In this session, four presenters from the Dis-IT Research Alliance gave overviews of two Dis-IT research projects; each with a focus on the challenges of engaging industry in their first year and a half of research on accessibility. Presenters gave suggestions regarding why industry responded both positively and negatively, and suggested ways to better engage industry in research on accessibility.

The Dis-IT Employment research theme is examining best practices of the use of technology to make accessible workplaces. Aldred Neufeldt (University of Calgary) explained their use of the "snowball technique," whereby interviews with key informants were expected to identify best practice workplaces.

"The intent was to find key informants who are in some way engaged in the new economy that lead us to employers that were open to hiring employees with disabilities. The next step was to contact those employers and arrange for interviews on approaches, accommodations, motivations, and discern whether what was happening in their place of employment were exemplars of good practice."

Neufeldt said the research had revealed "some interesting exemplars," but no "really scintillating innovations." Information sources included governments, non-government organizations, and private sector employers such as the banking, telecommunications, oil, and trucking industries.

Denise Buchner described a positive experience interviewing in the financial service sector. She made an initial contact with the company in fall 2004 which led to an in-person interview that identified several good practice sites. The interviewee then passed researchers on to headquarters personnel in Toronto. Buchner explained that despite some complications in organizing the meeting, the interview was successful.

"Once we got there to conduct our interview, we actually found ourselves talking to this person who was incredibly compassionate in her work and committed to making the workplace accessible. Her office was full of books and materials on disability and accessible workplace, so she definitely had some sort of interest. From the interview we learned that the company had recently established new policies to make the workplace accessible and had conducted several workshops. All of the upper management had attended a workshop on disability. We also learned that the CEO of this company held issues of disability close to his heart. This particular interview was successful, even though it was a little tricky to get there. But it was successful because it gave us entrance to a company – and a private industry company – that was an interesting place to learn about, and it also led us to a few other possible exemplars of best practice to follow up on."

Buchner next described a less successful attempt at surveying a large funding organization. In this situation, the initial contact went smoothly, but the interviewee cancelled one hour beforehand because she wished to be more prepared and to include other people. Buchner rescheduled for a telephone interview, for a later date, but the interviewee again cancelled. The interviewee finally sent a questionnaire that had been filled out by cutting and pasting text from company documents. Buchner wondered if she should have pursued the telephone interview further, or if she had interpreted the interviewee's reluctance to participate correctly. "There's a fine line between when you stop chasing something because you're harassing the person, and when you keep pursuing. I think for us we felt like it was the end."

Gary Birch, leader of the Dis-IT Retail and Public Sciences research theme, described some of his research team's experiences surveying industry. Birch related the following success story of surveying a telecommunications product manufacturer.

"We were able to make a contact at a conference at a senior level. That contact person directly set up a meeting with an even more senior person that was appropriate for the interview. We sent them the survey, we followed up by phone to go over the questions to make sure they fully understood the questions, had a chance to elaborate on their answers. It was done, and that was one of our earlier experiences."

However, Birch said that the Retail and Public Services research team's experiences surveying industry has been for the most part, filled with difficulties and frustrations. "Most of our experience had been very, very difficult." James Watzke then related a difficult experience of attempting to survey an elevator manufacturing company on their feedback related to accessibility for persons with disabilities.

"Four or five months later and [the completed survey] had not happened. This is interesting because we had an agreement to complete the survey, and three separate staff, including myself, followed up with five to seven more contacts. After the third time it's called a 'nag,' it's not really an 'ask' anymore. Denise [Buchner's] point is well taken. You get to a point where you say, 'okay, what's going on here.' That survey is still not received from them. I'm deciding right now whether to give up on this. There aren't that many big elevator manufacturers; it's not like I can go to seventeen other companies and try to figure it out. So that's our less successful story and that scenario is not uncommon for both themes."

The presenters suggested a number of reasons for their positive experiences with engaging industry. Watzke identified the difference between applied research versus academic research, pointing out that applied research was advantageous for attracting industry participation in the Retail and Public Services theme.

