Time Harms
Abstract
Focusing on the theme of “slowness,” this article demonstrates that an individualized approach to access in university life worsens inequity rather than alleviating it. It introduces the concept of the “accommodations loop,” through which slow systems and processes impede access through a relentless focus on individual accommodation and biocertification. The accommodations loop shows that time, often thought of as a desirable commodity, can also be used to harm disabled people in the name of inclusion. In closing, this article argues that we should work toward equity through systems of collective accountability, rather than individual accommodation.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The process of enrolling for accommodations requires individuals to submit medical documents as proof of their disability so that campus accessibility offices can determine appropriate accommodations on a case-by-case basis.
“The process of enrolling for accommodations requires individuals to submit medical documents as proof of their disability so that campus accessibility offices can determine appropriate accommodations on a case-by-case basis [42].”
From Infrastructuring as Collective Resistance: How Disabled Students Negotiate Access Through Technology in Universities (2026) · cites this paper as [42]
Universities often do not anticipate the dynamic and often unpredictable nature of disability, highlighting limitations with university systems.
“Universities often do not anticipate the dynamic and often unpredictable nature of disability, highlighting limitations with university systems [42, 61].”
From Infrastructuring as Collective Resistance: How Disabled Students Negotiate Access Through Technology in Universities (2026) · cites this paper as [42]
Today, the medical model of disability still dominates institutional settings, such as universities, where access is legitimized through diagnosis and where support is given on a case-by-case basis.
“Today, the medical model of disability still dominates institutional settings, such as universities [11, 61], where access is legitimized through diagnosis and where support is given on a case-by-case basis [42].”
From Infrastructuring as Collective Resistance: How Disabled Students Negotiate Access Through Technology in Universities (2026) · cites this paper as [42]
Accommodations are often described as "retrofit," framing accessibility as personal responsibility.
“Rather than addressing systemic issues, accommodations are often described as “retrofit,” framing accessibility as personal responsibility [11, 42, 61].”
From Infrastructuring as Collective Resistance: How Disabled Students Negotiate Access Through Technology in Universities (2026) · cites this paper as [42]
Institutions mobilize "access" in ways that intentionally and unintentionally reproduce ableist norms of "independence" and productivity.
“Disability studies scholar Margaret Price [42] and sociologist Tanya Titchkosky [61] interrogate how institutions mobilize “access” in ways that intentionally and unintentionally reproduce ableist norms of “independence” and productivity.”
From Infrastructuring as Collective Resistance: How Disabled Students Negotiate Access Through Technology in Universities (2026) · cites this paper as [42]
Disabled people live according to temporalities that remain invisible to privileged groups who can afford to overlook them.
“Price [42] describes this through the phenomenon of “crip spacetime,” a material-discursive reality in which disabled people live according to temporalities that remain invisible to privileged groups who can afford to overlook them.”
From Infrastructuring as Collective Resistance: How Disabled Students Negotiate Access Through Technology in Universities (2026) · cites this paper as [42]
Significant effort must be expended to ensure spatial, visual, or temporal access, producing an expertise among disabled people who must navigate inaccessible university conditions.
“These realities demand that “significant effort must be expended to ensure spatial, visual, or temporal access”[42], producing an expertise among disabled people who must navigate inaccessible university conditions.”
From Infrastructuring as Collective Resistance: How Disabled Students Negotiate Access Through Technology in Universities (2026) · cites this paper as [42]
Because individual access is bureaucratized through the process of accommodations, access labour and the accompanying challenges experienced by disabled people become obscured.
“Because individual access is bureaucratized through the process of accommodations, access labour and the accompanying challenges experienced by disabled people become obscured [42, 61].”
From Infrastructuring as Collective Resistance: How Disabled Students Negotiate Access Through Technology in Universities (2026) · cites this paper as [42]
Requests for non-standard accommodations were difficult to attain without additional medical documentation, potentially resulting in delay and denial of claims.
“Requests for what students call ‘non-standard’ accommodations were difficult to attain without additional medical documentation, potentially resulting in delay and denial of claims [42].”
From Infrastructuring as Collective Resistance: How Disabled Students Negotiate Access Through Technology in Universities (2026) · cites this paper as [42]
Access labour can be reframed as routine infrastructuring: sustained, collaborative, and resistant to the reactive, ad hoc model of accommodations offered by institutions.
“In doing so, we extend HCI scholarship by reframing access labour as routine infrastructuring: sustained, collaborative, and resistant to the reactive, ad hoc model of accommodations offered by institutions [20, 42, 49, 61].”
From Infrastructuring as Collective Resistance: How Disabled Students Negotiate Access Through Technology in Universities (2026) · cites this paper as [42]
It is not possible nor desirable to make infrastructures and the design of services frictionless or adaptive for disabled communities.
“Rather than making infrastructures and the design of services “frictionless” or “adaptive” for disabled communities — which is not possible nor desirable because disability is an ongoing negotiation of access [21, 42, 61] in which frictions will emerge [20] — student groups strategically leverage points of disruption to confront authority, compel negotiations, and demand systemic change.”
From Infrastructuring as Collective Resistance: How Disabled Students Negotiate Access Through Technology in Universities (2026) · cites this paper as [42]
Disability is an ongoing negotiation of access in which frictions will emerge.
“disability is an ongoing negotiation of access [21, 42, 61] in which frictions will emerge [20]”
From Infrastructuring as Collective Resistance: How Disabled Students Negotiate Access Through Technology in Universities (2026) · cites this paper as [42]
These breakdowns function as moments of infrastructural inversion that make visible the institutional exclusions which otherwise remain imperceptible to those not directly affected.
“In line with Bowker and Star [5], these breakdowns function as moments of infrastructural inversion that make visible the institutional exclusions which otherwise remain imperceptible to those not directly affected [11, 42, 56].”
From Infrastructuring as Collective Resistance: How Disabled Students Negotiate Access Through Technology in Universities (2026) · cites this paper as [42]
Cites
Kafer, A. (2013) · doi:10.2979/6841.0 · Cited by 2,131 · see citing works
Academic Ableism: Disability and Higher Education
Dolmage, J. (2017) · University of Michigan Press eBooks · doi:10.3998/mpub.9708722 · Cited by 884 · see citing works
Disability and Difference in Global Contexts
Erevelles, N. (2011) · doi:10.1057/9781137001184 · Cited by 670 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kim Ly, C., Cross, T., Tasman, S., Mattka, J., Doggett, O., Marathe, M., & Chandra, P. (2026) · Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772318.3791638
- Authors
- Price, M.
- Corresponding author
- Price, Margaret
- ORCID
- Price, Margaret
- Venue
- South Atlantic Quarterly
- Publisher
- Duke University Press
- Published
- 2021-04-01
- Volume
- 120
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 257-277
- ISSN
- 0038-2876 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-8026
- OpenAlex
- W3160601075
- Cited by
- 75
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 19 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3
- FWCI
- 14.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- South Atlantic Quarterly (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Disability Rights and Representation
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Disability Education and Employment
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Inclusion and Disability in Education and Sport
- Keywords
- disability, higher education access, time, inequity, collective accountability, inclusion, students with disabilities
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