<!-- BEGIN ODIOGO LISTEN BUTTON v2.5.7 (WP) -->
		<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript" src="http://widget.odiogo.com/odiogo_js.php?feed_id=687068&amp;platform=wp&amp;version=2.5.7"></script>
		
		<!-- END ODIOGO LISTEN BUTTON v2.5.7 (WP) -->{"id":1688,"date":"2012-05-29T13:41:43","date_gmt":"2012-05-29T13:41:43","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.slewth.co.uk\/blog\/?p=1688"},"modified":"2012-05-29T13:43:27","modified_gmt":"2012-05-29T13:43:27","slug":"free-research-1-enacting-disability-by-vasilis-galis","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/slewth.co.uk\/blog\/2012\/05\/29\/free-research-1-enacting-disability-by-vasilis-galis\/","title":{"rendered":"Free Research +1: Enacting Disability by Vasilis Galis"},"content":{"rendered":"\r\n\t\t<!-- BEGIN ODIOGO LISTEN BUTTON v2.5.7 (WP) -->\r\n\t\t<script type=\"text\/javascript\" language=\"javascript\">\r\n\t\t<!--\r\n\t\t\/\/ ODIOGO_START:do_NOT_remove_this_comment\r\n\t\tshowOdiogoReadNowButton (\"687068\", \"Free Research +1: Enacting Disability by Vasilis Galis\", \"1688\", 290, 55);\r\n\t\t\/\/ -->\r\n\t\t<\/script>\r\n\t\t<br\/>\r\n\t\t<script type=\"text\/javascript\" language=\"javascript\">\r\n\t\t<!--\r\n\t\tshowInitialOdiogoReadNowFrame (\"687068\", \"1688\", 290, 0);\r\n\t\t\/\/ ODIOGO_END:do_NOT_remove_this_comment\r\n\t\t\/\/ -->\r\n\t\t<\/script>\r\n\t\t<!-- END ODIOGO LISTEN BUTTON v2.5.7 (WP) -->\r\n\t\t\n<p>Last week <a title=\"Blog: Free access to education, technology and disability research\" href=\"http:\/\/www.slewth.co.uk\/blog\/2012\/05\/25\/free-access-to-education-tech-and-disability-research-fill-your-boots\/\">I highlighted Routledge&#8217;s online festival of free access to academic journals<\/a> (to access the journals you have to<a title=\"routledge registration page\" href=\"http:\/\/www.educationarena.com\/freeforyou\/\">\u00a0register on their site<\/a>, to begin\u00a014 days \u00a0of access at any point up until the 30th June 2012). My last post highlighted 19 papers with particular relevance to non-academics working in Education, Disability and Technology, based on a clutch of blog posts that I mustered for a similar festival last year. However, I also promised to highlight more recent research. So, for those of you hungry for the cutting edge &#8211; here&#8217;s my starter for 10.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Vasilis Galis (2011) \u201c<a title=\"Enacting Disability: How can science and technology studies inform disability studies?\" href=\"http:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/abs\/10.1080\/09687599.2011.618737\">Enacting Disability: how can science and technology studies inform disability studies?<\/a>\u201d, Disability and Society, 26:1, p\u00a0825-838.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>I blogged about this paper on the <a title=\"Blog: At the Sharp Edge of Technology Enhanced Learning: Science and Technology and Critical Disability Studies\" href=\"http:\/\/hern.org.uk\/blog\/2012\/05\/at-the-sharp-edge-of-technology-enhanced-learning-science-and-technology-and-critical-disability-studies\/#.T8TNxrA7U1I\">King&#8217;s Learning Institute&#8217;s Technology Enhanced Learning Blog for blogging against disablism day<\/a>. This is a highly academic paper, and blog post, concerned with how disability studies and science and technology studies interact. However, I think many readers outside academia will still find something useful within it. Galis uses Actor Network Theory to identify how Disability might be concieved as an interaction, rather than an individual attribute, or external environment. \u00a0Below, I reproduce my review from the KLI blog, which draws out particular implications for Technology Enhanced Learning. \u00a0Your thoughts, as ever, are welcome. More posts on research from the last 12 months will follow in the next few days!<br \/>\n<strong><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>At the Sharp Edge of Technology Enhanced Learning: Science and Technology and Critical Disability Studies<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>&#8230;This post focuses on what learning technologists and disability scholars have to learn from one another and the importance of encouraging this traffic of ideas to combat digital disablism.<\/p>\n<p>Specifically, I\u2019d like to review a recent paper published in\u00a0<a title=\"The Journal of Disability and Society\" href=\"http:\/\/www.tandf.co.uk\/journals\/carfax\/09687599.html\">Disability and Society<\/a>\u00a0by Vasilis Galis (2011) \u201c<a title=\"Enacting Disability: How can science and technology studies inform disability studies?