Abstract
“Smart devices” and “smart applications” open up a wide range of opportunities for the individual. Today, the vast majority of the population in Europe uses electronic devices with a multitude of “smart applications” as an aid in everyday life. One part of society that could arguably benefit more from these types of technology is that part comprised of persons with disabilities. Statistics show that persons with disabilities, especially those with intellectual disabilities, own and use fewer electronic devices than other parts of the population. Several authors have addressed this issue, referring to it as the “digital divide.” In this argumentative article, we advocate a social‐relational understanding of disability and conceptualise “smartness” as an attribute for situations (and neither for devices and applications nor for people). Through what we call “smart socio‐technical arrangements,” persons with intellectual disabilities potentially gain a higher level of activity and more independence. It appears that an individualised technology environment can contribute to the enablement and increase of participation of each person. The article links up with an applied research project analysing the establishment of socio‐technical arrangements not only for, but also with persons with intellectual disabilities. Our main question here is how to adequately conceptualise the “smartness” of situations for persons with intellectual disabilities. We argue that the use of devices as components of socio‐technical arrangements can optimally lead to smart situations in which persons with intellectual disabilities are more active and less restricted in their activities and participation. “Smartness” then is a synonym for functioning and an antonym of disability.
Subject
Sociology and Political Science,Social Psychology
Reference58 articles.
1. Ahad, M. A., Paiva, S., Tripathi, G., & Feroz, N. (2020). Enabling technologies and sustainable smart cities. Sustainable Cities and Society, 61, Article 102301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102301
2. Alfredsson Ågren, K. (2020). Internet use and digital participation in everyday life: Adolescents and young adults with intellectual disabilities [Unpublished medical dissertation]. Linköping University.
3. Batalla, J. M., Vasilakos, A., & Gajewski, M. (2017). Secure smart homes. ACM Computing Surveys, 50(5), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1145/3122816
4. Bijker, W. E., & Pinch, T. (1987). The social construction of facts and artifacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit of each other. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, & T. Pinch (Eds.), The Social Construction of Technological Systems. New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. (1st ed., pp. 17–50). MIT press.
5. Boot, F. H., Owuor, J., Dinsmore, J., & MacLachlan, M. (2018). Access to assistive technology for people with intellectual disabilities: A systematic review to identify barriers and facilitators. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 62(10), 900–921. https://doi.org/10.1111/jir.12532
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献