Visual Impairment in the Virtual Workplace: Exploration,Experience,and Interpretation

Abstract

Introduction: This study utilizes interpretive phenomenology to understand the experiences of people with visual impairments in the virtual workplace. As virtual work is becoming increasingly common, this investigation is timely for employment research that is especially relevant to people who are visually impaired. Methods: Using an interpretive phenomenological approach, individuals who have experienced working in the virtual workplace filled out an in-depth online questionnaire. The resulting qualitative data were analyzed and interpreted via Applied Thematic Data Analysis (ATDA). ATDA was used to transform the raw qualitative data into themes regarding the essence of the experience of being a visually impaired employee in the virtual workplace. Results: Based on the phenomenological data, three primary themes emerged: defined by blindness, technology as the catalyst of inequality, and ingenuity as efficacy.Discussion: Using co-cultural theory, in-depth interpretations of the data were conducted. Key to these interpretations were the technological and communicative structures that mute the voice of the virtual worker with visual impairment and the experiential factors, with special attention to inaccessible technology, that shape the unique standpoint of the virtual worker who has visual impairment. Implications for practitioners: Both theoretical and applied implications are presented. This study takes note of the social factors that surround the navigation of the workplace with a focus on how communicating about access, advocating for accessibility, and requesting assistive technology are embedded in a larger conversation of culture and societal norms of employment. Accessibility is discussed as both a technical and social challenge. This consideration of accessibility is crucial in current and future workplaces where even the simplest task is to be completed via a technological tool.

Keywords

phenomenology disability virtual work technological divide technology in the workplace

The unemployment rate of people with visual impairments (i.e., those who are blind or have low vision) in the United States is 70% (Erickson, Lee, & von Schrader, 2019). With the increase in the popularity of virtual work (Long, 2010), it is important to understand the experiences of visually impaired employees within these workplaces. As such, this study explores the experiences of employees with visual impairments in the virtual workplace via a phenomenological approach. What separates virtual work from the more traditional form of work is its reliance on information technology to facilitate workplace collaboration, including both formal and informal communication. Virtual work is built around a collaborative space that is based online or heavily supported by technological networks. By design, the virtual workplace supplants the physical office with an online virtual location or network. Organizations are switching from more traditional forms of work (i.e., employees congregated in an office setting) to virtual work in order to cut costs, improve individual productivity levels, and take advantage of the best resources regardless of their physical location (Bailey & Kurland, 2002). Long, Dunn, Makkawy, Uhrich, and Olien (2013) provide a phenomenological exploration of the experience of virtual workers as they navigate the unique culture that evolves due to working virtually.

Little substantial research attention has been directed toward the overall experience of people with disabilities as they navigate policy and access technology in the context of the virtual workplace. The most recent relevant U.S. Department of Justice (2012) paper provides evidence that organizational practices that are legally mandated by the U.S. government to provide equal technology access to employees with disabilities (legally known as Section 508) are not being followed correctly, are being completely ignored, or are not understood. In addition to the information provided by the U.S. Department of Justice, a multiple-case study specifically examining factors leading to job retention (Crudden, 2002) by people with various degrees of vision loss resulted in two relevant findings: (a) Access to computer technology in the workplace has a large positive effect on job retention. In 9 out of 10 employment cases analyzed, employees used computers with access technology in order to successfully obtain or retain employment. Six out of the ten employment cases specifically noted the importance of training in the use of computers with access-technology products as associated with job retention. (b) A lack of access to printed information and workplace computer technology are common sources of stress for employees with vision loss. Some sources of that stress include failures of technology; for example, computer programs that do not work with access-technology tools or documents that are inaccessibly formatted. Other sources of stress include failures of organizational infrastructure; for example, when employees are not given the amount of time they require to learn accessible technology or when they are not given requisite training (Crudden, 2002). To further emphasize the role of access technology for successful employment, Crudden, McDonnall, and Sui (2018) provide quantitative evidence that supports the efficacy of rehabilitation technology training for successful employment of people with visual impairments. In light of these findings, this study is more than timely in prompting a deeper understanding and acting as a catalyst to improve the prospect of involvement by employees with visual impairments in the virtual workplace.

