National Council on Disability

An independent federal agency making recommendations to the President and 

Congress to enhance the quality of life for all Americans with disabilities and their 

families.

1 

Letter of Transmittal

October 4, 2011

The President

The White House

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

On behalf of the National Council on Disability (NCD), I am pleased to submit The 

Power of Digital Inclusion: Technology’s Impact on Employment and Opportunities for 

People with Disabilities. This report examines the importance of social media and other 

information technologies in connecting people to job opportunities. Not surprisingly, 

digital barriers to our networked economy can reinforce rather than break down 

disproportionately low employment among people with disabilities. The 

recommendations contained in this report are therefore designed to open the doors to 

digital technologies that can lead to better jobs for more people with disabilities. 

This report reflects your administration’s recognition of the transformative power of 

technology and innovation and how they can improve the lives of all Americans. 

Delivering on your commitment to improve the performance of America’s students in 

science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) through the “Educate to 

Innovate,” for instance, will require that all Americans, including people with disabilities, 

have the necessary digital tools to pursue careers in STEM.

The ongoing transition to an economy based largely on the manipulation of information 

has sweeping implications for job creation for people with disabilities. New technologies 

create opportunities for people with disabilities to work alongside our non-disabled 

colleagues. However, the employment rate of people with disabilities still remains 

disproportionately low; we have yet to see evidence of real progress in increasing 

employment of people with disabilities. The research reflected in this report began with 

an inquiry to determine the implications of an increasingly networked economy on job 

opportunities for people with disabilities.

1331 F Street, NW  Suite 850  Washington, DC 20004

202-272-2004 Voice  202-272-2074 TTY  202-272-2022 Fax  www.ncd.gov
2 

We reviewed six key digital technologies or processes that have the potential to 

enhance social engagement; increase opportunities for workplace participation; 

heighten employment prospects; and/or create new employment opportunities for 

people with disabilities. Encouragingly, we found that networks may well be even more 

critical for people with disabilities than for the general population, and that youth with 

disabilities are both more open to these networks and close to their non-disabled age 

cohort in terms of internet access. 

Our report contains fourteen recommendations aimed at improving employment 

opportunities for people with disabilities and encouraging the type of proactive, social 

interaction that is essential to realize the potential of the new, networked economy. 

These recommendations focus on: 1) education, through the current infrastructure of 

community and technical colleges; 2) Internet access; 3) working with industry 

partnerships; 4) improvements in assistive technology; and 5) a variety of awareness 

campaigns. Such campaigns should be aimed at youth with disabilities; raising 

business recognition of the potential of the market that people with disabilities 

represent; and encouraging entrepreneurs with disabilities to flourish as part of the 

larger collaborative community.

NCD stands ready to work with you, and with the U.S. Congress, to ensure that the 

promises of the Americans with Disabilities Act extend to digital inclusion.

Sincerely, 

Jonathan Young, Ph.D., J.D.

Chairman

(The same letter of transmittal was sent to the President Pro Tempore of the U.S. 

Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.) 
3 

National Council on Disability Members and Staff

Members 

Jonathan M. Young, Ph.D., Chairman 

Fernando M. Torres-Gil, Ph.D., Vice Chair

Gary Blumenthal

Chester A. Finn

Sara Gelser

Marylyn Howe 

Janice Lehrer-Stein

Lonnie Moore 

Ari Ne’eman

Dongwoo Joseph (“Joe”) Pak, MBA

Carol Jean Reynolds

Clyde E. Terry

Linda Wetters

Pamela Young-Holmes 

Staff 

Aaron Bishop, Executive Director 

Stacey S. Brown, Staff Assistant

Julie Carroll, Senior Attorney Advisor

Lawrence Carter-Long, Public Affairs Specialist

Joan M. Durocher, General Counsel & Director of Policy

Lisa Grubb, Confidential Special Assistant / Coordinator of Administration

Geraldine-Drake Hawkins, Ph.D., Senior Policy Analyst

Carla Nelson, Administrative Specialist

Ken Pezzella, Financial Analyst

Robyn Powell, Attorney Advisor

Mark Seifarth, Legislative Affairs Specialist

Anne Sommers, Director of Legislative Affairs & Outreach
4 

Acknowledgments

The National Council on Disability (NCD) expresses its appreciation to James D. 

White, Director of Communications Studies at the Center for Advanced 

Communications Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, who was the principal 

investigator for this project. NCD acknowledges the contributions to different 

sections of the report by Paul M. Baker (co-PI), Robert Todd, Nathan Moon, Brad 

Fain, and Jessica Pater, and the work of a team of graduate students, including 

Carola Conces, Ben Bellamy, and Chris Langston. NCD also acknowledges the 

participation of the industry partners that supported the exemplar study portion of 

this research and of the individuals and experts who participated in the three 

rounds of the user study. 
5 

Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................ 13

The Problem and the Opportunity.................................................... 13

The Vectors ..................................................................................... 14

A. Social Networking and Tools ............................................... 14

B. Immersive Digital Environments .......................................... 14

C. Commons-based Peer Production ...................................... 14

The Crux of the Unemployment Problem......................................... 15

Methodology ............................................................................ 16

Review of the Vectors, Findings and Recommendations................. 17

A. Summary Review of the Vectors ......................................... 17

Vector 1......................................................................... 17

Vector 2......................................................................... 17

Vectors 3 and 4............................................................. 18

Vector 5......................................................................... 18

Vector 6......................................................................... 19

B. Findings and Recommendations ......................................... 19

Section 1. Introduction.................................................................................... 35

1.1. Origins of the Research and Description of the Problem ......... 35

1.2. Disabilities and Employment.................................................... 36

1.3. The Futures of Work ................................................................ 37

Entrepreneurs with Disabilities................................................. 38

The Education Premium .......................................................... 39

1.4. Framing the Problem: The Economic and Social Situations 

of People with Disabilities ........................................................ 40

1.4.1. Disability and Employment: Overview........................... 40

Gender and Race.......................................................... 43

Employment Status....................................................... 44

1.5. The Potential of New Technological Pathways: The Vectors... 45

1.6. Verification of the Vectors........................................................ 46

1.6.1. Criteria for Final Selection and Definitions .................... 48

1.6.2. Final Vector Selection ................................................... 49

Group A. Social Networking and Tools ......................... 49

Vector 1: Wireless Communication Platforms ... 49

Vector 2: Social Networking.............................. 49
6 

Group B. Immersive Digital Environments .................... 50

Vector 3: Immersive Digital Environments—

Virtual Worlds and Serious Gaming ....... 50

Vector 4: Immersive Digital Environments—

Tiered Digital Interactions and 

Electronic Games................................... 50

Group C. Commons-based Peer Production................. 50

Vector 5: Open Publishing ................................ 50

Vector 6: Open-Source Processes.................... 50

1.7. Research Process ................................................................... 50

Section 2. Social Capital, the Networked Economy, and the Promise of 

the Vectors ..................................................................................... 53

2.1. Introduction.............................................................................. 53

2.2. Connecting Disabilities and Unemployment............................. 53

2.2.1. The Nature of Work and Disability................................. 53

2.2.2. Disability and Social Participation ................................. 56

2.2.3. The Relevance of Social Participation........................... 58

2.2.4. Matching Employment Opportunities with Job 

Seekers Through Networks........................................... 60

2.3. The Networked Economy and the Collaborative Community... 64

2.3.1. What Is New About the New Economy? ....................... 64

2.3.2. Cultural Limits on the Economic and Social Roles of 

People with Disabilities ................................................. 66

2.3.3. The Promise of the Collaborative Community............... 69

2.3.4. How Can the Culture of Collaborative Communities 

Change the Workplace for People with Disabilities?..... 70

2.4. Overall Effect of the Internet .................................................... 71

2.4.1. The Effect of the Internet on the Social Capital and 

Employment Opportunities of People with Disabilities .. 71

2.4.2. Accessibility of the Internet and Digital Technology ...... 72

2.4.3. What Aspects of Technology Design Are Important 

for People with Disabilities? .......................................... 77

2.4.4. Possibilities for Meta-design ......................................... 78

2.5. Summary ................................................................................. 80

Section 3. Labor and Business Market Environment and Trends for the 

Vectors............................................................................................ 85

3.1. Employment in the Networked Economy ................................. 85

3.1.1. Introduction, Sources, and Methods.............................. 85

3.1.1.1.The Information Economy ................................. 85
7 

3.1.1.2. The Networked Economy and the Vectors........ 85

3.1.1.3. Two Sides of the Information Sector................. 86

3.1.1.4. Industry and Occupational Data Sources.......... 88

3.1.2. Occupations of Interest ................................................. 88

3.1.2.1. Computer Specialists ........................................ 89

3.1.2.2. Computer Hardware and Electrical 

Engineers/Engineering Technicians.................. 91

3.1.2.3. Media and Communication Occupations........... 92

3.1.2.4. Artists and Animators........................................ 93

3.2. The Business Market Environment for the Vectors.................. 93

3.2.1. Vector 1: Wireless Communication Platforms ............... 94

3.2.1.1. V1: Business Background................................. 94

A Fast-Growing Market ..................................... 95

3.2.1.2. V1: Business and Social Trends ....................... 95

The Dispersed Workforce ................................. 96

Collaboration-Centric Analysis .......................... 98

Wireless Communication Platforms and 

People with Disabilities........................... 99

Technology ..................................................... 100

Mobility, Telework, and People with 

Disabilities ............................................ 101

3.2.2. Vector 2: Social Networking ........................................ 102

3.2.2.1. V2: Business Background............................... 102

Social-Networking Sites and People with 

Disabilities ............................................ 105

The Current Social-Networking Industry ......... 106

3.2.2.2. V2: Business and Social Trends ..................... 106

The Idea of the Collaborative Community....... 106

Networks and Work......................................... 107

Corporations as Collaborative Communities ... 108

Latent Social Networks ................................... 109

People with Disabilities and the 

Collaborative Community ..................... 110

3.2.3. Vectors 3 and 4: Immersive Digital Environments....... 111

3.2.3.1. V 3 & 4: Business Background........................ 111

Business Environment .................................... 113

Virtual Economies ........................................... 114

3.2.3.2. V 3 & 4: Business and Social Trends.............. 115

Introduction ..................................................... 115
8 

Media-Richness Theory .................................. 116

Social-Presence Theory.................................. 117

Human-Exchange Model................................. 117

1) Market Capital ................................... 117

2) Social Capital .................................... 118

3) Cultural Capital.................................. 118

IDEs and People with Disabilities.................... 119

3.2.4. Vector 5: Open/Peer Publishing.................................. 120

3.2.4.1. V 5: Business Background.............................. 120

3.2.4.2. V 5: Business and Social Trends .................... 122

What Is New About New Media? .................... 122

Gatekeepers No Longer.................................. 123

People-Centric Media...................................... 124

Networked Journalism..................................... 126

3.2.5. Vector 6: Open-Source Processes.............................. 127

3.2.5.1. V 6: Business Background.............................. 127

3.2.5.2. V 6: The Business and Labor Environment..... 130

Open-Source Software.................................... 130

Open-Source Software—The Business 

Model ................................................... 130

3.2.5.3. V 6: Business and Social Trends .................... 131

The Social Implications of Open Source ......... 132

The Economics of Open Source ..................... 134

Open Source and People with Disabilities ...... 136

3.3. Summary ............................................................................... 136

Section 4. Exemplar Studies......................................................................... 139

4.1. Selection of Industry Partners: The Process.......................... 139

4.2. Interviews with Industry Partners ........................................... 141

4.2.1. Facilitators: General Observations.............................. 141

Crowd-Sourced Project Work...................................... 142

Virtual Economies ....................................................... 143

Stability of Electronic Games ...................................... 143

Low Barriers to Entry................................................... 144

4.2.2. Facilitators: People with Disabilities ............................ 144

Free Advertising.......................................................... 144

The Impact of HTML5 ................................................. 145

4.2.3. Barriers: General Observations................................... 146

4.2.4. Barriers: People with Disabilities................................. 147
9 

4.3. V1 Sector-Specific Trend Analysis......................................... 149

Vector 1: Wireless Communication Platforms........................ 149

Vector 2: Social Networking................................................... 151

Vectors 3 and 4: Immersive Digital Environments 

(Virtual Worlds and Casual Games)............................ 154

Vector 5: Open Publishing ..................................................... 156

Vector 6: Open-Source Processes ........................................ 157

4.4. Summary ............................................................................... 159

Section 5. User Studies................................................................................. 167

5.1. Introduction and Process ....................................................... 167

5.2. Focus Groups: Introduction and Description.......................... 168

5.2.1. Analysis, by Vectors.................................................... 169

V1: Wireless Communication Platforms ...................... 169

V2: Social Networking................................................. 171

V3: IDEs: Virtual Worlds and Serious Gaming ............ 172

V4: IDEs: Tiered Digital Interactions ........................... 172

V5: Open/Peer Publishing........................................... 173

V6: Open-Source Processes....................................... 174

5.2.2. Facilitators and Barriers .............................................. 175

Facilitators................................................................... 181

Policy and Regulatory Facilitators................... 181

Market Mechanisms........................................ 181

Outreach/Awareness ...................................... 181

Barriers ....................................................................... 182

Accessibility/Form ........................................... 182

Awareness ...................................................... 182

Cost/technological Change ............................. 183

Organizational Inertia and Barriers ................. 183

Summary..................................................................... 183

5.3. Online Social-Network Groups: Introduction and 

Description............................................................................. 184

5.3.1. Analysis....................................................................... 185

5.3.2. Facilitators and Barriers .............................................. 189

5.3.3. Summary..................................................................... 192

5.4. Delphi Study: Introduction and Description............................ 193

5.4.1. Analysis....................................................................... 196

Delphi Round 3 ........................................................... 200
10

5.4.2. Facilitators and Barriers .............................................. 203

5.5. Summary ............................................................................... 204

Section 6. Analysis of Facilitators and Barriers, Findings and 

Recommendations....................................................................... 207

6.1. Analysis of Facilitators and Barriers....................................... 207

6.2. Findings and Recommendations ........................................... 209

Bibliography ...................................................................................................... 229

Appendix 1. Exemplar Studies: Companies Targeted, Companies 

Interviewed, Interview Protocol, and Interview Questions....... 265

Appendix 2. Background to Industry and Occupational Data Sources........ 269

Nongovernment Sources ............................................................... 270

Appendix 3. The First Research Approach..................................................... 271

Appendix 4. Choosing the Vectors.................................................................. 273

1. Initial Vector and Exemplar Analysis.......................................... 273

1. Wireless Communications Technologies ........................... 273

2. Social Networks ................................................................. 274

3. Virtual Worlds .................................................................... 275

4. Web 2.0 and Beyond ......................................................... 276

5. Applications Consolidators................................................. 276

6. Computational Journalism ................................................. 277

2. Review of the Vectors................................................................ 278

3. Choosing the Vectors................................................................. 280

Endnotes............................................................................................................ 283
11

List of Figures

Figure 1. Labor Market Activity Rate............................................................... 41

Figure 2. The Growing Employment Gap........................................................ 42

Figure 3. Comparing Employment Rates, 1989 and 2009 .............................. 43

Figure 4. Comparing Median Household Income, 1989 and 2009.................. 43

Figure 5. Facebook Employment Groups, by Category ................................ 186

Figure 6. LinkedIn Employment Groups, by Category .................................. 186

List of Tables

Table 1. Facilitators and Barriers—Section 2...................................................... 83

Table 2. The Information Industry: Characteristics of Jobs in Decline and on 

the Increase .......................................................................................... 87

Table 3. Facilitators and Barriers—Section 4.................................................... 163

Table 4. Facilitators and Barriers: Focus Groups.............................................. 177

Table 5. Geo-Location of Returned Group Search in the Facebook and 

LinkedIn Platforms .............................................................................. 188

Table 6. Facilitators and Barriers—Section 5.................................................... 191

Table A1. Companies (Both “Targeted” and Interviewed) Approached for This 

Project................................................................................................. 265

Table A2. Interview Questions............................................................................. 266
12
13

Executive Summary

The National Council on Disability (NCD) explored the utility and accessibility of six key 

digital technologies that can enhance social engagement, increase opportunities for 

workplace participation, and heighten employment prospects or create new employment 

opportunities for people with disabilities. 

The Problem and the Opportunity

As demonstrated throughout varying statistics, employment rates for people with selfreported work-related disabilities have fallen almost continuously since the 1990s, despite 

the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990. People with disabilities 

have historically constituted a contingent labor force, that is, when industries retrench, they 

are the first to lose their jobs, and when there is industrial growth, they are the last to be 

hired. The active employment gap—between men and women with and without workrelated disabilities—has actually increased over the past 20 years, hitting 57.4 percent by 

2009, the largest gap on record. Jobs for people with disabilities have tended to be in 

secondary labor markets characterized by subsistence pay, low skill requirements, few 

opportunities for advancement, and a high number of part-time jobs. 

At the same time, electronic networks and new digital media technologies are transforming 

the ways that people collaborate. The “new economy,” based on the networking of human 

knowledge, serves as the starting point for this research. The social and structural 

characteristics of those networks—in particular connectivity, interdependence, and 

communications—carry implications not only for the economy in general but also for the 

workplace in particular. The foundation argument of this research is that networks are likely 

more important for people with disabilities than for the general population. At the same 

time, the social capital that underpins those networks among people with disabilities is 

typically weaker, and the matching mechanism between employer and potential employee 

less effective. This situation provides the context for examining the potential of six 

technological pathways or vectors.
14

The Vectors

The technology sector in the United States is huge, including more than 

140,000 companies with combined annual revenue of about $900 billion. Inside that 

sector, six vectors or technological pathways to employment were identified. The areas 

covered by the vectors are undergoing major change, as the business models that they 

have long followed break down. Typically these were top-down hierarchical models, with 

power concentrated into only a few companies in each sector, in part due to the heavy 

capital investment required.

As part of that change, the nature of work is transforming. According to the 

Occupational Outlook Handbook, employment in this sector will likely be increasingly 

knowledge based and creative, oriented toward flexible and freelancing types of 

employment spanning different disciplines. The technologies represented by the six 

vectors are of particular interest for their potential as conduits to social capital, via 

networks, and hence to employment. The vectors fall into three groupings:

A. Social Networking and Tools

● Vector 1: Wireless Communication Platforms

● Vector 2: Social Networking

B. Immersive Digital Environments

● Vector 3: Virtual Worlds and Serious Gaming 

● Vector 4: Tiered Digital Interactions and Electronic Games

C. Commons-based Peer Production

● Vector 5: Open Publishing

● Vector 6: Open-Source Process
15

The Crux of the Unemployment Problem

The extent of social or community participation is directly relevant to employment, but 

the social and civic participation of people with disabilities is comparatively low, and has 

not improved since the passage of the ADA in 1990. This report argues that networks 

are likely more important for people with disabilities than for the general population, 

while the social capital that underpins those networks is weaker, and the matching 

mechanism between employer and potential employee less effective. A notable and 

encouraging exception is among young people with disabilities. People with disabilities 

over the age of 30 are less likely to socialize than people without disabilities, across a 

range of activities, but for those between ages 18 and 29 the gap is nonexistent. Young 

people with disabilities also report they are much closer to their age group without 

disabilities in terms of Internet access, the basis of the vectors, compared with the large 

gap (from 21 to 33 percentage points) for older people with disabilities (Kessler 

Foundation and NOD, 2010).

Previous studies of technology and disability have tended toward a human-capital 

perspective, e.g., many types of assistive technology address perceived deficits in the 

skills and talents of potential employees with disabilities. Similarly, explanations for high 

unemployment among people with disabilities traditionally focus on a scarcity of job 

opportunities, or on the job seeker, assuming that people with disabilities are at a 

competitive disadvantage. These assumptions underemphasize the mechanism that 

matches job opportunity and job seekers, and its dependence on social capital. The 

dearth of social capital that characterizes many people with disabilities puts them at a 

disadvantage in job networks, actual or potential. Because knowledge is generated 

largely through social interaction, social capital (“know-who”) may be more significant 

than human capital (“know-how”). 

Networks and the social capital that flows through them are at the core of the changes 

in economic organization and production practices that are transforming how we make 
16

and exchange information, knowledge, and culture, and shape employment skills, 

marketability, and the way the world of work operates. 

The new information economy can be characterized as based on a “pull” model of open, 

flexible production. Pull models require coordination of social and technical practices 

into communities of interest, creation, and production, ideally through the collaborative 

community model that is particularly relevant for people with disabilities, because

networked social connections lead to empowerment and potentially autonomy. The 

vectors serve as such coordinators or conduits. However, a key point to emerge in this 

research is that the different types of digital connectivity represented by the vectors are 

all essentially latent, activated only by some sort of proactive, social interaction.

Methodology

The six vectors described above were arrived at via a rigorous review. This process 

included an in-depth literature review, which focused on exposing some of the 

underlying reasons why the figures for employment of people with disabilities remain so 

low, and whether there is substantial reason to believe that the vectors represent a 

means for new opportunities for people with disabilities (Section 2). The review was 

followed by an analysis of the labor and business-market environment of the vectors, 

looking at the vectors as both a means and potential ends to employment (Section 3). 

This analysis was given reference points through multiple methods, including extensive 

interviews with representatives of different companies and institutions chosen to 

represent the vectors (Section 4), and three different kinds of user studies, designed to 

give a general picture of the work-related utility of the vectors (Section 5).
17

Review of the Vectors, Findings and Recommendations

A. Summary Review of the Vectors

Vector 1 

Wireless communication platforms are objects, rather than channels or processes as is 

the case with the other five vectors. Consequently, the success or failure of aspects of 

different mobile platforms in facilitating people with disabilities in employment or in 

finding work hinges on their ability to accommodate a person’s specific needs. The 

research revealed that two issues—”high costs and fees” and “need for wireless Internet 

access”—were barriers to the usefulness of the vector. However, there was a common 

appreciation that the platforms offered more communication options, especially for 

people with sensory disabilities, and that functions like electronic scheduling and the 

organization of personal information can be helpful for people with cognitive or 

information-processing disabilities.

1

Vector 2 

Social networking emerges as a potential game changer, in the enormous potential 

suggested by collaborative communities, based on social networks, to supersede

hierarchies and markets as a way of organizing work. Technologies are emerging that 

both respond to and enhance the adoption of the collaborative-community model, which 

in turn energizes social networks and opens up the prospects for job opportunities for 

people with disabilities. It was not surprising that various aspects of networking 

emerged as common themes, including “ability to share large amounts of information 

and data,” “making connections,” and “access to information and advice for problem 

resolution,” as well as connecting for specific work or education functions. However, one 

strong negative emerged: privacy and security concerns, which may have a special 

force for people with disabilities.
18

Vectors 3 and 4

Immersive digital environments may provide employment opportunities to people with 

disabilities that might otherwise be unavailable to them: providing a functionally 

accessible work environment for people with disabilities; removing barriers of cost and 

distance; and allowing for more open, flexible, and satisfying relationships. The findings 

of the research in this area (outside the user study) were surprisingly positive. 

Facilitators ranged from the predictable—”removes constraints of the physical work 

environment” and “choice of self-representation”—to the thought-provoking, including 

entrepreneurship, education and training opportunities, and space for collaboration and 

group meetings. Negatives again touched on privacy and security concerns, the steep 

learning curves that gaming and virtual worlds sometimes require, and the need to 

access high computing power and fast, powerful networks—again reinforcing practical 

concerns about access and affordability.

Vector 5 

Open or peer publishing, by facilitating access to information and networks, opens 

doors to the most important factors of production in the networked information economy.

Further, the value created in a commons-based model of peer production is not just 

economic, but also social and personal. It implies more open, accountable relationships 

and a respect for the autonomy of the people in a given commons, an important 

facilitator for people with disabilities. From the research, the need for high rates of 

literacy, education, and technical savvy were seen as potential drawbacks, as were, 

again, high costs and fees. There was an appreciation that commons-based publishing 

implies the removal or the diminishment of the professional middleman from 

communications, and opens up possibilities for catering to niche interests, including 

those of people with disabilities, and for personal communications like blogs that can aid 

in personal and career development.
19

Vector 6 

Open-source processes have radically changed how people collaborate. This situation 

offers great promise to some sectors of the disability community by creating technology 

beneficial to them, at the same time allowing those with special needs to collaborate on 

projects that showcase their abilities for future employers. The research found one 

major barrier to open-source processes—the need for “substantial technical skill,” or 

tech savvy. But the promise of this vector was recognized as the diversity of the 

contribution, the creativity of the solutions, and the access to information, resources, 

and tools.

B. Findings and Recommendations

The transition to an economy based on the manipulation of information has had a huge 

impact on the employment environment. This research was designed to investigate 

what specific relevance the new networked economy might have on the employment 

prospects for people with disabilities, in the face of an employment situation that has 

worsened over the past 20 years.

Reports released in July 2010 indicated that people with disabilities continue to be 

disproportionately hurt by the recession (Diament, 2010). According to the U.S. 

Department of Labor, the unemployment rate of people with disabilities has increased, 

while the employment rate of Americans generally has stabilized and decreased over 

the past few months. In July 2010, the rate of unemployment for people with disabilities 

stood at 16.4 percent, compared with 9.5 percent for the general population, empirically 

supporting the view that people with disabilities are seen as a contingent labor force, 

first to be let go when industries retrench, and last to be hired when there is industrial 

growth (Braddock and Bachelder, 1994). Instead of this social exclusion, is there a 

prospect of digital inclusion? 
20

Finding 1. Old realities remain: The necessity of education to increase 

awareness and technical skills.

A well-documented barrier to realizing the potential of the vectors is education. Lack of 

education was perceived as a barrier to achieving full employment potential by 

20.3 percent of people with disabilities (Yeager et al., 2006). The user studies often 

interpreted this to mean the need to be “tech savvy,” a more specialized level of 

education than the norm. The Department of Labor and others also note the need for 

constant learning and for flexibility.

• Recommendation 1: Develop model programs to tackle the core issues of 

education in conjunction with key stakeholders at the federal, state, and 

local level. 

We recommend that the Department of Education (Office of Special Education 

and Rehabilitative Services and Office of Special Education Programs) 

spearhead an initiative and identify funds to support this initiative in conjunction 

with the National Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR), 

the Institute of Education Sciences, the Department of Labor (Office of Disability 

Employment Policy) and the Interagency Committee on Disability Research, as 

well as other key stakeholders, including members of the business community 

(e.g., the U.S. Business Leadership Network, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and 

Society for Human Resource Management). The aims of the model programs 

would be to capitalize on the collaborative community-building potential of the 

networked economy, commit resources, and help prepare people with 

disabilities to build up appropriate job skills specific to that economy. These 

aims are also in accord with recommendations under the National Broadband 

Plan (www.broadband.gov/plan/13-economic-opportunity/#r13), which state that 

“the Department of Labor (DOL) should accelerate and expand efforts to create 

a robust online platform that delivers virtual employment assistance programs 

and facilitates individualized job training.“ 
21

In addition this is consistent with the Social Security Administrations (SSA) 

efforts to build web based work incentive sites in the states.

The model programs would encourage the states and local communities to 

maximize the use of current infrastructure, in particular community and technical 

colleges (CTC). CTCs offer multiple advantages, most especially closeness, as 

the availability of accessible transportation remains a major obstacle for many 

people with disabilities (Kessler and NOD, 2010). An exemplar of such a 

program has been developed by the Georgia Institute of Technology, under the 

title of SIDE (Support and Information for People with Disabilities Employment). 

SIDE addresses the two core issues of education and accessibility through a 

program intended to change how people with disabilities seek employment and 

education through broadband use (see Recommendation 2). SIDE includes 

Broadband Learning and Support Centers for broadband education, access, 

equipment, and support; the SIDE Consolidator Platform, a virtual public–private 

network that helps people with disabilities connect with employers, as well as 

advance job skills and education; and a comprehensive awareness campaign to 

promote the program. 

• Recommendation 2: Develop an accessible online literacy curriculum 

aimed at people with intellectual disabilities in conjunction with family, 

self-advocate and service-provider groups.

We recommend that the Center on Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) 

collaborate with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and relevant 

community organizations to develop a training on online literacy accessible for 

people with intellectual disabilities. This population of people with disabilities is 

disproportionately excluded from the economic and social mainstream of 

American life. Although training is currently available for persons with intellectual 

disabilities for such tasks as using a telephone and other instrumental activities 

of daily living, in today’s day and age internet usage is an equally important skill 

set. Such a training program would enhance the ability of a particularly 
22

underserved component of the disability community to benefit from the other 

recommendations of this report and broader efforts to bridge the digital divide.

Finding 2. There are significant barriers to making a dispersed workforce a 

reality.

The environment from which the vectors spring—the Internet and digital technology as 

the underpinnings of the networked economy—revealed one constant, and it was 

clearly a barrier: the cost of connectivity, as well as of hardware and software. This is a 

fundamental issue. Computer use and ownership and Internet use are significantly 

lower for people with disabilities compared with their counterparts without disabilities.

As social networking websites become a major mechanism for matching potential 

employees with employers, access to such sites, and to the right connections within 

them, will become increasingly important for finding work. Companies are already using 

a variety of approaches to incorporate mobile platforms into their work environments. 

One of these, known as the dispersed workforce, involves the collaboration of 

geographically decentralized people on a common project or job. The concept of a 

dispersed workforce is broader than telework, because it also includes the ability for an 

employee to travel from a central office to another location for temporary strategic 

collaboration. One survey showed there were already 34 million Americans working at 

least occasionally from home by 2009, a figure that is projected to grow to 63 million by 

2016 (Schadler, 2009).

• Recommendation 3: Address issues of Internet access as a critical 

component of the vectors. 

The Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) National Broadband Plan 

includes several accessibility initiatives for people with disabilities, under the 

heading “Address issues of accessibility for broadband adoption and utilization.” 

These initiatives include the Executive Branch to convene a Broadband 

Accessibility Working Group (BAWG) to maximize broadband adoption by 
23

people with disabilities; the FCC to establish an Accessibility and Innovation 

Forum; and Congress, the FCC, and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to 

consider modernizing accessibility laws, rules, and related subsidy programs. 

Congress appropriated substantial funds to assist industry to build out 

broadband. The industry should support an effort specifically targeted to 

increasing broadband access for people with disabilities. 

We recommend that the FCC collaborate with the U.S. Access Board through a 

working group or committee to take an active role in identifying the barriers that 

people with disabilities face with regard to broadband access, and introduce 

policy proceedings to facilitate broadband adoption and use by the disability 

community. We further recommend that virtual town-hall meetings (telephone, 

Internet, and other technologies) be conducted to build awareness for this 

initiative.

• Recommendation 4: Explore industry partnerships to address cost, for 

example, by providing in-kind services, devices, or partnerships to 

minimize cost to the end-user.

This would be an important element implemented in support of 

Recommendation 3 above. Outreach should include such groups as CTIA–The 

Wireless Association (Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association), 

TechAmerica, COAT (Coalition of Organizations for Accessible Technology), 

and other technology industries and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to 

support the work. Create a tax credit for manufacturers of equipment that 

provide the latest to NGO’s for distribution to persons with disabilities. Such 

manufacturers should also provide training to both the NGO’s and clients on use 

and maintenance.
24

• Recommendation 5: Monitor and contribute to federal and state legislative 

and regulatory language with regard to assistive technology (AT) and 

meta-design, and develop a standardized instrument to measure AT 

outcomes.

We recommend that the Department of Education (Rehabilitation Services 

Administration, charged with administering the Assistive Technology Act of 1998 

and 2004), consult with the U.S. Access Board to review pertinent federal and 

state legislative and regulatory language that affects polices hindering the ability 

to purchase off-the-shelf hardware and software and require more expensive 

equipment for people with disabilities (see Field and Jette, 2007).

In addition, we recommend that the Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) in the Department of Education develop a 

standardized instrument for measuring AT outcomes. Measures should include

the quality of AT services and equipment and the effects of AT on employment 

and independent living, for both specialized and off-the-shelf applications, to the 

benefit of both caregivers and consumers. The overall goal would be to 

encourage migration from the realm of specialized, dedicated, and expensive 

equipment to the universe of meta-design. The specific aim would be wide use 

of this instrument in various AT settings to measure outcomes, and to achieving

comparability between systems and consistency in reporting AT outcomes 

nationally.

Ultimately, this effort is likely to affect the Improving Access to Assistive 

Technology for Individuals with Disabilities Act of 2004, with the potential for 

amendments. Also, we recommend that this report as a whole, and the results 

of the work embedded in this recommendation in particular, be shared with the 

relevant committees in Congress: in the Senate, the Committee on Commerce, 

Science and Transportation, and the Subcommittee on Communications and 

technology; and in the House, the Committee on Science, Space and 

Technology, and the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation. 
25

Note also that this recommendation is in accord with Section 104 of the 21st 

Century Communications & Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (S. 3304) that 

requires the FCC to establish a clearinghouse of information on the availability 

of accessible products and services, and should be coordinated with the 

establishment of such a clearinghouse.

Finding 3. Through building social capital, the vectors may offer pathways 

to employment, enhancing proactive social interaction, led by the young.

As part of its examination of the underlying reasons for high unemployment among people 

with disabilities, this report has zeroed in on the mechanisms that match the two sides of 

the unemployment equation: job opportunities (their availability or lack) and the job seeker 

(i.e., human capital). In part, the unemployment experienced by people with disabilities may 

be attributed to a perceived inability to harness social capital in seeking or creating 

employment. In that sense, networks are likely more important for people with disabilities 

than for the general population. The implications are significant, because the effects of 

networking spread beyond the employer–employee nexus, to self-employment and 

entrepreneurship for people with disabilities. Also, social network participation is likely to 

heavily influence job satisfaction, job retention, and career advancement.

The new information economy of which the vectors are a part may offer a solution 

(provided the issues identified in Findings 1 and 2, above, are addressed). It requires 

coordination of social and technical practices into communities of interest, creation and 

production. The solution would ideally involve a collaborative-community model that is 

particularly relevant for people with disabilities, because networked social connections 

lead to collaboration, empowerment, and autonomy. 

• Recommendation 6: Develop a social-media campaign directed at people 

with disabilities between ages 15 and 30.

We recommend that the Department of Labor (Office of Disability Employment 

Policy) develop and implement a social-media campaign aimed at younger people 
26

with disabilities, who are more socially involved and vector aware than people with 

disabilities in general. This campaign will serve as a “wedge” or opening that would 

then diffuse back into the general community of people with disabilities.

Campaign approaches would include: 

o identifying and recruiting an advisory board of the target audience (15- to 

30-year-olds) to help focus messages;

o collecting and disseminating success stories of the positive effects in 

employment of the use of the vectors;

o collecting and disseminating case studies of companies with some direct 

or indirect connection with the vectors who employ people with disabilities

as a resource, not as an exception; and 

o collecting evidence-based best practices, intended to go toward a 

resource portfolio that can be used to support specific policy 

recommendations for government.

These stories, studies, and best practices would be combined into a strategic 

social-media campaign, focusing on “ability,” in a variety of vector-specific 

employment settings, presented in an innovative, compelling, and interesting 

manner. We recommend developing a subcampaign to focus on 

entrepreneurship, because small business offers the greatest practical 

opportunity for generating new employment possibilities.

• Recommendation 7: NCD recommends that public and private 

organizations, such as the American Association of People with 

Disabilities (AAPD), explore the possibility of national awards modeled 

after the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award.

o The Baldrige Award, given by the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology, recognizes U.S. business, health-care, education, and 
27

nonprofit organizations for performance excellence. Following this model, 

the awards should be given in four areas: 

o An award for creative use of the vectors and other digital technology in 

developing new employment opportunities for people with disabilities. This 

would be aimed at the younger generation, but would have an additional 

motive of raising awareness among people with disabilities in general 

about the transformative potential of digital technologies like the vectors in 

the employment sector.

o An award, aimed at the business sector, to recognize employment 

creation for people with disabilities (see below). 

o A “Design for Ability” award, focusing on meta-design principles (see 

below). To receive this award, an organization would have to demonstrate 

a design management system that ensures a continuous commitment to 

the incorporation of meta-design and universal design (UD) principles in 

its products and services.

o An “Entrepreneur with Disabilities” award that recognizes people with 

disabilities, or organizations staffed by people with disabilities, for original 

work in developing new types of business using networking technologies, 

under the theme of “computer-supported collaborative work.”

Finding 4: The disability community needs to expand efforts to enhance 

awareness of the presence, capacities, and potential of people with 

disabilities.

One of the major themes to emerge from the exemplar study was the perceived 

“invisibility” of people with disabilities, and that business has not focused on this 

community because it is perceived to be a “niche,” not substantial enough to justify

development work. The most convincing rationale offered for this view was that people 

with disabilities tend to have little disposable income and cannot invest in expensive 
28

software or hardware, a view that highlighted a lack of awareness of the size and scope 

of the community. A highly unfortunate consequence of people with disabilities not 

being seen as a viable market is that many of the technology companies interviewed 

are not considering developing specific product lines for them, and are not considering

universal-design principles during the prototyping and development phase of 

technologies. Several of the exemplar study interviewees interpreted this observation to 

indicate a need for stronger advocacy and information dissemination from the disability 

community.

The vectors in this study all serve as coordinators or conduits. A key point to emerge in 

the research is that the different types of digital connectivity represented by the vectors 

are all essentially latent, activated only by some sort of proactive, social interaction. It is 

essential for people with disabilities to take on that role, to act and be seen as active 

participants in the networked economy.

• Recommendation 8: Expand efforts to advocate for people with disabilities 

as an untapped resource and as a market, using traditional as well as 

social-media channels.

In part, this awareness gap can be filled by the social-media campaign indicated 

above. However, there is a pressing need for business and industry to develop a 

greater awareness of people with disabilities as a potential market. We suggest 

building on Recommendation 16 from the NCD report “Design for Inclusion,” which 

was to develop a clearinghouse where users can obtain information about 

accessibility issues and the features to address them. We recommend that the 

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services in the Department of 

Education serve as the base for this clearinghouse, and the remit be expanded to 

include involvement from the private sector. The latter might include linking with the 

U.S. Business Leadership Network (USBLN) and with advocacy organizations like 

the Arthritis Foundation and AARP, as well as identifying existing dissemination 

channels and developing targeted material for them.
29

Note also that this recommendation is in accord with Section 104 of the 21st 

Century Communications & Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (S. 3304) that 

requires the FCC to establish a clearinghouse of information on the availability 

of accessible products and services, and should be coordinated with the 

establishment of such a clearinghouse.

• Recommendation 9: Create discussion forums focused on the potential of 

the market that people with disabilities represent. 

We recommend that the Department of Labor (Office of Disability Employment 

Policy) partner with the U.S. Business Leadership Network (USBLN), the 

Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), and the U.S. Chamber of 

Commerce to facilitate a conference and a follow-up online community of 

practice. The conference would be aimed at government and industry, with 

panels to discuss the potential of the market that people with disabilities 

represent. Speakers from leading industry sectors, with a focus on those 

working in the areas represented by the vectors, would be invited together with 

government and NGOs, including OSERS, the Interagency Committee on 

Disability Research (ICDR), NCD, ACCESS Board, and the Office of Disability 

Employment (ODEP).

NCD also plans to incorporate discussions centered on the potential of the 

networked economy for people with disabilities into its own national forums, such 

as the three regional forums planned for 2011, in alignment with the theme Living, 

Learning, & Earning used at NCD’s National Summit on Disability Policy 2010. 

Finding 5: Social, technological, and attitudinal barriers exist to raising 

awareness of the potential of the new networked economy among people 

with disabilities.

NCD conceived of this research as examining the utility of the vectors through two lenses: 

how the vectors might enhance the ability to do work, and how they might help in finding or 
30

creating work. One clear result from the focus-group discussions was the consistent 

emphasis on barriers to adoption in the workplace, rather than on the potential for creating 

new industry/vector employment. This result suggests larger social and cultural issues 

about the tolerance for risk and ability to engage in new types of activities.

As part of Recommendation 7 (above), an award could be given for creative use of the 

vectors and other digital technology in developing new employment opportunities for 

people with disabilities. The additional motive would be to raise awareness among 

people with disabilities about the transformative potential of digital technologies like the 

vectors in the employment sector. 

• Recommendation 10: Develop and conduct an information campaign 

focused on the potential of information technologies to create new job 

opportunities. 

We recommend that the Department of Labor (Office of Disability Employment 

Policy), leading an industry partnership featuring businesses involved in the 

vectors (such as Google, IBM, and Facebook), initiate an information campaign. 

The campaign could be centered on a major job fair, moving every year to a 

different major urban center, and focusing on the job potential of the networked 

economy as represented by the vectors.

Finding 6: Encourage the adoption of meta-design approaches.

One clear agreement to emerge from the Delphi study was the importance of universal 

design (UD) in achieving accessibility for people with disabilities. UD has evolved to 

meta-design, which includes communication with others who have a different 

perspective, integrating diversity and making all voices heard. This enables informed 

participation and social creativity in communities of interest. Meta-design provides a 

collaborative framework not only for the accessibility concerns and human-capital 

requirements that UD addresses, but also for social-capital and creativity requirements, 

in line with the needs of the new economy. 
31

One of those needs is to harmonize standards. Another is to acknowledge the potential 

of HTML5, which encourages Web authors not to put information where ordinary users 

cannot see it, such as alt and summary attributes, but rather into the normal body text, a 

move that follows meta-design principles. A third need is to build on the work of the 

World Wide Web Consortium Web Accessibility Initiative (W3C WAI) in developing 

guidelines for authoring tools and user-access agents, to ensure adherence to the 

principles in the guidelines as we move toward Web 3.0, the semantic Web (Neville and 

Kelly, 2008).

While the government provides funding to support universally designed technologies, 

present approaches may underestimate the potential of a meta-design approach.

As part of Recommendation 7 (above), an award could be given for “Design for Ability,” 

focusing on meta-design principles. To receive a “Design for Ability” award, an 

organization would have to demonstrate a design-management system that indicates an 

understanding of, and ensures a continuous commitment to, the incorporation of metadesign and UD principles in its products and services.

• Recommendation 11: Conduct hearings with business and industry 

representatives. 

We recommend that key stakeholders collaborate to identify and approach 

members of Congress about the potential to convene hearings on the role of 

universally designed and accessible technology to drive new job creation. The 

American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD) and AARP have 

already demonstrated their awareness and interest in universal design. We 

recommend they lead in organizing hearings with industry associations (such as 

the Mobile Manufacturers Forum and the CTIA) and, with industry leaders, help 

identify what incentives would be helpful in adopting meta-design principles as a 

way of providing more cost-effective products for all users, and of reinforcing the 

message about the size of the market. The Department of Commerce (Small 

Business Administration) and FCC should also be invited. The main thrust of the 
32

hearings should be to encourage a frank discussion. In this regard, we 

recommend reevaluating the recommendations given in “Design for Inclusion: 

Creating a New Marketplace” (NCD, 2004), to see which have been followed 

and which have not, and, where necessary, to turn those recommendations into 

a policy for action based on feedback from the listening sessions.

• Recommendation 12: The National Institute on Disability and 

Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) should solicit input on the importance of 

research and development of meta-design applications as part of its focus 

on universal design for all government-funded projects. 

Finding 7. Encourage entrepreneurs with disabilities to flourish as part of 

the collaborative community, and encourage development of that 

community.

One suggestion from the literature review is that the shift to a networked economy could

be good for people with disabilities, who might have unique qualifications for the new 

jobs that are evolving. These are jobs in which creative, networked people transform 

problems into opportunities, and where networking technologies make entirely new 

types of business specialties possible by enabling people to express highly specific

preferences that enterprising producers can meet. 

This kind of collaborative work has real potential for people with disabilities. The 

literature shows that one of the most effective channels for disseminating institutional 

knowledge and expertise within an organization is informal networks of colleagues and 

friends (Kraut et al., 1990; Wasserman and Galaskiewicz, 1994). Social capital (“knowwho”) may be more significant organizationally than human capital (“know-how”) 

(Downes, 2004). Heckscher and Alder (2006) point to IBM as a prime example of a 

corporation that has internalized these informal networks, adopting the structure, 

values, and character of a collaborative community, a possible model for the future.
33

As part of Recommendation 7 (above), an award could be given for “Entrepreneurs with 

Disabilities,” to recognize people with disabilities, or organizations staffed by people with 

disabilities, for original work in developing new types of business using networking 

technologies, under the theme of “computer-supported collaborative work.” 

• Recommendation 13: NCD recommends exploring a programmatic 

initiative to encourage enhanced interagency coordination and 

collaboration and to build outreach efforts. The aim will be to increase 

awareness both of the potential of the collaborative community for people with 

disabilities in finding employment, and of the vector-related barriers to 

employment that affect people with disabilities, as described in this report, by 

conducting workshops, expanding outreach activities, and using social-media 

channels, with key stakeholders.

• Recommendation 14: Create field workshops among the research, policy, 

and advocacy communities to expand “community-level” input into 

public-sector processes that affect growth of communications channels, 

in particular for the collaborative community and employment. 

We recommend that the Department of Commerce (NTIA—possibly the Office 

of Telecommunications and Information Applications) take the lead in organizing 

the workshops. The aim would be to go “outside the beltway,” to draw on 

existing and new online and social-media channels for innovative ideas, as well 

as support for evidence-based practices. Such efforts might include tool kits (for 

example, those used by the FCC) that make it straightforward for key 

stakeholders to provide input into the regulatory and policy processes—

encouraging them to submit filings, respond to regulatory and public-sector 

requests for information and comments, and engage in public participation.
34
35

SECTION 1. Introduction

1.1. Origins of the Research and Description of the Problem

Our digital world continues to develop apace, opening new and original avenues for 

participation in society. Information itself has been democratized, offering people the 

transformation from content readers to publishers. “Everywhere, anytime” 

communications have become the norm, bridging some of the accessibility barriers 

posed by distance. Digital devices for command, control, and communication are with 

us at home and at work, on the street and in the park, during the day and while we 

sleep. People have become the network, reinforcing Castells’ observation that we are 

living through a qualitative change in the human experience (Castells, 1996). As 

Benkler (2006) sees it, the networked information economy is a key element of the new 

communications environment, changing the way we work. 

For people with disabilities, the digital age represents both a tremendous opportunity and a 

considerable challenge. On the one hand, the Internet offers a key to a more inclusive 

society for people with disabilities, as it provides a way for people “to communicate, 

entertain, gather information, and educate themselves and others” (Wireless RERC, 2009). 

Benkler emphasizes the capacity-building potential. “The networked information economy 

improves the practical capacities of individuals...to do more for and by themselves” and 

“enhances their capacity to do more in loose commonality with others” (Benkler, 2006).

But it is a historical irony that 1990, the year the Web was born with the first successful 

communication between a Web browser and server via the Internet, also saw the 

passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Despite a clear focus on the 

integration of people with disabilities into society and especially the workplace, 20 years 

after the passage of ADA the employment picture remains stark (see Section 1.2). Little 

has changed during the past decade, since Hotchkiss (2003) found that workers with 

disabilities were older than other workers, worked fewer hours per week, were more 

likely to be single, and were less likely to have a college degree. Workers with 
36

disabilities continued to be disproportionately represented in low-growth, low-wage 

occupations. 

The National Council on Disability (NCD) commissioned this research to better 

understand the potential the digital age may hold for the employment of people with 

disabilities. The research was to include questions about the level of accessibility to new 

media and technologies, in particular whether new technologies are serving as 

facilitators or barriers to employment.

The research was designed to explore the underlying challenges facing people with 

disabilities in the labor market, as well as the utility and accessibility of key digital 

technologies that can enhance social engagement, increase opportunities for workplace 

participation, and heighten employment prospects for people with disabilities, in terms of 

both finding and creating work opportunities.

1.2. Disabilities and Employment

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor, in May 2010, 

22.3 percent of people in the labor force in the United States had disabilities, compared 

with the 70.1 percent with no disability. The unemployment rate for those with disabilities 

was 14.7 percent, compared with 9.1 percent for persons with no disability (ODEP, 2010). 

Even more alarming are the figures for the full-time, full-year employment rate—the

percentage of working-age population in the United States who worked at least 

35 hours per week, 50 weeks of the year. For people with disabilities, this figure in 2008 

was just 7.2 percent, compared to 60.8 percent for people with no disability (Current 

Population Survey (CPS)). 

Low levels of employment for one population segment negatively impact the U.S. economy, 

ultimately affecting everyone. In 2008, 28.2 percent of the working-age population of people 

with disabilities lived at or below the poverty level, compared to 9.4 percent of the working 
37

age population without disabilities. Thus, people with disabilities were three times as likely 

to live in poverty (CPS). Almost two-thirds of working-age adults who experience long-term 

income poverty have a disability. Further, measures of income poverty likely underestimate 

the financial situation facing people with disabilities, who may need more income to make 

ends meet (e.g., for assistance, treatment, or prosthetics), so real poverty could be more 

intense than implied by income data (Fremstad, 2009). As Atkins and Guisti point out, “the 

connection between poverty and disability is complex and multi-directional”: disability and 

poverty form a chronic cycle (Atkins and Guisti, 1993: 6–7). The way to break the cycle is to 

improve employment prospects. 

Employment is complex, with the employment prospects of people with disabilities 

involving a variety of factors: labor force participation rates, unemployment, 

underemployment, wages and incomes, types of employment, and how these factors fit 

in with structural changes in the economy. Given labor market trends, it is important to 

consider not only the number but the types of job opportunities for people with 

disabilities, so that they are not unduly relegated to low or unskilled positions. To 

capture these possibilities requires considering freshly conceived future work situations. 

1.3. The Futures of Work

The transition to an economy based around the manipulation of information has had a huge 

bearing on the employment environment. Not only are people using new media and related 

technologies to find work, in many instances conversance with the new digital environment 

has become a job requirement (Knorr, 2009). In another indicator of future directions, the 

nation’s largest employer, the Federal Government, has begun to accept the reality of 

telework. In the largest-ever survey of the federal workforce, carried out at the beginning of 

2010, 10 percent of respondents government-wide reported that they telework at least one 

day per week, and 12 percent do so less frequently, figures that are set to rise (O’Keefe 

and Davidson, 2010). The Telework Enhancement Act of 2010 encourages more 

teleworking by federal employees, providing training for teleworking and requiring the Office 

of Personnel Management to develop a government-wide policy for working off-site. 
38

Demand for skills needed within specific sectors, in particular information-based and 

service-providing industries, results in employment opportunities. Opportunities for work 

in education and health services have soared with the rapid growth of those fields. The 

U.S. Department of Labor estimates that more than 3 out of every 10 new jobs created 

in the U.S. economy will be in either the health care and social assistance or the public 

and private educational services sector (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010). 

The Department of Labor lists advanced manufacturing, automotive, biotechnology, 

construction, geospatial, health care, hospitality, and information technology as “high 

growth jobs and industries of the future.” The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) projections 

for 2008 through 2018 predict that professional and related occupations will be the fastest 

growing major occupational group, at 17 percent, and will add the most new jobs, about 

5.2 million. Employment among health care practitioners and technical occupations, a 

subgroup of the professional and related category, is expected to increase by 21 percent. 

Other subgroups of high growth and job creation include education, training, and library 

occupations, computer and mathematical science occupations, and arts, design, 

entertainment, sports, and media occupations (BLS, 2008-2018).

Entrepreneurs with Disabilities

In addition, as has long been the case, small business and entrepreneurship will play a key 

economic role (Small Business Association, 2009; United States Census Bureau, 2002).

Small businesses create most of the nation’s new jobs, employ half of the nation’s 

private-sector work force, provide half of the nation’s nonfarm, private real gross 

domestic product, and contribute a significant share of innovations (Small Business 

Association, 2009). Firms with fewer than 500 employees represent 99.7 percent of all 

employer firms, employ just over half of all private-sector employees, pay 44 percent of 

total U.S. private payroll, have generated 64 percent of net new jobs over the past 

15 years, create more than half of the nonfarm private gross domestic product, hire 

40 percent of high-tech workers (such as scientists, engineers, and computer 

programmers), are 52 percent home-based, made up 97.3 percent of all identified 
39

exporters and produced 30.2 percent of the known export value in FY 2007, and 

produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms (ibid).

U.S. Census data shows that 18.4 percent of employees work for companies with fewer 

than 20 employees, and 89.3 percent of companies have fewer than 20 employees. 

Only 0.3 percent of companies have more than 500 employees; only 1.8 percent have 

more than 100 (United States Census Bureau, 2002). Entrepreneurship is occurring at 

higher rates than at any time in the last century, with 1 in 25 adults trying to start a new 

firm (Thornton, 1999). Further, according to one job-market index, in 2009, 8.7 percent

of unemployed people got jobs by starting their own company (Wang, 2010).

A positive sign is that thousands of people with disabilities have been successful as smallbusiness owners and entrepreneurs. The 1990 Census revealed that people with 

disabilities have a higher rate of self-employment and small-business experience 

(12.2 percent) than people without disabilities (7.8 percent). The Disabled Businessman’s 

Association estimates that 40 percent of home-based businesses are operated by people 

with disabilities. Entrepreneurs with disabilities have successfully operated a wide array of 

businesses, including accounting, auctions, auto body repair, bakeries, bicycle shops, child 

care, chiropractic, counseling, farming, janitorial/maintenance, real estate, restaurants, 

freelance writing, and used-clothing stores (ODEP, 2010).

Despite these positive statistics, the Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) also 

lists attitudinal barriers, restricted access to support networks, and discrimination based 

on misguided stereotypes about the capabilities of people with disabilities as barriers to 

self-employment and entrepreneurship (ibid). These observations may imply that, if 

attitudinal discrimination were assuaged, the numbers of people with disabilities that 

succeed as entrepreneurs would be even greater.

The Education Premium

Technology can be a double-edged sword. It may be more efficient—in particular, in the 

communications arena, which is the subject of this report—leading to an ever-rising 
40

demand for skilled workers, pushing the college-wage premium ever higher. At the 

same time, in the face of the computing revolution, middle-skill, labor-intensive jobs 

have declined. As the Economist magazine concluded in a review of employment 

(2010), the key is a flexible, well-educated labor force—a mantra that can be applied to 

the situation facing people with disabilities. In this respect, a recent Harris Interactive 

poll conducted for the Kessler Foundation and the National Organization on Disability 

(NOD) is encouraging, reporting that the education gap (the share of those with less 

than a high-school education) has narrowed considerably between people with and 

without disabilities over the past two decades, from 24 percent in 1986 to 6 percent in 

2010 (Kessler Foundation and NOD, 2010).

1.4. Framing the Problem: The Economic and Social Situations of 

People with Disabilities

1.4.1. Disability and Employment: Overview

In general, employment rates for people with and without disabilities fluctuate with the 

economy. The Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic 

Supplement has collected data about people with work-related disabilities every year 

since 1981. While employment rates for people with self-reported work limitations rose 

during the economic expansion of the late 1980s, they have fallen almost continuously 

since, even during the 1990s expansion. 

The following chart, made with data from the CPS supplement (data accessed from Von 

Shrader et al., 2010), shows the labor market activity for men and women ages 18 to 

64, with and without work-related disabilities, calculated as the percent who worked at 

least 52 days in the previous year. The employment gap, by this measure, has actually 

increased over the past 20 years. 
41

Figure 1. Labor Market Activity Rate

Figure 2 illustrates that the employment gap—the difference in labor market activity 

rates for people without and with disabilities—was at its lowest point (44.8 percent) in 

1990, the year ADA passed, and grew to 57.4 percent by 2009, the largest gap on 

record.
42

Figure 2. The Growing Employment Gap

The following two charts also use data from the CPS supplement. Figure 3 shows the 

employment rates for people age 21 to 64 with and without a disability in 1989 (the year 

before ADA) and in 2009. Figure 4 displays the median household income (in constant 

2008 dollars) of households with and without people with disabilities, before and after 

ADA. By both measures, the situations of people with disabilities have deteriorated, 

both in absolute terms and relative to people without a disability. 
43

Figure 3. Comparing Employment Rates, 1989 and 2009

Figure 4. Comparing Median Household Income, 1989 and 2009

Gender and Race

In addition, gender and race make a difference. “Discrimination related to disability 

accentuates discrimination related to gender and vice versa,” so that earnings of women 

with disabilities with full-time jobs are around 65 percent of earnings of men with 
44

disabilities with full-time jobs; there is a similar effect for people with disabilities in racial 

minority groups (Braddock and Bachelder, 1994: 15). 

Employment Status

Employment status is also related to the length of time since the onset of the disability, 

with a severe drop in employment rates for people whose disability has lasted a year or 

more. The relationship between disability and employment is also strongly linked to how 

restrictive the disability is (Fitzgerald, 2005). 

People with disabilities “must struggle to access the general labor market,” as jobs for 

people with disabilities have been primarily available in secondary labor markets 

characterized by subsistence pay, low-level skills, few opportunities for advancement, 

and a high number of part-time jobs (Braddock and Bachelder, 1994). People with 

disabilities are less likely “to be in management, management-related, or 

professional/technical occupations” compared with people without disabilities, and 

“more likely to be in service and blue-collar occupations” (Kruse et al., 2010: 5). Overall, 

the discrepancies are comprehensive, including “lower average pay, less job security, 

and reduced access to health insurance, pension plans, and training. They are also less 

likely than workers without disabilities to be in jobs that are classified as “economically 

and psychologically rewarding”‘ (Kruse et al., op. cit.: 2). 