\" href=\"http:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/abs\/10.1080\/09687599.2011.618737\">Enacting Disability: how can science and technology studies inform disability studies?<\/a>\u201d.\u00a0At King\u2019s, increasing interdisciplinary is resulting in new approaches to learning and technology across the College. However, when thinking about disability, much technology research and discussion focuses on\u00a0<em>accessibility<\/em>, a fundamental part of user experience and human computer interaction rooted in computer science. In contrast, Disability Studies builds on a critical social science perspectives. Both engage activists, working to make digital experiences more inclusive. However, both accessibility and disability studies represent many diverse understandings of what disability is. When learning experiences are built on the results, for increasingly diverse student groups and interface devices, the picture complicates further.<\/p>\n<p>Galis\u2019 paper identifies theoretical frames from Science and Technology Studies that can \u00a0assist in the ordering of disability and the representation of disability issues in different techno-scientific forums (or fora, depending which way you like your latin sliced) to clarify this space. His position has tangible applications for accessibility and Technology Enhanced Learning development.<\/p>\n<p>To begin, Galis argues that:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p><em>Dominant conceptual models of disability have produced distinct dichotomies between the body, and semiotic and material entities (Galis, 2011: 826)<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>To set the scene, Galis reviews the\u00a0<a title=\"Medical Model of Disability\" href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Medical_model_of_disability\">medical model of disability<\/a>, the\u00a0<a title=\"Social Model of Disability\" href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Social_model_of_disability\">social model of disability<\/a>\u00a0 and the trajectory of postmodern approaches. He observes that many such lenses on disability rely on unhelpful distinctions (such as individual\/social, illness\/culture, body\/socio-structural environment). Galis proposes a bridging intervention, highlighting the value of\u00a0<strong><a title=\"Actor Network Theory\" href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Actor%E2%80%93network_theory\">Actor Network Theory<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0for promoting an interactional model of disability, in which disability (and impairment) are understood as being co-created between humans and \u201cnon-humans\u201d.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Actor Network Theory<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Within this model, \u201cnon-humans\u201d, be they assistive technologies or other surfaces of technology (a ramp, browser, power supply, internet connection and so forth) and environmental factors, are considered \u2018symmetrically\u2019. Galis explains:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p><em>Actor Network Theory attempts to cancel the divide between human and non-human actors. In this way, ANT does not privilege impaired bodies (according to a medical model), or socio-material constructions (according to a social model). Instead ANT provides an analysis of a situation which may produce disability or ability (Galis, 2011, 830).<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Actor Network Theory, he suggests, expands the vocabulary available to disability researchers and scholars. Importantly, Galis takes time to express criticism of this position, and carefully demarcate its limits.<\/p>\n<p>From Galis\u2019 argument, Actor Network Theory looks like a useful additional lens to those working at the chalk face of disability theory and leveraging the multiple-perspectives that are necessary for any mapping of the complex and contested arena of \u2018disability\u2019. However, I\u2019m not sure that a relational model of disability, one that is gaining increasing traction with more critical Accessibility discourse (In my own work, most recently with\u00a0<a title=\"Cooper et al. 2012 A challenge to web accessibility metrics\" href=\"http:\/\/ukwebfocus.wordpress.com\/papers\/a-challenge-to-web-accessibility-metrics-and-guidelines-putting-people-and-processes-first\/\">Martyn Cooper et al. 2012<\/a>) necessarily requires the vocabulary of Actor Network Theory. Moreover, this position strikes me a falling back into technicist discourses which render power relations invisible. Galis goes into this in some depth, drawing on Foucault and other critical theorists to forefront issues