In the last section the question of what causes disability was addressed and the concept of opposing models i.e. social versus medical was considered. The often heated debate over the veracity of models of disability is still ongoing (Shakespeare 2006). Hence it becomes difficult to determine in any particular set of circumstances where a social barriers approach identifies the causes of disability, or the medical consequences of an individual’s impairment contributes towards an inability to participate in any form of social interaction. For example, there would be difficulty in arguing the inability of a person without sight to gain the full experience of a visual arts display was not caused by their medical condition.
Although audio and tactile alternatives may provide a general description of the art installation, they cannot simulate the visual aspect and impact intended by the artist. Hence drawing simplistic dividing lines between the social barriers approach and the medical consequences of impairment is often a problematic ’Gordian knot’ for researchers.
However, in ICT research constructive methods can be designed if the terms ‘disability’ and ‘impairment’ are separated and treated as different concepts. The consequences of an individual’s impairment can sometimes involve the use of adaptive equipment to interact with computers and other ICT’s. So speech synthesis can assist visually impaired people access computers by generating spoken output as opposed to using text on a VDU screen. Similarly, people with severe dexterity restrictions can input data onto a computer using speech recognition equipment. Such systems are designed to overcome the consequences of impairment and are often produced and continually evolve through specialist manufacturers. This research has not been informed by this aspect of ICT design. Rather, it concentrates on the disabling affects of the production of inaccessible web content and design. In other words, this research analyses the disabling barriers caused when web material excludes people with assistive computer equipment from accessing that material. In this regard, the research follows more closely a social barriers model where disability can be defined as the design of web materials which disables impaired computer users. So the pivotal methodological concept placed disabled computer users as knowing subjects in the research process.
Hence the methodological approach taken places disabled users in the role of research designers, testers, evaluators, and finally analysers. The prime reason for this somewhat unconventional approach is based on the fact that because of the multitude of methods of accessing the web, both in terms of adaptive equipment and more standard methods used by a wide variety of people with varying types and severity of impairments, then the level of experiential knowledge held could only be expressed by placing such users at the central core of research activity. This approach could be regarded as closely aligned to the emancipatory disability research agenda (Oliver 1992; Oliver 1997; Oliver and Barnes 1997; Zarb 1997; Barnes 2003). At the core of emancipatory disability research is the concept and role of experiential knowledge in the research process. As one of the research team has a severe visual impairment, and self defines as disabled, then it is appropriate here to consider the role of experiential knowledge more closely and determine how research methodology was not subjected to undue bias based on the disabled researcher’s experiences.