Intellectual disability Essay Sample

Intellectual disability Essay Sample

Intellectual disability Essay Sample

Perceptions of the risks and benefits of Internet access and use by people with intellectual disabilities D.D. Chadwick*, S. Quinn & C. Fullwood *Corresponding author Dr. Darren D. Chadwick Faculty of Education, Health & Wellbeing, University of Wolverhampton, MC Building, City Campus – South, Wolverhampton, UK. WV1 1AD Tel: +44-(0)1902-323534 Email: d.chad 2 Accessible Summary

Both good and bad things can happen when people use the Internet and people with learning disabilities are not using the Internet as much as other people Worry about the bad things that can happen online might be one reason people with learning disabilities are not supported to access the Internet as much as other people We wanted to find out what people without learning disabilities believe about these good and bad things for people with learning disabilities.

We wanted to find this out because the way people without disabilities think about the good and bad things online might affect how people with learning disabilities are treated. We found out that people without learning disabilities think that both the good and bad things are more likely to happen to people with learning disabilities when they use the Internet.

Abstract Information and communication technologies (ICT), with the Internet at the forefront, have the potential to enhance the knowledge, service, employment, development and social interactional opportunities available to people with Intellectual disabilities. Despite this, people with intellectual disabilities are not accessing the Internet to the same degree as people without intellectual disabilities. Issues of safety, risk and protection online for people with intellectual disabilities have yet to be adequately investigated and these currently serve as reasons given for hindering people from gaining online access.

This survey aimed to gauge the views people without intellectual disabilities have of risks and benefits of using the Internet for themselves and for people with intellectual disabilities and to compare self ratings of risk and benefits to ratings for people with intellectual disabilities. Results indicate that, with only a small number of exceptions, both the risks and benefits of being online were believed to be greater for people with intellectual disabilities compared with those without intellectual disabilities. Greater use of the Internet was associated with increased perception of benefits to being online for both people with intellectual disabilities and for participants.

Perceptions of increased benefits suggests more needs to be done to improve online access whilst a perception of increased risk may help to explain the reduced inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities in the online world. 3 Introduction With the introduction of social media websites such as Facebook and Twitter, millions of people are now able to interact with others instantaneously over the Internet. Being online is now a central part of everyday life for many within society. However, a ‘digital divide’ has been found, with inequality of access to the online world between those without disabilities and those with intellectual disabilities.

Hoppestad (2013) highlights how seldom people with intellectual disabilities use technology, particularly those who are adults with more severe intellectual disabilities. Chadwick et al. (2013), in a recent review, reported inequalities in Internet access with fewer opportunities available to individuals with an intellectual disability to go online. Half the respondents surveyed by Palmer et al. (2012) reported that their family member with intellectual disabilities did not have access to a computer, despite feeling that this would be beneficial for them.

However, it has been reported that increasing amounts of young people with intellectual disabilities are using the Internet for learning and entertainment (Feng et al., 2008). There is some evidence suggesting that people with intellectual disabilities have much to gain from using the Internet but also may be more at risk (Chadwick & Wesson, 2016). The perception that this group of people may be more vulnerable in experiencing risk online could lead to less support to get online and hence, to lower usage of the Internet. This may also serve to reduce the benefits of being online. However, there is a lack of literature which provides evidence of the non-disabled people’s perceptions of the risks and benefits for this group of people while online.

The current paper aims to address this omission. In relation to people with intellectual disabilities, inequities continue to exist despite the potential benefits and opportunities being online can bestow. These include increased opportunities for education, communication, development, creativity and learning, participation and civic engagement, identity development and social interaction and connectedness (Bannon et al., 2015; Chadwick et al., 2012; Chadwick et al., 2013; Livingstone & Haddon, 2009; Näslund & Gardeklli, 2013; Stendall et al., 2011; Stendall, 2012).

For example, in a sample of 172 people with disabilities, Shpigelman and Gill (2014) report that Facebook can enable people with disabilities to interact with others, helping to reduce feelings of loneliness. However, it should be noted that the majority of this sample reported having physical rather than intellectual disabilities with the majority of the sample (75.5%) either having or working towards an academic degree. The experiences of this sample may not therefore reflect those of people with intellectual disabilities.

However, in a secondary analysis of data for nine older and younger people with intellectual disabilities Näslund and Gardeklli (2013) report that, in cooperation with others, they were able to influence their levels of activity, their agency, their sense of self-esteem and self belief by using ICT. Despite some headway being made here, there remains a general lack of evidence and many of these potential opportunities and benefits remain assumed and empirically unverified for people with intellectual disabilities in the literature.

