I’m Sara Hendren. It’s great to be here. I am an artist. I teach at an engi­neer­ing school called Olin College, and I just pulled togeth­er these slides part­ly in response to what I’ve heard just now, because I want peo­ple to learn about Olin. It’s a tiny lit­tle engi­neer­ing school. All the stu­dents get engi­neer­ing degrees, mechan­i­cal, elec­tri­cal, com­put­er, soft­ware, hard­ware, etc. And we are by pol­i­cy pret­ty much 5050 men and women. We have a long way to go in terms of race or class, but Olin was start­ed twelve years ago in part to fix [inaudi­ble] a bro­ken dis­ci­pline of engi­neer­ing, because of the vast imbal­ance between men and women. Nationwide the major of engi­neer­ing is 80% men and 20% women, so we’re try­ing to rein­vent the way it’s done and a lot of that, so I’d love to talk some more about that some­time.

But I’m here because my research area is in tech­nol­o­gy and abil­i­ty and dis­abil­i­ty. So I’ll talk not about soft­ware in par­tic­u­lar, because I’m not a coder or pro­gram­mer, I’m not an engi­neer. Again I’m an artist and design­er, but I want to talk about a gen­er­al dis­po­si­tion toward abil­i­ty and dis­abil­i­ty that I try to embody in my own work and the work that I do with stu­dents. That dis­po­si­tion is a kind of pro­duc­tive uncer­tain­ty in engi­neer­ing and design. So whether we’re talk­ing bout hard­ware or soft­ware, a kind of pro­duc­tive uncer­tain­ty around abil­i­ty and tech­nolo­gies (I’ll say more about what that is.) and why would that be impor­tant through­out abil­i­ty.

Well, con­tem­po­rary media in US cul­ture, and in lots of places in the world, [inaudi­ble] pret­ty pop­u­lat­ed with images of pros­thet­ic tech­nolo­gies and assis­tive devices that restore func­tion­al­i­ty to the human body by use of replace­ment parts and so on, and many of these tech­nolo­gies are fan­tas­tic. They’re very well [inaudi­ble], right? And as a result, not a week goes by that some­one doesn’t email or tweet at me some­thing about the amaz­ing new high-end pros­thet­ic runner’s legs, for exam­ple, or apps for peo­ple who are blind. And again these things are great, but the prob­lem is that these sto­ries have an over­whelm­ing­ly mono­lith­ic nar­ra­tive, and it’s the one you’re look­ing at right now, this kind of breath­less head­line about tech­nol­o­gy. So it’s like Ooh, DARPA’s Crazy Mind-Controlled Prosthetics Have Gotten Even Better.”

My expe­ri­ence as a per­son who’s a rel­a­tive of, and fam­i­ly mem­ber of, and friend to and ally of peo­ple with atyp­i­cal bod­ies and minds of all kinds, I under­stood that this media sto­ry is real­ly actu­al­ly in sharp con­trast to the wild­ly vari­able expe­ri­ence of peo­ple in their bod­ies and in their heads. So I want to encour­age young engi­neers and design­ers to think about these com­plex­i­ties. I’ll give you a kind of exam­ple.

There are these real­ly inter­est­ing tech­nolo­gies that you think of, that are the myo­elec­tric hand that has four­teen grip pat­terns and is $90,000 and real­ly quite impres­sive. Again, I think this is great. There’s a sto­ry here about return­ing this person’s nor­ma­tiv­i­ty in the form of his wed­ding ring and so on. But things get a lot more com­pli­cat­ed. [inaudi­ble] not a thing you’ll see all over the news­pa­pers, but take for instance deaf­ness.

Photo of the side of a child's head, with his cochlear implant in view.

This is an image of a cochlear implant. Probably some of you are famil­iar. A tremen­dous amount of R&D funds have gone to cre­at­ing cochlear implants which grant back some hear­ing to peo­ple who are born deaf. This is an entire line of engi­neer­ing that’s geared toward ther­a­peu­ti­cal­ly treat­ing deaf­ness as a non-normative state, but the fact is that if you go to Gallaudet University, which is an all-deaf cam­pus, you’ll find design atten­tion to things like this, which is called DeafSpace.

It’s an archi­tec­ture pre­cise­ly geared around accom­mo­dat­ing deaf­ness as a form of com­mu­ni­ca­tion. The sight­lines are real­ly long (because the lan­guage is visu­al, after all) and these kinds of things are fork­ing paths. There is a kind of ther­a­peu­tic log­ic to this kind of tech­nol­o­gy, and there’s a kind of accom­mo­dat­ing and hon­or­ing dif­fer­ence that goes into this kind of archi­tec­tur­al scale sys­tems design. It’s pos­si­ble, of course, to affirm both of those things, but at some lev­el they are in con­fronta­tion with one anoth­er, what counts as nor­mal, what’s accept­able in the human body.

Photo of a small robot on a table with its arms raised, children behind mimicking the pose.

Autism is anoth­er exam­ple. [It’s] very high­ly con­test­ed and hot­ly debat­ed, whether autism is a true dis­or­der, as it’s often called, or whether it’s a form of neu­ro­di­ver­si­ty in the way that nature hon­ors bio­di­ver­si­ty. Here for instance you’ll see lots of R&D and engi­neer­ing research dol­lars going toward the devel­op­ment of social robots for use with chil­dren in ther­a­peu­tic con­text. The robots are thought to be a kind of non-threatening, low thresh­old and reme­dia­tive way to teach young peo­ple about things like facial recog­ni­tion and expres­sion and emo­tion and so on. Again you’ll see lots of university-based use of social robots in this way.

