CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 163Disability Rights and RepresentationFeminist Epistemology and Gender StudiesDigital Accessibility for Disabilities

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

"I am just terrified of my future" Epistemic Violence in Disability Related Technology Research

Ymous, Anon, Spiel, Katta, Keyes, Os, Williams, Rua M., Good, Judith, Hornecker, Eva, Bennett, Cynthia L.·2020·Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
DOI 10.1145/3334480.3381828
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Technology for disabled people is often developed by non-disabled populations, producing an environment where the perspectives of disabled researchers - particularly when they clash with normative ways of approaching accessible technology - are denigrated, dismissed or treated as invalid. This epistemic violence has manifest material consequences for our lives as disabled researchers engaging with work on our own states of being. Through a series of vignettes, we illustrate our experiences and the associated pain that comes with such engagement as well as the consequences of pervasive dehumanization of ourselves through existing works. Our aim is to identify the epistemic injustice disabled people experience within HCI, to question the epistemological base of knowledge production leading to said injustice and to take ownership of a narrative that all too often is created without our participation.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3334480.3381828

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 42 references

2 of the 42 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 15

  1. Erin E Andrews, Anjali J Forber-Pratt, Linda R Mona, Emily M Lund, Carrie R Pilarski, and Rochelle Balter. 2019. # SaytheWord: A Disability Culture Commentary on the Erasure of "Disability". Rehabilitation psychology (2019).
  2. Nora Berenstain. 2016. Epistemic Exploitation. Ergo: An Open Access Journal of Philosophy 3 (2016), 569--590.
  3. Lydia XZ Brown, E Ashkenazy, and Morénike Giwa Onaiwu. 2017. All the weight of our dreams: On living racialized autism. DragonBee Press.
  4. 10.1057/9780230245181 · DOI
  5. Lennard J Davis. 2002. Bending over backwards: Essays on disability and the body. NYU Press.
  6. Jane Dunhamn, Jerome Harris, Shancia Jarrett, Leroy Moore, Akemi Nishida, Margaret Price, Britney Robinson, and Sami Schalk. 2015. Developing and reflecting on a Black disability studies pedagogy: Work from the National Black Disability Coalition. Disability Studies Quarterly 35, 2 (2015).
  7. Nirmala Erevelles. 2000. Educating unruly bodies: Critical pedagogy, disability studies, and the politics of schooling. Educational theory 50, 1 (2000), 25--47.
  8. Michel Foucault. 1976[1975]. Überwachen und Strafen. Die Geburt des Gefängnisses. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M., Germany.
  9. 10.1007/978--981--287--532--7_456--1 · DOI
  10. 10.4324/9781315556598 · DOI
  11. Therí Alyce Pickens. 2019. Black Madness :: Mad Blackness. Duke University Press.
  12. Noah J Sasson, Daniel J Faso, Jack Nugent, Sarah Lovell, Daniel P Kennedy, and Ruth B Grossman. 2017. Neurotypical peers are less willing to interact with those with autism based on thin slice judgments. Scientific reports 7 (2017), 40700.
  13. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. 1988. Can the subaltern speak? Marxism and the interpretation of culture. Urbana: University of Illinois Press (1988), 271--313.
  14. Rua M. Williams and LouAnne E. Boyd. 2019. Prefigurative Politics and Passionate Witnessing. In The 21st International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS '19). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 262--266.
  15. Rua M Williams and Juan E Gilbert. 2019. "Nothing About Us Without Us" Transforming Participatory Research and Ethics in Human Systems Engineering. In Advancing Diversity, Inclusion, and Social Justice Through Human Systems Engineering, Rod D. Roscoe, Erin K. Chiou, and Abigail R. Wooldridge (Eds.). CRC Press, Cleveland, OH, USA, chapter 9.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–163 of 163

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Ymous, A., Spiel, K., Keyes, O., Williams, R. M., Good, J., Hornecker, E., & Bennett, C. L.
Affiliations
  • University of Somewhere, Too Many Places, Denmark
  • University of Vienna (AT)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
  • University of Sussex (GB)
  • Bauhaus-Universität Weimar (DE)
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2020-04-25
Pages
1-16
DOI
10.1145/3334480.3381828
OpenAlex
W3030028481
Cited by
160
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 4
FWCI
21.26
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.acm.org/publications/policies/copyright_policy#Background (vor)
Locations
CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) (publishedVersion)
Funders
Microsoft (Ada Lovelace Fellowship)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Disability Rights and Representation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Feminist Epistemology and Gender Studies
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
Keywords
epistemic violence, epistemic injustice, disabled researchers, accessible technology, disability studies, human-computer interaction, dehumanization, knowledge production, researcher participation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review