"Done well, applied research leads to significant marketing and PR benefits. This is one of the angles that we take with our private industry clients; we try to convince them that doing this isn't just research to help them develop a better product, it also has a lot to do with marketing."

Companies with existing disability policies were more open to participating in the research process (e.g., being interviewed, filling out a survey), as were those who were new to accommodations for workers with disabilities. Companies committed to organizational culture change and inclusive practices were also more willing to engage in research on accessibility. Lastly, the presenters agreed that internal champions (e.g., employees with disabilities or high-profile executives) make a big difference in how willing or committed a company is to engaging in the research process.

The presenters also listed internal champions as a reason for a negative experience of engaging industry in research on accessibility. According to Birch, finding internal champions within a company can become a source of vulnerability for researchers. "We also found that we were very vulnerable to these internal champions, because you would find a company that's got an internal champion and they're all gung ho, and then you'd phone next week to see what happened to the survey and they'd been moved to a different department." The presenters also mentioned that contacts within the companies, including internal champions, often felt disempowered by the complexity of the issue of accommodation. Recognition of the complexity of accommodation can generally cause companies to pull back from participating in research.

Neufeldt identified industry's concerns with privacy, propriety knowledge, and bad PR as reasons for their resistance to engage in research. "Some of the other kinds of responses we'd get indicating reluctance to this [research] had to do with privacy and proprietary knowledge. Some organizations, particularly in the private sector, you'd phone and say 'well, we're concerned about privacy issues,' and if we interviewed, this might lead to a public relations disaster of some kind." In addition to concerns about bad PR and privacy, Neufeldt explained that some organizations were concerned about proprietary knowledge, particularly when interview questions had to do with technological innovations. He described how researchers have reassured companies so far regarding this concern: "Of course we'd say our interest wasn't to describe the technical specifications of what they are doing, that it was simply to describe what was happening (i.e. how the technology assisted the disabled employee with her/his work) and the nature of the document, (i.e. to describe examples of good employment practice to them and other employees), and of course this was confidential unless release was authorized."

Neufeldt commented that some companies' concerns about privacy and proprietary knowledge, once addressed by the researchers, did not necessarily remain a barrier to engaging industry. In other circumstances, however, these concerns seemed to be a way of refusing to engage at all in the research. "For some it was just a way of diverting us."

Birch noted what he called a cultural difference between industry and researchers. Industry is motivated by the bottom line whereas research can be motivated by a number of different factors. The other presenters identified this difference as the main source for the barriers to involving industry in their research. Researchers must find a way to address the "what is in it for us to participate?" perspective from industry. Securing the engagement of industry is especially difficult if companies have no existing disability policies. Birch emphasized this point when he described the "gut feel" that his research team had for industry's resistance to participating in the research. "The other response that we got, or observation or gut feel, was just that disability issues and research were simply not a priority."

Neufeldt commented on the importance of timing and context for successfully engaging industry in research. If there is internal corporate stress, for example, companies simply may not have the time to respond to surveys. Neufeldt called successful engagement with industry a "coincidental good fit" that depends on an organization's particular and unpredictable "cycle of interest" in disability issues, accommodation, and capacity to engage in research.

Discussion:

Watzke, Birch, Buchner, and Neufeldt concluded their presentation with a call for help. They asked specific industry respondents, including Helen Maskery (Maskery), Jim Tobias (Inclusive Technologies), Ian Brodie (Canadian Standards Association), and Steve Jacobs (IDEAL Group, Inc.), to address the question. "How can we better engage industry in research on accessibility?" The question was then opened up for contributions from other institute participants, many of whom added to, reinforced, or expanded on the initial contributions of industry respondents.

Most of the suggestions from industry and other participants had to do with reciprocity which addressed industry's "bottom line" or "what's in it for me" perspective. Helen Maskery summed up the industry perspective to the researchers succinctly.

"It all comes down to how much are you asking for? What might be the perceived risks from the company's perspective? And who can make the decision. I hate to say to this group, your request could be, or will be, one of many going into that company. The good news is you're not selling anything and you're in a feel-good domain."

