This is a very brief summary of the paper that seems to have caused a small stir in the disability collective. I can understand why, but I also think it is important that we in the UK look at the social model of disability and put in to the perspective that it deserves. The full paper (not the final draft) is available for download in the Articles section.

The origin of the paper stems from a discussion that I had with Dr Mark Rouncefield over a pint or so. In this discussion we were ruminating about the way that there is a constant tension between medical practitioners and supports of the "social model of disability". This discussion continued through the use of second wave feminist tactics adopted by some supporters of the model and outmoded tactics by the medical profession. Our discussion concluded that a paper was needed and that a medical doctor is a preferable person to have attend you when you are dying rather than a PhD person. We also concluded that both models informed the appropriate design of technology to support people but both models hindered the process by casting stereotypical notions about people.

A Google search of the "social model of disability" should bring you enough sites to get an idea of the distinction between the medical and social models. But for those not willing to take this challenge briefly, the social model considers disability as a result of the barriers that impede disabled and impaired people from accessing traditional services and expectations. The Medical model considers people in relation to their medical condition and therefore attributes a number of assumptions about the lifestyle and practices of an individual based on this medical evidence. The Social model uses a similar tool to the second wave feminists who considered everything as political and everything can be considered in relation to women. The Social model advocates tend to consider everything in relation to the barriers that disabled people are required to circumnavigate in their lives.

If pushed I certainly do favour one of these views in preference to the other, but the discussion that Mark and I had revealed that when I design systems for people with disabilities, I have to consider the disability or impairment, but I also have to consider a whole range of facets apart from the medical and social barriers placed on a person for whom I am designing. I really need to understand how and what the person wants from the technology, what their expectations are, how the person lives and how the want to live. Will the technology benefit the person in the way they envisage? I need to know how a person uses the spaces in their home and how they want to use the spaces.

Therefore what I do is take bit from both models but the main element is looking at the person. This means looking beyond the disability... Far beyond the disability. Instead of concentrating on what a person cannot do and why they cannot do it, I concentrate on what they can do and what they want to do, and design the technology around their aspirations.

In the 'Anti-Social' model paper we argue that the social model has become a politically rhetorical argument that polemicises disability, thereby focuses attention on the 'disability' not on the person, who might have an impairment. Just as the 'medical model' is criticised for it's emphasis on viewing people as depersonalised patients, we critique the social model for viewing people from a disability perspective. Through our work at Lancaster University we have found that older and disabled people's concerns might not be their disability but rather more mundane concerns, (how to take down and wash the curtains etc). The social model misses these points which are important when it comes to designing systems to support people. The focus on disability is a distraction to good design, as is the focus on a medicalised condition.The focus of good design should be the people who you are design for. This means the people's concerns, the way they live their life, their activities, routines, who they are and what they want from the final design are all important to effective design.