Even in U.S. Federal Government agencies, which are mandated to provide equal 

employment opportunities, the participation rate for individuals with targeted disabilities 

has declined in the past decade. From FY 2000 to FY 2009, the total federal work force

increased by 368,634 employees (15.1 percent), while the number of federal employees 

with targeted disabilities (Targeted disabilities are those disabilities that the federal 

government, as a matter of policy, has identified for special emphasis. The targeted 

disabilities are: deafness; blindness; missing extremities; partial paralysis; complete 

paralysis; convulsive disorders; mental retardation; mental illness; and distortion of limb 

and/or spine) decreased from 27,231 to 24,663 in FY 2009, a net change of 

-9.43 percent, resulting in a 0.88 percent participation rate. Only 11 federal agencies 
45

have achieved the federal goal of at least a 2 percent participation rate for Individuals 

with targeted disabilities (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2009). 

Such examples of employment gaps are so prevalent as to suggest that barriers other 

than the ability to perform a job are involved. A major task of this report is to identify and 

respond to such barriers.

1.5. The Potential of New Technological Pathways: The Vectors

The overarching purpose of the research was to explore the utility and accessibility of key 

digital technologies that can enhance social engagement, increase opportunities for 

workplace participation and heighten employment prospects or create new employment 

opportunities for people with disabilities. Some observers see electronic networks and new 

digital-media sources or technologies as having a transformative effect on the ways that 

people collaborate. In this view, most of the barriers to group action have collapsed, and we 

are free to explore new ways of gathering together and getting things done (Shirky, 2009).

The project was designed to investigate whether, how, and to what extent this 

breaching of barriers offers the opportunity to improve the ability of people with 

disabilities to fully participate in society, including enhanced employment opportunities. 

To capture this idea of barriers being breached via technological pathways, the term 

“vector” was developed from the work of McKenzie Wark (1994, 2009), defined as any 

influential force or means by which information moves. In other words, the vectors 

represent possible means, not ends. They are potential conduits to employment 

situations, not employment prospects per se.

Initial work focused on selection of potential prototypical vectors or technological 

pathways, taking into account the idea that optimal engagement of a user occurs when 

the technological features match that user’s functional capabilities. There is some 

indication (Appleyard, 2005) that people with disabilities strive to use technology in 

ways similar to everyone else: their needs and objectives are often indiscernibly 
46

different. All information communication technologies (ICTs) are employed by users to 

enhance some degree and type of functioning, hence any limitation should be seen as 

existing on a continuum. In general, all users employ technology in order to achieve the 

following important goals:

1. Access to products or technologies that enable communication and enhance 

safety and security

2. Access to information about and ability to better manage personal finances

3. Access to entertainment, community information, and services 

4. Access to products or technologies that improve the quality of life at home

5. Access to products or technologies that enhance or facilitate employment 

opportunities

The initial selection of vectors was based on consideration of possible relevance to goal 

number 5, balanced by a review of pertinent accessibility literature. For example, while 

wireless communication technologies continue to spread and push the limits of 

convergence and quality of experience for users, significant issues of accessibility persist 

for people with disabilities. Specific areas of concern include device compatibility, 

awareness by manufacturers, employment of people with disabilities, and accessibility to 

emergency communications (Baker and Moon, 2008). As mobile technology increasingly 

makes social networking ubiquitous, these problems of accessibility and inclusivity are also

in danger of both spreading and becoming more complex.

1.6. Verification of the Vectors

The original candidate vectors were wireless communication technologies, social 

networks, virtual worlds, Web 2.0 and beyond, applications consolidators, and 

computational journalism. Potential exemplars included Research in Motion (RIM), 

manufacturer of the BlackBerry; Facebook; Second Life; Google; Apple, Red Hat; and 

Wikipedia. Appendix 1 describes these in detail. 
47

The original selection of vectors underwent an extensive review. As a first step, the 

project arrived at a new definition of the term “vector,” aiming at clarity and also at 

embodying the notion of a change agent: An influential agent or means by which 

information moves, and that embodies the notion of change.

This definition was used as the basis for a review of the six vectors first proposed, and 

in the development of three additional new vectors described below. The initial six 

vectors were reviewed as follows: first, with reference to the new definition; second, to 

answer the practical question of whether the vector is at a sufficient state of 

development that it actually represents a market environment and market trends that 

can be researched and described; and third, with reference to three parameter-setting 

questions: 1) whether the vector enhances social engagement; 2) whether the vector

increases opportunities for workplace participation; 3) whether the vector heightens 

employment prospects for people with disabilities. 

Following this process of clarification, a number of new suggestions were reviewed at 

length. Ultimately three additional vectors were offered for consideration: 

Vector 7: Online marketplace. This vector was offered in reference to the 

outsourced workplace and to job search and “skills-for-sale,” as well as items for 

sale. Potential exemplars are eBay and Craigslist.

Vector 8: Games, or Tiered Digital Interactions. This vector was suggested 

partly in recognition of the huge size and impact of the existing gaming industry, 

but also because of the potential effect on other sectors such as education, and 

the idea of learning by participating in a process.

Vector 9: Smart Interfaces. This vector emerged from some early findings of 

the literature review, in particular The Horizon Report 2009 Edition, that identified 

the personal Web, geo-location tools, semantic-aware applications, and smart 

objects. 
48

1.6.1. Criteria for Final Selection and Definitions

All nine vectors described above were reviewed. Criteria to evaluate them for a final 

selection were based on consideration of five measures of importance and relevance. 

Each vector was voted on according to each measure. 

1. Importance to people with disabilities and perceived product importance: 

market penetration among people with disabilities, evidence of marketing use, 

and affordability

2. Relevance to new workplace and in creating work opportunities

3. Relevance to getting a job

4. Relevance to doing a job

5. Relevance to the employer: whether it builds business, increases 

competitiveness, etc. 

The six vectors listed, with accompanying definitions, in Section 1.6.2 were chosen and 

re-ordered according to the voting procedure described above. The final selection of the 

companies intended to illustrate each vector is described in detail in Section 4: 

Exemplar Studies. 

Note that there were considerable challenges in defining the vectors as businesses. The 

challenges were partly due to the novelty of some of the technologies and the attempts 

to categorize them, but also because for the most part they are representative of social 

change, and consequently escape existing conventional economic schema. For 

example, available data on the market for games usually does not distinguish between 

“serious gaming” (e.g., training for disaster response) and the electronic games (“tiered 

digital environments”) popular with the young. 

This lack of easy definition of individual vectors was considered inevitable, given that 

the rationale of the term “vector” was to capture an abstract idea (of barriers being 

breached via technological pathways), and that the vectors were understood to 
49

represent possible means, not ends. As described above, they are potential conduits to 

employment situations, not employment prospects per se.

For categorization purposes, the decision was made to place the vectors under three

overarching groupings: 

a. social networking and tools, encompassing both the “soft” and the “hard” side 

of networking communications (Vectors 1 and 2);

b. immersive digital environments, encompassing both serious and nonserious 

sectors of the gaming world (Vectors 3 and 4); and 

c. commons-based peer production (after Benkler, 2006: 60), capturing the 

gamut of “open” input and output under both Vectors 5 and 6.

However, all of the sectors that the vectors refer to were researched, studied, and 

treated as separate, and, where possible, data gathered for all of them. 

1.6.2. Final Vector Selection

The final selection and categorization of the vectors was as follows:

Group A. Social Networking and Tools

Vector 1: Wireless Communication Platforms

Defined by the research team as mobile telephony, computers, and gaming devices, 

and as “an approach to the deployment or process of the provision of communication 

services.”

Vector 2: Social Networking

Defined as “web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semipublic profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they 

share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made 

by others within the system” (Ellison et al., 2007).
50

Group B. Immersive Digital Environments

Vector 3: Immersive Digital Environments—Virtual Worlds and Serious Gaming

Defined by the research team as computer-simulated worlds in which the user takes on

a role. 

Vector 4: Immersive Digital Environments—Tiered Digital Interactions and 

Electronic Games

Defined as electronic systems that involve interaction with a user interface to generate 

feedback on a display device. These systems include “serious games,” i.e., games 

designed for a primary purpose other than pure entertainment, such as education, 

scientific exploration, health care, emergency management, city planning, engineering, 

religion, and politics.

Group C. Commons-based Peer Production

Vector 5: Open Publishing

Defined as information capture, sharing, and processing. This definition may be 

extended to cover three key elements: information processing, information 

authentication, and information licensing and distribution. 

Vector 6: Open-Source Processes

Providing the user with tools to accomplish a task as part of an open-source process, 

defined as “a collaborative process in which programmers improve upon code and 

share changes within the community.” Open source is usually depicted as a response or 

alternative to proprietary software. 

1.7. Research Process

Following the final choice and definition of the vectors, the report proceeds with 

Section 2, an in-depth literature review that focuses on discovering the underlying 

reasons that the employment rate for people with disabilities remains so low, and 
51 

whether there is substantial reason to believe that the vectors represent a means for 

new opportunities for people with disabilities. Section 3 provides a general analysis of 

the labor and business market environment of the vectors, looking at the vectors as 

both a means and potential ends to employment. Section 4 analyzes extensive 

interviews with representatives of different companies and institutions chosen to 

represent the vectors. And Section 5 summarizes three different kinds of user studies, 

designed to give a general picture of the work-related utility of the vectors. 
52
53

SECTION 2. Social Capital, the Networked Economy, 

and the Promise of the Vectors

2.1. Introduction

This section argues that the root of the problem of unemployment among people with 

disabilities is deeper than the challenges that a disability may pose to doing work, or the 

obstacles to access that a workplace or work equipment might raise. Numerous studies 

show that both finding and doing work depend on social capital, in particular networks of 

empowering relationships. Another body of studies shows that people with disabilities 

often lack this important element of social capital. At the same time, digital technology 

and new media, represented by the vectors in this report, are changing how people 

access social capital, social networks, and the new employment environment. 

2.2. Connecting Disabilities and Unemployment

2.2.1. The Nature of Work and Disability

Across developed countries, there is an “unambiguous and apparently universally 

accepted policy message that the best way to tackle poverty, social exclusion and 

marginalization is through jobs, jobs and more jobs” (Ronayne and Tyrell, 2005: 80). 

Work has many benefits beyond wages. Performing work and paying taxes can 

enhance an individual’s status and self-worth, especially since society tends to judge 

the worth of an individual by his or her productivity. Wages and fringe benefits offer 

increased financial security and control over personal life choices. Work offers 

opportunities to interact with coworkers, share common experiences, develop 

interpersonal relationships, and arrange social activities after work; and earning a living 

through work contributes to improved quality of life and personal satisfaction (Wehman, 

1998). Most important, a productive and competent workplace role can decrease the 

stigma frequently associated with disability (Matson and Rusch, 1986). 
54

And yet, despite that clear policy message—jobs, jobs, and more jobs—approaches to 

the employment of people with disabilities have had such disappointing outcomes as to 

suggest a fundamental misunderstanding of the dynamics of disability and employment 

(Ronayne and Tyrell, 2005). A comprehensive strategy for the employment of people 

with disabilities requires high-level political commitment and will; complements and 

coordinates with other policy areas (e.g., welfare, health, education, transport) that 

affect labor market potential; must be visible and include participation by the various 

stakeholders; aspires to change attitudes and behaviors; and acknowledges the 

heterogeneity of people with disabilities and the complexity of their intersection with the 

labor market (ibid).

Further, such a strategy requires coherency of theoretical perspective, which 

approaches to employment for people with disabilities have typically lacked. That is, 

underlying assumptions about the dynamics of disability, society, technology, and 

employment have not been sufficiently identified and considered, or have been treated 

inconsistently in policymaking (Ronayne and Tyrell, 2005). To effectively address the 

employment situation of people with disabilities, it is necessary to explain it. The “lowlevel” or “ground-view” explanations of why employment outcomes for people with 

disabilities are so dismal include lack of awareness among employers, perceived 

productivity deficits of people with disabilities, and segregation and discrimination. The 

“high-level” or “view-from-the-top” explanations tend to fit some variation or combination 

of the medical model and the social model of disability. 

The medical model of disability, which has also been described as a functionallimitations paradigm, holds that impairments in the structures or functions of the body 

result in incapacity or reduced capacity to work. The Americans with Disabilities Act 

(ADA), for example, defines disability as a physical or mental impairment that 

substantially limits one or more major life activities such as work (42 USC 12102(2) (A)). 

According to the Social Security Administration, disability is “the inability to engage in 

any substantial gainful activity (SGA) by reason of any medically determinable physical 

or mental impairment” (Social Security online). 
55

The social model of disability takes a different tack. This model holds that physical, 

sensory, intellectual, or psychological variations, which may sometimes cause individual 

functional limitation or impairments, do not necessarily lead to disability, unless society 

fails to include people regardless of individual differences (Oliver, 1983). In other words, 

preconceptions about people with disabilities in society, much like racism or sexism, 

oppress people with disabilities (Ronayne and Tyrrell, 2005). Overall, “concepts of 

citizenship, the economy, and the body are embedded in understandings...that 

generally exclude or marginalize the forms or realities of disability” (Breckenridge and

Vogler, 2001: 351). Our social environment is molded by public policies that themselves 

reflect pervasive attitudes and values. If that environment was designed to meet the 

needs of individuals with disabilities, “traditional assumptions about their capacities and 

productivity embedded in the ‘functional-limitations’ model of disability probably could no 

longer be sustained” (Hahn, 1997: 175).

Although no universally accepted model of disability yet exists, there is acknowledgment 

of the complexity of the medical, social, economic, and policy interactions. The World 

Health Organization (WHO) asserts that the social organization of society and economy 

do not take into account diversity and calls for removing the barriers to participation 

resulting from impairments. The WHO definition combines elements of both the medical 

and the social model, calling disability “a complex phenomenon, reflecting an interaction 

between features of a person’s body and features of the society in which he or she 

lives” (WHO, 2001).

That interaction is inescapably mediated by technology. Technology and media 

influence what the body can do and is required to do, affecting actual and perceived 

productivity (Stone and Colella, 1996). But just as the relationship between technology 

and the social organization of society and economy is never unidirectional (DiMaggio et 

al., 2001), productivity is dynamic and changeable. Considerations of the employment 

of people with disabilities should not view the productivity as static and collapsed 

unidimensionally into impairment.
56

More specifically at the individual level, productivity is a function of the organization of 

work (management effectiveness), the technical resources deployed, the skills and 

experience of the worker, and the worker’s motivation (Ronayne and Tyrell, 2005: 79). 

Motivation is most often the one element overlooked. Any consideration of the roles that 

digital technology and new media could play in the employment of people with 

disabilities must address why that motivation might be low, before looking at the 

opportunities offered by the changing socio-technical employment environment.

2.2.2. Disability and Social Participation

People with disabilities may be “unable to participate in society in ways that others take 

for granted” (Atkins and Guisti, 2003). A study of the social and civic participation of 

people with disabilities showed that 36.8 percent regularly attended group meetings, 

compared to 53.7 percent of people without disabilities. They also had lower weekly 

religious attendance, union membership, political participation, and self-rated civic skills 

(Schur et al., 2005).

In another study, 35 percent of Americans with disabilities say they are completely 

uninvolved in their communities, compared to 21 percent of those without disabilities 

(VABoard 2010 (a)). Approximately half of people with disabilities report that the 

absence of a full social life is a concern, citing attitudinal barriers, lack of transportation, 

lack of awareness, lack of income, and lack of encouragement from community 

organizations as barriers (Leitman et al., 1994; VABoard 2010).

A 2010 Harris Interactive poll of people with disabilities conducted for the Kessler 

Foundation and the National Organization on Disability (NOD) revealed that people with 

disabilities are less likely than those without disabilities to report that they socialize with 

friends, relatives, or neighbors (79 percent versus 90 percent). The gap of 

11 percentage points has remained basically constant since surveys in 2004 

(10 percentage points) and 2000 (11 percentage points). People with disabilities are 

also less likely to go to a restaurant or to attend religious services. However, the same 
57

survey spotted one encouraging trend: young people with disabilities (ages 18 to 29) 

report that they socialize more with friends, relatives, or neighbors than their 

counterparts without disabilities (Kessler Foundation and NOD, 2010). Generally, 

younger generations of people with disabilities are more socially and politically active 

than older generations.

The same survey (national cross-sections of 1,001 people with disabilities, including 

proxies, and 788 people without a disability) provides some insight into a major cause of 

the lack of social participation. Over one-third of people with disabilities reported the 

availability of accessible transportation as an obstacle. Of those, half (18 percent

overall) claimed the unavailability of accessible transportation as a major problem. The 

transportation gap between people with and without disabilities had widened by 

five percentage points since 1998. Transportation was identified as a much larger 

obstacle for people with severe disabilities, who were twice as likely to consider it a 

major problem compared with those with “somewhat severe” disabilities, and over three 

times more likely than those with a slight or moderate disability (Kessler Foundation and 

NOD, 2010). 

Additional studies have focused specifically on people with intellectual disabilities. Bray 

and Gates note that community participation in a variety of valued roles is a goal 

through which other goals are achieved. However, “adults with an intellectual disability 

may play few roles, and these may be roles which imply dependency and lack of

community contribution” (Bray and Gates, 2003: 3). Many adults with an intellectual 

disability rely primarily on paid staff or on other adults with disabilities as sources of 

social support, which reinforces the likelihood of limited opportunities for community 

participation and the development of other sources of social support (Newton et al.,

1994). In residential settings, social participation is drastically limited. A study of 

500 adults with intellectual disabilities living in residential settings shows that, excluding 

staff, the median size of participants’ social networks was only two people. The authors 

note that people with intellectual disabilities are marginalized and socially excluded in 

western countries (Robertson et al., 2001). 
58

2.2.3. The Relevance of Social Participation 

The extent of social or community participation is relevant because, to possess social 

capital, a person must be related to others, usually in a group or community, with those 

others serving as the source of his or her social capital. Social capital is described by 

Fukuyama as important to the “efficient functioning of modern economies” and essential 

for stable liberal democracy (Fukuyama, 1999). Social capital is “a resource that actors 

derive from specific social structures and then use to pursue their interests; it is created 

by changes in the relationship among actors” (Baker, 1990: 619), and it requires 

“deliberate investment of both economic and cultural resources” (Portes, 1998: 4). 

Social capital can arise from embedding in a common social structure (Portes, 1998) 

and is a positive effect of interaction among participants in a social network (Ellison et 

al., 2007). Obtaining social capital also depends on communication, which may create 

or reinforce a sense of group identity (Dawes, 1991), especially with frequent or durable 

interactions (Axelrod, 1984). Social capital is distinguished from material capital in that 

time is not delimited. Any exchange continues a relationship into the future and leaves 

open the possibility of the next transaction. Social capital is based upon connections 

and reciprocity (Putnam, 2000; Malaby, 2006).

Social capital exists where people gain advantages because of their location in a social 

structure (Burt, 2004). By far, “the most common function attributed to social capital is 

as a source of network-mediated benefits beyond the immediate family” (Portes, 1998: 

12). The many benefits of social capital are what lead to claims that community

participation is a goal by which other goals are achieved (Bray and Gates, 2003).

Importantly, social capital plays a role in obtaining other types of capital. By the start of 

the 21st century, 80 percent of a company’s market value was determined not by cash, 

buildings, or equipment, but by intangible factors such as human and intellectual capital 

(Weatherly, 2003). As intellectual and human capital grow in value, it becomes clear 

that “workplaces are complex social communities, in which social capital plays no small 

part” (Baker et al., 2006: 421). 
59

Through social capital, people can gain direct access to economic resources 

(subsidized loans, investment tips, protected markets). People can increase their 

cultural capital through contacts with experts or individuals of education (i.e., embodied 

cultural capital); or they can affiliate with institutions that confer valued credentials (i.e., 

institutionalized cultural capital) (Portes, 1998: 4). 

Social capital is also seen as a predictor of school attrition rates and academic 

performance, intellectual development, sources of employment and occupational 

attainment, juvenile delinquency, and immigrant and ethnic enterprise (ibid: 9). Because

knowledge is generated largely through social interaction (Anderson and Kanuka, 

1998), social capital (“know-who”) may be a more significant organizational aspect than 

human capital (“know-how”) (Downes, 2004). “From the perspective of the employee, 

getting a desirable job may be viewed as a return accruing to the person based on their 

human, cultural, and social capital. All three types are important to the employment 

process” (Potts, 2005: 21).

Although human and social capital enhance each other, they are distinct and offer 

different insights into society’s inequalities. Society is marked by inequalities, in the 

sense that the interests of some people are better served than the interests of others. 

The human-capital explanation of the inequality is that the people who do better are 

more intelligent, more attractive, more articulate, and more skilled. Social capital is the 

contextual complement to human capital. The social-capital metaphor is that the people 

who do better are somehow better connected (Burt, 2001: 202).

The explanation strikes at the heart of the employment dilemma facing people with 

disabilities. “Lack of human capital is likely to be the first explanation we consider when we 

encounter a person who has been repeatedly unsuccessful finding a job....There is a 

tradition of identifying family, friends, and coworkers as potential sources of ‘natural’ social 

support for workers with a disability, or less often as potential employment contacts, but the 

concept of social capital as a key to employment has been largely ignored by those 

assisting persons with disabilities to find employment” (Potts, 2005: 22).
60

Studies of technology and disability have leaned toward a human-capital perspective. 

Many types of assistive technology address perceived disparities in the skills and 

talents of potential employees with disabilities (Potts, 2005). New types of digital 

technology can certainly affect the human capital of people with and without disabilities. 

But the types of technology selected for focused study here (the six vectors) are of 

particular interest for their potential to serve as conduits to social capital, the 

connections among individuals. The role of social networks and their intersection with 

employment is at the core of this study. 

2.2.4. Matching Employment Opportunities with Job Seekers Through 

Networks

When employment does not occur, the root of the problem may lie with the job 

opportunities, with the job seeker (i.e., human capital), or with the mechanisms that 

match the two sides. High unemployment among people with disabilities is traditionally 

explained by a scarcity of job opportunities, or by the assumption that people with 

disabilities are at a competitive disadvantage. A variety of legal initiatives, programs, 

and accessibility requirements aim to improve the first area, the job opportunities 

available to people with disabilities. Other initiatives, such as vocational programs, job 

training, and technological assistance, address the second areas, the perceived 

disparities in the talents and skills of potential employees with disabilities, based on the 

assumption that stronger marketable skills will lead to employment. In view of the 

worsening employment picture for people with disabilities, it is apparent that these 

initiatives are not working or are in some ways inadequate.

The largely missing or underemphasized factor is a focus on the matching mechanism 

and its dependence on social capital (Potts, 2005). As Potts points out, the process of 

matching employees and job opportunities is not trivial or automatic.

There is another possible explanation for unemployment: employees may fail to fill job 

opportunities for which they are qualified because they are unaware of the job 

opportunity or the employer is unaware of these people as prospective employees. This 
61

situation leads to the question, “How do we connect accessible jobs to qualified 

people?” (Potts, 2005: 23).

The matching mechanism between potential employees and potential job opportunities 

has been a major focus of sociologists studying social networks, which are a way to 

describe structures of interpersonal relationships. In 1973, Granovetter suggested 

analysis of social networks as a tool for linking micro and macro levels of sociology 

theory. He noted that the sociological theory of his day could not convincingly relate 

micro-level, small-group social interactions to macro phenomena such as social 

mobility, community organization, and political structure. His solution was found in social 

networks. 

The analysis of processes in interpersonal networks provides the most fruitful micro–

macro bridge. In one way or another, it is through these networks that small-scale 

interaction becomes translated into large-scale patterns, and that these patterns, in turn, 

feed back into small groups (Granovetter, 1974: 1360).

Granovetter defined the strength of an interpersonal tie as a “combination of the amount 

of time, the emotional intensity, the intimacy (mutual confiding), and the reciprocal 

services which characterize the tie” (Granovetter, 1974: 1362). For ease of discussion, 

he categorized relationships roughly as strong ties (close friends) and weak ties 

(acquaintances). When he applied this idea to work situations, he found that white-collar 

workers frequently locate jobs through weak ties, which relay useful job information 

more frequently than strong ties. Weak ties tend to be less redundant and to reach 

people more geographically and socially far away, thus offering access to more job 

opportunities. A successful job seeker typically receives information about the 

opportunity through a short chain of one or two contacts. Often people who obtained 

work through a network were not actively seeking work at the time; the weak ties 

initiated contact when they heard of the suitable opportunity (ibid). 

Calvó-Armengol and Jackson have modeled the role of networks in employment status, 

and show that in the long run, any interconnected workers’ employment status is 
62

positively correlated: employed workers tend to be connected to employed workers. If 

people are employed, other people in their network are more likely to hear about and 

obtain employment opportunities. Network density, structure, symmetries, and path 

lengths between people are all relevant to employment status (Calvó-Armengol and

Jackson, 2004). The growing body of findings about the role of social networks in 

obtaining employment has direct implications for the ability of people with disabilities to 

find or create work.

If persons with certain types of disability are at a disadvantage with respect to their job 

networks, and if networks affect employment for persons with these disabilities as they 

do the general population, then it is likely that a nontrivial portion of the unemployment 

experienced by persons with those disabilities is due to this lack of social capital (Potts, 

2005: 23).

That many people with disabilities are at a disadvantage with respect to their job 

networks is likely the case. Social networks of job contacts can be built through 

participation in clubs, civic and religious groups, and other social activities (ibid), and as 

discussed, people with disabilities report less social and civic participation than people 

without disabilities (Kessler Foundation and NOD, 2010; Schur et al., 2005; Atkins and 

Guisti, 2003; Leitman et al., 1994).

The suggestion here is that networks are likely more important for people with 

disabilities than for the general population. “If disability narrows the set of jobs one is 

qualified to fill, then having the right channels of job contacts to get access to that 

smaller set of job opportunities may be even more crucial to employment success”

(Potts, 2005: 22). But at the same time, the social capital that underpins those networks 

is likely weaker, and the matching mechanism between employer and potential 

employee less effective. This provides the context for examining the potential of the six 

vectors that is the focus of this research. 

The implications are significant, because the effects of networking spread beyond the 

employer–employee nexus. The Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) notes 
63

that restricted access to support networks is one barrier to self-employment and 

entrepreneurship for people with disabilities. Studies of immigrant and ethnic 

communities identify networks and the social capital that flows through them as a key 

for successful small businesses. Community networks provide a vital source of tips 

about business opportunities, start-up capital, access to markets, and a pliant labor 

force (Portes, 1998).

Social networks affect the likelihood of having a good idea in the first place, because

people connected across groups are more familiar with alternative ways of thinking and 

behaving, and new ideas emerge when they select and synthesize across groups. 

People with varied weak ties connecting them across many groups are in a better 

position to innovate than people who are strongly connected but in fewer groups (Burt, 

2004). There is also a feedback loop whereby benefits beget more benefits, as people’s

early access to diverse information makes them more attractive to other people as 

contacts in their own networks (Burt, 2001: 209–10).

Having a social network of many weak ties that bridge different social groups increases 

the likelihood both of having a novel idea and of successfully spreading the novel idea. 

In combination, these factors partially explain why entrepreneurial success depends on 

social networks (Burt, 1992). Network entrepreneurs are “people who build 

interpersonal bridges across structural holes,” or who “add value by brokering 

connections between others” (Burt, 2001: 210).

Finally, the nature of the social network is likely to heavily influence job satisfaction, job 

retention, and career advancement. The work environment and relationships with 

coworkers may be the most important factors contributing to job success and 

satisfaction, and studies show that work performance and job retention are related to an 

employee’s participation in social relationships with coworkers and supervisors 

(Wehman, 2003). Coworker relationships play an important role in completing work 

responsibilities, handling personal problems, dealing with other coworkers, learning new 

job tasks, understanding the unwritten rules of the workplace, and responding to 

emergency situations (ibid).
64

Physical integration in the workplace does not necessarily ensure social inclusion, and 

studies of workplace interactions of people with disabilities with their coworkers suggest

that employees with a disability participate in the same frequency of social interactions 

at work as their coworkers, but the type, content, and settings of the interactions differ. 

Employees with disabilities are less likely to be involved in nonwork-related interactions, 

involving joking and laughing, break-time conversations, and informational exchanges 

(ibid).

Studies of the relationships between employees with disabilities and their supervisors 

suggest that “nondisabled supervisors are likely to perceive subordinates with 

disabilities as dissimilar to themselves and so experience less positive affect. Also, 

supervisors may expect less contribution from subordinates with disabilities” (Colella 

and Varma, 2001: 305). As a result of stereotypes, workers with disabilities may face 

additional challenges and problems when they first join an organization (Braddock and

Bachelder, 1994). People with disabilities may experience fewer treatment problems as 

they gain status in organizations but may be given few opportunities to do so, because 

they are often targeted for low-level positions, which in turn perpetuates “biases and 

treatment-related problems experienced by the disabled” (Stone and Colella, 1996: 

369).

2.3. The Networked Economy and the Collaborative Community

2.3.1. What Is New About the New Economy?

In 1998, Kevin Kelly predicted that “the great benefits reaped by the new economy in 

the coming decades will be due in large part to exploring and exploiting the power of 

decentralized and autonomous networks....This new economy...favors intangible 

things—ideas, information, and relationships. And it is intensely interlinked” (Kelly, 

1998). The social and structural characteristics of networks—in particular connectivity, 

interdependence, and communications—carry implications for workplaces and the 

economy as a whole. The model of a collaborative community originates in sociology, 
65

but finds a natural embedding in the combination of social, cultural, technological, and 

economic co-developments that comprise the networked information economy.

In The Wealth of Networks, Benkler claims that changes in economic organization and

social practices of production have changed how we make and exchange information, 

knowledge, and culture. He describes new patterns of production in terms of 

cooperative, coordinated, decentralized individual action in a pervasive network 

(Benkler, 2006). What has been called the “new economy based on the networking of 

human knowledge” (Gadman and Cooper, 2005: 57) serves as the starting point for this 

research, in particular the role of social networks in obtaining or creating employment, 

and the implications for people with disabilities.

Social networks increasingly characterize both inter- and intra-corporation structures 

and interactions (Heckscher and Alder, 2006; Wellman et al., 1996) and facilitate 

commerce (Rauch, 2001). More broadly, the social networked information economy is 

challenging fundamental economic assumptions about utility, incentives, production, 

consumption, and markets (Akerlof, 1997; Benkler, 2006; Bollier, 2006).

Employers have indicated that the most important factors ensuring the employment of 

people both with and without disabilities are their skills and aptitudes. “One of the 

biggest hurdles to the career advancement of persons with disabilities has been their 

lack of marketable skills and orientation to the business world” (Braddock and

Bachelder, 1994: 24). But in the networked information economy, both the business 

world and the marketable skills are changing and being shaped by networked digital 

technologies, represented in this report by the vectors. Fundamentally, “the networked 

information economy improves the practical capacities of individuals...to do more for 

and by themselves” and “enhances their capacity to do more in loose commonality with 

others,” while “the removal of the physical constraints on effective information 

production has made human creativity and the economics of information itself the core 

structuring facts in the new networked information economy” (Benkler, 2006: 4).2
66

The transition to a new economy has been described as a transformation from push 

economies (geared toward mass production) to pull economies (geared toward open, 

flexible production). The pull model is not just about IT capability, but also touches on 

rich networks of various types of social relationships. Pull models develop products 

through socially driven, iterative processes, and require coordination of social and 

technical practices.

In this way, communities of interest are becoming communities of creation and 

production; social communities play a large role in creating value (Bollier, 2006). “The 

most powerful leaders in this [pull] environment will be those who have cultivated 

shared moral ideals and social relationships over time within distinct communities” (ibid: 

19). Pull models “seek to provide people on the periphery with the tools and resources 

(including connections to other people) required to take initiative and creatively address 

opportunities as they arise....Pull models treat people as networked creators (even 

when they are customers purchasing goods and services) who are uniquely positioned 

to transform uncertainty from a problem into an opportunity” (Hagel and Brown, 2005: 

4).

Coleman predicts that the shift toward pull economies will benefit the United States, 

because of its tradition of entrepreneurship, and its propensity to let creative destruction 

work, and thereby let new jobs evolve (quoted in Bollier, 2006: 26–27). The shift could 

also be good for people with disabilities, who could have unique qualifications for the 

new jobs that are evolving. It is in those new jobs that creative, networked people 

transform problems into opportunities, and where networking technologies are making 

entirely new types of business specialties possible by enabling people to express highly 

specific preferences that enterprising producers can meet.

2.3.2. Cultural Limits on the Economic and Social Roles of People 

with Disabilities

The idea that communities of interest are becoming communities of creation and 

production marks a potential watershed in how social communities are perceived, by 
67

moving away from a simplistic contrast between the primacy of the individual and the 

primacy of the group or community—a contrast that also plays a large role in how 

people with disabilities are perceived in society.

Individualism and collectivism represent two extremes of a cultural spectrum. 

Individualist culture focuses on the separateness and unique strengths of a person, 

whereas collectivist culture focuses on contributions to the good of a group (RothsteinFisch et al., 1999). These different cultural viewpoints imply different conceptualizations 

of disability. Individualistic societies view disability as a physical, individual 

phenomenon, and a condition to be remediated. Collectivist societies, on the other 

hand, view disability as a spiritual, group phenomenon, and a condition to be resigned 

to (Kalyanpur and Harry, 1999).

The individualistic viewpoint has characterized American society in general and the 

American attitude toward disability. Linton points out that America’s glorification of 

independence has not served people with disabilities well, because individual worth 

came to be judged in terms of financial and social independence, historically a goal few 

people with disabilities could reach (Linton, 1998: 48). Before the 1960s, a child with a 

disability, deemed incapable of an individual independent life, would have been put into 

an institution and segregated from the community. After the 1975 passage of the 

Education for All Handicapped Children Act, institutionalization was less common, but 

children with disabilities were often placed in special-education programs separate from 

other students (Schur, 2005).

Today, integrated education is more common, but self-reliance, competitive 

employment, and independent living are considered top priorities of American specialeducation programs (Black et al., 2003), and the Individuals with Disabilities Education 

Act explicitly cites preparation for “employment and independent living” as the primary 

purpose of special education (P.L. 105-17, Section 601d). While professionals tend to 

define independence in terms of self-care activities, people with disabilities tend to 

define independence as being in control of and making decisions about one’s life 

(Reindal, 1999).
68

The American cultural glorification of independence has neglected that “the experience 

of disability is clearly in conflict with conceptions of autonomy that assume a self 

capable of isolated independence” (Ells, 2001). People with disabilities who are 

considered incapable of achieving isolated independence are eligible for transfer 

programs such as Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security 

Income. Historically, American disability policy has been dominated by transfer 

programs, and the benefit rolls have increased continuously since eligibility expansion in 

1984 (Burkhauser and Daly, 2002). Paradoxically, government and private programs 

that address barriers to independence have actually fostered dependence in many 

program participants, who learn to rely heavily on agency personnel or transfer 

programs (Leake and Black, 2005; Burkhauser and Daly, 2002).

At the same time, the collectivist view does not represent an ideal alternative. In 

collectivist societies, children with disabilities are commonly conferred “disabled” status 

and are not expected to work or live outside the family home. The focus is on protecting, 

indulging, and collectively caring for the child (Black et al., 2003). In these 

arrangements, because the nature of the group is to care for group members in need, 

people with disabilities are placed in a highly dependent role.

In fact, both the individualistic and collectivistic social views have resulted in 

dependency for people with disabilities. Dependency is satisfactory to no one—it implies 

a cost of time and resources to some parts of society, and a lack of autonomy and 

opportunities for others. Dependency is not suitable for the development of social 

capital and social networks. Network ties involve reciprocity (Granovetter, 1973), which

is counter to dependency. People seek to include in their network individuals who have 

access to information and control, which a highly dependent person is unlikely to have 

(Burt, 2002). 

However, the glorification of individualistic, isolated independence and its association 

with autonomy may be fading, with corresponding effects on community participation 

and values. The next sections describe these changes and what they could mean for 
69

people with disabilities in the community and the workplace, and examine how digital 

technology fits into the picture.

2.3.3. The Promise of the Collaborative Community 

The last few decades have seen the emergence of the collaborative community, an 

alternative to the dichotomy between individualism and collectivism (Quan-Haase and

Adler, 2005). The collaborative community preserves the importance of both individual 

identity and interdependent relationships. In collaborative communities there is an “‘and’ 

and not ‘versus’ relationship between individual and social creativity” (Fischer, 2005: 2). 

Authority and power relations are more flexible and horizontal (Adler and Heckscher, 

2004). A collaborative community is distinguished by its structure (networked, 

interdependent process management), its values (the ethic of interdependent

contribution), and its character (relational self finds both individual identity and sense of 

community through interdependence in social networks) (ibid: 42).

The difference between collaborative communities and collectivist societies is that in the 

former, the crucial structure is not groups but networks, and that community does not 

imply conformity (Thomson, 1997). Collaborative communities are composed of 

“collections of individuals who are bound together by natural will and a set of shared 

ideas and ideals” depending on “autonomous, independent individuals engaged by 

influencing each other” (Kowch and Schwier, 1997: 1). Social networks in collaborative 

communities, like groups in collectivist societies, may work toward a collective goal, but 

the key difference is that network members maintain autonomy. In Burt’s work on the 

social topology of autonomy, he notes that strong integration into a group of similar 

others serves to limit the autonomy of an individual, but a network of diversified 

relationships enhances the autonomy of an individual (Burt, 1980).

The collaborative-community model is particularly relevant for people with disabilities, 

as “the extent of interconnectedness and interdependencies emerges more distinctly in 

experience that includes disability” (Ells, 2001). The collaborative conception of 

autonomy, focusing on an interdependent relational self, contrasts with the individualist 
70

conception of autonomy through isolated independence. According to the Ethics and 

Chronic Illness project at the Hastings Center, “Autonomy is not some a priori property 

of persons abstractly conceived. It is an achievement of selves who are socially 

embedded and physically embodied. This is perhaps the single greatest lesson to be 

learned from chronic illness” (Jennings et al., 1988). For people with disabilities, the 

ideal of autonomy often struggles with the realities of challenges posed in housing, 

transportation, employment, rehabilitation, technology, education, and the physical 

environment that interfere with acting independently. “An analysis of these sorts of 

barriers to independence makes clear that the possibility and condition of independence 

depends not on separation from others but on particular and extensive sorts of 

interconnections with others and with the social and political fabric of one’s 

community.... Access to social spaces and services and empowering relationships 

makes autonomy possible” (Ells, 2001).

2.3.4. How Can the Culture of Collaborative Communities Change the 

Workplace for People with Disabilities? 

Collaborative corporate communities are emerging just as the “goal-driven, superegobased, relatively inflexible form of individualism” of the industrial economy is no longer

seen as suitable for business (Thomson, 1997). Corporations such as IBM have found 

success in applying the collaborative-community model to the workplace, and other 

corporations are catching on (Heckscher and Adler, 2006). A high degree of 

interdependence is a distinguishing characteristic of collaborative corporate 

communities (Adler and Heckscher, 2006).

In collaborative corporate communities, because there is less need for conformity as a 

basis of trust, there is more openness to diversity (Heckscher, 2007). Whereas 

perceived dissimilarities negatively affect people with disabilities in traditional 

workplaces (Colella and Varma, 2001), perceived dissimilarities need not be viewed so 

negatively in the collaborative community. Trust depends not on homogeneity, but “on 

organized processes of contribution to a shared task,” best achieved through “diversity 
71

of skills and competencies” (Heckscher, 2007: 123). Disability is of course a form of 

diversity, and may be “a forum for the development of sensibilities and skills theretofore 

unrealized” (Ells, 2001). The flexibility of the collaborative corporate community offers 

hope that a wider variety of competencies and contributions can be recognized and 

valued.

A case in point is Autistic adults, for whom online technologies have allowed the 

development of an independent autistic community and culture, in part because the 

challenges associated with interpreting nonverbal and social cues are less significant 

online (Ne’eman, 2009). As one example, the Danish company Specialisterne “turned 

‘disability’ into an asset” by realizing that “as long as someone with autism could feel 

comfortable in a workplace and have the social confidence to perform a job then they 

would have skills that made them more capable than others to perform certain tasks 

which required large degrees of precision, focus and memory recall” (Milmo, 2009). The 

company employs more than 40 Autistic people as software consultants, paid 

competitive wages.

2.4. Overall Effect of the Internet

2.4.1. The Effect of the Internet on the Social Capital and Employment 

Opportunities of People with Disabilities

The Internet is associated with the networked information economy as the chief enabler 

of the information revolution, encouraging transparency and lower transaction costs. It 

has been predicted that the Internet will allow productivity gains of more than 

1000 percent in the 21st century (Bollier, 2006). Though some researchers initially 

argued that by detracting from face-to-face interactions, the Internet would decrease 

social capital, some studies have challenged this view by demonstrating positive effects 

on community interaction and social capital (Ellison et al., 2007). In particular, the 

Internet makes it easier to form and support weak ties through features like distribution 

lists, photo directories, and search capabilities. The Internet facilitates new connections 
72

by providing people with an alternative way to connect with others who share their 

interests or relational goals (ibid), and provides the basis for the collaborativecommunity model and the promise it holds for people with disabilities. 

The Internet has contributed to the shift to a network-based society by decoupling 

community and geographic propinquity (DiMaggio, 2001). Relatively early developments 

in the Internet’s history, such as RSS feeds and blogging, highlight the Internet’s 

inherent usefulness for sharing content quickly and efficiently and for social networking 

(Downes, 2004). Internet-supported social networks may provide social support, 

companionship, a sense of belonging, emotional aid, and information about medical 

treatment and other matters without requiring major investments of time, money, or 

energy (Wellman et al., 1996). By lowering the cost of information, the Internet can 

enhance the ability of low-income people to gain human capital and find and compete 

for good jobs (Anderson et al., 1995).

There is “much anecdotal evidence that the Internet provides significant benefits to 

people with unusual identities or concerns (e.g. rare medical conditions)” (DiMaggio, 

2001). “People have always given each other advice about their bodies, psyches, 

families. The Net has just made the process more accessible and more visible to 

others” (Wellman et al., 1996: 219). The use of advanced telecommunications, Internet 

access, and broadband services can contribute to the creation of more flexibility in the 

workplace, increasing the potential for people with disabilities to enjoy more job 

opportunities as well as independent living (Wireless RERC). All of these claims point to 

the Internet’s advantages in terms of functional accessibility, social/cultural accessibility, 

and affordability.

2.4.2. Accessibility of the Internet and Digital Technology

However, there are still concerns regarding the Internet’s accessibility. Computer use 

and ownership and Internet use are significantly lower for people with disabilities

compared with their counterparts without disabilities. More than four in five (85 percent) 

people without disabilities use a computer or other device to access the Internet 
73

compared to just over half (54 percent) of people with disabilities (Kessler and NOD, 

2010).

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which the United States 

signed in July 2009, “recognizes the importance of accessibility...to information and 

communication in enabling persons with disabilities to fully enjoy all human rights and 

fundamental freedoms” (Department of Justice). This is not simply a question of being 

able to use the Internet: access, like disability itself, is a complex and multidimensional 

construct. “A sociological perspective calls attention to the need to go beyond the 

conventional focus on access per se to explore inequality in the combination of 

technical and social resources required for effective participation” (DiMaggio, 2001).

The dimensions of accessibility include:

● Functional accessibility: Availability of options suitable for physical, 

sensory, intellectual, or psychological variations. 

● Awareness: Awareness of options, opportunities, and legal rights.

● Social/cultural accessibility: Stigmas, policies, or social norms may limit 

access. May be internal or external, formal or informal.

● Affordability: High costs of money, time, or other resources may limit 

access. 

The vectors in this research are by definition high-technology devices or services, 

requiring computers, electronics, or microchips to perform some function, which in turn 

often need assistive technology “to increase, maintain, or improve functional capabilities 

of individuals with disabilities,” in the words of the Technology-Related Assistance for 

Individuals with Disabilities Act of 1998. Assistive technology (AT) is a basic tool to 

ensure accessibility for people with disabilities, but both its cost and the need for 

training before its use may have negative consequences.

About half of adults with disabilities use some form of AT specific to their disability, but 

many lack some form of AT that they need (VABoard, 2010); Braddock and Bachelder, 
74

1994). In particular, AT devices and services are not readily available to “culturally 

diverse populations, families in rural areas, older Americans, and individuals in longterm care facilities” (Braddock and Bachelder, 1994: 23). To promote functional 

accessibility, a number of collaborative efforts, such as the Accessibility Interoperability 

Alliance and a working group of the International Organization of Standards (ISO) called 

ISO/International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) JTC1/SC35/WG6, promote 

interoperability between AT and information technology (Lyle, 2010). In addition, there 

are national and international standards and guidelines, including the Web Content 

Accessibility Guidelines and International Committee for Information Technology 

Standards (INCITS)/V2, as well as organizations such as the Human Factors and 

Ergonomics Society (HFES) and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 

voting accessibility standards (Trace Center). 

Studies have shown that although numerous people with disabilities are dissatisfied with 

their AT and discontinue its use, certain factors greatly increase the likelihood of 

satisfaction and continued use (Riemer-Reiss and Wacker, 2000). Trialability, or the 

degree to which a user can experiment with a technology before acquisition, is an 

effective means to promote ongoing use. However, people with disabilities often lack 

the option of trying AT before purchasing it. For instance, in one study only about half of 

people with visual disabilities reported that they were able to test their AT before

purchase (Rogers, 1995).

A challenge to functional accessibility is keeping up with the rapid pace of technological 

change. Even when technology has been adapted to meet the functional accessibility 

needs of people with disabilities, the adaptations have historically been slow to come, 

leaving people with disabilities years behind in accessing the newest technologies. As 

examples, it took more than 100 years for the telephone to become accessible for 

people with speech and hearing disabilities, 50 years for television to become 

accessible for people who are deaf or hard of hearing, and 10 years for people who 

used hearing aids to use digital wireless phones (Lyle, 2010). New, more interactive, 
75

dynamic, visual, and rapidly changing technologies add accessibility challenges 

(Gibson, 2007).

In terms of awareness, “accessing current and appropriate information on assistive 

technology is a problem for consumers and their families. Many assistive devices must 

be used differently in different settings. In an employment setting, assistive technology 

must always be matched to an individual’s needs, preferences, capabilities, and 

comfort” (Braddock and Bachelder, 1994: 22). In reality, there is little awareness of the 

potential benefits of technology in facilitating the performance of job tasks, including 

greater productivity and self-esteem (Yeager et al., 2006: 342). Many people with 

disabilities who need work-related AT fail to request it as a job accommodation from 

their employer, perhaps because they are unaware of employer obligations (Yeager et 

al., 2006; Williams et al., 2006). There is also a need to raise employers’ knowledge and 

awareness of AT (Baker et al.). They assume that AT and other accommodations will be 

expensive, but a large study by the Job Accommodations Network reported that a high

percentage (56 percent) of accommodations cost nothing to make, while the rest 

typically cost only $600.

There may also be lack of awareness that certain new technologies are available and 

accessible. According to a report commissioned by the FCC, “Lack of exposure to 

broadband...contributes to a general perception among people with disabilities that 

broadband and broadband-enabled technologies are inaccessible” (Advanced 

Communications Law and Policy Institute, 2009: 25).

In terms of social-cultural accessibility, fear of being perceived as receiving special 

treatment may constitute a social barrier to requesting AT (Yeager et al., 2006). Many 

workers are reluctant to disclose mental limitations to others (Williams et al., 2006), 

perhaps due to cultural stigmas. Social and professional stigmatization, marginalization, 

and isolation are concerns for employees with disabilities, particularly those separated 

from the physical workplace through the use of information communication technologies 

(Baker et al., 2006).
76

Some “non-disabled workers may interpret disabled counterparts as either ‘problem 

workers’ who do not meet organizational standards or individuals receiving 

accommodation as ‘special treatment.’ Neither characterization lends itself to the 

fostering of solidarity or to an understanding of how employment relationships and 

labour processes might be disabling” (Wilton, 2004: 423). 

Affordability is a large factor. An estimated 59 percent of people who need AT are

unable to afford it (Braddock and Bachelder, 1994). Of people with disabilities who have 

not adopted broadband, 37 percent cite cost as a barrier (Lyle, 2010). AT may add a 

layer of expense to technology that people without disabilities do not face. As examples, 

Lyle notes that screen-access technology (which reads text on the screen for people 

who are blind or have low vision) ranges from between $800 and $1,000 for computers 

and costs about $400 for cell phones. Displays that produce the on-screen content in 

Braille cost in the range of $3,500 to $15,000, with an average cost of about $5,000. 

Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) devices for people with severe 

motor or other communication disabilities can cost $8,000 or more. “While government 

programs pay for AT under certain circumstances, the European Commission (EC) 

recently estimated that people with disabilities in the United States pay for AT out of 

pocket about 56 percent of the time” (Lyle, 2010: 6–7).

An accelerated depreciation schedule is one strategy for funding expensive technology.

For example, American Security Bank in Washington, DC, wanted to employ a 

computer programmer who was blind and needed AT costing about $3,000. The 

company depreciated the AT over a two-year period and told the programmer he could 

take the equipment with him to future jobs if he remained with the bank at least two 

years. “The bank recouped its investment in the terminal by retaining a skilled 

employee; and the employee obtained a valuable tool that he could take with him to 

other jobs, and which also increased his bargaining power with future employers” 

(Braddock and Bachelder, 1994: 33).
77

2.4.3. What Aspects of Technology Design Are Important for People 

with Disabilities?

Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1988 mandates the purchase of 

accessibly designed electronic and information technology (E&IT). Accessible design is 

a step forward when developing E&IT products, but it leads to technologies that will be 

used separately, or in addition to, the main E&IT product, which diminishes the 

effectiveness of designing for all (NCD, 2004).3 In reality, designers of equipment, 

services, and networks “often fail to consider accessibility issues in the design and 

development stage—and retrofit solutions are expensive” (Lyle, 2010: 4).

Universal design (UD), or design for inclusion, is “a process to ensure that E&IT is 

inclusive, accessible, and usable by everyone, including people with disabilities.... 

Incorporating UD processes when developing E&IT is one solution to accommodating 

people with disabilities that also improves the usability of the products for the rest of the 

population” (NCD, 2004). A 2004 report of the National Council on Disability, “Design for 

Inclusion: Creating a New Marketplace,” provided an extensive guide to UD.

The government provides funding to support universally designed technologies. For 

example, the U.S. Department of Education’s National Institute for Disability and 

Rehabilitation Research funds a Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center (RERC) 

on Universal Interface and Information Technology, which focuses on the accessibility 

and usability of current and emerging IT. The desired outcome of this research center is 

“seamless integration of the various technologies used by individuals with disabilities in 

the home, the community, and the workplace” (Trace Center).

One area of interest is the integration of UD and AT (NCD, 2004). Another focus is the 

lag time that often occurs between new technological development and accessibility. If 

adaptations to facilitate the incorporation of AT and toolkits were universally 

incorporated into newly developed Web elements, that would reduce the lag between 

such development’s appearance and the point at which it becomes accessible to all 

users (Gibson, 2007). Adaptability is related to accessibility. An adaptable system must 
78

be capable of being flexible, parameterized, integrated, and tailored. Being flexible 

means that generic objects and behaviors that can be interpreted and used differently 

are provided. Being parameterized means the system allows the user to choose 

between alternative behaviors. Being integrated means the system can be integrated 

with other components, internal or external. Being tailored means that users are allowed 

to change the system itself by specializing behavior or adding new functionality (Morch, 

1995).

Media design has traditionally followed a professionally dominated approach, in which 

one can distinguish between design time (when the media are being designed by 

experts) and use time (when the media are being used by people other than the 

designers). A fault of this approach is that “most of the design intelligence is forced to 

the earliest part of the design process, when everyone knows the least about what is 

really needed” (Fischer, 2005). As Brown and Duguid point out, successful design 

should draw on “social resources, even while helping them change” (Brown and Duguid, 

2000: 87).

Participatory design approaches “seek to involve users more deeply in the process as 

co-designers by empowering them to propose and generate design alternatives 

themselves. Participatory design supports diverse ways of thinking, planning, and 

acting, thus making work, technologies, and social institutions more responsive to 

human needs. It requires the social inclusion and active participation of the users” 

(Fischer and Ostwald, 2003).

2.4.4. Possibilities for Meta-design

One step beyond participatory design is meta-design, which shares and transcends the 

characteristics of participatory design. Meta-design empowers the users not only at 

design time, but also throughout use time (ibid). To foster creative production and 

enable diversity of access, socio-technical environments must “not only build new 

technologies but seed new practices, new genres, new communities” (Fischer, 2005: 

24) and put the tools rather than the object of design in the users’ hands, defining 
79

conditions for the process of interaction rather than the process itself (De Kerckhove, 

1995).

“The development of the notion of meta-design can be categorized as critical and 

reflexive thinking about the boundaries and scope of design, aimed at coping with the 

complexity of natural human interaction made tangible by technology. Meta-design 

seeks to transform this complexity into an opportunity for new forms of creativity and 

sociability” (Giaccardi, 2005: 2). Central to meta-design is learning to communicate with 

others who have a different perspective, integrating diversity and making all voices 

heard. This enables informed participation and social creativity in communities of 

interest. The ultimate goal is media-augmented social creativity to make all voices heard 

and integrate diversity (Fischer, 2005). 

Meta-design is a conceptual framework that both encompasses and surpasses 

universal design. It acknowledges economic, social, and technical complexity, and 

offers an environment that can accommodate the diverse and unpredictable needs of a 

heterogeneous population in a changing work environment. Meta-design addresses 

what Fisher and Scarff (2000) see as three necessities for socio-technical 

environments: 

1. They must be flexible and evolve because they cannot be completely 

designed before use.

2. They must evolve to some extent at the hands of the users. 

3. They must be designed for evolution.

The person with a disability becomes a co-developer, an intrinsic part of an interactive 

feedback process (Fischer and Giaccardi, 2004) rather than a reluctantly included 

contributor to ever-lengthening lists of accessibility guidelines that always run a step 

behind the rapid pace of technological change. Meta-designed technology 

encompasses not only accessibility concerns and human-capital needs, but also socialcapital and creativity needs, in line with the needs of the new economy. 
80

2.5. Summary

This section argues that the root of the problem of the employment of people with 

disabilities is deeper than the challenges to do work that a disability may pose, or the 

obstacles to access that a workplace or work equipment might raise. One key element 

of both the ability to find work and of productivity in the workplace is motivation. Any 

consideration of the roles that digital technology and new media could play in the 

employment of people with disabilities must address why that motivation might be weak 

or lacking, before looking at the opportunities offered by the changing socio-technical 

environment of employment.

Work takes place on a socially complex stage, where social capital plays a significant 

role. Because knowledge is generated largely through social interaction, social capital 

(“know-who”) may be more significant organizationally than human capital (“knowhow”). However, human capital is likely to be the first explanation we turn to when 

considering why a person cannot get a job. The human-capital explanation is that 

people who do better are more able, more intelligent, more attractive, more articulate, 

and more skilled. Social capital provides the context to human capital. The social-capital 

metaphor is that the people who do better are somehow better connected. To possess 

social capital, a person must be related to others, usually in a group or a community, 

and it is those others who are the source of his or her social capital. 

When employment does not occur, the root of the problem may lie with the job 

opportunities, with the job seeker (i.e., human capital), or with the mechanisms that 

match the two sides. Explanations for high unemployment among people with 

disabilities traditionally focus on the first two elements. The largely missing or 

underemphasized factor is the matching mechanism and its dependence on social 

capital.

In part, the unemployment experienced by people with disabilities can be attributed to 

this weakness of social capital. In that sense, networks are more important for people
81

with a disability than for the general population. The implications are significant, as the 

effects of networking spread beyond the employer–employee nexus, to self-employment 

and entrepreneurship for people with disabilities. Also, the nature of the social network 

heavily influences job satisfaction, job retention, and career advancement. 

The new economy based on the networking of human knowledge serves as the starting 

point for this research. In the networked information economy, the business world and 

marketable skills are changing, shaped by networked digital technologies, represented 

in this report by the vectors. 

The new economy has been characterized as a “pull model,” based on rich networks of 

social relationships. Social communities are playing a large role in creating value. 

Communities of interest are becoming communities of creation and production. This 

suggests a transformation in the way social communities are perceived, and has 

opened the door to an alternative to individualism and collectivism, called the 

collaborative community. Where both the individualistic and collectivistic social views 

have resulted in dependency for people with disabilities, collaborative communities 

stress the embracing of diversity of skills and competencies and have networks, not 

groups, as the crucial structure, offering the opportunity to recognize and value a wider 

variety of competencies and contributions. 