Many responses included ways of addressing and framing the research process to provide a mutually beneficial process and outcomes for both researchers and industry. Jim Tobias suggested hiring call centres to prescreen companies. Tobias also suggested going to trade shows in order to reach out to industry. "At the very least you'll see, in their environments, what are the issues that they are listening to and how we can build a bridge between the accessibility issues and the issues that they're already paying attention to."

Kier Martin echoed Tobias's suggestion of meeting industry in their environment. In his experience, Martin has found trade shows to be more effective than talking and surveys. Martin related the story of how the St John's Independent Living Resource Centre (ILRC) rented a booth at a Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation tradeshow on universally designed homes. Martin explained that the audience was open to disability issues because the ILRC was meeting them in their own environment and because the person presenting about universal design was from the business world. "Instead of myself or someone else doing the presentation, it was very important for us to get one of them to do the presentation. So we trained that person on universal design, got them up on stage and he did the presentation, so it was coming from him as opposed to someone from community."

Ian Brodie (Canadian Standards Association) suggested targeting companies who acknowledge Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and/or accessibility as a priority in their annual reports. He also suggested contacting industry associations and regulatory bodies, including the government, because they have influence over companies.

Maureen Hewlett (University of Northern British Columbia) suggested contacting post-secondary disability service providers who are often connected to students who have employers who are sensitive to disability issues. She also suggested contacting cooperative education program coordinators, as they "may be placing people with disabilities in a position with a company who is sensitive to disability issues."

Marie-Lynn Hamilton suggested a "slightly manipulative" strategy whereby researchers could target companies who have recently received bad PR regarding accessibility issues and approach them in their "small moment of vulnerability". "I think that a bottom line minded company would see the opportunity to, for free, have their image repaired, if not completely then at least moderately." James Watzke commented that "that's a very interesting idea, assuming the grand framework allows us enough time because we have no control over those incidents."

Many respondents recommended targeting decision-makers and senior management. According to Helen Maskery, "If you can get the CEO or President, to agree to the research, that's a really good start. However, make it clear exactly what help you'll need for him to make the research happen. It's okay to ask the champion to call the kick off meeting." Ian Brodie added that copying letters to senior management is an effective strategy. "If you cc the minister, you're always going to get a response." Jim Tobias agreed with Maskery and Brodie, adding that it is useful to get senior management to associate accessibility with a sales and marketing issue. "If you can get anyone at a relatively high level within a purchasing organization to stand with you and say 'we're in the process of acquiring accessible products that the federal government or the provincial government purchases, and we're trying to do this in a way that's friendly to business, can we work with you on how to achieve that?'"

Helen Maskery suggested that anonymous surveys have the benefit of allowing companies to participate in interviews "without connecting the company's name to the research." Tim Noonan (SoftSpeak Consulting) echoed this suggestion, recommending that researchers offer companies a non-disclosure agreement. "Offer up front to sign a generic non-disclosure agreement that really clarifies that you're going to generalize the results." On the other hand, Maskery also pointed out that a disadvantage of anonymous surveys is that companies do not receive public acknowledgement of their participation in the research.

"The company needs to know exactly what is being asked for in terms of participation so that the company can assess the potential cost against value. The easier it is to participate, the higher the likelihood that companies will participate. And what may be perceived as easier by some, may not be perceived the same way by others."

Maskery emphasized the importance of timing. Knowing when to approach a company is important.

"If a company has just gone through downsizing or mergers, their heads will not be in any place where you can get answers. They will be so busy trying to manage and understand the turmoil that's going on around them; there's not much room for anything else. Good times include getting another round of funding, or a start-up signing a huge, contract or winning a prestigious award."

Tim Noonan argued that face-to-face interviews are more effective than written surveys. "I really think there are lots of people that don't like completing paper surveys and questions—it's like an exam." Helen Maskery recounted contrary example where industry representatives were more comfortable with an on-line survey than face-to-face interviews.

