Being Reasonable: A Manifesto for Improving the Inclusion of Disabled People in SIGCHI Conferences

Abstract

Participation levels of people with disabilities in the

SIGCHI community reflect a general inadequacy in how

they are supported, and their interests promoted,

within the ACM, the wider computing industry and

academia itself. In response, we propose a manifesto

for overhauling existing SIGCHI practices to increase

the opportunities for including a wide range of disabled

people in our research community through

dissemination venues such as CHI. We set out the

moral case for change, before providing a summary of

UK disability discrimination law which we use identify

sources of direct and indirect discrimination. Our goal

has been to go beyond just accessibility: instead we

emphasize disability inclusion in a much broader sense,

and articulate a range of steps that can be conducted in

order to meet this.

Author Keywords

Accessibility, Conferences, Disability Discrimination Law

Introduction

Legislation such as the Americans with Disabilities Act

(1990) and Disability Discrimination Act (1995)

introduced a range of measures to address disability

discrimination, primarily through “reasonable

accommodations”. Following the UN Convention on the

Rights of the Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD)i the

principle of reasonable accommodation is now

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for

personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are

not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that

copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights

for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored.

Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to

post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific

permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from

Permissions@acm.org.

CHI'15 Extended Abstracts, April 18 - 23, 2015, Seoul, Republic of Korea

Copyright is held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed to

ACM.

ACM 978-1-4503-3146-3/15/04…$15.00

http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2702613.2732497

Reuben Kirkham

Culture Lab, Newcastle University

Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

r.kirkham@newcastle.ac.uk

John Vines

Culture Lab, Newcastle University

Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

john.vines@newcastle.ac.uk

Patrick Olivier

Culture Lab, Newcastle University

Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

p.l.olivier@newcastle.ac.uk

embedded in most countries’ legislative systems.

Despite the implementation of legal frameworks that

aim to assert the rights of people with disabilities, it

has been well documented that rates of participation of

people with disabilities in both higher education and

academic research communities lag well behind their

non-disabled counterparts. The attrition rate of people

with disabilities across career stages is severe with

recent statistical analysis of UK higher education [2]

identifying that 9% of undergraduates, 6% of

postgraduate researchers, and 3% of academics, have

disabilities.

Through special interest groups such as SIGCHI and

SIGACCESS, the ACM lays claim to having genuine

concerns for people with disabilities, but in practice

significantly more research is being done about people

with disabilities than by people with disabilities within

SIGCHI. The current approach to some other under-

represented groups is more progressive - for example,

the recommendations of the ACM SGB Taskforce on Full

Inclusion identify numerous proactive measures for the

promotion of gender equality (e.g. affirmative action in

appointment of female speakers and review committee

members, and the promotion of opportunities for

women to participate in a range of ACM activities). In

contrast, disability is generally framed as a matter of

accessibility, and little or no consideration is given to

the structural inequalities that people with disabilities

actually face.

This situation is both a waste of talent and deprivation

of opportunity. Modern societies include people with

disabilities as equals, and strive to meet the standards

under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Persons

with Disabilities (UN CRPD). Furthermore, the

transnational character of the ACM provides it with a

unique opportunity, and responsibility, to promote the

interests of people with disabilities within academic and

professional life across the world. In support of such an

endeavor we propose a manifesto for the Inclusion of

Disabled People in one important activity of the ACM

SIGCHI community, namely SIGCHI conferences. We

argue that the SIGCHI community, with its explicit

focus of human aspects of computing research and

practice, has a particular responsibility to lead on this

issue and our proposals seek to respond to structural

inequalities that undermine participation of disabled

people in SIGCHI conferences. In formulating our

manifesto we use concepts from UK Disability

Discrimination Law as a frame of analysis for the

identification of potential sources of inequality.

Why Use Disability Discrimination Law?