But there’s also been in the last ten years a real­ly inter­est­ing devel­op­ment out of Denmark. A father who has a son who iden­ti­fies as autis­tic start­ed an IT firm that’s staffed entire­ly with con­sul­tants who also iden­ti­fy on the autism spec­trum. Rather than think­ing of this as a char­i­ty or a sort of spe­cial case, he built with a kind of bot­tom line log­ic a staff of IT con­sul­tants based on their cog­ni­tive strengths, not on their dif­fer­ences. They alert their clients to the fact that their rela­tion­ship to their con­sul­tant may be slight­ly dif­fer­ent than the one that they’re used to, but they promise to deliv­er because it turns out that in the cog­ni­tive pro­file of peo­ple who iden­ti­fy as autis­tic, there’s quite a lot of real­ly strong gifts in terms of the detail and lin­ear focus that IT requires.

So here again it’s a kind of real­ly big dis­tinc­tion between turn­ing our atten­tion to and devel­op­ing devices and prod­ucts that ther­a­peu­ti­cal­ly treat what have come to be med­ical­ized as dif­fer­ences, ver­sus sys­tems design and insti­tu­tion­al engi­neer­ing that hon­ors dif­fer­ence and in fact pro­motes it.

These are just two of many many exam­ples, and the com­plex­i­ties are at the heart of research and advo­ca­cy that’s in what’s called dis­abil­i­ty stud­ies. Disability stud­ies isn’t real­ly a field so much as it is a point of view across dis­ci­plines. But there’s a con­vic­tion in gen­er­al shared polit­i­cal­ly by peo­ple in the field that some­times peo­ple with atyp­i­cal bod­ies and minds are ask­ing for tech­nolo­gies and devices that help them gain a kind of culturally-defined nor­ma­tiv­i­ty back. Sometimes that is the case, and so, great.

But some­times peo­ple with atyp­i­cal­i­ties are ask­ing for a more accom­mo­dat­ing world, and that is I think the more ambi­tious chal­lenge to the crowd who’s there today. That means sys­tems and tools and build­ings and economies, even, that hon­or dif­fer­ence. And tech­nolo­gies to help us ask those ques­tions, to be provoca­tive in the prod­uct space and in the sys­tems space, pre­cise­ly about what counts as nor­mal, what counts as able, who’s inde­pen­dent and depen­dent, and so on.

So very prac­ti­cal­ly speak­ing, what can young pro­gram­mers and engi­neers do in the face of these kinds of fork­ing paths and I think the biggest thing is to ask peo­ple them­selves what it is that they want. Even in the human-centered design era, it’s still pret­ty rare that you’ll have peo­ple with atyp­i­cal bod­ies and minds involved way up in the stream of research and devel­op­ment for tech­nolo­gies that are intend­ed for them. There’s far to lit­tle of that. And hon­est­ly I think there’s too lit­tle involve­ment of peo­ple with dis­abil­i­ties in their own tech­nolo­gies because well-meaning able-bodies folks are ner­vous about doing it wrong. Using the wrong words, or gen­er­al awk­ward­ness around what to do or say, and I’ve seen this a bunch as some­one who is able-bodied but a fam­i­ly mem­ber of peo­ple with atyp­i­cal bod­ies and minds. I’ve seen a lot of that awk­ward­ness, and I can tell you that that fear is often unfound­ed. There real­ly are rich part­ner­ships to be cre­at­ed if you seek out self-advocates and lis­ten well and ask ques­tions and spend time doing the research.

I think what ani­mates me in this kind of broad notion of access and acces­si­bil­i­ty, with dis­abil­i­ty it tends to be a kind of bleed­ing heart issue with a lot of soft piano music in the back­ground, and I think that’s not nec­es­sary. I think it hurts atyp­i­cal peo­ple being part of the con­ver­sa­tion. I encour­age young design­ers and engi­neers to just be inter­est­ed in human bod­ies and capac­i­ties, full stop, with­out a lot of pre­con­ceived notions about bro­ken­ness and whole­ness, and good things [will?] result.

I do want to give one shout out to a shin­ing bea­con of an exam­ple, and that’s DIYAbility in New York. They’re a part­ner­ship between an occu­pa­tion­al ther­a­pist named Holly Cohen and a pro­gram­mer named John Schimmel, and they work one-on-one with young peo­ple with dis­abil­i­ties of all kinds to fig­ure out what it is that they want to build, and they also help those young peo­ple build for them­selves. So they also scaf­fold pre­cise­ly the kind of design and engi­neer­ing peo­ple can be build­ing for them­selves. It’s pret­ty rad­i­cal and pret­ty rare, still. So I hope you’ll look them up.

Again, I just want to say that the need for bet­ter tools and soft­ware and design is very real, but we also need pro­duc­tive uncer­tain­ty about who’s ask­ing for which kind of assis­tance, who’s not, and who the design­er or pro­gram­mer is in that process.

Thanks for includ­ing me.

Further Reference

Overview page at the Studio for Creative Inquiry's web site.


Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Square Cash, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.