"I asked the researcher what kind of response rate they had with contacting companies to participate. Although she didn't have the exact number of calls made, she indicated that they had to make a lot of calls to get the 16 companies to participate. She did comment that several companies had been willing to participate in the online survey but not in the face-to-face interviews. The feeling was that they didn't want to talk about the research topic with a stranger, but they were willing to write about it."

Much of the remaining discussion had to do with reciprocity in research. Several participants argued that the research methodology must take into account the perspectives and wants and needs of both the researcher and the researched. Maskery framed the perspective of industry as the WIFM factor—'what's in for me?'—is unfortunately very predominant. However, the good news for disability research is that it is the right thing to do, and it doesn't usually cost the company to participate, other than freeing up time for individuals. This works in your favour." In her experience of surveying software companies in Ottawa, Mary Frances Laughton (Industry Canada) added to Maskery's list of how researchers can address the "WIFM" factor.

"It doesn't necessarily need to be money. It can be kudos, it can be a shining star, but there has to be some rationale for these businesses, who are clearly in the world of the bottom line, either for themselves if they're privately owned or for their shareholders if they're not. There has to be some reason why they give that particular part of their time, because by and large businesses tend not to be altruistic."

Jim Tobias framed the issue of reciprocity in research as a discussion of the psychology of research that can work at an individual level as well as at an organizational level. "Building a relationship and crafting a message that makes sense not only to the companies but again to the individual that you happen to be talking to and understanding that person's role within the internal organization and then that organization's role within the company." At an organizational level, Tobias suggested approaching industry with what he called "the implementation and advocacy function" whereby researchers come to industry with the message that "'we're trying to find out how we can make it easier for you to accommodate employees, and customers. One of our goals is to collect data from our experiences with you so that we can spread the word about what works well for companies trying to do better in a company.'"

Tim Noonan suggested researchers make sure companies benefit from the research process and the expertise of the researchers. "If you actually share some of your expertise back to the company, not as a report, but as the second half of the conversation, say 'Look, we want to hear your perspective, and…because we've been working in this industry for a while, we want to give back.'" For example, Noonan suggested conducting disability awareness raising within the company which would "present in an educative way the sort of work that you're doing." He also recommended framing the research as an exploration rather than an interrogation to emphasize this intended reciprocity.

Gerard Goggin, like Noonan, recommended educating industry in disability issues as part of the research process. He referred to some difficulties he and his colleagues at the Disability Studies and Research Institute have experienced when surveying industry in their research on media and disability. He suggested that the difficulty has to do with industry's lack of awareness of disability. "Perhaps what we need to do is think of a longer process where we hold some seminars with the organizations to talk around various [disability] issues."

Goggin also pointed out that recent feminist, indigenous, and disability studies research methods address the importance of building relationships with the communities who are being surveyed and researched. This emphasis on reciprocity and community contradicts more traditional understandings of and approaches to research, which assumes that research can be conducted objectively rather than in context, and that there is no relationship between the researcher and the researched.

"Maybe it's about saying 'researchers are in a larger economy.' I think part of the baggage of research is it comes from the kind of epistemic tradition is about say, 'we're external to this, we're observing, and so on. Those are incredibly important, but there's new literature that's about 'we're in relationships, we're in context, there's a gift economy here.' You know, there's reciprocity."

Gerard Goggin also raised "guerilla research" as a controversial strategy in which academic researchers use various experiences as research material and report their experiences in stories they tell outside of academic circles. It emerged in the 1990s in Australia amongst academics in the policy processes and is beginning to emerge in the humanities and social sciences literature.

"It's a little bit tricky and very problematic because one of our tactics has been to tell stories out of school, so that in academic papers to report things we've heard the bureaucrats say or the industry persons say or the NGO's say, because we think it's important and we think we can take a kind of risk in doing that."