Theoretical backdrop

Co-cultural theory is widely used to understand minority experiences as embedded in patterns set by the majority (Orbe, 1998; Orbe & Roberts, 2012). As such, co-cultural theory provides a framework designed to help individuals understand the experiences of minority group members, including the experiences of people with disabilities (Braithwaite, 1991; Jankowski, 2003; Makkawy, 2018). Taken as a whole, co-cultural theory posits that minority groups are muted and carry a unique perspective because of their disadvantaged position in society. To overcome alienation and silencing, minority group members need to maneuver through a system that does not benefit them. “The foundational view to co-cultural theory is that people with experiences and societal positions that do not mirror those of the mainstream are traditionally silenced and must use unique communication strategies to communicate their perspectives with members of [the] dominant society” (Makkawy, 2018, p. 113). Thus, the current study seeks to investigate the experiences of employees with visual impairments as they navigate the virtual workplace that has developed around the notion of an ideal able-bodied employee.

Methodology

This phenomenological study describes the essence of the virtual workplace experience for employees with visual impairments at their place of employment. Virtual workers with visual impairments are generally defined as those who self-identify as visually impaired and are employed full-time in a position where they work virtually at least 75% of the time. This study explored the following research question: What are the experiences of employees with visual impairments in the virtual workplace in relation to technology access?

Interpretive phenomenology was employed to structure the methodology used in this study. Phenomenology is an approach to understanding the essence of experiencing a concept or phenomenon (Husserl, 2003; Merleau-Ponty, 2010). Abbreviated from the writings of Moustakas (1994) and Creswell (2013), the primary task of a phenomenologist is to collect data from those who have experienced the phenomenon of interest through first-hand experience. The data are then reduced to a description of the phenomenon based on the commonalities woven throughout the different experiences. An interpretive phenomenologist not only describes the experiences in the data via common themes, but moves beyond the face value of the data to promote a more complex understanding of these themes by building an interpretive narrative. Guided by interpretive phenomenology, the authors collected data regarding the experience of working virtually as an employee with visual impairment.

Participants and procedures

In order to query the individual experiences of visually impaired employees in the virtual workplace, a qualitative questionnaire was distributed to prospective participants. Electronic mailing lists that feature discussions of blindness were also used to distribute the link to the questionnaire. Designed to inquire about the lived experience of being visually impaired in the virtual workplace, the questionnaire was pilot-tested with visually impaired employees regarding question content and was posted on an online platform that is designed to be user-friendly when accessed by screen-reading and magnification applications (see Box 1 for the questionnaire protocol). (Before any data were collected, IRB approval was granted by the University of North Carolina, Charlotte, and each participant provided informed consent.)

To partake in this study, participants must have considered themselves visually impaired and met the following additional criteria: age 18–65 years, reside in the United States, and had a full-time job for the last 6 months that was conducted online at least 75% of the time. Taking part in this study were 11 individuals who self-identified as meeting these criteria. According to Polkinghorne (1989), studies using a phenomenological approach should have a sample size ranging from 5 to 25 participants. Participants reported working in many different industries, including human services (3), higher education (2), labor relations (1), government (1), health care (1), technology (1), and transportation (1). The average number of years working in a primarily virtual environment was 7.3 years. Table 1 provides additional demographic information on the participants.

Table 1.

Demographic information.

Category	Participants
Age in years	Number
18–21	0
22–30	3
31–40	3
41–50	1
51–60	1
61–65	2
Gender
Male	2
Female	8
Race or ethnicity
Caucasian	9
Hispanic	1
Black/African American	0
Asian	0
American Indian	0
Pacific Islander	0
Other	0
Educational level
Non-high school graduate	0
High graduate	0
Some college	5
College graduate	1
Some graduate or professional education	1
Graduate professional degree	2
Undisclosed	1

Note. Although 11 participants completed the questionnaire, one participant did not provide demographic information.

Data analysis

Applied Thematic Data Analysis (ATDA) (Guest, MacQueen, & Namey, 2012) was used to transform the raw qualitative data into themes. ATDA is a data analytic procedure used to extract common principal themes from qualitative data via a systematic approach. This procedure consisted of three primary steps: (a) the data were sectioned into independently meaningful statements; (b) the statements were coded by the creation of a coding schema that is contained in a code book; and (c) through the analysis of the coded segments of data, a number of primary themes that appeared in the data were retrieved and described.

