Despite numerous regulations, inaccessibility for disabled people remains widespread. However, few scholars have explored the reasons for this resistance to barrier removal. This study addresses this gap by discussing data on accessibility and non-disabled people’s perception of the problem. The study data were collected in Bologna (Italy), where an innovative accessibility regulation was enacted, via collaborative action research involving wheelchair users. The research mapped the accessibility of 448 publicly accessible establishments. During the mapping process, shopkeepers’ reactions and comments were noted and later analysed. Findings show that resistance to barrier removal doesn’t only originate from conflicting norms and interests, but also from different interpretations of ‘accessibility’, of who wheelchair users are and what they can legitimately expect from interaction with the urban environment: in other words, the findings contribute to knowledge on how the paradigm of ableism is reproduced.

Despite conventions, policies, and regulations highlighting the importance of accessibility in fulfilling human rights, numerous barriers exclude and discriminate against disabled individuals. This article focuses on the gap between promised and performed accessibility. The aim is to explore how inaccessibility is rationalised and transformed into an acceptable, excusable, or even justifiable aspect of contemporary society. The empirical material consists of professionals’ and disabled people’s moral and practical reasoning regarding accessibility, gathered through semi-structured interviews and ethnographic observations conducted in Sweden. Inaccessibility is excused by referring to a lack of knowledge and other circumstances that render accessibility impracticable. Additionally, inaccessibility is justified by emphasising temporal, security, or aesthetic aspects that make accessibility seem unreasonable. Presenting accessibility as impracticable and unreasonable appears crucial for the moral management of disabling barriers and violations of human rights in society.

PURPOSE: Assistance from artefacts and humans are traditionally viewed as separate, and it is often up to the individual to try to combine the different kinds of assistance to suit their needs and preferences. The purpose of this study was to gain new insights into the co-existence of and synergies between artefactual and human assistance in the everyday lives of persons with physical and cognitive impairments, through exploring and analysing narratives of individuals who have first-hand knowledge and experience.

METHODS: Seven individuals took part in semi-structured interviews, which were then analysed with qualitative content analysis, grounded in cultural-historical activity theory.

RESULT: The participants were active agents with agendas, dreams, and needs, who shaped and made use of many different combinations of human and artefactual assistance, both formal and informal. They did this in ways that suited each person's preferences and circumstances and were often seen as complementary and synergistical. Flexible assistance could make limited energy resources last throughout the day, while less flexible or not individually tailored assistance was found to be less useful or appreciated. Assistance that was well integrated into a person's routines could become invisible and make the person feel independent despite severe impairments.

CONCLUSIONS: This study contributes new knowledge regarding how persons with disabilities utilize and mould artefactual and human assistance according to the activities they engage in as part of everyday life. When synergistical assistance works, different kinds of assistance flow seamlessly into one another and adjustment of plans and improvisations happen in the moment.

This study examines disabled people’s everyday experience of social exclusion in relation to the rapid growth of digital technologies in everyday practices. It highlights the relationships between the growing theoretical apparatus on how society changes with new digital technologies, and theories about how this might lead to new disabling barriers in the everyday lives of disabled people. To better understand disabled people’s everyday experiences of social exclusion in the digital age, it brings together insights from two different fields: digital technology, mainly in digital social science and digital humanities; and disability studies, with a focus on the digital divide. The study draws on empirical observations, photographs and interviews with adults with various disabilities in Sweden, and analyses their everyday experiences with the help of a theoretical framework. 

This book explores the societal resistance to accessibility for persons with disabilities, and tries to set an example of how to study exclusion in a time when numerous policies promise inclusion. With 12 chapters organised in three parts, the book takes a comprehensive approach to accessibility, covering transport and communication, knowledge and education, law and organisation. Topics within a wide cross-disciplinary field are covered, including disability studies, social work, sociology, ethnology, social anthropology, and history. The main example is Sweden, with its implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities within the context of the Nordic welfare state. By identifying and discussing persistent social and cultural conditions as well as recurring situations and interactions that nurture resistance to advancing accessibility, despite various strong laws promoting it, the book’s conclusions are widely transferable. It argues for the value of alternating between methods, theoretical perspectives, and datasets to explore how new arenas, resources and technologies cause new accessibility concerns — and possibilities — for persons living with impairments. We need to be able to follow actors closely to uncover how they feel, act, and argue, but also to connect to wider discursive and institutional patterns and systems. This book will be of interest to scholars and students of disability studies, social work, sociology, ethnology, social anthropology, political science, and organisation studies.

This chapter aims to contribute with an understanding of how inaccessibility is legitimised and normalised in Swedish cities even when it is tangible and well-known to the authorities. Although independent and equal access is the overarching principle of policies, regulations and conventions, city centres are full of half-measures that only grant access if staff or passers-by are able to help out. A rhetorical analysis of interviews with professionals working with accessibility shows that these half-measures are legitimised as ‘just as good’ or ‘the only way’ to improve access. Accessibility measures are further described as ‘ugly’ or ‘unthinkable’ since they are perceived as challenging the purity of design or architectural style. What is considered accessible enough is constructed in the intersection of the conflicting norms, values and principles that socio-spatially order the city. This means that accessibility is outcompeted, or downplayed inaccessibility is reproduced, and half-measures are legitimised as the only possible option. The conflicts of interests, norms, values and regulations that cut through and circumscribe barrier removal need to be acknowledged, as well as the complexities of the professionals’ work. Everyday accessibility work is not only about technical skills, economic recourses or knowledge of disabling barriers, it is also about rhetorical skills and presenting convincing arguments.