This article examines how normative assumptions about disability, family, and care perpetuate barriers to social services in cross-cultural contexts. It reports on an 8-month case study of how a county-sponsored, person-centered disability grant targeted but failed to meet the needs of Somali applicants. I identify four impasses that alienated applicants and demonstrated the grant's process relied on culture norms, including medical definitions of disability, institutional expertise, and normalization of self-sufficiency. I develop three recommendations for future technical communication and policy interventions. This study offers insights into how person-centered initiatives can engage the contexts and expertise of diverse users within institutional structures.
AgbokaG. Y. (2013).
Participatory localization: A social justice approach to navigating unenfranchised/disenfranchised cultural sites. Technical Communication Quarterly,
22(1), 28–49.
2.
AnnamalaiA. (2014). Culturally appropriate care. In Refugee health care (pp. 13–18). New York, NY: Springer.
3.
BeaufortA. (2000).
Learning the trade: A social apprenticeship model for gaining writing expertise. Written Communication,
17(2), 185–223.
4.
Bloom-PojarR. (2018). Translanguaging outside the academy: Negotiating rhetoric and healthcare in the Spanish Caribbean.
Urbana, IL:
Conference on College Composition and Communication/National Council of Teachers of English.
5.
BreuchL.BakkeA.Thomas-PolleiK.MackeyE.WeinertC. (2016).
Toward audience involvement: Extending audiences of written physician notes in a hospital setting. Written Communication,
33(4), 418–451.
6.
BrowningE.CagleL. (2017).
Teaching a “critical accessibility case study”: Developing disability studies curricula for the technical communication classroom. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication,
47(4), 440–463.
7.
DingH. (2014). Rhetoric of a global epidemic: Transcultural communication about SARS.
Carbondale, IL:
Southern University Press.
8.
EdbergM.ClearyS.VyasA. (2011).
A trajectory model for understanding and assessing health disparities in immigrant/refugee communities. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health,
13(3), 576–584.
9.
GonzalesL. (2018). Sites of translation: What multilinguals can teach us about digital writing and rhetoric.
Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan Press.
10.
GonzalesL.Bloom-PojarR. (2018).
A dialogue with medical interpreters about rhetoric, culture, and language. Rhetoric of Health and Medicine,
1(1), 193–212.
JackJ. (2014). Autism and gender: From refrigerator mothers to computer geeks.
Champaign, IL:
University of Illinois Press.
15.
MelonçonL. (2012). Rhetorical accessability: At the intersection of technical communication and disability studies.
Amityville, NY:
Baywood Publishing.
16.
MelonçonL. (2017).
Patient experience design: Expanding usability methodologies for healthcare. Communication Design Quarterly,
5(2), 20–28.
O’HaraK. (2004).
Curb cuts: On the information highway: Older adults and the Internet. Technical Communication Quarterly,
13(4), 426–445.
19.
PalmeriJ. (2006).
Disability studies, cultural analysis, and the critical practice of technical communication pedagogy. Technical Communication Quarterly,
15(1), 49–65.
20.
RayD. S.RayE. J. (1998).
Adaptive technologies for the visually impaired: The role of technical communicators. Technical Communication,
45, 573–579.
21.
RoseE. (2016).
Design as advocacy: Using a human-centered approach to investigate the needs of vulnerable populations. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication,
46(4), 427–445.
22.
RoseE.RacadioR.WongK.NguyenS.KimJ.ZahlerA. (2017).
Community-based user experience: Evaluating the usability of health insurance information with immigrant patients. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication,
60(2), 214–231.
23.
St.AmantK. (2017).
The cultural context of care in international communication design: A heuristic for addressing usability in international health and medical communication. Communication Design Quarterly Review,
5(2), 62–70.
24.
SunH. (2012). Cross-cultural technology design: Creating culture-sensitive technology for local users.
New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
WaltersS. (2010).
Toward an accessible pedagogy: Dis/ability, multimodality, and universal design in the technical communication classroom. Technical Communication Quarterly,
19(4), 427–454.
27.
WilsonJ. C. (2000).
Making disability visible: How disability studies might transform the medical and science writing classroom. Technical Communication Quarterly,
9(2), 149–161.
28.
ZdenekS. (2011).
Which sounds are significant?: Towards a rhetoric of closed captioning. Disability Studies Quarterly,
31(3). Retrieved from http://www.dsq-sds.org/article/view/1667/1604