The Internet underpins the shift to a network-based society, sharing information quickly 

and efficiently, supporting social networking, and in a real sense leveling the playing 

field. The effect of the Internet on the social capital and employment opportunities of 

people with disabilities, and on practical questions of accessibility and technology 

design, is undeniable, and insofar as it underpins collaborative communities, the effect 

is positive. However, a pivotal point to emerge from a study of the different types of 

digital connectivity that the vectors represent is that the positive potential is essentially 

latent, activated only by social interaction. Other key points follow:

For Vector 1, wireless communication platforms are objects, rather than channels or 

processes as with the other five vectors. The success or failure that different mobile 
82

platforms will have in facilitating people with disabilities in an employment setting or in 

searches for work hinges on devices’ ability to accommodate people’s specific needs.

For Vector 2, social networking emerges as a potential game changer in collaborative 

communities, superseding hierarchies and markets as a way of organizing work. 

Technologies are emerging that both respond to and enhance the adoption of the 

collaborative-community model, which in turn energizes social networks and opens up 

the prospects for job opportunities for people with disabilities.

For Vectors 3 and 4, immersive digital environments may provide people with 

disabilities with employment opportunities otherwise unavailable to them, by providing a

functionally accessible work environment for people with physical, sensory, or mobility 

disabilities, by removing barriers of cost and distance, and allowing for more open, 

flexible, and satisfying relationships. 

For Vector 5, open or peer publishing facilitates access to the most important factors of 

production in today’s economy, namely information and networks. Further, the value 

created in a commons-based peer production model is not just economic, but also 

social and personal. It implies more open, accountable relationships and a respect for 

the autonomy of the people in a given commons, an important facilitator for people with 

disabilities. 

For Vector 6, open source processes have radically changed the ways in which people 

collaborate. This situation offers great promise to some sectors of the disability 

community by creating technology beneficial to them, at the same time allowing those 

people with special needs to collaborate on projects that showcase their abilities for 

future employers.

Table 1 summarizes the facilitators and barriers identified in this section.
83

Table 1. Facilitators and Barriers—Section 2 

Vector Facilitators Barriers

The Internet and 

digital technology 

in general

• Making connections

• Finding information

• More options for interaction 

and community participation

• Workplace flexibility enables 

greater diversity of 

opportunities

• Cost

• Unavailability or awareness 

of AT

• Rapid pace of technology 

causes time lag for 

accessible options

• Lack of broadband, 

computer ownership, and 

Internet access

• Lack of digital literacy 

(particularly for people 

aging into disability)

• Fear that special 

accommodations will cause 

social and professional 

stigmatization or isolation

Socialnetworking

• Promotion of solidarity, shared 

identity, activism, pride, and 

self-esteem

• Formation of weak ties, 

professional networks

• Matching employers and

employees

• Privacy and security

concerns
Table 1: Facilitators and Barriers—Section 2(continued) 

Vector Facilitators Barriers 

Immersive Digital • Removes constraints of the 

physical work environment 

• Steep learning curve 

Environments 

• Education and training 

opportunities 

• Community building 

• Space for collaboration and

group meetings 

• Choice of self-representation 

• Entrepreneurship 

opportunities 

• Need access to high 

computing power and 

powerful network 

• Dynamic multimedia 

features often incompatible 

with AT 

• Privacy and security 

concerns 

• Sometimes not taken 

seriously 

• Not relevant to manual 

labor 

84
 
85

SECTION 3. Labor and Business Market Environment

and Trends for the Vectors

3.1. Employment in the Networked Economy

3.1.1. Introduction, Sources, and Methods

3.1.1.1. The Information Economy

In the 1950s, researchers began using the term “post-industrial” to describe the gradual 

expansion of nonagricultural, nonindustrial sections of advanced industrial economies. 

Early studies of the post-industrial economy referred to it as a service economy 

(Verzola, 2005), a reflection of the rapidly increasing share of economic activity taken by 

services from the early 1970s. 

However, the shift to services was only a characteristic, and not the key one, of the 

post-industrial economy (ibid). One of the first authors to recognize the main feature of 

the new emerging economy was Machlup (1962), who used the term “knowledge-based 

industry” to describe it. In 1977, Porat measured and estimated the size of this 

emerging sector and described it as the “information economy,” recognized as the first 

major use of the term (Verzola, 2005).

Porat’s definition of the information economy remains the most commonly cited. He 

distinguishes between two economic domains: the domain of matter and energy 

(including the agricultural and industrial sectors), and the domain of information, which 

he called the information sector.

3.1.1.2. The Networked Economy and the Vectors

The digitization and networking of information have increased both the types of patterns 

information can take and the methods and speed of transformation, leading Kelly to 

propose the term “network economy” (1997, 1998), which Benkler modified to 
86

“networked information economy” (2006). In short, the ways information can be codified, 

communicated, and transmitted are constantly expanding. The technologies that 

facilitate a greater variety of information transformations between greater varieties of 

information patterns are referred to as vectors in this report.

Wireless communication platforms add flexibility and mobility to information processes, 

including social networks. Immersive digital environments affect the way information is 

embodied and experienced, and largely remove geographic constraints to information 

transfer. Commons-based peer production gives more people the capability to find, 

access, use, and transform information. All of these vectors, then, have increased the 

scope and magnitude of the information sector. Of course, the transformative nature of 

the vectors also makes them challenging to measure, as many new uses defy traditional 

classification. 

This section analyzes the employment and business potential of the information sector, 

as seen through the prism of the vectors. The section includes an analysis of industry 

and occupation data sources; the identification of selected “occupations of interest,” 

chosen as vector-relevant areas of job growth; and overviews of each of the vectors, 

including a conventional business analysis combined. Overall the vectors are regarded 

as avenues or conduits to work, rather than targets of potential work areas. However, 

this section also examines the vectors as potential “employment destinations,” i.e., 

areas where people with disabilities may “do” work, in addition to find or create work.

3.1.1.3. Two Sides of the Information Sector

The networked information economy is both growing and changing fast. The 

International Data Corporation (IDC), a research and consulting firm, estimates that one

million new technology-related jobs will be created over the next four or five years—an 

increase of about 10 percent. 

The rapid pace of change has a direct impact on workers: a flexible, well-educated labor 

force is most likely to do well in the information economy (OECD, 1996). The U.S. 
87

Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) publishes the Occupational 

Outlook Handbook (OOH) every other year. The OOH 2010 provides qualitative 

explanations for projected job prospects in many occupational categories. Information 

technology and digital media can be associated with two competing tendencies. On one 

hand, the BLS has high expectations for employment in certain parts of the information 

sector, which map well with the vectors chosen for this research, in particular Vectors 1 

(wireless communication platforms), 2 (social networking), and 5 (open/peer publishing). 

In particular, the OOH frequently notes the growing prospects for self-employment, 

freelancing, and flexible work opportunities facilitated by digital media. Table 2 

summarizes the two sides of the information industry: characteristics of jobs in decline 

and jobs on the increase.

Table 2. The Information Industry: Characteristics of 

Jobs in Decline and on the Increase

Declining Increasing

Data oriented Knowledge oriented

Automated Creative

Off-shore Cultural

Routine Flexible, freelancing

Operating Designing

Processing Interpreting

Traditional media Multimedia
88

Table 2 also reminds us that prospects for manufacturing and “hard” industries are poor, 

as they are part of an apparently inexorable decline, based on the OOH analysis that 

information technology can replace existing manufacturing employment opportunities 

through, for example, automation and off-shoring. 

3.1.1.4. Industry and Occupational Data Sources

Four major sources of data were identified for use in assembling vector-relevant 

industrial and occupational data, in order to give a factual basis for estimating 

employment prospects for the near future. Those sources were the North American 

Industry Classification System (NAICS); the U.S. Census Bureau’s Economic Census; 

the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the U.S. Department of Labor; and nongovernment 

sources.4 The latter included First Research, a division of Hoover’s Inc. and a provider 

of market-analysis tools. First Research industry specialists study a wide range of 

primary and secondary sources, including trade publications, company annual reports, 

and SEC filings such as 10Ks, in addition to government sources. This allows for a 

more general overview of the information sector (see Appendix 3). Another nonfederal 

resource used in this report is the research and consulting firm International Data 

Corporation (IDC).

3.1.2. Occupations of Interest

Based on the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Standard Occupational 

Classification (SOC) system, the occupational groups and occupations most related to 

digital media were selected for cross-industry analysis, focusing on occupational 

categories expected to grow at or above average. For each selected occupational group 

and occupation, the National Employment Matrix 2008–18 was used to obtain data on 

the number of jobs held in 2008 and the projected growth or decline in employment from 

2008 to 2018. Self-employment figures and projections were also obtained, as these 

may be of interest to people with disabilities or others seeking flexible or nontraditional 

employment.
89

Employment growth of 7 to 13 percent from 2008 to 2018 is considered “about as fast 

as average” according to economists in the BLS Office of Occupational Statistics and 

Employment Projections, indicating that anything above 13 percent is above average, 

and therefore “of interest.” The following selections are ranked in order of extent the 

projection exceeds the average.

3.1.2.1. Computer Specialists

Network systems and data communications analysts held 292,000 jobs in 2008. This 

occupation is expected to grow 53 percent by 2018, for a gain of 155,800 jobs, 

placing it among the fastest growing occupations. The occupation is expected to grow in 

every NAICS sector of the economy. There were 56,600 self-employed network 

systems and data communications analysts in 2008, expected to increase 55 percent

by 2018, for a gain of 31,100 jobs.

Computer software engineers held 909,600 jobs in 2008. This occupation is expected 

to grow 32 percent by 2018, for a gain of 295,200 jobs. There were 24,600 selfemployed computer software engineers in 2008, expected to increase 27 percent by 

2018, for a gain of 6,800 jobs. “Software engineers design and develop many types of 

software, including computer games, business applications, operating systems, network 

control systems, and middleware.... Demand for computer software engineers will 

increase as computer networking continues to grow.... The increasing uses of the 

Internet, the proliferation of Web sites, and mobile technology such as the wireless 

Internet have created a demand for a wide variety of new products. As more software is 

offered over the Internet, and as businesses demand customized software to meet their 

specific needs, applications and systems software engineers will be needed in greater 

numbers. In addition, the growing use of handheld computers will create demand for 

new mobile applications and software systems” (OOH, 2010).

Computer and information scientists, research held 909,600 jobs in 2008. This 

occupation is expected to grow 24 percent by 2018, for a gain of 7,000 jobs. There 

were 1,300 self-employed computer scientists in 2008, expected to increase 
90

17 percent by 2018, for a gain of 200 jobs. “Employment of these computer specialists 

is expected to grow as individuals and organizations continue to demand increasingly 

sophisticated technologies. Job increases will be driven, in part, by very rapid growth in 

computer systems design and related services industry, as well as the software 

publishing industry, which are projected to be among the fastest growing industries in 

the U.S. economy. Computer scientists develop the theories that allow many new 

technologies to be developed. The demand for increasing efficiency in areas such as 

networking technology, computing speeds, software performance, and embedded 

systems will lead to employment growth. In addition, the growing emphasis on 

information security will lead to new jobs” (OOH, 2010).

Network and computer systems administrators held 339,500 jobs in 2008. This 

occupation is expected to grow 23 percent by 2018, for a gain of 78,900 jobs. There 

were 2,600 self-employed network and computer systems administrators in 2008, 

expected to increase 5 percent by 2018, for a gain of 100 jobs.

The computer specialists occupational group represented 2.27 percent of all 

employment in the U.S. economy, or 3,424,300 jobs, in 2008. By 2018 this occupational 

group is expected to represent 2.52 percent of all employment, or 4,187,000 jobs. This 

is employment growth of 22.3 percent, for a gain of 762,700 jobs. Self-employment in 

this occupational group will increase even more, from 154,600 self-employed workers in 

2008 to 198,500 in 2018, which represents 28.4 percent growth, a gain of 43,900 new 

jobs.

The occupations in the computer specialists occupational group include computer and 

information scientists, research; computer programmers; computer software engineers; 

computer support specialists; computer systems analysts; database administrators; 

network and computer systems administrators; network systems and data 

communications analysts; and all other computer specialists.

Database administrators held 120,400 jobs in 2008. This occupation is expected to 

grow 20 percent by 2018, for a gain of 24,400 jobs. Self-employment is rare for this 
91

occupation, with only 700 self-employed database administrators in 2008, a figure that 

is not expected to change by 2018.

Computer support specialists held 565,700 jobs in 2008. This occupation is expected 

to grow 14 percent by 2018, for a gain of 78,000 jobs. There were 6,700 self-employed 

computer support specialists in 2008, expected to increase 12 percent by 2018, for a 

gain of 800 jobs.

It is noteworthy that the category of computer programmer is projected to decline, both

as an employed and as a self-employed category. “Advances in programming 

languages and tools, the growing ability of users to write and implement their own 

programs, and the offshore outsourcing of programming jobs will contribute to this 

decline” (OOH, 2010).

3.1.2.2. Computer Hardware and Electrical Engineers/Engineering 

Technicians

Within the engineering occupational group, computer hardware engineers and electrical 

engineers are the occupations directly related to digital media. Within the engineering 

technician occupational group, electrical and electronic engineering technicians were

the selected occupation.

Computer hardware engineers held 74,700 jobs in 2008. This occupation is expected to 

grow by only 4 percent by 2018, for a gain of 2,800 jobs. “Although the use of 

information technology continues to expand rapidly, the manufacture of computer 

hardware is expected to be adversely affected by intense foreign competition” (OOH, 

2010). The occupation categories of electrical engineers and electrical and electronic 

engineering technicians are both expected to decline. 
92

3.1.2.3. Media and Communication Occupations

Again, following the BLS Office of Occupational Statistics and Employment Projections, 

anything above 13 percent growth is above average, and therefore “of interest.”

Overall, the media and communications occupational group represented 827,200 jobs in 

2008. This occupational group is expected to increase 12.7 percent by 2018, for a 

gain of 310,700 jobs, effectively putting it in the “of interest” category. While this entire 

occupational group depends on digital media to one degree or another, several 

occupations within the group are most directly related to digital media: editors; technical 

writers; writers and authors; and news analysts, reporters, and correspondents. The 

following selections are ranked in order of extent the projection exceeds the average.

Editors held 129,600 jobs in 2008. This is expected to decline 0.3 percent by 2018, for a 

loss of 400 jobs. The decline is more drastic in non-Internet publishing industries, where 

employment is expected to shrink 16 percent. However, prospects are much better for 

editors in data processing, hosting, related services, and other information services 

(42 percent increase) and in software publishing (29 percent increase). There were 

15,700 self-employed editors in 2008, expected to increase 5 percent by 2018, for a 

gain of 800 jobs.

Technical writers held 48,900 jobs in 2008. This occupation is expected to grow 

18 percent by 2018, for a gain of 8,900 jobs. There were 1,000 self-employed technical 

writers in 2008, expected to increase 15 percent by 2018, for a gain of 200 jobs.

Writers and authors held 151,700 jobs in 2008. This occupation is expected to grow 

15 percent by 2018, for a gain of 22,500 jobs. There were 105,200 self-employed 

writers and authors in 2008, expected to increase 16 percent by 2018, for a gain of 

16,700 jobs.

Employment of news analysts, reporters, and correspondents is expected to decline 

overall. However, improving technology may eventually lead to employment growth in 
93

this occupation by opening up new areas of work, such as online or mobile news 

divisions (OOH, 2010). Again, though general job prospects are declining, technology is 

facilitating self-employment. In 2008, there were 11,900 self-employed reporters and 

correspondents, which is expected to increase 14 percent by 2018, for a gain of 

1,700 new jobs (BLS).

3.1.2.4. Artists and Animators

Multimedia artists and animators held 79,000 jobs in 2008. This occupation is expected 

to grow 14.2 percent by 2018, for a gain of 11,200 jobs. In 2008, there were 

47,400 self-employed multimedia artists and animators (60 percent of this occupation), 

expected to grow 6 percent by 2018, for a gain of 3,000 jobs. 

Note that nearly all of the fastest growing occupations described above are from the 

computer-specialist occupation group. Also note that the 12 fastest growing occupations 

identified require a bachelor’s degree or higher, while the nine fastest declining 

occupations require postsecondary vocational awards or on-the-job training only.

3.2. The Business Market Environment for the Vectors

All the vectors are located in the technology sector, as described by the Department of 

Labor. The technology sector in the United States (according to First Research 

definition—see Appendix 3) includes more than 140,000 companies with combined 

annual revenue of about $900 billion. Average annual revenue per worker is about

$300,000 (First Research, 2009). Hence, the technology sector overall represents 

approximately three million jobs.
94

3.2.1. Vector 1: Wireless Communication Platforms

3.2.1.1. V1: Business Background

Since the 1975 introduction of the world’s first personal computer, the MITS Altair 8080, 

technology related to personal computing has revolutionized the way people in modern 

society function. In particular, personal computers have changed the world of work, 

facilitating data assembly, analysis, storage, and retrieval; document production; 

publishing and presentations; teleworking and geographically dispersed project teams;

and communications in general. As the tangible beginning and end-point of social 

networking, virtual worlds, serious gaming, peer publishing, open-source processes, 

and personal and tablet computers, along with smart phones and gaming consoles, 

underpin the digital communications that the vectors represent.

The relative newness of mobile platforms, coupled with their extraordinary growth, 

makes it difficult to identify trends in pricing and business models for the mobile platform 

industry, but one newly established reality is clear: the mobile Web, referring to 

browser-based access to the Internet or Web applications using a mobile device 

connected to a wireless network. The advent of mobile services and content gives 

unprecedented access to information (such as news, weather, and contacts), 

communications (such as email and SMS), and services. In 2009, for the first time in the 

United States, the amount of data in text, email messages, streaming video, music, and 

other services on mobile devices surpassed the amount of voice data in cell-phone calls 

(Wortham, 2010).

By 2011, more than 85 percent of new handsets will be able to access the mobile Web, 

many with 3G.5

 In order of importance, the key drivers for mobile use are predicted to 

be money transfer, location-based services, mobile search, mobile browsing, mobile 

health monitoring, mobile payment, near-field-communication services, mobile 

advertising, instant messaging, and mobile music (MobiThinking, 2010). Mobile 

applications, which consist of software running on mobile devices and performing a

large number of functions, are witness to explosive growth. In 2010, the top 10 mobile 
95

application channels by revenue ranking were gaming (accounting for 58 percent of 

revenue) followed by social networking, weather, entertainment, news, sports, 

education and employment, utilities, music, and shopping (Millenial Media, 2010).

Social networking growth is extraordinary. Twitter use via mobile browsers rose 

347 percent from January 2009 to January 2010, while Facebook mobile browser use 

rose 112 percent, making social networking one of the most popular and fastestgrowing behaviors on the mobile Web (comScore, 2010). In January 2010, more than 

30 percent of smart phone owners accessed a social networking site via smart phone 

(ibid). Social networks inherently reflect connections from person to person, rather than 

from computer station to computer station, and are well suited to mobile devices that 

are essentially personal.

A Fast-Growing Market

IDC forecasts that the U.S. mobile broadband market will grow from 6.5 million 

subscribers in 2009 to 30.2 million in 2014, for a compound annual growth rate of 

36.1 percent. IDC notes that the market for mobile broadband connectivity for portable 

computers has been slow to gain momentum, but in the past 18 months the U.S. market 

has taken significant steps toward broader adoption beyond the traditional mobile 

worker.

3.2.1.2. V1: Business and Social Trends

Wireless communication platforms—also called mobile platforms, mobile operating 

systems, or wireless platforms—are identified for the purposes of this research as 

mobile telephony, computers, and gaming devices. These categories are not fixed, as 

the technological developments represented by devices like the iPad or the Kindle or 

the latest generations of smart phones quickly blur functional distinctions. The focus is 

on the applicability and potential of these platforms to aid in the employment of people 

with disabilities. 
96

The Dispersed Workforce

Several of the participants in the user study carried out for this report were enthusiastic 

about the unrealized potential of telework, for which mobile communication platforms 

play a vital supporting role. As information and communication technology progresses, 

encouraging growth in the number of people who participate in teleworking and other 

forms of mobile collaboration, companies have taken a variety of approaches to 

incorporating mobile platforms into their work environments. One of these, known as the 

dispersed workforce, involves the collaboration of geographically decentralized people

on a common project or job. The concept of a dispersed workforce is broader than 

telework, as it also encompasses the ability for an employee to travel from a central 

office to another location for temporary strategic collaboration. According to one survey, 

there were already 34 million Americans working at least occasionally from home by 

2009, a figure projected to grow to 63 million by 2016 (Schadler, 2009).

This growth in a dispersed workforce not only provides employment opportunities for 

people regardless of location, but also provides job opportunities for previously 

inaccessible populations. Examples could include those people with disabilities for 

whom finding transportation to an office is a major obstacle, working parents who want 

to remain with their children, and students tied down by an inflexible academic schedule 

(Paradise, 2008).

The dispersed-workforce approach seems to omit or downplay the optional nature of 

mobile working, leading Venzia et al. to propose an alternate approach based on value 

network analysis, and to define the mobile worker as “an employee who has choices 

concerning how, when and why they work” (Venzia et al., 2008: 61), Distancing itself 

from other, organization-centric methods, value-network analysis focuses on “attempts 

to determine the value generating interactions between people in a network” (ibid: 64). 

This includes both tangible value (the direct contracted or mandated value of the 

assigned tasks) and intangible value (the value generated from the interaction of 

players within the network, but not necessarily the formal outputs of the company or 
97

organization). Examples of intangible value include deepening business relationships or

increased efficiency.

Venzia et al. note that any “one size fits all” method of mobile working leads to 

inefficiency and employee dissatisfaction (ibid). Many companies started with the 

assumption that their mobile employees were constantly traveling and needed 

technology to accommodate that reality; however, Venzia’s study found that most 

mobile workers saw themselves as more productive working from home, and that these

home offices closely resembled traditional office workspaces. At the same time, a 

significant number of workers expressed a strong desire for a physical, collaborative 

workspace at their office headquarters. The study dismissed many misconceptions 

about mobile teleworkers. While the assumption was that the average mobile user was

young and female, the research indicated that 65 percent were male and over the age 

of 40. The technology needs of the mobile worker were found to vary according to their 

role, but all the mobile workers required a laptop, cell phone, and method of 

interpersonal communication (ibid). While the research did not directly address the 

needs of the disability community, there seems no reason why people with disabilities 

could not take on the corporate roles that authors found were most common among 

participants in mobile working—consultants, problem solvers, and managerial or 

leadership roles (ibid)—provided appropriate assistive technology was in place to allow 

this kind of remote collaboration.

Questions remain about how suitable teleworking and other forms of mobile 

collaboration are to different organizations. A fit-viability study of firms to discover the 

effectiveness of mobile technology in the workplace recommended caution before an 

organization introduced such a change. The study found that the vast majority of 

businesses studied had high fit, where fit is the extent to which the new network 

applications are consistent with the core structure, value, and culture of an organization. 

However, the study found low viability for the introduction of mobile technology, where 

viability measures the extent to which the infrastructure of an organization is ready for 

the technological change (Liang et al., 2007: 1159).
98

Collaboration-Centric Analysis

Because technology makes collaboration more easily accessible does not necessarily 

translate into improved communications. Kakihara and Sorensen examine how the 

increased accessibility and flexibility provided by mobile platforms aid or disrupt a 

person’s ability to complete “fluid mobile work” (Kakihara et al., 2002). Asynchronous 

communications allow the recipient of a message to delay replying, at the expense of 

the sender. This leads to contrasting “interactive” and “interpassive” communications, 

with interactive implying communication and collaboration between two or more people 

around a shared object, while interpassive indicates a situation in which an individual is 

passive in interactions with others. In other words, the nature of the communication may 

affect the efficiency of the collaboration.

Collaboration may become an end in itself. In the current business and technological 

environment, it is virtually impossible to avoid being part of a team, especially since the 

geographic barriers that often prevented collaboration have been overcome by 

technological advance (Beurer-Zuelig and Meckel, 2008; Belov et al., 2005). In their 

empirical study of wireless communications among employees from 16 German 

companies, Beurer-Zullig and Mechel found that the workers who were most open to 

the introduction of mobile technology perceive themselves as more productive than their 

less technologically inclined counterparts (op. cit.).

Mazmanian et al. discuss how the advent of wireless email devices (WEDs) affect 

social, spatial, and temporal interactions by professionals and their organizations, and 

professionals and their spouses. Preliminary results indicate that WEDs have changed 

workplace interaction by making professionals constantly available, regardless of time 

or location. While the study also suggested that WEDs allow for monitoring as well as 

being monitored, there is an increased expectation of responsiveness by all parties 

involved, regardless of gender, hierarchy, or family life (Mazmanian et al., 2005). The 

preeminence of work was also identified by Beurer-Zuellig and Mickel (2008), who 

found that the use of mobile email positively affected mobile business because of 

“extended reachability and timely provision of information.”
99

Ultimately, the success or failure that many aspects of mobile platforms will have with 

regard to their ability to accommodate people with disabilities in an employment setting

or in endeavors to find work hinges on their ability to accommodate a person’s specific 

needs.

Wireless Communication Platforms and People with Disabilities

The phrase mobile accessibility is often used not in the context of disability, but of 

making the Web as accessible on mobile platforms as on desktop platforms. But 

interestingly, users of mobile devices and people with disabilities experience similar 

barriers when interacting with Web content. For example, mobile phone users and 

people with mobility or dexterity disabilities can have a hard time if a Web site’s 

navigation requires the use of a mouse (Web Accessibility Initiative). The Web Content 

Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), a guide for making Web sites accessible to people 

with disabilities, has a number of overlaps with the Mobile Web Best Practices (MWBP), 

a guide for making Web sites usable from a mobile device. For instance, the MWBP 

best practice “Label all form controls appropriately and explicitly associate labels with 

form controls” corresponds with the WCAG technique of “Using label elements to 

associate text labels with form controls” (Web Accessibility Initiative). Following both 

sets of guidelines makes Web content more accessible for a wider variety of people on 

a wider range of devices.

Wireless Internet access is of course a critical component of mobile platforms. The 

FCC’s National Broadband Plan includes several accessibility initiatives for people with 

disabilities. In a statement regarding these initiatives, CTIA President Steve Largent 

claimed that “mobile Internet to the person significantly improves the quality of life for 

individuals with disabilities through new opportunities in employment, education, health 

care, and public safety. CTIA and our member companies agree with the FCC that all 

Americans should have equal access to wireless communications.... As wireless 

carriers compete with each other on service plans and mobile devices for individuals 

with disabilities, they are providing this community with innovative offerings—such as 

built-in accessibility features, compatibility with Assistive Technology (‘AT’) or 
100

downloadable applications to replace expensive, immobile assistive communication 

devices at significantly lower prices. Most importantly, due to the wireless industry’s 

commitment to key accessibility issues, a recent survey showed that the barriers for 

people with disabilities to adopt wireless have been lowered, and their satisfaction with 

wireless services and products increase” (Largent, 2010).

Technology

Over the past few years, smart phones “have opened up a new world of communication 

and convenience to consumers with disabilities worldwide” (Axistive, 2007). The rise of 

mobile telephony has opened new opportunities for seniors with different levels of 

physical restrictions due to aging. Mobile technology allows not only ubiquitous 

communications, but also anytime access to some services vital for seniors’ security 

and autonomy (Abascal and Civit, 2001). A system called MUSEpad could be used to 

help people with disabilities in informal learning environments such as museums (Waite 

et al., 2005). Voice activation on mobile devices is an option for people with low vision 

or dexterity (Bennett, 2010).

Electronic schedulers and personal digital assistants can be helpful for people with 

intellectual or information-processing disabilities like dyslexia, who have difficulty with 

reading, writing, short-term memory, or time management. Mobile note-taking, 

reminders, and spellchecking features are particularly useful to these individuals 

(Bennett, 2010).

A prototype interface system for a mobile phone and accompanying speech-generating 

device enable users who cannot speak to independently initiate, answer, conduct, and 

terminate voice calls, as well as send text messages. Trials show that the system gives 

users a sense of independence, safety, and security, and also contributed to improving 

their communication skills, leading to the self-confidence to engage in conversation and 

social activities (Nguyen et al., 2008).

T-mobile’s Sidekick has traditionally been adopted by the deaf for its text-friendly 

keyboard, email accessibility, and text-only plan options, which allow deaf users to 
101

communicate more readily with those around them. When T-mobile had a system 

outage disconnecting deaf users from their communication lifeline, the deaf 

community’s outcry indicated the extent to which the device had become an important 

part of their everyday lives (Fried, 2009). Lately, T-mobile’s deaf user base is migrating 

to more advanced smart phones, such as Blackberry and iPhone, to make use of their 

increasingly advanced capabilities (Fried, 2009).

Mobility, Telework, and People with Disabilities

In the contemporary business environment it is virtually impossible to avoid being part of 

a team, especially since geographic barriers that once prevented collaboration have 

been overcome by technological advance (Beurer-Zuelig and Meckel, 2008). The 

absence of borders of these collaborations necessitates asynchronous communication 

to compensate for differences in culture and time between collaborators. Therefore, it 

stands to reason that this expectation of dispersed and asynchronous communication 

will make it easier to accommodate those people who have a limited ability to move 

around. An advantage of modern synchronous communication is that mobile 

collaborative systems allow “improvised synchronous intellectual teamwork among 

geographically diverse participants” on mobile computing devices (Belov et al., 2005).

Much of the literature on mobile platforms has focused on the concepts related to 

telework: hot desking, the dispersed workforce, and mobile workers. Hot desking is the 

strategy of abandoning fixed desks and providing laptops, cell phones, and Internet 

connections so employees can work where they choose (Brown and Duguid, 2000). A 

dispersed workforce involves the collaboration of geographically decentralized people

on a common project or job, and may provide employment opportunities for previously 

unreachable populations including people with disabilities for whom finding 

transportation to an office is an often insurmountable obstacle (Paradise, 2008). A 

mobile worker is “an employee who has choices concerning how, when and why they 

work” (Venzia et al., 2008).

A noted problem with telework is “a misunderstanding of office work, which is too easily 

painted as information handling....The idea of managers working remotely with 
102

information inevitably ignores the much more difficult, intangible, but inevitably face-toface side of management, the management not of things or of information, but of 

people” (Brown and Duguid, 2000). Further, “the facts of office life reveal a combination 

of technological frailty and social resourcefulness. Infoenthusiasts, however, tend to 

think of these the other way around, missing the role of the social fabric and assuming 

that individuals in isolation can do it all” (ibid). A “one size fits all” method of mobile 

working can lead to inefficiency and employee dissatisfaction in the workplace (Venzia 

et al., 2008). Concerns emerge regarding increased marginalization and stigmatization 

that may occur due to the lack of direct interaction with managers, or discrimination that 

may occur among these workers, particularly with regard to promotions (Baker and

Fairchild, 2005).

Other studies paint a favorable picture of telework, claiming that teleworkers often 

perform more and better work, meet deadlines better, and are better able to juggle 

multiple priorities and deadlines than their counterparts working in the office (Stanley 

and Messinger, 2007). A study of the relationship between telework and social 

participation concluded that teleworking could be considered as a community-friendly 

form of work (Kamerade and Burchell, 2003). The National Telecommuting Institute 

believes that over the next two years it will be able to double the number of people with 

disabilities it places in in-home jobs (from 400 to 800 annually), and that broadband will 

be key to its success (Lyle, 2010). “Overall, telecommuting is an increasingly useful and 

requested way to work. Not only does it help employers and employees in general, but it 

is likely the workforce will include more people with disabilities if telework reaches the 

mainstream” (Stanley and Messinger, 2007: 3).

3.2.2. Vector 2: Social Networking

3.2.2.1. V2: Business Background

Social networking is defined as Web-based services where individuals construct a 

public or semipublic profile within a bounded system; articulate a list of other users with 

whom they share a connection; and view and traverse their list of connections and 
103

those made by others within the system (Ellison et al., 2007). FireFly, Friendster, and 

Orkut were precursors to today’s major social-network sites such as Facebook and 

LinkedIn. Social-networking sites are gaining a major share of the Web’s content, 

communications, and commerce (Rayport, 2010). Social networks can be described as 

platforms that encourage the discovery of relationships between individuals, links that 

emerge through family, friends, school, work, location, hobbies, interests and much 

more. Creating a profile on a social-networking site adds the individual to an 

increasingly global social-networking map.

Before 1997, dating Web sites were the only sites to allow users to construct a public 

profile within a bounded system. These sites allowed users to search other user profiles 

to find potential romantic interests. Little security or privacy was afforded to early users, 

and no traverse connections were possible. Classmates.com allowed users to connect 

with high-school or college classmates. Users could search for other users with similar 

backgrounds, and were given contact information with which they could connect with 

former classmates. Once found, any communication was made through email, 

telephone, or postal mail. Again, security and privacy prevented widespread early 

adoption.

In 1997, SixDegrees.com merged aspects of dating sites and Classmates.com, allowing 

users to create profiles, search for users, find friends of friends (traverse connections), 

and connect by sending messages on the Web site, becoming the first site to meet the 

three characteristics of a social-networking site as described by Ellison. Users were 

able to search profiles of previously connected contacts, allowing for a more viral and 

widespread network. This marked the beginning of the social-networking phenomenon. 

By 2000, low revenues pushed SixDegrees.com out of business. Many users 

complained about the lack of other users on the network, as well as the site’s limited 

functionality—once a connection was made, most people did not know what else to do 

(Ellison, 2007).

Other social-networking sites were established in the late 1990’s, focused mostly on 

special topics or minority populations, as were blogs that offered features similar to 
104

social-networking sites, such as Xanga (1998) and LiveJournal (1999). AsianAvenue, 

BlackPlanet, and Migente were all targeted to minority populations within regional 

boundaries (connecting people of Asian descent in New York, for example). Ryze 

(2001), LinkedIn (2003), and XING (2003) were established specifically for the 

development of business networks (Ellison, 2007). Habbo (2000), Skyrock (2002), and 

Friendster (2002) served as forerunners to MySpace and Facebook, currently the two 

most popular and financially successful social-networking services, begun in 2003 and 

2004, respectively. 

Now, with hundreds of millions of users worldwide, social-networking sites enable users 

to connect or reconnect to other individuals at speed and with ease. This network 

facilitation is responsible for hundreds of thousands of new connections each year—for 

friendship, romance, and professional relationships. Online social networking sites 

support the maintenance of existing social ties and the formation of new connections 

(Ellison et al., 2007). The most common uses and gratifications in Facebook, for 

instance, include social connection, shared identities, content, social investigation, 

social-network surfing, and status updating (Joinson, 2008). A study of college students 

demonstrates a robust connection between Facebook use and indicators of social 

capital (Ellison, op. cit.).

Several explanations are offered for the popularity of social-networking sites to maintain 

existing social ties in the United States. First, by the end of the last century, the 

increasing tendency for families to move for job-related reasons was a cause of socialcapital deterioration (Putnam, 2000). Second, students often move a greater distance to 

attend college, and again upon graduating from college become geographically 

separated from established social networks. Social-networking sites help with the 

maintenance of contacts (Ellison et al., 2007).

Within the business and workplace domain, several corporate services like Ryze, 

Visible Path, and openBC are gaining traction, but the clear leader is LinkedIn (Salz, 

2006). This platform currently has over 55 million members in over 200 countries with 

executives from all Fortune 500 companies as members with profiles (LinkedIn). As 
105

social-networking sites become a major mechanism for matching potential employees 

with potential employers, access to such sites, and to the right connections within them, 

will be important for finding work.

Social-Networking Sites and People with Disabilities

By lowering barriers to interaction and encouraging more self-disclosure, online-network 

tools may be particularly useful for individuals who otherwise have difficulties forming 

and maintaining both strong and weak ties (Ellison et al., 2007). As discussed earlier, 

this can be the case for people with disabilities (Potts, 2005; Schur et al., 2005; Atkins 

and Guisti, 2003; Leitman et al., 1994).

Within Facebook, disability-related groups are easily found, including the Coalition of 

Texans with Disabilities, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Disability Policy 

Consortium, Campaign for Disability Employment, Deaf Equal Access Foundation (DEAF), 

and the Arc of the United States. It is common for users to post questions, advice, and 

words of encouragement related to topics such as parenting, education, work, 

relationships, and health. People with disabilities report problems with self-esteem and fear 

as barriers to workplace accessibility (Yeager et al., 2006), and many of the 

communications on these groups address these issues positively. The groups generally 

promote solidarity, shared identity, activism, and pride, and thus have a positive effect on 

social and cultural accessibility. There is also a large awareness component to the groups. 

Group members post and discuss relevant news items, events, policies, and opportunities. 

For example, the DEAF group page has a posting about the chance to win a free Amplified 

Telephone, and the Job Accommodation Network page (a service of the Office of Disability 

Employment Policy of the U.S. Department of Labor) posts legislative updates and 

resources to help workers with disabilities understand their rights.

Along with well-known broad-based social and professional networking sites, there are 

niche social-networking sites relevant to people with disabilities. For instance, Blueverse 

(www.blueredefined.org) is a community committed to creating social and creative 

opportunities for people who have disabilities, hospitalized, or in an assisted-living 

environment. The site includes BlueVerse.net, a social-networking site aimed at 
106

developing an online community specifically for the people with disabilities and their 

friends, and facilitating the donation of devices and video games that can be used for 

physical therapy, encourage physical and social activity, and inject relief and 

entertainment into an environment that is otherwise extraordinarily challenging. 

The Current Social-Networking Industry

Today social-networking sites are the fourth most visited sites on the Web, trailing only 

search sites, general-interest portals and communities, and software manufacturers. It 

is estimated that more than 66 percent of worldwide Internet users belong to a socialnetworking site (Nielsen, 2009). More noteworthy, though, is the growth in the time 

spent on these sites. In 2010, nine out of every 10 Internet users visited a socialnetworking site each month. Social-networking sites accounted for 12 percent of all time 

spent online in 2010, with the average Internet user spending more than 4.5 hours on 

these sites each month. Globally, social networking accounts for 15.6 percent of online 

time among those ages 15 and older (comScore, 2011).

3.2.2.2. V2: Business and Social Trends

The Idea of the Collaborative Community

Following the Industrial Revolution, some social analysts were concerned that 

urbanization and bureaucratization would lead to a mass society typified by segmented, 

impersonal relations, and that individualism would take the place of community ties and 

sociability. The argument about a mass society was challenged by ethnographers and 

survey analysts, who documented the persistence of supportive community relations. 

Since the 1970s, with the additional tool of social-network analysis, community theorists 

have suggested a new community model, called the collaborative community. 

Corporations, computers, and communities are characterized by networks, and these 

networks are inherently social (Wellman, 2001). Adler and Heckscher (2006) apply 

community theory to the corporate world. They suggest that the collaborative corporate 

community, based on social networks, can replace hierarchies and markets as a way of 

organizing work. Technologies are emerging that both respond to and enhance the 
107

adoption of the collaborative-community model, casting an interesting light both on 

social networks and on the potential for job opportunities.

Networks and Work

Social networks pervade the world of business and work. For example, networks are 

key to understanding commerce, as they characterize trade relations, consumer–

producer interactions, the labor market, and both inter- and intra-corporation structures. 

Networks may function as a deterrent to economic opportunism, as a purveyor of 

commercial and labor opportunities, and as a viable alternative to hierarchical 

bureaucratic structure in corporations (Rauch, 2001).

Networks also play a “characteristics knowledge” role—that is, networks transmit 

information about current opportunities for profitable interactions by enabling agents’ 

characteristics to be matched to opportunities. Networks provide a matching and referral 

service that has been studied in international trade.

Network inclusion or exclusion may largely govern resource distribution, a point directly 

relevant to the situation of people with disabilities who may feel or create a sense of 

exclusion from social networks.

The role of networks in matching characteristics with opportunities is important not only 

in trade but also in the labor market, where social networks mediate employment 

opportunities and match employer needs with employee characteristics. Empirical 

studies reveal that typically around 50 percent of individuals obtain or hear about jobs 

through friends and family (Corcoran et al., 1980; Holzer, 1988; Montgomery, 1991; 

Addison and Portugal, 2002).

Such methods have the advantage that they are relatively less costly and may provide 

more reliable information about jobs compared to other methods. Networks of personal 

contacts mediate employment opportunities, which flow through word-of-mouth and, in 

many cases, constitute a valid alternative source of employment information to more formal 

methods (Patacchini and Zenou, 2008).
108

Calvó-Armengol and Jackson (2004) model the role of networks in employment status, and 

show that in the long run, any interconnected workers’ employment status is positively 

correlated: employed workers tend to be connected to employed workers. If a set of people 

is employed, other people in their network are more likely to hear about and obtain 

employment opportunities. Network density, structure, symmetries, and path lengths 

between people are all relevant to employment status. It is in the interest of employmentseekers to position themselves strategically in social and professional networks.

The interest in networks as purveyors of opportunities comes from the employer side as 

well. Recruiters at Microsoft and Starbucks, for instance, troll online networks such as 

LinkedIn for potential job candidates. Goldman Sachs and Deloitte run their own online 

alumni networks for hiring back former workers and strengthening bonds with alumnicum-possible clients. Boston Consulting Group and law firm Duane Morris deploy 

enterprise software that tracks employee communications to uncover useful

connections in other companies (King, 2006).

Corporations as Collaborative Communities

Corporations are not only a component of external trade and employment networks; 

they are themselves becoming networks. Although social networks have always 

pervaded organizations, it is only recently that some analysts have proclaimed the 

proliferation of organizations structured around such networks (Quan-Haase and 

Wellman, 2005). By the 1990s, technologists, economists, and corporate strategists 

foresaw a changing environment for value creation. The term “organizational learning,” 

first coined in Senge’s The Fifth Discipline in 1990, refers to knowledge acquisition, 

information distribution, information interpretation, and organizational memory (Huber, 

1991). By the start of the 21st century, 80 percent of a company’s market value was 

determined not by cash, buildings, or equipment, but by intangible factors such as 

intellectual and human capital (Weatherly, 2003). This new business environment was 

accompanied by a shift in the structure of work relations.

Throughout human history, people have cooperated as members of shared long-term 

communities where personal reputations were well known. The most effective 
109

organizations in previous decades fostered this type of community, using loyalty as the 

base for both bureaucratic structure and market relations with key suppliers and 

customers. Now these arrangements are seriously compromised. Within organizations, 

people are asked constantly to cross boundaries—to work with people “outside the 

community” and who are different from themselves. Increasingly, work requires flexible 

cooperation across functions, divisions, and levels within organizations, leading to the 

development of “norms and processes for a goal-oriented type of cooperation which we 

call a collaborative community” (Heckscher and Alder, 2006).

Studies show that one of the most effective channels for disseminating institutional 

knowledge and expertise within an organization is informal networks of colleagues and 

friends (Kraut et al., 1990; Wasserman and Galaskiewicz, 1994). Social capital (“knowwho”) may be a more significant organizational aspect than human capital (“know-how”) 

(Downes, 2004). Heckscher and Alder (2006) point to IBM as a prime example of a 

corporation that has internalized this, adopting the structure, values, and character of a 

collaborative community. While a traditional bureaucratic structure seeks to create

clarity by ensuring that each person has a defined role that matches accountability, the 

new IBM breaks this traditional rule: people are expected to take responsibility for things 

they cannot fully control and that they will move outside the zone of their formal 

accountability. While in a traditional bureaucracy, power and influence flow downward, 

the collaborative approach includes high levels of participation, as processes are 

defined and refined over time by input from all levels. In terms of its value system, IBM 

has shifted toward a focus on contribution to collective company goals. Variable pay is 

now based largely on assessments of the individual’s contribution to IBM.

Latent Social Networks

Computer-mediated communication (CMC) facilitates the interdependent process 

management that characterizes the structure of collaborative communities. CMC makes 

communications fast, accessible, cheap, and convenient, and allows for leaping over 

workgroup and organizational boundaries, regardless of distance or the number involved 

(Quan-Haase and Wellman, 2005).
110

CMC may enable or enhance the structure of collaborative communities, but it is the 

values and character of a collaborative community that motivates interactions and 

activates a network. For instance, the uses and gratifications in Facebook that make it 

an active network include social connection, shared identities, content, social 

investigation, social network surfing, and status updating (Joinson, 2008). In other 

words, the technical infrastructure for connectivity—the Internet, intranets, wireless 

connectivity, grid computing, telephone lines, cellular service, community networking 

initiatives, or neighborhood networks, and the devices that access them (phones, cell 

phones, computers, gaming consoles)—is essentially latent, and is activated only by 

some sort of social interaction, a phone call, an email message, a visit to a Web site, 

and so on (Haythornthwaite, 2005).

The motivations for the activation of latent networks are not necessarily social. 

Research on the use of social software in corporate environments (Jackson et al., 2007; 

Hasan and Pfaff, 2006) indicates that users focus on providing and gathering

information, not socializing (Dimicco et al., 2008). In relation to the workplace and 

employment, there are several key areas of debate, including the strengthening of 

communities of interest, the ability to increase institutional knowledge, privacy concerns, 

and questions of how an entity is represented or the “brand” managed.

People with Disabilities and the Collaborative Community

People with disabilities report problems of self-esteem and social fears as barriers to 

workplace accessibility and accomplishment (Yeager et al., 2006). Internet-supported 

social networks may provide social support, companionship, a sense of belonging, 

emotional aid, and all kinds of information without requiring major investments of time, 

money, or energy (Wellman et al., 1996). By lowering the cost of information, the 

Internet can enhance the ability of low-income people to gain human capital and find 

and compete for good jobs (Anderson et al., 1995). DiMaggio (2001) mentions “much 

anecdotal evidence” that the Internet provides significant benefits to people with

unusual identities or concerns, such as rare medical conditions. 
111

The emergence of specialized social-networking sites, focused on specific niche groups 

like professionals with disabilities, demonstrates the flexibility and adaptability of these 

platforms (Vascellaro, 2007; Haynie, 2007). CMC has already become a major 

component of various activism movements (Haythornthwaite, 2005), and could play a 

particularly important role in disabilities activism.

The kind of support potentially available is indicated by the array of disability-related groups 

on Facebook, including Coalition of Texans with Disabilities, Where Do People with 

Disabilities Fit into God’s Kingdom?, YAI/National Institute for People with Disabilities 

Network, DEAF, and the Arc of the United States. Users commonly post questions, advice, 

and words of encouragement related to topics such as parenting, education, work, 

relationships, and health, and the communications on these groups tend to positively 

address these issues. The groups promote solidarity, shared identity, activism, and pride, 

and thus have a positive effect on social and cultural accessibility. There is also a large 

awareness component to the groups. Group members post and discuss relevant news 

items, events, policies, and opportunities. For example, at the time of carrying out this 

research, the DEAF group page had a posting about the chance to win a free Amplified 

Telephone, while the Facebook page of the Job Accommodation Network, a service of the 

Office of Disability Employment Policy of the U.S. Department of Labor, posted legislative 

updates and resources to help workers with disabilities understand their rights.

3.2.3. Vectors 3 and 4: Immersive Digital Environments

3.2.3.1. V 3 & 4: Business Background

Social factors, including participation, communication, and interaction, are at the heart 

of immersive digital environments (IDEs) (Garber, 2004). IDEs usually require users to 

adopt persona or create 3-D representations, or avatars, through which they interact 

with a simulated environment (Taylor, 2002; Jones, 2006). The three categories of IDEs 

under review are virtual worlds, serious games, and casual gaming. As the market data 

for serious games, virtual worlds, and video games are, for the most part, collected 

together, it proved necessary to look at these two vectors as one group.
112

Virtual worlds are computer-simulated 3-D environments or realities where users create 

content and interact with one another (Steuer, 1992; Biocca and Levy, 1995). Examples 

include Second Life, OLIVE, Active Worlds, and Club Penguin. Serious games are 

mental contests, played with a computer or other people, with specific rules, that use 

entertainment mediums as the main platform (Zyda, 2005). America’s Army is one 

example. Entertainment and casual gaming consists of traditional video games that can

connect to others via the Internet connection, the XBox 360, the Play Station 3, or the 

Wii (Messinger et al., 2008). A well-known example is World of Warcraft, the massively 

multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) that claims to have the most 

subscribers worldwide (11.5 million in 2009). 

Serious games are widely accepted as practical teaching and training tools in many 

professions, including the medical field (Rosser et al., 2007), government, education, 

and public policy (Cone et al., 2007; Zyda, 2005). Serious games allow learners to 

experience situations that are impossible in the real world for reasons of safety, cost, 

time, etc., and are also claimed to have positive effects on the players’ development of 

different skills (Susi et al., 2007), including collaborative practices, technical proficiency, 

and strategic processes (Brozik and Zapalska, 2002). IBM, for instance, has 

documented its use of gaming-enhanced team building, mentoring, knowledge 

exchange, and multipurpose global events with complex social interactions (Cherbakov 

et al., 2009). Other companies using digital game-based learning include IBM, 

Ameritrade, GE, Nortel, SAS, and think3, which use games to teach options trading, 

customer service, CAD software, and engineering concepts (Dziorny, 2005).

Studies of casual or entertainment gaming are challenging the “axiomatic assumption 

that games are by definition ‘unproductive’” (Pearce, 2006: 18). Many employers find 

the skills acquired through “accidental learning” even in casual games—the “learning to 

be” that is a natural byproduct of adjusting to new cultures inside the game—as 

advantageous as traditionally acquired skills. This process is described as bringing

about a profound shift in perceptions and reactions to the “real” world, with users 

becoming “more flexible in their thinking and more sensitive to social cues” (Brown and
113

Thomas, 2006: 1). Leadership and business-oriented skills can be developed through 

collaborative casual gaming, which prepares people for “computer supported 

collaborative work” (Nardi and Harris, 2006: 149).

Others assert that the effect of casual gaming is deeper, that “the boundaries between 

play and production, between work and leisure, and between media consumption and 

media production are increasingly blurring” (Pearce, 2006: 18). In productive play, 

“creative production for its own sake (as opposed to production for hire) is an active and 

integral part of play activities, particularly those enabled by networks” (ibid: 17).

The IDE industry already offers a good living for writers, designers, programmers, and 

producers in work “involving the most positive possibilities of ‘immaterial labour’ 

scientific know-how, hi-tech proficiency, cultural creativity, and workplace cooperation” 

(Dyer-Witheford and Peuter, 2009).

Business Environment

The market data for serious games, virtual worlds, and video games are, for the most 

part, collected together. In this broader “game” industry, NPD Consulting (NPD) is the 

most trusted and widely cited source of market data. Note, however, the NPD numbers 

do not fully represent this vector.

One reason for the lack of accurate representation is the secretive nature of a large 

portion of the client base of serious games and virtual worlds—namely, those clients 

who work in sensitive areas of the government. As these two sectors—especially virtual 

worlds—do a great deal of work for the government, health care, and the Department of 

Defense (DOD), it is uncertain how much of the industry revenue is recorded and 

analyzed by traditional market analysts. There is likely to be a great deal of overlap, and 

yet a great deal of unrecorded revenue.

If, for example, the DOD were to contract with Blizzard Entertainment to create an 

urban-warfare simulation to train soldiers pre-combat, Blizzard would be forced to sign a 

nondisclosure agreement (NDA), keeping all activities and resulting revenues secretive. 
114

The associated revenues will likely appear on Blizzard’s annual income statement but 

will not be itemized and traced to the government. These revenues, therefore, will be 

included in NPD’s report on video-game revenue, even though the nature of the 

revenue was not generated by entertainment games.

An example of the unrecorded revenue can be seen in the case of a private company that 

works solely for the DOD. This company does not make commercial video games, and 

therefore its sales are not recognized by NPD as game sales. The revenues are instead 

factored into the broader DOD-related expenses. With the necessary secrecy of DOD 

actions, these revenues are not possible to “strip out” of the overall DOD expenditures. 

Therefore, they will not be included in any market report accessed for this report.

Virtual Economies

However, the size of the market is remarkable. According to NPD, more than 60 percent

of the U.S. population plays video games (NPD Group, 2007). The financial statistics 

that are available indicate there is a huge untapped potential within the economies of 

the virtual-world platforms, made all the more striking by the apparent ease that the 

leading platform, Second Life, has weathered the recent recession. According to Linden 

Labs, the developers of Second Life, user-to-user transactions in 2009 totaled 

$567 million in 2009, representing growth of 65 percent over 2008. 

Contrary to the image in the popular imagination of the typical player being an antisocial 

teenage boy, a long-running survey of MMORPG players indicates that half of them 

work full-time, 36 percent are married, and 22 percent have children. Players spend on 

average 22 hours a week inside environments, and there is no correlation between time 

spent “immersed” and age—older players are spending just as much time as younger 

players. One finding is directly relevant to the theme of this research: 80 percent of 

players play with someone they know in real life, highlighting a highly social 

environment “where new relationships are forged and existing relationships are 

reinforced” (Daedalus Project, 2009).
115

3.2.3.2. V 3 & 4: Business and Social Trends

Introduction

The last decade has seen a rapid rise in the popularity of immersive digital 

environments (IDEs). IDEs usually require users to create 3-D representations, or

avatars, through which they interact with the simulated environment (Taylor, T. L., 2002; 

Jones, 2006). While IDEs may vary greatly in application and in motivation, there are 

several common characteristics of these platforms that include having a shared space, 

a specific graphical user interface, interactivity, immediacy, persistence, and 

socialization or community building (virtual worlds review). For the purposes of this 

study, the categories of IDEs that we investigate are virtual worlds, serious games, and 

casual gaming: Virtual worlds are computer-simulated 3-D environments or realities 

where users create content and interact with one another (Steuer, 1995). These 

environments can also be called synthetic worlds (Castronova, 2002). Examples of this 

classification are Second Life, OLIVE, Active Worlds, and Club Penguin. One major 

point of clarification is that virtual worlds, in this context, do not have specific rules or a 

set purpose within the environment—this is something that is organically developed by 

the individual avatar.

Serious games are mental contests, played with a computer or other individuals, with 

specific rules, which use entertainment mediums as the main platform (Zyda, 2005). 

Serious games are used for training, learning, and business activities within the 

domains of government, education, health, public policy, and strategic communication 

objectives (Cone et al., 2007; Zyda, 2005). An exemplar of a serious game is America’s 

Army. Most of the functionalities associated with serious games are similar to those of 

virtual worlds, yet the main difference is the issue of rules and set objectives within the 

platform. Serious games are widely accepted as practical and teaching tools in many 

professions, including the medical field (Rosser et al., 2007). One of the most 

compelling components of using gaming for training is the ability for participants to be 

deeply engaged (Ben-Zvi and Carton, 2007). Serious games allow learners to 

experience situations that are impossible in the real world for reasons of safety, cost, 

time, etc., but they are also claimed to have positive effects on the players’ development 
116

of different skills (Susi et al., 2007). In addition to engagement leading to greater 

learning, collaborative practices, and technical refinement and proficiency, it is highly 

effective in exercising and cultivating strategic processes (Brozik and Zapalska, 2002).

Entertainment and casual gaming are traditional video games that have the ability to 

connect to others via the Internet, for example, Xbox 360, Play Station 3, and the Wii. 

To complicate matters, a number of virtual worlds fall into this category. These virtual 

worlds are represented by massively multiplayer online role-playing games 

(MMORPGs) like World of Warcraft (Messinger et al., 2008). A common characteristic 

of these games is they are typically fantasy focused. The games might not seem to 

have implications within the business and corporate world, but research is showing that 

many leadership and business skills can be developed and nurtured through this kind of 

collaborative game play (Nardi and Harris, 2006; Brown and Bell, 2004).

In reference to the workplace and business sectors, several issues cut across all three 

of these sub categories: market opportunities and viability of in-world or inter-platform 

interactions, the benefits of 3-D experiences, and greater immersion or the context of 

computer-mediated communication and exchanges. The current literature on immersive 

digital environments fits within the broad framework provided by Media Richness Theory 

and Social Presence Theory, explained briefly below, and providing the context for a 

three-pronged model of human exchange focusing on material, social, and cultural 

capital.

Media-Richness Theory 

More than two decades after its initial development, Media Richness Theory (MRT) still 

proves useful to media researchers, particularly in the study of immersive digital 

environments (IDEs). MRT grew out of managerial research in information systems. The 

richness of communication media is based on the ability of a medium to carry 

information (Trevino et al., 1987). A medium’s ability to carry information has two major 

components. First, data-carrying capacity refers to the medium’s ability to transmit 

information. Second, symbol-carrying capacity refers to the medium’s ability to carry 

information about the information, or about the individuals who are communicating 
117

(Sitkin et al., 1992). Media richness may be ranked based on ability to relay immediate 

feedback, provide feedback cues such as body language, allow the message to be 

created or altered specifically for an intended recipient, and transmit the feelings or 

emotions of the communicators (Daft and Lengel, 1984).

Social-Presence Theory

More recently, a social-presence component has been added to the analysis of media 

richness, referring to the degree to which a person is perceived as real in a mediated 

environment (Russo, 2000). The degree of social presence in a communications activity 

affects the participant’s perception, appreciation, participation, and level of satisfaction. 

“Environments where participants do not feel they are recognized as individuals, or in which 

their input does not seem to be valued may result in a reduced motivation to participate. 

Because of this it is important to use richer communications media in situations where it is 

desirable to have the participants more strongly identify with each other” (Newberry, 2001).