Using the coded data, I (the first author) produced themes that represented the shared experiences of the research participants. (For a list of codes used to categorize the data, refer to Box 2.) In the Results section, I presented the themes as narrative excerpts that represented the employment experiences of the employees who identified as visually impaired. I further discussed and connected the themes to draw a complete picture of these workplace experiences. I increased the validity of the findings by discussing the questionnaire design with a technology trainer who works with visually impaired clients on access-technology skill development, as well as a vocational rehabilitation counselor. After collecting the data and conducting the initial analysis, I consulted with two rehabilitative counselors who have worked with visually impaired employees. I discussed my initial findings with and sought feedback or further interpretation from these two counselors as informed by their experiences in working with people with visual impairments. Although my interactions with these counselors largely bolstered my interpretation of the findings, I was able to gain further insight into the data from this step in the data analysis process. The three themes that emerged from the data are described in the Results section and are illustrated by quotations from research participants. (All names reported after participant quotations are pseudonyms.)

Results

Defined by blindness

Yes, at times software has been inaccessible to my screen reader system access and employers are unwilling to hire people with disabilities because they think we will be less productive (Elaine).

Elaine’s statement illustrates the lived experience of being a virtual worker from the specific point of view of someone who is visually impaired. She explains that the general problem of computer software implemented in workplaces, both virtual and traditional, is the inaccessibility individuals with visual impairments face when using access technology—more specifically screen-reading technology—to synthesize the visual information presented on the screen. The screen-reading software referred to in this paragraph is called System Access, a popular screen-reading application that is used with the Windows operating system. This issue of access to computer programs and interfaces is especially problematic for virtual workers with visual impairments. Since the primary mode of employee collaboration occurs in a virtual environment, often supported by computer programs and websites, this problem of computer access challenges other aspects of the lives of visually impaired people. For example, if access to the productivity software, websites, and collaboration platforms utilized by businesses is compromised, one can infer that difficulties are certainly experienced by individuals with visual impairments who are employed by many other institutions such as those in the education sector. This problem of computer access is, in essence, a problem of general information access.

Sometimes it’s hard to access a website with a screen reader because the makers of the website didn’t make it accessible.… There needs to be major work done on the web, as far as accessibility is concerned. The number of inaccessible websites, programs, etc. is shameful! This needs to be one of the highest priorities as the blind/disabled move forward; websites which exist solely as “eye candy” should be penalized until they get their acts together (Alexis).

Alexis’s statements demonstrate how the difficulties that she faces in the virtual workplace are similar to her overall interactions with computers and the Internet. Her frustration with the lack of accessibility of websites is evident, and her displeasure of being set back by this inaccessibility is obvious.

Technology as the catalyst of inequality

The previous theme, “Defined by Blindness,” highlighted how the experiences of visually impaired workers in the virtual workplace are similar to the more interactions they have with inaccessible technologies in general. This theme, “Technology as the Catalyst of Inequality,” specifically relates to how the technologies that are used in the workplace—more specifically, the tools that are promoted by employers as being the foundation of the virtual workplace such as web-conferencing tools and collaboration or project-management programs—create inequalities between employees with and without visual impairments. Technology access is important in almost any workplace setting, but lack of accessibility in the design of technological tools that act as the foundation of the virtual workplace can create wide gaps between those who can participate and those who are effectively locked out of it. The design of the collaboration platforms and websites used in the virtual workplace are created and implemented by people who do not have visual impairments and who do not consider people with visual impairments. Participants reported having to make changes to the technology they use on the job in order to successfully complete work tasks. These changes were described as modifying existing mainstream technology or using access-technology programs. This access is fulfilled via the creation of customized programs, sometimes called scripts, or through the use of access-technology products. According to the data collected, the design of mainstream technology used in the virtual work setting does not consider the experiences and needs of people who are visually impaired.

Although there are standards (e.g., Section 508, W3C, to name a few.), tools, and services that are built to assist computer programmers and web developers to create universally accessible programs and web portals (e.g., application accessibility guidelines and templates), it is clear that these resources are often not used. When asked about advice participants would have for other people with visual impairments who are considering working virtually, Joe advised that such workers need to

Have an understanding of the capabilities of access technology and a general knowledge of how to interface this technology with mainstream software. You don’t have to be an expert, or know how to make them work together, but know who to go to. Just because an employer’s IT [information technology] folks say it can’t be done, [it] might not actually mean it can’t be done (Joe).

Not only is an understanding of access technology and its capabilities a recurrent notion expressed in the data, but understanding how to bring accessibility solutions to inaccessible technology is also a concept that is discussed. The design of technology used in virtual work, as well as technology in general, is portrayed as a collection of inaccessible entities that will most certainly provide blockades to out-of-the-box use (i.e., the use of mainstream technology without special access-technology solutions) when it comes to people with visual impairments. Joe’s statement also underscores the idea that many people who work in the information technology field do not have a good understanding of the accessibility (or lack thereof) of the products they produce or support or both. Participants felt that the onus was on the person with visual impairment to provide solutions, or at least take steps to contact those with the technical knowledge who could assist them.

