A socio-emotional analysis of technology use by people with intellectual disabilities.
Tech is only helpful when it feels like 'my tool,' not 'their tool.'
01Research in Context
What this study did
Day et al. (2021) re-examined 40 published stories from adults with intellectual disability. The stories described how the adults felt about phones, tablets, and computers in their daily lives.
The team used Ahmed’s socio-emotional lens. They looked for moments when technology made people feel proud, left-out, or somewhere in between.
What they found
Devices alone do not guarantee joy. Adults reported pride when tech 'fit' their identity. They also felt shame or confusion when staff or family pushed tools that felt too hard or childish.
Access without emotional fit can deepen exclusion. One woman said the tablet 'sat in a drawer like it was laughing at me.'
How this fits with other research
Westendorp et al. (2014) asked older adults with ID about exercise. Both studies use open interviews and show the same pattern: if an activity feels 'not for people like me,' people quit even when the door is open.
Austin et al. (2015) counted smaller, weaker social networks for adults with ID. J et al. add the emotional why: poor-fit tech can become one more symbol that 'I don’t belong.'
Kirby et al. (2022) urge cultural reciprocity. Their idea matches J’s bottom line—pause and ask, 'Does this tool feel like mine or like yours?' before you hand it over.
Why it matters
Before you program an iPad or smartwatch into a behavior plan, spend five minutes exploring how the client feels about the device. Ask, 'Is this cool, boring, or embarrassing?' If the answer is not cool, adjust—pick a different app, add custom stickers, or role-play use with peers until pride replaces shame. Five minutes of emotional fit can save weeks of non-compliance.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Show the client two devices and ask, 'Which one feels more you?' Start there.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
BACKGROUND: Access to information and communication technologies (ICTs) is often thought to enhance the lives of people with intellectual disabilities (ID) and is considered an important aspect of digital inclusion. However, inclusion practices often fail to address societal inequalities that lead to and sustain exclusion. The aim of this research was to enhance understandings of the relationships people with ID form with technology by critically analysing the underlying assumptions of inclusion practices. METHOD: We employed a post-qualitative approach to reanalyse previously collected data from face-to-face interviews with 10 Australian adults with ID who attended a community literacy programme about their technology use in their daily lives. Two of social theorist Sara Ahmed's key concepts were used to analyse these data: (1) 'stickiness' of emotions, where certain (socially dominant) emotions are considered to attach to objects over time (e.g. mobile phone use is normal/good) and (2) 'fit' between people and objects, where there is a sense of comfort when objects are designed for people like you - those outside the 'norm' experience discomfort and a sense of being 'othered' in their interactions with such objects which do not fit them. RESULTS: Our analysis identified how people with ID often attributed positive feelings to technology even when they had seemingly negative interactions with their devices (e.g. they could not use certain features, caregivers acted as gatekeepers to access). The positive associations were likely the outcome of implicitly held understandings that society highly values technology (Ahmed's stickiness of emotions). Although some participants accessed technology without difficulty, others experienced discomfort due to difficulties using devices that were not designed for them (Ahmed's fit between people and objects). Importantly, some participants had access to technology and the technical skill to use ICTs, but other factors, such as not having many friends, impacted their ability to use their devices in meaningful ways. CONCLUSION: Our analysis suggests that digital inclusion practices focused on providing access to technology may unintentionally harm in ways that are not immediately apparent when working with people with ID. Harms might include further marginalisation or 'othering' of people with ID. It is important to recognise that well-meaning attempts to encourage use of ICTs may be counterproductive if they lead to experiences of marginalisation. To avoid this, inclusion practices could focus beyond access to devices, and the ability to use them, to include considerations of the multiple socio-emotional effects. What is a good fit is not entirely predeterminable, exploration of the possibilities for what will work well for any individual requires experimentation and creativity, and a careful attention to unintended effects. Beyond this, the development of new technology should consider how to diversify devices that often fail to fit people with disabilities.
Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 2021 · doi:10.1111/jir.12796