of \u2018who is disabled, and who decides\u2019. In this way, he applies a\u00a0<a title=\"Bricolage\" href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Bricolage#Cultural_studies\">bricolage<\/a>\u2013 recommending a use of ANT\u00a0<em>in the wild<\/em>, (Callon, 2003) that produces knowledge through more recognisable emancipatory and participatory research practices, that engage disabled people, rather than foisting hierarchical academic power-relations upon them. This, Galis advises, requires the hard sciences to engage with \u2018anti-science\u2019, \u2018concerned groups\u2019 (Callon and Rabeharisoa, 2003) and \u2018hybrid forums\u2019 (Callon, 2003). Beneath the disciplinary jargon, this translates into a more precise, technical vocabulary for Sciences engaging with participatory disability research in the field.<\/p>\n<p>Having undertaken participatory disability research in the wild, from within education (social science) and human factors (engineering), I recognise the strengths of a relational view of disability. By setting this view within an ANT vocabulary\u00a0<em>and<\/em>\u00a0an explicitly political framework, Galis overcomes the criticisms of localism and hegemony. However, I can\u2019t help wondering whether, rather than informing disability studies with Science and Technology Studies, STS itself has instead been tested and developed by a critical engagement with disability?\u00a0 In any event \u2013 the benefits of critically considering disability, and its positioning within Science and Technical disciplines remains a rich seam that demands further investigation to ensure our design, deployment and social use of technology for learning does not \u201cenact disability\u201d.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<!-- AddThis Advanced Settings generic via filter on the_content --><!-- AddThis Share Buttons generic via filter on the_content -->","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"\r\n\t\t<!-- BEGIN ODIOGO LISTEN BUTTON v2.5.7 (WP) -->\r\n\t\t<script type=\"text\/javascript\" language=\"javascript\">\r\n\t\t<!--\r\n\t\t\/\/ ODIOGO_START:do_NOT_remove_this_comment\r\n\t\tshowOdiogoReadNowButton (\"687068\", \"Free Research +1: Enacting Disability by Vasilis Galis\", \"1688\", 290, 55);\r\n\t\t\/\/ -->\r\n\t\t<\/script>\r\n\t\t<br\/>\r\n\t\t<script type=\"text\/javascript\" language=\"javascript\">\r\n\t\t<!--\r\n\t\tshowInitialOdiogoReadNowFrame (\"687068\", \"1688\", 290, 0);\r\n\t\t\/\/ ODIOGO_END:do_NOT_remove_this_comment\r\n\t\t\/\/ -->\r\n\t\t<\/script>\r\n\t\t<!-- END ODIOGO LISTEN BUTTON v2.5.7 (WP) -->\r\n\t\t\n<p>Last week I highlighted Routledge&#8217;s online festival of free access to academic journals (to access the journals you have to\u00a0register on their site, to begin\u00a014 days \u00a0of access at any point up until the 30th June 2012). My last post highlighted 19 papers with particular relevance to non-academics working in Education, Disability and Technology, based [&hellip;]<!-- AddThis Advanced Settings generic via filter on get_the_excerpt --><!-- AddThis Share Buttons generic via filter on get_the_excerpt --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_s2mail":"yes","footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[35,282,231,285,66,92,230,232,139],"class_list":["post-1688","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-a11y","tag-accessibility","tag-actor-network-theory","tag-disability","tag-disability-studies","tag-hci","tag-human-computer-interaction","tag-open-access","tag-research"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/slewth.co.uk\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1688","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/slewth.co.uk\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/slewth.co.uk\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/slewth.co.uk\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/slewth.co.uk\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1688"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/slewth.co.uk\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1688\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1694,"href":"https:\/\/slewth.co.uk\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1688\/revisions\/1694"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/slewth.co.uk\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1688"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/slewth.co.uk\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1688"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/slewth.co.uk\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1688"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}