Adding to the interpretation of this theme, there is evidence in the data that supports the concept that the more specialized technology is to an organization (e.g., custom workplace-specific programs and web-collaboration platforms), the more accessibility issues there will be. Elaborating on this finding, technology that is specifically created for an organization’s virtual work or collaboration will present more accessibility barriers as compared to technology that is widely distributed across different organizations (e.g., the Microsoft suite of applications). There was not overwhelming evidence regarding this finding, but researchers should further investigate.

Ingenuity as efficacy

Throughout the data, and as informed by the previous discussion of issues with technology access, there was a focus on ingenuity in implementing an access-technology setup to successfully interface with the mainstream technology used. The “ingenuity” required to be an effective virtual worker refers to being willing and able to bring creative solutions to issues of technical access, as well as navigating the interactions surrounding requesting access, noting issues of inaccessibility, and even possibly challenging organizational power structures in obtaining access. The following statement is from a virtual worker advising others with visual impairments in regard to applying for jobs that are virtual. It is a perfect example of the ingenuity that must be used when understanding the relationship between access technology and mainstream technology.

I would encourage them to find out what applications are used and to investigate their accessibility prior to the interview if possible, and certainly prior to hire. Although laws may be helpful in obtaining rights and resources in some cases, I think that it is incumbent upon the applicant to ensure that they are as flexible and creative as possible[,] as I think this approach will be more affective in obtaining a job. I think it is also important that the person have excellent technology skills[,] as there will not be another person around who may be able to assist them when things don’t work as expected (Joe).

Joe’s statement illustrates his understanding of the relationship between access technology and mainstream technology used to work virtually. Even before interviewing for a job, a virtual worker needs to understand how to socially navigate the organization to obtain information regarding the technological tools used to facilitate working virtually. Continuing on this trend, the next statement, by Andria, illustrates how communicating about legal requirements that an organization is not following—regarding the adoption of accessible technology (or the lack thereof)—can backfire on a virtual worker with visual impairment.

I’ve been discriminated against because of my blindness because I shone the light on the illegal practices of my employer by allowing inaccessible electronic and information technology to be purchased and used throughout my agency (Andria).

Andria’s statements help explain why people with disabilities sometimes choose not to call forward legal protections and protocols that would protect them. Fearing either exclusion or retribution by their employers, people with disabilities in the workplace (virtual or traditional) must solve access problems innovatively and silently. In these specific cases, the innovations benefit the visually impaired employees in the short term, but also may hinder social progress in the long term. Virtual workers facing inaccessible technologies must navigate lack of accessibility at both technical and social levels.

Discussion

I think “jobs for the blind” is a societal construct that primarily results from the lack of understanding of the capabilities of the blind. I think that any job, telework or otherwise, may require minor modification to be accessible to a blind/disabled employee. I think that if jobs for the disabled exist right now they do so because it is easier for the employer to make them accessible (Gabby).

Using co-cultural theory as a framework to explain workplace interactions, the analysis presented here highlights how these virtual workers are involved in a co-cultural encounter where the virtual workplace is the venue of struggle. As embedded in the larger experience of being blind in society, the experiences of virtual workers with visual impairments provide the perspectives that mold the interpretation of their experience in this unique venue. The design and implementation of technology used in the virtual workplace has a muting effect on the voices of these employees. The unique perspectives, plus the silencing of the voice of people with visual impairments, are two factors that, when combined, provide evidence of the nondominant co-cultural position of people with visual impairments in the virtual workplace.

The themes that are especially salient in the data are the ones entitled, “Technology as the Catalyst of Inequality” and “Ingenuity as Efficacy.” Even after training in the use of state-of-the-art access technology and the development of an in-depth knowledge base regarding the relationship between access and mainstream technologies, people with visual impairments are often unable to succeed at working virtually because of their absence from the larger discussion of the design and implementation of technological tools. In many cases, co-cultural encounters between people with visual impairments and their sighted peers are absent altogether in the virtual workplace because of this lack of discussion. As supported by previous research on the voices of women (Allen, Epps, Guillory, Suh, & Bonous-Hammarth, 2000; Kissack, 2010) and people with disabilities (Makkawy & Moreman, 2019; Prince, 2009), along with the data presented in this study, this stance is warranted. The task of understanding why the voices of people with visual impairments is stifled when it comes to the design of technology should be explored. An understanding of this theme of inaccessible technological design is very important in order to understand not only their experiences in virtual work settings but also the overall experiences of people with visual impairments as they strive to gain access to technology.

