Disability design and innovation in computing research in low resource settings
Dafne Zuleima Morgado-Ramirez, Giulia Barbareschi, Maggie Kate Donovan-Hall, Mohammad Sobuh, Nida' Elayyan, Brenda T Nakandi, Robert Tamale Ssekitoleko, Joyce Olenja, Grace Nyachomba Magomere, Sibylle Daymond, Jake Honeywill, Ian Harris, Nancy Mbugua, Laurence Kenney, Catherine Holloway · 2020 · Proceedings of the 22nd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS 2020) · doi:10.1145/3373625.3417301
Summary
This experience report from a large international team spanning UCL, University of Southampton, University of Jordan, Makerere University (Uganda), University of Nairobi (Kenya), University of Salford, and the Global Disability Innovation Hub presents reflections from four collaborative disability and computing research projects conducted in Uganda, Jordan, and Kenya. The paper addresses a critical gap: while 80% of people with disabilities worldwide live in low-resourced settings, rural areas, and informal settlements experiencing multidimensional poverty, very few ICT4D or HCI studies focus on or meaningfully involve these communities. The authors frame their work through Disability Interaction (DIX), a manifesto-driven approach that places people with disabilities at the centre of innovation, emphasizing partnerships, co-creation, and postcolonial awareness. Their literature review of 46 relevant computing publications found that most studies focused on visual impairments (8 of 19), were conducted across countries including India, Brazil, China, Pakistan, South Africa, Sierra Leone, and others, and critically, most failed to report on challenges encountered during the research process itself. The four studies covered: (1) real-life use of upper limb prosthetics in Uganda and Jordan, using wearable activity monitors and mobile experience diaries; (2) support networks for people with upper limb absence in Jordan, testing whether mobile phone access could enable peer connections; (3) mobile phone use by people with various disabilities in Kenyan informal settlements; and (4) 3D printing technology for bespoke wheelchair provision in Kenya, training local providers in CAD-based wheelchair manufacturing.
Key findings
The paper's primary contribution is its honest catalogue of practical challenges and lessons learned across the four projects — information typically omitted from publications that focus on positive results. Key challenges included: contractual delays of up to 6 months for hiring local research staff that were never factored into budgets or timelines; cultural adaptations needed when methods designed in the UK did not translate (Jordanian participants did not complete experience diaries, while Ugandan participants created rich multimedia diaries); difficulties striking a balance between informed consent and overwhelming participants with limited literacy, where some found braille information tiring and skipped sections; local partners advising against paying participants more than $20/day to avoid putting them at risk of robbery; the support network study in Jordan failing entirely because participants did not engage despite expressing initial interest; managing expectations when participants hoped to receive free assistive devices or mobile phones the research could not provide; finding appropriate local wheelchair providers who followed WHO guidelines being unexpectedly difficult; and funding transfer processes between UK institutions and international partners taking far longer than anticipated, with some collaborating institutions unable to hire research staff directly. The authors distill these into seven thematic recommendations: thorough scoping and patience in public involvement; centring end users' voices through community leaders and steering groups led by local people with disabilities; understanding and managing differing expectations across institutions, cultures, and disciplines; investing heavily in communication and relationship-building (it took a full year to establish fluid working relationships); navigating complex multi-country ethics and data protection requirements; planning for funding transfer delays and complex local hiring processes; and maintaining research diaries with both data and personal reflections.
Relevance
This paper is essential reading for anyone planning HCI, assistive technology, or disability research in low-resource settings — a context where 80% of the world's disabled population lives yet receives a disproportionately small share of research attention. The honest discussion of failures and challenges fills a significant gap in the literature, where publication bias toward positive results leaves future researchers unprepared for the practical realities of cross-cultural disability research. The DIX framework combined with ICT4D thinking offers a model for conducting disability research that respects local contexts, avoids technological solutionism, and acknowledges that technology alone cannot address multidimensional problems like poverty, limited infrastructure, and cultural barriers. For accessibility practitioners working internationally or with diverse communities, the lessons about cultural adaptation of methods, the importance of scoping visits, and the ethics of participant compensation in contexts of poverty are directly applicable. The visual framework mapping six dimensions (communication, co-designed research plan, funding, ethics, human resources, sustainability) across five project stages provides a practical planning tool for future projects.
Tags: disability innovation · ICT4D · low resource settings · Disability Interaction · inclusive design · Global South · participatory design · wheelchair provision · prosthetics · mobile phones · co-design