Human-Exchange Model

A three-pronged model of human exchange as market, social, and cultural capital lends 

an organizational framework to the analysis of immersive digital environments. “Market 

capital includes commodities and currency, social capital includes connections, and 

cultural capital includes competencies, credentials, and artifacts” (Malaby, 2006: 148).

1) Market Capital

Malaby notes that “synthetic worlds have surprised many with the degree to which they 

generate tradable goods that can now be found easily through online markets” (Malaby, 

2006: 149). Virtual property is persistent, prone to rivalry, and has interconnectivity, 

opening up a plethora of ownership-rights issues (Fairfield, 2005). And because digital 

goods can be created and destroyed without cost, traditional economic models of 

supply and demand and price controls may need to be reconsidered (Castronova, 

2002). Virtual markets also include services, such as notary, design, and writing 

(Malaby, op. cit). Castronova finds evidence of “real economic activity, both within 

online virtual worlds, and between virtual worlds and earth” that includes a liquidcurrency market. As current national income and product accounts do not place value 
118

on online assets, the growing effects of virtual-currency markets will raise interesting 

questions for economic analysis and accounting (Castronova, 2002), as well as for tax 

policy (Barfield, 2009).

2) Social Capital

Just as many forms of communication go beyond information exchange, human 

exchange exceeds material transactions. Social capital is distinguished from material 

capital in that time is not delimited. Any exchange continues a relationship into the 

future and leaves open the possibility of the next transaction. Social capital is based 

upon connections and reciprocity, and involves, but is not limited to, the networks and 

social groups within and between virtual worlds (Malaby, 2006).

IDEs have also garnered interest for their marketing potential, “because of their ability to 

generate sustained consumer engagement with a brand” (Hemp, 2006: 51). In the 

context of MRT, virtual branded events and other immersive business applications have 

high potential for media richness because they can relay immediate feedback, provide 

feedback cues, allow messages to be created or altered specifically for an intended 

recipient, and transmit the feelings or emotions of the communicators.

3) Cultural Capital

Typical demands of the new networked economy include personalized training 

schemes, flexible access to lifelong learning, just-in-time training delivery, and costeffective means for meeting training needs of a globally distributed workforce (Sampson

et al., 2002). Cultural capital refers to the competencies and credentials that IDE users 

may acquire. Competencies may include language, etiquette, criticism, and many other 

culturally specific skills.

Malaby argues that human-capital competencies for real-world users cannot be 

distinguished from avatar competencies, as all competencies are “inescapably embodied” 

(Malaby, 2006: 156). Many employers find the skills acquired through accidental learning in 

IDEs—the “learning to be” that is a natural byproduct of adjusting to new cultures inside a 

game—as advantageous as traditionally acquired skills (Brown and Thomas, 2006). 
119

Serious-game development could potentially eclipse the entertainment game world in 

size. Serious games are used for training, learning, and business activities within 

government, education, health, public policy, and strategic communication objectives 

(Cone et al., 2007; Zyda, 2005). Serious games use entertainment principles, creativity, 

and technology to build games that carry out government or corporate objectives. 

IDEs and People with Disabilities

Virtual reality reflects internal, rather than external, environments and replaces the 

sensory inputs and outputs of the material world with those of the computer (Jones, 

2006). Avatars allow people to take on an alternative appearance and persona, so that 

a muscular, spiky-haired Second Life avatar named Wilde Cunningham represents a 

group of people who have severe physical disabilities in real life (Hemp, 2006).

IDEs can be attractive to people with disabilities: a survey conducted by the Information 

Solutions Group found that 20.5 percent of players of casual video games have a 

physical, mental, or developmental disability. The same survey found that people with

disabilities play more frequently, for more hours per week, and for longer periods of time 

per gaming session, when compared to the casual gamer population as a whole (which 

rough industry estimates put at 300 million to 400 million players worldwide). People 

with disabilities also report that they experience more significant benefits from playing 

and view their game-playing activity as more important in their lives than do consumers 

without disabilities (Information Solutions Group, 2008).

Working within virtual spaces may also provide people with disabilities with employment 

opportunities otherwise unavailable or inaccessible to them (Baker et al., 2006). With 

IDEs, “an interaction can be reasonably rich without requiring common physical 

presence” (Lyons, 2008), offering potential for a more functionally accessible work 

environment for people with physical, sensory, or mobility disabilities. Virtual worlds also 

mitigate cost and location barriers by offering a relatively inexpensive form of business 

communications (Cherbakov et al., 2009). Media experiences that are interactive and 

take place in a commons are more flexible, personally satisfying, and culturally 
120

authentic than traditional media and imply more open, accountable relationships 

(Bollier, 2006).

IDEs designed to support an open range of flexible, playful, unspecified activities can be 

a mechanism for developing new values and goals, learning new things, and achieving 

new understandings (Brown and Bell, 2004). By overcoming geographic barriers that 

once prevented collaboration (Beurer-Zuelig and Meckel, 2008), IDEs afford the 

possibility of “improvised synchronous intellectual teamwork among geographically 

diverse participants” (Belov et al., 2005). Virtual reality “blurs and fragments boundaries 

and senses of self and place and functions as a virtual microcosm for cultural, economic 

and identity recombination” (Jones, 2006: 4). Virtual worlds offer possibilities for 

experiential learning, in which students are engaged in problem-solving activities within

a flexible environment that facilitates collaborative learning (Cremorne, 2009).

Lack of education was cited as a perceived barrier to achieving full employment potential by 

20.3 percent of people with disabilities (Yeager et al., 2006). Serious games may make 

education and training more appealing to those who consider traditional classroom training 

beyond endurance or otherwise unmanageable (Horton, 2003), which could be helpful for 

people with intellectual or learning disabilities. However, such systems often create 

challenges for people who are blind or have low vision who may want to use them.

3.2.4. Vector 5: Open/Peer Publishing

3.2.4.1. V 5: Business Background

The history of the media reveals that periods of radical innovation have caused major 

shifts not only in the methods, but also in the business of collecting, producing, and 

distributing information: we are living through such a period now.

Historically the publishing and news industries have been highly professional, 

centralized businesses responsible for controlling what gets published or distributed to 

the public. The Internet and digital technologies are changing this. Researchers at the 
121

Center for Public Media describe the emergence of “people-centric public media,” a shift 

from the traditional top-down method of journalistic reporting to one that is more citizencentric, allowing for greater user participation in the media. Instead of relying on major 

news broadcasters, people now have the ability to seek and compare news from a 

variety of sources (Clark and Aufderheide, 2009). The same paradigm applies to the 

worlds of music, films, and television programming.

Peer publication has been described as “a process not a product” (Beckett, 2008). 

Under this process, news, for example, is collaboratively created, gaining importance 

according to its status as a part of an electronic conversation (Clark and Aufderheide, 

2009). Users can congregate around an issue and share ideas and media to contribute 

to that conversation (ibid). The advent of comment and discussion boards allow for 

users’ opinions to be expressed and debated. In short, people can now create a variety 

of media (video, text, audio) either as a unique expression or combined with traditional 

media, and have access to platforms on which the media can be shared and critiqued.

With the emergence of peer publishing, traditional media have had to adapt to the 

changing socio-technical environment to stay viable. Open and peer publishing, and 

changing roles in media production and consumption, have not replaced the traditional 

media, but they have posed challenges to traditional business models.

The democratization of media creation, distribution, and access does not necessarily 

foretell that traditional media are dinosaurs of a new variety. “If we are fortunate, we’ll 

end up with a more diverse media ecosystem in which many forms—including the 

traditional organizations—can thrive. It’s fair to say, though, that the challenges to 

existing businesses will be enormous” (Gillmoor, 2006). 

Peer publishing challenges the viability of the traditional role of media companies as 

intermediaries. “The fundamental disintermediation caused by peer-to-peer pull models 

is that people are actually communicating with each other without intermediaries”

(Bollier, 2006: 29). The disintermediation of services that garnered much attention in the 

dot-com era is just beginning in the world of media production and publishing. While 
122

intermediaries will still be needed, their functions will change: they will become 

aggregators, advisers, and consultants (ibid). This fits well with the intriguing possibility 

suggested by Goldhaber (1997), that the amount of time we spend on the Web and the 

Net is such that there is the beginning of a market in what is most scarce, what he calls 

the “attention economy.” Hagel has extrapolated this notion to identifying a new kind of 

brand, the “trusted agent” or adviser, who helps you get more value out of your limited 

attention (quoted in Bollier, 2006: 25).

3.2.4.2. V 5: Business and Social Trends

What Is New About New Media?

In 1984, David Andrews criticized the communications technology of his day, 

particularly what he called “central media,” because of its incompatibility with the 

emerging complexities of the information economy and social interdependence. His 

suggested replacement was “lateral media,” whose description largely predicts both the 

Internet and social-networking sites as we know them today: “a dynamic, two-way 

medium in which the ‘audience’ has just as much power to create content as the 

‘producer’ threatens to upend this power structure” (cited in Pearce, 2006: 19).

The publishing, broadcasting, and news industries developed historically as highly 

professional, centralized, reasonably stable businesses responsible for control of 

content production and distribution to a mass audience. The Internet has changed all 

that. Suddenly, the audience is on the stage, the reader is the writer and the publisher, 

and the couch potato is using a “controller” or making films or television, with an 

audience that may be one or many, and that changes by the minute. Traditional media 

outlets have had mixed success in adapting to this new reality, and face an uphill 

struggle to develop new financial models that can accommodate it. These changes 

represent a fundamental shift in the structure of the media and in the ways information, 

news, and entertainment are produced, collected, and shared. This section examines 

different approaches to peer publication and the associated employment opportunities.
123

Gatekeepers No Longer

A gatekeeping metaphor is commonly used to describe which stories (or television 

programs, or music selections) get published and how they are shaped, timed for 

distribution, and handled (Shoemaker et al., 2001). The defense of the practice of 

gatekeeping range from the desire for fairness—to maintain accuracy and balance—to 

the need to protect against potential legal issues, to the inherent strictures of column 

space, air time, storage capacity, or transmission frequencies (Open News Room). In 

other words, gatekeeping selects “all the news that’s fit to print and that can be made to 

fit into the available channel space” (Bruns, 2005).

The Internet and new media have largely removed such space restrictions, and digital 

technologies have made high concentrations of capital less necessary for participation 

(Bruns, 2005; Bollier, 2006). The result is a multitude of channels through which news, 

information, and entertainment emerge into the public arena. According to Pew’s Project 

for Excellence in Journalism, the overwhelming majority of Americans (92 percent) use 

multiple platforms to get news on a typical day, including national TV, local TV, the 

Internet, local newspapers, radio, and national newspapers; and six in 10 Americans 

(59 percent) get news from a combination of online and offline sources on a typical day. 

Pew characterizes people’s relationship to news in this new multiplatform media 

environment as “portable, personalized, and participatory” (Pew Research Center, 

2010). There is a corresponding diversity in the criteria for evaluating content value for 

specific audiences (Bruns, 2005).

Less stringent rules and requirements for contribution of content mean fewer barriers for 

participation, potentially turning what were once passive media consumers into techsavvy users with the capability of doing in theory what only journalists or broadcast 

professionals or record producers could do. This means that concern about access to 

information has given way to concern about coping with the amounts to which we 

abruptly have wide-ranging access (Brown and Duguid, 2000).

The introduction of new technology and the accessibility of new media have 

dramatically changed both the roles and the relationship of the gatekeeper and the 
124

gated (Bruns, 2005). For example, a number of sites have taken to “gate-watching,” 

helping audiences navigate the vastness of news channels. Gate-watchers publicize, 

rather than publish, news, by providing headlines, summaries, and links to stories they 

deem relevant or noteworthy. They constantly survey what information becomes 

available in a variety of media and serve as guides to the most relevant sources when 

approached by information seekers: they require online research skills rather than 

significant journalism skills (ibid). Bruns (2005) describes this as a move away from a 

mass-media “information-push” news model to an individualized “information-pull” 

approach. Instead of the gates controlling the news that comes to us, they allow us 

open access to the information, both raw and processed, contained within. 

The demand-side pull of content is made possible by the drastic reduction in transaction 

costs that the networked information economy is father to. One result is the growth of 

niche communities of interest. In the era of the Internet, creative products that once 

were dismissed as “too marginal or idiosyncratic to make money can be the foundation 

for a robust pull market” (Bollier, 2006: 32). Four converging developments are credited 

for this blossoming of niche content: the development of low-cost and easily accessible 

content-creation tools, the spread of the Internet as an infrastructure for content 

distribution, the growth of new forms of access devices, and the emergence of new 

types of distribution businesses (Hagel and Brown, 2005: 5). One unexpected 

consequence is that disabilities-related news and issues that may have not received 

coverage by the mass media may now find their way into publication.

People-Centric Media

Clark and Aufderheide have described ways in which the traditional top-down method of 

journalistic reporting is changing to what they call “people-centric public media.” These 

different approaches also suggest how employment opportunities may be changing. For 

example, the idea of choice, where people now have the ability to seek and compare 

news on important issues from a variety of sources, necessitates converting the content 

to make it accessible on different platforms and devices, and formatting and tagging the 

stories to aid in their discovery. Increasingly, news is collaboratively created, allowing 
125

users to leverage conversation tools to share interests and mobilize around issues. 

Users are creating a range of multimedia content as well as remixing existing content, 

all of which is increasingly a target for use by professional media makers, and is 

representative of a “variety of new roles along the chain of media creation and 

distribution” that users are adopting (Clark and Aufderheide, 2009: 7).

One example of open/peer publishing, adopted by individuals, companies, and many 

large newspapers, is blogging. Access to an audience is still hard to come by; bloggers 

are many, but widely read bloggers are few. New media make it easier to voice an

opinion, but not necessarily to make it heard. In that respect, the barriers to entry are 

high. Internet traffic is highly concentrated, with 80 percent of site visits to just 

0.5 percent of sites (DiMaggio, 2001). But on the flip side, for those with something truly 

interesting to say, the social-networked diffusion of ideas described by Granovetter 

(1973) is enhanced by the digitization of social networks. Often, “those who are at the 

cutting edge of inquiry where journals either don’t exist or are too slow in getting ideas 

out find blogs a powerful way to engage in discussions to test and refine their ideas” 

(Hagel and Brown, 2005: 7).

Even if a blogger cannot generate enough revenue to blog as a career, purposeful and 

intelligent blogging can be a career booster, primarily by engendering social capital. A 

dedicated blogger has the opportunity to develop and demonstrate industry knowledge, 

build a reputation, enhance a personal brand, and make contacts (Tahmincioglu, 2010). 

A personal blog can function as a promotional platform for people in any profession, and 

the community that it engenders can lead directly or indirectly to career opportunities, to 

the extent that the corporate world increasingly turns to the blogosphere as a talent pool 

(Taylor, 2006). Peer publishing, by facilitating access to information and networks, in 

fact facilitates access to the most important factors of production in the networked 

information economy.

The value created in a commons-based peer-production model is not just economic, but 

also social and personal. Many online commons are outcompeting conventional 

markets by being more flexible, personally satisfying, and culturally authentic than 
126

central media (Bollier, 2006). Leveraging the commons for business gain “implies a 

different sort of social relationship with the customer base. It implies a more open, 

accountable relationship and a genuine respect for the autonomy of the people in a 

given commons” (ibid: 38).

Networked Journalism

Traditional media outlets have tried to accommodate and control the influx of 

information from these communities of contributors, in which news publication is a 

process, not a product (Beckett, 2008). As both traditional news media shift to an online 

format and citizen journalism becomes increasingly active and vocal, Beckett sees the 

future of journalism in this interaction between traditional media outlets, technological 

advance, and citizen journalists (ibid). 

However, some caveats are in order, because while the changes in the media are real, 

they are not necessarily as revolutionary as sometimes depicted. The “legacy” or 

traditional media (described here as newspapers, television, radio, print publishing, 

music, and movies) coexist with “myriad” names for social media in the news world 

(Cohn, 2007). Similarly the job categories may be permeable, with the professional 

journalist who uses new media technology to produce news and information products 

working in parallel with the “citizen journalist” who contributes to an overall journalistic 

discourse by commenting on blog posts and submitting cell phone photos to relevant 

media outlets (ibid).

Computer-aided information collection, filtration, and presentation may help improve 

journalism and publication, but does not necessarily represent a break with the past. 

What technology has done is speed up the rate of production and distribution 

immeasurably, and also brought diverse methods of presentation together. Hence, 

internally, a news story package on a Web site may use both the spoken and written 

word, as well as music, moving and still images, graphic animations, including 

interactive and hypertextual elements; and, externally, the same package may be 

distributed or linked through a Web site, a Usenet group, email, SMS, MMS, radio, 

television, and print newspapers and magazines (Deuze, 2004). This fast, multifaceted 
127

approach to publishing is highly dynamic, requiring reevaluation of the roles of 

traditional journalists and editors and the environment in which they publish, as well as 

providing increased employment opportunities for the technically savvy.

As the old order changes, some key questions remain the same, in particular about the 

control and verification of the validity of published information. The argument is not 

wholly academic. Wikis in general, and Wikipedia in particular, stand as the most 

popular examples of open-access peer publishing on the Internet, providing people 

alternatives to more professional forms of scholarship or current events. But even for 

this exemplar of peer publication, control is still exerted, especially on the most 

controversial articles, in an attempt to maintain the integrity of the information and 

prevent page defacement, a practice that contradicts the ideals the organization 

espouses (Angwin and Fowler, 2009) but provides a strong argument for the value of 

the editorial role.

3.2.5. Vector 6: Open-Source Processes

3.2.5.1. V 6: Business Background

The open-source movement is commonly associated with the fields of software and 

information technology. Made popular by Red Hat, Novell, and other Linux kernel 

innovators, open-source software (OSS) development has become a multibillion-dollar 

industry, encouraging the spread of the open-business model to many other industries.

OSS complies with criteria regarding freely accessible source code, redistribution, and 

nonrestrictive licensing and involves tight feedback loops between production and 

consumption, with interesting dynamics of social-capital formation and skill development 

through remixing and sharing (Bollier, 2006).

The open-source movement epitomizes the collaborative community discussed 

elsewhere (see Section 2.3), and covers a much wider spectrum than OSS. The Open 

Source Initiative, a nonprofit corporation that educates about and advocates for the 
128

benefits of open source, frequently uses the language of community, collaboration, and 

networks when discussing its goals and values.

Supporters of the open-source movement argue that the creation of new knowledge 

requires the free exchange of ideas, and that intellectual-property laws and digital 

methods of controlling or locking information are a threat to cultural and social creativity

(Berry et al., 2008). Innovation is improved due to access to a steadily richer innovation 

commons (Hippel, 2005). Some researchers propose an incentive related to career 

concerns, in which open-source programmers are motivated to produce open-source 

works because future employers may see their work, or an ego-gratification incentive in 

which programmers desire recognition for their individual contribution (Lerner and

Tirole, 2002). However, others argue that such an individualistic or profit-driven 

incentive is not the typical or primary motivation for open-source collaboration (Goetz, 

2003; Benkler, 2006).

Commons-based open-peer production, which relies on decentralized information 

gathering and exchange, is a new model of production that often results in more 

efficient allocation of human creativity than in traditional firms (Benkler, 2004). This can 

result in a balancing act, as online communities and business explore each other, 

“trying to find effective ways to balance profit imperatives with the social and psychic 

needs of the commons” (Bollier, 2006: 40).

Gadman and Cooper describe open-source processes in utopian terms, equivalent to 

complex ecosystems of interactive relationships among people, institutions, and 

supporting structures, which require the cultivation of positive effects in the lives of 

those involved. They describe the facility enabled by open source as having the 

following components: making it easier for people to have equal access to information, 

resources, and tools; enabling rich interconnections of shared interests and capabilities; 

and creating a sense of ownership over outcomes and a sense of identity as people

who improve their own lives and those of others (Gadman and Cooper, 2009). The first 

component is essentially human capital, the second is social capital, and the third is 

empowered autonomy.
129

An integral ingredient to the success of open-source collaborations is that technology has 

allowed for the convergence of a greater diversity of perspectives because traditional 

barriers to collaboration such as time and geography have been overcome. Even the lesstraditional barriers of conceptual distances are also overcome when specialists are taken 

out of their homogeneous communities and put into a group with a diverse skill set 

collaborating on a common goal to produce the most valuable output (Fischer, 2005).

Open-source processes epitomize the “pull” economy (Bollier, 2006). A challenge to the 

pull model is achieving coordination among the many contributors to the process: “If 

there is a suitable focal object—a dynamic shared resource like open-source software 

code, or a shared set of goals or discourse—a stable community can form. The 

resulting ‘swarms’ of previously atomized individuals can self-organize to create new 

mechanisms and types of knowledge that never could have occurred through the topdown design of a push system” (Bollier 2006: 14).

In the corporate world, innovative strategies call for the optimal mix of open-source

processes and agreements, acquisition, alliance, and internal R&D (Rothaermel and 

Boeker, 2008), as companies in many industries find it increasingly difficult to justify the 

investments necessary to spur internal innovation. “Open innovation” offers a solution, 

referring as it does to the “purposive inflows and outflows of knowledge to accelerate 

internal innovation, and expand the markets for external use of innovation”

(Chesbrough, 2006).

Open innovation presents several opportunities for positive economic growth. First, 

when companies embrace the open innovation model, they can begin to unlock some of 

their unused patents, allowing other firms to capitalize on those developments and 

offering the potential for the creation of new developments. A second benefit is the 

creation of employment opportunities for individuals and small enterprises. From the 

innovator’s perspective (the creator of the patent), a large and growing market exists for 

small R&D organizations and individuals. These small companies work to generate 

innovations in hopes of being acquired, or having their patents licensed or purchased by 

a larger organization. This effect is common in the pharmaceutical or computer-
130

technology industries, but also can be found in video gaming, information technology, 

consumer products, biotechnology, and other life sciences.

3.2.5.2. V 6: The Business and Labor Environment

Open-Source Software

With the relative novelty of open-source software development, there are few statistics that 

accurately depict the size and trends of the overall marketplace. Companies that engage in 

OSS development and sales are, with few exceptions, small privately held companies that 

do not report revenues or volume of deliveries. There are exceptions, including Red Hat 

and Novell, both of which are public. But overall this leaves market analysts in the position 

of simply estimating the numbers of users of open-source products, and estimating the 

potential revenue generated by such users. This is not an exercise in precision. For 

example, the Open Source Initiative—the open-source community-recognized body that 

advocates and governs open-source development activity—has estimated the number of 

Linux users to be anywhere between 4 million and 27 million (Open Source Initiative, 

2007). For this reason, this section does not try to estimate the market size or revenues for 

open-source processes, in particular as the term is so loosely defined. Instead it focuses on 

the business model for software development, the large OSS companies, and the prospect 

of job creation in the OSS marketplace.

Open-Source Software—The Business Model

The unique dynamics of OSS development allow for different market strategies. Since 

the software is, by definition, open to modify, use, or sell, the cost at which a company 

or individual acquires an open-source program will typically be minimal, or even free

(Open Source Initiative, 2007). This situation is largely due to the microeconomic laws 

of zero economic profit: in a perfectly competitive market, a product will sell only for as 

much as its lowest-priced identical competitor (Allen et al., 2009). The limited, or 

nonexistent, barriers to entry in the OSS market create this perfectly competitive 

landscape. Open-source vendors, therefore, typically generate revenue from the goods 

and services that accompany the software. These include service packages and 

subscriptions, and enterprise consulting (McGovern, 2009).
131

Software development itself occurs differently among the OSS vendors. Red Hat, for 

example, relies heavily on developers outside of the company, who are not paid by the 

company (Seavey, 2010). The company pays a small team of in-house developers, 

while thousands of outside developers code programs as a hobby, a private business, 

an educational opportunity, or a resume builder. Few of them will ever be brought inhouse (McGovern, 2009).

JBoss, on the other hand, performs a much larger share of its development in-house

(Seavey, 2010). When a promising developer from the community shows talent, there is 

a much better chance of being hired by JBoss than by Red Hat6

: MySQL fits 

somewhere between these two extremes (Seavey, 2010).

As mentioned above, revenue for OSS vendors comes primarily from residual activities 

that accompany the downloaded software. Red Hat, for example, generates revenue by 

selling several different tiers of service packages, as well as consulting services to 

those who download and use their product. As Red Hat relies heavily on community 

development, the ratio of paid developers to service and consulting personnel is much 

lower than that of the industry as a whole (McGovern, 2009).

3.2.5.3. V 6: Business and Social Trends

This section examines how open-source processes affect people’s ability to find and do 

work, with a specific focus on applications for people with disabilities. 

A concept most often associated with well-known names like the Firefox Web browser, 

the Linux operating system, and the Android operating system for mobile devices, the 

open-source movement has revolutionized the computer world. However, this research 

follows the general concept of “open-source processes,” in recognition of a method of 

collaboration that extends beyond the field of computer science into many other areas 

and disciplines. The core ideals—of the open collaboration of a group of skilled 

individuals without regard for proprietary ownership—encompasses a plethora of 

projects emerging from various disciplines. Biologists have used the spirit of open 
132

source to compile databases mapping the genetics of organisms, and thousands of 

workers answered NASA’s call for help in mapping the surface of Mars during the Mars 

mission (Goetz, 2003), just as thousands of programmers responded to Linus Tolvard’s 

original call for collaborative programming in his development of the Linux operating 

system. 

The Social Implications of Open Source

The open-source movement has also had a major effect on how people collaborate in 

the workplace, referring to a method for loose connections among decentralized 

workers who unite for the duration of a common goal or project. The influences of opensource approaches on traditional business models and collaboration techniques has led 

some to suggest a new economy based on the networking of human knowledge, 

crossing “functional, organizational, and national boundaries, allowing people to share 

data and information to generate new knowledge” (Gadman and Cooper, 2005).

Gadman and Cooper’s study of collaboration-friendly businesses in the United States, 

Europe, and the Middle East found varied motivations driving people to collaborate. 

Some companies sought partners to obtain the knowledge and strategies necessary to 

gain knowledge about their existing markets, while others were drawn to collaboration to 

spread their products or services to new markets. Motivation was also influenced by 

potential risk and the level of complexity of the project: the more complex the project, 

the more likely collaboration inspired by open source was to occur (ibid).

As corporations become more global, expanding their markets and engaging in 

increasingly complex projects, they will not be able to hire sufficient staff to keep up with 

demand, especially in less developed countries. Employing open-source methods 

remedies that potential problem, demonstrating that open-source collaborations have 

the potential to revolutionize how both employers and employees accomplish work. An 

example is the Open Medical Records Systems (OpenMRS), an open-source eHealth 

collaboration that has spread to remote regions throughout Africa and South America. 

This system allows for contributions and improvements from the entire health-care 

community, from both developing and industrial nations.
133

Albors examines open-source processes as a method of community collaboration, an 

approach to problem solving that revolutionizes traditional ideas about collaboration, 

innovation, creativity and intellectual property (op. cit.). Similarly, Fischer (2005) sees

the emergence of “socio-technical environments” to ensure that each individual’s voice 

gets heard amid the cacophony of collaboration. Technology has allowed for the 

convergence of a greater diversity of perspectives because traditional barriers to 

collaboration such as time and geography have been overcome. Businesses that use

open-source collaboration codify the de facto standards that emerge from these 

communities (Albors et al., 2008).

This adoption of ideals from the community that created it has interesting implications 

for traditional ideas of copyright and intellectual property. Coleman notes how the code 

that comprises free and open-source software qualifies as speech under the First 

Amendment, and is thus afforded the associated intellectual-property rights; at the same 

time, the systematic abdication and inversion of one’s intellectual-property rights by the 

open-source community has devalued intellectual property, demanding a rethink of such 

rights (Coleman, 2004).

Encompassing the idea of open-source processes is a concept called Web 2.0, which 

no longer sees the Internet as a static source of information, but as a dynamic, evolving 

work reliant on the contributions of users to provide and improve content through the 

use of Wikis, blogs, and social networks. As part of that dynamic evolution, the 

components that allow users with special needs to access the Internet need to adjust 

accordingly. The Accessible Rich Internet Applications (ARIA) standards are being 

developed to interface effectively with assistive technology through the Application 

Programming Interface (API) of the platform (Gibson, 2007). Different measures are 

required to accommodate different aspects of the Web 2.0 experience (e.g.,

adjustments to the markup language of the Web site so that each component can 

properly interface with a dynamic Web site). If adaptations to the APIs to facilitate the 

incorporation of assistive technology and toolkits are made more user friendly for all 

users, eventually all new Web 2.0 elements will include these features, eliminating the 
134

lag between cutting-edge development and its being made accessible to all users. As

the Internet becomes more sophisticated, it will create greater opportunity for 

collaboration, accessibility, and employment (ibid).

The dynamic potential of Web 2.0 should not be underestimated. MIT’s Media Lab has 

already developed a prototype “wearable, gestural interface” that gives a taste of the 

future. When users wear the SixthSense device around their necks, they can capture 

photographs by using their fingers to frame the desired image, look up reviews for a 

book by simply holding the desired title in their hands, or check their email by tracing an 

@ symbol in the air. An extrapolation of the capabilities of such a device into the realm 

of assistive technologies suggests great possibilities for helping people with disabilities

not only to do work but also to create work.

The Economics of Open Source

At first glance, open-source processes, in all their iterations, are a collective economic 

anomaly, as the production of large and complex projects rarely occurs without monetary 

compensation, as is the case for most open-source development. In fact, economic 

motivations behind open-source software production exist, but in a subtle way.

Economic theory asserts that for people to engage in a task such as software 

development, they must reap both immediate and delayed rewards (Lerner and Tirole, 

2000). Immediate rewards include, for example, monetary compensation or the use of 

customized software to complete a task. Delayed rewards, called the “signaling 

incentive,” are further divided into two distinct categories. The first category is “career 

concern incentive,” in which collaborators are motivated to produce open-source works

because future employers may recognize their work. This category is important for 

people with disabilities because the source code produced is the sole component 

leaving an impression on employers, providing people with disabilities with an even 

playing ground for displaying their capabilities to potential employers. This situation 

applies not only to software-based work: because there is such a low barrier to entry on 

open-source collaborations, people with disabilities can put their talents and capabilities 

on display for potential jobs in the future.
135

The second “signaling incentive” or motivation is called the “ego-gratification incentive,”

where programmers desire recognition for their individual contribution (Lerner and 

Tirole, 2000). In addition, Lerner and Triole find a third motivation, the “alumni effect,”

where students use open-source code while learning to program and continue to do so 

once their skills have developed (ibid).

Krishnamurthy (2003) found the open-source community to be largely indifferent to 

profitability but nevertheless suggested methods for monetizing open-source projects. He 

pointed out that distributors of open-source software will generate profits from selling addons to their software or charging for tech support, while other companies offer third-party 

support for a wide range of open-source products. Krishnamurthy uses customer 

applicability and relative product importance to analyze a product’s profitability. He labels 

as “stars” those products, such as the various Linux operating systems, that excel in both 

of these categories. At the other extreme, “low profile nichers” have low potential for profit 

and low customer applicability, but must fulfill a small need somewhere to exist.

This latter category is exemplified by Steve Kitchin, who has paraplegia and who 

designed an accessible pickup truck after he acquired his disability in an accident, as he 

was not content driving a modified minivan. This initiative soon led to a new career 

adapting vehicles for people with disabilities (Celeste, 2010). Kitchin’s project thus 

changed to a “high-profile niche” category: products vital to the community they serve, 

but with low universal applicability. In Krishnamurthy’s final category, “mainstream 

utilities” have low relative importance but high customer applicability, as with many 

Firefox add-ons. The product developed is not essential to the computer’s functionality, 

as an operating system would be, but is universally useful.

Ultimately the open-source processes have radically changed how people collaborate, 

offering great promise to some sectors of the disability community by creating 

technology beneficial to them, at the same time allowing those with special needs to 

collaborate on projects that showcase their abilities for future employers.
136

Open Source and People with Disabilities

Open-source communities have been noted as a successful model of inclusive 

interaction (Fischer, 2005). In open-source communities, shared concerns rather than 

shared location becomes the prominent defining feature of a group of people 

interacting. This allows more people to be included, exploiting local knowledge. 

Transcending spatial-distribution barriers is especially important for locally sparse 

populations (ibid.). Many categories of disability fit the characteristic of locally sparse 

populations, as there may be few people with a specific disability-related concern in a 

given geographic area.

Some open-source developments contribute to the availability of affordable assistive 

technology for people with disabilities. For example, Orca is a free, open-source 

scriptable screen reader developed by the Accessibility Program Office of Sun 

Microsystems, Inc. with contributions from many community members (About Orca, 

2010). As other examples, “companies, consortia, and individuals are also developing 

open-source software applications that consumers can download for free. One allows a 

user to write up to 30 words per minute (‘wpm’) by pointing or gazing at zooming letters 

on a screen; another is a screen reader using speech, Braille, and magnification; and a 

third is a program that has both text-to-speech and automatic speech recognition 

capabilities” (Lyle, 2010).

3.3. Summary

The technology sector in America is huge, including more than 140,000 companies with 

combined annual revenue of about $900 billion. The areas covered by the vectors are 

undergoing major change, as the business models that they have long followed break 

down. Typically these models have followed a top-down hierarchy, with power heavily 

concentrated into only a few companies in each sector, in part due to the heavy capital 

investment required. According to the Occupational Outlook Handbook, employment in 

this sector is likely to be increasingly knowledge oriented, and creative, with an orientation 

toward flexible and freelancing types of employment spanning different disciplines.
137

Although this report was not intended to identify specific job opportunities for the future, 

there are “occupations of interest” relevant to the vectors, which help identify categories 

of potential work opportunities. They include:

● Computer Specialists: Network systems and data communications analysts,

computer software engineers, computer and information scientists, 

researchers, network and computer systems administrators, computer 

specialists, database administrators, and computer support specialists. 

● Media and Communications: These occupations are expected to increase 

overall, but especially in certain categories: editors (for data processing, 

hosting, and related services, as well as other information services in 

software publishing); technical writers and authors; and self-employed 

reporters and correspondents. 

● Artists and Animators: Multimedia artists and animators. 

Similarly a review of the areas of business represented by the vectors points to relevant 

“areas of growth.” They include:

● IDC forecasts that the U.S. mobile broadband market will grow from 

6.5 million subscribers in 2009 to 30.2 million in 2014.

● For Vector 1, wireless communication platforms, employment prospects are 

heaviest in the software and Internet service-provider sectors. 

● For Vector 2, social networking, the story is one of extraordinary growth. 

Social-networking sites are already the fourth-most visited sites on the Web, 

with more than 66 percent of worldwide Internet users belonging to such a

site. The average user spent 63 percent more time on a social-networking site

in 2008 than in 2007. 

● For Vectors 3 and 4, the U.S. entertainment and games software industry

includes about 220 companies with combined annual revenue of $28 billion. 

While Second Life already represents a robust economy, residents spent 
138

21 percent more time on Second Life in 2009 compared with 2008, and userto-user transactions in the first quarter 2010 increased 30 percent year-toyear, an all-time high for the economy. 

● Growth in the market means video-game jobs are also growing. Game 

Developer Research says there are about 45,000 total employees in the U.S. 

video-game industry, with an average salary of close to $80,000. The Bureau 

of Labor Statistics projects that employment for computer-software engineers, 

some of whom develop video games, will grow by nearly a third in the next 

decade.

● For Vector 5, open/peer publishing, online video viewing has become 

mainstream. The industry leader Google attracted 144.6 million unique 

viewers during May 2010. The same applies to the online news sites of 

newspapers—current estimates are that 53 percent of American adults get 

their news online—and to the sale of e-books: by 2009, sales of books 

available for the Kindle were 35 percent as high as sales of the same books 

in print. 
139

SECTION 4. Exemplar Studies

4.1. Selection of Industry Partners: The Process

The selection of industry partners was multifaceted. The aim was to conduct three 

interviews for each vector—one each to represent a senior-management perspective, a 

marketing perspective, and a technical/engineering or design perspective. A list of 

projected “target” companies was drawn up, emphasizing diversity, and based on 

awareness of accessibility, willingness of management to participate in the research, 

and familiarity with Georgia Tech researchers (based on an inventory of contacts known 

or assumed by each team member). As discussed below, the interview process was 

expanded when difficulties in obtaining cooperation from the companies on the target 

list became apparent.

In parallel with the identification of potential companies for interviews, interview 

questions were developed, based on the preliminary literature reviews and business 

case analyses. The final decision was to break the list into two: questions that were 

universal and covering all technology vectors, together with a subgroup of questions 

specific to each vector. Along with the questions, an introductory text was created that 

explained the aims of the research and how the data would be used. Once a company

agreed to participate, the research team scheduled either an initial meeting or a 

preliminary telephone briefing with the company representative, in which the research 

objectives were reviewed and the use of the responses and data explained (see 

Appendix 1 for a list of companies targeted and of those actually interviewed, the 

interview protocol, and the interview questions).

Lining up interviews was considerably more difficult than initially anticipated. Companies 

identified as potentially the easiest to approach often proved the most challenging. 

When this process began, the economic downturn was in full effect, and some 

companies were restructuring, making it difficult to identify the most suitable person for 

interview. Several of the primary contacts at companies were no longer employed there, 
140

which added an unanticipated level of complexity to the process. Another unforeseen 

issue with the companies willing to be interviewed was the inordinate amount of time it 

took for the questions to be validated by management.

The success of the industry study depended on the willingness of the interviewees to 

engage in a frank and open discussion of the successes and failures of the accessibility 

practices and employment attitudes held by the company, and by the industrial sector it 

represented. Experience has shown that companies are willing to share sensitive 

information as long as they feel confident the information will not be used against them 

or disclosed to a competitor. Accordingly, we assured the potential interviewees that the 

research was not designed to focus on an individual company but was rather a method 

of identifying problems and potential solutions to issues faced by the industry/vector as 

a whole. Therefore, the following statements (positive or negative) about the 

industry/vector associated with the product line under evaluation are not attributed to a 

specific company. Instead, the research focuses on identifying opportunities and 

lessons learned that are typical of the vector represented by the individual company

participating in the research protocol.

One Interesting and unexpected outcome was that the most fruitful avenue to identify 

potential companies and appropriate individuals within those companies proved to be 

the LinkedIn platform (ironically, we were unable to interview someone from LinkedIn). 

An illustrative example of social media’s potential, in this case being more effective than 

traditional networks in arranging interviews, arose from the experience of arranging 

interviews for Vector 4 (immersive digital environments—electronic games). We 

performed simple group searches within LinkedIn for entertainment and gaming groups 

within Georgia, which identified the Georgia Film, Music & Digital Entertainment group. 

By our using LinkedIn to contact an individual with this group (which does not 

traditionally facilitate or brokerage introductions), the group was made aware of the

project and our need for contacts in the industry, leading to its eventually providing

them. This group was not part of the initial research team network, yet in the end it was

responsible for securing several interviews for this project. 
141

By contrast, the least productive method of lining up interviews was having interviewees 

refer or link us to other individuals whom they thought would be appropriate and 

interested in cooperating. This is ironic because the focus of this part of the study was 

to analyze new technologies and their effects on business operations and labor 

prospects, and the new modes such as Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter were much 

more effective in making productive contacts than the traditional model of personal 

networking and identifying potential participants.

4.2. Interviews with Industry Partners

Interviews was conducted to gain “on-the-ground” information about how the different 

technology vectors affected both the ability to do work as well as the ability to create or 

find work for the general population, and for people with disabilities. These interviews 

were conducted over three months at the beginning of 2010. To ensure anonymity, 

interviewees are identified in the text by general position and by industry sector only. 

For each vector, three individuals were interviewed, each representing a managerial, a 

technical, and a marketing position.

The following text summarizes those discussions and the issues brought to light. 

General facilitators and barriers are discussed first. The analysis then shifts to specific 

effect found for people with disabilities. Following this, the important characteristics on 

both the individual level and the employer are discussed. Finally, the analysis examines 

issues addressed by the interviewees that were of significant importance in terms of the 

potential for immediate change. 

4.2.1. Facilitators: General Observations

The interviews led to identifying both potential facilitators to work, or to finding or 

creating new opportunities for work, as well as barriers or potential pitfalls threatening 

their successful realization. The great majority of the interview subjects noted how the 

potential and power of these technologies increase as they are integrated into one 
142

another—but so do the challenges. The following are general trends identified through 

the interviews as having potential in terms of employment.

Crowd-Sourced Project Work

One interviewee within the social-networking vector pointed out the need for a 

fundamental shift in how one finds and is rewarded for work. 

If we are going to thrive and find novel ways for technology to assist in the 

evolution of finding and creating work that is accessible to most, we must 

find unique ways to ‘mash-up’ these social technologies with more familiar 

avenues for the public at large.7

Social-networking tools like LinkedIn have demonstrated that online social sites can be 

important facilitators for individuals marketing their abilities to potential employers, but 

other online employment environments reverse this idea—instead of interviewing to 

work for the company, you just work (Rosedale, 2010). 

One such new endeavor is called Love Machine, developed by Second Life creator 

Phillip Rosedale. The concept is for employers to market their needs to broad 

audiences and allow individuals to bid on work on a project-by-project basis. Available 

projects are posted to a worklist, and work bids are solicited. Successful bids are 

expected to join a virtual work environment known as the live workroom. This is a social 

interface that allows the participants to harness the institutional knowledge of the group, 

as they search and discuss together, all from their own remote locations. As of August 

2010, there were 42 jobs being bid on and 36 active jobs. Though there are similarities 

between this undertaking and other online job fairs or bulletin board spaces like 

Craigslist, there is a key difference: an individual’s account is tracked and performance 

audited, based on quality of work and timeliness of deliverables. This introduces not 

only a measure of quality control but also of recognition, as the work community can 

see who is doing well in any particular field of work. 
143

Virtual Economies

While the current economic downturn has resulted in an increase in unemployment, all 

the interviewees within Vector 3 pointed out that immersive digital environments, and 

more specifically the virtual world, have been thriving. As pointed out in Section 3.2.3,

there is a huge untapped potential within the economies of these platforms, in particular 

for business development.

All the interviewees in this domain noted that social categories, such as gender, race, 

and disability, need not act as barriers to doing business in virtual worlds. Currently 

there are 127 specific groups in Second Life focused on employment opportunities, with 

career fairs regularly being held “in-world.”

8 Second Life is just one of many virtual 

spaces with robust internal economies. Other platforms that are part of this trend 

include World of Warcraft, IMVU, and There.

Stability of Electronic Games

The electronic gaming industry (Vector 4) has been a growth leader historically: from 

2003 to 2006, the entertainment software industry’s annual growth rate exceeded 

16 percent, compared with a U.S. economy growth rate of less than 4 percent

(Grabstats, 2010). The industry also has shown remarkable resiliency during the recent

economically unstable period. 

In terms of employment, the scope is broad, ranging from traditional areas like software 

programming, graphical design, and hardware manufacturing to writers, 

producer/production personnel, audio artists and engineers, and educators (Marcucci, 

2010). Other forms of employment in this sector include audio development and 

production, marketing, and story boarding. Several interviewees pointed out how flexible 

this market is, as mostly this is based on contract work instead of full-time employment, 

typically for small to mid-sized companies, allowing for greater mobility within the 

workforce.
144

Low Barriers to Entry

Several interviewees in the open-publishing vector (Vector 5) identified the role of 

“citizen journalist” as a niche with the lowest barriers to entry and potentially the 

greatest opportunity. Citizen journalism is defined as when people, not necessarily with 

any professional training, “collect, report, analyze and disseminate news and 

information” (Bowman and Willis, 2003). Lasica’s typology of citizen journalism includes 

participation at mainstream news outlets (staff blogs, discussion forums, content sent in 

by readers and articles written by readers); independent news and information sites 

(individual blogs for niche-news publications geared to community or city news, 

consumer news, politics, among others); full-fledged participatory news sites (citizen 

first-person reporting); collaborative and contributory media sites (mash-up interfaces of 

blogs, discussion boards, and other social sites where individuals can contribute and 

link to others); and “thin media” (including mailing lists and email newsletters). The 

possibilities of YouTube could also be mentioned, as could personal broadcasting sites 

like Daytonabeachlive.com and KenRadio.com, where individuals create their own 

brand of local news broadcasting. 

4.2.2. Facilitators: People with Disabilities

During the interviews, opportunities were identified specifically for people with

disabilities. Below is a summary of two of these potential benefits.

Free Advertising

It is well understood that social networks can be used to connect disparate people to 

groups and inspire a sense of belonging. Yet social networks like Facebook, which are 

traditionally seen as strictly social, are increasingly being used in employment hunts. As 

a technical director in this domain pointed out: 

The power of social networks in finding employment, especially for those 

with disabilities, is that the platforms are agile enough to allow for almost 
145

anything. Because these services are free, it is almost like setting up your 

own free and highly engaged Web presence. The only barrier to entry is 

having access to the Web.9

While there are close to 800 advocacy groups on Facebook for people with disabilities, 

a more specific search of disability and employment returned 435 groups that focused 

on specifically creating or supporting networks of employment for people with 

disabilities.

10 More traditional employment or career-focused sites such as LinkedIn did

not compare to the power and scope of the Facebook community, only returning

24 groups focused on employment for people with disabilities.11 The largest LinkedIn 

group is Aspiritech, which has 136 members as compared to the biggest Facebook 

group, Disability Awareness Advocacy Group, which has 761 members.

12 Larger, more 

socially focused sites like Facebook offer far greater diversity compared with the more 

professionally focused social-networking sites.

The Impact of HTML5

Another identified benefit was the potential offered by the adoption of new HTML5 

standards. These standards promise to help greatly with the development of assistive 

technology tools, making them easier to use, more cost effective, and reliable, a view 

confirmed by our interviews with senior leadership at IBM. HTML is a standard for 

structuring and presenting content on the World Wide Web, and this latest incarnation 

aims to reduce the need for proprietary-rich Internet applications. At the time of writing 

this report, HTML5 was in draft standard state at the Web Hyptext Application 

Technology Working Group and in working draft state at the World Wide Web 

Consortium.

13 To ensure that issues of accessibility with HTML5 are proactively 

addressed, the relevant objective of the HTML Accessibility Task Force is to “help 

ensure that HTML5 provides features to enable Web content to be accessible to people 

with disabilities. This includes review of existing features for potential accessibility 

problems, and the proposal of new features where needed.”14
146

The most important thing to note about accessibility in HTML5 is not so much the 

features as the change in philosophy that it entails. For example, bloggers working in 

this domain emphasize that HTML5 actively encourages Web authors not to put 

information into places where ordinary users cannot see it, such as alt and summary 

attributes, but rather into the normal body text.15

HTML5 has great potential in making assistive technologies more widely accessible, 

and it is these technologies that are often critical to people with disabilities functioning 

successfully within the workforce. If the result of HTML5 is technologies that are more 

streamlined, reliable, and affordable, it could be of great benefit to people with 

disabilities when seeking employment. The effect could be transformative, as described 

by a leading open-source director: 

One advantage that OS products have is that they tend to be free. People 

with disabilities often have higher unemployment rates and can’t afford 

assistive technologies. Having technologies that are free and readily 

available to download greatly increase the chances for disabled people to 

have access to needed technologies and could therefore make finding 

work much easier to do.16

4.2.3. Barriers: General Observations

One finding to emerge from the interviews was that traditional, linear skills are not the 

most desirable or relevant for employment in the technology sectors represented by the 

vectors. In particular, interviews in Vector 2 (social networking) and Vectors 3 and 4 

(immersive digital environments) indicated that a broader, interdisciplinary approach 

was demanded by the complexity of the field. This finding is not new. Some leading 

American universities have recognized the need for these advanced skills and have 

begun incorporating these themes into strategic plans and curricula.17

Another general finding was the importance of relationships and social skills in order to 

solidify the work position. Successful employment still boils down to belonging to a 
147

community and understanding how to build one’s position. It is possible that having a 

disability might be seen as negatively affecting social intercourse, despite having a

computer or handheld screen between you and others. 

Another potential social issue that arose from the interviews was that of privacy and 

personal information. The use of social-networking and gaming sites has spread widely 

in a short period of time, which has tended to sideline some serious consequences or 

side-effects that they may produce, including the possible harmful effects of the 

information spread through these networks, or more specifically how an individual’s 

digital persona may be perceived. Many employers have begun using online profiles for 

instant background checks on current and potential employees (Grasz, 2009). This may 

be lost on individuals who see their social profiles as part of “private” life, when in fact 

this is no longer the case, because of the blending of coworkers into friends or buddy 

lists, and the inclusion of their positions and employers into their profiles. 

4.2.4. Barriers: People with Disabilities

One issue that emerged from the interviews was the perceived “invisibility” of people 

with disabilities. In an interview with a representative from the gaming sector in the 

immersive digital environment vector, the comment was made how few employees with 

disabilities can be found in the industry, but how their presence would be welcomed: 

The gaming industry does not attract many people with disabilities or 

women. If I were given two equally matched candidates for an open 

position yet one was a female or a person with a disability, I would chose 

them. I find that teams that have multiple perspectives on them tend to be 

more dynamic and create a better working environment.18

The interviews also revealed a continued lack of awareness of the size and scope of the 

disability community, either as potential employees or as a potentially mobilized and 

profitable market opportunity. The same sentiment was repeated throughout the vector 

interviews that during the development phase, the disability community was not 
148

important to be included in the development or design of vector artifacts. Several 

interviewees went so far as to say that they were unaware of how certain technologies 

had specific benefits for the disability community, indicating that there is still a 

widespread lack of knowledge about the uses of assistive technologies and how 

disabilities can be overcome in the workplace.

A potential explanation for this situation was identified as the lack of funding or support 

for different disability-associated projects. One of the interviewees in the open-source 

vector emphasized that, while the open-source community is in general underfunded, 

open-source accessible technologies suffer even more from inadequate funding. This, 

as the interviewee pointed out, is unfortunate: 

Open source accessibility tools have great potential. Assistive 

technologies are often proprietary and expensive. This is often a burden 

on individuals who are statistically more likely to have employment issues 

or inconsistent funding because of their diagnosed condition(s). [In my 

opinion] it is a combination of funding and acceptance within the 

community of the newer technologies. This is where advocacy groups and 

people within the disability community could have tremendous impact.19

This call to action goes beyond the suggestion that the disability community embrace 

digital technology through raising awareness of its potential benefits to a grassroots 

effort to support and push the boundaries of what is possible in terms of employment for

people with disabilities. 

Another, related issue was the cost of the different accessible technologies. There are 

two costs discussed by the interviewees within this technology vector: that of developing 

specialized technologies or software/hardware compatible with the assistive 

technologies, and that of the consumer price of these technologies. This issue of cost 

produces a bad circle, as the poor economic circumstances of the disability population 

potentially results in multiple constraints on the need and use of assistive technologies 

to find work or compete properly in the workplace.
149

Overall, there appear to be more benefits than barriers for employment within these 

technology vectors than might be considered at first glance. One positive suggestion was 

that most of the barriers identified through the interviews could be addressed by more vocal 

and stronger leadership within the disability community and by more synergy of efforts. The 

comment was also made that this could easily be achieved with better communication 

channels and more openness within the leadership of the community.

4.3. V1 Sector-Specific Trend Analysis

Vector 1: Wireless Communication Platforms

Interviewees gave varied comments on the opportunities, offered directly by this 

technology vector, to create employment. Due to the diversity of platforms represented 

by this vector (e.g., Smart phones, PDAs, Laptops, Netbooks, Tablets, iPads) and the 

expertise these technologies and this domain demands (foundational programming 

knowledge and background are required), the barriers to entry for employment are 

greater than the other technology areas analyzed. However, using the technologies this 

vector represents in novel ways and integrating the use of new applications were seen 

to offer significant potential. 

The strongest potential mentioned was the possibilities opened up by the flexibility 

allowed through both the mobility and the integrated services offered on most wireless 

devices. The mobility of the devices allows for a more distributed workforce, which could 

have obvious benefits. One of the interviewees, a technology director within this vector, 

gave a clear opinion: 

Wireless technologies have changed the dynamics of the work 

environment. People are now able to participate within the workforce in a 

more decentralized and amenable manner. There are unrealized 

possibilities that these [characteristics] will afford workplace practices 

moving forward.20 
150

The ability for a distributed workforce to be implemented gives employers more options 

in the construction of their business models, therefore making the company more agile 

to the needs of the customers.

Another key issue for the interviewees is the effect that integrated services on handheld 

devices have on facilitating office or job requirements. This can be seen with the new 

capabilities that embedded GPS, barcode-reading software using the built-in camera, 

and additional software or peripheral hardware have to offer with smart phones. The 

combination of wireless Internet, access to social networking platforms, and GPS allows 

for real-time computing and locating, which can both facilitate work processes and aid in 

the search for employment opportunities—specifically, using a combination of social 

networking and GPS to find where and when there are potential employment 

opportunities. Similarly, the newer wireless tablets offer the potential to make the 

complete workplace situation truly mobile. 

One employment opportunity area identified in the mobile platform interviews was the 

effect and importance of application development. The industry is starting to hit a 

saturation point, where applications are exhausting the capabilities of current mobile 

platform hardware. The prediction is that there will be a shift, where application needs 

will start driving hardware development, implying that application developers will play a 

fundamental, possibly primary role. One recommendation was that there needs to be 

more synergy and cooperation between application developers and developers within 

the assistive-technology sector, in order to achieve the goal of less costly, fully 

accessible applications and their more wide-spread use among users. Interviewees saw 

this goal as attainable, as the demographics of an aging population affect the general 

population over the next five to 10 years.

However, any alignment between application and software developers and the needs of 

the individuals using toolsets that are developed specifically with accessibility in mind 

will not be easy. One interviewee discussed the complexities involved when toolset 

developers are not directly responsible for or involved in, or even have any influence 

over, how application developers use those toolsets. A further issue is whether such 
151

involvement or influence is even desirable, as the industry view is that dictating or 

controlling how the toolkits are used or integrated could have adverse effects on 

innovative use of the toolkits.

Overall, the interviewees in this vector were optimistic that with continued technological 

evolution and innovation, there are still huge possibilities for wireless communication 

platforms—especially with the increase of 4G deployment rates and concomitant 

capabilities, as well as associated advances in hardware like iPads and the Cisco Cius. 

The continued growth of interconnectivity of the operating systems embedded in the 

platforms and third-party peripheral technologies will expand the capabilities and 

usefulness of the technology for a multitude of purposes, business processes and 

employment opportunities being prominent among them.

Key Recommendation: All interviewees agreed that it is the applications of wireless 

communication platform technology, and not the development of it, that offers the most 

potential for creating or finding new employment opportunities.

Vector 2: Social Networking

Interviewees in this vector gave diverse opinions on how they perceived the uses of 

social-networking sites for employment opportunities. There was some disagreement 

over the major issues in this area, including how these sites could be used for effective 

employment opportunities. With a few exceptions, such as the use of social networking 

to conduct market surveys and polling, the interviewees saw few opportunities for using 

social-networking sites to facilitate workplace operations, compared with using them to 

find employment opportunities.

All interviewees discussed the division between different conceptions of networking, 

whether social, business, or hybrid social-networking sites. Sites like LinkedIn and 

Working Life focus on employment- and business-centered activities. Other platforms 

like Ning, Twitter, and The Site, may offer support for finding or creating employment 

opportunities, yet at the core are based on more social-affinity constructs. A common 
152

theme for the interviewees was the importance of understanding the design of each 

platform and of the associated communities as expressed in an interview with a 

developer, because “having a well-rounded understanding of the platform will enhance 

the efficiency and applicability of the participation within each community.” This is of 

particular relevance for individuals (or companies) marketing themselves for 

employment purposes.

The most common benefit discussed was the ability to share large amounts of 

knowledge about an individual in a condensed and organized manner. Socialnetworking sites are a consistently accessible and easy way to learn about others, 

either in a deep or shallow manner, depending on the extent of the information 

presented (DiMicco and Millen, 2008). Also discussed was the validity of the insights

that one gathers on another individual through this medium and how this could differ 

vastly depending on the context in which the personal information is being offered. All 

interviewees for the Social Networking vector discussed trends and dynamics for both 

individuals and groups. Many discussed the growing use of these platforms for nonpersonal, workplace or business related activities. Because these spaces and the 

dialogue between businesses and their patrons are more accessible and visible, the 

social networking platform becomes a much richer experience compared to a traditional 

web presence. It unites the group/business/individual to the general public immediately 

and directly, and can offer real-time dialogue between the parties - something that 

traditional websites do not effectively facilitate.

Online social networking is essentially an artificial process, which can give the illusion of 

being natural. This represents a disconnect that may be problematic—as one 

interviewee put it, “making the online social graph match the real-world social graph in 

its complexity—and how to leverage and garner benefit from one another.” This lies at 

the heart of the issue of managing multiple identities: If the persona displayed through

online social profiles differ from platform to platform, how does one integrate and 

balance the different identities? In part, this “context collapse” is being driven by having 

to objectively specify the strength and nature of the relationships through the networking 
153

media, which is not necessary in life. In my real-life identity, I do not have to identify 

levels of connectivity or security for individuals like a parent or sibling; they are inferred.