The next step is to understand the tactics used by a person with visual impairment in the workplace to be an effective employee, one who needs to gain access to otherwise inaccessible technologies. Integral to this idea is the further analysis of the theme, “Ingenuity as Efficacy,” in light of co-cultural theory, which posits that minority groups are silenced and carry a unique perspective because of their disadvantaged position in society. These factors influence communication techniques that are carefully employed to allow people in the minority to voice their concerns while also remaining protected from the majority group. The second statement presented in the discussion of the theme of ingenuity exemplifies co-cultural theory in action. Virtual workers with visual impairments must negotiate the environment of inaccessible technologies while being careful not to confront the majority group (those without disabilities) in order not to be harmed. What often makes this communicative negotiation especially difficult is the need for visually impaired employees to have access to technological tools to be effective virtual workers; thus, a failure at navigating the dominant co-culture could mean dismissal from the workplace.

Participants indicated that although government programs were helpful in providing resources (e.g., access technology and legal frameworks), people with visual impairments must tactfully conduct the communicative encounters that will ultimately result in the changes that will allow them access to workplace tools. This notion is present in other research regarding people with disabilities (e.g., Camara & Orbe, 2010; Cohen & Avanzino, 2010). Our data show that an aggressive communication approach does more harm than good, while assertive approaches with the goal of accommodation seem to have the best outcomes for both the employer and the employee. This finding closely parallels Camara and Orbe (2010) regarding workplace discrimination of people with disabilities. The importance of developing communication skills that are not aggressive yet assertive, along with an in-depth understanding of access technology, is key.

Implications and conclusion

The pragmatic implications of the findings of this study are many. Most apparent is the effect of the inequality in the virtual workplace regarding virtual workers with and without visual impairments. Virtual workers with visual impairments are disadvantaged because of their disability, while they simultaneously bring the same job skills to the workplace. The exact implications of this inequity are beyond the scope of this article, but it is clear that action needs to be taken. Since virtual work is an option that is increasingly being used by organizations, it is necessary that policies be created and enforced that protect and empower all virtual workers. In addition, the design of technology used in the virtual workplace should be held to a standard that will promote a work environment that is negotiable by people with visual impairments. Although human resource departments and government entities should enforce existing policies (e.g., the Americans with Disability Act and Section 508), they should also work to ensure the creation of new policies that require organizations to implement technological solutions that meet minimum standards of accessibility, particularly in organizations that champion virtual work. Coupled with recent findings that provide evidence of the efficacy of access-technology solutions with accessible applications (Rosner & Perlman, 2018), promoting more accessible virtual workplaces is important for the improvement of future employment experiences for people who are visually impaired.

With a focus on the immediate future, the findings of this study are of special note for people with visual impairments who are seeking any type of employment and vocational rehabilitation counselors who work with people with vision loss. Although an emphasis on access technology and associated technical problem-solving skills are paramount, training in communication strategies oriented toward obtaining accessible technology and promoting accessible technology development are also essential. Of note, the communication strategies indicated as successful by the participants that took part in this study were centered in self-advocacy. Vocational rehabilitation counselors might consider using role-play exercises or other techniques with clients to help promote the importance of self-advocacy in workplace situations. Using an assertive communication approach should be effective in both virtual and traditional workplaces. Scholars and practitioners conducting employment research should consider technology access as both a technical and social issue, and the experiences of employees with visual impairments should be the focal point for any recommendations or changes to existing policy.

Positionality statement

As an employee of color with a visual impairment who completes many work-related tasks virtually, my own experiences with accessibility, the workplace, and technology are all part of my subjective stance. My positionality served as a strength in assisting me to understand the experiences of research participants, while also limiting my interpretations. As I analyzed the data collected for this study, I kept this in mind and at times used my experiential knowledge base to help interpret the data. For example, my knowledge has provided me with both a breadth and depth of information regarding access-technology products, including screen readers, screen magnifiers, braille note takers, and so forth. Before collecting data, I recognized the limitations of being the only data analyst in this project. As noted in the Data Analysis section of this study, I discussed my findings with vocational rehabilitation counselors as an extra measure to avoid a narrow analysis of the research participant data. In sum, while my positionality provides an unavoidable subjective backdrop regarding data interpretation and analysis, the knowledge I bring to this project ultimately enriches this study via an in-depth understanding of access technology and relevant workplace experiences.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

References

Allen

W. R.

Epps

E. G.

Guillory

E. A.

Suh

S. A.

Bonous-Hammarth

(2000). The Black academic: Faculty status among African Americans in U.S. higher education. The Journal of Negro Education, 69(1–2), 112–127.