One might ask why should we formulate our manifesto

within the frame of analysis of disability discrimination

law? Indeed, it has been suggested to us (by alt.chi

2015 reviewers amongst others) that the legal frame is

‘too aggressive’ and ‘not appropriate’ii. We choose the

legal frame of analysis as it has been deliberately (and

carefully) constructed by disabled advocates, national

governments, and human rights law experts in order to

include all disabilities and specific impairment types. In

line with the well-expressed intentions of the UN CRPD,

it also shifts us from a purely benevolent model, to one

of rights and entitlements. Disabled people should be

able to fulfil the essential functions of being academics

or researchers, such as free speech and critique,

without tempering their activities in response to a

perceived fear that essential reasonable

accommodations might not be made for them. If

disabled people are to be empowered and involved in

ensuring research agendas are suitably inclusive, then

Box 1: Extracts from the UN CRPD:

“The purpose of the present Convention is to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and to promote respect for their inherent dignity.” (Article 1)

"Discrimination on the basis of disability" means any distinction, exclusion or restriction on the basis of disability which has the purpose or effect of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal basis with others, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field. It includes all forms of discrimination, including denial of reasonable accommodation;” (Article 2)

“States Parties undertake … To undertake or promote research and development of, and to promote the availability and use of new technologies, including information and communications technologies, mobility aids, devices and assistive technologies, suitable for persons with disabilities, giving priority to technologies at an affordable cost;” (Article 4: 1g)

they need the same level of actual power as other

(non-disabled) academics.

Moreover, Deal [1] describes a ‘hierarchy of

impairments’, in which purely benevolent approaches

manifest as a competition between disabled people for

scarce resources, with those who are perceived to be

the most disabled typically winning out in such a

process. Using the tenets of disability discrimination law

addresses this issue, by removing the competition, and

treating all disabled people as individuals with the same

rights. There’s no need to determine winners and

losers, because everyone is entitled to be included as a

legal right. In the same way that the First Amendment

of the US constitution led to the protection of freedom

of speech and individual rights, modern disability

discrimination legislation offers protection to people for

being disabled, with the goal of actually including them

in wider society. Laws that protect the rights of

individuals reflect and mediate progressions in our

social system, and underpin freedom and fairness. Such

well-formed principles and processes should be adopted

in any sensible human rights advocacy, as we are doing

here. Crucially, they provide us with a fully developed

frame of analysis by which we can both identify direct

and indirect source of discrimination.

Principles of Disability Discrimination Law

We introduce disability discrimination law from the

perspective of the UK legal system (with Box 2

providing case examples). The UK system has many

similarities to US law, but has the additional advantage

of including further public law elements, as well as

being rooted in a successful ratification of the (2006)

UN Convention on the Right of Persons with Disabilities.

In so doing, we introduce criteria and concepts which

we use to identify source of discrimination and

articulate recommendations—with the added value of

having practical legal force—in order to revise SIGCHI’s

conference practices.

The notion of reasonable accommodations, or in UK

parlance reasonable adjustments, is the core notion

behind disability law. It requires adaptions to a

provided good or service when it is ‘reasonable’ to do

so. This covers a huge array of providers of ‘goods and

services’, and includes physical spaces such as cafes,

bars, shops, societies and higher education institutions;

events such as conferences; and those with financial

powers such as quasi-government funding bodies. The

notion of indirect discrimination broadens this further,

requiring that reasonable adjustments can apply to

practices, rather than simply access to goods and

services. Reasonableness happens to be a specialized

legal term, and relates to what a judge would consider

reasonable to meet this criterion based on all the

circumstances, and overall an adjustment must be

made if it is practical, feasible (and legal), and does not

place an undue burden upon those having to provide it.

In the context of SIGCHI, and SIGCHI sponsored

conferences, a number of additional concepts are of

relevance which we list below:

Goods, Services and Practices: The ACM and the

SIGCHI community provide a range of ‘goods and

services’ (see ACM policy on ‘Rights and

Responsibilities’). Amongst other things, these include

the review of papers and submissions, the opportunity

to publish papers at ACM venues, the opportunity to

partake in the activities of a SIG (including being a

conference program committee member or reviewer),

and to be able to attend the events themselves.

Box 2: Example cases from UK disability discrimination law.

Hurley and Moore vs BIUS: This case involved the use of the Public Sector Equality Duty in respect of disabled people to argue successfully that the British Government’s decision to implement £9000 tuition fees was unlawful, on the basis that they had not sufficiently considered disabled people in taking this decision.

Foster vs Leeds NHS Health Trust. This case concerned Mr. Foster, who requested a redeployment which was highly unlikely to succeed as a reasonable adjustment. The defendant refused to proceed on that basis. The court disagreed with the lawfulness of their decision, and awarded Mr. Foster over £50,000 in compensation, noting that the absence of a real prospect of success was not sufficient to make an adjustment unreasonable.

