Although participation in the digital world is an important means for taking part in our society, people with intellectual disabilities are still largely excluded from the manifold possibilities of digital participation. In our study, we investigate attitudes of both formal caregivers and people with intellectual disabilities in Germany regarding their usage of digital media. Our sample consisted of 24 formal caregivers working in residential or outpatient facilities in Germany, and 50 people with intellectual disabilities living in those settings. Data were collected during semi-structured interviews with formal caregivers and focus group discussions with people with intellectual disabilities, and analyzed using inductive content analysis. The findings illustrate that the perspectives on digital media usage differ between people with intellectual disabilities and formal caregivers regarding (i) interest in accessing the Internet and digital media, (ii) interest in education programs, and (iii) the variety of applications used. The perspectives of both target groups will be discussed and contrasted.
AyresKMMechlingLCSansostiFJ (2013) The use of mobile technologies to assist with life skills/independence of students with moderate/severe intellectual disability and/or autism spectrum disorders: considerations for the future of school. Psychology in the Schools50(3): 259–271.
4.
BarrOMcConkeyRMcConaghieJ (2003) Views of people with learning difficulties about current and future accommodation: the use of focus groups to promote discussion. Disability & Society18(5): 577–597.
5.
BeebeTJAscheSEHarrisonPA, et al. (2004) Heightened vulnerability and increased risk-taking among adolescent chat room users: results from a statewide school survey. Journal of Adolescent Health35(2): 116–123.
6.
BoardmanLCrichtonCButterworthS (2016) When you can’t talk about it. Probation Journal63(1): 72–79.
7.
BorgströmADanebackKMolinM (2019) Young people with intellectual disabilities and social media: a literature review and thematic analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research21(1): 129–140.
8.
BosseI (2012) Medienbildung im Zeitalter der Inklusion. Wuppertal: Börje Halm.
9.
BühlerCPelkaB (2017) Empowerment by digital media of people with disabilities. Three dimensions of support. In: 14th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (eds KMiesenbergerDFelsDArchambaultPPenanzWZagler), Paris, France, 9–11 July 2014, pp. 17–24. Cham: Springer international publishing.
10.
BunningKAlderRProudmanL, et al. (2016) Co-production and pilot of a structured interview using Talkin Mats to survey the television viewing habits and preferences of adults and young people with learning disabilities. British Journal of Learning Disabilities45: 1–11.
11.
CameronLWatosonSMurpheyJ (2004) Talking Mats: a focus group tool for people with learning disabilities. Language Matters18(1): 33–35.
12.
CatonSChapmanM (2016) The use of social media and people with intellectual disability: a systematic review and thematic analysis. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability41(2): 125–139.
13.
ChadwickDQuinnSFullwoodC (2017) Perceptions of the risks and benefits of Internet access and use by people with intellectual disabilities. British Journal of Learning Disabilities45(1): 21–31.
14.
ChadwickDWessonCFullwoodC (2013) Internet access by people with intellectual disabilities: inequalities and opportunities. Future Internet5(1): 376–397.
15.
ChinerEGómez-PuertaMCardona-MoltóMC (2017) Internet use, risks and online behavior: the view of Internet users with intellectual disabilities and their caregivers. British Journal of Learning Disabilities45(3): 190–197.
16.
CorriganPW (2004) How stigma interferes with metal health care. American Psychologist59(7): 614–625.
17.
DesPPowerMRRehlingB (2007) German deaf people using text communication on JSTOR. American Annals of the Deaf152(3): 291–301.
DovellEBBurgessAWCavanaughDJ (2009) Clustering of Internet risk behaviors in middle school student population. Journal of School Health79(11): 547–553.
21.
DresingTPehlT (2010) Transkriptionen. In: MeyGMruckK (eds) Handbuch Qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, pp. 723–733.
22.
Easy Reading (2020) Easy Reading. Keeping the user at the digital original. Available at: https://www.easyreading.eu/ (accessed 30 November 2020).
FoleyAFerriBA (2012) Technology for people, not disabilities: ensuring access and inclusion. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs12(4): 192–200.
25.
GomezJCTorradoJCMontoroG (2017) Using smartphones to assist people with Down syndrome in their labour training and integration: a case study. Wireless Communications & Mobile Computing2017: 1–15.
26.
HaageABosseI (2017) Media use of persons with disabilities. In: 11th international conference on human-computer-interaction (eds MCAntonCStephanidis), Vancouver, Canada, 9–14 July 2017, pp. 419–435. Cham: Springer international Publishing.
27.
HaageABosseI (2019) Basisdaten zur Mediennutzung von Menschen mit Behinderungen. In: BosseISchluchterJRZornI (eds) Handbuch Inklusion und Medienbildung. Weinheim: Belz Juventa, pp. 49–64.
28.
HastallMRHeitplatzVN (2019) Soziotechnische Systemgestaltung für Therapie und Pflege. In: PosenauADeitersWSommerS (eds) Nutzerorientierte Gesundheitstechnologie. Bern: Hogrefe, pp. 101–112.
HeitplatzVNBühlerCHastallMR (2019) Caregiver’s influence on smartphone usage of people with cognitive disabilities: an explorative case study in Germany. In: 21th international conference on human-computer-interaction (eds MCAntonCStephanidis), Orlando, Florida, 26–31 July 2019, pp. 98–115. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
31.
HeitplatzVNBühlerCHastallMR (2020) I can’t do it, they say! Perceived stigmatization experiences of people with intellectual disabilities when using and accessing the Internet. In: 22nd international conference on human-computer-interaction (eds MCAntonCStephanidis), Copenhagen, Denmark, 20–24 July 2020, pp. 390–408. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
32.
