This article is reprinted from the A.T. Quarterly, Volume 1, Number 3 (1990)
It is the rare disability professional who today does not recognize the
acronym "Tech Act" as standing for the Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals with
Disabilities Act of 1988, P.L. 100-407, signed by the President in August 1988. Introduced
in Congress in late June of 1988, this bill became law in the unheard of speed of three months.
As the Tech Act moves toward the implementation of its various programs, its less obvious
meaning should not allude the policy and research communities. The Tech Act stands as nothing
less than a harbinger of a paradigm shift. Paradigm "shifts" are revolutionary by their nature. This
particular one is fueling an evolution of disability concepts in America and redefining the
meaning of disability in the social/cultural context of the 1990s. This is a context where
technology is transforming our notions of humanity, environment and action into synergistic
system of mutually influencing factors. How we think about "disability "is being affected.
Disability Paradigms
In its most basic form, a paradigm is simply a mind-set, a cognitive map, a set of perceptions
that structure individual observations so that theories can be developed and cause and effect can
be determined. It is simply a way of organizing information so that one bit of it relates to another
bit. Often, a paradigm is unconscious or is so taken for granted that its very existence is
unquestioned. For example, in one paradigm (in this article called the "Individual Defect
Paradigm") disability refers to the fact that some people are different from others in ways that
are not desirable. Some people cannot walk, others cannot hear, some cannot see, while others
see and hear what others do not. These people are seen as handicapped and thus in need of
medical care, special education, vocational rehabilitation and a host of services to cure them, if
possible, or to help them "adjust" to their afflictions, if recovery is not possible. Their
impairments are diagnosed and evaluated, plans (for treatment, education or rehabilitation) are
prescribed, and professionally directed courses of action are followed to assist these individuals
in reaching some predetermined goals.
Disability, in this dominant paradigm, is a characteristic of individual people. These
characteristics are negative, they are relatively easy to measure, somewhat harder to fix and are
generally incurable. With very rare exceptions, publicly and privately supported programs for
handicapped people (P.L. 94-142 (the Rehabilitation Act), SSDI, etc.) are logical remedies in this
paradigm.
While this common sense notion of disability still pervades most of America and its social
policy, the Tech Act both reflects and portends of changes in how "handicaps" are defined and
viewed.
The first change is a semantic one: the term "handicapped" is dropped and the term
"disability" emerges. This change is much more than cosmetic, however. The Tech Act presents
a view of disability that is substantially different from previous legislation. It directs our
attention to:
The Tech Act embraces an entirely new paradigm. In this paradigm disability is construed
as "a lack of fit between a person's goals, his or her capacities and environmental resources"
(Brita Meng, With a Little Help From My Mac, MacWorld, September 1990, pg. 181)
and the way to promote productivity and independence of people with disabilities is seen as
making available the technology resources and knowledge necessary to perform activities of ones
choosing.
Paradigms Compared
The meaning of the this paradigm (for our discussion, we will call it Technology/Ecology
paradigm) can be best illustrated when it is compared to the common sense "individual defect"
paradigm (See chart at the end of this document).
Are The Paradigms Compatible?
Some regard these two paradigms as mutually compatible. From this perspective, one
recognizes that disability may be a highly personal experience and that individual functional
improvements are possible and even advantageous to the person involved. Efforts are directed
at "overcoming" unfortunate odds through rehabilitation, education and technology. Recognition
is given to the systemic and ecological barriers that must be faced and some approaches to
lessening these include special transportation, assistive technology development (improving
wheelchairs, designing devices), public relations campaigns ("hire the handicapped week"), to
name a few.
Others view these two paradigms as fundamentally antagonistic. They assert that people with
disabilities do not need to "get better" any more than the average citizen needs to improve his/her
fire making skills. The priority here is to recognize technology defines, in large part, what and
how people do things and that variation in individual capacities is a characteristic of all human
beings. In the Technology/Ecology paradigm a broken wheel has the same impact on a person
regardless of their particular physiology. A nondisabled truck driver, bus passenger who is blind
and wheelchair using athlete are all similarly halted when their rolling stock technology fails.