Croft Vets and Anor.vs Butcher. This case involved whether or not private medical treatment could be a reasonable adjustment. Ms. Butcher was signed off work for depression. Her employers (the Defendant’s) referred her to a private psychiatrist with the goal of determining whether she could return to work. The psychiatrist recommended (privately funded) therapy sessions as a reasonable adjustment. Her employer failed to provide them, believing that private medical treatment was not reasonable. The court considered otherwise, and upheld Ms Butcher’s case.

Party of responsibility: The duties associated with

SIGCHI activities, that is, the provision of goods and

services (including events) fall directly to organizers of

these events. That is, the ACM (through its paid and

volunteer staff) and in some cases the academics

involved (see PSEDs below).

Public Sector Equality Duties (PSEDs): This requires the

proactive promotion of equality, rather than simple

non-discrimination. Section 149 of the UK’s Equality Act

(2010) requires ‘due regard’ (or adequate

consideration) of the three concerns in Box 3. While

SIGCHI is not a public authority, the majority of its UK-

based organizers are agents of publicly funded

universities. This duty would apply to the conference

because a subset of its organizers would be subject to

this law. The practical effect is that the conference itself

is obliged to proactively promote equality rather than

simply not discriminating against others.

Cost and Inconvenience: Case law (see Box 2) includes

precedent for expensive reasonable adjustments being

made by large organizations. For example, if requested,

the law would require a large organization such as the

ACM to provide sign language interpreters on request

even though this may cost upward of £500 a day for

one individual. It is very difficult for large organizations

to provide an adequate and valid defense in reference

to cost and inconvenience in relation to reasonable

adjustment requests. Requests that would involve a

member of an organizing committee to take a range of

steps—even if this took them a large amount of time—

would be legally reasonable. While conference

organizers are often volunteers, they are often

employed by public bodies, or by large organizations,

and their involvement in the organization of the

conference is an activity of their employment (and is

rewarded as such by employers). If an organizer is

disobliging, then the legal expectation would be that

the conference should have replaced them, or not

appointed them in the first place.

Competence Standards: This notion excludes the

application of reasonable adjustments in certain

circumstances—for example, if someone is unable to

fulfill a core part of a role once reasonable adjustments

have been made. One such example might be not

allowing someone to teach a specific course of study,

despite adjustments, as they are unable to

demonstrate the necessary knowledge to conduct it.

Competency standards cannot be artificial, and must be

objectively justified as to why they are essential. For

academic research, the competency standard should be

the ability to make an original contribution to

knowledge—however, the competency would have to

be determined through, for example, some different

form of assessment rather than expressed in the

context of the usual (e.g. conference review) process.

Academic Judgment: Academics have a special defense

in the matter of academic judgment, e.g. the decision

of whether a given fact of science is correct. However,

universities already oblige academics to make

significant changes to individual academic assessments

in order to meet the needs of students with disabilities.

This has included changing closed examinations to

coursework, allowing additional time for a coursework

and examination submissions, and providing mentoring

for completing assignments. The modalities of

assessment can be, and have been, challenged in the

context of higher education teaching and learning,

thereby setting a precedent for new forms of

assessment of research (beyond the constraints of the

traditional review process).

Box 3: The Public Sector Equality Duties (s149 of the Equality Act (2010):

‘1) eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the Act;

2) advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not; and

3) foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.’

Likelihood of Success: There is no requirement that a

person with a disability demonstrates that a reasonable

adjustment would work; in fact the legal test simply

requires that there is some (small) prospect of success

for an adjustment to be legally reasonable. Thus, some

evidence that an adjustment might work is enough to

make it a reasonable one (see Box 2 for Foster vs

Leeds).

The Anticipatory Duty: When must reasonable

adjustments be delivered in advance of a request being

made? This concern is known as the anticipatory duty.

In general, it requires a consideration of equipment or

existing practices, and determining whether or not they

are discriminatory, rather than making every possible

adjustment before it has been requested. For example,

a conference would be expected to provide an

accessible website, and a means of requesting

adjustments in an accessible format, including sufficient

information about the conference so that a disabled

person can determine whether (or not) they may need

to make a request. On the other hand, they would not

be expected to provide a sign language interpreter prior

to a specific request being made.

Reasonable Consultation: This is an honest and timely

exchange of information between parties, where in our

case the conference organizers would need to consider

and obtain appropriate advice in identifying

adjustments that might be made. If this takes place,

then there is no obligation to make adjustments that

were not previously identified.

