The use and non‐use of assistive technologies from the world of information and communication technology by visually impaired young people: a walk on the tightrope of peer inclusion

In affluent societies how people use technology is symbolic of various values and identities. This article investigates the symbolic values and use of assistive technologies from the world of information and communication technology (ICT) in the daily lives of 11 visually impaired young Norwegians. The article draws on a qualitative interview study and employs an interactionist approach. While the use of ICT is found to symbolise competence, belonging and independence, the use of ICT assistive technologies is found to symbolise restriction, difference and dependency. Thus, ICT and ICT assistive technologies have inherently contradictory sets of associations. To fit in as ordinary young people the visually impaired participants reject ICT assistive technologies whenever possible. The partially sighted participants who are somehow capable of participating in online interactions with their peers without ICT assistive technologies reject them. The blind participants, however, do not have the option of participating online without ICT assistive technologies and, consequently, they accept ICT assistive technologies.

[1]  Sandra Smith,et al.  They only see it when the sun shines in my ears: exploring perceptions of adolescent hearing aid users. , 2006, Journal of deaf studies and deaf education.

[2]  G. Kaiser,et al.  Computer and World Wide Web accessibility by visually disabled patients: problems and solutions. , 2005, Survey of ophthalmology.

[3]  E. Goffman Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-To-Face Behavior , 1967 .

[4]  Blindness and the Interactional Emergence of Disability , 2006 .

[5]  Sonia Livingstone,et al.  Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: teenagers' use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-expression , 2008, New Media Soc..

[6]  Donald MacKenzie,et al.  Introductory essay: the social shaping of technology , 2012 .

[7]  Scott W. Campbell,et al.  A cross-cultural comparison of perceptions and uses of mobile telephony , 2007, New Media Soc..

[8]  E. Goffman Interaction Ritual. Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour. London (Allen Lane) 1967. , 1967 .

[9]  C. Hocking Having and using objects in the western world , 2000 .

[10]  Markku Lonkila,et al.  Social networks and cellphone use in Russia: local consequences of global communication technology , 2008, New Media Soc..

[11]  R N Lisa Skär Peer and adult relationships of adolescents with disabilities. , 2003, Journal of adolescence.

[12]  J. Gosby MEDIA REVIEWS: Basics of Qualitative Research - Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory 2nd Edition by A. Strauss and J. Corbin. Sage Publications, , 2000 .

[13]  H. Blumer,et al.  Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method , 1988 .

[14]  K. Paterson,et al.  Nothing to be had ‘off the peg’: consumption, identity and the immobilization of young disabled people , 2005 .

[15]  A. Dennis,et al.  Symbolic interactionism and the concept of power. , 2005, The British journal of sociology.

[16]  S. Lingsom Invisible Impairments: Dilemmas of Concealment and Disclosure , 2008 .

[17]  Cara Aitchison,et al.  From leisure and disability to disability leisure: developing data, definitions and discourses , 2003 .

[18]  Nick Watson,et al.  Well, I Know this is Going to Sound Very Strange to You, but I Don't See Myself as a Disabled Person: Identity and disability , 2002 .

[19]  E. Hargittai,et al.  The disability divide in internet access and use , 2006 .

[20]  Jenny Strong,et al.  Factors that predict the post-discharge use of recommended assistive technology (AT) , 2006, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[21]  Mark Deal,et al.  Aversive disablism: subtle prejudice toward disabled people , 2007 .

[22]  Kirsten Stalker,et al.  Children’s experiences of disability: pointers to a social model of childhood disability , 2007 .

[23]  James A Lenker,et al.  Conceptualization and measurement of assistive technology usability , 2007, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[24]  N. Hoffart Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory , 2000 .

[25]  Searching for analytical concepts in the research process: Learning from children1 , 2005 .

[26]  P. Emiliani Assistive Technology (AT) versus Mainstream Technology (MST): The research perspective , 2006 .

[27]  Michael Sauder,et al.  Symbols and Contexts: An Interactionist Approach to the Study of Social Status , 2005 .

[28]  Y. Chapman,et al.  Grounded theory: a methodological spiral from positivism to postmodernism. , 2007, Journal of advanced nursing.

[29]  K. Charmaz,et al.  20 GROUNDED THEORY IN THE 21 5 T CENTURY Applications for Advancing Social justice Studies , 2010 .

[30]  Bodil Ravneberg,et al.  Identity politics by design: users, markets and the public service provision for assistive technology in Norway , 2009 .

[31]  PEKKA RÄSÄNEN,et al.  Media and Communication Technology Preferences in Finland in 1999 and 2004 , 2005 .

[32]  W. Housley,et al.  Interactionism : an essay in sociological amnesia , 2003 .

[33]  Margaret Morrison,et al.  Coming of age with the internet , 2006, New Media Soc..