Rethinking Interdependence in HCI: A Systematic Literature Review for Understanding its Use in Accessibility Studies
Zeynep Yildiz, Kathrin Gerling · 2026 · Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '26) · doi:10.1145/3772318.3790600
Summary
This paper presents a PRISMA-guided systematic literature review of 70 HCI accessibility papers that engage with the concept of interdependence, examining how the field has conceptualized and applied it. The authors started from 894 papers in the ACM Digital Library, screening down to 70 that substantively engage with interdependence in disability and accessibility research contexts. Interdependence originates in Disability Studies and activism as a critical counterpoint to dominant independence ideals — ideals rooted in Enlightenment thinking, colonial power structures, and ableist assumptions that equate independence with maturity and personhood. The concept was formally introduced to HCI by Bennett et al. (2018), and has since been widely cited. However, the extent to which HCI has engaged with its political, theoretical, and activist roots remained unclear. Using template analysis combining deductive and inductive coding, the authors examine four dimensions across the corpus: theoretical grounding and definitions, use and framing, connections to related concepts and theories, and contributions to the concept. The corpus spans ASSETS (24 papers) and CHI (21 papers) as dominant venues, covering communities including blind and low vision users (40%), people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (22.9%), and motor/physical disabilities (14.3%). The paper concludes with a refined three-part framework and guiding questions to help researchers more meaningfully integrate interdependence into their work.
Key findings
Most papers (68/70) reference interdependence theoretically, but 50 of those drew exclusively from HCI sources without engaging with Disability Studies or disability activism literature. Only 33 of 70 papers provided a clear definition; the remaining 37 referenced the concept without defining it, resulting in fragmented and inconsistent application across the field. Two dominant framings emerged: interdependence as a socio-techno-relational concept (n=50), emphasizing collaboration and mutuality in technology interactions; and as a political and philosophical concept (n=16), foregrounding power dynamics, disability identity, and the labor of access. The socio-technical framing captures the presence of interdependence but not its politics, often portraying interactions as harmonious without interrogating who sets the terms of care, whose labor is recognized, or how structural inequalities persist. A key shortcoming is that many papers frame interdependence as the opposite of independence rather than recognizing the fluidity between the two. The corpus also shows heavy reliance on Bennett et al.'s foundational HCI paper as a single conceptual anchor, risking theoretical narrowing. The refined framework proposed in Table 2 provides three areas of reflection: (1) theoretically grounding and defining the concept by engaging with its Disability Studies origins; (2) positioning it relative to independence and related theories; and (3) continuously reflecting on how real-life power dynamics and care labor shape interdependent interactions in specific research contexts.
Relevance
This paper is essential reading for accessibility researchers and practitioners who engage with concepts of disability, care, and collaboration in technology design. It challenges the HCI community to move beyond surface-level citation of interdependence and genuinely engage with its roots in feminist disability theory, disability justice, and crip technoscience. For practitioners, the critical takeaway is that AT design framed around interdependence must interrogate power: who defines the terms of collaborative access, whose labor is recognized, and whether technology reinforces or redistributes access inequalities. The framework in Table 2 provides actionable guiding questions for any researcher designing interdependence-informed studies or technologies. The paper also identifies a significant gap: very few HCI papers address the flexibility between independence and interdependence as user-determined — a missed opportunity for self-determination-centered AT design. This has direct implications for organizations like CNIB designing accessible tools for blind and low vision people, where the collaborative dynamics of access labor between users, sighted guides, and technology deserve critical examination.
Tags: interdependence · disability studies · disability activism · systematic review · HCI · assistive technology · disability justice · crip technoscience · literature review