This situation regarding multiple identities may turn into a contentious issue, especially 

when discussing the appropriateness of information or opinions from the individual. This 

is sometimes described as the “digital presence,” or the overall impression that is given 

off by an individual’s collective data presented to the public. One interviewee pointed 

out that this has become an issue with many businesses and companies, where 

individuals represent themselves via an attachment through a corporate profile or

information page. Because the company is now linked to the individual, personal actions 

and events that take place through this medium now potentially reflect back on the 

company or employer. This has led some companies to ban the use of company 

affiliations on employee profiles, which potentially affects the openness of an 

organization to the use of such technologies, and takes away the technologies’ potential 

to be a cost-effective marketing and communication tool.

There was a consensus among the interviewees that social networking has 

considerable potential for finding and creating work, especially when the socialnetworking sites were combined with mobile capabilities like GPS. However, there was

no consensus on how effective these technologies might be specifically for people with 

disabilities—beyond organizing into or finding groups that are meaningful to the 

individual—or how these technologies would better facilitate common workplace 

practices. There was disagreement among the interviewees, on the level of true 

accessibility of social-networking applications and beyond the traditional social-media 

communication tools of instant messaging and mail clients, as to what toolsets or 

benefits these platforms might have to offer.

Key Recommendation: All interviewees saw a positive benefit in strategically using 

social media for enhanced communication and contact with the customer base. At this 

point, if a company is not active within certain business-focused platforms, like LinkedIn, 

it could be seen as a negative comment on the company itself. Social media were seen 
154

as the most productive vector in terms of the ability to find work and therefore should be 

used more for these reasons.

Vectors 3 and 4: Immersive Digital Environments (Virtual Worlds and 

Casual Games)

The interviews concerning immersive digital environments (IDE) were the most varied of 

all the vectors. This variety is indicative of the dynamic nature of the field, which ranges

from general entertainment console games to sophisticated immersive 3D simulations 

for education and training. Because of the breadth of the spread in both application use 

and typology, consensus within the interviews was difficult to achieve, and therefore 

general conclusions were difficult to arrive at.

In all the other vectors, employment opportunities can be created or found through the 

physical development of the technology and the use or application of the technology in 

some unique or distinctive way. While this situation holds true for IDE to some extent, 

the interviewees thought it much less relevant.

IDEs do offer some unique opportunities to create or find work. In virtual worlds, for 

example, the Second Life platform stands out. Second Life visitors are able to search 

for goods and establish services on a platform where there is an economy, where real 

money can be made, and where there is a large enough population to support a 

demand for such goods and services. Income is also generated by catering to the 

needs of the traditional casual-gaming community in virtual worlds, for example, by 

keeping game characters “powered-up” or by selling “enhanced” avatars in specialty 

online stores and auction sites.21 At present, these applications may represent niches in 

terms of employment opportunities, but the opportunities are there. Be it one of the 

larger MMORPGs like World of Warcraft or Tabula Rosa or a virtual world like Second 

Life or Open Sim, there are new and unique avenues for employment being created, 

with real financial rewards.
155

Another unique feature of digital worlds is immersion. The quality of “total engagement” 

via an avatar in a 3-D environment is what marks these platforms apart from other

collaborative digital environments like wikis or discussion forums. An important feature

of immersion is user-created content. The ability for an individual to create artifacts is 

compelling, allowing one to contribute to a space in a meaningful way, and to have that 

contribution persist. Persistence goes hand in hand with immersion. The environment is 

not static but dynamic, and persists regardless of whether or not you are a participant. 

This more realistic and familiar environment is appealing to those who are already into 

other such scaffold environments, like gaming or online collaborative workspaces.

One of the major barriers to employment opportunities in this field is the large 

technological know-how and ramp-up time that is needed to become proficient in the 

use, and even more so the development, of IDE technology. A diverse set of skills is 

needed to build and create: knowledge of the specific language used for the 

development of enriched elements within the specific platform, 3-D modeling 

experience, user experience, and graphic design skills, to name a few. Even the use of 

some applications may represent a steep learning curve for those not familiar with the 

platforms. During an interview with a technical director in the casual gaming industry, 

several facets of the development process were stigmatized as exclusionary for people 

with certain types of disabilities, due to the technologies employed. While this is not a 

new phenomenon, it represents a real barrier for employment within certain sectors of 

the game-development field.

Another issue is the difficulty of interoperability or transfer of assets or information from 

one platform to another. Platforms use different graphics engines, scripting languages, 

and 3-D asset integration. The user experiences are also different, as different platforms 

are developed for different purposes. Therefore, cross-platform integration and the use 

of multiple platforms is difficult if not impossible, potentially a major hindrance for 

someone looking to maximize employment opportunities within this domain.

Key Recommendation: This vector suggests more unconventional and entrepreneurial 

opportunities for employment. Within certain domains, specialized, employment-
156

oriented groups exist that would repay further investigation, to reach a deeper 

understanding of the employment opportunities they may represent.

Vector 5: Open Publishing

This vector represents a work in progress. Interviewees for this study were diverse, 

representing both traditional and new media sources. All interviewees identified key

issues that still need to be addressed as the field continues to mature and develop. The 

sector also represents the newest most in transition of all those sectors analyzed. 

Because of this diversity and relative newness, the interviews were the most 

inconclusive.

The ability to self-publish thoughts or content for free through different social-media 

technologies has become a low-cost and highly effective way to have one’s voice heard, 

especially compared with traditional modes of publication such as newspapers and 

television. The ability to use one’s Twitter account, social-networking feed like 

Facebook, or blog to relay opinion, thought, and knowledge has spread far and fast, 

most recently into the mobile sphere. Anyone anywhere can capture and relay 

information in a triumph of disintermediation and at the expense of traditional news- and 

information-gathering conglomerates. The ability to commoditize that information, 

especially through mobile communications, represents a new business model that is still 

under development. One interviewee who is a marketing director pointed out that “within 

the blogosphere, adding a PayPal connection has allowed for individuals to profit off the 

communication of their knowledge or opinion.” While this capability is not new, we are 

just beginning to see how these opportunities might develop with applications like 

TwitPay and others that are leveraging social networks for monetary purposes.

This openness brings its own problems, however, in particular how to distinguish one 

voice from another. The great benefit of citizen journalism, for example, is the low 

barriers to entry, but as an interviewee stressed, this puts great emphasis on 

maintaining an online persona once one has started, in order to compensate for the lack 

of professional training. 
157

An associated issue is validation. It is difficult or impossible to validate or rate or even 

prioritize the barrage of information that is presented each day online. Again, the 

absence of a professional structure or context is appealing in terms of openness, but 

daunting in relation to controlling for quality or accuracy. Calls for transforming the 

teaching of digital literacy at the secondary and tertiary levels are well meaning but 

inadequate. In a world where literally anyone can publish—in conjuncture with socialmedia sites like Twitter, Facebook, Blogger, and Word Press—the publishing 

infrastructure has become literally open. Most of these sites have intuitive and simpleto-use user interfaces, allowing individuals to broadcast their messages in a form easily 

digestible and easy to broadcast to the world at large.

Key Recommendation: All interviewees agreed that there was vast untapped potential 

within this technology vector. What was not clear was the relative strengths of the 

different business models used to commoditize work within this vector. More in-depth 

analysis is needed, to better understand the emerging field in terms of employment 

opportunities.

Vector 6: Open-Source Processes

The open-source process vector was approached from both a development and an 

application perspective, but because of the difficulties of securing cooperation from 

different companies, only those from the application side were interviewed. In part, this 

situation reflects the nebulousness of the open-source domain. As one interviewee 

pointed out, while open source can touch any and all the technologies discussed in this 

research, it is also much more than a technology: it represents a new philosophical 

approach.

All interviewees agreed that the key characteristic of this vector is the community that 

supports open-source software and processes, whose depth and persistence lead to 

the dynamism and innovation of the open-source process. The interdisciplinary nature 

and diverse interest base of those people who participate in the community result in a 
158

multitude of motivations and support the continued growth of open source, even though 

the business models and return on investments often take time to come to fruition.

As with open publishing, validation issues are important for the open-source community. 

Because so many additions are coming from different locations, validation of what is 

being submitted can sometimes be problematic. But because of the vast number of 

people using the code and continually improving it, this may actually be a non-issue. 

One interviewee pointed out that the open-source method of development is inherently 

more accessible and innovative than is possible in large corporations and potentially 

may be more reliable, precisely because it is not predetermined or limited, and is being 

developed by individuals in many different categories and positions.

Another common theme for this vector was the chronic lack of funding. Open source is 

seen as valuable and worthwhile, but for which it is often difficult to find consistent 

development funding. The military has started investing more in this domain because 

they see the value of this model to connect and empower a community of both civilian 

and military software and hardware developers. Organization and communication within 

the community might seem like a low-tech solution to the issue, but one interviewee 

identified this as a major focus. 

Several interviewees saw finding work for people with disabilities as a major issue for 

several respondents within this vector. Several were discouraged by the lack of 

organization of support or advocacy groups in this domain. One of the interviewees

stated that he had witnessed opportunities for employment of people with disabilities not 

being seized and supported by large organizations. He suggested that this was because 

of a lack of understanding of what these jobs entailed, and possibly represented a larger 

issue within the disability community: that because there is a lack of focus or 

understanding, employment opportunities were allowed to slip by. 

Key Recommendation: This vector offers the lowest potential for finding work, but the 

most potential for assisting workplace practices. It also appears to be the least trusted 

technology of all the vectors. One problem is a lack of consensus or clear 
159

understanding of open source in general, and in particular how open-source processes 

could have a positive effect both on employment opportunities and on the integration of 

assistive technologies into the work situations of people with disabilities.

4.4. Summary

Most interviewees saw potential in the use of these technologies to cultivate 

employment opportunities or to better facilitate workplace activities, especially among 

people with disabilities. Generally, the interviewees identified more opportunities in the 

development of employment opportunities through the vectors as opposed to using the 

vectors to find work or enhance work processes. Several interviewees commented that 

because of the rapid development of these technologies and their inherent dynamism,

the situation is fluid and patterns visible today may be quickly outdated.

One common perception was that the disability community is not seen as a viable 

market, in that many technology companies are not considering developing specific 

product lines for it, and are not taking universal design principles into consideration 

during the initial prototyping and development phase of specific technologies. When 

disability issues were addressed, they were addressed as afterthoughts—how a certain 

technology could be modified to make it more accessible. Several interviewees 

interpreted this to indicate a need for stronger advocacy and information dissemination 

from among people with disabilities. 

New technologies, in particular social networks and immersive digital environments, 

have created unique ways to market skills and to find companies or individuals in need 

of those skills. These technologies have made this process of self-marketing and 

promotion much more decentralized and viral. 

Employment opportunities have begun to look quite different from what has been the 

norm in a traditional industry or domain. In particular, individuals who are creative in 

blending abilities from different disciplines stand to do well, as a mix of skills matches 
160

what the job marketplace is looking for. Interdisciplinary abilities will become more 

essential. Individuals looking to find or create work will need not only to have such a mix 

of work-related skills, but also must be adaptable and show that they bring a unique 

characteristic to the table. In this sense, a disability could even be an advantage.

At the same time, some fundamental truths have not changed. As one interviewee 

reminded us, the world of work still revolves around interpersonal relationships and the 

levels of personal trust that can be established between an individual and a potential 

employer, co-worker, or sponsor. The technologies explored in this report are all at 

some level communication and demonstration media. Even in the digital world of social 

networks, the most successful individuals are those who create a strong online persona 

and then make sure they have the capabilities to back it up.

The individual has to be proactive in searching for potential employment opportunities, 

which means the lens through which we view viable employment opportunities has to 

change constantly—we have to keep pace with evolutions in the field or get left behind. 

The technology vectors analyzed for this study have great potential for reducing 

institutional costs associated with training, communication, marketing, and similar areas. 

Using creative and innovative technological applications to strengthen these areas 

usually requires little up-front costs, as demonstrated clearly in the use of socialnetworking sites as marketing and communication channels. 

Two vectors were earmarked as still having great, yet unexplored, potential: the use of 

open-source processes in business operations, and the use of immersive digital 

environments for training.

A prominent theme that recurred in all the vectors was that of mobility. Mobility was 

discussed from two angles: 1) the ability to access applications or processes via 

multiple platforms, or the common adage “anytime, anywhere”; and 2) the ability to 

transfer data seamlessly from one application to another. As the enabling hardware and 
161

software continue to evolve, the interviewees were unanimous that this would be one of 

the driving motivators and standards moving forward.

With the vast landscape of vehicles for marketing or for conveying core concepts and 

capabilities of a company, a clear and consistent brand image is crucial. Such a brand

is crucial for several reasons. One is to attract the right talent to the organization. 

Another reason is to foster consumers’ confidence and trust. This point was highlighted 

in the interview of a technical director, who raised the issue of open-source software 

and its uptake (or rejection) based on perceived reliability. With 1001 different avenues 

to promote and market through, a clear message that is repeated in the appropriate 

channels is vital for stability and growth of a company in this day and age. A clear 

message is important to people with disabilities because of the opportunities to create 

assistive software that is essentially free or, at a minimum, much more affordable than 

what is currently available on the market.

One striking commentary was on the need to incorporate different perspectives, 

including those of people with disabilities, within the technological developments 

represented by the vectors. The perception that certain technological fields were not 

“suited” for people with certain disabilities is a pernicious one, and for reasons that are 

not necessarily clear: several interview respondents speculated on the typical lack of 

confidence that people with disabilities have, something instilled in them by the 

dominant culture. Social stigmatization also plays a role, as in the suggestion that the 

technical requirements of certain fields result in the automatic disqualification of specific 

mental or physical disabilities. An example given is that blind or colorblind individuals 

“cannot” create storyboards for video games.

Another striking commentary was the perception that the market consisting of people 

with disabilities is a “niche,” not substantial enough to justify development work. The 

most convincing rationale offered for this view was that people with disabilities tend to 

have little disposable income and cannot invest in expensive software or hardware. 
162

The counter argument—that the disability market is not “niche” at all—is one that needs 

to be broadcast, as several interviewees commented on the lack of advocacy among 

people with disabilities. Without such “marketing,” it will be difficult to envisage digital 

communication applications being created using universal design principles or

developed with the specific capability of interacting with peripherals such as screen 

readers. In other words, the strong need for such connectivity and communication tools

is unlikely to be met unless the nonvirtuous circle started by the perception that people 

with disabilities are outside the mainstream is broken within the marketplace.

Reaching this goal is not an impossible task. Several interviewees did not see a 

difference in the opportunities appropriate technology would afford the general

population compared with people with disabilities. This observation signals that such

companies view the integration of assistive technologies as a third-party responsibility. 

Noninclusion hence becomes one of developing and publicizing a market justification for 

the additional costs that may be entailed. Companies like IBM and AbleGamers have

shown there is a market, but no one has communicated that message.

Finally, one major barrier that emerged across all the vectors and that was repeated 

across many interviews was the perceived “invisibility” of the disability community. Many 

interviewees stated that there was little to no focus on this domain because it was not 

perceived to be a profitable niche community to serve. This perception highlights the 

lack of awareness of the size and scope of this community.

Table 3 summarizes facilitators and barriers, according to vector.
Table 3. Facilitators and Barriers—Section 4

Vector Facilitators Barriers 

Social- • Promotion of self for 

employment purposes 

• Privacy and security 

concerns 

networking sites 

• Integration of wireless 

services 

• Unique business models 

• Cost effective—usually 

small or nonexistent costs 

for using platforms 

• Ability to share large 

amounts of information and 

data 

• Maintenance of self (time) 

• Dependent on certain social

skills 

• Diminished segregation 

between personal and 

private time 

• Too much information; 

figuring out relevance and 

truth 

Immersive • Removes constraints of the 

physical work environment 

• Steep learning curve 

digital 

environments 

• Education and training 

opportunities 

• Choice of selfrepresentation 

• Entrepreneurship 

opportunities/separate 

economy 

• Strength of economic sector 

• Need access to high 

computing power and 

powerful network 

• Skill sets to work in these 

domains is often diverse 

and unique 

• Dependent on certain social

skills 

163
 
164

Table 3. Facilitators and Barriers—Section 4 (continued)

Vector Facilitators Barriers

Open source • Diversity of contribution, 

creative solutions

• Access to information, 

resources, and tools 

• Low nontechnical barriers 

of entry

• High tech savvy required in 

order to contribute

• Lack of funding for robust 

and collective action

• Misperceptions of the 

robustness and stability of 

products in this sphere

Peer publishing • Less intermediation, more 

niche-relevant news and 

information available

• Low barriers to entry

• Blogs for personal and 

career development

• Ability to easily 

commoditize work

• Difficult to access an 

audience

• High literacy, education, 

and tech savvy often 

required in order to publish

• Is the newest and least 

defined space of the 

vectors
165

Table 3. Facilitators and Barriers—Section 4 (continued)

Vector Facilitators Barriers

Mobile platforms • More communication 

options, especially for 

people with sensory 

disabilities

• Flexibility of services and 

technologies

• Variety of applications to 

facilitate almost anything 

wanted

• Plethora of technologies 

that can be used singularly 

or in combination

• High cost and fees

• Need for wireless Internet 

access 

• Rapidity of new 

technologies and 

applications can be 

overwhelming on multiple 

levels

• Diminished segregation 

between personal and 

private time
166
167

SECTION 5. User Studies

5.1. Introduction and Process

User studies were conducted involving people with disabilities, to explore user 

perceptions and awareness of accessibility-enabling features in the vectors studied,

which can facilitate participation in the workplace or have the potential for becoming 

useful for finding or creating work. A three-stage strategy of data collection was 

developed: Stage 1, focus groups; stage 2, online social-network groups; and stage 3, 

Delphi study. 

The research team took a holistic view of each of the vectors. For example, while 

valuable accessibility features may be already present in a product, platform, or 

process, inaccessibility of supporting applications or features, such as an activation or 

security requirement, may offset potential benefits they could offer users with disabilities 

(Holman et al., 2007; Johnston et al., 2003; Sasse et al., 2001). 

The primary objective of these studies was to explore these perceptions, barriers, and 

facilitator conditions that affect vector accessibility. In part, this issue references the 

“barriers to adoption” approach identified by the Wireless RERC (Rehabilitation 

Engineering Research Center) for establishing benchmark indicators of accessibility: 

inadequacy/insufficiency of consumer information, lack of manufacturer/designer 

awareness of the needs of consumers with disabilities, device affordability, inadequacy 

of legislative/regulatory requirements for the use of operability of these technologies, 

and device incompatibility or poor interoperability, especially in technology-intensive 

settings such as the workplace (Baker and Moon, 2008). 

A secondary objective was to learn from the experiences of people with disabilities in 

the new-media and digital-technology environments that the vectors represent, develop 

insight into future needs relative to such media and technologies, and assess how they 

may affect the employment of people with disabilities. Use and acceptance were 
168

captured through the collection of data via focus groups, both in person and through

online, including social-networking, platforms. The selection of focus-group participants 

was based on users’ reported experience with the types of products representative of 

the six study vectors and recruited through online social networks and established email 

lists. Focus groups were conducted in person and other group experiences (e.g., socialnetworking platforms such as Facebook and LinkedIn), with information captured via a 

variety of accessible online platforms to allow for maximum access.

In addition, the research team employed a modified online Delphi process to capture 

input from other expert and informed stakeholders in the adoption and use of digital 

technologies in employment situations.

The research team strove to ensure diversity in respondents and in opinions received, 

through both the online social-network groups and the focus groups; by online 

solicitation on a variety of platforms; by invitations to stakeholder email groups; and 

consultation with target organizations, e.g., the Center for Assistive Technology and 

Environmental Access (CATEA), Southeast Disability & Business Technical Assistance 

Center (SEDBTAC), Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of 

North America (RESNA), and National Association of Rehabilitation Research and 

Training Center (NARRTC).

5.2. Focus Groups: Introduction and Description

Three focus groups, with six to eight participants in each group, were conducted during 

May and June 2010, for a total of 21 participants. People with sensory, motor, learning,

and some intellectual disabilities were represented.

A standard invitation, describing the project focus and the process to be undertaken, 

was sent to existing contact lists maintained by CATEA at Georgia Tech. The largest list 

is maintained by the Work RERC (the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on 

Workplace Accommodations, also at Georgia Tech), and includes over 
169

1,500 organization representatives and individuals with an interest in research relating 

to people with disabilities in the workplace. In addition, contacts at the National Science 

Foundation and Syracuse University were forwarded information on the project, which 

was then passed on to contacts of their own. In total, about 1,800 to 2,000 individuals 

were contacted across a broad spectrum of interests. More than 70 requests for 

participation were received, with the majority from out of state.

Experienced Georgia Tech research scientists led the focus-group sessions. 

Participants were compensated for time and travel expenses. Participants in the focus 

groups were asked to discuss specific experiences with illustrative products or services 

from study vectors, with a particular sensitivity to their experiences as affected by their 

disability, with major disability classes (i.e., mobility, sensory, intellectual, learning) 

represented in the groups. Data and perceptions concerning both positive and negative 

experiences were collected. Participants discussed features that affect the accessibility, 

both positively and negatively, of products or services from the study vectors. In 

addition, accessibility features that users with specific disabilities judged critical to the 

operation of the device are noted.

A portion of the time spent with the focus groups was dedicated to questions concerning 

use in the workplace, as well as to probing focus-group participants on their 

experiences in the new media and digital-technology environment, especially focusing

on how the technology affects the employment of people with disabilities.

5.2.1. Analysis, by Vectors

V1: Wireless Communication Platforms

A relatively commonly expressed sentiment among participants was the perception that 

their smart phones were important for keeping in touch, but noted that this was not 

generally the case with their employers, who prohibited the use of cell phones in some 

cases. One participant noted the emergence of devices like Kindles and iPads, which 

are becoming increasingly visible in and out of the workplace.
170

The utility of smart phones relates to their capacity to allow users to get out from behind 

a screen, and sidestep the mobility issue. One of the powerful aspects of smart phones 

is that they provide freedom to access online networks without being locked into a 

specific location. On the downside, keyboards can be inaccessible due to size 

limitations and interfaces that can be frustrating or slow. Several deaf participants 

mentioned using the video aspects of their smart phone both for communicating with 

other deaf people but also for communicating with hearing individuals, indicating that it 

gave them a great degree of connectivity and control over communication compared to 

traditional TTY services.

One of the most surprising findings from one of the groups rebutted an assumption 

about the accessibility of mobile devices. In one group, during a discussion of the 

accessibility of various mobile devices, a surprising three-quarters of the participants 

who were blind or had low vision actually preferred the iPhone for its accessibility, 

notwithstanding the graphic (visual) menus. Here, the apparent barrier of a graphically 

driven interface was, in the words of one participant, offset by the underlying 

accessibility: “Yeah, there is a really steep learning curve with the iPhone, but once you 

get it, the system is well designed and may be the most accessible one out there.”

Cost was considered the primary impediment to use of smart phones, especially if the 

user rather than the employer assumed the cost. The key concerns seemed to be “cost” 

(phones as well as service) and problematic support (with specific references to AT&T 

and to cell-phone stores). In addition, there was some perception that such phones 

were somewhat inaccessible, in terms of dexterity. One group (the second) used cell

phones mainly for voice communications or texting, rather than the smart-phone 

functions.

Participants who used (or even relied on) smart phones noted that this was their choice 

and not necessarily encouraged in the workplace. Skype was widely used, as were 

instant-messaging (IM) systems, which allowed for both communications and

transcription (viewed as less disruptive than a phone call). No one in the third group 

made regular use of advanced phone features, though texting and some email use were 
171

mentioned. No members of the group owned a smart phone for themselves. Two 

participants mentioned that smart phones were gradually being integrated into their 

business structure, but only for professionals in supervisory roles. Workers below this 

level were not issued phones, and it was again mentioned that many workplaces 

prohibit phone use entirely.

V2: Social Networking

Participants were also familiar with social media/social networking and expressed a 

sense that these technologies had some workplace applicability, with Facebook being 

widely used but seen as somewhat inaccessible (of the various social networks, 

Facebook, LinkedIn, and MySpace were specially mentioned). Here, the perceived 

degree of inaccessibility mapped fairly closely to the particular disability group being 

represented, though the issue of accessibility, in general, of digital technologies was a 

matter of overall concern. 

Interestingly, one participant mentioned that “the mobile version actually works better—

it is easier to use with my screen reader” even though mobile versions are perceived by 

the general public as somewhat inferior due to the fewer features required for general 

use on small screens and limited processing ability of the mobile platforms. LinkedIn

was seen as useful but also inaccessible. The importance of social networking for 

making contacts and doing business was well recognized but the graphical interface 

was problematic.

In a technology that crossed several vectors, IM/chat (which can be classified as a 

social-media/networking technology) was mentioned as helpful and rather commonly 

used at work. Specifically, the legacy IRC (Internet relay chat) system was mentioned 

as fading in popularity but still around. On the other hand, IM/chat use on smart phones 

was not common in the groups, though the participants were aware of its existence. 

One participant noted that email and general Web 2.0-based technologies play a major 

part in work and school because the person does not always have to sit at the front of 
172

the class to hear. “Everything is available online and I can communicate by chat and still 

get the degree that I’m seeking. I can get the experience of a classroom without the 

embarrassment of saying, ‘I didn’t hear that,’ and it opens up the classroom as a level 

playing field.” 

V3: IDEs: Virtual Worlds and Serious Gaming

For the first two groups, the discussion on gaming focused mainly on virtual worlds, but 

was the subject of little specific discussion. Second Life is well known by name and 

reputation, but was not widely used. The participants noted that there was little in the 

workplace that specifically addressed gaming, although some felt that it would make an 

attractive option for training, team building, and other purposes. 

In general, the focus groups conflated virtual worlds with gaming platforms, such as 

World of Warcraft. Second Life, for instance, is well known by name and reputation, but 

there was not a lot of use of the platform evidenced in the Focus Groups. Some of the 

comments made toward ancillary technologies (e.g., gaming, online simulations, 

training, and conferencing), however, have peripheral value in understanding aspects of 

this vector.

One of the barriers mentioned was that it is “very cumbersome, but fascinating in the 

potential for commercial exploitation. [One] can actually build a business and make 

money off of it in Second Life. The question is, ‘does the amount of time invested pay 

dividends?’” Another participant observed that “I can’t personally find how gaming would 

benefit my business or social life, but I can for others.” 

V4: IDEs: Tiered Digital Interactions

Results from the third focus group differed from the first two groups, and offered some 

insights into the adoption of the technologies represented by Vectors 3 and 4. In the 

third group, gaming was a topic of much discussion primarily because of one participant 

who felt passionately about it. As a general observation, that an advocate or committed 
173

adopter of a given technology can significantly affect the technology’s uptake reflects an 

aspect of diffusion of technology and adoption both in and out of the workplace. The

participant in question was deaf. He specifically mentioned World of Warcraft as a 

hobby and a game that he felt provided him with a fantastic suite of accessibility tools, 

and shared anecdotes relating to how he had entirely set aside his disability as an issue 

within the game because it provides captions, visual cues, and other feedback. He was 

able to maintain a leadership role within his online social circle without most members 

even realizing he was deaf.

V5: Open/Peer Publishing

In general, there was a high perception of the utility of open/peer publishing. The

Internet was seen as a reliable source of product reviews and as a measure of 

customer satisfaction. Two users swore by eBay and Amazon as resources for 

investigating a product before making a purchase, and a third user always checked on 

the Web before purchases of automobiles. In general, the Web was seen as a valuable 

tool for opinions, but not as useful as an authoritative source. 

One of the issues that came up in discussion of the use of the technologies was 

accessibility. Blogging, for example, was perceived as generally more accessible than 

social-media sites (Facebook was specifically mentioned), perhaps because the sites 

are less visually oriented. The participants were generally familiar with wikis, such as 

Wikipedia, which were generally believed to be accessible, and many have used 

internal wikis for work. About one-third of the participants across the groups have 

contributed to a wiki in some way.

YouTube was mentioned in one group as being very popular with the deaf community 

because it is a visual medium, usable for signing, telling stories, etc., and provides an 

analogue of communication for deaf people equivalent to hearing people’s experience 

with phones. One participant noted that YouTube provides the opportunity for deaf 

people to show off skills such as dancing, poetry, or even music, as well as for making 

political statements about deaf culture or just what’s going on in the world. An example 
174

of such use of video media is the blog run by the National Association of the Deaf, 

which consists mostly of deaf people signing to one another. You can type your 

comments or sign back. Everyone has the ability to understand. This suggests the 

possible use of this vector for entrepreneurial (employment) activity, exploring the use of 

this type of publication to meet unmet market niches.

The perception was less positive with respect to broader collaborative applications of 

the information-sharing aspect of online publishing technologies. Wikis and similar 

collaborative tools were regarded as difficult to implement without top-down pressure 

from supervisors to use functions appropriately. According to one participant, wikis 

simply became a “document-dumping ground” rather than a place for new content. The 

observation was made that without real effort to sustain a growing knowledge base, it 

becomes a “dead-end tool quickly.” A few participants also raised questions of trust with 

collaboratively developed information tools such as wikis. One participant, a school 

teacher, insisted that his students not use Wikipedia and similar sites as trusted 

sources. He did not feel that they have the same sort of authority as publications or 

peer-reviewed sources. In this case, the use was as a jumping-off point for research, 

but he did not allow his students to use these sites as primary sources.

V6: Open-Source Processes

The groups were generally familiar with open-source platforms and processes, 

especially after well-known names (e.g., Firefox, Wikipedia) were presented as 

examples. These were not viewed as accessible. The primary assistive-technology 

application mentioned as accessible to screen readers was the R operating 

environment. Google doc was seriously criticized as terrible due to formatting changes 

and lack of accessibility. In contrast, Microsoft Live was seen as more accessible but 

not popular because it required yet another set of accounts and passwords. One 

participant noted that “JAVA is a four-letter word.” In general, while there was an 

awareness of open source, and a use of it, the technologies were seen as something “in 

the background,” and not particularly key to participation in the workplace. At the same 

time, users saw the possibility of growth in these areas because they offer the 
175

opportunity for enhanced employment, with much of the work done offsite, or in virtual 

spaces, enhancing the accessibility of these vectors for employment. 

In general, the perception of the users was that barriers to digital-media deployment in 

the workplace were not related to the users, but stemmed from such factors as the 

employers’ lack of flexibility or understanding of how people used technology, or general 

insensitivity to how digital media acted to make the workplace more inclusive. One 

participant expressed frustration with how the sighted world made assumptions, saying 

she finally reached the point where she took out her “eyes” (the prostheses) and said, 

“Can you read with these?” She said this was effective at making the point. Another two 

participants noted that these technologies were nice but that existing technologies were 

not even properly deployed. Many people were not aware or unable to use the 

accessibility settings. Screen readers turned out to be problematic for a variety of 

reasons, but because there was no alternative they had to make do with them. Overall, 

the key theme that emerged is that the barriers were more cultural and awareness from 

the employers’ side, and les so from the employees’ side. This suggests that any 

deployment of the new technologies needs to be accompanied by best practices or 

training and awareness tools to ensure success.

5.2.2. Facilitators and Barriers

The vectors are looked at through two lenses: one, the use of the digital technologies or 

processes that the vectors represent to enhance participation by people with disabilities

in the workplace; and two, the possibilities the vectors suggest as avenues to finding or 

creating employment. 

The first dimension broadly suggests that much of the awareness of the technology or 

the process relates to the ways individuals can use them in a current occupational 

context. Elements that emerged in the focus groups suggested that awareness of the 

technology or process themselves was not an issue, but rather the question was about 

the direct pertinence of the vectors to the users. A second issue raised was where the 
176

users saw themselves as aware of the value of the technology or the process, but saw 

employer resistance as a barrier to use in work situations. 

As for the second dimension, the possibilities the vectors suggest to provide 

opportunities for finding or creating new employment, the focus group respondents were 

not optimistic. This may be less a problem of the vectors per se, but may relate to larger 

social and cultural issues about the ability or the tolerance for risk and engaging in new 

types of activities. To some extent, these factors can be addressed via policy and other 

types of interventions, and will be addressed more fully in the outcomes and policy 

recommendations made at the end of the report.

Most of the focus groups’ discussions focused on barriers to adoption in the workplace 

rather than on the potential for creating new industry/vector employment. The more 

“concrete” the technology (e.g., smart phones, online or computer gaming, publication 

or information-sharing tools), the more likely the group participants were to envision the 

technology as facilitating participation in the workplace. The more nebulous the vector 

(e.g., open-source processes, virtual worlds, and serous gaming), the more difficulty the 

users had in perceiving utility. The technologies also represent relatively new areas, 

suggesting that the barriers to entry might be lower (that is, given less competition) and 

hence represent new work potential. The downside is that the technologies appear “tech 

heavy,” and therefore daunting.
Table 4. Facilitators and Barriers: Focus Groups 

Vector Facilitators Barriers 

The Internet • Enhanced access to 

information and advice for 

problem resolution 

• Cost of connectivity, as well 

and digital as hardware and software 

technology in • Interoperability issues; 

changing technology can 

“break” AT 

general • Enhanced recreation and 

entertainment opportunities 

• Keeping track of friends and 

activities 

• Enhanced online and 

physical community 

participation 

• Increased workplace 

flexibility and employment 

opportunities 

• Ability to “manage” or 

influence online 

image/identity 

• “Level playing field” for small 

business/entrepreneurs 

• Lack of access to digital 

technology, as well as 

broadband connectivity 

• Lack of digital literacy 

(particularly for people aging 

into disability) 

• Disability-disclosure anxiety: 

concern about social and 

professional stigmatization or 

isolation 

• Text-based communication 

lacks some “cues” and can 

be misinterpreted 

Mobile 

platforms 

• Electronic schedulers and 

PDAs useful as assistive 

tech for people with 

intellectual or informationprocessing disabilities 

• Larger devices facilitate use 

of information sources 

• High cost and fees 

• Somewhat fragile 

• Need for wireless Internet 

access 

• Physical size can be a 

problem 

177
 
178

Table 4. Facilitators and Barriers: Focus Groups (continued)

Vector Facilitators Barriers

Mobile 

platforms

(continued)

• More communication 

options, especially for people 

with sensory disabilities

• Access to email and work 

communication

• Keeping people in touch; 

reduces sense of isolation

• App development represents 

new employment 

opportunities

• Facilitated use for telework 

only an option for information 

workers

• Employer reluctance to pay 

• Devices of variable (and 

unpredictable) accessibility

Socialnetworking 

sites

• Helps maintain communities 

of interest; use somewhat a 

function of age and 

awareness

• Predominance of several 

major platforms reduces 

learning curves

• Facilitates access to large 

populations of tech-savvy 

users

• Facilitates rapid 

dissemination of 

commutations

• Allows social and political 

advocacy

• Privacy and security 

concerns

• Variable accessibility of 

mainstream platforms (e.g., 

Facebook, LinkedIn, 

MySpace)

• Learning curve (too 

complicated)

• Network issue: none of my 

friends use

• Excludes those not familiar 

or comfortable with social 

media
Table 4. Facilitators and Barriers: Focus Groups (continued) 

Vector Facilitators Barriers 

Immersive • Workplace applications 

primarily education and 

training oriented 

• Complex and somewhat 

digital inaccessible interfaces 

environments 

• New kinds of community 

• Space for collaboration and 

group meetings 

• Choice of self-representation 

• Entrepreneurship 

opportunities 

• Minimal barriers for some 

types of disability 

• Requires more sophisticated 

computers and broadband 

access 

• Dynamic multimedia features 

often incompatible with AT 

• Privacy and security 

concerns 

• Gaming communities can be 

insular 

• Little effect on nonwhitecollar work 

Open source • Some products (e.g., Firefox)

well-known and respected by 

end-users 

• Products widely deployed in 

technical business settings 

• Highly adaptable/modifiable 

for business purposes 

• Development by individuals 

and small enterprises 

common 

• As employment vector, 

requires substantial technical 

skills 

• Accessibility not well 

developed 

• Not as “user friendly” as 

commercial products 

• Product and business model 

not well understood 

• Primary use still “back-end” 

infrastructure rather than 

user oriented 

179
 
180

Table 4. Facilitators and Barriers: Focus Groups (continued)

Vector Facilitators Barriers

Peer 

publishing

• Rapid dissemination and 

immediacy 

• Increased diversity in 

“voices” 

• New viewpoints and 

opportunities for exchange of

ideas

• Blogs for personal and 

career development

• Potential for new kinds of 

business based on 

information aggregations and 

packaging

• Useful for training and 

reference purposes both 

intra and extra workplace

• Creative opportunities and 

new media venues (e.g., 

YouTube) 

• Highly specialized audiences

• Many channels/much 

competition reduces revenue 

opportunities

• Tends to exclude “nonsavvy

users”

• High literacy, education and 

tech savvy often required in 

order to publish

• Can be resource and 

equipment intensive

• Potential privacy issues 
181

Facilitators

Facilitators (or opportunities) can be classified into several broad categories: 

regulatory/policy facilitators, market mechanisms, and outreach/awareness facilitators 

(Baker and Moon, 2008). 

Policy and Regulatory Facilitators

Policy and regulations in this field address many issues and take many forms. While 

participants only tangentially touched upon these considerations, they did make 

comments that suggest external (public-sector) interventions could be helpful in specific 

circumstances.

Market Mechanisms

Historically, much of the focus on the deployment of technologies that have use for 

people with disabilities were on specialized “assistive technologies”—specific products 

designed for a limited portion of the population, namely, those people with disabilities. 

One of the characteristics of the digital vector technologies is the malleability of the 

control or user interfaces, rendered possible by software. Further, with the aging of the 

population, vector technologies can affect a larger portion of the population, and hence 

awareness of the vectors and the capabilities grows. The growth in the market for as 

well as the availability of vector technologies creates opportunities for diffusion of these 

technologies into the workplace, and to end-users.

Outreach/Awareness

This category has a variety of dimensions. For instance, vector technologies can 

facilitate more efficient information sharing among users who would otherwise have 

difficulty using conventional means of communication. In terms of innovative 

deployment of vector technologies, inefficient dissemination of information regarding 

vector technologies, products, and methodologies continues to be a barrier to the 

effective delivery, use, and understanding of such technology. Outreach and awareness 

are vital to successful use. 
182

Barriers

Previous work by the Center for Advanced Communications Policy (CACP), among 

others, suggests that barriers (as well as opportunities or facilitators) can be classified 

into several broad categories: awareness, economic, technological, and organizational 

(Baker and Moon, 2008). 

The factors include issues of accessibility/form, awareness, organizational inertia and 

barriers, steep learning curves and privacy, and cost and perceptions of cost in using and 

adopting the technologies. A primary concern associated with the technology vectors by 

people with disabilities occurs along several dimensions, including the following:

Accessibility/Form

Again, one of the most surprising findings was that three-fourths of the participants who 

were blind or had low vision actually preferred the iPhone as being accessible, 

notwithstanding the visual menus. Participants mentioned that issues of accessibility 

were not always, in reality, what researchers assumed. Accessibility represents a real, 

as well as a virtual, barrier. The real barrier is the literal inaccessibility of the technology, 

as well as the physical inaccessibility of technology (e.g., keyboard being too small on 

smart phones, new interface/operating system technologies that render screen readers 

inoperable, inaccessible interfaces). The virtual barrier, as noted by some of the group 

participants, can occur on the part of decision-maker or other stakeholders that make 

assumptions about people with disabilities, or the utilities of specific vectors, without 

entering into full consultation with the affected stakeholders. 

Awareness

Lack of awareness that a given technology exists, or of the characteristics and 

capabilities of the technology or its possible benefits, came up peripherally in group 

discussions. However, this lack of awareness holds true on the part of the employer and 

the employee, or user of the technology. Awareness of technology and a user’s 

proficiency with a technology constitutes a key barrier to use of vector technologies. 
183

Based on the focus group input, however, it appears as if the deployment barrier is a 

great issue on the supply side (that is, the employer) rather than on the employee.

Cost/technological Change

Because vector technologies are in a state of continual change and innovation, keeping 

up with the volume of new products and technologies is problematic. In addition to 

lacking consistent channels of communicating about accessibility advances in vector 

technology, assessment of these new products is infrequently undertaken without

consideration of the specialized needs and requirements of people with disabilities. As a 

result, employers may be unaware of the availability of vector technologies, or make 

inaccurate assumptions about the cost of deployment of these technologies.

Organizational Inertia and Barriers

This dimension includes the lack of use of technologies (such as smart phones) to help 

mitigate a disability or limitation because the technologies’ use does not fit into the 

protocols or practices of the employer.

Summary 

While all participants were generally familiar with the range of digital technologies 

(vectors) represented, there was a rather significant difference among the three groups, 

which we believe to be a function of the disability-related characteristics of the different 

groups. Not unexpectedly, the most commonly mentioned technology related to wireless 

communications platforms was the smart phone. Perhaps because of their “personal” 

nature, such mobile devices are used more as communication devices rather than “work 

tools,” as opposed to “office” equipment such as computers that can be thought of as 

relatively ubiquitous, but attached to the workplace.

One topic that several participants felt strongly about, which we did not anticipate, was 

telework, referring to the application of new technologies rather than the underlying 

technologies per se. Most participants spend a sizable portion of their workweek on a 

computer. Teleworking was seen as a way to avoid numerous difficulties getting to and 

from the office, as well as allowing for more flexibility of accommodations using equipment 
184

at home. One participant spoke passionately about the larger effect on society that greater 

acceptance of teleworking could have, such as reduced traffic congestion and 

environmental impact. “Teleworking is also seen as an equalizer because it eschews faceto-face communication in favor of text or voice. No one has to know if you have a disability. 

The only things that matter in this scenario are the results.” This point suggests that a key 

aspect of the use of the digital vectors relate to the context in which they are deployed as 

well as to the vectors as free-standing technologies.

Technologies that allowed the user to control the interaction, or made information more 

manageable (wireless platforms, social media) or had reference utility (open peer publishing), 

were perceived to have the most use, and believed to be the technologies most immediately 

able to increase workplace engagement, and hence opportunity. There was familiarity with 

IDEs (virtual worlds and tiered digital interactions), but these were not seen as particularly 

engaging other than recreationally. The applications were seen to have potential as new 

kinds of employment, but the enthusiasm for this aspect was somewhat muted, suggesting 

that this might be an avenue that could be developed via outreach and awareness efforts. 

Finally, open-source applications were generally familiar technologies to the participants, but 

as a technology that ran more in the background (“workplace infrastructure”). Overall, it can 

be concluded that, at least based on the self-selected participants, many of the digital 

technologies covered in the study are familiar to technologically savvy people with disabilities, 

and we infer that barriers to use of these are as much a workplace and employer issue as 

resistance on the part of employees. With respect to new vectors for employment 

opportunities, we believe that there is employment potential, but that the barriers here are a 

combination of a disconnect with the technical skill set required to produce these 

technologies (as opposed to use them), as well as the absence of widespread established 

locales for the convenient participation in these technologies and new employment sectors.

5.3. Online Social-Network Groups: Introduction and Description

Two different approaches were undertaken to explore the use of social networking and 

online participation as part of the user studies component of NCD’s research. Based on a 

demographic analysis of platform use and characteristics, two venues were chosen for 
185

analysis as part of the user studies: Facebook and LinkedIn. Several groups were 

developed. A Facebook group, “The Inclusive Digital Media Network,” was implemented: 

www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=114027775278860. At the time of this report, the group 

has 52 members. A mirror group was established about two months later on LinkedIn, 

partly as a means of comparing how the different platforms (and focuses) affect the use of 

social networking.

Also, to triangulate the use of the groups with the general characteristics of the 

platforms, the research team conducted a census of the group landscapes in both 

LinkedIn and Facebook with regards to employment focus. The most pervasive groups 

in both platforms were general (not specific to employment). LinkedIn had more groups 

that pertained specifically to employment than did Facebook. A telling result was that 

employment groups comprise less than 1 percent of the total groups in both Facebook 

and LinkedIn (.004 percent and .00003 percent, respectively).

5.3.1. Analysis

A look at the individual platforms gave rise to some interesting observations. Within 

Facebook, a majority (73 percent) of groups are generally focused on community 

discussions, not on specific activities or individual sectors, as shown in Figure 1. Within 

Facebook, disability-specific groups represented only 2 percent of the total groups 

returned in the search.

Another interesting outcome of this high-level census study was that employment-based 

groups, while mainly focused within the United States, are also available worldwide. 

Within the LinkedIn platform, Israel was the second most common country returned, 

with the United Kingdom and Canada following closely behind. Within Facebook, South 

Africa returned high results, whereas in LinkedIn there were no returns. 

This reinforces the sentiments expressed above about understanding context – 

Facebook is the preferred social platform in South Africa (ranking as the second most 

visited Web site as compared to LinkedIn, which is fourteenth). Context is important in 

guiding people to where their potential audiences are.22 
186

Figure 5. Facebook Employment Groups, by Category

Figure 6. LinkedIn Employment Groups, by Category

Looking at the same figures, but on the LinkedIn platform, it is evident that the majority 

(58 percent) of groups are general, as shown in Figure 2. There are much larger swaths 

of sector-focused employment groups: people with disabilities represent the second 

largest (8.98 percent) of employment groups, followed by the IT industry. This 
187

observation reflects the stronger business orientation of LinkedIn versus the community 

and personal orientation of Facebook.

Because of the greater representation of disability-related groups on LinkedIn, the team 

performed a more in-depth analysis of groups with both employment- and disabilityrelated themes. The results generated by the search function were grouped within one 

of three types of entities: Networking groups (62.5 percent), nonprofit groups 

(15.6 percent), and professional groups (21.9 percent). These groups focused mostly on 

the dissemination of best practices and opportunities available within the community. 

Some focused on coaching and assistance or placement within jobs. Even fewer groups 

focused on a hybrid of advocacy plus support. There was a group (Colorss Foundation) 

focused on a location (India), where there were opportunities for training and finding 

employment. Another interesting discovery was that 66 percent of all groups were 

established within the last 18 months, suggesting an increase in awareness and utility of 

group participation.

Employment groups are defined as groups with a mission or description of dealing with 

employment issues, including job placement, advocacy groups, employment-focused 

networking groups, and dissemination of best practices. These groups were found using 

specific key terms within the built-in search function of both platforms. The research 

team observed that general groups were the most pervasive in both platforms. We 

discovered that LinkedIn had more groups that pertained specifically to employment 

than did Facebook. What is also evident from this survey is that employment groups 

make up less than 1 percent of the total groups in both Facebook and LinkedIn 

(.004 percent and .00003 percent, respectively). 
188

Table 5. Geo-Location of Returned Group Search 

in the Facebook and LinkedIn Platforms

LinkedIn Facebook TOTAL

United States 294 45 339

Global 48 14 62

United Kingdom 16 30 46

Israel 21 3 24

Canada 17 6 23

South Africa 0 16 16

Australia/New Zealand 8 5 13

Europe 7 0 7 

Egypt 0 6 6 

MidEast 3 3 6 

India 4 1 5 

Saudi Arabia 2 2 4 

Japan 3 1 4 

Pakistan 0 3 3 

Malaysia 1 2 3 

Philippines 2 1 3 

Asia 3 0 3 

Indonesia 0 2 2 

Nigeria 0 2 2 

Finland 1 1 2 

China 2 0 2 

South America 2 0 2 
189

This brief review highlighted the potential for using social networks as a platform to 

bring people together for multiple reasons, including general employment as well as 

more specific employment opportunities. Generally, certain sectors like information 

technology, health care, and human resources are represented within this domain, 

but in the LinkedIn platform, the disability group was more represented. This should 

be a clear indication that people with disabilities are actively seeking these types of 

outlets, who should be used more by the community at large.

5.3.2. Facilitators and Barriers

The research team’s look at the test groups on Facebook and LinkedIn shows that 

group activity and use have been less than expected; however, we have drawn 

several conclusions from our observations to date. Most of the posts and comments 

have been by professionals involved in electronic accessibility and technology. Thus, 

the group on Facebook functions more as a newsletter than an interactive group. 

One of the critical components of adoption is the context (community) in which the 

use takes place, which may be as important as the technology itself. We view this 

both as a barrier (in this case, the additional aspects needed to build and maintain a 

community) and an opportunity (the incredible power of social networking combined 

with the crowd-sourcing potential). Within this context, a common ethos, or catalyst, 

is needed that motivates individuals to actively engage and participate in the subcommunity (group) in question. If this is achieved, as evidenced by the group 

research discussed below, the context and platform cease to be barriers, and 

instead become an opportunity for communication.

Another observation is that, as evidenced by the membership of the two test groups, 

getting people to join is not the key barrier; rather, it is the process of encouraging, 

“feeding,” and sustaining active group participation. This may be an issue of 

generating sufficient “critical mass” in terms of membership, or the catalytic role of a 

specific individual or individuals who generate activity. At a minimum, it appears as if 

successful groups, absent a self-sustaining level of activity, require a moderator to 

serve as “yeast,” to keep activity fermenting, and adding new material that captures 
190

the attention of group participants. Again, this finding might also relate to the nature 

of the group (i.e., professional, technical, issue oriented, user, advocacy), and the 

end to which it was designed. 

Evidence from the literature (see, for example, Conceição et al, 2009) suggests that 

social media are tremendously effective at some types of community social and 

cultural activity, and therefore have use in workplaces as educational, training, and 

informative venues (internally) and also for maintaining certain types of community 

and marketing (for instance, the growing role of social media-driven marketing) for 

business purposes.

Iteratively, when exploring the use of social media on two platforms (Facebook and 

LinkedIn), we see replicated the occurrence of several different patterns of use, not 

uncharacteristic of any digital technology. Much of the activity, posts, and comments 

have been by professionals involved in e-accessibility and technology, at least in 

regard to technological use and workplaces, though this might be a selection factor 

of how the groups were developed and populated. A common purpose or catalyst is 

needed that motivates individuals to actively engage and participate. This may be an 

issue of generating sufficient “critical mass” in terms of membership, or the catalytic 

role of a specific individual or individuals that generate activity. Social media are 

tremendously effective at some types of community social and cultural activity, and 

therefore have use in the workplaces as educational, training, and informative 

venues (internally) and also for maintaining certain types of community and 

marketing (for instance, the growing role of social media driven marketing) for 

business purposes.
Table 6. Facilitators and Barriers—Section 5

Activity Facilitators Barriers 

General 

socialnetworking 

sites 

• Low barrier to entry • Privacy and security concerns 

• Cost effective—usually small 

or nonexistence costs for using

platforms 

• Maintenance/sustainability 

(time-cost) 

• Easy to search and find 

connections 

• Easily accessed via mobile 

networks 

• Integration of sensor nodes 

(e.g., GPS) for greater 

immersion 

• Dependent on certain social 

skills 

• Conflation of personal and 

private activity 

• Too much information; figuring 

out relevance and truth 

Social 

networking 

through 

mediated 

channels 

• Greater return on investment 

of time—a post on the 

mediated channel will link this 

to any social-networking site 

linked 

• Privacy and security concerns 

• Dilution of presence due to 

overexposure 

• Different platforms have 

different norms of language 

and practice that could dilute 

the effect of the message 

• Choice of self-representation 

• Easily accessed via mobile 

networks 

191
 
192

Table 6. Facilitators and Barriers—Section 5 (continued)

Activity Facilitators Barriers

Social 

networking 

through 

mediated 

channels

(continued)

• Easy to manage multiple 

social-network identities at one 

time

• Low barrier to entry

• Integration of sensor nodes 

(e.g., GPS) for greater 

immersion

Social 

networking 

in terms of 

advocacy

• Easy for audience to find 

groups

• Easy channel for groups to 

communicate with participants

• Low barrier to entry

• Low tech savvy required in 

order to contribute

• Cost effective (small costs may 

be incurred setting up a 

professional or group account, 

but more often there is no cost)

• Difficult to manage dialogues 

and inputs from other 

individuals

• Privacy and security concerns

• Maintaining current content 

and cohesive message while 

integrated into a dynamic 

existence

• Establishing a group does not 

equal establishing a 

community

5.3.3. Summary

Social media seem to have several broad patterns of use, generally, which is not 

particularly different among people with disabilities. Much of the activity, posts, and 

comments have been by professionals involved in e-accessibility and technology, at least in 

regard to technological use and workplaces. We did not do an assay of groups that were 

specifically oriented to disability advocacy, so the conclusions are limited to generalpurpose platforms as opposed to discussions (social media and networking) that occur on 
193

Web 2.0 special-purpose Web sites. Additionally, a good deal of more traditional social 

networking (e.g., listservs, emails) occurs, which again is beyond the focus of this study.

One of the critical components of adoption or use of groups is the context (community) 

in which the use takes place, which may be as important as the technology itself. Within 

this context, a common purpose or catalyst is needed that motivates individuals to 

actively engage and participate. This may be an issue of generating sufficient “critical 

mass” in terms of membership, or the catalytic role of a specific individual or individuals 

that generate activity. Social media are tremendously effective at some types of 

community social and cultural activity, and therefore have use in the workplace as 

educational, training, and informative venues (internally) and also for maintaining certain 

types of community and marketing (for instance, the growing role of social media-driven 

marketing) business purposes.

5.4. Delphi Study: Introduction and Description

Findings from the focus groups became part of a Delphi study, a variation of iterative 

nominal group technique (NGT) and decision-making method for establishing 

consensus on a given issue (Delbecq and VandeVen, 1971; VandeVen and Delbecq, 

1974). In this case, the specific application of NGT is the Delphi process, which allows 

for an open-ended, participatory means to develop solutions to a problem. The process

combines the complexity and nuance of group discussion with the immediacy of voting. 

For ill-structured or complex problems, where ideas or solutions may not be directly 

relevant to the problem under consideration, the Delphi process can be adapted by 

clustering ideas into coherent groups, which are then treated as problems in their own 

right. The Delphi, as is characteristic of NGT, is applied to these subproblems, with the 

aim of working back to or referencing the original problem (Bartunek and Murnighan, 

1984). While Delphis in general tend to focus on finding a solution to a single problem at 

hand, the complexity of our study of accessibility of online technologies suggested that 

an iterative approach would be more germane, where the results of one Delphi round 
194

may inform a follow-up Delphi round. The “iterative” nature of study was derived from 

issue-driven Delphi technique, useful for discerning views on pertinent policy issues. 

The CACP’s successful use of the policy Delphi method in research projects for the 

Wireless RERC and Workplace Accommodations RERC, as well as its use of other 

qualitative research instruments such as the NCD study’s Delphi, provided an 

experiential basis for the proposed Subtask D.2.

As implemented in the NCD study, invitations were issued to target (expert) 

stakeholders describing the project focus and the process to be undertaken. This email 

was then selectively forwarded to existing contact lists maintained by CATEA, as well as 

to a target range of groups on LinkedIn and Facebook. The largest list is maintained by 

the WorkRERC, and includes over 1,500 organization representatives and individuals 

with an interest in research relating to disability in the workplace. In addition, contacts at 

the National Science Foundation and Syracuse University were forwarded information 

on the project, which was then passed on to contacts of their own. 

Three rounds were conducted with targeted participants totaling about 30 individuals. 

The study, run over about 12 weeks, consisted of between 10 and 20 closed and openended probe questions on the vectors analyzed and restated during the three rounds 

based on (expert) participant input. The areas were 1) applicability of digital 

technologies to work, 2) awareness, 3) affordability, 4) accessibility, and 5) adoption. 

The sample frame was purposive: invitations were sent to those who expressed interest 

and drawn from 1) informed sources and CATEA emailing lists, and from 2) a range of 

technology-focused groups on LinkedIn. The target participants were experts familiar 

with the various vectors or accessibility issues related to digital technologies.

The major findings of the Delphi study include:

● A belief that technology will become more important to employment, as well 

as a belief in the idea that increased use of accessible digital technologies will 

increase employment opportunities for people with disabilities.
195

● Universal (inclusive) design was viewed by most of the Delphi panel as a way

to achieve goals of greater accessibility for people with disabilities where 

digital technologies are concerned.

● Adequate marketing of accessibility features, especially those “built-in” to 

mainstream devices, was perceived as a major awareness problem by most 

of the Delphi participants.

● Populations “aging into disability” and their potential to shape markets for 

accessible digital devices were viewed as vitally important among the Delphi 

panel.

● Delphi respondents were divided on how competing concerns of accessibility 

mandates and voluntary, market-based solutions could be balanced to ensure 

optimal adoption and usability. Half of the panelists believed the two concerns 

could be managed, while the other half expressed concerns that these issues 

could be resolved satisfactorily.

● Employer-side issues, such as workplace technology policies and a lack of 

organizational flexibility, were viewed by much of the Delphi panel as potential 

barriers to the adoption of novel, accessible technologies.

● Social-networking Web sites and applications received relatively strong 

support for their potential in the workplace, especially for collaboration.

● Open-source software applications also received strong support from much of 

the Delphi panel, which pointed to the fact that accessibility features could be 

developed through user participation.

● Virtual-worlds applications received moderate, but mixed, support from Delphi 

participants regarding their potential for improving or enhancing the 

employment of people with disabilities.