Attention diverted from the true issue (aligning goals, capacities and resources) is, more or less,
a smoke screen designed to perpetuate the existing systems, professions and economic
arrangements. From this perspective, the lack of substantial improvement and, in fact, the
worsening economic and social status of people with disabilities in this country, is evidence that
the "individual defect" model is flawed. Technological, ecological and environmental reform are
necessary to attack the real problems.
Evolutions and Revolutions
For all of us connected to the disability community, a formidable challenge awaits. As
paradigms change, they call for new insights, deeper courage and honest appraisal of our actions.
Intellectual understanding comes easy; internalized value changes and new patterns of behavior
are more difficult. Those of us who are experiencing the dramatic impact of our technological
revolution are questioning what we do, how we do it and why do we do it.
Reconsideration of our long held beliefs must follow. Backlash is to be expected and,
perhaps, is inevitable.
The Tech Act was a first excursion into redefining disability. Now this year the
Americans with Disabilities Act (P.L. 101-336) takes us even farther. The ADA paints
a picture of disability that is radically different from previous legislation. ADA depicts the
problem of disability as a problem of flagrant, systemic, pernicious discrimination by the majority
against a minority. The ADA reflects the current disability paradigm among disability advocates.
The ADA articulates a new message: the way to promote productivity and independence of
people with disabilities is to remove the barriers that our society has created and restore the rights
of citizens with disabilities to partake of the opportunities available to Americans.
"Disability" in America is an evolving concept. We will have to think hard and change fast
to keep up. Rollerblades, anyone?
The A.T. Quarterly was a newsletter developed by the RESNA TA
Project under a contract with the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research
(NIDRR), U.S. Department of Education (ED). The content, however, does not necessarily reflect
the position or policy of NIDRR/ED and no official endorsement of the material should be
inferred.
Disability Paradigms Compared
Issues Individual Defect Paradigm Technology/Ecology Paradigm
Focus of The patient, the client, the The systems of resources for
the Paradigm student, the individual with a assistive technology; information,
disability financing, availability and
development of assistive technology
Nature of the Failure of individuals to perform Lack of access to appropriate
Problem major life activities such as resources: tools, information and
walking, seeing, working, learning, training
self-care
Source of the A physical, mental or emotional Lack of fit between a person's goals,
Problem malfunction of an individual capabilities and environmental
resources, the "medicalization" of
resource problems
Evidence That a The indisputable observation of Consistent, wide spread reports of
Problem Exists impairments in individuals and the failure to acquire appropriate
confirmation by medical diagnosis; assistive technology from people
dependency on welfare, medical with disabilities; extensive levels
assistance, support or other of poverty, unemployment and
services segregation among people with
disabilities; meager gains in
ameliorating the problem even after
enormous expenditures of resources
Consequences of Internalization of a deviance role Internalization of "consumer/customer"
the Problem for and acceptance of a lesser status role status and externalization of
the Individual action to acquire resources
Solutions Sought Restoration of function, if Access to assistive technology that
possible or adaptation to defects, supports achievement of economic,
e.g. using crutches or an social, educational and community
artificial limb goals
Strategies Employed Medical evaluation and treatment Development of technology and
rehabilitation, special education, integrated delivery systems that are
rehabilitation technology; services responsive to consumer expectations
designed for and used exclusively and need; a market driven system
by people with disabilities
Consequences of the Individual gains in functional The removal od systemic and
Strategies abilities (e.g., ability to walk, structural barriers, regarding oneself
acquired trade skill), acceptance of and being regarded as an equally
and reliance on service systems, capable person, greater reliance on
internalizations of the role the economic, environmental, legal,
behaviors associated with being a and social tools used and valued
"patient" or "client" by mainstream America
Desired Outcomes Improved functional capacity, Equal opportunity, freedom of choice,
return to work, improved personal achievement of personal goals
adjustment, less use of support
services
(Thank you, Gerben Dejong for this fine chart concept.)