Many people use their voices every day—to talk to people, to communicate their needs and wants—but the idea of ”voice” goes much deeper. Having a voice gives a person authority and power, and a way to express their beliefs. But what happens when that voice is expressed differently from the norm? What happens when that voice is somehow silenced?
Meryl Alper, assistant professor of communication studies at Northeastern, explored this idea of ”voice” in children and young teens who used an iPad app that turned symbols into sound words to help them communicate.
While it may appear that the app helped give voice back to those who used it, Alper found that the technology is subject to economic structures and defined through the lens of ability.
“People with disabilities do not have passive voices from the able-bodied. People with disabilities, rather, actively take them and construct them,” he said.
Her book on the subject, Giving Voice: Mobile Communication, Disability and Inequalitywas recently recognized by the Association of American Publishers' PROSE Awards, which honor “the best in professional and scholarly publishing.”
We often hear that technology gives voice to the voiceless. What does “voice” represent in your research? And what kinds of “voices” are left out of technological developments?
“Giving voice to the voiceless” regularly means that the historically underrepresented, disadvantaged or vulnerable gain opportunities to organize, raise visibility and express themselves by leveraging the strengths of information, media and communication technologies. A long list of tools and platforms—including the Internet, Facebook, Twitter, community radio, and free and open software—have all been said to “give voice.”
In the book, I critically reflect on how “giving a voice to the voiceless” has become a powerful, and potentially harmful, trope in our society that masks structural inequalities. I do this by considering the separate meanings of 'giving', 'voice' and 'voiceless'. The concept of “voiceless” suggests a static and clearly defined group. Conversations about 'giving' them a voice can reinforce and naturalize not 'having' a voice, without also challenging the complex dynamics between having and giving, and speaking and listening. Additionally, “giving voice” does not question the means and methods by which voice may have been obtained, taken, or even stolen in the first place, and how technology and technological infrastructure can and do maintain the status quo.
What were the biggest takeaways from your research?
I studied how non-speaking or partially-speaking young people with developmental disabilities that affect their speech used voice-output communication technologies in the form of tablets and mobile apps — think the technology used by the late Stephen Hawking, but simplified on an iPad. The impact of these technologies on the lives of these children and their families has been both positive, negative and sometimes small impact. We are collectively responsible for how overly simplistic narratives about technology that figuratively and materially “give voice” to people with disabilities circulate, particularly as social media platforms monetize and incentivize clicks and retweets of stories. These types of news and media depictions are derided among many in the disability community as “inspirational porn.” In economically, politically, and socially uncertain times, the certainty in technology as a solution, the certainty in disability as something that needs fixing, and the relationship between these particular fixations is something we need to think about very critically.
We must also remain vigilant about protecting disability rights and improving disability policy, as well as policies that strongly affect people with disabilities, such as education, health care and internet access. Having a voice in general, and the role of technology in exploiting that voice, must be understood in relation to other forms of exploitation. People with disabilities do not passively receive voices from the able-bodied. People with disabilities, rather, take them and actively construct them. Given all the ways in which our media ecology and political environment are rapidly changing, these issues are not only at stake in which voices can speak, but also who is deemed empowered to speak in the first place.
Giving Voice received an honorable mention from the PROSE Awards. What does this honor mean to you and your work?
It is a great privilege for my book to be among the 2018 honorees and one of two winners in the Media and Cultural Studies category, as hundreds of excellent books were published in the field in 2017. Media, communication and cultural studies is a broad and vibrant field, which includes two different departments only at Northeastern (communication studies and media and screen studies). As an assistant professor, it is extremely rewarding and validating for my work to be considered of a similar caliber to previous category winners, including established senior scholars in my field.
The award also makes a clear statement about the future of the industry. Giving Voice broadly addresses what it means to have a voice in a technological world and is based on qualitative research among children, families and people with disabilities. These populations, and their concerns, are most often treated as niches or specialties within the academy. Qualitative research is also regularly undervalued compared to quantitative research. The honor motivates me to continue following my gut, focusing marginalized groups in empirical and theoretical work on technology and society and asking research questions that excite me.
