The following was originally proposed as a starting point to the question “I am trying to define what access to mathematics means for blind students. Can you help me?”
I wrote it as an email to the blindmath list hosted by the NFB. I’ve used this list to promote my ideas for access and gained plenty of feedback from other list members over many years.
You might be excused for thinking this would prove to be an easy question for many people on this list to answer. I for one am surprised someone hasn’t responded yet.
First, I would say that a definition that fits mathematics is likely to serve for many scientific disciplines and given the amount of crossover that exists into the social sciences and some business related disciplines, the question starts to get quite difficult to answer in a concise way. So, my definition uses STEM and any extensions into other disciplines are relevant but not necessary.
Second, the definition is surely dependent on the context to which it must be applied, but perhaps we might manage to word smith to get a definition that encompasses the most elementary beginnings through to the most advanced university courses and on into research or application in employment.
Third, I suspect that my gold standard for access will be seen as a ridiculously unattainable position. Fair enough, so we need a definition that allows us to move from the current position towards my admittedly Utopian target. While we’re on that journey, different people will decide that what they have is “access” while others will say it is not sufficient.
Full access for a blind person applying techniques commonly taught in STEM related courses, either in educational or employment settings, as well as for the sheer pleasure of science, can only be verified if the following conditions are met in a way that ensures the blind person’s independence and dignity.
All material presented by another party must be able to be read by a blind person using whatsoever hardware and software tools provide an equitable outcome as that attained by their sighted peers.
A blind person must be able to collect, analyse, interpret, and manipulate scientific data in order to answer scientific questions and communicate the knowledge gained from their results in a way that can be read by their sighted peers.
I consider that consumption of what the world has to offer is necessary but not sufficient for the definition. Being able to consume the work of others does not lead to employment or at least constrains the employment options of blind people.
I think my definition is aimed at capability not capacity. That is, we must be able to, not that we must do. For example, there are tools we must understand, but are unlikely to employ because they do not suit our individuality. I love graph theory (nodes and edges etc.) but I do understand that a blind person who cannot manipulate them in their heads may find the idea of manipulating a directed graph to be an absurd method for solving a problem.
I think that at present, many of us have solutions that are reliant on another human. That challenges the independence, but hopefully it isn’t challenging the dignity of blind people. All too unfortunately, the reliance on other humans is something we currently have to grapple with in educational settings; the ability to have the same opportunities in employment (or the lack thereof) are (in my experience) often overlooked by blind people. My independence and dignity when completing the STEM aspects of my job are improving; it is a pity that my ability to do the administrative tasks expected of me which now all use technological systems has degraded over the last ten years. I’m all too aware that use of human assistants to meet shortcomings in technology is all too often seen as an acceptable means to gain access. Not having the right human to assist has consequences for a person’s dignity let alone our independence.
I hope this provides a good starting point. I welcome the views of others who propose an alternative definition.