'Ron’, ‘Chloe’ and ‘Polly’ are disabled people from the North West of England. I spoke with them as part of the Community project, a scheme run by a care charity to provide disabled people with reconditioned computers and any other equipment they’d need to have regular access to the internet. Most of all, the aim was to help people living on their own, often in geographically remote areas, to join in with the social aspects of the web.

It’s a good scheme with the best of intentions. But our research highlighted the complications that come along with a situation that, on the surface, appears so straightforward: the bureaucracy, the selection process, the use of forms, and the underlying assumptions around what people want and need.

We participated in interviews in the homes of disabled people who were being considered as ‘suitable’ recipients of free computers. The interviews were based around a simple form devised by the charity, which asked about what equipment, and any adaptations, was needed to make internet use possible; then some questions about what they might actually want to use it for. It featured a yes/no option against suggested uses: ‘Communication with friends/family/make new friends’; ‘Access information about services’; ‘Learn new skills/access online courses’; ‘Online shopping’; and an ‘Other’ open question to encourage discussion.

The completed form looked to serve its purpose well, i.e. suitable users for the project had been identified. People’s responses looked clear enough. But the actual conversations, asides and subsequent use of the computer, highlighted how the reality of the mess and complexity within the selection process had been reduced down leading to some misleading conclusions.

FORMING ATTITUDES

The heart of the project, its motivation, was addressing the marginalisation of disabled people, the lack of opportunities for social contact. But we saw how an application form could lead to further marginalisation; by being based on an assumption that disabled people would be ‘normalised’ by using the internet in the same ways as ‘everyone else’. The boxes are ticked but the all-important individual differences in needs and attitudes are smoothed over and forgotten. People are encouraged in these situations to give responses that are expected. And in this case, it became apparent that the interviewees felt like they needed to give the ‘right’ answers in order to be selected for the project and get one of the computers, although they didn’t always comply with this feeling.

Ron, for example, wasn’t interested in being part of social media and social chatrooms. An ex-policeman in his early 50s with multiple sclerosis, Ron was categorised as quadriplegic. He was only able to move from his neck upwards and was supported by staff on a 24-hour, daily basis. He did therefore have quite a high degree of social interaction with his support workers. He also had a lot of interaction and care from various family members. Ron’s response that he didn’t actually want to use the computer for socialising, he only really wanted the chance to trade in stocks and shares online, could have disqualified him from being allocated a computer. However, this discrepancy was ignored when the form was completed since it was felt that Ron complied with the spirit, if not the ‘letter’, of the project. His situation was entangled in complex ways that were not consistent with the aims of the project. As a result, Ron’s comment that he might want to “play games online” was included on the form, as evidence of the potential for social interaction, rather than “buying and selling shares”, which was seen as being a less suitable response.

Chloe had leukaemia when she was seven years old and as a result of medical treatment she had been left completely paralysed down the right-hand side of her body, including one side of her brain. Chloe had difficulty communicating as a result of her impairments, and her mother, who was her main carer, responded to the questions being asked. Chloe, now 25, was asked whether she would like to use the computer for online shopping. Her mother responded that she wouldn’t let her daughter shop online as she liked to take her out as much as possible for shopping. She added that Chloe also went out of the house a couple of days a week to visit day centres where she would meet up with many of her friends. Strictly speaking, Chloe didn’t fit the social isolation criteria; but at the same time, she lacked independence largely because of the way her mother was highly protective of her; the criteria of ‘fit’ for the project needed to be broadened to allow Chloe to be allocated a computer.

Polly appeared an ideal candidate. In her mid-60s, and suffering from arthritis and angina, Polly was able to walk, but became very tired and breathless easily. She’d experienced occasional depression from the threat of becoming isolated; and when it came to the interview, responded enthusiastically to questions about using the computer for social interaction. Two months after receiving the equipment, however, Polly told the charity she wanted to send the computer back: she couldn’t afford the broadband costs and found it uncomfortable to sit at.

Ron and Chloe didn’t respond in the way the form was expecting, and when Polly did, it was hiding the underlying issues.

TALKING IN PRACTICE

The Community project had a standard candidate in mind, someone who wanted to use the internet for social interaction. The interviews proved how much more complicated needs and attitudes were.

Questionnaires, forms and form-filling can lead to the obscuring or glossing over of differences, just to provide a shortcut to the intended outcomes of the organisations behind them. In the case of our research, this appeared to involve defining disabled people as lacking something, such as ‘good’ social relations and communications, and using technology as a way of filling that perceived gap, regardless of whether or not this was their priority.

There are a number of lessons here for organisations and their use of dry, form-based processes. Assumptions just become formalised. Getting to the most useful insights requires an understanding of the messy life around the forms, how they influence and are used, the whole performance that surrounds them.

Dr Yvonne Latham is a Lecturer in the Department of Organisation, Work and Technology

y.latham1@lancaster.ac.uk