Imagining a Neuroqueer Technoscience

Abstract

The rise of mobile communication applications and technologies presents promising therapeutic and accessibility-related interventions for neurodivergent users. However, top-down approaches in human-computer interaction (HCI) research often prioritize the needs and goals of allistic and neurotypical researchers and secondary stakeholders in media creation. Furthermore, media technologies are created with a one-size-fits-all approach, with the intent of rehabilitating or curing neurodivergent ways of being. This article imagines neuroqueer technoscience as an extension of crip technoscience that amplifies new styles of relationality, self-expression, and communication practices within the development of information and communication technologies (ICTs). Using an interdisciplinary framework informed by crip technoscience and human-computer interaction research, the author presents three tenets for mediating neuroqueer subjectivities.

“Here to Have Fun and Fight Ableism”: #Autisktok User Bios as Neuroqueer Micro-Activist Platform Affordances

“…Online platforms, such as social media, are increasingly used as community hubs for disabled groups, and especially for autistic people (Rauchberg, 2022;Alper, 2023;Guberman, 2023;Sins Invalid, 2019). We focus on #Autisktok, one of many enclaves for autistic community building and cultural production on TikTok.…”

A Phenomenological Exploration of How People with Limited Mobilities Experience Adventure Tourism in Virtual Reality

“…Many assistive technologies conform to the concept of an 'ideal body' and that technology is required to help them achieve this standard (Hamraie & Fritsch, 2019). Although playing an important role for the participation of disabled people in a normative society, this may hinder this accessibility to social environments (Johnstone et al, 2022;Rauchberg, 2022). A hearing aid may allow a person to hear individual conversations in a crowd, but it may not be compatible with mobile phone technology of even watching a movie in the cinema, depending on the noise level (Johnstone et al, 2022).…”

“…A hearing aid may allow a person to hear individual conversations in a crowd, but it may not be compatible with mobile phone technology of even watching a movie in the cinema, depending on the noise level (Johnstone et al, 2022). The focus of assistive technologies is largely based on physical, sensory, and visible mobilities (Rauchberg, 2022). Moreover, there remain barriers to accessing these technologies as well, most notably the financial cost.…”

“…By focusing on disabled people as a generic social group, knowledge is often missed at an individual level that could benefit at a social level (Cole, 2007;Shildrick, 2019). There is an identified paucity of disabled researchers in CDT, which queries how well the disabled experience can be interpreted across multiple disciplines of research (Brown & Leigh, 2018;Rauchberg, 2022).…”

“…Research using sociomateriality challenges the notion of a clear boundary and separation between the disabled body and assistive technologies, by acknowledging the embodied nature of technology (Bend & Priola, 2023). The body, as part of our social contexts, and the material are entities that are deeply entangled, with technologies shaping experiences of disability (Johnstone et al, 2022;Rauchberg, 2022). These technologies interface, connect and communicate directly with the body, such as hearing aids or prosthetic limbs.…”