Deborah Stienstra (University of Manitoba) questioned the ethics of guerilla research, in particular the difficulty of conducting this form of research within the current research ethics climate in Canada . "It's a great idea, but ethically I don't know how it could be sustained. It wouldn't pass an ethics committee." James Watzke added that this research strategy would be equally problematic from his vantage point as an applied researcher who is associated more with industry than academia. "I wouldn't be allowed to do it regardless. I'm in management and I represent my institute even when I'm off work. But it's a very interesting idea."

PANEL DISCUSSION: Conclusion

Moderator: Deborah Stienstra (University of Manitoba)

Panelists: Marcia Cummings (Rogers Communications Inc., Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians), Anthony Guirgis (University of Manitoba), Gerard Goggin (Disability Studies & Research Institute (DSaRI), University of Queensland), Deborah Stienstra (University of Manitoba)

Panelist: Marcia Cummings (Rogers Communications Inc., Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians)

Marcia Cummings commented on the 2005 institute from her dual vantage point as someone who works within industry (Rogers Communications Inc.) and the disability advocacy movement (Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians). She recounted how older computer technology (mid to late 1980s), including mainframe systems, DOS, terminal emulation, speech output, and the existence of very few graphics created more of an "equal playing field" for people with disabilities. With increased graphics in computer technology, however, has come increased inaccessibility for users with disabilities.

"[Technology companies] have taken the attitude that 'okay, we know that we have to make speech work with it, but we'll do it after everything is already created.' And that's unfortunately what they did. At the end of the whole development process, when you've used your nonstandard tools to develop in the first place, we, the user community, know that it wasn't going to work and it didn't. Now we're in the situation where we have very little access to the systems we used to have full access to."

Cummings was pleased that one consistent message coming from all presentations at the institute was to address accessibility at the outset of the design and development stages of technology, rather than as an add-on or an afterthought. "You've got to have accessibility on the plate with everything else—security system, the way you want it to work, functionality, usability, accessibility. It's got to be all there at the beginning and thank you for everybody who has repeated that over and over again."

Cummings was pleased to be able to return to Rogers with the message that accessibility is an important issue for industry to consider "Everything that has been said here is what I've experienced and everything that myself and the rest of blind employees at Rogers have been saying for 18 years or thereabouts. I thank you for showing me that the page I'm on is the right one."

Panelist: Gerard Goggin (Disability Studies & Research Institute (DSaRI), University of Queensland)

Goggin commented that the institute encompassed the "breadth of the spheres of our lives" which are affected by technology. He found the detail of the work of Dis-IT in Canada to be impressive and also noted the strength of connectedness of the research across themes and concentrated settings (e.g., workplace, standards). He considered the commitment of Dis-IT over three years to be a strength of the research and suggested "being inventive about who currently pays the paycheck" as one of a number of ways of sustaining Dis-IT beyond the allotted funding timeframe.

He identified some of the tensions and contradictions that arose during the institute between human rights/citizenships arguments and economic/marketplace arguments, and noted that these were a useful set of conflicting approaches to return to in the research process. "Part of the answer lies in the complexity and the layering of the approaches." He framed these seemingly contradictory arguments as "some of the imponderables that we're trying to ponder," adding that there is potential for these perspectives to be used together. "I do think that in some sense we have a shared set of understandings."

Panelist: Anthony Guirgis (University of Manitoba)

Anthony Guirguis attended the 2005 Dis-IT institute as a part of a graduate course in Disability Studies. He spoke as a mechanical engineering student familiar with technology, but for whom the institute provided his first introduction to disability issues. Guirguis was inspired by his exposure to the disability movement and Disability Studies, and called for awareness-raising amongst mainstream society.

"I think that information dissemination should be an important part of our strategy to reach more of the mainstream society, to reach the average person. And I think we can use media for that—radio and television—and use that as an external driving force to persuade industries to start generating products that are accessible."

Guirguis also recommended disability awareness-raising amongst the mechanical engineering community and suggested that provincial and national engineering associations in Canada could invite speakers to educate mechanical engineers about the importance of accessible technology.

"I believe that engineers would be an excellent internal source of pressure. I know for myself, my process of thinking will never be the same again."

