Sociotechnical Environments and Assistive Technology Abandonment

Introduction This chapter will explore the use of socio-technical analysis in design of assistive technology. It starts out with a discussion of assistive technology (AT) and the various user types (roles) that are involved in AT development and adoption, with particular focus on the high rate of abandonment of complex AT. It continues, contrasting the conventional approach of studying system design and adoption with a socio-technical perspective in work environments, with using the same tools in a context of voluntary use. Of course both of these environments are, in a fundamental way, voluntary – employees can always quit; but in the case of AT the motivation is not so much economic and psychological (e.g. job satisfaction) as literally functional (i.e. ability 2 to perform Activities of Daily Living (ADL) 1 or Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) 2). The discussion begins with defining and exploring the dimensions of assistive technology in design and use, with particular attention to the process of adoption and abandonment. Following this is a short review of the traditional process of socio-technical systems and environments 3 , looking at it from the perspective of typical domains studied and the evolution of the field. Within this section are presented several practices or tools used in socio-technical evaluation and design. The process of using socio-technical principles to inform design of assistive technology is illustrated by discussing MAPS, a ADL task support tool for persons with cognitive disabilities. The chapter continues by following the design process from participant designer selection and study thru adoption of a prototype system and finally presenting the lessons learned. Then follows a more formal comparison between 'traditional' STE study and AT based STE work, decomposing the elements of the MAPS system. Finally the chapter concludes with some suggestions for further work 1 ADLs refer to refers to six activities (bathing, dressing, transferring, using the toilet room, eating, and walking) that reflect the patient's capacity for self‑care. 2 IADLs are tasks that enable people to live independently in the community. Examples include shopping, cooking and house cleaning. IADLs support ADLs 3 A note about the various permutations of

[1]  F. Fischer,et al.  The Interplay of Internal and External Scripts , 2007 .

[2]  A. Mihailidis,et al.  Assistive technology for cognitive rehabilitation: State of the art , 2004 .

[3]  Elliot Cole,et al.  Cognitive prosthetics: an overview to a method of treatment , 1999 .

[4]  Jean J. Schensul,et al.  Analyzing & interpreting ethnographic data , 1999 .

[5]  Thomas W. King,et al.  Assistive Technology: Essential Human Factors , 1998 .

[6]  Brian R. Bryant,et al.  The Technology-Related Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities Act , 1998, Journal of learning disabilities.

[7]  William Frey,et al.  Socio-Technical Systems in Professional Decision Making , 2009 .

[8]  Frank W. Geels,et al.  Dynamics in socio-technical systems : typology of change processes and contrasting case studies , 2007 .

[9]  Stefan Carmien,et al.  Leveraging Skills into Independent Living- Distributed Cognition and Cognitive Disability , 2007 .

[10]  Gerhard Fischer,et al.  Meta-design: A Framework for the Future of End-User Development , 2006, End User Development.

[11]  Stefan Carmien,et al.  Assistive Technology For Persons With Cognitive Disabilities - Artifacts Of Distributed Cognition , 2006 .

[12]  E. LoPresti,et al.  Assistive technology for cognition [Understanding the Needs of Persons with Disabilities] , 2008, IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine.

[13]  Dianne Willis,et al.  The New Sociotech: Graffiti on the Long Wall , 2000 .

[14]  Roger C. Schank,et al.  SCRIPTS, PLANS, GOALS, AND UNDERSTANDING , 1988 .

[15]  D. Müller,et al.  Assistive Technology: Matching Device and Consumer for Successful Rehabilitation , 2003 .

[16]  G. Salomon.  Distributed cognitions : psychological and educational considerations , 1997 .

[17]  Stefan Carmien,et al.  MAPS: Dynamic Scaffolding for Independence for Persons with Cognitive Impairments , 2003, User Modeling.

[18]  Clayton Lewis,et al.  TASK-CENTERED USER INTERFACE DESIGN A Practical Introduction , 2006 .

[19]  John Scott.  Social Network Analysis , 1988 .

[20]  Enid Mumford,et al.  Redesigning Human Systems , 2003 .

[21]  Gerhard Fischer,et al.  Socio-technical environments supporting people with cognitive disabilities using public transportation , 2005, TCHI.

[22]  C. Shewan,et al.  Augmentative and Alternative Communication , 2020, Encyclopedia of Education and Information Technologies.

[23]  Dianne Willis,et al.  The New SocioTech , 2000, Computer Supported Cooperative Work.

[24]  B Phillips,et al.  Predictors of assistive technology abandonment. , 1993, Assistive technology : the official journal of RESNA.

[25]  Nicholas Walliman,et al.  Social research methods , 2006 .

[26]  E. Cole.  Patient-Centered design as a research strategy for cognitive prosthetics : Lessons learned from working with patients and clinicians for 2 decades , 2006 .

[27]  Marti L. Riemer-Reiss,et al.  Factors Associated with Assistive Technology Discontinuance among Individuals with Disabilities , 2000 .

[28]  James D. Hollan,et al.  Distributed cognition: toward a new foundation for human-computer interaction research , 2000, TCHI.

[29]  Gerhard Fischer,et al.  User Modeling in Human–Computer Interaction , 2001, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction.

[30]  Richard W Pew,et al.  Technology for Adaptive Aging , 2004 .

[31]  Lucy A. Suchman,et al.  Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication (Learning in Doing: Social, , 1987 .

[32]  Rogerio DePaula,et al.  A Framework for the Adoption of Assistive Technology , 2002 .

[33]  W. Bodmer.  Principles of Scientific Management , 1993, FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology.