Notice bibliographique
Résumé
People with a disability face exclusion when trying to find employment and remain employed. A transformation towards more inclusive employment is long due. Increasingly actors in policy, researcher, industry, and citizens are exploring the potential of technologies for inclusive employment of people with a disability. However, the success of attempts at using technology for inclusion has been hit and miss. Part of the reason for this is the complexity and unpredictability of the problem. There are many different people involved in workplace exclusion who all might all represent different values and have different solutions for the problem. At the same time, it is unclear which technological innovations work well for inclusion and which ones don’t. In this thesis, I take this situation as a starting point for experimenting with different approaches for transformation. I take theoretical insights from fields like Disability Studies, Science and Technology Studies, and Actor-Network Theory and combine them with methodological insights from Reflexive Monitoring in Action and Situated Intervention. Building on notions from these fields, I analyse the setup a Learning Evaluation of 7 experimental pilots that all experiment with inclusive technologies. Taking on the role of reflexive- and situated monitor, I follow how these experiments attempt to navigate dichotomies, people coming together and forming associations, and the many insecurities and discomforts that come with aiming for transformation. In chapter 1, I introduce the notion of scripts; tracing the scripts and re-inscriptions that take place in the experiments to move beyond dichotomous understandings of disability and technology. In moving beyond the prosthetic-transformative dichotomy I show how shaping the socio-cultural environment around a technology is what matters for inclusion. In chapter 2, I reflect care practices that take place in the workplace. I show how care can take place in two layers of care; the care out there in the workplace and the care we as researchers bring. I then show how it is important to keep these layers in tension and how a position of being alongside can be helpful to do so. Moreover, I propose that being alongside can provide space for vulnerabilities and uncertainties of both researchers and stakeholders. In chapter 3, I show how practice-informed, empirical work can contribute to more broad scale transformation. I adopt insights from sustainability transitions and show how they can be enriched by a more in-depth empirical exploration of experiments. I introduce the notion of associations as a way to stay close to practice and show what is already working for inclusion in the workplaces. In chapter 4, I extend this notion further to the policy domain and show how one of the experiments face challenges when trying to scale-up what had worked in the experiment. I conclude that a pluralistic perspective is important in trying to transform practices, especially for allowing room for multiple action perspectives. In chapter 5, I experiment with novel ways of materializing technologies for inclusion. I follow the development of a socio-cultural manual, as a way to capture the sensibilities in from the first 4 chapters and help make this knowledge travel to other situations.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,046 | 0,108 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,015 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,010 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,008 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,033 | 0,004 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».