“Models of disability provide a framework for understanding the way in which people with impairments experience disability. They also provide a reference for society as laws, regulations and structures are developed that impact on the lives of disabled people. There are two main models that have influenced modern thinking about disability: the medical model and the social model.” (Open University, 2006) According to Thoreau (2006), the often criticized medical model defines disability as sickness or impairment and a deviation from normality. Thoreau stated that the social model is defined by the barriers, mental and social, imposed by a nondisabled society on people with disability. These barriers limit or remove the opportunity for community and often lead to oppression (Bowker & Tuffin, 2002), particularly for people with disabilities for whom the presence of a disability can be largely undetectable. People with visible disabilities (those that can be seen), are often marginalized and undervalued in society (Bowker & Tuffin, 2007), and those who live with autism and other cognitive disorders suffer additionally from a lack of awareness on the part of people unfamiliar with such disorders. Individuals develop schemas through observation which can result in social stigmatization for people with disabilities (Goffman, 1986). However, in computer mediated environments people with disabilities have the opportunity to “level the playing field” by controlling the image that is “viewed” (Bowker & Tuffin, 2003), potentially nullifying the impact of the schema. Participating in these environments can offer people with disabilities the opportunity to escape from the isolation and stigma frequently associated with disability (Dobransky & Hargittai, 2006). By operating in a medium where visual perceptions are not the primary element, physical disabilities can be masked leading to what Bowker and Tuffin described as a “more positive, socially valued identity” (p. 64). However, prej udices are not removed by computer mediated environments. In fact, the “level playing field” provided by the lack of visual cues creates an option for people with visible disabilities that they are not afforded in “real world” situations. Instead, in the computer mediated environment, people with disabilities have the option or choice of whether or not to disclose their disability. This choice can either mitigate much of the prejudice or can put situational control into the hands of people with disabilities. This led us to our first research question:
RQ1. Do people with disabilities identify as disabled in Second Life?
Computer mediated environments offer people with disability the capacity to represent their identity based on personal choice, independent of any actual physical characteristics, and thus the ability to counter the potentially negative schemas they face. In a discourse analysis study, Thoreau (2006) found that people with disability tended to represent themselves as disabled through the use of humor and irony using both nonmedical and generic descriptors. Therefore the decision to disclose the presence or absence of disability is controlled by the individual and is only considered relevant when it is specific to the context of the conversation (Bowker & Tuffin, 2002). Bowker and Tuffin added that removal of the conceptual presence of disability was seen as positive by respondents who indicated a greater level of acceptance after disclosing a disability, likely due to the absence of visual cues in computer mediated environments. By operating in an anonymous environment, these respondents are able to experience an identity that offered a level of “able bodied-ness” and acceptance not experienced outside of computer mediated environments.
Although there is some literature on the characteristics of participation of people with disabilities in online settings (see for instance: Curran, et. al. (2007)) very little extant literature explores the actual characteristics of individuals with disabilities online. In attempting to provide context and some degree oflinkage with the “real” (i. e. “non-virtual world”) we draw upon Cardinali & Gordon (2001) for analogous statistics. They note that much of the prior research regarding gender and disability has focused on males in both disability studies as well as feminist studies (Cardinali & Gordon). Cardinali and Gordon also provided the following statistics:
• Men with disabilities are nearly twice as likely to have jobs as women with disabilities
• 42% of men with disabilities are in the labor force but only 24% of women with disabilities
• 12% of women with disabilities have full time employment as opposed to 30% of men with disabilities
• Women with disabilities who are employed full time earn 56% of what full time employed men with disabilities earn.
In the absence of a robust “census” of people with disabilities online, we suggest the statistics above as a surrogate for online participation. This gap in the research only serves to highlight the need to level the playing field through computer mediated environments. Further research is clearly needed to not only understand the role of computer mediated environments as the great equalizer, but to find ways to translate that into opportunities for women with disabilities in the physical world.