● Gaming applications, especially those for entertainment, did not receive much

support among respondents regarding their potential for enhancing the 

employment of people with disabilities.
196

● Online peer publications, notably blogging or wikis, received mixed support 

from much of the Delphi panel regarding the employment of people with 

disabilities.

5.4.1. Analysis

The first round of the Delphi established respondents’ overall views on five categories 

related to digital technologies for people with disabilities: applicability, awareness, 

affordability, accessibility, and adoption. Building on the results to these questions, the 

second round examined specific digital vectors in greater detail and sought to clarify 

opinions from the first round. Finally, the third round distilled the findings of the first two 

rounds into a summary of conclusions and recommendations, which were presented to 

the Delphi panel for their comment. Throughout the entire Delphi process, the relevance 

of digital technologies to the employment of people with disabilities was a prominent 

theme. As one participant observed: To be competitive in the employment arena, 

people with disabilities must be able to access and work with all information available to 

people without disabilities, and that access needs to be affordable.

In the first round, respondents agreed strongly with forecasts that technology will 

become more important to employment, as well as the idea that increased use of digital 

technologies will increase employment opportunities for people with disabilities. Of the 

five aforementioned categories, awareness received the greatest amount of interest. 

Participants expressed particular concern about the possibility that people with 

disabilities are not aware of how digital technologies may be used to help locate work 

opportunities or be used as workplace accommodations. The adoption of technology, 

also viewed as important, was perceived as hinging on both its accessibility and 

affordability. Of these two, the Delphi panel seemed to prioritize affordability as slightly 

more important.

Regarding the applicability of digital technologies to the workplace, almost 90 percent of 

respondents believed that jobs will increasingly depend on broadband access, and an 

even higher proportion, 95 percent, believed that work tasks will become more reliant on 
197

digital technologies. Regarding disability, 79 percent believed that the increased use of 

accessible digital technologies will increase employment opportunities for people with 

disabilities. However, when queried about specific technologies and their potential for 

people with disabilities, the Delphi panel became more divided. The highest proportion, 

63 percent, believed that wireless communications would open job opportunities. A slim 

majority (53 percent) expressed confidence in peer-driven publishing to create job 

opportunities. In terms of changing the employment environment more broadly, it is 

worth noting that 63 percent of participants believed that blogging and other forms of 

online communication would do so. There was less confidence in projections for other 

technologies to open job opportunities. Only 42 percent believed that open-source 

applications and processes would do so, and even fewer were confident in projections 

for social networking (37 percent), virtual worlds (26 percent), and electronic games for 

entertainment (26 percent). However, 50 percent did note that gaming for serious 

purposes would open job opportunities for people with disabilities.

Delphi participants expressed significant ambivalence about the awareness of people 

with disabilities. Only 16 percent believed that people with disabilities were aware of the 

uses of digital technologies for finding employment, and only 16 percent believed that 

they were aware of how these technologies could be used to enhance the workplace. 

However, respondents’ awareness concerns were not limited solely to individuals with 

disabilities. An overwhelming majority, 89 percent, believed it important that 

manufacturers’ and designers’ unawareness of accessibility issues be addressed.

Regarding affordability of digital technologies, Delphi participants strongly agreed that it 

was important. Of particular concern was the observation that the cost of wireless 

communication devices such as smart phones may be prohibitively high for people with 

disabilities—95 percent of respondents believed it to be important and should be 

addressed. There was similar concern over the affordability of assistive technology such 

as the JAWS screen reader, as 90 percent of the panel also believed it to be an 

important issue. Finally, 90 percent of participants believed perceived training costs for 

employees in the workplace were important and should be addressed.
198

Delphi respondents were somewhat divided on the issue of accessibility of digital 

communications. A strong majority, 89 percent, believed that the issue of device 

incompatibility was important and needed to be addressed. However, a significantly 

smaller proportion, 50 percent, agreed with the projection that attention to accessibility 

will increase as the population of people with disabilities goes up. 

The final category in round 1 probed several projections on the adoption of 

communications technologies. A slight majority of participants, 57 percent, believed that 

the adoption of inclusive digital technologies in the workplace will increase in the future. 

When asked about factors that would lead to increased adoption, almost 95 percent

believed that increased affordability would do so. Almost as many respondents, 

84 percent, believed that increased accessibility would be matched by increased 

adoption. Finally, participants were asked, “What policy options would be most effective 

at promoting sustainable adoption of digital technologies by people with disabilities?” 

Answers ranged from better enforcement of existing laws and adoption of stronger ones 

to the provision of training, information, or other supports to select or use technologies. 

More specific answers included having employer accommodation policies that were 

formalized or written to address technology explicitly. Others pointed to the possibility of 

fostering universal design. Yet, the problem of individualized needs or specialized 

markets remained a constant issue.

Round 2 of the Delphi focused more closely on specific vectors, while retaining much of 

the same organizational structure that drove round 1. On the whole, Delphi participants 

were more divided in this round, but they agreed most strongly on the importance of 

marketing of accessibility features and the need to design for an expanding population 

of people “aging into disability.” In both instances, and throughout this round, universal 

(inclusive) design was viewed as the optimal means for achieving these goals, 

especially given its potential to offset the high costs associated with assistive 

technology. The potential of employer policies to hinder the adoption of novel accessible 

technologies was also viewed as a concern by most participants. In terms of the 

individual vectors, those items involving social networking and, especially, open-source 
199

software received the broadest base of agreement. By contrast, questions pertaining to 

blogging and gaming did not have as much support. In open-ended responses, 

participants consistently pointed to the possibilities of virtual environments and opensource software.

On the issue of how digital vectors might be deployed by people with disabilities in the 

workplace, we closely examined employer-side factors as possible barriers to their 

adoption. Regarding the role of employer work rules and the lack of an organization’s

flexibility in possibly inhibiting the adoption of novel digital technologies in the 

workplace, 60 percent of participants (those answering either “extremely” or “mostly”) 

viewed this issue as important. The same proportion of participants believed it important 

that employer technology policies (i.e., permissible operating systems) are key barriers 

to the adoption of accessible digital technologies in the workplace. Probing the issue of 

digital technologies and the workplace further, researchers asked what applications 

offered the greatest potential for enhancing work opportunities for people with 

disabilities. Many participants believed that collaboration is an important application. 

Telework and remote-work opportunities and accessible Web conferencing were most 

widely cited as technologies. Alternative means for computer input and output were also 

mentioned frequently, and open-source assistive technology and social networking were 

mentioned somewhat less.

Returning again to the issue of awareness, 90 percent of the Delphi panel agreed on 

the reliability of a projection that manufacturers and designers would develop more 

universally designed technologies as the general population “ages into disability.” 

Regarding the importance of issues put forth for their consideration, however, 

respondents were decidedly mixed in their assessment. Many members (70 percent) 

believed it important that manufacturers and designers may not be adequately 

marketing the built-in accessibility features of their products or services. The same 

proportion also believed that the use of social networking to facilitate work opportunities 

is important. However, two other issues (one on the technical skills of people with 

disabilities and another on blog authorship) failed to receive a majority of support.
200

A forecast on affordability in general elicited strong support from the Delphi panel. In 

response to the issue of comparatively smaller markets for assistive technologies and 

higher prices as a result, 90 percent believed it reliable that accessibility features 

implemented within universally designed devices would help offset this problem of 

affordability for individual consumers with disabilities. However, participants were 

divided on issues related to specific technologies. In the area of open source, 

70 percent of respondents believed it reliable that increased availability, in which 

accessibility features can be developed through user participation, will create work 

opportunities for users with disabilities. Conversely, only 20 percent of the Delphi panel 

believed it important that the cost of online gaming platforms and virtual worlds be 

addressed. Public-sector (i.e., government) incentives, such as tax credits, subsidies, 

and grants, are frequently suggested to make digital technologies and services more 

affordable for people with disabilities. In response, we asked what private-sector 

initiatives might also assist in lowering costs for consumers. The most common 

response was a need for manufacturers and designers to take a universal (inclusive) 

design approach to their products. Other notable responses included the promotion of 

best practices by manufacturer associations, private–public partnerships, and 

involvement of consumers with disabilities in research and development.

In the area of accessibility, there was relatively strong support for the items presented. 

A big majority of participants (80 percent) believed that the lack of underlying technical 

skills as a barrier to entrepreneurial activity in the digital vectors was an important issue. 

In addition, 70 percent thought increased graphical elements mean that more people 

who are blind or have low vision may be excluded from technological advances.

Delphi Round 3

In the third and final round of the Delphi study, we presented a summary of findings 

from the first two rounds of the Delphi in the form of four sections. The sections included 

an overall consideration of the major issues, as well as discussions of social-networking 

and wireless platforms, immersive digital environments, and commons-based peer 
201

production. After each section, respondents were asked to comment on the findings of 

each section.

In our first item, we asked panelists to respond to the observation that digital 

technologies would become increasingly important to the employment of people with 

disabilities. In particular, we sought input on universal design as the optimal means for 

achieving accessibility goals, as well as insights on persisting barriers such as employer 

policies. 

All of the respondents agreed on the importance of universal design in achieving 

accessibility for people with disabilities. One participant went further to note that UD 

approaches were fundamental precisely because of a lack of access to and the 

expense of adaptive technologies. Another observed that UD needed to extend beyond 

the information communication technologies (ICTs) of the workplace, in order to 

address large-scale systems that are frequently inaccessible to people with disabilities. 

Several panelists also pointed to a need to mitigate ongoing employer-side barriers. Of 

concern to one respondent was the divide between workplace policies, especially those 

implemented with security in mind, versus approaches such as telework that can 

enhance access for employees with disabilities. Another panelist spoke of a need for 

formalized employer policies to actively engage IT rules and ensure access. Several 

other issues arose—of particular note was a concern that an orientation toward social 

networking might overshadow the continued importance of education and credential 

building.

Next, we asked respondents to comment on social networking and the platforms it

operates on. Panelists generally confirmed the usefulness of social networking for 

employment by people with disabilities. However, some respondents expressed caveats 

about a dearth of fully accessible social networking Web sites and ongoing accessibility 

problems with many others. It was pointed out, however, that developers are beginning 

to address these issues. Toward those ends, one panelist stressed the need to educate 
202

the programmers of both platforms and user interfaces about how to make graphical 

elements accessible.

We then asked the Delphi panel to respond to mixed support for the role of immersive 

digital environments. While virtual-world applications did receive support for their role in 

improving work for people with disabilities, electronic games failed to receive support. 

Respondents were decisively split on the role that virtual-world applications could play. 

One respondent opted out of the discussion because of a lack of sufficient knowledge 

on the topic. Two respondents agreed that virtual worlds do not add sufficient value to 

the employment of people with disabilities. One of them went further to note that virtual 

worlds will not play a significant role in the workplace for some time. For that reason, 

effort should be placed first into making more accessible those applications and 

platforms with more practical employment applications. Two other respondents 

countered these views, contending that these worlds are often inclusive.

Finally, we asked for comment on the potential of commons-based peer production to 

improve employment for people with disabilities. In general, the Delphi panel expressed 

some support for these vectors, but with major caveats. While there might be some 

potential for open-source, blogging, and similar vectors to improve employment for 

people with disabilities, one panelist noted that the potential was not substantial. 

Another noted that there was potential, but that these areas need further development. 

Yet another respondent expressed some support for the role of blogging and 

participatory communications to improving interaction and perhaps opening economic 

opportunities. This person’s optimism did not extend to open source, however. Another 

respondent had the opposite response, believing that open source had more potential 

for improving employment.

In conclusion, the third round of the Delphi generally confirmed the four major findings 

from the preceding two rounds. Universal design remains an important strategy for 

improving accessibility of ICTs, and it is pivotal that employer-side barriers are also 

addressed. Social networking may be important to improving employment for people 

with disabilities, provided that barriers to the accessibility of these platforms are 
203

addressed. The potential of immersive digital environments is still unclear—they may 

support inclusivity, but their current utility and significance has been called into doubt. 

Finally, there is some sense that commons-based peer production may improve 

employment, but there is still a lack of consensus about how.

5.4.2. Facilitators and Barriers

In terms of the individual vectors, those items involving social networking and, 

especially, open-source software received the broadest base of agreement. By contrast, 

questions pertaining to blogging and gaming did not have as much support. In openended responses, participants consistently pointed to the possibilities of virtual 

environments and open-source software. 

Regarding open source, we inquired whether it fostered more accessible development, 

and if so, how. Half of respondents believed that it does. Reasons given included the 

ability of user-developers to develop more inventive solutions that might have been 

missed by companies, the fact that people with disabilities are working with open-source 

software, and low economic barriers. A notable minority believed open source might 

spur more accessible development, but it remains critical to communicate with endusers about accessibility, and the conflation of digital and visual continues to be 

problematic. A couple of participants replied that open source did not help, on the 

grounds that the percentage of people with disabilities contributing to open-source 

developments is small.

We also asked what might make using virtual worlds more compelling than traditional 

collaborative 2-D Web spaces. The most popular responses were the facilitation of realworld characteristics, such as talking instead of texting, in virtual environments, as well 

as their ease of access and use. Other responses included the ability of virtual worlds to 

allow for distance collaboration and the use of avatars to overcome others’ initial 

misconceptions about a person’s disability. At least one respondent believed that virtual 

worlds were not more compelling, finding them to be isolating.
204

5.5. Summary

Across the different user studies, participants were generally familiar with the range of 

digital technologies represented, and some general agreement existed with respect to 

the utility and use of the vectors. There was a significant difference in perception of the 

vectors when taking into account the nature of the disability and the degree of familiarity 

with a particular technological pathway. Not unexpectedly, the most familiar vector was 

wireless communication platforms, in particular smart phones. 

One topic that several participants felt strongly about was telework, referring to the 

application of new technologies. Teleworking was seen as a way to avoid numerous 

difficulties getting to and from the office, as well as to take advantage of the 

convenience of using equipment at home.

Vectors that allowed the user to control the interaction, or made information more 

manageable (wireless platforms, social media) or had reference utility (open/peer 

publishing), were perceived to have the most use, and the most immediately able to 

increase workplace engagement, and hence opportunity. There was limited familiarity 

with immersive digital environments, both virtual worlds and gaming, but these were 

seen as essentially recreational, although having potential for offering new kinds of 

employment. Open-source applications were generally familiar to the participants, but 

as a technology that ran in the background, a kind of “workplace infrastructure.” 

Overall, the vectors were familiar to technologically savvy people with disabilities among 

the self-selected participants, and we infer that any barriers to their use that may exist 

are as much a workplace and employer issue as resistance on the part of employees. 

As regards employment opportunities, the participants could in most cases see the 

potential of at least some of the vectors, but the barriers seem to be questions of the 

level of education or understanding necessary to participate in the work opportunities 

suggested, and of convenience in terms of local availability of possible employment. 
205

Drawing from expert opinions, preliminary Delphi analysis suggests that in general 

respondents agreed that digital technology and its applications, as represented by the 

vectors, will become more important to employment. The analysis also showed that 

respondents agreed that increased use of accessible digital technologies will increase 

employment opportunities for people with disabilities. Universal (inclusive) design was 

viewed as the optimal means for achieving accessibility goals, especially given its 

potential to offset the high costs associated with assistive technology. The potential of 

employer policies to hinder the adoption of novel accessible technologies was also 

viewed as a concern by most participants. 

Social networking and, especially, open-source software received the broadest base of 

agreement as to useful digital technologies for employment purposes. Immersive digital 

environments and open/peer publishing did not have as much support. However, in 

open-ended responses, participants consistently pointed to the possibilities of virtual 

environments and open-source software, especially in the context of new work 

opportunities.
206
207

SECTION 6. Analysis of Facilitators and Barriers, 

Findings and Recommendations

6.1. Analysis of Facilitators and Barriers

For each of the original research sections of the report, summary charts identifying 

“facilitators” and “barriers” were prepared. The intention was to prepare a grid of 

perceptions of how the vectors could either support people with disabilities in the 

workplace or in the search for work opportunities, or might block them in those 

endeavors. Some commonalities in those perceptions emerged, and are described 

below. Notably, there were more facilitators held in common than there were barriers.

In looking at the environment from which the vectors spring—the Internet and digital 

technology as the underpinnings of the networked economy—there was one constant, 

and it was clearly a barrier: the cost of connectivity, as well as of hardware and 

software. This is a fundamental issue. For people with disabilities there are significant 

issues of affordability and accessibility that lead to low broadband adoption rates, and 

for some make the promise of the vectors remote. According to the 2010 FCC report, A 

Giant Leap and a Big Deal: Delivering on the Promise of Equal Access to Broadband for 

People with Disabilities, only 42 percent of people with disabilities have broadband in 

the home compared to the national average of 65 percent. 

It is therefore no surprise when “high costs and fees” and “need for wireless Internet 

access” are mentioned in several of the grids as barriers to the usefulness of Vector 1, 

wireless communication platforms. However, there was a common appreciation of the 

fact that the platforms offered more communication options, especially for people with 

sensory difficulties, and that electronic schedulers and PDAs can be helpful for people 

with intellectual or information-processing disabilities. 

For Vector 2, social networking, it was also not surprising that various aspects of 

networking emerged as common themes, including “ability to share large amounts of 
208

information and data,” “making connections,” and “access to information and advice for 

problem resolution,” as well as connecting for specific work or education functions. 

However, another strong negative constant was seen: privacy and security—concerns 

that may have a special force for people with disabilities who may feel themselves more 

than usually vulnerable.

Vectors 3 and 4, immersive digital environments, were somewhat of a surprise, as they 

had the most positive responses in common of all the vectors. Facilitators ranged from 

the predictable—”removes constraints of the physical work environment” and “choice of 

self-representation”—to the thought-provoking, including entrepreneurship, education 

and training opportunities, and space for collaboration and group meetings. Negatives 

again touched on privacy and security concerns, the steep learning curves that gaming 

and virtual worlds sometimes require, and the need to access high computing power 

and fast, powerful networks.

Vector 5, open or peer publishing, also elicited a higher range of common themes. The 

need for high rates of literacy, education, and tech savvy was seen a potential 

drawback, as were, again, high costs and fees; however, there was an appreciation of 

the disintermediation that commons-based publishing implies, from the possibilities that 

open up for catering to niche interests, including those of people with disabilities, and in 

particular a surprise vote for blogs for personal and career development.

Finally, the only barrier seen in common for open-source processes (Vector 6) was the 

need for “substantial technical skill” or tech savvy, while the promise of this vector was 

recognized as the diversity of the contribution, the creativity of the solutions, and the 

access to information, resources, and tools. 

It was interesting that these last two vectors, grouped together as commons-based peer 

production, also were singled out in the exemplar study, where respondents identified 

this grouping as having great, unexplored potential: the use of open-source processes 

in business operations, and the use of immersive digital environments for training.
209

6.2. Findings and Recommendations

The transition to an economy based around the manipulation of information has had a 

huge effect on employment. This research was designed to investigate what specific 

relevance the new networked economy might have on the employment prospects for

people with disabilities, in the face of an employment situation that has worsened over 

the past 20 years.

Reports released in July 2010 indicated that people with disabilities continue to be 

disproportionately negatively affected by the recession (Diament, 2010). According to 

the Department of Labor, the unemployment rate of people with disabilities has 

continued to increase, while the employment rate of Americans generally has stabilized 

and decreased over the past few months. The rate of unemployment for people with 

disabilities in July 2010 stood at 16.4 percent, compared with 9.5 percent for the general 

population. This is further reinforcement for the view that people with disabilities are a 

contingent labor force, first to be let go when industries retrench, and last to be hired 

when there is industrial growth (Braddock and Bachelder, 1994). Instead of this social 

exclusion, is there a prospect of digital inclusion? 

Finding 1. Old realities remain: the necessity of education to increase 

awareness and technical skills.

A well-known barrier to realizing the potential of the vectors was education. Lack of 

education was perceived as a barrier to achieving full employment potential by 

20.3 percent of people with disabilities (Yeager et al., 2006). The user studies often 

interpreted this to mean the need to be “tech savvy,” seemingly a higher level of 

education than the norm. The Department of Labor as well as some of those 

interviewed for the exemplars, added a further caveat in looking for new working 

opportunities and improving on existing ones: the need for flexibility, implying a constant 

readiness to learn and adapt in order to keep abreast of a situation that is ever 

changing. 
210

At the same time, Vector 3, serious gaming, may be part of the solution, by making

education and training more appealing to those who consider traditional classroom 

training beyond endurance or otherwise unmanageable (Horton, 2003), which could be 

helpful for people with intellectual and learning disabilities. 

• Recommendation 1: Develop model programs to tackle the core issues of 

education in conjunction with key stakeholders at the federal, state, and 

local level. 

We recommend that the Department of Education (Office of Special Education 

and Rehabilitative Services and Office of Special Education Programs) work in 

conjunction with the National Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research 

(NIDRR), the Institute of Education Sciences, the Department of Labor (Office of 

Disability Employment Policy) and the Interagency Committee on Disability 

Research, as well as other key stakeholders, including members of the business 

community (e.g., the U.S. Business Leadership Network, U.S. Chamber of 

Commerce, and Society for Human Resource Management). The aim of the 

model programs would be to capitalize on the collaborative community-building 

potential of the networked economy, commit resources, and help prepare

people with disabilities to build up appropriate job skills specific to that economy. 

This is also in accord with recommendations under the National Broadband Plan 

(http://www.broadband.gov/plan/13-economic-opportunity/#r13), which state that 

“The Department of Labor (DOL) should accelerate and expand efforts to create 

a robust online platform that delivers virtual employment assistance programs 

and facilitates individualized job training.“ 

In addition this is consistent with the Social Security Administrations (SSA) 

efforts to build web based work incentive sites in the states.

The model programs would encourage the states and local communities to 

maximize the use of current infrastructure, in particular community and technical 

colleges (CTC). CTCs offer multiple advantages, most especially closeness, as 
211

the availability of accessible transportation remains a major obstacle for many 

people with disabilities (Kessler and NOD, 2010). An exemplar of such a 

program has been developed by the Georgia Institute of Technology, under the 

title of SIDE (Support and Information for People with Disabilities Employment). 

SIDE addresses the two core issues of education and accessibility through a 

program intended to change how people with disabilities seek employment and 

education through broadband use (see recommendation 2 below). SIDE 

includes Broadband Learning and Support Centers for broadband education, 

access, equipment, and support; the SIDE Consolidator Platform, a virtual 

public/private network that helps people with disabilities connect with employers, 

as well as advance job skills and education; and a comprehensive awareness 

campaign to promote the program. 

• Recommendation 2: Develop an accessible online literacy curriculum 

aimed at people with intellectual disabilities in conjunction with family, 

self-advocate and service-provider groups.

We recommend that the Center on Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) 

collaborate with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and relevant 

community organizations to develop a training on online literacy accessible for 

people with intellectual disabilities. This population of people with disabilities is 

disproportionately excluded from the economic and social mainstream of 

American life. Although training is currently available for persons with intellectual 

disabilities for such tasks as using a telephone and other instrumental activities 

of daily living, in today’s day and age internet usage is an equally important skill 

set. Such a training program would enhance the ability of a particularly 

underserved component of the disability community to benefit from the other 

recommendations of this report and broader efforts to bridge the digital divide.
212

Finding 2. There are significant barriers to making a dispersed workforce a 

successful reality for people with disabilities.

The environment from which the vectors spring—the Internet and digital technology as 

the underpinnings of the networked economy—revealed one constant, and it was 

clearly a barrier: the cost of connectivity, as well as of hardware and software. This is a 

fundamental issue. Computer use and ownership and Internet use are significantly 

lower for people with disabilities compared with their counterparts without disabilities. As 

DiMaggio suggests, this means going beyond the conventional focus on access “to 

explore inequality in the combination of technical and social resources required for 

effective participation” (2001: 328). For people with disabilities there are significant 

issues of affordability and accessibility that lead to low broadband adoption rates, and 

for some make the promise of the vectors remote. According to the 2010 FCC report, A 

Giant Leap and a Big Deal: Delivering on the Promise of Equal Access to Broadband for 

People with Disabilities, only 42 percent of people with disabilities have broadband in 

the home compared to the national average of 65 percent. 

As social networking sites become a major mechanism for matching potential 

employees with potential employers, access to such sites, and to the right connections 

within them, will become increasingly important for finding work. Network inclusion or 

exclusion may largely govern resource distribution, a point directly relevant to the 

situation of people with disabilities, who may feel or create a sense of exclusion from 

social networks.

Companies are already using a variety of approaches to incorporating mobile platforms 

into their work environments. One of these, known as the dispersed workforce, involves 

the collaboration of geographically decentralized people on a common project or job. 

The concept of a dispersed workforce is broader than telework, as it also includes the 

ability for an employee to travel from a central office to another location for temporary 

strategic collaboration. One survey showed there were already 34 million Americans 

working at least occasionally from home by 2009, a figure that is projected to grow to 

63 million by 2016 (Schadler, 2009).
213

To realize the employment potential that the vectors represent, the issues of broadband 

access, as well as the costs of connectivity and of the hardware and software at the 

center of the vectors, were clearly spotlighted as major barriers. 

• Recommendation 3: Address issues of Internet access as a critical 

component of the vectors.

The Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) National Broadband Plan 

includes several accessibility initiatives for people with disabilities, under the 

heading “Address issues of accessibility for broadband adoption and utilization.” 

These initiatives include the Executive Branch to convene a Broadband 

Accessibility Working Group (BAWG) to maximize broadband adoption by 

people with disabilities; the FCC to establish an Accessibility and Innovation 

Forum; and Congress, the FCC, and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to 

consider modernizing accessibility laws, rules, and related subsidy programs. 

Congress appropriated substantial funds to assist industry to build out 

broadband. The industry should support an effort specifically targeted to 

increasing broadband access for people with disabilities. 

We recommend that the FCC collaborate with the U.S. Access Board through a 

working group or committee to take an active role in identifying the barriers that 

people with disabilities face with regard to broadband access, and introduce 

policy proceedings designed to facilitate broadband adoption and use by the 

disability community. We further recommend that virtual town-hall meetings 

(telephone, Internet, and other technologies) be conducted to build awareness 

for this initiative.

• Recommendation 4: Explore industry partnerships to address cost, for 

example, by providing in-kind services, devices, or partnerships to 

minimize cost to the end-user.

This would be an important element to be included in Recommendation 3 above. 

Outreach should include such groups as CTIA–The Wireless Association
214

(Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association), TechAmerica, COAT

(Coalition of Organizations for Accessible Technology), and other technology 

industries and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to support the work.

Create a tax credit for manufacturers of equipment that provide the latest to 

NGO’s for distribution to persons with disabilities. Such manufacturers should

also provide training to both the NGO’s and clients on use and maintenance.

• Recommendation 5: Work on federal and state legislative and regulatory 

language with regard to assistive technology (AT) and meta-design, and 

develop a standardized instrument to measure AT outcomes.

We recommend that the Department of Education (Rehabilitation Services 

Administration, charged with administering the Assistive Technology Act of 1998 

and 2004) consult with the U.S. Access Board to review pertinent federal and 

state legislative and regulatory language that affects polices hindering the ability 

to purchase off-the-shelf hardware and software and require more expensive 

equipment for people with disabilities (see Field and Jette, 2007).

In addition, we recommend that the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative 

Services (OSERS) in the Department of Education develop a standardized 

instrument for measuring AT outcomes. Measures should include the quality of AT 

services and equipment and the effects of AT on employment and independent 

living, for both specialized and off-the-shelf applications, to the benefit of both 

caregivers and consumers. The overall goal would be to encourage migration from 

the realm of specialized, dedicated, and expensive equipment to the universe of 

meta-design. The specific aim would be wide use of this instrument in various AT 

settings to measure outcomes, and to achieving comparability between systems 

and consistency in reporting AT outcomes nationally. 

Ultimately, this effort is likely to affect the Improving Access to Assistive 

Technology for Individuals with Disabilities Act of 2004, with the potential for 

amendments. Also, we recommend that this report as a whole, and the results 
215

of the work embedded in this recommendation in particular, be shared with the 

relevant committees in Congress: in the Senate, the Committee on Commerce, 

Science and Transportation, and the Subcommittee on Communications and 

technology; and in the House, the Committee on Science, Space and 

Technology, and the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation. 

Note also that this recommendation is in accord with Section 104 of the 21st 

Century Communications & Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (S. 3304) that 

requires the FCC to establish a clearinghouse of information on the availability 

of accessible products and services, and should be coordinated with the 

establishment of such a clearinghouse.

Finding 3. Through building social capital, the vectors may offer pathways 

to employment, but only through proactive social interaction, led by the 

young. 

In attempting to discover the underlying reasons for high unemployment among people 

with disabilities, this report has zeroed in on the mechanisms that match the two sides 

of the unemployment equations: job opportunities (their availability or lack) and the job 

seeker (i.e., human capital). In part, the unemployment experienced by people with 

disabilities may be attributed to a perceived weakness of social capital. In that sense, 

networks are likely more important for people with disabilities than for the general 

population. The implications are significant, because the effects of networking spread 

beyond the employer–employee nexus, to self-employment and entrepreneurship for 

people with disabilities. Also, the nature of the social network is likely to heavily 

influence job satisfaction, job retention, and career advancement. 

The role of networks in matching characteristics with opportunities is important not only 

in trade but also in the labor market, where social networks mediate employment 

opportunities and match employer needs with employee characteristics. Empirical 

studies reveal that typically around 50 percent of individuals obtain or hear about jobs 
216

through friends and family (Corcoran et al., 1980; Holzer, 1988; Montgomery, 1991; 

Addison and Portugal, 2002).

The new information economy of which the vectors are a part, and some or all of the 

vectors themselves, may offer a solution (provided the issues identified in Findings 1 

and 2, above, are addressed). It requires coordination of social and technical practices 

into communities of interest, creation and production. This solution would ideally involve 

a collaborative-community model that is particularly relevant for people with disabilities, 

because networked social connections lead to collaboration, empowerment, and 

potentially autonomy. The vectors serve as such coordinators or conduits. The 

collaborative-community model is particularly relevant for people with disabilities, 

because “the extent of interconnectedness and interdependencies emerges more 

distinctly in experience that includes disability” (Ells, 2001), and the new model 

suggests a network of diversified relationships enhancing the autonomy of the 

individual—and his or her social capital.

The most common uses and gratifications in Facebook, for instance, include social 

connection, shared identities, content, social investigation, social network surfing, and 

status updating (Joinson, 2008). A study of college students demonstrates a robust 

connection between Facebook use and indicators of social capital (Ellison, 2007). This 

connection is directly relevant to young people in the disability community, who are 

already using social media and socializing, in ways that strikingly contrast with the older 

generation. Above 30 years of age, people with disabilities are less likely to socialize 

than people without disabilities, across a range of activities, but for those between ages 

18 and 29 the gap is nonexistent. Young people with disabilities also report themselves 

to be much closer to their counterparts without disabilities in terms of Internet access, 

the basis of the vectors, compared with the large gap (from 21 to 33 percentage points) 

for older people with disabilities (Kessler Foundation and NOD, 2010).

This observation is not to suggest that the new networked economy constitutes a brave 

new world, but rather that it does offer new opportunities. Specifically, the idea of 

collaborative community offers a door to a place where diversity is prized. The vectors 
217

should not be seen as employment panaceas, but rather, in different ways and to 

different extents, they may offer pathways to employment. However, for all the vectors, 

a key point to emerge was that the different types of digital connectivity that the vectors 

represent are essentially latent, activated only by some sort of social interaction. 

This view was reinforced by the exemplar study, which reminded us that the 

technologies explored in this report are all at some level communication and 

demonstration media. Even in the digital world of social networks, the most successful 

individuals are those who create a strong online persona and then make sure they have 

the capabilities to back it up. The individual has to be proactive in searching for potential 

employment opportunities, which means the lens through which viable employment 

opportunities are sought has to change constantly. 

• Recommendation 6: Develop a social-media campaign directed at people 

with disabilities between ages 15 and 30.

We recommend that the Department of Labor (Office of Disability Employment 

Policy) develop and implement a social-media campaign aimed at the younger 

people with disabilities, who are more socially involved and vector aware than 

people with disabilities in general. This campaign will serve as a “wedge” or opening 

that would then diffuse back into the general community of people with disabilities.

Campaign approaches would include: 

o identifying and recruiting an advisory board of the target audience (15- to 

30-year-olds) to help focus messages;

o collecting and disseminating success stories of the positive effects of 

employment of the use of the vectors;

o collecting and disseminating case studies of companies with some direct 

or indirect connection with the vectors who employ people with disabilities 

as a resource, not as an exception); and 
218

o collecting evidence-based best practices, intended to go toward a 

resource portfolio that can be used to support specific policy 

recommendations for government.

These stories, studies, and best practices would be combined into a strategic 

social-media campaign, focusing on “ability,” in a variety of vector-specific 

employment settings, presented in an innovative, compelling, and interesting 

manner. We recommend developing a subcampaign to focus on 

entrepreneurship, because small business offers the greatest practical 

opportunity for generating new employment possibilities. 

• Recommendation 7: Initiate national awards modeled after the Malcolm 

Baldrige National Quality Award.

The Baldrige Award, given by the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology, recognizes U.S. business, health-care, education, and nonprofit 

organizations for performance excellence. NCD recommends that public and 

private organizations, such as the American Association of People with 

Disabilities (AAPD), explore the possibility of national awards modeled after the 

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. The awards should be given in four 

areas: 

o An award for creative use of the vectors and other digital technology in 

developing new employment opportunities for people with disabilities. This 

would be aimed at the younger generation, but would have an additional 

motive of raising awareness among people with disabilities in general 

disability about the transformative potential of digital technologies like the 

vectors in the employment sector. 

o An award, aimed at the business sector, to recognize employment 

creation for people with disabilities (see below).
219

o A “Design for Ability” award, focusing on meta-design principles (see 

below). To receive this award, an organization would have to demonstrate 

a design management system that ensures a continuous commitment to 

the incorporation of meta-design and universal design (UD) principles in 

its products and services. 

o An “Entrepreneur with Disabilities” award that recognizes people with 

disabilities, or organizations staffed by people with disabilities, for original 

work in developing new types of business using networking technologies, 

under the theme of “computer-supported collaborative work.”

Finding 4: The disability community needs to expand efforts to enhance 

awareness of the presence, capacities and potential of people with 

disabilities.

One of the major themes to emerge from the exemplar study was the perceived 

“invisibility” of people with disabilities the disability community, and that business has

not focused on this domain community because it is perceived to be a “niche,” not 

substantial enough to justify development work. The most convincing rationale offered 

for this view was that people with disabilities tend to have little disposable income and 

cannot invest in expensive software or hardware, a view that highlighted a lack of 

awareness of the size and scope of the community.

A highly unfortunate consequence of people with disabilities not being seen as a viable 

market is that many of the technology companies interviewed are not considering

developing product lines for them, and are not considering universal-design principles 

during the prototyping and development phase of technologies. Several of the exemplar 

study interviewees interpreted this observation to indicate a need for stronger advocacy 

and information dissemination from the disability community.

Alongside this view, another commentary that came from the exemplar study suggested 

the need to incorporate different perspectives, including that of people with disabilities, 
220

within the technological developments represented by the vectors. The perception that 

certain technological fields were not “suited” for people with disabilities is a pernicious 

one, and for reasons that are unclear. Several interview respondents speculated on the 

typical lack of confidence that people with disabilities have, something instilled in them 

by the dominant culture—another way to describe a shortage of social capital.

The vectors in this study all serve as coordinators or conduits. A key point to emerge in 

this research is that the different types of digital connectivity represented by the vectors 

are all essentially latent, activated only by some sort of proactive, social interaction. It is 

essential for people with disabilities to take on that role, to act and be seen as active 

participants in the networked economy. 

• Recommendation 8: Expand efforts to advocate for people with disabilities 

as an untapped resource and as a market, using traditional as well as 

social-media channels. 

In part, this awareness gap can be filled by the social-media campaign indicated 

above, especially in terms of the potential that people with disabilities have as 

employees.

However, there is a pressing need for business and industry to develop a 

greater awareness of people with disabilities as a potential market. We suggest 

building on Recommendation 16 from the NCD report “Design for Inclusion,” 

which was to develop a clearinghouse where users can obtain information about 

accessibility issues and the features to address them. We recommend that the 

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) in the 

Department of Education serve as the base for this clearinghouse, and the remit 

be expanded to include involvement from the private sector. The latter might 

include linking with the U.S. Business Leadership Network (USBLN) and with 

advocacy organizations like the Arthritis Foundation and AARP, as well as 

identifying existing dissemination channels and developing targeted material for 

them.
221

Note also that this recommendation is in accord with Section 104 of the 21st 

Century Communications & Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (S.3304) that 

requires the FCC to establish a clearinghouse of information on the availability 

of accessible products and services, and should be coordinated with the 

establishment of such a clearinghouse.

• Recommendation 9: Create discussion forums focused on the potential of 

the market that people with disabilities represent.

We recommend that the Department of Labor (Office of Disability Employment 

Policy) partner with the U.S Business Leadership Network (USBLN), the Society for 

Human Resource Management (SHRM), and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to 

facilitate a conference and a follow-up online community of practice. The 

conference would be aimed at government and industry, with panels to discuss the 

potential of the market that people with disabilities represent. Speakers from 

leading industry sectors, with a focus on those working in the areas represented by 

the vectors, would be invited together with government and NGOs, including 

OSERS, the Interagency Committee on Disability Research (ICDR), NCD, 

ACCESS Board, and the Office of Disability Employment (ODEP).

NCD also plans to incorporate discussions centered on the potential of the 

networked economy for people with disabilities into its own national forums, 

such as the three regional forums planned for 2011, in alignment with the theme 

Living, Learning, & Earning used at NCD’s National Summit on Disability Policy 

2010.

Finding 5: Social, technological, and attitudinal barriers exist to raising 

awareness of the potential of the new networked economy among people 

with disabilities.

NCD conceived of this research as examining the utility of the vectors through two lenses: 

how the vectors might enhance the ability to do work, and how they might help in finding or 
222

creating work. One clear result from the focus-group discussions was their essentially

negative focus on barriers to adoption in the workplace, rather than on the potential for 

creating new industry/vector employment. This result suggests larger social and cultural 

issues about the tolerance for risk and ability to engage in new types of activities. 

The focus group discussion suggested that a key aspect of the use of the digital vectors 

relates to the context in which they are deployed, as well as to the vectors as free-standing 

technologies. There is also a considerable gap between whatever the potential of the 

vectors may be, and an appreciation or realization of that potential by the disability 

community. To a degree, this view was reinforced by some of the findings of the online 

social-network groups, where there was a challenge in moving the discussion out of the 

arena of the “experts” and onto a more public stage, sustaining popular participation.

As part of Recommendation 7 (above), an award could be given for creative use of the 

vectors and other digital technology in developing new employment opportunities for 

people with disabilities. The additional motive would be to raise awareness among 

people with disabilities about the transformative potential of digital technologies like the 

vectors in the employment sector. 

As part of Recommendation 7 (above), an award could be given for creative use of the 

vectors and other digital technology in developing new employment opportunities for 

people with disabilities. The additional motive would be to raise awareness among 

people with disabilities about the transformative potential of digital technologies like the 

vectors in the employment sector. 

• Recommendation 10: Develop and conduct an information campaign 

focused on the potential of information technologies to create new job 

opportunities.

We recommend that the Department of Labor (Office of Disability Employment 

Policy), leading an industry partnership featuring businesses involved in the 

vectors (such as Google, IBM, and Facebook), initiate an information campaign. 
223

The campaign could be centered on a major job fair, moving every year to a 

different major urban center, and focusing on the job potential of the networked 

economy as represented by the vectors. 

Finding 6: Encourage the adoption of meta-design approaches.

One clear agreement to emerge from the Delphi study was the importance of universal 

design (UD) in achieving accessibility for people with disabilities. One participant noted 

that UD approaches were fundamental precisely because of a lack of access to and the 

expense of adaptive technologies. Another observed that UD needed to extend beyond 

the information communication technologies of the workplace, in order to address largescale systems that are frequently inaccessible to people with disabilities. This reinforces 

some of the conclusions of the NCD report “Inclusion for Design” (2004).

Since that time, UD has evolved to meta-design, which shares and transcends the 

characteristics of participatory design. To foster creative production and enable diversity 

of access, socio-technical environments must “not only build new technologies but seed 

new practices, new genres, new communities” (Fischer, 2005: 24). Central to metadesign is learning to communicate with others who have a different perspective, 

integrating diversity and making all voices heard. This enables informed participation 

and social creativity in communities of interest. The ultimate goal is media-augmented 

social creativity to make all voices heard and integrate diversity (ibid). Meta-design may 

represent an ideal for meeting the needs of people with disabilities, in so far as it does 

not try to predict the diverse needs of a heterogeneous population in a changing work 

environment, and strives to avoid ever-lengthening lists of accessibility guidelines that 

always run a step behind the rapid pace of technological change. Meta-designed 

technology encompasses not only accessibility concerns and human-capital 

requirements, but also social-capital and creativity requirements, in line with the needs 

of the new economy.

One of those needs is to harmonize standards. The phrase “mobile accessibility,” for 

instance, is often used not in the context of disability, but of making the Web as 
224

accessible on mobile platforms as on desktop platforms. Interestingly, users of mobile 

devices and people with disabilities experience similar barriers when interacting with 

Web content. For example, users of mobile phones and people with mobility or dexterity 

disabilities can have a hard time if a Web site’s navigation requires the use of a mouse 

(Web Accessibility Initiative). The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), a 

guide for making Web sites accessible to people with disabilities, overlaps the Mobile 

Web Best Practices (MWBP), a guide for making Web sites usable from a mobile 

device. For instance, the MWBP best practice “Label all form controls appropriately and 

explicitly associate labels with form controls” corresponds with the WCAG technique of 

“Using label elements to associate text labels with form controls” (ibid). Following both 

sets of guidelines—or aligning both to become one—makes Web content more 

accessible for a wider variety of people on a wider range of devices.

This approach fits in well with another need, acknowledging the potential of HTML5. As 

the exemplar study points out, the most important thing to note about accessibility in 

HTML5 is not so much the features as the change in philosophy that it entails. For 

example, bloggers working in this domain emphasize that HTML5 actively encourages 

Web authors not to put information into places where ordinary users cannot see it, such 

as alt and summary attributes, but rather into the normal body text, a move that follows 

meta-design principles.

A third need is to build on the work of W3C WAI in developing guidelines for authoring 

tools and user-access agents, to ensure adherence to the principles in the guidelines as 

we move toward Web 3.0, the semantic Web (Neville and Kelly, 2008). 

While the government provides funding to support universally designed technologies—

such as the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research’s (NIDRR) 

Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Universal Interface and Information 

Technology—the desired outcome is “seamless integration of the various technologies 

used by individuals with disabilities in the home, the community, and the workplace,” 

which may be an underestimation of the potential offered for a meta-design approach.
225

As part of Recommendation 7 (above), an award could be given for “Design for Ability,” 

focusing on meta-design principles. To receive a “Design for Ability” award, an 

organization would have to demonstrate a design-management system that indicates an 

understanding of, and ensures a continuous commitment to, the incorporation of metadesign and UD principles in its products and services.

• Recommendation 11: Conduct hearings with business and industry 

representatives.

We recommend that key stakeholders identify and approach key members of 

Congress about the potential to convene hearings on the role of universally 

designed and accessible technology to drive new job creation. The American 

Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD) and AARP have already 

demonstrated their awareness and interest in universal design. We recommend 

they lead in organizing hearings with industry associations (such as the Mobile 

Manufacturers Forum and the CTIA) and, with industry leaders, help identify

what incentives would be helpful in adopting meta-design principles as a way of 

providing more cost-effective products for all users, and of reinforcing the 

message about the size of the market. The involvement of Department of 

Commerce (Small Business Administration) and FCC should also be invited. 

The main thrust of the hearings should be to encourage a frank discussion. In 

this regard, we recommend reevaluating the recommendations given in “Design 

for Inclusion: Creating a New Marketplace” (NCD, 2004), to see which have 

been followed and which have not, and, where necessary, to turn those 

recommendations into a policy for action based on feedback from the listening 

sessions. 

• Recommendation 12: NIDRR should solicit input on the importance of 

research and development of meta-design applications as part of its focus 

on universal design for all government-funded projects. 
226

Finding 7. Encourage entrepreneurs with disabilities to flourish as part of 

the collaborative community, and encourage development of that 

community.

One suggestion from the literature review is that the shift to a networked economy could

be good for people with disabilities, who might have unique qualifications for the new 

jobs that are evolving. These are jobs in which creative, networked people transform 

problems into opportunities, and where networking technologies make entirely new 

types of business specialties possible by enabling people to express highly specific 

preferences that enterprising producers can meet. For example, one of the 

recommendations from the exemplar study was that immersive digital environments 

represent unconventional and entrepreneurial opportunities for employment. Within 

certain domains, specialized, employment-oriented groups exist that would repay further 

investigation in order to reach a deeper understanding of the employment opportunities 

they may represent. Many employers find the skills acquired through “accidental 

learning” even in casual games—the “learning to be” that is a natural byproduct of 

adjusting to new cultures inside the game—as advantageous as traditionally acquired 

skills. This process is bringing about a profound shift in perceptions and reactions to the 

“real” world, with users becoming “more flexible in their thinking and more sensitive to 

social cues” (Brown and Thomas, 2006: 1). Leadership and business-oriented skills can 

be developed through collaborative casual gaming, which prepares people for 

“computer supported collaborative work” (Nardi and Harris, 2006: 149).

This kind of collaborative work has real potential of people with disabilities. The 

literature shows that one of the most effective channels for disseminating institutional 

knowledge and expertise within an organization is informal networks of colleagues and 

friends (Kraut et al., 1990; Wasserman and Galaskiewicz, 1994). Social capital (“knowwho”) may be more significant organizationally than human capital (“know-how”) 

(Downes, 2004). Heckscher and Adler (2006) point to IBM as a corporation that has 

internalized these informal networks, adopting the structure, values, and character of a 

collaborative community, where it is expected that people will take responsibility for 
227

things they cannot fully control and that they will move outside the zone of their formal 

accountability. While in a traditional bureaucracy, power and influence flow downward, 

the collaborative approach includes high levels of participation, as processes are 

defined and refined over time by input from all levels. The shift is to a focus on 

contribution to collective company goals, with pay varying based largely on 

assessments of the individual’s contribution to the corporation. 

The dynamic potential of the vectors should not be underestimated: open-source 

processes, for example, cause conventional economic narratives to be questioned. 

Economic theory asserts that for people to engage in a task such as software 

development, they must reap both immediate and delayed rewards (Lerner and Tirole, 

2000). Immediate rewards include monetary compensation or the use of customized 

software to complete a task. Delayed rewards, called the “signaling incentive,” are

further divided into two categories. The “career concern incentive” refers to 

collaborators being motivated to produce open-source works because future employers 

may recognize their work. This motivation is important for the disability community 

because the source code produced is the sole component leaving an impression on 

employers, providing people with disabilities with an even playing ground for displaying 

their capabilities to potential employers. Because there is such a low barrier to entry on 

open-source collaborations, people with disabilities can put their talents and capabilities 

on display for potential jobs in the future.

The second motivation is called the “ego gratification incentive,” in which a programmer 

desires recognition for his or her individual contribution (Lerner and Tirole, 2000). There 

is a third motivation, the “alumni effect,” in which students use open-source code while 

learning to program and continue to do so once their skills have developed (ibid). One 

of the principal benefits of the collaborative community may be precisely that the 

rewarding process for work is open and unconventional. 

As part of Recommendation 7 (above), an award could be given for “Entrepreneurs with 

Disabilities,” to recognize people with disabilities, or organizations staffed by people with 
228

disabilities, for original work in developing new types of business using networking 

technologies, under the theme of “computer-supported collaborative work.” 

• Recommendation 13: NCD recommends exploring a programmatic 

initiative to encourage enhanced interagency coordination and 

collaboration and to build outreach efforts. The aim will be to increase 

awareness both of the potential of the collaborative community for people 

with disabilities in finding employment, and of the vector-related barriers 

to employment that affect people with disabilities, as described in this 

report, by conducting workshops, expanding outreach activities, and 

using social-media channels, with key stakeholders.

• Recommendation 14: Create field workshops among the research, policy, 

and advocacy communities to expand “community level” input into 

public-sector processes that affect growth of communications channels,

in particular for the idea of the collaborative community and employment. We 

recommend that the Department of Commerce (NTIA—possibly the Office of 

Telecommunications and Information Applications) take the lead in organizing 

the workshops. The aim would be to go “outside the beltway,” to draw on 

existing and new online and social-media channels for new and innovative 

ideas, as well as support for evidenced based practices. Such efforts might 

include tool kits (for example, those used by the FCC) that make it 

straightforward for key stakeholders to provide input into the regulatory and 

policy processes—encouraging them to submit filings, respond to regulatory and 

public-sector requests for information and comments, and engage in public 

participation.
229

Bibliography

“About Orca.” 2008. Accessed May 23, 2010, http://live.gnome.org/Orca. 

“About LinkedIn.” 2010. Accessed June 29, 2010, http://press.linkedin.com/about. 

“In Accessibility Wiki for Second Life.” 2009. Accessed July 30, 2009, 

http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Accessibility. 

Abascal, J., and A. Civit. 2001 (May 22–25). “Universal Access to Mobile Telephony as 

a Way to Enhance the Autonomy of Elderly People.” Proceedings of the 2001 

EC/NSF Workshop on Universal Accessibility of Ubiquitous Computing: Providing 

for the Elderly. Alcácer do Sal, Portugal. 

Acemoglu, D., and J. Angrist. 2001. “Consequences of Employment Protection? The 

Case of the Americans with Disabilities Act.” The Journal of Political Economy

109(5): 915–57.

Acquisti, A., and R. Gross. 2005 (November 7). “Information Revelation and Privacy in 

Online Social Networks and the Facebook.” Proceedings of the 2005 ACM 

Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society. Alexandria, Virginia. 

Adams-Spink, G. 2007 (September 18). “Virtual Worlds Open Up to the Blind.” 

Accessed July 30, 2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6993739.stm. 

Addison, J., and P. Portugal. 2002. “Job Search Methods and Outcomes,” Oxford 

Economic Papers, 54: 505–33.

Adler, P., and C. Heckscher. 2006. “Towards Collaborative Community.” In 

C. Heckscher and P. Adler, eds. The Firm as a Collaborative Community: 

Reconstructing Trust in the Knowledge Economy. New York: Oxford University 

Press. 

The Advanced Communications Law & Policy Institute. 2009 (October). “Barriers to 

Broadband Adoption: A Report to the Federal Communications Commission.” 

Accessed September 30, 2010, http://www.law.northwestern.edu/agep/

conferences/AGEP_Data_Privacy_Davidson.pdf. 

Ajila, S., and D. Wu. 2007. “Empirical Study of the Effects of Open Source Adoption on 

Software Development Economics.” The Journal of Systems and Software, 

80(9): 1517–29.

Akerlof, G. A. 1997 (September). “Social Distance and Social Decisions.” Econometrica, 

vol. 65, no. 5: 1005–27.
230

Albors, J., J. C. Ramos, and J. L. Hervas. 2008. “New Learning Network Paradigms: 

Communities of Objectives, Crowdsourcing, Wikis and Open Source.” 

International Journal of Information Management, 28: 194–202. 

Albrecht, G., K. Seelman, and M. Bury. 2001. Handbook of Disability Studies. London: 

Sage. 

Alexa. 2009. Accessed July 31, 2009, http://alexa.com. 

Ali, R. 2010. “Tribeca Enterprises Launches Film Distribution and Online Premium 

Movie Ventures.” Accessed March 28, 2010, http://paidcontent.org/article/419-

tribeca-enterprises-launches-film-distribution-online-premium-movie-ven/. 

Allen, B., K. Weigelt, N. Doherty, and E. Mansfield. 2009. Managerial Economics: 

Theory, Applications, and Cases. New York: Norton.

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. P.L. 101-336, codified at 42 USC 

Section 12101 et seq. 

America’s Promise Alliance. 2007. “Under-Equipped and Unprepared: America’s 

Emerging Workforce and the Soft Skills Gap (Issue brief).” Alexandria, Virginia. 

Anderson, R. 2010 (March 28). Former Flat World Knowledge employee interviewed by 

B. Bellamy. 

Anderson, R., T. Bikson, S. Law, and B. Mitchell. 1995. “Universal Access to E-Mail—

Feasibility and Societal Implications.” Santa Monica, California: Rand.

Anderson, T., and H. Kanuka. 1998. “Online Social Interchange, Discord, and 

Knowledge Construction.” Journal of Distance Education, 13(1): 57–74.

Andrasick, C. 2009 (September 21). “The Future of Social Networks.” Icon-o Cast 

Podcast by Lunar. Accessed from iTunes, May 23, 2010.

Andrews, D. 1984. “The IRG Solution—Hierarchical Incompetence and How to 

Overcome It.” London: Souvenir Press, 200–20.

Angwin, J., and G. Fowler. 2009 (November 27). “Volunteers Log Off as Wikipedia 

Ages.” Wall Street Journal: A12. 

Appleyard, R. J. 2005. “Disability Informatics,” in D. Lewis, G. Eysenbach, and R.

Kukafka, eds. Consumer Health Informatics: Informing Consumers and 

Improving Health Care. New York: Springer. 

Apte, U., and U. Karmarkar. 2007. “Managing in the Information Economy: Current 

Research Issues (Annals of Information Systems).” Springer Science and 

Business Media. 
231

Arango, T. 2010 (January 11). “How the AOL-Time Warner Merger Went So Wrong.” 

New York Times. Accessed January 14, 2010, 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/business/media/11merger.html. 

ARhrrr. 2009. “Augmented Environments Labs.” Accessed August 3, 2009, 

http://www.augmentedenvironments.org/lab/. 

Arrington, M. 2008. “Modeling the Real Market Value of Social Networks.” TechCrunch. 

Accessed August 27, 2010, http://techcrunch.com/2008/06/23/modeling-the-realmarket-value-of-social-networks/. 

———. 2009. “Modeling the True Value of Social Networks: 2009 Edition.” TechCrunch. 

Accessed August 27, 2010, http://techcrunch.com/2009/06/04/the-true-value-ofsocial-networks-the-2009-updated-model/. 

Arthur, W. B. 1996 (July–August). “Increasing Returns and the New World of Business.” 

Harvard Business Review. Accessed June 1, 2010, 

http://www.santafe.edu/media/workingpapers/96-05-028.pdf. 

Atkins, D., and C. Guisti. 2003. “The Confluence of Poverty and Disability.” The 

Realities of Poverty in Delaware: 6–8. Accessed June 6, 2010, 

http://www.housingforall.org/rop0304%20poverty%20and%20disability.pdf. 

Atkinson, M. T., S. Gucukoglu, C. Machin, and A. E. Lawrence. 2006. “Making the 

Mainstream Accessible: Redefining the Game.” Proceedings of the 2006 ACM 

SIGGRAPH Symposium on Videogames: 21–28. Accessed June 29, 2009. 

AudioGames. Accessed July 30, 2009, http://audiogames.net. 

Axelrod, R. 1984. The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books. 

Axistive. 2007 (June 24). “Cell Phones Are Important for People with Disabilities.” 

Accessed May 29, 2010, http://www.axistive.com/cell-phones-are-important-forpeople-with-disabilities.html. 

Aycinena, P. 2008. “Access for All.” Communications of the ACM 51 (8): 12–14. 

Bailey, D. 2009 (June 25). “Red Hat Revenue up 11 percent,” Computing. Accessed

December 13, 2009, http://www.computing.co.uk/computing/news/2244831/redhat-revenue-per-cent. 

Baker, P., and C. Bellordre. 2003 (December). “Factors Influencing Adoption of 

Wireless Technologies—Key Policy Issues, Barriers and Opportunities for People 

with Disabilities.” Information Technology and Disabilities, vol. 9, no. 2.

Baker, P., and A. Fairchild. 2005. “The Virtual Workspace: Telework, Disabilities and 

Public Policy.” Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on e-Government—

2005. Reading, England: Academic Conferences International.
232

Baker, P., and N. Moon. 2008. “Access Barriers to Wireless Technologies for People 

with Disabilities: Issues, Opportunities and Policy Options,” in P. Langdon, J. 

Clarkson, and P. Robinson, eds. Designing Inclusive Futures. London: SpringerVerlag. 

———. 2008. “Policy Change and the Accommodating Workplace: Issues, Barriers and 

Opportunities,” in William C. Mann, ed. Aging, Disability and Independence: 

Selected Papers from the 4th International Conference on Aging, Disability, and 

Independence. Gainesville: University of Florida. 

———. 2008. “Access Barriers to Wireless Technologies for People with Disabilities: 

Issues, Opportunities and Policy Options,” in Patrick Langdon, John Clarkson, 

and Peter Robinson, eds. Designing Inclusive Futures. London: Springer-Verlag. 

———. 2008 (Fall). “Wireless Technologies and Accessibility for People with 

Disabilities: Findings from a Policy Research Instrument.” Journal of Assistive 

Technology, vol. 20, no. 3.

———. 2009. “Policy Development and Access to Wireless Technologies for People 

with Disabilities: Results of Policy Delphi Research.” Universal Access in the 

Information Society.