Remedies: In addition to individual remedies afforded

by The Equality Act (2010), Public Law, through

provisions like the PSED, can be used to address

institutional and academic behavior. For example,

RCUK (Research Councils UK, the principle funder of

academic research in the UK) recently issued a

statement requiring compliance by individual academics

and their institutions with equality legislation (in terms

of who they employ and the adjustments they make for

employees and students) as a condition of their funding

[4]. As such, someone could challenge the public

funding (for a UK academic) of their involvement in a

conference (including in kind support) that does not

sufficiently address issues of equality. Going by the law,

because these academics are primarily exercising a

public function, the fact that many conferences

physically take place in other jurisdictions would be of

no consequence. Alternatively, if a conference were not

to be legally compliant, publically funded UK academics

should not be disseminating research at such venues.

Reasonable Accommodations for CHI

Barriers to Participation amongst Disabled Students:

People with disabilities often have substantive barriers

in accessing the academic community, and the

conference system. Much of these concerns arise

directly from institutional limitations in provision, and

what effectively amounts to past and ongoing

discrimination. In what follows, we briefly set out these

challenges for Postgraduate Researchers with

Disabilities (hereon in PGRD’s). We focus on research

students here to highlight how the barriers to

participating in an academic community are particularly

problematic for young disabled researchers and those

still forming their academic networks and skills. First,

the process for assessing the needs of those with

disabilities is well known to break down at the Research

Student leveliii, with assessors often being unqualified

to consider the nature of a PhD program. These

assessments also usually take place at the beginning of

Box 4: Case Study 1

Mr B has bipolar disorder, which substantially impacts upon his state of mood. For a substantial proportion of the year he is in a ‘manic state’, whilst at other times he is a “depressive state”. This substantially impacted upon the motivation and nature of his writing, although he had the creativity that arguably came with his disability in order to produce profoundly original submissions. Under the existing system, he found that his papers were often being rejected due to being over-excitable when in a manic state, and failure to finish them off when in a depressive state, which due to the adversarial nature of the review process also gave him considerable anxiety.

Our recommendations would help address this situation. An iterative review process (Adjustment 3) would enable Mr B to access corrections, rather than simple rejections, and as such would likely help minimise the impact of their anxiety and depression. Adjustment 4 would also be of assistance, in that it would minimise the distress experiences by Mr B in the event of paper rejections.

someone’s PhD program, well before the student

themselves can determine what might be appropriate

themselves. The result is that students are often under-

recommended reasonable adjustments by their

institutions, impacting on the scope of studies they can

conduct and amount of research they can do in the

standard doctoral program timescale. Furthermore,

these concerns are further exasperated by weaknesses

in the broader process; in the UK this has led to

government proposals to radically reform it [3].

The second concern is the lack of institutional mobility

that PGRD’s face, relative to other students. Many rely

upon support networks, or struggle to relocate personal

care packages, or indeed to find accessible

accommodation in some cities. This can often limit the

choice of University to these students to the local area.

Moreover, perceptions of the relative accessibility (or

not), including the willingness to make reasonable

adjustments, of institutions are likely to strongly

influence the choices made of those with disabilities,

who in the abstract might appear to have more

freedom in choosing their institutions. Given the

relatively small number of leading HCI groups, the

reality is that a relatively lower proportion of people

with disabilities are likely to end up in world leading

groups, and thus cannot rely upon appropriate support

from their institutions when preparing their

submissions.

Third, there are bound to be barriers that arise from

individual disabilities themselves. In many cases, this

would include Cognitive or Psycho-Social Disabilities,

including acquired ones (e.g. via a cerebral vascular

accident); indeed these people would make up nearly

65% of PGRD’s in the UK, yet are currently excluded by

the existing deliberate focus in the SIGCHI community

almost purely upon ‘Digital Accessibility’ and ‘Physical

Accessibility’. To illustrate how these can impact upon

the accessibility of existing academic processes, we

have provided some case studies in sidebars, which are

also intended to reflect the recommendations that

follow in the rest of this section.

Adjustments to the Review Process

Despite the introduction of Disability Discrimination

Law, and its implementation (to varying degrees) by

private and public bodies, it is surprising that the CHI

review process take no substantive account of the

needs of people with disabilities who intend to submit

their research for peer review. Many of the existing

processes and practices are historical in character,

although some reflect an unhealthy ‘coziness’ at the

heart of many academic communities; in response to

this we propose a number of adjustments to ameliorate

some of these concerns and the disadvantage that they

place many people with disabilities at.