Intellectual disability Essay Sample

A number of factors have been implicated in this inequity, including: financial and economic barriers; lack of policy and governmental support; lack of training and education to support people with intellectual disabilities to overcome their physical and cognitive impairments; lack of universal design, with Internet sites designed with little consideration of the needs of people with intellectual disabilities; and carers acting as gatekeepers to the Internet who may not themselves be equipped to support people into Internet use, due to their own lack of knowledge and use (Chadwick et al., 2013).

This latter point is also supported by Seale (2014) who in a review on the role of supporters of people with learning disabilities, showed that one-to-one support is essential for users to gain the skills needed to engage successfully with technology. The role of the carer/supporter is therefore paramount when attempting to maximise the user’s positive engagement with the Internet. However, societal and carer views of people with disability as being more vulnerable and unable to access the Internet are likely to lead to less support for people with access to the online world (Chadwick & Wesson, 2016; Seale, 2007; Seale, 2014; Livingstone & Haddon, 2009).

As Seale, Nind and Simmons (2012) posit, perceived vulnerability, concerns over safeguarding and performance can affect the ways in those providing support think about and apply risk management ideas. In addition to the benefits of being online there are also inherent risks, which have yet to be adequately studied in relation to people with intellectual disabilities. Generally speaking, online risks include engagement in antisocial behavior (e.g. illegal downloading, bullying, uploading sexually inappropriate pictures or text), negative contact online (e.g. having personal information stolen, being bullied, being groomed, unwelcome persuasion) and exposure to harmful, manipulative or exploitative content (e.g. advertising, violent or hateful material, harmful sexual material, extremist or racist information) (Livingstone & Haddon, 2009).

There has been little research done on the risks that people with intellectual disabilities experience online specifically. Bujis, Boot, Shugar, Fung and Bassett (2016) have recently reported briefly on some cases where individuals with intellectual disabilities have been victims of sexual harassment and financial exploitation online. Because people with intellectual disabilities are often viewed as more vulnerable, and may have someone gatekeeping their Internet access, issues of protection and control arise. The guidance and warning those with intellectual disabilities receive around online access remains unstudied.

Drawing on literature focusing on physically disabled adolescents, Lathouwers et al. (2009) found that they were more likely than their non-disabled peers to be warned of the risks of the Internet by their parents and were more likely to have restrictions placed on their Internet use. Volunteer training of people with intellectual disabilities to stay safe online has been investigated in a qualitative study by Seale (2003). In this study it was apparent that those providing support took control over decisions regarding what was safe and acceptable online content for people with intellectual disabilities to access. These findings support the notion that those with intellectual disabilities are more likely to be viewed as needing protection online, although this supposition has also not yet been empirically verified.

Intellectual disability Essay Sample

Alongside perceived vulnerability, attitudinal beliefs held by society about people with intellectual 5 disabilities focusing on their deficits (Goodley, 2005; Dagnan, 2008) and viewing them as eternal children (Pueschel & Scola, 1988) may also underpin barriers that hinder online access. According to Adger (2006), vulnerability is the “state of susceptibility to harm from exposure to stresses associated with environmental and social change and from the absence of capacity to adapt.” (p. 268). This definition puts groups lacking capacity automatically in the category of vulnerability, however it can be argued that with necessary supports people, such as those with intellectual disabilities, should not automatically be labelled as vulnerable. For these people the capacity to adapt becomes a composite of people’s own resources and the support they receive, hence this capacity to adapt is mediated by the support provided or sought by an individual.

KINDLY ORDER NOW FOR A CUSTOM-WRITTEN, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER WITH COMPLETE ANSWERS

Perceptions of vulnerability are predicated upon the probability of exposure to, in this case, risks in the online world. As yet this perceived likelihood has not been adequately considered in the research literature. Although there are numerous sociological, psychological, statistical theories conceptualizing risk and vulnerability (e.g. Adger, 2006; Reyna & Rivers, 2008; Zinn, 2006), it is beyond the scope of this paper to consider them all. However, some recent discussions in the literature have focused on the notion of ‘positive risk taking’ as an approach that may aid understanding and enhance online inclusion (Seale, 2014).

This approach, within the context of online access, can be used to enhance wellbeing of people with intellectual disabilities through increasing opportunities for choice making in relation to the ways they wish to live their lives. Risk is not avoided, but instead acknowledged and managed and potential harm, failure or disappointment is viewed as less important than the potential for growth, self-determination and wellbeing that may occur through successful risk taking (Alaszewski & Alaszewski 2002; Morgan 2004). A qualitative interview based study of 10 young people with intellectual disabilities and 12 staff members about their use of the Internet revealed that risk perceptions differed considerably between the two groups (Löfgren-Mårtenson, 2008).