Baker, P., and A. Ward. 2006. “Telework and People with Disabilities: Developing the 

‘E-Clusive’ Workplace,” in Ari-Veikko Anttiroiko and Matti Malkia, eds. 

Encyclopedia of Digital Government. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing. 

Baker, P., N. Moon, and D. Noonan. 2008 (July 1). “Memo: Musings on Open Source 

(Software) Advancement [Letter].” Found in Georgia Institute of Technology, 

Atlanta, GA. 

Baker, P., N. Moon, and A. Ward. 2006. “Virtual Exclusion and Telework: Barriers and 

Opportunities of Technocentric Workplace Accommodation Policy.” WORK: A 

Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation, 27(4). 

Baker, W. E. 1990. “Market Networks and Corporate Behavior.” American Journal of 

Sociology, 96: 589–625.

Bandura, A. 1997. Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W. H. Freeman. 

Bardoel, J., and M. Deuze. 2001. “Network Journalism: Converging Competences of 

Old and New Media Professionals.” Australian Journalism Review, 23(2): 91–

103.

Barfield, W. 2009. “On Money, Taxes, and Property in Virtual Reality.” Virtual Reality, 

13: 37–39. 
233

Barnes, N., and E. Mattson. 2010. “Still Setting the Pace in Social Media: The First 

Longitudinal Study of Usage by the Largest U.S. Charities.” Dartmouth, 

University of Massachusetts. Accessed May 30, 2010, 

http://www.umassd.edu/cmr/studiesresearch/mediaandadmissions.pdf.

Bartunek, J. M., and J. K. Murnighan. 1984. “The Nominal Group Technique: Expanding 

the Basic Procedure and Underlying Assumptions.” Group and Organization 

Studies, 9: 417–32.

Beckett, C. 2008. “SuperMedia: The Future as ‘Networked Journalism.’” Accessed May 

28, 2010, http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/supermedia-the-networkedjournalism-future. 

Bellis, M. 2010. “The History of MP3.” Accessed March 28, 2010, 

http://inventors.about.com/od/mstartinventions/a/MPThree.htm. 

Belov, N., I. Beaude, W. Keandick, and J. Shaffer. 2005 (April). “Wireless Internet 

Ben-Zvi, T., and T. Carton. 2007. “From Rhetoric to Reality: Business Games as 

Educational Tools.” INFORMS Transactions on Education, vol. 8, no. 1. 

Accessed June 15, 2010, http://ite.pubs.informs.org/Vol8No1/Ben-ZviCarton/. 

Benkler, Y. 2004. “Coase’s Penguin, or, Linux and the Nature of the Firm.” Yale Law 

Journal: 112. Accessed June 14, 2010, 

http://www.yale.edu/yalelj/112/BenklerWEB.pdf. 

———. 2006. The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and 

Freedom. New Haven: Yale University Press. 

Bennett, R. 2010. “PDAs Help People with Disabilities Get Organized.” Disaboom. 

Accessed May 29, 2010, http://www.disaboom.com/computer-technology/pdashelp-people-with-disabilities-get-organized. 

Bentley, C. 2005 (August 10–13). “The Citizen Journalist Movement: My Missourian as

a Case Study.” Paper presented to the Communication Technology and Policy 

Division, AEJMC 2005 Annual Convention, San Antonio, Texas. 

Berman, R. 2010. “Dems Push Teleworking Bill after February’s Monster Snowfall.” The 

Hill. Accessed July 12, 2010, http://thehill.com/homenews/house/108291-demspush-teleworking-cite-februarys-monster-snowfall. 

Berry, D., L. Evans, G. Moss, and J. Pawlik. 2008. “Libre Culture: Meditations on Free 

Culture.” 2nd edition. Sherman Oaks, CA: Pygmalion Books. Accessed May 5, 

2010, http://www.archive.org/details/LibreCultureMeditationsOnFreeCulture. 

Best, J. 2006 (February 13). “Analysis: What Is a Smart Phone?” Silicon. Accessed 

August 3, 2009, http://www.silicon.com/technology/mobile/2006/02/13/analysiswhat-is-a-smart-phone-39156391/. 
234

Beurer-Zuellig, B., and M. Meckel. 2008. “Smartphones Enabling Mobile Collaboration.” 

Unpublished paper presented at the Hawaii International Conference on Systems 

Sciences.

Biocca, F., and M. R. Levy. 1995. “Communication in the Age of Virtual Reality.” 

Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Black, R., K. Mrasek, and R. Ballinger, eds. 2003 (Winter–Spring). “Individualist and 

Collectivist Values in Transition Planning for Culturally Diverse Students with 

Special Needs.” The Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education, vol. 25, 2–

3: 20–29.

Bloomfield, R. 2009. “World of Bizcraft.” Journal of Virtual Worlds Research—

Technology, Economy and Standards in Virtual Worlds. vol. 2, issue 3. 

Bollier, D. 2006. “When Push Comes to Pull: The New Economy and Culture of 

Networking Technology.” Report of the Fourteenth Annual Aspen Institute 

Roundtable on Information Technology. Accessed May 18, 2010, 

http://www.cooperationcommons.com/taxonomy/term/26. 

Bonaccorsi, A., and C. Rossi. 2006. “Comparing Motivations of Individual Programmers 

and Firms to Take Part in the Open Source Movement: From Community to 

Business.” Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 12(4): 40–64. 

Boulton, C. 2009. “Verizon Wireless Hypes Motorola Droid as Everything Apple iPhone 

Isn’t.” eWEEK (2009). Accessed October 19, 2009, 

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/Verizon-Wireless-HypesMotorola-Droid-Phone-As-Everything-Apple-IPhone-Isnt-331506/. 

Bowman, S., and C. Willis. 2003. “We Media: How Audiences Are Shaping the Future of 

News and Information,” Thinking Paper Series. The Media Center at the 

American Press Institute.

Boyd, D., and N. B. Ellison. 2007. “Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and 

Scholarship.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1): article 11.

Accessed http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html. 

Boyd, C. 2009 (April 14). “Sixth Sense Blurs Digital and the Real.” BBC News. 

Accessed November 5, 2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7997961.stm

Braddock, D., and L. Bachelder. 1994. “The Glass Ceiling and Persons with 

Disabilities.” Washington, DC: Glass Ceiling Commission, U.S. Department of 

Labor.
235

Bray, A., and S. Gates. 2003. “Review of the Literature Prepared for the National 

Advisory Committee on Health and Disability to Inform Its Project on Services for 

Adults with an Intellectual Disability.” Donald Beasley Institute, Wellington. 

Accessed June 6, 2010, http://www.donaldbeasley.org.nz/publications/

NHC_CommunityPart.pdf. 

Breckenridge, C., and C. Vogler. 2001. “The Critical Limits of Embodiment: Disability’s 

Criticism.” Public Culture, 13(3): 349–57.

Brewer, J. 2004. “Web Accessibility Highlights and Trends.” Proceedings of the 2004 

International Cross-Disciplinary Workshop on Web Accessibility (W4A). ACM 

International Conference Proceeding Series, vol. 63: 5–15.

Bricout, J., P. Baker, A. C. Ward, and N. Moon. 2009. “Telework and the “Disability 

Divide,” in Enrico Ferro, Yogesh Dwivedi, J. Ramon Gil-Garcia, and Michael D. 

Williams, eds. Handbook of Research on Overcoming Digital Divides: 

Constructing an Equitable and Competitive Information Society. Hershey, 

Pennsylvania: IGI Global. 

Brighton, J. 2010 (January 14). “NPD: Video Game and PC Game Industry Totals 

$20.2 Billion in ‘09.” Industry Gamers. Accessed June 27, 2010, 

http://www.industrygamers.com/news/npd-video-game-and-pc-game-industrytotals-202-billion-in-09/. 

Brockman, J. 2010 (January 7). “When Play Means Pay: Video Game Jobs on the 

Rise.” National Public Radio. Accessed July 2, 2010, 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122290666&ps=rs. 

Bromme, R., F. W. Hesse, and H. Spada, 2005. “Barriers, Biases and Opportunities of 

Communication and Cooperation with Computers: Introduction and Overview,” in 

Rainer Bromme, Friedrich Hesse and Hans Spada, eds. Barriers and Biases in 

Computer-Mediated Knowledge Communication. Kluwer Academic Publishers. 

Brown, D. 2009. “Networking Moves Online.” Journal of the American Dietetic 

Association, 109(2): 210–11. 

Brown, B., and M. Bell. 2004. “CSCW at Play: ‘There’ as a Collaborative Virtual 

Environment,” in CSCW 2004: Computer Supported Cooperative Work—

Conference Proceedings. New York: ACM Press: 350–59.

Brown, J. S., and P. Duguid. 2000. “The Social Life of Information.” First Monday, vol. 5, 

no. 4. Accessed May 29, 2010, http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/

index.php/fm/article/view/740/649. 

Brown, J. S., and D. Thomas. 2006. “You Play World of Warcraft? You’re Hired!” Wired,

14(4). Accessed June 15, 2010, http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.04/learn.html. 
236

Brown, R. 2009. “Novell Ends 2009 Down, Linux Offerings Look Bright.” Mass High 

Tech—Journal of New England Technology. Accessed December 14, 2009, 

http://www.masshightech.com/stories/2009/11/30/daily62-Novell-ends-2009-

down-Linux-offerings-look-bright.html. 

Brozik, D., and A. Zapalska. 2002. “The Portfolio Game: Decision Making in a Dynamic 

Environment.” Simulation and Gaming, 33(2): 242–55.

Bruns, A. 2005. “Gatewatching, Not Gatekeeping: Collaborative Online New.” Accessed

May 31, 2010, http://eprints.qut.edu.au/189/1/Bruns_Gatewatching.PDF. 

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). “National Economic Accounts.” U.S. Chamber of 

Commerce. Accessed July 2, 2010, http://www.bea.gov/national/index.htm. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2008. “National Employment Matrix, 2008–2018.” U.S. 

Department of Labor. Accessed July 2, 2010, http://data.bls.gov:8080/oep/

servlet/oep.nioem.servlet.ActionServlet?Action=empios&Type=Occupation. 

———. 2008. “Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2008–2009 Edition.” U.S. Department 

of Labor. 

———. 2010. “Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2010–2011 Edition.” U.S. Department 

of Labor. Accessed October 31, 2010, http://www.bls.gov/oco/. 

Burkhauser, R., and M. Daly. 2002. “Policy Watch: U.S. Disability Policy in a Changing 

Environment.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives 16(1): 213–24.

Burt, R. S. 1980. “Autonomy in a Social Topology.” The American Journal of Sociology,

85(4): 892–925.

———. 1992. Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, MA: 

Harvard University Press.

———. 2001. “The Social Capital of Structural Holes,” in M. Guillen, R. Collins, P. 

England, and M. Meyer, eds. New Directions in Economic Sociology. New York: 

Russell Sage Foundation. 

———. 2004. “Structural Holes and Good Ideas.” The American Journal of Sociology,

110(2): 349–99.

Cagle, K. 2009 (January 6). “Analysis 2009: The End of Traditional Publishing.”

Accessed March 28, 2010, http://broadcast.oreilly.com/print/23881.html. 

Calvó-Armengol, A., and M. O. Jackson. 2004. “The Effects of Social Networks on 

Employment and Inequality,” American Economic Review, 94: 426–54.

Camponovo, G., and Y. Pigneur. 2002. “Analyzing the m-Business Landscape.” Annals 

of Telecommunications, 58: 59–77.
237

Carr, N. 2010. “The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains.” New York: W.

W. Norton & Company. 

Castells, M. 1996. The Rise of the Network Society, The Information Age: Economy, 

Society and Culture, Volume 1. Oxford: Blackwell.

Castronova, E. 2002 (July). “On Virtual Economies.” CESifo Working Paper No. 752, 

Category 9. 

Celeste, E. 2010. “Quadriplegic Builds His Dream Car, Career.” National Public Radio. 

Accessed August 27, 2010, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?

storyId=126109158. 

Census Bureau. 2000. “Selected Characteristics of Workers Who Worked at Home and 

Workers Who Did Not Work at Home for the United States.” Accessed June 17, 

2010, http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/briefs/phct35/tables/tab01-2.pdf. 

———. 2002. “Statistics about Business Size (Including Small Business) from the U.S. 

Census Bureau.” Accessed June 6, 2010, 

http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/smallbus.html. 

———. 2007. North American Industry Classification System, 2007. Accessed June 29, 

2010, http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/index.html. 

———. 2009. “American Fact Finder.” Data based on 2007 U.S. Census. Accessed

June 29, 2010, http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en. 

Chang, M. 2009 (February 19). “Blackberry Grabs Market Share as the iPhone Slumps.” 

The Standard. Accessed August 3, 2009, http://www.thestandard.com. 

Chappell, B. 2009 (July 27). “2009 Social Network Analysis Report—Geographic, 

Demographic and Traffic Data Revealed.” Ignite Social Media. Accessed October 

15, 2009, http://www.ignitesocialmedia.com/2009-social-network-analysisreport/#ning. 

Chatterjee, S. 2010 (July 1). “Cheaper, Improved Kindle DX Better Positioned to 

Challenge iPad.” International Business Times. Accessed July 15, 2010, 

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/32131/20100701/cheaper-improved-kindle-dxbetter-positioned-to-challenge-ipad.htm. 

Chen, B., C. Goh, Z. Koh, J. Lin, and D. Sim. 2007 (July). “History of Gaming 

Consoles.” World of Entertainment Gaming. Accessed December 9, 2009, 

http://www.ssagsg.org/LearningSpace/EntertainmentGaming/GamingConsole.htm. 

Cherbakov, L., R. Brunner, L. Charisse, and R. Smart. 2009 (May 29). “Enable FarReaching Enterprise Collaboration with Virtual Spaces, Part 1: Introduction to the 

Opportunities and Technologies.” IBM Corporation. 
238

Chesbrough, H. 2003 (April 15). “The Era of Open Innovation.” MIT Sloan Management 

Review: 35–41.

———. 2006. Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm. Oxford: Oxford 

University Press.

———. 2007 (January 1). “Why Companies Should Have Open Business Models.” MIT 

Sloan Management Review: 21–28.

Chew, M., D. Balfanz, and B. Laurie. 2008. “(Under)mining Privacy in Social Networks.” 

Google Inc. 

Clark, J., and P. Aufderheide. 2009. “Public Media 2.0: Dynamic, Engaged Publics.” 

American University: Center for Social Media. 

Cohn, David. 2007 (September 6). “Network Journalism Versus Citizen Journalism 

Versus the Myriad of Other Names for Social Media in the News World.” 

Newassignment. Accessed November 8, 2010, 

http://www.newassignment.net/blog/david_cohn/sep2007/06/network_journali. 

Coleman, G. 2004 (Summer). “The Political Agnosticism of Free and Open Source 

Software and the Inadvertent Politics of Contrast.” Anthropological Quarterly, vol 

77, no. 3, Summer 2004 507–519.

Collaboration Systems on Smartphones.” Technical Report DU-CS-05-05. Philadelphia: 

Department of Computer Science, Drexel University.

Collela, A., and A. Varma. 2001. “The Impact of Subordinate Disability on LeaderMember Exchange Relationships.” Academy of Management Journal, 44(2):

204–315.

Colohue, T. 2009 (December 25). “The Effects of the Internet: Music Distribution.” 

Dotted Music. Accessed March 28, 2010, 

http://dottedmusic.com/2009/lifestyle/the-effects-of-the-internet-musicdistribution/. 

Conceição, S., Weber, N. and Baldor, J. 2009. “Can Web-based Social Networking 

Environments Foster Social and Cultural Identity?” Presented at the Midwest 

Research-to-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, Community and 

Extension Education, Northeastern Illinois University, Chicago, IL, October 21–

23, 2009. 

Compton, C. 1993 (Fall). “Status of Deaf Employees in the Federal Government.” The 

Volta Review, vol. 95, no. 4: 379–90. 

Computational Media. 2009. In Georgia Tech School of Literature, Communication and 

Culture. Accessed August 03, 2009, 

http://lcc.gatech.edu/compumedia/?page_id=12. 
239

comScore. 2010. “Facebook and Twitter Access via Mobile Browser Grows by TripleDigits in the Past Year.” Accessed May 29, 2010, 

http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2010/3/Facebook_and

_Twitter_Access_via_Mobile_Browser_Grows_by_Triple-Digits. 

———. 2011 (February). “A Recap of the Year in Digital Media.” Accessed February 17, 

2011, http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Presentations_Whitepapers/

2011/2010_US_Digital_Year_in_Review. 

Cone, B., C. Irvine, M. Thompson, and T. Nguyen. 2007. “A Video Game for Cyber 

Security Training and Awareness.” Computers & Security. 26: 63–72.

Corcoran, M., L. Datcher, and G. J. Duncan. 1980. “Most Workers Find Jobs through 

Word of Mouth.” Monthly Labor Review, 103: 33–35. 

Cornell University. 2008. “2008 Disability Status Report: United States.” Rehabilitation 

Research and Training Center on Disability Demographics and Statistics. Ithaca, 

New York: Cornell University.

Cosper, A. (n.d.) “The History of Internet Radio.” Tangent Sunset. Accessed March 28, 

2010, http://www.tangentsunset.com/internetradio.html. 

Cremorne, Lowell. 2009 (February 22). “NoviCraft: Virtual World Team Building.” The 

Metaverse Journal. Accessed November 1, 2010, http://www.metaversejournal.com/

2009/02/22/novicraft-virtual-world-team-building/. 

Current Population Survey, 1981–2009. 2010. “Annual Social and Economic 

Supplement to the Current Population Survey.” Accessed 2010, 

http://www.census.gov/cps/. 

Daedalus Project. 2009. “Welcome to the Daedalus Gateway.” Accessed January 21, 

2011, http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/gateway_intro.html. 

Daft, R. L., and R. H. Lengel. 1984. “Information Richness: A New Approach to 

Managerial Behavior and Organizational Design.” Research in Organizational 

Behavior 6: 191–233.

Dawes, R. 1991. “Social Dilemmas, Economic Self-Interest, and Evolutionary Theory,”

in D. R. Brown and J. E. K. Smith, eds. Frontiers of Mathematical Psychology: 

Essays in Honor of Clyde Coombs. New York: Springer-Verlag. 

De Kerckhove, D. 1995) “Networked Art and Virtual Communities.” Art Futura. Accessed 

June 12, 2009, http://www.va.com.au/parallel/x2/journal/derrick_dk/ddk.html/ . 

Delbecq, A. L., and A. H. VandeVen. 1971. “A Group Process Model for Problem 

Identification and Program Planning.” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 7: 

466–91.
240

Department of Justice. “International Treaty on the Rights of People with Disabilities.” 

Accessed March 12, 2010, http://www.ada.gov/un_statement.htm. 

Deuze, M. 2004. “What Is Multimedia Journalism?” Journalism Studies, 5(2): 139–52.

Diakopoulos, N. 2007 (January 13). “What Is Computational Journalism?” Georgia

Tech’s Computational Journalism. Accessed August 3, 2009, 

http://gt-cj.blogspot.com. 

Diament, M. 2010 (August 6). “Unemployment Nears Record Levels among People with 

Disabilities.” Disability Scoop. Accessed September 30, 2010, 

http://www.disabilityscoop.com/2010/08/06/july-jobs-10/9671/. 

DiMaggio, P., E. Hargittai, W. R. Neuman, and J. P. Robinson. 2001. “Social 

Implications of the Internet.” Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 27: 307–36.

DiMicco, J., and D. R. Millen. 2008. “People Sensemaking with Social Networks,” in CHI 

2008—Sensemaking Workshop. Florence, Italy: ACM.

DiMicco, J., D. Millen, W. Geyer, C. Dugan, B. Brownholtz, and M. Muller. 2008. 

“Motivations for Social Networking at Work.” Proceedings of the ACM 2008 

Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. San Diego. New York: 

ACM: 711–20.

Donaldson, J. 2009 (February 7). “Pandora Radio: Free Internet Radio from the Music 

Genome Project.” Suite 101. Accessed March 28, 2010, 

http://internet.suite101.com/article.cfm/pandora_radio. 

Downes, S. 2004. “The Semantic Social Network.” Stephen’s Web. Accessed May 20, 

2010, http://www.downes.ca/post/46. 

Dutton, W. H. 2009 (March). “The Fifth Estate Emerging through the Network of 

Networks.” Prometheus, vol. 27, no. 1: 1–15. 

Dyer-Witheford, N., and G. Peuter, G. 2009. “Empire@Play: Virtual Games and Global 

Capitalism.” Resetting Theory. Accessed June 15, 2010, 

http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=608#_ednref8. 

Dyson, E. 2005 (June 6). “Dr. Market: Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Lose 

Control.” Release 1.0, vol. 3. 

Dziorny, M. 2005. “Is Digital Game-based Learning (DGL) Situated Learning?” 

University of North Texas. Accessed November 1, 2010, 

http://www.marydziorny.com/writing.html. 

Eclipse Foundation. 2010 (June). The Open Source Developer Report: 2010 Eclipse 

Community Survey. San Francisco: The Eclipse Foundation.
241

The Economist. 2010 (March 31). “A Special Report on America’s Economy.” 

Edmonds, R. 2010. “Newspapers.” State of the Media. Accessed March 23, 2010, 

http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2010/newspapers_summary_essay.php. 

Eiffel, N. M., I. Ballesteros, A. Sassen, S. D’Elia, M. Mateo Goyet, et al. 2009 (July 13). 

“Draft Report of the Task Force on Interdisciplinary Research Activities 

Applicable to the Future Internet.” Accessed July 30, 2009, 

http://future-internet.eu. 

Ellis, B. 2009. “OneSwitch: A Resource of Fun Ideas and ‘Assistive Technology’ Aimed 

at Moderate to Severely Learning/Physically Disabled People.” Accessed July 

30, 2009, http://oneswitch.org.uk. 

Ellison, N. B., C. Steinfield, and C. Lampe. 2007. “The Benefits of Facebook ‘Friends’: 

Social Capital and College Students’ Use of Online Social Network Sites.” 

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4): Article 1. Accessed June 

17, 2010, http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue4/ellison.html. 

Elmer, V. 2010 (May 12). “So You Think You Can Temp?” AARP Bulletin. Accessed

July 2, 2010, http://www.aarp.org/work/job-hunting/info-05-2010/

temporary_employment.html. 

Elmer-DeWitt, P. 2010 (February 23). “Apple, Android, RIM Gain Market Share.” 

Fortune. Accessed July 13, 2010, http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/02/23/appleandroid-rim-gain-market-share/. 

Ells, C. 2001 (October). “Lessons about Autonomy from the Experience of Disability.” 

Social Theory and Practice. Accessed June 1, 2010, 

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6395/is_4_27/ai_n28884407/. 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 2005 (October 27). “Work at 

Home/Telework as a Reasonable Accommodation.” Accessed May 30, 2010, 

http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/telework.html. 

———. 2009. Annual Report on the Federal Work Force, Fiscal Year 2009. Accessed 

January 30, 2011, http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/reports/fsp2009/index.cfm. 

Facebook. 2009. “Facebook–Pages.” Accessed August 3, 2009, 

http://www.facebook.com/advertising/?pages. 

———. 2009. “Facebook–Statistics.” Accessed August 3, 2009, 

http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics. 

Fairfield, J. 2005. “Virtual Property.” 85 B.U.L. REV. 1047. 

Fenton, N. 2009 (November 17). “The Future of the News.” Open Democracy. 

Accessed November 19, 2009, http://opendemocracy.net/print/49086. 
242

Field, M., and A. Jette, eds. 2007. The Future of Disability in America. Institute of 

Medicine Committee on Disability in America. Washington, DC: National 

Academies Press. 

First Research. 2009. “First Research Industry Profiles,” Hoover’s, Inc. Accessed July 1, 

2010, http://www.firstresearch.com/. 

———. 2009. “Book Publishers,” Hoover’s, Inc. 

———. 2009. “Motion Picture Production and Distribution,” Hoover’s, Inc. 

———. 2009. “Music Production and Distribution,” Hoover’s, Inc. 

———. 2009. “Newspapers and News Organizations,” Hoover’s, Inc. 

———. 2009. “Radio Broadcasting and Programming,” Hoover’s, Inc. 

———. 2009. “Television Cable, Pay & Broadcast Networks,” Hoover’s. Inc. 

———. 2009. “Television Program Production and Distribution,” Hoover’s, Inc. 

Fischer, G. 2005 (September). “Integrating Individual and Social Creativity.” Center for 

LifeLong Learning & Design (L3D). First International Conference, “Creativity: A 

Multifaceted View.” Moscow, Russia. 

Fischer, G., and E. Giaccardi. 2004. “Meta-Design: A Framework for the Future of EndUser Development,” in H. Lieberman, F. Paternò, V. Wulf, eds. End User 

Development—Empowering People to Flexibly Employ Advanced Information 

and Communication Technology. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic 

Publishers.

Fischer, G., and J. Ostwald. 2003. “Knowledge Communication in Design 

Communities,” in Rainer Bromme, Friedrich Hesse, and Hans Spada, eds. 

Barriers and Biases in Computer-Mediated Knowledge Communication. 

Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Accessed May 28, 

2010, http://l3d.cs.colorado.edu/~gerhard/papers/fi_ost-final.pdf. 

Fischer, G., and E. Scharff. 2000. “Meta-Design—Design for Designers,” 3rd 

International Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS 2000), New 

York: 396–405.

Fitchard, K. 2009 (September 16). “The Walled Garden Hasn’t Died Just Evolved.” 

Connected Planet Online (formerly TelephonyOnline.com). Accessed September 

17, 2009, http://connectedplanetonline.com/3g4g/commentary/wireless-dataservice-tipping-point-0916/. 
243

Fitzgerald, E. 2005 (October 11). “Employment and Disability—What the Facts and 

Figures Show.” Paper from “Disability and Employment: What the Research Tells 

Us,” NDA 4th Annual Disability Research Conference Proceedings: 7–24.

Florida, R. 2002. The Rise of the Creative Class and How It’s Transforming Work, 

Leisure, Community and Everyday Life. New York: Basic Books. 

Frazier, A. 2009. “NPD Entertainment Industry Report—Video Game Console Sales.”

Accessed, http://www.npd.com. 

Fremstad, S. 2009. “Half in Ten: Why Taking Disability into Account Is Essential to 

Reducing Income Poverty and Expanding Economic Inclusion.” Center for 

Economic and Policy Research. 

Fried, I. 2009 (October 15). “Deaf Users Sound off on Sidekick Outage.” Technology 

News—CNET News. Accessed October 17, 2009, http://news.cnet.com/8301-

13860_3-10375186-56.html. 

Friedman, T. 1997 (October). “Apple’s 1984: The Introduction of the Macintosh in the 

Cultural History of Personal Computers.” Accessed January 10, 2010,

http://www.duke.edu/~tlove/mac.htm. 

Fukuyama, F. 1999 (November 8–9). “Social Capital and Civil Society.” Speech given to 

the IMF Conference on Second Generation Reforms. International Monetary 

Fund Headquarters, Washington, DC.

Gadman, S. 2003. “Designing for Innovation or Adaptation: The Symmetry, Syntopy and 

Synchrony of Boundary Spanning Partnerships.” Electronic Journal on 

Knowledge Management, 1(2): 57–64.

Gadman, S., and C. Cooper. 2005. “Strategies for Collaborating in an Interdependent 

Impermanent World.” Leadership & Organization Development Journal, vol. 26: 

23–34. 

———. 2009. Open Source Leadership. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 

Gandossy, T. 2009 (February 24). “TV Viewing at ‘All-Time High,’ Nielson reports.” 

CNN.com. Accessed March 18, 2010, http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/

TV/02/24/us.video.nielsen/. 

Garber, D. 2004. “Growing Virtual Communities.” The International Review of Research 

in Open and Distance Learning, vol. 5, no. 2. 

http://www.irrodl.org/content/v5.2/technote4.html. 

Gartner, Inc.. 2009. “Market Share: Smartphones, Worldwide 2Q09.” 

Gee, J. P. 2003 (October). “What Video Games Have to Teach Us about Learning and 

Literacy.” Computers in Entertainment, vol. 1, no. 1. 
244

Georgia Institute of Technology. 2008 (February 22–23). “Journalism 3G: The Future of 

Technology in the Field.” A symposium on computation + journalism. 

Georgiev, T., E. Georgiev, and A. Smrikarov. 2004. “M-Learning—New Stage of ELearning.” International Conference on Computer Systems and Technology. 

Giaccardi, E. 2005 (August). “Metadesign as an Emergent Design Culture.” Leonardo, 38,2. 

Gibson, B. 2007 (May). “Enabling an Accessible Web 2.0.” 16th Annual World Wide 

Web Conference, Banff, Canada. 

Gidden, A. 2009. “The Opportunity for Linux in a New Economy.” International Data 

Corporation. Accessed July 6, 2010, http://www.linuxfoundation.org/sites/main/

files/publications/Linux_in_New_Economy.pdf. 

Gillmoor, D. 2006 (March 9). “Technology Feeds Grassroots Media.” BBC 

News/Technology. Accessed August 30, 2010, 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4789852.stm. 

Gizmodesk. 2009 (April 26). “Seventh-Generation Gaming Consoles.” Accessed 

November 29, 2009, http://www.gizmodesk.com/seventh-generation-gamingconsoles/. 

Goetz, T. 2003 (November). “Open Source Everywhere.” Wired Magazine, 11: 11. 

Accessed March 15, 2010, http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.11/

opensource.html. 

Goldhaber, M. 1997 (April). “The Attention Economy and the Net.” First Monday, vol. 2, 

no. 4-7. Accessed 2010, 

http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/519/440.

Google Wave. 2009. “In Google Wave Preview.” Accessed August 3, 2009, 

http://wave.google.com/help/wave/about.html. 

GrabStats. 2010. “GrabStats.com—Online Gaming.” Accessed August 12, 2010, 

http://grabstats.com/statcategorymain.asp?StatCatID=14. 

Granovetter, M. 1974. Getting a Job. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Granovetter, M. 1985. “Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of 

Embeddedness.” American Journal of Sociology, 91(3): 481–510.

Grasz, J. 2009 (April 24). “45% Employers Use Facebook-Twitter to Screen Job 

Candidates.” Oregon Business Report. Accessed August 12, 2010, 

http://oregonbusinessreport.com/2009/08/45-employers-use-facebook-twitter-toscreen-job-candidates/. 
245

Griffin-Hammis Associates, LLC. 2010. “Discovering Personal Genius.” The Foundation 

for Customized Employment. Accessed June 2, 2010, 

http://www.mntat.org/docs/DiscoveringPersonalGenius.pdf. 

Guscia, R., S. Ekberg, J. Harries, and N. Kirby. 2006. “Measurement of Environmental 

Constructs in Disability Assessment Instruments.” Journal of Policy & Practice in 

Intellectual Disabilities 3(3): 173–80.

Hagel, J. 2006 (December 5). “The Economics of Attention.” Edge Perspectives with John 

Hagel. Accessed 2010 http://edgeperspectives.typepad.com/edge_perspectives/

2006/12/the_economics_o.html. 

Hagel, J., and J. S. Brown. 2005 (October). “From Push to Pull: Emerging Models for 

Resource Mobilization.” Working Paper. Available at 

http://www.johnseelybrown.com/pushmepullyou4.72.pdf. 

Hahn, H. 1997. “Advertising and the Acceptably Employable Image: Disability and 

Capitalism,” in L. J. Davis, ed. The Disability Studies Reader: 172–86.

Hahn, H., and T. Belt. 2004 (December). “Disability Identity and Attitudes toward Cure in 

a Sample of Disabled Activists.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior, vol. 45, 

no. 4: 453–64.

Hamburg, I., and T. Busse. 2006. “Shaping Mobile Wireless Services for Disabled: The 

Role of Scenarios and Foresight Studies.” 8th International Conference on 

Development and Application Systems. 

Hardin, G. 1968 (December 13). “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Science, vol. 162, no. 

3859: 1243–48.

Harris, R. 2009 (December 13). “Linux Kicks Microsoft Back.” ZDNet. Accessed January 

12, 2010, http://blogs.zdnet.com/storage/?p=716. 

Hasan, H., and C. Pfaff. 2006 (November 20–24). “The Wiki: An Environment to 

Revolutionize Employees’ Interaction with Corporate Knowledge.” OZHI. Sydney, 

Australia.

Haynie, S. 2007 (November 27). “Network for People with Disabilities.” Accessed October 

31, 2010, http://springwise.com/media_publishing/network_for_people_with_disabi/. 

Haythornthwaite, C. 2005 (June). “Social Networks and Internet Connectivity Effects.” 

Information, Communication & Society, vol. 8, no. 2: 125–147.

Heckscher, C. 2007. The Collaborative Enterprise: Managing Speed and Complexity in 

Knowledge. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 

Heckscher, C., and P. Adler. 2006. The Firm as a Collaborative Community: Reconstructing 

Trust in the Knowledge Economy. New York: Oxford University Press. 
246

Heclo, H. 1995. “The Social Question in Poverty, Inequality and the Future of Social 

Policy.” Russell Sage Foundation: 668.

Hein, K. 2008. “The Invisible Demographic.” Brandweek, 49(9): 20.

Helft, M. 2008 (June 24). “At Google, Slow Growth in News Site.” New York Times: C1.

Hemp, P. 2006. “Avatar-Based Marketing.” Harvard Business Review. Accessed 

November 13, 2009, http://hbr.harvardbusiness.org/2006/06/avatar-basedmarketing/ar/1. 

Hiltz, S. R., and M. Turoff. 1978. The Network Nation: Human Communication via 

Computer. London: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Hippel, E. 2005. Democratizing Innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Holman, J., J. Lazar, J. H. Feng, and J. H. Darcy. 2007. “Developing Usable 

CAPTCHAs for Blind Users.” Proceedings of the 9th International ACM 

SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. Tempe, AZ: 245–46. 

Holzer, H. J. 1988. “Search Method Use by the Unemployed Youth.” Journal of Labor 

Economics, 6: 1–20.

Horton, W. 2003. “Games That Teach: Simple Computer Games for Adults Who Want 

to Learn,” In Allison Rossett. The ASTD E-Learning Handbook. New York, 

McGraw-Hill: 139–57.

Hotchkiss, J. L. 2003. The Labor Market Experience of Workers with Disabilities: The 

ADA and Beyond. Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment 

Research.

Howe, P. D. 2008. “From Inside the NEWSROOM: Paralympic Media and the 

‘Production’ of Elite Disability.” International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 

43(2): 135–150.

Huber, G. 1991 (February). “Organizational Learning: The Contributing Process and 

Literatures.” Organization Science, vol. 2: 88–115.

Hulu. 2008 (March 12). “Company Announces New Licensing Deals with the Warner 

Bros. Television Group.” Accessed March 19, 2010, 

http://www.hulu.com/press/launch_press_release.html. 

———. 2010. “Frequently Asked Questions.” Accessed July 2, 2010, 

http://www.hulu.com/about/media_faq. 

———. 2010. “Company Timeline.” Accessed March 21, 2010, 

http://www.hulu.com/about/company_timeline. 
247

IBM Simon. 2009. Absolute Astronomy. Accessed December 9, 2009, 

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/IBM_Simon. IDC Quarterly PC 

Tracker, Framingham, MD. 

Illich, I. 1973. “Tools for Conviviality.” Accessed May 25, 2010, 

https://clevercycles.com/tools_for_conviviality/. 

“Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 1997 Amendments,” P.L. 105-17, Section 601d. 

Information Solutions Group. 2008. “Survey: ‘Disabled Gamers’ Comprise 20% of 

Casual Video Games Audience,” research conducted for PopCap Games, based 

on online surveys, April 2–17, 2008. Accessed January 21, 2011, 

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/survey-disabled-gamers-comprise20-of-casual-video-games-audience-57442172.html. 

Information Technology Technical Assistance and Training Center, Georgia Tech 

Research Institute. 2001. “Accessible Design: Problems and Solutions: A 

Literature Review to Support the ITTATC Needs Assessment.” Accessed 2010, 

http://www.ittatc.org/technical/litreview/. 

Jackson, A., J. Yates, and W. Orlikowski. 2007 (January 3–6). “Corporate Blogging: 

Building Community through Persistent Digital Talk.” Proceedings of the 40th 

Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Hawaii. 

Jaeger, P. T. 2008. “User-Centered Policy Evaluations of Section 508 of the 

Rehabilitation Act: Evaluating E-Government Web Sites for Accessibility for 

Persons with Disabilities.” Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 19 (1): 24–33. 

Jennings, B., D. Callahan, and A. L. Caplan. 1988 (February–March). “Ethical 

Challenges of Chronic Illness.” Hastings Center Report, 18(1): S1–16.

Job Accommodations Network. 2009 (September 1). “Workplace Accommodations: Low 

Cost, High Impact.” Office of Disability Employment Policy, U.S. Department of 

Labor. Accessed June 1, 2010, 

http://www.jan.wvu.edu/media/LowCostHighImpact.doc. 

Johnston, J., J. Eloff, and L. Labuschagne. 2003. “Security and Human Computer 

Interfaces.” Computers & Security, 22(8): 675–84. 

Joinson, A. N. 2008. “‘Looking at’, ‘Looking up’ or ‘Keeping up with’ People? Motives 

and Uses of Facebook.” CHI ‘08: Proceeding of the Twenty-Sixth Annual SIGCHI 

Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York, NY: 1027–36. 

Jones, D. E. 2006. “I, Avatar: Constructions of Self and Place in Second Life and the 

Technological Imagination.” Gnovis, peer-reviewed journal of communication, 

culture, and technology: 6. 
248

Kadyte, V. 2005 (June). “A Case Study on Mobilizing Business Process.” 18th Bled 

eConference eIntegration in Action. Bled 2005 Proceedings: Paper 1. Bled, 

Slovenia. http://aisel.aisnet.org/bled2005/1. 

Kakihara, M., C. Sorensen, and M. Wiberg. 2002 (May 30–31). “Fluid Interaction in 

Mobile Work Practices,” in Proceedings of the 1st Tokyo Mobile Roundtable, 

Mobile Innovation Research Program, Institute of Innovation Research, 

Hitotsubashi University. Tokyo, Japan. 

Kalyanpur, M., and B. Harry. 1999. “Culture in Special Education: Building Reciprocal 

Family-Professional Relationships.” Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. 

Kamerade, D., and B. Burchell. 2003 (October 23–26). “Teleworking as Community 

Friendly Form of Work in EU and Accession Countries.” The Challenge of 

Mobility in the Baltic Sea Region, PhD Euro Conference (under High Level 

Scientific Conferences), Gdanks/Sopot, Poland. 

Kaye, H. S. 2000. “Computer and Internet Use among People with Disabilities.” 

Disability Statistics Report (13). U.S. Department of Education, National Institute 

on Disability and Rehabilitation. Accessed http://dsc.ucsf.edu/pdf/report13.pdf. 

Keating, E., E. N. Nagai, and J. Kowalsky. 2007. “The Role of the Mobile Phone in the 

Welfare of Aged and Disabled People (Working paper).” The University of 

Texas–Austin.

Keegan, V. 2009 (July 29). “Virtual Worlds Are Getting a Second Life.” The Guardian. 

Accessed August 3, 2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk. 

Keenan, T. 2009 (December). “Internet Use Among Midlife and Older Adults: An AARP 

Bulletin Poll.” AARP. Accessed November 1, 2010, 

http://www.aarp.org/technology/innovations/info-12-2009/bulletin_internet_09.html. 

Kell, J. 2009 (December 3). “Novell 4Q Loss Widens on $279M Charge, Lower 

Revenue.” The Wall Street Journal. Accessed December 14, 2009, 

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20091203-714421.html. 

Kelly, B., D. Sloan, S. Brown, J. Seale, H. Petrie, P. Lauke, et al. 2007 (May). 

“Accessibility 2.0: People, Policies and Processes,” in 16th International World 

Wide Web Conference. Accessed July 31, 2009, http://www.acm.org. 

Kelly, K. 1997 (September). “New Rules for the New Economy.” Wired, Issue 5.09. 

———. 1998. New Rules for the New Economy: 10 Radical Strategies for a Connected 

World. New York: Viking. Accessed May 31, 2010, 

http://www.kk.org/books/KevinKelly-NewRules-withads.pdf. 
249

Kessler Foundation and NOD (National Organization on Disability). 2010 (July). “The 

ADA, 20 Years Later.” Survey of Americans with Disabilities. Harris Interactive, 

New York. Accessed September 15, 2010, 

http://www.2010disabilitysurveys.org/pdfs/surveyresults.pdf. 

Kiddie, T. “The Future of Texting in Business.” 74th Annual Conference of the 

Association for Business Communication. Portsmouth, VA, November 2009. 

Kim, H., K. Lyons, and M. Cunningham. 2008 (July). “Towards a TheoreticallyGrounded Framework for Evaluating Immersive Business Models and 

Applications: Analysis of Ventures in Second Life.” Journal of Virtual Worlds 

Research: Past, Present and Future, vol. 1, no. 1.

King, R. 2006 (September 11). “Social Networks: Execs Use Them Too.” 

BusinessWeek CEO Guide to Technology. 

Knorr, A. 2009 (August 2). “Companies Want Applicants with Social-Media Skills.” 

Atlanta-Journal Constitution: D1, D4. 

Kollock. 1998. “Social Dilemmas: The Anatomy of Cooperation.” Annual Review of 

Sociology, vol. 24: 183–214.

Kowch, E., and R. Schwier, R. 1997. “Characteristics of Technology-Based Virtual 

Learning Communities.” Accessed November 1, 2010, http://www.usask.ca/

education/coursework/802papers/communities/communities.htm. 

Kraus, L., S. Stoddard, D. and Gilmartin. 1996. “Chartbook on Disability in the United 

States, 1996.” An InfoUse Report. U.S. National Institute on Disability and 

Rehabilitation Research.

Kraut, R. E., J. Galegher, and C. Edigo. 1990. “Patterns of Contact and Communication 

in Scientific Research Collaborations, Intellectual Teamwork: Social and 

Technological Foundations of Cooperative Work.” Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 

Inc., Mahwah, NJ.

Krippner, G. R., and A. Alvarez. 2007. “Embeddedness and the Intellectual Projects of 

Economic Sociology.” Annual Review of Sociology, 33: 219–40.

Krishnamurthy, S. 2003. “An Analysis of Open Source Business Models,” in J. Feller, B. 

Fitzgerald, S. Hissam, and K. Lakhani, eds. Making Sense of the Bazaar: 

Perspectives on Open Source and Free Software. Boston, MA: MIT Press.

Kroah-Hartman, G., J. Corbet, and A. McPherson. 2009 (August). “Linux Kernel 

Development.” The Linux Foundation. Accessed July 6, 2010, 

http://www.linuxfoundation.org/publications/whowriteslinux.pdf. 

Kruse, D., L. Schur, and M. Ali. 2010. “Disability and Occupational Projections.” Monthly 

Labor Review Online, 133 (10): 1–22. 
250

Kwek, G. 2009 (March 27). “Twitter: The New Way to Find a Job.” The Sydney Morning 

Herald. Accessed July 31, 2009, http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology. 

Ladd, P. 2003. Understanding Deaf Culture: In Search of Deafhood. Multilingual 

Matters, Toronto. 

Lanier, J. 2010.You Are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto. New York: Knopf. 

Largent, S. 2010 (March 10). “CTIA Statement on Accessibility Initiatives Announced by 

FCC.” Accessed May 29, 2010, http://www.ctia.org/blog/index.cfm/Accessibility--

Disability. 

Lasica, J. 2003 (August 7). “What Is Participatory Journalism.” The Online Journalism 

Review. Accessed May 20, 2010, 

http://www.ojr.org/ojr/workplace/1060217106.php. 

Leake, D., and R. Black. 2005. “Essential Tools: Improving Secondary Education and 

Transition for Youth with Disabilities.” National Center on Secondary Education 

and Transition. Accessed May 18, 2010, http://www.ncset.org/publications/

essentialtools/diversity/EssentialTools_Diversity.pdf. 

Leitman, R., E. Cooner, and P. Risher. 1994. N.O.D/Harris Survey of Americans with 

Disabilities. New York: Louis Harris and Associates. 

Lendino, J. 2006 (February). “Smartphone 101—A Look at the Past, Present, and 

Future.” PC Today: 32–5.

Lerner J., and J. Tirole. 2002 (June). “Some Simple Economics of Open Source.” 

Journal of Industrial Economics, 52: 197–234.

Lewin, E. 2009. “As Other Media Falter, Ad Dollars Roll into New Media.” Podcasting 

News. Accessed August 27, 2010, 

http://www.podcastingnews.com/2009/03/30/internet-advertising-reaches-23b2008. 

Liang, T., C. Huang, Y. Yeh, and B. Lin. 2007. “Adoption of Mobile Technology in 

Business: a Fit-Viability Model.” Industrial Management and Data Systems, 

107(8): 1154–69. 

Linden Lab. 2010. “About Us.” Accessed July 7, 2010, http://work.secondlife.com/enUS/about/. 

Linden, T. 2010 (January 19). “2009 End of Year Second Life Economy Wrap Up.” 

Second Life Blogs. Accessed May 29, 2010, 

http://blogs.secondlife.com/community/features/blog/2010/01/19/2009-end-ofyear-second-life-economy-wrap-up-including-q4-economy-in-detail. 
251

———. 2010 (April 28). “Second Life Economy Hits New All-Time High in Q1 2010.” 

Second Life Blogs. Accessed May 29, 2010, 

http://blogs.secondlife.com/community/features/blog/2010/04/28/second-lifeeconomy-hits-new-all-time-high-in-q1-2010. 

LinkedIn. 2010. “About Us.” Accessed May 23, 2010, http://press.linkedin.com/. 

Linton, S. 1998. Claiming Disability: Knowledge and Identity. New York: New York 

University Press.

Linux Foundation. 2010 (January 13). “Linux.com Launches New Jobs Board.”

Accessed July 6, 2010, http://linux-foundation.org/weblogs/press/2010/01/13/

linuxcom-launches-new-jobs-board/. 

Louis Harris and Associates, Inc. 1991. “Public Attitudes toward People with 

Disabilities.” Washington, DC: National Organization on Disability. 

Louise-Bender Pape, T., J. Kim, and B. Weiner. 2002. “The Shaping of Individual 

Meanings Assigned to Assistive Technology: A Review of Personal Factors.” 

Disability & Rehabilitation, 24(1): 5–20. 

Lyle, E. 2010. “A Giant Leap & a Big Deal: Delivering on the Promise of Equal Access to 

Broadband for People with Disabilities.” Federal Communications Commission

OBI Working Paper Series 2.

Lyons, K. 2008 (July). “Towards a Theoretically-Grounded Framework for Evaluating 

Immersive Business Models and Applications: Analysis of Ventures in Second 

Life.” Virtual Worlds Research: Past, Present & Future, vol. 1. no. 1. 

Lyytinen, K., Y. and Yoo. 2002. “Research Commentary: The Next Wave of Nomadic 

Computing.” Information Systems Research, 13(4): 377–88.

Mace, M. 2008. “Online Communities and Their Impact on Business. Part One: How 

Online Community Works.” Rubicon Consulting. Accessed November 1, 2009, 

http://rubiconconsulting.com/insight/winmarkets/michael_mace/2008/10/onlinecommunities-and-their-i-4.html. 

———. 2008. “Online Communities and Their Impact on Business. Part Three: Web 

Community and Social Life.” Rubicon Consulting. Accessed November 1, 2009, 

http://rubiconconsulting.com/insight/winmarkets/michael_mace/2008/10/onlinecommunities-and-their-i-1.html. 

Machlup, F. 1962. The Production and Distribution of Knowledge in the United States. 

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Malaby, T. 2006 (April). “Parlaying Value: Capital in and Beyond Virtual Worlds.” Games 

and Culture, vol. 1, no. 2.
252

Manjoo, F. 2009 (March 20). “How to Find a Job Online.” The National Post. Accessed 

July 31, 2009, http://www.nationalpost.com. 

Manpower. 2007. “Gray Matters: Engaging the Older Workforce.” Accessed July 2, 

2010, http://us.manpower.com/us/en/multimedia/Gray_Matters_White_Paper_

tcm126-40514.pdf. 

Marcucci, D. 2010. “Description of the Gaming Industry: Intro CCS.” Accessed August 

12, 2010, http://www.ccs.neu.edu//home/marcucci/ccs/ccs.html. 

Martin, C. 2007 (October). “How Can Linux Market Share Be Accurately Measured.” 

O’Reilly News. Accessed December 22, 2009, 

http://www.oreillynet.com/linux/blog/2007/10/how_can_linux_market_share_be.html. 

Matson, J. L., and F. R. Rusch. 1986. “Quality of Life: Does Competitive Employment 

Make a Difference?” in F. R. Rusch, ed. Competitive Employment Issues and

Strategies. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes: 331–7. 

Maturana, H. R., and F. J. Varela. 1987. The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots 

of Human Understanding. Boston, MA: Shambhala.

Mauling, W. S. 2002. “Modification of the Nominal Group Activity for On-line Instruction.” 

ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED477452. 

Mazmanian, M., W. Orlikowski, and J. Yates. 2005. “Crackberries: The Social 

Implications of Ubiquitous Wireless Email Device,” in C. Sørensen et al., eds. 

Designing Ubiquitous Information Environments: Socio-Technical Issues and 

Challenges. New York: Springer: 337–44.

McGovern, B. 2009. Interviewed by B. Bellamy, December 14, 2009. 

McGuire, J. F. 1994. “Organizing from Diversity in the Name of Community: Lessons 

from the Disability Civil Rights Movement.” Policy Studies Journal, 22(1): 112–

22. 

McLean, P. 2009 (November 3). “iPhone, RIM Taking Over Smartphone Market.” 

Canalys Q3 2009. AppleInsider.com. Accessed December 4, 2009, 

www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/11/03/canalys_q3_2009_iphone_rim_taking_

over_smartphone_market. 

Messinger, P., E. Stroulia, and K. Lyons. 2008. “A Typology of Virtual Worlds: Historical 

Overview and Future Directions.” Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, 1(1). 

Millenial Media. 2010. “Mobile Mix: The Mobile Device Index.” Accessed September 16, 

2010, http://www.millennialmedia.com/wp-content/images/mobilemix/MMMibileMix-May2010.pdf. 
253

Milmo, C. 2009 (October 12). “The Company That Turned ‘Disability’ into an Asset.” The 

Independent. Accessed June 15, 2010, http://www.independent.co.uk/lifestyle/health-and-families/health-news/the-company-that-turned-disability-into-anasset-1801627.html. 

Mitchell, H., P. M. Baker, and A. Bakowski. 2004. “U.S. Wireless Policy and People with 

Disabilities: A Status Report (Rep. No. 90104),” Georgia Centers for Advanced 

Telecommunications Technology. 

Mobile Marketing Association. 2008. “Mobile Applications.” Accessed May 30, 2010, 

http://www.mmaglobal.com/mobileapplications.pdf. 

MobiThinking. 2010. “Global Mobile Stats: All Latest Quality Research on Mobile Web 

and Marketing.” Accessed May 30, 2010, http://mobithinking.com/mobilemarketing-tools/latest-mobile-stats. 

Montgomery, J. 1991. “Social Networks and Labor-Market Outcomes: Toward an 

Economic Analysis,” American Economic Review, 81: 1408—18.

Morch, A. 1995 (August). “Three Levels of End-User Tailoring: Customization, 

Integration, and Extension.” Third Decennial Aarhus Conference, Aarhus, 

Denmark. Accessed May 29, 2010, http://users-www.wineme.fb5.unisiegen.de/home/VolkmarPipek/PUBLIC/workgroup/Papers/Morch1995_Levels

EndUserTailor_Aarhus.pdf. 

Morran, C. 2010. “Online Readers Unwilling to Pay for News Content.” 

Consumerist.com. Accessed March 23, 2010, http://consumerist.com/2010/03/

online-readers-unwilling-to-pay-for-news-content.html. 

Morris, C. 2006 (December 8). “Wii Sales Soar; PS3 Sales Stumble.” CNNMoney.com. 

Accessed November 1, 2010, 

http://money.cnn.com/2006/12/08/technology/personaltech/ps3sales/index.htm. 

“Most Online News Readers Use 5 Sites or Fewer, Study Says.” 2010 (March 14). New 

York Times. Accessed March 23, 2010, 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/15/business/media/15pew.html. 

Nardi, B., and J. Harris. 2006. “Collaborative Play in World of Warcraft.” Proceedings of 

the 2006 20th Anniversary Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative 

Work: 149–58. 

National Disability Authority. 2001. “Disability and Social Participation in Ireland.”

Accessed June 10, 2010, http://www.nda.ie/cntmgmtnew.nsf/0/

5637B12B77083A8180257066005332F7?OpenDocument. 

———. 2004. “Survey on Social Participation and Disability.” Accessed June 10, 2010, 

http://www.nda.ie/cntmgmtnew.nsf/0/9F11837D4C632B62802570660054EC11?

OpenDocument. 
254

National Council on Disability. 2004. “Design for Inclusion: Creating a New 

Marketplace.”

Ne’eman, A. 2009 (November 6). “Founding President, Autistic Self Advocacy Network 

Statement.” The Broadband Access for People with Disabilities Field Hearing. 

Needle, D. 2005 (September 27). “Smartphones Take Center Stage.” Wi-Fi Planet. 

Accessed December 4, 2009, www.wi-fiplanet.com/news/article/php/3551686. 

Nel, F., M. Ward, and A. Rawlinson. 2007. “Online Journalism,” in J. Anderson and G. 

Ward, eds. The Future of Journalism in the Advanced Democracies. Burlington, 

Vermont: Ashgate: 121–2. 

Neville, L., and B. Kelly. 2008. “WebAccessibility 3.0: Learning from the Past, Planning 

for the Future.” Accessible Design in the Digital World Conference Proceedings. 

The University of York: 22–24. Accessed December 15, 2010, 

http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/papers/addw08/paper-2/. 

Newberry, B. 2001. “Media Richness, Social Presence and Technology Supported 

Communication Activities in Education.” Accessed 

http://learngen.org/resources/module/lgend101_norm1/200/210/211_3.html. 

Newton, J., R. Horner, W. Ard, N. LeBaron, and G. Sappington. 1994. “A Conceptual 

Model for Improving the Social Life of Individuals with Mental Retardation.” 

Mental Retardation, 32(6): 393–402.

Nguyen, T., R. Garrett, A. Downing, L. Walker, and D. Hobbs, D. 2008. “An Interfacing 

System That Enables Speech Generating Device Users to Independently Access 

and Use a Mobile Phone.” Technology & Disability, vol. 20, issue 3: 225–39.

Nielsen. 2010 (June 11). “What Consumers Watch: Nielsen’s Q1 2010 Three Screen 

Report.” Nielsen Wire. Accessed August 30, 2010, 

http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/what-consumers-watchnielsens-q1-2010-three-screen-report/. 

Nielsen. 2009 (March). “Global Faces and Networked Places: A Nielsen Report on 

Social Networking’s New Global Footprint.” Accessed January 31, 2010, 

http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/wpcontent/uploads/2009/03/nielsen_globalfaces_mar09.pdf. 

NPD Group. 2007 (December). “Playing Video Games Viewed as Family/Group Activity 

and Stress Reducer.” Accessed January 21, 2011, 

http://www.npd.com/press/releases/press071212.html. 

Office of Disability Employment Policy. 2010. “A World in Which People with Disabilities 

Have Unlimited Employment Opportunities.” U.S. Department of Labor. 

Accessed June 1, 2010, http://www.dol.gov/odep/programs/promotin.htm. 
255

O’Keefe, E., and J. Davidson. 2010. “Survey Says: Federal Workers Are Glad to Have 

Their Jobs.” Washington Post. Accessed July 12, 2010, 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/11/

AR2010071103452.html. 

Oliver, M. 1983. Social Work with Disabled People. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Open News Room (n.d.). “Gate-Keeping and the Phenomenon of News Content from Non 

Journalists. Is Gate-keeping relevant in Online Media?” Accessed May 31, 2010, 

http://www.theopennewsroom.com/documents/Gatekeeping_and_copy_from_non_

journalists.pdf. 

Open Source Initiative. 2007. “Open Source Frequently Asked Questions.” Open 

Source Initiative. Accessed January 30, 2010, http://opensource.linuxmirror.org/advocacy/faq.php. 

Operating System Market Share. 2009 (November). Net Applications. Accessed 

December 13, 2009, http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-marketshare.aspx?sample=35&qprid=8&qpmr=100&qpdt=1&qpct=3&qptimeframe=M. 

O’Reilly, T. 2009 (May 28). “Google Wave: What Might Email Look Like if It Were Invented 

Today?” in O’Reilly Radar. Accessed August 3, 2009, http://blogs.oreilly.com. 

O’Reilly, T., and J. Battelle. 2009 (July 31). “Web Squared: Where Web 2.0 Meets the 

World.” Speech presented at Web 2.0 Summit, San Francisco. 

Paradise, A. 2008 (June). “Learning and Globally Dispersed Workforce.” American 

Society for Training and Development, vol. 62, no. 6: 60–7. 

