WHY CALIBRATE ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGIES?

     In an attempt to justify the title of this blog, I will first define the word “calibrate”. According to Quayson (2003):

“… we find that the verb to calibrate means among other things (a) to determine the caliber of; (b) in specialized usage, to graduate a gauge of any kind with allowance for its irregularities; and (c) to determine the correct position, value, capacity, etc of something. The word’s etymology is traced to scientific texts of the nineteenth century, where it is evident that the term is associated with the perfection of instruments of measurement. There are two other senses that shadow this dominant scientific one, however. These are the sense of graduations or markings, and the sense of identifying the value of a phenomenon… calibrations, though etymologically a term referring to the fine-tuning of machines, is not meant to denote anything mechanistic or vulgarly instrumentalist…” (p. xv).

I am thus using the term calibrate not in an instrumental way, but rather to denote a critical analysis of Assistive Technologies, a fine-tuning of a perspective on the social involved in the study of Assistive Technologies. It is really amazing how the meaning of an initially instrumental and totally scientific word like calibrate, can be made to mean something so subjective! But I guess I am allowed to do that, since I am a follower of Humpty Dumpty, who declared that “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less” (Carroll, 1865/1971, in Abbot, 2007, p.6). (To be honest, I never heard of him, until Dr Mavrou mentioned it during our lesson last Wednesday).

IS THERE A SOCIAL PERSPECTIVE IN THE STUDY OF AT?

     According to Christ (2008):

Those who promote disability related assistive technology should not ignore the complex interplay of social, cultural, political and economic determinants that help or hinder individuals with disabilities as they navigate through life. Assistive technology is designed to provide opportunities for interactive living, gainful employment, and successful education, yet technology designing to “fix the problem” has complex ramifications. Disability as a label can make an individual appear to the public as broken – in the extreme – less than human. Socially constructed labels can be degrading creating a sense of helplessness and inferiority perpetuated by policies, the media, the medical and educational community. This medical deficit model is deeply embedded in Western society and education. For many, technology is one intervention that has potential to reduce negative stigmatization and the barriers that have become institutionalized in the concept of disability, while for others, such as an individual who receives a cochlear implant, technology can create barriers within their own ‘Deaf’ community. (p.25-26)

Moreover, according to Mavrou (2011), “(c)ritical theory approaches technology through analysis of psychosocial, political, and economic factors that are crystallized into social organizations with set rules and norms.” (p. 49). It thus becomes apparent that a social perspective in the study of AT is an inevitable fact, and probably an ethical responsibility of the learner as well. It seems to me, though, at this very early stage of my study, that these social implications are neither straightforward, nor easy to handle. I see our course as the perfect chance to calibrate AT, in an attempt to see the big picture behind its nature and its use. I have to be honest though. I am afraid. My present relationship to Technology could very well be described as an allergic reaction… However, my relationship to Disability can be described as an ethical and truthful commitment. It is clear enough to me by now that there is a powerful link out there between these two, called Technology and Disability or AT. So I guess I should give it a try. After all, it is an ethical responsibility, as an educator, to be able to use items or systems that increase, maintain or improve the functional capabilities of each and every one of my students.

 

ATOS: ΘάνATOS or ATος?

     While surfing the internet (yes, it seems like my relationship to technology is becoming better), I ran into a striking example of the controversy around the definition of AT: ATOS is a multinational IT services and consulting corporation which provides and delivers consulting and technology services to numerous clients globally. In the UK, ATOS gained considerable notoriety for mainly two reasons. Firstly, because it manages the Work Capability Assessment of the claimants of Incapacity Benefit, for the Department of Work and Pensions, and secondly, for being the official IT Partner for the Olympic and Paralympic Games from 2001 until 2016. Concerning the first reason, ATOS’ 1400 doctors, nurses and physiotherapists carry out the Assessments used to decide whether a claimant of Incapacity Benefit is fit to work. Quite a few disabled persons declared that they were wrongly diagnosed as fit to work, only to face serious health implications after being forced into jobs, as a result of the government’s drive to slim the benefit rolls. Concerning the second reason, long before the Paralympic Games in London last year, disabled activists targeted ATOS in a series of fierce protests. Disability rights activists where angry about the involvement of ATOS as a sponsor of the Paralympic Games. Tara Flood, who won a  gold medal in Barcelona Paralympic Games in 1992 before becoming a disability activist and Head of the Alliance for Inclusive Education, has said: "It is a shocking irony that ATOS is a main sponsor of London 2012 whilst destroying disabled people's lives on behalf of the government" (Gibson, 2012).

 

     This kind of controversy is indeed confusing. Could ATOS’ technology be considered as Assistive Technology? Can IT be AT at the same time? One could argue that ATOS is indeed a system which is closely related to the lives of the disabled. The relationship is so close, that ATOS can actually assess the ability of a person to work. However, does ATOS enable these people’s lives? Does it promote social justice? Is it used in a way that increases, maintains or improves the functional capabilities of the disabled? One could answer that during the Olympics and Paralympics, the IT services provided by ATOS tried to do just that, i.e. used technology to remove barriers of communication and thus promoted social interaction during the Games (although many disabled people reported that they were discriminated against while trying to attend the Games) (Crippen, 2012). And what about ATOS’ involvement in the Work Capability Assessment? It seems to me that ATOS has not yet calibrated the difference between assessing the ability of someone to work and determining someone’s life. The highlight of ATOS’ controversial sponsorship in the Games, is what happened when the Paralympic organisers had been asked by journalists why a company hated by so many disabled people had been allowed to be a sponsor. The organisers naturally explained that “without the sponsors there would be no Games” (Lakhani & Taylor, 2012), in the same way that they naturally impose to quite a few disabled people –through the Assessment- that without a job, you cannot live. Even if you are not fit to work…

     In conclusion, defining what is and what is not AT seems to be a really difficult task (to me, at least). In my opinion, this task can only be crystallised by observing technology related issues through a social lens and critically analyzing and discussing our observations. I am really looking forward to discussing them with all of you!

 

(Excuse me for using the English language - sometimes it seems impossible to express my thoughts in my native language…)

 

REFERENCES

Abbott. C. (2007) Defining Assistive Technologies – a discussion. Journal of Assistive Technologies, 1(1), 6-9.

 

Christ, T. (2008) Technology support services in postsecondary education: A mixed methods study. Technology & Disability, 20, 25-35.

 

Crippen (2012, August 24) Crap Access at the 2012 Paralympics. [Blog post]. Retrieved from

http://www.disabilityartsonline.org/crippen-cartoon-blog?item=1434&itemoffset=20

 

Gibson, O. (2012) Paralympics organisers defend sponsor Atos in face of protests. The Guardian. Retrieved 25 January 2013, from

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/aug/28/atos-paraylmpic-involvement-brings-protests

Lakhani, N. & Taylor, J. (2012) Hundreds protest against Paralympics sponsor Atos as anger about its role in slashing benefits bill intensifies. The Independent. Retrieved 25 January 2013, from

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/hundreds-protest-against-paralympics-sponsor-atos-as-anger-about-its-role-in-slashing-benefits-bill-intensifies-8092512.html

Mavrou, K. (2011) Assistive Technology as an Emerging Policy and Practice: Processes, Challenges and Future Directions. Technology and Disability, 23(1), 41-51.

Quayson, A. (2003) Calibrations: Reading for the Social. Minneaplois: University of Minnesota Press.