Panelist: Deborah Stienstra (University of Manitoba)

Stienstra provided closing comments from her multiple roles as a professor and director of Disability Studies program, the principal investigator, research co-director, and e-Democracy theme leader of the Dis-IT Research Alliance and as a scholar trained in Marxist and feminist critical perspectives. After spending time with the students at the institute, she noted that for many there was "that sense of feeling out of their depth" because the discussion during the institute "felt like a different language, a more technical language, a more applied language, perhaps a sell out language for those who were from a more critical perspective." Stienstra identified this "unsettling sense of discomfort among the students" to be a response to a paradox that participants experienced throughout the institute, the paradox between industry needs (e.g., problem-solving and applied research) and critical thinking needs (e.g., questioning power relations and academic research).

"I think we've been experiencing a paradox between problem solving around the issue of access inclusion in IT, and critical thinking around the issues. And what I'm learning is that paradoxes first are really creative spaces. If we can live in the tension of being drawn towards solving the problems and thinking more critically about power structures within society and the ways that we image people with disabilities and create discourses, I think we can come to new places—to creative spaces. And by having all of the voices here that are here, we are creating those new spaces. So the spaces that I think we're trying to create in this Institute and beyond in the [Dis-IT] Research Alliance are spaces that none of us will own independently. They won't be industry spaces, they won't be academic spaces, they won't be consumer spaces, but they'll be spaces that we together will feel some comfort with."

Stienstra then gave an example of how to combine critical thinking to accessibility standards using the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) as a case study.

"The CSA is an important tool in Canada , but I don't think we should use it uncritically. I think we need to reflect on where it gets it power, where it gets its legitimation. Who benefits? And who gets framed as needing accessibility standards? I think we frame people who have vision impairments—people who use screen readers – as the problem that needs fixing. What would happen if we looked from a different perspective around accessibility and standards? Who doesn't get included in those sorts of frames? Well, people with intellectual disabilities aren't at all part of our discourses."

Stienstra then reviewed some of the early findings from the Dis-IT e-democracy research regarding accessibility standards. She commented that the barriers experienced by people with disabilities have less to do with technical issues and more to do with emotional issues—what Jacquie Ripat referred to in the 2004 institute as affective responses to technology—as well as issues of poverty and isolation.

"At last years institute, we talked about the affective, the feeling, the emotional pieces of our relationships to technology. When we're talking about accessibility standards I think we have to move one step back. What is the context within which people face technology? What is the role of poverty and exclusion in our looking at accessibility standards? We need to look at what I would call the structural or the more systemic features, the key features, of why certain populations of our society are marginalized or isolated in the knowledge-based economy. How does poverty, isolation, lack of disability supports, contribute to and sustain those exclusions in information technology? We have to ask; who are people with disabilities? And who are we creating as people with disabilities? If we understand that disability is created, not embodied in people as a result of their impairment, how do we—in the development, in the marketing, in the use of information technologies—create disability? And who gets created as disabled? I don't think we can assume that anybody with a visual impairment is disabled in an IT environment. I think that's a faulty assumption, and I think our accessibility standards are premised on the notion that 'you're disabled because you have an impairment,' not 'you're disabled because the technology disables you.' And that's the piece we need to think about."

Stienstra encouraged participants not to think in "either/or" polarities regarding research. For example, "either" applied technical research "or" critical academic research; "either" the economic argument "or" the human rights argument. Rather, she called for participants to "hear both" perspectives and to "be respectful" of both perspectives in order to "move this common agenda forward." Finally, she challenged participants to think of ways to sustain the Dis-IT Research Alliance beyond its three year project cycle.

"I think we need to live in this paradox, in this space between, and critically engage ourselves and each other, to think about how to think differently. I'm really looking forward to keeping in touch with all of you, to engage in getting the results of this disseminated more broadly, and in developing a capacity to think about this differently."

Return to 2005 Summer Institute - Inclusive Information Technology and Business Success final report

Page modified: July 23 2007 18:00:47