Parr, B. 2009 (May 28). “Could Google Wave Redefine Email and Web 

Communication?” in Social Media News and Web Tips Mashable? The Social 

Media Guide. Accessed July 31, 2009, http://mashable.com/. 

Patacchini, E., and Y. Zenou. 2008 (February). “Ethnic Networks and Employment 

Outcomes.” IZA Discussion Paper No. 3331. Accessed May 20, 2010, 

http://ftp.iza.org/dp3331.pdf. 

Pearce, C. 2006. “Productive Play: Game Culture from the Bottom Up.” Games and 

Culture, 1(1): 17–24.

Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism. 2010. State of the New Media. Chapter on 

Audio. Accessed March 17, 2010, http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2010/. 

Pew Research Center. 2010 (March 1). “How Internet and Cell Phone Users Have Turned 

News into a Social Experience.” Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism: 

Understanding the Participatory News Consumer. Accessed August 30, 2010, 

http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/understanding_participatory_news_

consumer. 
256

Picard, V., J. Stearns, and C. Aaron. 2009 (May 16). “Saving the News. Stop Murdoch.” 

Accessed May 19, 2009, http://stopmurdoch.blogspot.com/2009/05/savingnews.html. 

Porat, M. U. 1977. The Information Economy: Definition and Measurement. Office of 

Telecommunications Special Publication, vols. 1–8, 77–12(1). U.S. Department 

of Commerce. 

Porat, M. U., and M. R. Rubin. 1977. The Information Economy (9 volumes). Office of 

Telecommunications Special Publication, 77-12. U.S. Department of Commerce. 

Portes, A. 1998. “Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology.” 

Annual Review of Sociology, 24: 1–24. 

Poston, B., J. Drury, and A. Gha. 2006. “Semiconductor Product Lifecycle Management.” 

Kalypso White Paper. Accessed October 31, 2010, http://www.docstoc.com/docs/

20675741/Semiconductor-Product-Lifecycle-Management. 

Potts, B. 2005. “Disability and Employment: Considering the Importance of Social 

Capital.” Journal of Rehabilitation, 71(3): 20–25.

Preece, J. 2000. Online Communities: Designing Usability, Supporting Sociability. 

Chichester, UK: Wiley. 

Putnam, R. D. 2000. Bowling Alone. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Quan-Haase, A., and B. Wellman. 2005. “Hyperconnected Net Work: ComputerMediated Community in a High-Tech Organization,” in Heckscher and Alder, eds. 

The Corporation as a Collaborative Community. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 

281–333.

Raman, T. 2009 (April 2). “ARIA for Google Calendar, Finance and News: In Praise of 

Timely Information Access.” Accessed July 31, 2009, 

http://googleblog.blogspot.com. 

Rankin, Y., M. McNeal, M. Shute, and B. Gooch. 2008. “User Centered Game Design:

Evaluating Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games for Second 

Language Acquisition,” in Sandbox ‘08: Proceedings of the 2008 ACM 

SIGGRAPH Symposium on Video Games. New York: ACM: 43–9. 

Rauch, J. E. 2001 (December). “Business and Social Networks in International Trade.” 

Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 34: 1177–1203. 

Rayport, J. 2009 (May 7). “How Social Networks Are Changing Everything.” 

BusinessWeek. Accessed April 29, 2010, 

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_20/b4131067611088.htm. 
257

Rebort. 2005 (November 15). “Rethinking Film Distribution.” IO Film. Accessed March 

17, 2010, http://www.iofilm.co.uk/io/mit/001/film_distribution_20051115.php. 

Red Hat. 2009 (April 29). “2008 Red Hat 10-K.” Raleigh, NC.

Reimer, J. 2009 (November 9). “Personal Computer Market Share 1975–2005.”

Accessed December 4, 2009, http://jeremyreimer.com/postman/node/329. 

Reindal, S. 1999. “Independence, Dependence, Interdependence: Some Reflections on 

the Subject of Personal Autonomy.” Disability and Society, 14: 353–67.

Reisinger, D. 2008 (October 17). “More Layoffs: Pandora Cuts 20 Employees.” Cnet. 

Accessed June 28, 2010, http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10068702-2.html. 

Richard, K. 2009 (November 3). “Microsoft Exchange and the Great Smartphone 

Boom.” Accessed December 6, 2009, http://mail2web.com/blog/2009/11/

microsoft-exchange-great-smartphone-boom/. 

Riemer-Reiss, M., and R. Wacker. 2000 (July/August/September). “Factors Associated 

with Assistive Technology Discontinuance among Individuals with Disabilities.” 

Journal of Rehabilitation. vol. 66, 3: 44–50.

RIM. 2009. “Research In Motion.” Accessed August 3, 2009, 

http://www.rim.com/company/index.shtml. 

Roberts, J. 2009 (May 5). “Time Warner Spins off AOL.” Newsweek.com. Accessed

May 8, 2009, http://www.newsweek.com/id/195961. 

Robertson, J., E. Emerson, N. Gregory, C. Hatton, S. Kessissoglou, A. Hallam, and C. 

Lineham. 2001. “Social Networks of People with Mental Retardation in 

Residential Settings.” Mental Retardation, 39(3): 201–14.

Robertson, M. 2010. “TC Teardown: Pandora—The Tough Business of Webcasting.”

Accessed from http://techcrunch.com/2010/06/16/tc-teardown-pandora-thetough-business-of-webcasting/. 

Rogers, E. M. 1995. Diffusion of Innovations (4th edition). New York: The Free Press. 

Ronayne, T., and T. Tyrrell, T. 2005 (October 11). “Motive, Means and Opportunity: An 

Argument for Changed Policy and Practice in Relation to the Employment of 

People with Disabilities.” Disability and Employment: What the Research Tells 

Us. NDA 4th Annual Disability Research Conference Proceedings: 67–87. 

Rosedale, P. 2010. “The Love Machine.” Accessed May 18, 2010, 

http://www.lovemachineinc.com/. 
258

Rosenbaum, J., T. Kariya, R. Settersten, T. and Maier. 1990. “Market and Network 

Theories of the Transition from High School to Work: Their Application to 

Industrialized Societies.” Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 16: 263–99.

Rosenwald, M. S. 2009 (July 26). “Digital Nomads Ditch Cubes for Diners and Pool 

Decks.” Washington Post. Accessed 2010, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/ 2009/07/25/AR2009072500878.html. 

Rosser J., P. Lynch, L. Caddihy, D. Gentile, J. Klonsky, and R. Merrell. 2007. “The 

Impact of Video Games on Training Surgeons in the 21st Century.” Archives of 

Surgery, 142: 181–6.

Rothaermel, F., and W. Boeker. 2008. “Old Technology Meets New Technology: 

Complementarities, Similarities, and Alliance Formation.” Strategic Management 

Journal, 29: 47–77.

Rothaermel, F., and A. Hess. 2009 (August 17). “Finding an Innovation Strategy That 

Works.” Wall Street Journal. Accessed October 31, 2010, http://online.wsj.com/

article/SB10001424052970204261704574274221768062750.html. 

Rothstein-Fisch, C., M. Greenfield, and E. Trumbull. 1999. “Bridging Cultures with 

Classroom Strategies.” Educational Leadership, 56 (7): 64–7.

Rourke, L., T. Anderson, W. Archer, and D. Garrison. 1999. “Assessing Social Presence 

in Asynchronous Text-Based Computer Conferencing.” Journal of Distance 

Education/Revue de l’enseignement a distance, 14 (3): 51–70. 

Rovai, A. 2002. “Building a Sense of Community at a Distance.” International Review of 

Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3(1): 1–16. 

Russo, T. 2000 (May). “Social Presence: Teaching and Learning with Invisible Others.”

Presentation to the Second Annual Online Academy Meeting, Lawrence, Kansas. 

Russo, T., and S. Benson. 2005. “Learning with Invisible Others: Perceptions of Online 

Presence and Their Relationship to Cognitive and Affective Learning.”

Educational Technology & Society, 8(1): 54–62.

Salz, P. A. 2006. “Social Networking Tools on the Road to Enlightenment.” EContent

29.8: 24–30.

Sampson, D., C. Karagiannidis, A. Schenone, and F. Cardinali. 2002. “Knowledge-onDemand in e-Learning and e-Working Settings.” Educational Technology & 

Society, 5(2).

Sasse, M. A., S. Brostoff, and D. Weirich. 2001. “Transforming the Weakest Link—A 

Human/Computer Interaction Approach to Usable and Effective Security.” BT 

Technology Journal, 19(3): 122–30.
259

Satellite Radio USA. 2008. “History of Satellite Radio.” Accessed March 28, 2010, 

http://satelliteradiousa.com/satellite_radio_history.html. 

Schadler, T. 2009. “Telecommuting Will Rise to Include 43% of U.S. Workers by 2016.”

Forrester Research. Accessed March 13, 2009, http://blogs.forrester.com/

ted_schadler/09-03-12-telecommuting_will_rise_include_43_us_workers_2016. 

Schaefer, K. 2006. “Market-Based Solutions for Improving Telecommunications Access 

and Choice for Consumers with Disabilities.” Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 

17 (2):116–26.

Schalock, R. L. 2005. “The Emerging Disability Paradigm and Its Implications for Policy 

and Practice.” Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 14(4): 204–15.

Schlender, S. 2008 (September). “Second Life Frees Disabled from Restrictions of Everyday 

Life.” Voice of America. Accessed July 30, 2009, http://www.voanews.com. 

Schofield, J. 2009 (July 29). “The Smartphone Has Been Waiting 28 Years to Be the 

Next Best Thing.” Guardian.co.uk. Accessed December 4, 2009, 

www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/jul/29/smartbooks-netbooks. 

Schur, L., T. Shields, and K. Schriner. 2005 (September). “Generational Cohorts, Group 

Membership, and Political Participation by People with Disabilities.” Political 

Research Quarterly, vol. 58, no. 3: 487–96.

Schwartz, C., E. Craig, J. Trzeclak, J. Little, and V. Diaz. 2008 (November). “Student 

Input in College Decision Making.” EDUCAUSE Quarterly 31.3. 

Scott, J. B. 2009 (February 7). “NASDAQ-100 Revenue per Employee.” Accessed June 28, 

2010, http://www.jbryanscott.com/2009/02/07/nasdaq-100-revenue-per-employee/. 

Seavey, A. 2010. “RedHat Business Model.” Interviewed by B. Bellamy, January 28, 2010.

Second Life. 2010. “Currency Exchange.” What Is Second Life? Accessed May 29, 

2010, http://secondlife.com/whatis/currency.php. 

Senge, P. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. 

New York: Doubleday.

Shapiro, J. 1994. “Disability Policy and the Media: A Stealth Civil Rights Movement 

Bypasses the Press and Defies Conventional Wisdom.” Policy Studies 

Journal, 22(1): 123–32. 

Shirky, C. 2009. Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing without 

Organizations. New York: Penguin Books. 

Shoemaker P., M. Eichholz, E. Kim, and B. Wrigley. 2001. “Individual and Routine Forces 

in Gatekeeping.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78, no. 2: 233–46.
260

Short, J., E. Williams, and B. Christie, B. 1976. The Social Psychology of 

Telecommunications. London: Wiley.

Simmons, D. 2009 (August 21). “Handsets Enhance the Real World.” BBC News. 

Accessed November 5, 2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/

click_online/8214219.stm. 

Sitkin, S., K. Sutcliffe, and J. Barrios-Choplin. 1992. “A Dual-Capacity Model of 

Communication Media Choice in Organizations.” Human Communication 

Research, 18 (4): 563–98.

Small Business Administration. 2009. “The Small Business Economy: A Report to the 

President.” Accessed June 6, 2010, 

http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/sb_econ2009.pdf. 

“Smartphone Price Comparison.” 2009 (June 11). TimTech News. Accessed December 

13, 2009, http://news.timtechs.com/smartphone-price-comparison.html. 

Social Security Online. “Disability Programs.” Accessed May 23, 2010, 

http://www.ssa.gov/disability/professionals/bluebook/general-info.htm. 

Sorenson, O., and T. Stuart. 2001. “Syndication Networks and the Spatial Distribution of 

Venture Capital Investment.” American Journal of Sociology, 106(6): 1546–88. 

Accessed May 14, 2010, http://econ.ucsd.edu/~jrauch/FADEN/Meeting1/

geographyAJS.pdf. 

Stanley, R., and M. Messinger, M. 2007. “Telework Options for Employees with 

Disabilities in the 21st Century.” Southeast Disability and Business Technical 

Assistance Center. Accessed May 30, 2010, 

www.sedbtac.org/ada/publications/teleworkoptions_052207.doc. 

State of the News Media. 2010. Accessed 2010,

http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2010/audio_summary_essay.php. 

Stern, J. 2009 (February 23). “One Third of Dell Inspiron Mini 9s Sold Run Linux.” 

Laptop Magazine. Accessed December 13, 2009, http://blog.laptopmag.com/onethird-of-dell-inspiron-mini-9s-sold-run-linux. 

Steuer, J. 1992 (Autumn). “Defining Virtual Reality: Dimensions Determining 

Telepresence.” Journal of Communication, 42(4): 73–93.

Stone, D. L., and A. Colella. 1996. “A Model of Factors Affecting the Treatment of Disabled 

Individuals in Organizations.” Academy of Management Review, 21(2): 352–401.

Sullivan, Mark. 2009 (July 14). “How Much Does It Really Cost to Own a Smartphone?”

PC World. Accessed December 13, 2009, 

http://www.pcworld.com/zoom?id=168486&page=1&zoomIdx=1. 
261

Susi, T., M. Johnanneson, and P. Backlund. 2007. “Serious Games—An Overview.”

Tech. no. HS- IKI -TR-07-001. Sweden: University of Skovde.

Tahmincioglu, E. 2010 (January 31). “Smart Blogging Can Boost Your Career.” 

MSNBC. Accessed June 1, 2010, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35145337//. 

Takahasi, D. 2009 (January 28). “Are Profits in Video Games Shifting from the West to 

the East?” Venture Beat—Game Beat. Accessed December 23, 2009, 

http://games.venturebeat.com. 

Taylor, L. 2006 (October 28). “How to Launch a Career with Your Blog.” Fast Company. 

Accessed June 1, 2010, http://www.fastcompany.com/articles/ 

2006/10/blog_careers.html?page=0%2C1. 

Taylor, T. L. 2002. “Living Digitally: Embodiment in Virtual Worlds,” in R. Schroeder ed. 

The Social Life of Avatars: Presence and Interaction in Shared Virtual 

Environments. London: Springer-Verlag.

Teeter, R., and K. Barksdale. 2008. Google Apps for Dummies. Hoboken, NJ: John 

Wiley & Sons. 

Thomson, I. T. 1997. “From Conflict to Embedment: The Individual-Society 

Relationship, 1920–1991.” Sociological Forum, 12(4): 631–58.

Thornton. 1999. “The Sociology of Entrepreneurship.” Annual Review of Sociology, 25: 

19–46.

Tiresias (n.d.). “What Is ICT Accessibility?” Tiresias.org. Accessed May 29, 2010, 

http://www.tiresias.org/accessible_ict/what.htm. 

Trace Center (n.d.). “RERC on Universal Interface and IT Access.” Trace Universal 

Interface and Information Technology Access RERC. Accessed May 30, 2010, 

http://trace.wisc.edu/itrerc/. 

Trevino, L., R. Lengel, and R. Draft. 1987. “Media Symbolism, Media Richness, and 

Media Choice in Organization: A Symbolic Interactionist Perspective.” 

Communication Research, 15, 5: 553–74. 

Trewin, S., M. Laff, A. Cavender, and V. Hanson. 2008 (May). “Accessibility in Virtual 

Worlds.” In CHI ‘08 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems. 

Accessed July 29, 2009, http://portal.acm.org. 

“A Typology of Virtual Worlds: Historical Overview and Future Directions.” 2008 (July).

Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, vol. 1, no. 1. 

UPIAS. 2010. “Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation: Policy Statement,”

amended September 8, 1976. Accessed May 26, 2010, 

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies/archiveuk/UPIAS/UPIAS.pdf. 
262

“Using Virtual Worlds and Emerging Technologies for People with Disabilities—Friday 

29th February.” 2008 (February 28). Royal National Institute of Blind People. 

Accessed July 30, 2009, http://www.rnib.org.uk. 

VABoard. 2010. “Community Participation and Disability.” Virginia Board for People with 

Disabilities. Accessed June 5, 2010, http://www.vaboard.org/downloads/

communityparticipationdisability.pdf. 

———. 2010. “Employment and Disability.” Virginia Board for People with Disabilities. 

Accessed June 5, 2010, http://www.vaboard.org/downloads/EmploymentDisability.pdf. 

———. 2010. “Technology and Disability.” Virginia Board for People with Disabilities, 

2010.. Accessed June 5, 2010, http://www.vaboard.org/downloads/

TechnologyDisability.pdf. 

VandeVen, A., and A. Delbecq. 1974. “The Effectiveness of Nominal, Delphi, and 

Interacting Group Decision Making Processes.” The Academy of Management 

Journal, 17 (4): 605–21.

Vascellaro, J. 2007 (August 28). “Social Networking Goes Professional.” Wall Street 

Journal: D1. 

Venezia, C., V. Allee, and O. Schwabe. 2008. “Designing Productive Workspaces for 

Mobile Workers: Role Insights from Network Analysis.” Information Knowledge 

Systems Management, 7: 61–75.

Verzola, R. 2005. “Information Economy,” in A. Ambrosi, V. Peugeot, and D. Pimienta, 

eds. Word Matters: Multicultural Perspectives on Information Societies. C & F 

editions. Accessed July 7, 2010, http://vecam.org/article724.html. 

Von Schrader, S., W. Erickson, and C. Lee. 2010 (March 17). “Disability Statistics from 

the Current Population Survey (CPS).” Ithaca, NY: Cornell University 

Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Disability Demographics and 

Statistics (StatsRRTC). Accessed June 15, 2010, www.disabilitystatistics.org. 

W3Counter. 2009. (November). Global Web Stats. Accessed December 22, 2009, 

http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php. 

W3Schools.2009 (November). OS Platform—Statistics. Accessed December 13, 2009, 

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp. 

Waite, T., J. Kirkley, R. Pendleton, and L. Turner. 2005. “Supporting Information 

Accessibility through Mobile Location-Based Technology.” TechTrends: Linking 

Research & Practice to Improve Learning, vol. 49(3): 76–82.

Wang, J. 2010. “2010 Trends: 10 and 1⁄2 Trends to Watch.” Entrepreneur. Accessed 

September 15, 2010, http://www.entrepreneur.com/trends/index.html. 
263

Ward, A. C., and P. M. A. Baker. 2005. “Disabilities and Impairments: Strategies for 

Workplace Integration.” Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 23(1): 143–60.

Wark, M. 1994. Virtual Geography: Living with Global Media Events. Bloomington: 

Indiana University Press.

———. 2009. “A Hacker Manifesto.” Accessed July 28, 2009, 

http://subsol.c3.hu/subsol_2/contributors0/warktext.html. 

Wasserman, S., and J. Galaskiewicz, eds. 1994. Advances in Social Network Analysis 

in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 

Weatherly, L. 2003. “The Value of People: The Challenges and Opportunities of Human 

Capital Measurement and Reporting.” SHRM Research Quarterly, 3: 26–31.

Web Accessibility Initiative. 2010. “Web Content Accessibility and Mobile Web: Making 

a Web Site Accessible Both for People with Disabilities and for Mobile Devices.” 

Accessed May 30, 2010, http://www.w3.org/WAI/mobile/. 

Weber, T. 2009 (October 6). “Why Smartphones Are Not Suffering in the Recession.” 

BBC News. Accessed October 7, 2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8292101.stm. 

Wehman, P. 2003. “Workplace Inclusion: Persons with Disabilities and Coworkers 

Working Together.” Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 18(2): 131–41.

Wellman, B., J. Salaff, D. Dimitrova, L. Garton, M. Gulia, and C. Haythornthwaite. 1996. 

“Computer Networks as Social Networks: Collaborative Work, Telework, and 

Virtual Community.” Annual Review of Sociology 22: 213–38.

Wellman, B. 2001 (September 14). “Computer Networks as Social Networks.” Science, 

vol. 293: 2031–34.

West, J., and J. Dedrick. 2001. “Open Source Standardization: The Rise of Linux in the 

Network Era.” Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 14(2): 88–112. 

Weston, T. 2004. “Game Accessibility Case Study: Terraformers—A Real-time 3-D 

Graphic Game.” Fifth International Conference on Disability, Virtual Reality, and 

Associated Technologies. 

White, James, and King-wa Fu. “Who Do You Trust? Comparing People-Centered 

Communications in Disaster Situations in the United States and China.” Journal 

of Comparative Policy Analysis (forthcoming). 

White, James. 2007. “Fear of Persecution,” in J. White and A. Marsella, eds. Fear of 

Persecution: Global Human Rights, International Law and the Wellbeing of 

Refugees and Displaced Persons. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington. 
264

Wikia. 2009. “NPD Sales Figures.” Video Game Sales Wiki. Accessed January 4, 2009, 

http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/NPD_sales_figures. 

Williams, M., D. Sabata, and J. Zolna. 2006. “User Needs Evaluation of Workplace 

Accommodations.” Work 27: 355–62.

Willinsky, J. 2003. “The Nine Flavors of Open Access Scholarly Publishing.” Journal of 

Postgraduate Medicine, 49: 263–7.

Wilton, R. D. 2004 (December). “From Flexibility to Accommodation? Disabled People 

and the Reinvention of Paid Work.” Transactions of the Institute of British 

Geographers, New Series, vol. 29, no. 4: 420–32. Blackwell Publishing on behalf 

of The Royal Geographical Society. 

Wireless RERC (Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center for Wireless Technologies). 

Various reports and studies. Accessed May 8, 2010, www.wirelessrerc.org. 

Wireless RERC (Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center for Center for Wireless 

Technologies). Comments filed in the Matter of a National Broadband Plan for 

Our Future [GN Docket No. 09-51], 8, June 2009.] 

Workforce Investment Act, Section 508 (a)(1)(A). U.S. Department of Justice. Accessed 

2010, http://www.justice.gov/crt/508/508law.php. 

World Health Organization. “Disabilities.” Accessed May 23, 2010, 

http://www.who.int/topics/disabilities/en/. 

Wortham, J. 2009 (October 6). “Palm Seeks to Unclog App Bottleneck.” New York 

Times. Accessed October 6, 2009, www.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/06palm.html. 

Wortham, J. 2010 (May 13). “Cellphones Now Used More for Data Than for Calls.” The 

New York Times. Accessed May 29, 2010, 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/technology/personaltech/14talk.html?hp. 

Yeager, P., H. Kaye, M. Reed, and T. Doe. 2006. “Assistive Technology and 

Employment: Experiences of Californians with Disabilities.” Work 27: 333–44.

Zhang, P. 2010 (July 16). “Online TV and Video Viewing Figures Rocket.” Accessed 

August 30, 2010, http://www.articlealley.com/print_1659607_64.html. 

Zyda, M. 2005. “From Visual Simulation to Virtual Reality to Games.” IEEE Computer 

Society: 25–32.
APPENDIX 1.	 Exemplar Studies: Companies 

Targeted, Companies Interviewed, 

Interview Protocol, and Interview 

Questions 

Table 1 identifies the companies initially “targeted” to be interviewed for this project, as 

well as the companies actually interviewed. Table 2 categorizes the questions asked of 

each interviewee. 

Table A1: Companies (Both “Targeted” and Interviewed) 

Approached for This Project
 

Vector Companies (“Targeted”) Companies (Interviewed) 

Wireless 

communication 

platforms 

• RIM 

• Android 

• RIM 

• Google (Android) 

• Georgia Tech Research Institute 

Social 

networking 

• Facebook 

• LinkedIn 

• Twitter 

• Backnoise 

• Ning 

• NokiaMOSH 

Immersive 

digital 

environments— 

virtual worlds 

• Linden Labs (Second Life)

• Forterra Systems (Olive) 

• Kaneva 

• Kaneva 

• VRising 

Immersive 

digital 

environments— 

casual gaming 

• EA Games 

• Activision 

• Able Gamers 

• FredSquared 

• Torpex Games 

• AbleGamers 

Open 

publishing 

• CNN 

• Turner 

• Cox Communications 

• Clinch Media 

• EPredator 

• Cox Communications 

Open-source 

software/ 

processes 

• RedHat 

• IBM 

• IBM 

• MilOSS 

265
 
266

Table A2. Interview Questions

General

These questions 

were posed to all 

interviewees.

1. In what way does (insert vector) increase general 

opportunities to find and/or create work?

2. In what way does (insert vector) increase the general ability to

do work?

3. In what way does (insert vector) increase people with 

disabilities opportunities to find and/or create work?

4. In what way does (insert vector) increase people with 

disabilities opportunities to do work?

5. What are the major issues/challenges in your technology 

field?

6. What foreseeable innovations in your field do you see 

affecting how your technology is used in the workplace?

Vector-Specific Questions

Wireless 

communication 

platforms

1. Do innovations within mobile-business applications drive 

hardware development or vice versa?

2. Do RIM developers follow universal-design principles during 

the design and development process? Does (insert company) 

work with disability/UD design experts?

3. What sectors currently drive the development of mobile 

platforms?

4. In what ways do you think the “smart phone” has and will 

affect common business operations in the next few 

generations?

Social networks 1. Based on the constant change in social networks and their 

associated plug-ins, how does (insert company name) keep 

pace with innovations within the field?

2. To your knowledge, are there specific initiatives that (insert 

company name) has implemented to engage the disability 

community?

3. What differentiates (insert company name) from its 

competitors?

4. In what ways have the (insert company name) community 

used the technology that surprised the company?
267

Table A2. Interview Questions (continued)

Vector-Specific Questions (continued)

Immersive digital 

environments—

virtual worlds

1. What dimensions/characteristics does (insert company name) 

provide that benefit people with disabilities? What percentage

of the platform is being used to support/train/educate the 

disability community?

2. In what ways do you see the virtual world domain bridging the

gap between the flat Internet and multidimensional 

experiences found in immersive 3-D environments?

3. What makes using the (insert company name) platform more 

compelling than traditional collaborative Web spaces?

Immersive digital 

environments—

casual gaming

1. How can casual games be used for cultivation of new jobs?

2. How can casual gaming be used to cultivate businessoriented practices/principles in an individual?

3. Does (insert company name) work with UD/disability experts 

in developing games and/or hardware?

4. What pipeline innovations does (insert company name) see as

potential “game changers” within the gaming domain?

Open publishing 1. What current open-publishing processes are being employed 

at (insert company name)?

2. How has citizen/user-created content affected your 

workplace? The entirety of (insert company name)?

3. How do you see the policing of the content in open channels 

working in the future?

4. How does (insert company name) authenticate/validate 

citizen/user content?

Open-source 

software/

processes

1. How much of what is being produced is by the community 

versus (insert company name)?

2. What impacts does the community-centric model of opensource processes have on business practices?

3. Do you view the open source production/process as one that 

enables people with disabilities to find employment that might 

otherwise have been unavailable to them?
268
269

APPENDIX 2. Background to Industry and 

Occupational Data Sources

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) is the standard used 

by federal statistical agencies in classifying business establishments for data related to 

the U.S. business economy. Classifications are reviewed every five years, with the 

latest review in 2007. NAICS is a two- through six-digit hierarchical classification 

system. The first two digits designate the economic sector, the third digit designates the 

subsector, the fourth digit designates the industry group, the fifth digit designates the 

NAICS industry, and the sixth digit designates the national industry. Each NAICS sixdigit industry classification is described in detail on the NAICS Web site.

A benefit of using the NAICS codes to analyze employment statistics and trends is that 

at hierarchy level, classifications are nonoverlapping, so establishment-level Census 

Bureau data and employment figures are not double counted. A similar benefit comes 

from using the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) system. Another benefit is 

the ease of cross-referencing with other federal statistical agencies that also use 

NAICS. Additionally, since comparable data will be available every five years, this report 

can serve as a benchmark for measuring employment trends in information and digitalmedia industries.

The U.S. Census Bureau’s Economic Census, also conducted in years ending in 2 

and 7, profiles the U.S. economy every five years. Economic Census statistics are 

aligned with NAICS and are collected and published primarily by establishment. An 

establishment is a business or industrial unit at a single physical location that produces 

or distributes goods or performs services. 

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) of the U.S. Department of Labor includes the 

Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) program, which conducts a semiannual 

mail survey designed to produce estimates of employment and wages for specific 

occupations. In 1999, the OES survey began using the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) system. The SOC system 

consists of 821 detailed occupations, grouped into 449 broad occupations, 96 minor 

groups, and 23 major groups. The OES program collects data on wage and salary 

workers in nonfarm establishments in order to produce employment and wage 

estimates for about 800 occupations. 

For occupation-level data within and across NAICS sectors, subsectors, and industries, 

BLS publishes Economic and Employment Projections and the National Employment 

Matrix database. Each month the BLS Current Employment Statistics (CES) program 

surveys about 140,000 businesses and government agencies, representing some

410,000 individual worksites, to provide industry data on employment, hours, and 

earnings of workers on nonfarm payrolls. 

To derive employment projections for 2018, “BLS economists place base-year staffing 

patterns under an iterative process of qualitative and quantitative analyses. They 
270

examine historical staffing pattern data and conduct research on factors that may affect 

occupational utilization within given industries during the projection decade. Such 

factors include shifts in product mix, and changes in technology or business practices. 

Once these factors are identified, change factors are developed which give the 

proportional change in an occupation’s share of industry employment over the 10-year 

projection period. These change factors are applied to the 2008 occupational staffing 

patterns to derive projected staffing patterns.

Detailed industry employment projections are based largely on econometric models, 

which, by their very nature, project future economic behavior on the basis of a 

continuation of economic relationships that held in the past....However, one of the most 

important steps associated with the preparation of the BLS projections is a detailed 

review of the results by analysts who have studied recent economic trends in specific 

industries. In some cases, the results of the aggregate and industry models are 

modified because of the analysts’ judgment that historical relationships need to be 

redefined in some manner” (BLS Projections Methodology).

Nongovernment Sources

Several nongovernment resources are useful. 

First Research is a division of Hoover’s Inc. and a provider of market analysis tools. 

First Research industry specialists study a wide range of primary and secondary 

sources, including trade publications, company annual reports, and SEC filings such as 

10Ks, government Web sites and resources (such as the Census and the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics), news articles, business publications, and in-depth industry reports. 

First Research groups NAICS 517, 518, 3344, 5112, 5415, 54171, 325414 together in 

what they call the technology sector. First Research also reports on the Internet Service 

Providers Industry (NAICS 517210, 518111), the Internet Publishing and Services 

Industry (NAICS 5161, 518112), Wireless Telecommunications Services Industry 

(NAICS 51721), Wired Telecommunications Services Industry (NAICS 51711), 

Computer Software Development Industry (511210, 541511), Information Technology 

(NAICS 5415), Entertainment and Games Software Industry (NAICS 511210), and 

Electronic Gaming Products Industry (NAICS 339932), among others.

The First Research reports reference NAICS codes in the industry categories they 

define; however, the alignment is not exact and there is overlap between First Research 

industry categories, so summing employment across industries is not straightforward. 

Nonetheless, some of the reports contain useful information.

Another nonfederal resource used in this report is a research and consulting firm called

the International Data Corporation (IDC). 
271

APPENDIX 3. The First Research Approach

First Research, a division of Hoover’s Inc., groups the North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) 517, 518, 3344, 5112, 5415, 54171, 325414 together in 

what they call the technology sector. First Research also reports on the Internet Service 

Providers Industry (NAICS 517210, 518111), the Internet Publishing and Services 

Industry (NAICS 5161, 518112), Wireless Telecommunications Services Industry 

(NAICS 51721), Wired Telecommunications Services Industry (NAICS 51711), 

Computer Software Development Industry (511210, 541511), Information Technology 

(NAICS 5415), Entertainment and Games Software Industry (NAICS 511210), and 

Electronic Gaming Products Industry (NAICS 339932), among others.

The First Research reports reference NAICS codes in the industry categories they 

define; however, the alignment is not exact and there is overlap between First Research 

industry categories, so summing employment across industries is not straightforward. 

Nonetheless, the reports contain useful information and overviews. 

The technology sector in the United States (by First Research definition) includes more 

than 140,000 companies with combined annual revenue of about $900 billion. Average 

annual revenue per worker is about $300,000 (First Research, 2009). Hence, the 

technology sector represents some 3 million jobs.

The U.S. electronic gaming products manufacturing industry includes a small number of 

companies with combined annual revenue of $7 billion. The industry is highly 

concentrated: the top three companies (makers Microsoft, Nintendo, Sony) account for 

the majority of revenues.

The U.S. entertainment and games software industry includes about 220 companies 

with combined annual revenue of $28 billion. Major companies include Activision 

Blizzard, Electronic Arts, Take-Two Interactive, and THQ, along with divisions of 

Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony. Video-game software accounts for about 70 percent of 

revenue, while most of the rest is from PC game software.

The U.S. computer software development industry includes 50,000 companies with 

combined annual revenue of $220 billion. About 60 percent of revenue comes from 

software publishing and the rest from custom programming. Large companies include 

Activision Blizzard, CA, Microsoft, Oracle, and Symantec. The 50 largest companies 

generate about 70 percent of revenue. 

The U.S. Internet service provider industry includes about 4,000 companies that 

generate combined annual revenue of some $20 billion. Major companies include AOL, 

AT&T, Comcast, Microsoft, and Verizon. The 50 largest companies generate about 

80 percent of revenue; the four largest companies account for more than 50 percent. 

The industry includes companies that provide access to the Internet via wired or 

wireless connections. Internet access operations of telecommunications carriers are 

included in the industry, but telecommunications companies themselves are covered in 
272

separate industry profiles. Internet access accounts for about 75 percent of industry 

revenue; the remaining revenue comes from Web site design and hosting and technical 

support services.

The U.S. Internet publishing and broadcasting and search portal industry includes about 

2,600 companies with combined annual revenue of $35 billion. Major companies include 

Google, IAC, and Yahoo!. Major products are search portals and Web sites devoted to

news, sports, entertainment, gaming, networking, and other topics. Advertising is the 

primary source of revenue. Average annual revenue per worker is $450,000. Hence, the 

sector represents about 78,000 jobs.
273

APPENDIX 4. Choosing the Vectors 

1. Initial Vector and Exemplar Analysis 

A preliminary analysis by the Georgia Tech research team resulted in six candidate 

vectors to evaluate: wireless communications technologies, social networks, virtual 

worlds, Web 2.0 and beyond, applications consolidators, and computational journalism.

Each of these vectors was chosen to represent new digital-media sources and digital 

technology, broadly conceived. For each vector, an exemplar new media source, or 

digital technology product or service, was analyzed from three different perspectives: for 

utility (or potential utility) in employment settings; for accessibility to the general 

population and to people with disabilities; and for identification of best practices. 

The initial selection of vectors was informed by the experience of the research team, 

with the ultimate objective of designing a research project capable of capturing the 

diverse goals of all users. The first phase of the project was to formally analyze and 

evaluate the vectors, and the vector exemplars, for their suitability as references for the 

remainder of the study. 

1. Wireless Communications Technologies

Wireless communications technologies continue to spread and push the limits of 

convergence and quality of experience for users. Such advances are exemplified by 

portable computers, gaming devices, and “smart phones,” mobile phones that offer 

advanced capabilities by incorporating much of the functionality of computer 

technologies (Needle, 2005; Best, 2006). The emergence of smart phones and their 

close cousins like tablet computers and the iPad, coupled with the expansion of thirdgeneration (3G) networks characterized by increased robustness, speed, and reliability, 

has supported an increasingly mobile workplace. Applications are no longer driven 

solely by humans using keyboards, but increasingly by sensors—data can be collected, 

presented, and acted upon in real time (O’Reilly and Battelle, 2009). Despite the 

accessibility issues they may pose, these advanced mobile technologies have conferred 

some benefits on users with disabilities. Wireless-enabled PDAs have facilitated Web 

communities for some people with disabilities, such as blind users who may not feel 

comfortable using traditional, or nonmobile, computer technology (Keating et al., 2007).

Providers are also offering plans developed for people with specific disabilities. The 

convergence of the technology and enabling applications has created an opportunity for 

greater integration of people with disabilities into mainstream society and the average 

workplace (ibid). 

Yet, significant issues of accessibility still persist for people with disabilities, in the areas 

of device compatibility, awareness by manufacturers, employment of people with 

disabilities, and accessibility to emergency communications (Baker and Moon, 2008).

Making up to one-fifth of the U.S. population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006), people with 

disabilities face unique technological barriers and prejudices and may end up being 

excluded from the Internet (Hamburg & Busse, 2006). However, recent studies in the 
274

area of education have suggested that technologies, especially those with a degree of 

customizability, may mitigate some of the barriers faced by people with disabilities 

(Mitchell et al., 2004; Hamburg & Busse, 2006; Georgiev et al., 2004).

Potential exemplar: Research in Motion (RIM), manufacturer of the 

BlackBerry. 

RIM was initially considered to represent the larger vector of wireless 

communications technologies, because of its strong position in the market, 

especially among business and professional users, and its worldwide 

market share of almost 20 percent (Elmer-Dewitt, 2010). A typical 

Blackberry supports access to social applications like email, SMS (Short 

Message Service), MMS (Multimedia Messaging Service), and the phone, 

as well as Internet and Intranet-based applications through multiple 

wireless network standards (RIM, 2009).

2. Social Networks

The second vector considered was the social network, defined as a social structure 

made of nodes that are generally individuals or organizations. A social network 

represents relationships and flows between people, groups, organizations, etc. (Social 

Network, n.d.). Social-networking platforms, like Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn, have 

become the most popular form of individual and group associations and collaborations. 

The ability to access these interfaces is rapidly becoming essential: 50 percent of the 

top 10 and top 20 Web sites worldwide are social-networking platforms (Alexa–

Facebook, 2009). With the pervasiveness of Web 2.0 tools within social, educational, 

and workplace structures, accessing and understanding them will become vital to 

business and personal practices. For example, LinkedIn and Twitter are extending 

professional networks, allowing for consolidating ways that companies approach 

business development (Kwek, 2009). The landscape of today’s job market is shifting, 

and the shift favors individuals who are savvy in social media (Knoor, 2009; Manjoo, 

2009; Brown, 2009). 

At the same time, one of the largest challenges posed by this vector is that the new 

interaction models of social-networking platforms are pushing the limits of the 

technologies of the Web and the ability of assistive technologies to interpret the 

changing face of the Web (Gibson, 2007). Common tools used to address accessibility 

include Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) technical guidelines. However, an emerging 

school of thought seeks to shift focus from enhancing accessibility through technical 

innovations to a user-focused approach, which embeds best practices through the 

development of achievable policies and processes (Kelly et al., 2007).

Potential exemplar: Facebook.

Currently, the company claims that there are over one million developers 

and entrepreneurs from more than 180 countries working within this

platform (Facebook-Statistics, 2009). According to company statistics, 

Facebook has one of the largest reaches of any online outlet—it currently 

is the third most visited site in the world (Alexa–Facebook, 2009). More 
275

than 120 million users log onto Facebook at least once each day 

(30 million of whom access Facebook through their mobile devices), and 

the fastest growing demographic is those 35 years and older (Facebook–

Statistics, 2009). 

3. Virtual Worlds 

The third vector investigated was virtual worlds, defined as artificial environments 

created with computer hardware and software and presented to the user in such a way 

that it appears and feels like a real environment (Virtual Worlds, n.d). A unique feature 

of this vector is that the individual can create and manipulate a personal interface within 

the platform. Accessibility in virtual worlds has not yet received the same level of 

attention as wireless technologies or social-networking platforms, but it is beginning to 

interest accessibility and game-design researchers, and game developers looking to 

broaden their audience (Trewin et al., 2008). This interest and concern is timely and 

necessary, given current estimates that about 80 percent of active Internet users will be 

using a virtual world by 2012 (Adams-Spink, 2007). As 3-D worlds have grown in 

importance, some indicators show they will become a common tool for interacting 

between users and accessing services in the near future (Eiffel, 2009).

Thanks to the work of organizations like IGDA (Weston, 2004), AudioGames.net 

(AudioGames, 2002), and OneSwitch (Ellis, 2002), the mainstream games industry is 

beginning to seriously investigate the feasibility and benefits surrounding accessible 

gaming (Atkinson et Al., 2006). Virtual worlds like Second Life have added accessibility 

considerations such as the Dazzle UI, which deals with color blocking and the 

individual’s ability to further modify and specify appearance (Accessibility, n.d.). A driver 

behind the move to make these spaces more accessible is the fact that platforms like 

Second Life have a robust economy, and people with disabilities have begun finding 

social outlets and employment within the platforms. Training, modeling, and education 

continue to be the primary focus, mainly because individuals have full control of the 

environment and their individual representation. Groups like Virtual Ability and Wheelies 

have organized to give people with disabilities voices within the platform, while at the 

same time giving them an organized community that can speak with one voice to 

promote changes. 

Potential exemplar: Second Life

Second Life was chosen as the representative for this vector because of 

its growth, economic impact and potential, and the openness of the 

platform. Currently there are several hundred businesses operational 

within the platform, several of which are legally registered specifically for 

Second Life. As a tool for shaping business practices and trends, Second 

Life is considered the creative laboratory of the genre, whose membership 

grew by 39 percent in the second quarter of 2009 to an estimated 

579 million (Keegan, 2009). 
276

4. Web 2.0 and Beyond

This vector refers to emerging Web technologies for facilitating communication, 

information sharing, interoperability, user-centered design, and collaboration. This wave 

of technologies—not yet fully realized commercially—has the promise to radically 

change how Web users communicate and work, for example, redefining email and Web 

communication (Parr, 2009). One example of this is Web2 (“Web squared”) —where 

“Web 2.0 meets the world” (O’Reilly and Battelle, 2009). These technologies see the 

Web as a platform: the systems learn and improve as people use them (ibid). 

Another example is Google Wave, a personal communication and collaboration tool that 

is a Web-based service, computing platform, and communications protocol designed to 

merge email, instant messaging, wiki, and social networking (Google Wave, 2009).

Tools like Google Wave show great opportunity for accessibility within the workplace 

because they are based on an open-sourced protocol and therefore are more 

customizable for the individual’s needs. These tools are focused on reducing the latency 

of online actions, and as O’Reilly states, bringing online happenings closer to our realworld experience (O’Reilly, 2009). O’Reilly also suggests that these types of 

technologies may lead to a change in behavior, in that conversations become shared 

documents. For those people traditionally excluded, the technology has the chance to 

level the playing field; the technology could be an inclusion enabler.

This attempt at unification of communication will exacerbate the issue that Gibson 

highlights in regards to accessibility—that current accessibility tools are being pushed to 

the limits of capacity with current Web 2.0 interfaces (Gibson, 2007). Google Wave is 

being pushed to accommodate Accessible Rich Internet Applications (ARIA) enhanced 

solutions, and Google Calendar, Finance, and News have all added ARIA support 

enhanced accessibility (Raman, 2009). As these integrated platforms continue to 

emerge, efforts at factoring accessibility into the design process will need to be 

supported. 

Potential exemplar: Google.

Google was chosen to represent this vector because of its focus on 

convergence, its ubiquity, and its openness to the development 

community. 

5. Applications Consolidators

The fifth vector analyzed was characterized as applications consolidators, defined as 

platforms that provide the user with tools to accomplish one or several tasks.

Consolidators like the Apple or the Android marketplace face the same accessibility and 

design issues that wireless technology and social networking/Web 2.0 interfaces carry 

because they are often integrated into those systems. These aggregator suites are

powerful sets of tools bundled together to meet the needs of businesses, schools, and 

other organizations (Teeter and Barksdale, 2008). One such feature is the ability to 

rapidly share input, therefore increasing one’s ability to be heard (Schwartz et al. 2008).

These tools are “on-demand” (available anytime, anywhere), greatly expanding the 
277

impact that wireless communication and social networking technologies have within the 

workplace and within our personal lives. There are two types of consolidators to be 

analyzed within this domain: open source or open platforms (Android, Google) and 

proprietary or closed (Apple, Microsoft). Open source generally refers to software, yet 

can also refer to processes, business management, and even product development in 

technological areas beyond software (Baker, Moon, and Noonan, 2008). For this 

research, the advantage of open-source process is the shift it represents to the notion of 

the community being responsible, and hence the technology being responsive to the 

needs of the community (Bonaccorsi and Rossi, 2006), including niche communities, 

like those with disabilities, that want to expand capabilities on mobile devices or within 

their online environments. Microsoft and Apple represent communities where the 

development of the environment is not completely closed, but for the average developer 

is highly restricted. Firms that sponsor proprietary de facto compatibility standards suffer 

a trade-off from the control of standards: control makes them less agile in meeting 

specific needs, be they accessibility, education, or general community response (West 

and Dedrick, 2001). 

Potential exemplars: Apple, Red Hat.

This vector category is subdivided into proprietary and open-source 

approaches. Apple and Red Hat were chosen due to their respective 

standings in their fields. Apple represents the more proprietary, and Red 

Hat the more open, application suite. 

6. Computational Journalism

The sixth and final vector analyzed was computational journalism, a new way of thinking 

about how information is captured, shared, and processed. The vector is more narrowly 

defined as the applications of computational algorithms to collect, contextualize, and 

make sense of news information (Diakopoulous, 2007). Accessing and reporting news 

is enabled and facilitated through the networked computing environment and increasing 

pervasiveness of digital cameras and phones (ibid). Related to this vector is the 

computational media domain, which is sometimes equated with new media. This is the 

space where augmented reality, immersive environments, interactive television and film, 

physical computing, and interactive narrative interact (Computational Media, 2009)—the 

possible future of media. This domain will become increasingly more important, 

especially when related to Web 2.0 and beyond (see above)—the ability of all these 

systems to interoperate with one another will be crucial for accessibility and inclusivity.

Potential exemplar: Wikipedia.

The well-known online collaborative encyclopedia represents both the 

promise and the pitfalls of computational journalism. A key issue revolves 

around the role of professional editors to control hierarchical and content 

judgment. Wikipedia’s multitude of anonymous users, who can create and 

change articles whether or not they are subject experts, lacks any such 

authoritative control. But Wikipedia’s popularity as a source for quick 

reference is formidable, with estimates that put the number of daily page

views in the hundreds of millions. The concept of a wiki, for
278

communicating and collaborating on information and specifically for

organizing a group’s information, has enormous potential for the 

workplace. 

2. Review of the Vectors 

The original candidate list of vectors23 was chosen to represent new digital-media 

sources and digital technology, broadly conceived. Each vector was subsequently 

analyzed from three different perspectives. 

Perspective 1: Analyzed for utility (or potential utility) in employment settings, and to

understand how these new media sources and digital-technology 

products and services act as facilitators or barriers to the employment 

of people with disabilities. 

Perspective 2: Analyzed for accessibility to the general population and to people with 

disabilities.

Perspective 3: Identification of best practices. 

Each of the exemplar media sources and digital-technology products and services was 

chosen for its openness to analysis from these three perspectives; for its ability to serve 

a representative role of a larger technological vector with employment facility or 

usefulness; for its apparent capacity to shape the future of employment, based in part 

on its leadership in the marketplace; and for its potential ability to deliver candid 

representations of their experiences due to existing connections with the authors of this 

report (staff of Georgia Tech in general, and the CACP in particular). 

The vectors underwent an extensive review. As a first step, a new definition of the term 

“vector” was arrived at, aiming at clarity and also at embodying the notion of a change 

agent: 

An influential agent or means by which information moves, and that 

embodies the notion of change. 

This definition was used as the basis for reviewing the six vectors first proposed, and in 

developing the three new vectors described below. The initial six vectors were reviewed 

as follows: first, with reference to the new definition; second, with reference to whether 

the vector is sufficiently developed that it actually represents a market environment and 

market trends that can be researched and described; and third, with reference to the 

parameters previously identified: 1) does the vector enhance social engagement? 

2) does the vector increase opportunities for workplace participation? and 3) does the 

vector heighten employment prospects for people with disabilities?
279

Broad themes emerged from the review: 

Vector 1: Some disquiet was expressed about the use of the word “technologies,” as 

being too broad and potentially misleading. The consensus was to introduce 

a new title for Vector 1: “Wireless communication platforms.” For purposes 

of market specification, and to encompass hybrid devices like the iPad, 

these platforms were identified as mobile telephony, computers, and gaming 

devices. The definition of this vector was changed to “an approach to the 

deployment or process of the provision of services.” 

Vector 2: This vector (social networks) was generally seen as the most robust, in terms 

of general acceptance and definition, and the consensus was to stay with 

the existing term. A definition developed for this vector (based on Ellison, 

2007) was: “Web-based services that allow individuals to 1) construct a 

public or semipublic profile within a bounded system, 2) articulate a list of 

other users with whom they share a connection, and 3) view and traverse 

their list of connections and those made by others within the system.” 

Vector 3: The existing vector (virtual worlds) was also generally accepted, although the 

practical value of the sector was questioned. There was some discussion 

about what would serve as the best exemplar(s), and also about whether 

this represented an overlap with the gaming industry (see below). Finally, 

the consensus was to stay with the existing term. 

Vector 4: This was the vector (Web 2.0 and beyond) that caused the most debate, 

mainly because of its lack of definition or agreement about what was being 

discussed. If the intention was to examine “alternative facilitated 

communication modalities,” then there seemed to be other vectors that

already approached this area. The practical question was raised about how 

to conduct a market overview for something that basically still does not 

exist, and the decision was made to substitute this proposed vector with 

something more robust. 

Vector 5: Again, there was some confusion about what the phrase “applications 

consolidator” means. One argument was that, with the success of the 

Android platform, the real purpose should be to focus on open source. The 

final consensus was to introduce a new title for Vector 5: “Open-source 

process.” 

Vector 6: As this is a new, rapidly developing area (computational journalism), there 

was a question about how it relates to employment, and also how to define 

it. Several examples emphasized that the focus should be on how

information is captured, shared, and processed, rather than use of the word 

journalism, which may be misleading. This may be extended to cover three 

key elements: information processing, information authentication, and 

information licensing and distribution. The argument was also made that a 

new term should be sufficiently flexible to, for example, encompass 
280

YouTube as well as existing publishing conglomerates like New 

Corporation. After some debate, a new title for Vector 6: “Open publishing” 

was developed.

Following this process of clarification, new suggestions were reviewed at length. 

Ultimately, three new vectors were offered for consideration: 

Vector 7 (new): Online Marketplace.

This vector was offered in reference to the outsourced workplace and to job 

search and “skills-for-sale,” as well as items for sale. Potential exemplar: 

eBay or Craigslist.

Vector 8 (new): Games, or Tiered Digital Interactions.

This area was suggested partly in recognition of the huge size and impact of 

the existing gaming industry, but also because of the potential impact on 

other sectors such as education, and the idea of learning by participating in 

a process. 

Vector 9 (new): Smart Interfaces.

This term emerged from some early findings of the literature review, in 

particular, The Horizon Report 2009 Edition, which identified the personal 

Web, geolocation tools, semantic-aware applications, and smart objects. 

3. Choosing the Vectors 

After several meetings, the research team refined the definition of the term “vector” to: 

An influential change agent by which information moves. 

The nine vectors were reviewed as follows: first, with reference to the new definition; 

second, with reference to whether the vector is sufficiently developed that it actually 

represents a market environment and market trends that can be researched and 

described; and third, with reference to the parameters already identified in the proposal: 

1) does the vector enhance social engagement? 2) does the vector increase 

opportunities for workplace participation? 3) does the vector heighten employment 

prospects for people with disabilities? In addition to referring to these general elements, 

five measures of importance and relevance were weighed:

1. Importance to people with disabilities/perceived product importance—

market penetration in disability community, evidence of marketing use, 

affordability

2. Relevance to new workplace and to creating work opportunities

3. Relevance to getting a job

4. Relevance to doing a job.

5. Relevance to the employer—does it build business, increase 

competitiveness, etc.?
281

Finally, the review board took an open vote, based on the following vetting measures:

1. This vector has high utility as a means of moving information

2. This vector has high utility/potential as an aid to help people find work 

3. This vector has high utility/potential as an aid to help people do work 

4. This vector has high utility/potential as an aid to help people with 

disabilities find work

5. This vector has high utility/potential as an aid to help people with 

disabilities do work

The review board identified the six vectors below, described in the research: 

Vector 1: Wireless Communication Platforms.

Identified as mobile telephony, computers, and gaming devices. Defined as 

“an approach to the deployment or the process of the provision of services.” 

Vector 2: Social Networking.

Defined as “Web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a 

public or semipublic profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of 

other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse 

their list of connections and those made by others within the system” 

(Ellison, 2007).

Vector 3: Virtual Worlds.

Defined as “computer-simulated worlds in which the user takes on a role.”

Vector 4: Electronic Games, or Tiered Digital Interactions.

Defined as electronic systems that involve interaction with a user interface

to generate feedback on a display device. This may include “serious 

games,” i.e., games designed for a primary purpose other than pure 

entertainment, such as education, scientific exploration, health care, 

emergency management, city planning, engineering, religion, and politics.

Vector 5: Open-Source Process.

Providing the user with tools to accomplish a task as part of an open-source 

process, defined as “a collaborative process in which programmers improve 

upon code and share changes within the community.” Open source is 

usually depicted as a response to proprietary software owned by 

corporations.

Vector 6: Open Publishing.

Defined as information capture, sharing, and processing. This may be 

extended to cover three key elements: information processing, information 

authentication, and information licensing and distribution.
282
283

Endnotes

1 For the purposes of this research, objects were identified as mobile telephones, 

computers, and gaming devices.

2 There is an element of triumphalism to Benkler’s account. Counter balance to his 

narrative can be found in Lanier (2010) and Carr (2010), who both make humanistic 

pleas for caution in the face of technological determinism. Neither denies the effect 

digital technology is having on society, however. 

3 In the 2004 report, a distinction is made between universal design and accessible 

design. Accessible design has to do with creating a product or a version of a product 

specifically to fill some accessibility gap. A specialized speaking alarm clock might be 

an accessible design. This was contrasted with universal design, which was creating 

mainstream E&IT with accessibility built into the device or service.

4 The sources are described fully in Appendix 2: Background to Industry and 

Occupational Data Sources. 

5 3G (3rd Generation) allows simultaneous use of speech and data services, and 

provides high rates of data transmission. This makes possible wide-area wireless voice 

telephone, mobile Internet access, video calls, and mobile TV, all in a mobile 

environment.

6 JBoss is owned by Red Hat.

7 Interview with a technical director at a mobile platform technology company. 

Conducted June 20, 2010.

8 Search conducted on May 29, 2010, in the Second Life platform, using the search 

term “employment.”

9 Interview with a leading social-networking technology director conducted on May 19, 

2010, for this NCD report.

10 Search conducted on May 29, 2010, on http://www.facebook.com using the keywords 

“disability” and “disability + employment” within the group search feature.

11 Search conducted on May 29, 2010, on http://www.linkedin.com using the keywords 

“disability + employment” within the group search feature.

12 Data mined while performing keyword searchers. Facebook group can be found at 

http://www.facebook.com/search/?init=srp&sfxp&o=69&q=disability+employment&s=

50#!/group.php?gid=5134953450&ref=search&sid=kLTQSaBmDmCDbRoHL043nA.256

4412928..1. LinkedIn group can be found at http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=73241

&trk=anetsrch_name&goback=.gdr_1275651765304_1 
284

13 “HTML5: A Vocabulary and Associated APIs for HTML and XHTML (Editor’s Draft).” 

Retrieved on May 28, 2010, from http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/. 

14 Objective of the working group retrieved on May 28, 2010, from 

http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/html-task-force. 

15 Response to the question “What Improvements to Accessibility Are Offered by 

HTML5?” by the user Alochi. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1315076/whatimprovements-to-accessibility-are-offered-by-html5. Posted on April 22, 2009, and 

retrieved on May 29, 2010.

16 Interview with a leading open-source software project director conducted on April 8, 

2010, for this NCD report.

17 Examples of universities that have incorporated transdisciplinary themes include 

Georgia Tech (http://www.gatech.edu/vision/themes/transdisciplinary.html), UNC 

Chapel Hill (http://gradschool.unc.edu/policies/transdisciplinary.html), Wilson College 

(http://www.wilson.edu/wilson/asp/content.asp?id=1021), and Claremont Graduate 

University (http://www.cgu.edu/pages/6078.asp). 

18 Taken from an interview with a tiered immersive environment, conducted on March 5,

2010.

19 Taken from an interview in the open-source community vector that took place on April 

10, 2010.

20 Interview with Communications Research Lab Senior Research Scientist, conducted 

April 8, 2010.

21 After the interview, the conductor looked further into these types of sites. Good examples 

include http://www.buymmoaccounts.com/, http://www.gamepal.com/content.php, and 

http://www.ebay.com. 

22 Taken from Alexa.com’s use statistics on Web activity in South Africa 

(http://www.alexa.com/topsites/countries/ZA).

23 The term “vector” is taken from the work of McKenzie Wark (1994, 2009) and 

originally defined as any influential force or means by which information moves.