1. SUBMISSION OUTLINES AND PERMISSION STAGES

A submission outline stage is essential for some people

with disabilities, who need support well before they

reach the stage of submitting a paper or note. This

would involve them setting out their proposed work,

indicating how it would likely lead to an original

contribution to knowledge, and explicating their

proposed means for demonstrating and enquiring into

this area. As an outcome of this process, it would be

determined whether both the problem and methods of

studying it are sufficient to provide insights into that

area in ways that could be articulated at a top-tier

venue, and bind the conference to the agreed standard.

The authors would then go to their institution, with the

appropriate feedback, and request resources and

adjustments on the basis of such an assessment, thus

Box 5: Case Study 2

Ms A has a severe mobility impairment, which means they require a support worker with them when they travel. This impaired their ability to evaluate a system that they had developed, which required the use of minority participants that were difficult to access. They proposed to conduct a smaller scale evaluation with a more in depth analysis on a smaller number of participants, and to make this system open for further investigation or analysis.

Under the existing system, they would be forced to complete an entire submission, which would most likely be rejected. Ms A would then be left either with an unpublishable paper, or to be required to obtain a collaboration or other additional resources to complete their project. Our revisions would be more inclusive; the proposed evaluation under Adjustment 1 would be deemed sufficient for a full publication, or reasonable adjustments would then be made as these would become clearer entitlements. The support for building collaborative relationships would otherwise help address this situation if an evaluation they found inaccessible was required.

preventing a long, burdensome and adversarial needs

assessment process, because the assessors are simply

informed as to what they must provide. This would be

an anticipatory reasonable adjustment.

2. ITERATIVE REVIEW

Research students with disabilities are disadvantaged in

performing their research and accessing the academic

community, with the natural effect of often excluding

them from joining leading groups in the field. We

propose iterative review as an anticipatory

reasonable adjustment. This would mean

guaranteeing a number of stages of review completed

in a timely fashion (e.g. akin to a revise and resubmit

process), until a submission either reaches a stage

where it is deemed worthy of acceptance, or it is

determined that it should not be pursued further. This

would be more appropriate than existing approaches,

and effectively help substitute the assumed support

which often might not be being provided to PGRD’s,

either through failure of adjustments, or simply not

being able to join a world leading research group for

disability related reasons.

3. SUPPORTIVE AS OPPOSED ADVERSARIAL REVIEW

We argue that the process of reviewing through all

iterations should be driven with enthusiasm and a

desire to accept work and not be adversarial and

looking for reasons to reject it, or indeed aimed at

meeting a certain acceptance rate target. Supporting

authors in this way would be a great leveler for those

who are impaired in articulating their work in a paper,

or who find themselves in a university or group with

more limited resources by virtue of their disability. It

would greatly reduce the dependence on the immediate

availability of influential contacts, and de-emphasize

the skill of writing a paper to exactly fit a conference

community. Instead, being more supportive allows for

risk taking, and could widely benefit research in and of

itself. While this might involve some additional effort

relative to the standard review process for conferences,

it is arguable that this approach would reduce multiple

submissions (already noted as a serious problem in

computing conference review processes [5]). Even if it

did not reduce reviewer workload, then it would still be

a (legally) proportionate increase in effort to include

people with disabilities within our academic community,

especially if in response to individual reasonable

adjustment requests.

4. REMOVAL OF PAGE LIMITS

Existing page limits are in part historical in origin, in

that they reflect a cost once associated with the

production of printed proceedings that most

conferences have now dispensed with. In addition, they

also serve to limit the work of the reviewers, which for

a conference such as CHI (with its 2000+ submissions)

is substantialiv. However, page limits are intrinsically

problematic for many people with disabilities for two

reasons. First, getting the raw content and wording to

fit into a given word processing template is a skill in

itself which is bound to be more challenging for those

with a range of accessibility issues. Second, this

concern precludes someone who is less sure as to what

to select for inclusion or, more specifically, what can be

omitted (for example, due to a lack of advice as a

result of prevailing lack of inclusion with community

members).. As such, removing page limits provides the

possibility of including slightly more material that might

be deleted if necessary following a review process. We

therefore would abolish main-track page limits as an

anticipatory reasonable adjustment.

