as well, and against exclusive care of them. The empirical results have shown that using technical assistance is a possible impulse for change regarding promoting participation in work.

Focusing on people with intellectual disabilities and a high need for support is required in order to meet the often postulated goal of an inclusive society. Since this is a demanding long-term task for society as a whole, actors in various working environments and the legislator are challenged to adapt structures and make available necessary resources to ensure successful social participation for all.