In the last few years, numerous programs have emerged in the workplace to try and create a fairer environment for disabled people.  Alas, new research from Lancaster University suggests they might be doing more harm than good.

The study reveals that programs are failing to take their particular differences and preferences into account, and therefore often worsen the marginalization of disabled people.

The research specifically focused on programs that allocated computers to disabled people with the aim of helping to improve their sociability.  Each person completed an assessment form to determine whether they were qualified to receive the computer or not.

Unfortunately, it emerged that the assessors failed to apply a strict and consistent interpretation of the answers, and this resulted in people receiving a computer when they shouldn’t have.  Indeed, often the goals of the organization took precedence over the wishes of the individuals.

“The assumptions of those who organized the project were that disabled people are lacking something that can be ‘fixed’ so as to make their lives similar to those of the able-bodied,” the researchers say. “Forms will often have yes or no answers to questions which demand more complicated responses. Consequently, welfare worked treat issues such as whether individuals are able to wash, dress or use the toilet by themselves—capabilities that are forever changing, often on a daily basis –with limited importance as they try to render impaired bodies more predictable than is plausible.”

Assumed biases

The very nature of many of the questions, together with how responses are perceived come complete with a variety of biases and preconceived ideas about what is right or wrong.

For instance, various respondents in the study revealed that computers wouldn’t help them in the things that really mattered to them, whether that was online shopping or managing personal finances.  Some also revealed that physical difficulties would make using a computer difficult, whilst others relayed personal circumstances that would hamper their access.

“These examples show how the responses on the form can both be shaped by the interviewer to gain the expected response, but also how the interviewee can give responses they feel are what is expected, even if the result is not what they desire,” the authors explain.  “The form and the project were designed to help overcome the marginalization of disabled people through increasing their sociability, but these assumptions and the form’s usage were reconfigured by those involved, glossing over the actual discussions that took place during the interviews and, on occasion, leading the interviewees to feel their views were being ignored.”

By imposing such norms on disabled people, the researchers believe that it can have the unintended consequence of marking them out for special attention they may not want or need.  Indeed, they urge policy makers to treat the fine line between care and patronizing power most carefully.