Box 6: Case Study 3

Dr C is an Assistant Professor, who had a cerebral-vascular accident (stroke) in recent years. Although he recovered most cognitive function, he suffered from ongoing loss of working memory as well as difficulties in engaging in social interactions due to an acquired impulsiveness. As a result, he found it more difficult to structure his articles, and to produce articles that were suitably concise as to fit the 10 page limit of a full submission. He also found it more difficult to interact and collaborate with his peers. The result was that his publication outputs sharply declined, threatening his prospects of obtaining tenure.

Under Adjustment 4– namely removing the page limits from conference submissions, Dr C would have a better prospect of having his papers accepted. It is not difficult to see how Adjustment 3 would be of assistance either, through similar arguments. Finally, the difficulties faced in social interactions might be addressed though providing support in developing collaborative relationships, under the proposed conference adjustments.

5. SELECTION OF PROGRAM AND ORGANIZING COMMITTEES

Program committees are a key part of both selecting

papers, as well as aiding the career progression of

those invited to join them. From the lack of an open

selection process, it is immediately apparent that

existing approaches place many people with disabilities

at a disadvantage. In general, the process for selection

is akin to a ‘tap on the shoulder’, and people are only

likely to be invited if they are well known ‘to the

community’. Becoming well known to the community

requires an equal opportunity to attend conferences,

and not having a disability which impacts on how they

communicate or socially interact at these events. In our

own recent experiment at TVX 2014, over one third of

the program committee (10 of a total of 29) were

selected by an alternative process of self-nomination

and review (by the conference chairs); for this year

(TVX 2015) it was nearer a half (9 out of a total of

21)v. By contrast, the current situation for most

conferences amounts to indirect discrimination. We

advocate that more open processes should be

employed to allow applicants to be properly assessed,

for example, based on a desk assessment exercise, or

on data generated from their previous reviewing

activities. Both of these could be assessed without the

use of subject specific expertise, and thus independent

of existing hierarchies within the academic community.

This is distinct to what is currently proposed for CHI

2016 (see [8]), where new Associate Chairs need to

have first-authored CHI submissions before or acted as

a chair in a smaller ACM conference. While a great

stride, this still holds great potential for exclusion (i.e.,

even if CHI were to be more transparent, it does not

mean smaller conferences actually are) and to some

degree this approach is still based upon who a potential

candidate is known to within the community.

The natural next step of this process is to

independently assess the performance of individual

Associate Chairs; not only will this improve the quality

and clarity of the review process, but it will make

appointments more meritocratic going forwards.

Similarly, the same overall point should apply to

organizing committees, with people with disabilities

being given first preference on roles that are likely to

be accessible to them and their particular needs.

Conference Accessibility and Inclusion in a Broader

Academic Community

In addition to the barriers identified in the previous

section, we also note a range of changes that ought to

be made to the conference organization processes in

order to make them more accessible and inclusive.

1. SUPPORT FOR BUILDING COLLABORATIVE RELATIONSHIPS

People with disabilities are more likely to have more

limited access to networks of academic peers and

potential collaborators with which to develop their ideas

and, thus, potential research projects and outcomes.

Consideration should be given towards more explicitly

embedding activities such as AccessComputing – which

already offers networking for PGRD’s – more directly

into the SIGCHI community. Additional activities may

include arranging external mentors and funding formal

schemes that welcomes people with disabilities more

directly into our academic community. This would fall

within the ambit of the PSED’s and therefore should be

funded through the conference. This would complement

efforts surrounding the review process, and help

alleviate the wider challenges of accessing networking

opportunities within the community.

2. SUPPORT FOR ATTENDING CONFERENCES

There is also much that needs to be done to better

support researcher with disabilities in experiencing

conferences in the first place. First, while many

conferences provide bursaries and support for students,

this does not necessarily account for the additional

resources disabled students tend to expend in order to

attend. It is typical that travelling internationally to

large conferences can be financially challenging for

some disabled people. A support worker would double

most costs and requires making special arrangements

to address the unusual working hours involved. Under

the PSED’s, disability needs to be a factor taken into

consideration when making assessments of who

receives bursaries and the value of them. There are

also those who cannot attend conferences in the first

place. Supporting attendance via telepresence seems a

reasonable route forwards. Beams - trialed successfully

at Ubicomp 2014 (and subsequently at Assets 2014)

would help reduce the gap for those who are unable to

travel long distances due to their disability. These

services should be prioritized as individual

reasonable adjustments. The important point here

however is that conferences are more proactive in

providing alternate ways for people to remotely attend

and gain from the experience. This work is a starting

point; conferences should evolve best practices over

time and fulfil their obligations to the public interest.

