Using Participatory Action Research to Examine Outcomes and Effect Systems Change in Assistive Technology Financing

Journal of Disability Policy Studies

Volumn 14, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 98-108

  Hammel, Joy ^a   Finlayson, Marcia ^a   Lastowski, Steven ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84993746176     PISSN: 10442073     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/10442073030140020801     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & McLain Smith, D. (1985). Action science: Concepts, methods, and skills for research and intervention. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
2. Bradbury, H., & Reason, P. (2001). Conclusion: Broadening the bandwidth of validity: Issues and choice-points for improving the quality of action research. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry & practice (pp. 447–456). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
3. Craddock, G., & McCormack, L. (2002). Delivering an AT service: A client-focused, social and participatory service delivery model in assistive technology in Ireland. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24(1–3), 160–170.
4. Delbecq, A., Van de Ven, A., & Gustafson, D. (1986). Group techniques for program planning: A guide to nominal group and delphi processes. Middleton, WI: Green Briar Press.
5. Friedman, V. (2001). Action science: Creating communities of inquiry in communities of practice. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 159–171). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6. Gray, D., Quatrano, L., & Lieberman, M. (1998). Conclusions: Moving to the next stage of assistive technology development. In D. Gray, L. Quatrano, & M. Lieberman (Eds.), Designing and using assistive technology: The human perspective (pp. 299–310). Baltimore: Brookes.
7. Heron, J., & Reason, P. (2001). The practice of co-operative inquiry: Research “with” rather than “on” people. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 179–188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8. Kaye, S. (2000). Computer and Internet use among people with disabilities (Disability Statistics Report No. 13). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research.
9. Krogh, K. (1995) Developing a partnership agreement. In J. Pivik (Ed.), Facilitating collaborative research between consumers and researchers (pp. 69– 75). Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Institute for Rehabilitation Research and Development.
10. Krueger, R. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11. LaPlante, M., Hendershot, G., & Moss, A. (1992). Assistive technology devices and home accessibility features: Prevalence, payment, need and trends. Advance Data, 217. (Available from Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Health Statistics)
12. National Council on Disability. (2000). Federal policy barriers to assistive technology. Washington, DC: Author.
13. National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research. (2002). Report to Congress on the alternative financing program impact and need (Unpublished manuscript).
14. Reason, P. (1998). Three approaches to participative inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 261–291). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15. Rubin, R., & White-Means, S. (2001). Race, disability and assistive devices: Sociodemographics or discrimination. International Journal of Social Economics, 10(12), 927–941.
16. Scherer, M. (1993). Living in the state of stuck: How technology impacts the lives of people with disabilities. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
17. Seelman, K. (1998). Blueprint for the millennium: An analysis of regional hearings on assistive technology for people with disabilities. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, NIDRR.
18. Tewey, B.P. (1997) Building participatory action research partnerships in disability and rehabilitation research. Washington, DC: National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research.