Final Refl ection Th e question of the importance of technology for disabled people is a complex and broad-ranging one. Although the book has not focused on every aspect of these relationships, I hope that it has provided a sense of the potential, current benefi ts without ignoring the drawbacks for disabled people. Th e evidence suggests that technology intersects with disability in complex ways, for example we need to understand the impact of say digital technology on disabled people in particular, but very few studies adopt a non-disabled control group. Th us beyond sur- vey evidence the best data emanates from careful qualitative studies of the role and meaning of technology. Without this we could not draw specifi c inferences on the general benefi ts of technology that the wider population report. Th ere is much evidence of technologies, both ‘high’ and ‘low’ tech, off ering new horizons for some disabled people. However, new technologies bring with them new demands. How many of us are surrounded by desktop or hand-held technologies that audibly signal for our attention? At times it feels as though we are servicing technologies rather than technology servicing us. In terms of communication, it often feels impossible to keep on top of the myriad forms of e-communication, while Twitter, Facebook and wider social media straddle both home and © Th e Editor(s) (if applicable) and Th e Author(s) 2016 237 A. Roulstone, Disability and Technology, DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-45042-5 238 Final Refl ection work life. To what extent then have digital devices off ered the promise of compressing space and distance only to lengthen the time taken to service these technologies? How much of our day is spent without these technologies? Notwithstanding the expectations that accompany digital technology, there are many in-principle benefi ts in terms of processing large amounts of data and communications in one place. Th ere are unplanned ben- efi ts in terms of texting for d/Deaf people, better wheelchair design/ functionality and access features embedded in off -the-shelf technologies. Th e extent to which pre-existing social dynamics and divisions shape the experience of technology remains an important question. However, there has been no widespread evidence in this review of research that these dynamics remain the same as say 20–30 years ago. Th e spread of technol- ogy, processing capacity and reduced cost smooth the path to enabling technology. However, there remain maldistributive forces that continue to limit access to even iconic technology such as the wheelchair. Clinical judgement and wider narratives continue to shape just who can have access to wheelchairs. Many tools for independent living continue to be framed as ‘health technologies’, although I sense this is changing. Th e World Wide Web off ers some disabled people the opportunity to pres- ent images of themselves that foreground online belonging, rather than risk a master status of disabled being imposed upon them. However, the internet provides a breeding ground for hate and cyber-bullying. New technologies such as cochlear implants, life sustaining devices and pre- birth diagnostics suggest benefi ts may inhere from cradle to grave, but they provoke new ethical dilemmas as to just who we can be and which technologies we can freely embrace or reject. New fears arise where a disabled person adopts a rejectionist stance: Will they still be aff orded full social rights when they could be ‘cured’ of an impairment? It is clear that social forces continue to shape technology in a way that requires vigilance, evidence and at times continued activism to ensure it fulfi ls its enabling potential. Bibliography Anderberg, P. (2007). ANED country report on the implementation of policies supporting independent living for disabled people: Sweden . Brussels: ANED. Beethoven, L. V. (1802). Heiligenstadt Testament. Available at http://www. lvbeethoven.com/Bio/BiographyHeiligenstadtTestament.html Blamires, M. (Ed.). (1999). Enabling technology for inclusion . London: Sage. Breed, A. L., & Ibler, I. (1982). Th e motorized wheelchair: New freedom, new responsibility and new problems. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 24 (4), 366–371. British Standards Institute. (2010). BS 8878:2010 Web accessibility. Code of practice. Campbell, F. K. (2009). Contours of ableism . Basingstoke: Macmillan. Davis, D. S. (1997). Genetic dilemmas and the child’s right to an open future. Hastings Center Report, 27 (2), 7–15. Davis, K. (2004). Th e crafting of good clients. In J. Swain, S. French, C. Barnes, & C. Th omas (Eds.), Disabling barriers, enabling environments (p. 203). London: Sage. Davis, L. J. (2006). Th e disability studies reader . London: Routledge. De Jonge, D., Scherer, M., & Rodger, S. (2007). Assistive technology in the workplace . New York: Elsevier. © Th e Editor(s) (if applicable) and Th e Author(s) 2016 239 A. Roulstone, Disability and Technology, DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-45042-5 240 Bibliography de Wolfe, P. (2002). Private tragedy in social context? Refl ections on disability, illness and suff ering. Disability and Society, 17 (3), 255–267. DH. (2004). Preventive technologies grant: Case studies . London: Department of Health. DH. (2005a). Building telecare in England . London: Department of Health. DH. (2005b). Independence, wellbeing and choice: Our vision for the future of social care for adults in England . London: Department of Health. DH. (2006a). Preventative technology grant 2006–07 to 2007–08, LAC (2006)5 . London: Department of Health. DH. (2006b). Our health, our care, our say: A new direction for community services . London: Department of Health. DH. (2007). Independence, choice and risk: A guide to best practice in supported decision making . London: Department of Health. Disability Discrimination (Amendment) Act (DDAA). (2005). Statute . London: TSO. Disability Discrimination Act (DDA). (1995). Statute . London: HMSO. Disabled People’s International. (1982). Proceedings of the First World Congress . Singapore: DPI. Finkelstein, V. (1993). Th e commonality of disability. In J. Swain, V. Finkelstein, S. French, & M. Oliver (Eds.), Disabling barriers, enabling environments . London: Sage. Fukuyama, F. (2011). Th e origins of political order: From prehuman times to the French revolution . New York: Profi le Books. Gastman, B. R., Hirsch, B. E., Sando, I., Fukui, M. B., & Wargo, M. L. (2002). Th e potential risk of carotid injury in cochlear implant surgery. Th e Laryngoscope, 112 (2), 262–266. Gelderblom, G. J., de Witte, L. P., Scherer, M. J., & Craddock, G. (2002). Matching Person & Technology (MPT) assessment process. Technology & Disability, 14 (3), 125–132. Goodley, D. (2011). Disability studies: An interdisciplinary introduction . London: Sage. Government of Canada. (2011). Standard on web accessibility. Available at: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=23601 . Accessed 5 June 2015. Heidegger, M. (2009).Th e question concerning technology.In D. M. Kaplan (Ed.), Readings in the philosophy of technology ,(pp. 9–24).Lanham: Rowman& Littlefi eld. Illich, I., & Lang, A. (1973). Tools for conviviality . New York: Harper and Row. James, A. L., & Papsin, B. C. (2004). Cochlear implant surgery at 12 months of age or younger. Th e Laryngoscope, 114 (12), 2191–2195. Bibliography 241 Keller, H. (1905)(1954). Th e story of my life . Library of Alexandria. Kittel, A., Marco, A. D., & Stewart, H. (2002). Factors infl uencing the decision to abandon manual wheelchairs for three individuals with a spinal cord injury. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24 (1/2/3), 106–114. Kumari-Campbell, F. (2013). Ableism: A theory of everything . Presentation. University of Hamburg, Conferenced 6th–8th June 2013. Lányi, C. S., Brown, D. J., Standen, P., Lewis, J., & Butkute, V. (2012). Results of user interface evaluation of serious games for students with intellectual disability. Acta Polytechnica Hungarica, 9 (1), 225–245. Law, J., Bunning, K., Byng, S., Farrelly, S., & Heyman, B. (2005). Making sense in primary care: Levelling the playing fi eld for people with communication diffi culties. Disability and Society, 20 (2), 169–184. Marks, D. (1999). Disability: Controversial debates and psychosocial perspectives . London: Routledge. Marti, P., Giusti, L., & Rullo, A. (2009). Robots as social Mediators: Field trials with children with special needs. In P. L. Emliani, A. Burzagli, F. Como, F. Gabbanini, A. Salminen (Eds.), Assistive Technology for Adapted Equipment to Inclusive Environments, Proceedings of the AAATE , 165–169. Mendelsohn & Fox in Scherer, M. J. (2002). Assistive technology: Matching device and consumer for successful rehabilitation . Washington: American Psychological Association. Mitchell, D. T., & Snyder, S. L. (2000). Narrative prosthesis: Disability and the dependencies of discourse . Michigan: University of Michigan Press. Morrison, E., & Finkelstein, V. (1993). Broken arts and cultural repair: Th e role of culture in the empowerment of disabled people. In J. Swain, V. Finkelstein, S. French, & M. Oliver (Eds.), Disabling barriers, enabling environments (pp. 122–127). Neri, M. T., & Kroll, T. (2003). Understanding the consequences of access barriers to health care: Experiences of adults with disabilities. Disability and Rehabilitation, 25 (2), 85–96. ONS. (2015). Statistical bulletin: Internet users. Available at http://www.ons. gov.uk/ons/rel/rdit2/internet-users/2015/stb-ia-2015.html . Accessed 5 June 2015. Parr, S., Watson, N., & Woods, B. (2006). Access, agency and