3. PROCESSES FOR REQUESTING INDIVIDUAL REASONABLE

ACCOMMODATIONS

Finally, we call for a substantial departure from the

existing process used to manage reasonable

adjustments by the SIGCHI community, where

conferences either have a volunteer ‘accessibility chair’

role, or otherwise have no route other than the

conference registration form. The low levels of requests

(for whatever reasons) means that it is highly likely

that there is substantial under-recommendation of

reasonable adjustments within the SIGCHI community.

Perhaps the most effective case example is In the

Matter of Horan [6] (readers may also want to consider

Mr Horan’s own account of this case [7]), which

concerned a Barrister’s fitness to practice and

demonstrates the perils of allowing non-experts to

make decisions on reasonable adjustments. For the

reasons and arguments stated in that case, decisions

that are taken by SIGCHI in this context are of a similar

gravity; sometimes in refusing certain types of

reasonable adjustments, we are in reality reaching a

decision that means someone cannot continue in their

academic career. This makes a competent and just

adjudication of these matters a matter of the utmost

importance. Moreover, the potential conflict of some of

the adjustments we have suggested with traditional

academic practice and the challenges of those without

expertise in disability law in determining these

decisions fairly or reasonably (or indeed, lawfully)

means this existing route is unviable.

There is also the question of the dignity of those who

need reasonable adjustments, who under the present

system, either do not receive reasonable adjustments,

or have to ask a succession of accessibility chairs who

may even come to entirely different conclusions.

Currently this raises the danger of individuals having to

justify their disability to a wide section of the academic

community, some of whom may well be involved in

subsequent employment or funding applications,

effectively frustrating someone’s legal right not to

declare their disability in that context. This issue is easy

enough to resolve - decisions should be taken by

someone with the requisite legal expertise to do so (at

the expense of SIGCHI) and with the actual power to

ensure that they are implemented, while also exercising

the necessary confidentiality. This is an anticipatory

reasonable adjustment.

Conclusion

While our proposals may be seen as radical (by

academic traditionalists), they remain inherently

reasonable. If our conference processes are to be

inclusive for people with disabilities, then research

communities should more proactively comply with their

moral and legal obligations. If the very logic of our

review process has been determined with disabled

people in mind, instead of having been driven by a non-

disabled plurality, then there would not be decades of

accumulated unsuitable practice to address.

Finally, we note that this submission describes best

practice, and in doing so we hope it will have an impact

upon diversity within, and transparency of, research

communities more generally. This arises naturally from

the nature of the Human Rights Law approach that we

have adopted; which serves as an effective lens for

considering the openness and transparency of

communities and conferences more generally. As such,

we hope to promote discussion and debate that goes

beyond meeting the needs of specific groups or

individuals, but which highlights some of the

assumptions and antiquated processes we all comply

with that limit the potential for HCI to be participatory,

inclusive and innovative as a field of research.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by funding from the UK’s

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council

(Doctoral Training Award), and a Google Europe

Scholarship for Students with Disabilities.

References 1. Deal, M. 2003. Disabled people’s attitudes toward other impairment groups: a hierarchy of impairments. Disability & Society. 18, 7 (2003), 897–910. 2. Equality Challenge Unit 2013. Statistical Report in Higher Education 2013. 3. https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/higher-education-student-support-changes-to-disabled-students-allowances-dsa--2: . 4. RCUK Equality Statement: http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/RCUK-prod/assets/documents/skills/EqualityStatement.pdf. 5. Wallach, D.S. 2011. Rebooting the CS publication process. Communications of the ACM. 54, 10 (Oct. 2011), 32. 6. http://www.era-comm.eu/UNCRPD/kiosk/speakers_contributions/412DV02/Horan_review.pdf. 7. http://www.era-comm.eu/UNCRPD/kiosk/speakers_contributions/413DV91/Horan_matter.pdf. 8. http://sigchi.tumblr.com/post/110095003445/ volunteering-to-serve-on-the-chi-2016-program

i Some illustrative extracts of this are available in Box 1, with the convention itself available at http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=150 ii All of this discussion is documented at: http://reubenkirkham.com/?page_id=197

iii Consider for example the discussions at http://phdisabled.wordpress.com/ iv For CHI2016 the references are now no longer counted in the age count, although papers must still be 10 pages or less in length. v This approach is now beginning to be adopted by other conferences, for example ITS 2015 and BCS HCI 2015.