HeitplatzVNLeinweberJFriegH, et al. (2019b) Konzepte zur Nutzer*inneneinbindung am Beispiel der Entwicklung einer digitalen Anwendung zum Training der Sprechverständlichkeit (ISi-Speech). In: PosenauADeitersWSommerS (eds) Nutzerorientierte Gesundheitstechnologie. Bern: Hogrefe, pp. 101–112.
33.
HoppestadBS (2013) Current perspective regarding adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities accessing computer technology. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology8(3): 190–194.
34.
Initiative D21 e.V. (2018) D21 Digital Index 2018/2019: Jährliches Lagebild zur Digitalen Gesellschaft. Lampertswalde: Stoba Druck GmbH.
35.
JainCRAppleDKEllisWE (2015) What is self-growth?International Journal of Process Education7(1): 41–52.
36.
Löfgren-MårtensonL (2008) Love in cyberspace: Swedish young people with intellectual disabilities and the Internet. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research10(2): 125–138.
37.
Löfgren-MårtensonLMolinMSorbringS (2018) H@ssles and hopes on the Internet—what professionals have encountered in dealing with Internet use and sexuality among youths with intellectual disabilities. Papers of Social Pedagogy8(1): 66–82.
38.
McConkeyRSymthM (2013) Parental perceptiopns of risks with older teenagers who have severe learning difficulties contrasted with the young people's views and experiences. Child & Society17(1): 18–31.
39.
MeuserMNagelU (2009) Das Experteninterview—konzeptionelle Grundlagen und methodische Anlage. In: PickelSPickelGLauthH-JJahnD (eds) Methoden der vergleichenden Politik- und Sozialwissenschaft. Neue Entwicklungen und Anwendungen. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, pp. 465–479.
MolinMSorbringELöfgren-MårtensonL (2015) Teachers’ and parents’ views on the Internet and social media usage by pupils with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities19(1): 22–33.
43.
NäslundRGardelliÅ (2012) ‘I know, I can, I will try’: youths and adults with intellectual disabilities in Sweden using information and communication technology in their everyday life. Disability and Society28(1): 28–40.
44.
NotaLFerrariLSoresiS, et al. (2007) Self-determination, social abilities and the quality of life of people with intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research51(11): 850–865.
45.
PalmerSBWehmeyerMLDaviesDK, et al. (2012) Family members’ reports of the technology use of family members with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research56(4): 402–414.
46.
ParkJ (2012) Selbstbestimmtes Leben für Menschen mit geistiger Behinderung im betreuten Wohnen. Available at: https://d-nb.info/1050817036/34 (accessed 30 November 2020).
47.
PelkaB (2018) Digitale Teilhabe: Aufgabe der Verbände und Einrichtungen der Wohlfahrtspflege. In: KreidenweisH (ed) Digitaler Wandel in der Sozialwirtschaft.Grundlagen – Strategien – Praxis. Baden-Baden: Nomos, pp. 57–80.
48.
RamstenCBlombergH (2019) Staff as advocates, moral guardians and enables—using ICT for independence and participation in disability services. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research21(1): 271–281.
49.
RamstenCMarmstål HammarLMartinL, et al. (2017) ICT and intellectual disability: a survey of organizational support at the municipal level in Sweden. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities30: 705–713.
50.
RamstenCMartinLDagM, et al. (2019) A balance of social inclusion and risks: staff perceptions of information and communication technology in the daily life of young adults with mild to moderate intellectual disability in a social care context. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities16(3): 171–179.
51.
SealeJ (2014) The role of supporters in facilitating the use of technologies by adolescents and adults with learning disabilities: a place for positive risktaking?Eurpean Journal of Special Needs Education29(2): 220–236.
52.
ShpigelmanC-N (2018) Leveraging social capital of individuals with intellectual disabilities through participation on Facebook. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities31(1): 79–91.
53.
ShpigelmanC-NGillCJ (2014) How do adults with intellectual disabilities use Facebook?Disability & Society29(10): 1601–1616.
54.
SteinhublSRMuseEDTopolEJ (2015) The emerging field of mobile health. Science Translational Medicine7(283): 1–7.
55.
StraussAL (1987) Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
TheunissenGKuligW (2010) Forschung im Bereich der Heilpädagogik unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Menschen mit geistigen Behinderungen. Vierteljahreszeitschrift für Heilpädagogik und ihre Nachbargebiete85(3): 196–203.
58.
ThimmADieckmannFHaßlerT (2019) In welchen Wohnsettings leben ältere Menschen mit geistiger Behinderung?Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie52(3): 220–227.
59.
TraceyO (2013) The use of Talking Mats to support people with dementia and their carers to make decisions together. Health & Social Care in the Community21(2): 171–180.
60.
TrescherH (2016) Feldzugang bei kognitiver Beeinträchtigung—am Beispiel der direkten Beforschung demenziell erkrankter Personen. In: KatzenbachD (ed) Qualitative Forschungsmethoden in der Sonderpädagogik. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, pp. 31–44.
61.
WilliamsonHJFischerKWMadhavniD, et al. (2019) #ADA25 Campaign: using social media to promote participation, social inclusion, and civic engagement of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Inclusion7(1): 24–40.
62.
ZaynelN (2018) Prozessorientierte Auswertung von qualitativen Interviews mit Atlas.ti und der Groundet Theory. In: ScheuAM (ed) Auswertung qualitativer Daten. Strategien, Verfahren und Methoden der Interpretation nicht-standardisierter Daten in der Kommunikationswissenschaft. Wiesbaden: Springer, pp. 59–68.