Bailey

D. E.

Kurland

N. B.

(2002). A review of telework research: Findings, new directions, and lessons for the study of modern work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(4), 383–400. doi:10.1002/job.144

Braithwaite

D. O.

(1991). “Just how much did that wheelchair cost?”: Management of privacy boundaries by persons with disabilities. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55(3), 254–274. doi:10.1080/10570319109374384

Camara

S. K.

Orbe

M. P.

(2010). Analyzing strategic responses to discriminatory acts: A co-cultural communicative investigation. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 3(2), 83–113. doi:10.1080/17513051003611602

Cohen

Avanzino

(2010). We are people first: Framing organizational assimilation experiences of the physically disabled using co-cultural theory. Communication Studies, 61(3), 272–303. doi:10.1080/10510971003791203

Creswell

J. W.

(2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Crudden

(2002). Employment after vision loss: Results of a collective case study. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 96(9), 615–621. doi:10.1177/0145482X0209600902

Crudden

McDonnall

M. C.

Sui

(2018). Losing employment: At-risk employed vocational rehabilitation applicants with vision loss. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 112(5), 461–474. doi:10.1177/0145482X1811200504

Erickson

Lee

von Schrader

(2019). 2017 disability status report: United States. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Yang-Tan Institute on Employment and Disability (YTI).

10.

Guest

MacQueen

K. M

Namey

E. E.

(2012). Applied thematic analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

11.

Husserl

(2003). Ideas: General introduction to pure phenomenology. New York, NY: Routledge.

12.

Jankowski

(2003). On communicating with deaf people. In Samovar

L. A.

Porter

R. E.

(Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (pp. 142–150). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

13.

Kissack

(2010). Muted voices: A critical look at e‐male in organizations. Journal of European Industrial Training, 34(6), 539–551. doi:10.1108/03090591011061211

14.

Long

S. D.

(Ed.). (2010). Communication, relationships and practices in virtual work. Hershey, PA: Business Science Reference.

15.

Long

S. D.

Dunn

A. M.

Makkawy

Uhrich

Olien

(2013). A culture of paradoxes: An interpretive phenomenological approach to virtual work. The Electronic Journal of Communication, 23(4).

16.

Makkawy

(2018). ‘Is that really our teacher professor person?’ Working from the boundaries: Enabling from afar. In Jeffress

M. S.

(Ed.), International perspectives on teaching with disability: Overcoming obstacles and enriching lives (pp. 108–122). New York, NY: Routledge.

17.

Makkawy

Moreman

S. T.

(2019). Putting crip in the script: A critical communication pedagogical study of communication theory textbooks. Communication Education, 68(4), 401–416. doi:10.1080/03634523.2019.1643898

18.

Merleau-Ponty

(2010). Phenomenology of perception. New York, NY: Routledge.

19.

Moustakas

(1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

20.

Orbe

M. P.

(1998). From the standpoint(s) of traditionally muted groups: Explicating a co-cultural communication theoretical model. Communication Theory, 8(1), 1–26. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.1998.tb00209.x

21.

Orbe

M. P.

Roberts

T. L.

(2012). Co-cultural theorizing: Foundations, applications & extensions. The Howard Journal of Communications, 23(4), 293–311. doi:10.1080/10646175.2012.722838

22.

Polkinghorne

D. E.

(1989). Phenomenological research methods. In Valle

R. S.

Hauling

(Eds.), Existential-phenomenological perspectives in psychology (pp. 41–60). New York: Plenum.

23.

Prince

M. J

. (2009). Absent citizens: Disability politics and policy in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

24.

Rosner

Perlman

(2018). The effect of the usage of computer-based assistive devices on the functioning and quality of life of individuals who are blind or have low vision. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 112(1), 87–99. doi:10.1177/0145482X1811200108

25.

U.S. Department of Justice . (2012). Section 508 report to the president and congress: Accessibility of federal electronic and information technology. Retrieved from http://www.ada.gov/508/508_Report.htm