Encyclopedia of Education and Information Technologies

Living Edition
| Editors: Arthur Tatnall

Assistive Technology and Inclusion: Philosophical Foundation

  • Sanju Saha
  • Santoshi HalderEmail author
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60013-0_142-1

Introduction

Recently the World Bank reported that out of the 1 billion population (15% of world’s population) experiencing some form of disability such as one-fifth of the estimated global total, or between 110 and 190 million people experience significant disability (WHO 2018). Technology plays a vital role for Inclusion as it increases the participation of individual and community at large in all walks of life. Various revolutionary innovations such as artificial limbs, robotic assistance for feeding, Speech Generating Device (SGD), etc. enables individuals with disabilities more functional capacities.

In general, definition of assistive technology comes from the Assistive Technology Act of 1998, which was amended in 2004. The amendment defined assistive technology as “any item, a piece of equipment or product system whether acquired commercially off the shelf, modified, or customized that is used to increase, maintain or improve functional capabilities of individuals with...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Aarts E (2006) True visions: the emergence of ambient intelligence. Springer, Berlin, p 37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahmed D (2015) Rights of persons with disability in India- A critical legal analysis, Chandigarh: White Falcon PublishingGoogle Scholar
  3. Carmien S (2016) Assistive technology design for intelligence augmentation. Synth Lect Assist Rehabil Health Preserv Technol 5(2):i-171.  https://doi.org/10.2200/s00709ed1v01y201603arh010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cook AM, Polgar JM (2014) Assistive technologies: principles and practice. Elsevier Health Sciences, St. LouisGoogle Scholar
  5. de Vries MJ (2010a) Engineering science as a “discipline of the particular”? Types of generalization in engineering sciences. In: van de Poel I, Goldberg DE (eds) Philosophy and engineering: an emerging agenda. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 83–94Google Scholar
  6. de Vries MJ (2010b) Introducing Van Riessen’s work in the philosophy of technology. Philos Reformata 75(1):2–9.  https://doi.org/10.1163/22116117-90000478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hayhoe S (2014) An enquiry into passive and active exclusion from unreachable artworks in the museum: two case studies of final-year students at California School for the Blind studying artworks through galleries and on the web. Br J Vis Impair 32(1):44–58.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0264619613514238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hayhoe, Simon (2014) Reducing passive cultural exclusion of people with disabilities, an epistemological approach. In: The Second Annual Fulbright Scholars’ Research Symposium, 2014-05-19Google Scholar
  9. Jones ML (2002) Human factors and environmental access. In: Olson DA, DeRuyter F (eds) Clinician’s guide to assistive technology. Mosby, St. Louis, pp 41–53Google Scholar
  10. King TW (1999) Assistive technology: essential human factors. Allyn & Bacon, Needham HeightsGoogle Scholar
  11. Krug (2006) Don’t make me think. Pearson IndiaGoogle Scholar
  12. Krüger S, Berberian A (2014) Augmentative and alternative communication system (AAC) for social inclusion of people with complex communication needs in the industry. Assist Technol 27(2):101–111.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2014.984261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lee H, Johnson C (2017) Perspectives of teachers on the use of assistive technology with students with disabilities. J Spec Educ Rehabil Sci 56(4):357–377.  https://doi.org/10.23944/jsers.2017.12.56.4.16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Logemann J (2000) What is evidence-based practice and why should we care? ASHA Leader 5(5):3Google Scholar
  15. Malcolm M, Roll M (2016) The impact of assistive technology services in post-secondary education for students with disabilities: intervention outcomes, use-profiles, and user-experiences. Assist Technol 29(2):91–98.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2016.1214932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Malcolm M, Roll M (2017) Self-reported assistive technology outcomes and personal characteristics in college students with less-apparent disabilities. Assist Technol:1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2017.1406414
  17. McDonnell JJ, Hardman ML, McDonnell AP (2003) An introduction to persons with moderate and severe disabilities: Emotional and social issues, 2nd edn. Pearson Education, BostonGoogle Scholar
  18. Meijers AWM (2000) The relational ontology of technical artefacts. In: Kroes PA, Meijers AWM (eds) The empirical turn in the philosophy of technology. Elsevier Science, Oxford, pp 81–96Google Scholar
  19. Mitcham C (1994) Thinking through technology. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  20. Quist RW, Lloyd LL (1997) Principles and uses of technology. In: Lloyd LL, Fuller DR, Arvidson HH (eds) Augmentative and alternative communication: a handbook of principles and practices. Allyn & Bacon, Needham Heights, pp 107–126Google Scholar
  21. Schlosser RW (2003) The efficacy of augmentative and alternative communication: toward evidence-based practice. Academic, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  22. Schlosser RW, Raghavendra P (2004) Evidence-based practice in augmentative and alternative communication. Augment Altern Commun 20(1):1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schlosser R, Sigafoos J (2009) Navigating evidence-based information sources in augmentative and alternative communication. Augment Altern Commun 25(4):225–235.  https://doi.org/10.3109/07434610903360649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Shaffer R (2017) Cognitive load and issue engagement in congressional discourse. Cogn Syst Res 44:89–99.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2017.03.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Simon H (2014) The need for inclusive accessible technologies for students with disabilities and learning difficulties. In: Burke L (ed) Learning in a digitalized age: plugged in, turned on, totally engaged? John Catt Educational Publishing, Melton, pp 257–274Google Scholar
  26. The Center for Universal Design (1997) The principles of universal design, version 2.0. North Carolina State University, RaleighGoogle Scholar
  27. Thistle J, Wilkinson K (2015) Building evidence-based practice in AAC display design for young children: current practices and future directions. Augment Altern Commun 31(2):124–136.  https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2015.1035798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Van Riessen H (1938) Philosophie der techniek. Philos Reformata 3(4):202–223.  https://doi.org/10.1163/22116117-90000666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. WHO | World report on disability (2018) Who.int. Retrieved 1 Mar 2018, from http://www.who.int/disabilities/world_report/2011/report/en/
  30. Yu Y, Liang W (2013) Manipulability inclusive principle for hip joint assistive mechanism design optimization. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 70(5–8):929–945.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-013-5323-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of North BengalGhoshpukur CollegeLiusipukuriIndia
  2. 2.Department of EducationUniversity of CalcuttaCalcuttaIndia

Section editors and affiliations

  • Vassilios Argyropoulos
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Special EducationUniversity of ThessalyVolosGreece