The measure Supported Employment (SE) and digitalization offer people with disabilities increased opportunities for participation in working life. Different technology acceptance models such as the TAM or UTAUT indicate that whether a technology is used or not crucially depends on various factors such as the perceived usefulness or perceived ease of use of a technology.
OBJECTIVE:
This study aims to investigate factors influencing the acceptance of digital technologies in the measure SE. Risks and opportunities for people with disabilities are examined.
METHODS:
The data basis consists of 16 qualitative guided interviews with job coaches and clients. The data evaluation is carried out by means of qualitative content analysis.
RESULTS:
In line with the TAM and the UTAUT, six main factors could be identified as relevant for the acceptance of digital technologies in the measure SE: perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, attitudes toward using, social influence, facilitating conditions, and individual factors seem to influence the actual use of technologies. The interviews show opportunities such as increased participation of people with disabilities in working life through technologies, but also risks such as the exclusion of older or less experienced people.
CONCLUSION:
Factors from technology acceptance research also apply in SE and must be recognized before introducing new technologies.
Bauman,Z., Lyon,D. (2013) Liquid Surveillance. A Conversation. Polity Press.
4.
Biermann,H. (2015). Berufliche Teilhabe – Anspruch und Realität. [Professional participation – claim and reality] In H.Biermann (Ed.), Inklusion im Beruf [Inclusion in the profession] (pp. 17–56). Verlag W. Kohlhammer.
5.
Bond,G. R., Drake,R. E., Becker,D. R. (2012). Generalizability of the Individual Placement and Support (IPS) model of supported employment outside the US. World Psychiatry, 11(1), 32–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wpsyc.2012.01.005.
6.
Bonin, H., Gregory, T., & Zierahn, U. (2015) Übertragung der Studie von Frey/Osborne (2013) auf Deutschland: Endbericht. [Transfer of the Frey/Osborne (2013) study to Germany: Final report] Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales; Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung (ZEW) GmbH. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-47125-8.
7.
Bosse,I., Haage,A. (2020) Digitalisierung in der Behindertenhilfe. [Digitalization in disability care] In N.Kutscher, T.Ley, U.Seelmeyer, F.Siller, A.Tillmann, & I.Zorn (Eds.), Handbuch Soziale Arbeit und Digitalisierung (pp. 529–539). Beltz Juventa
Damianidou,D., Arthur-Kelly,M., Lyons,G., Wehmeyer,M. L. (2019). Technology use to support employment-related outcomes for people with intellectual and developmental disability: An updated meta-analysis. International Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 65(4), 220–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/20473869.2018.1439819.
10.
Davis,F. D. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and resultsDoctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Insitute of Technology].
11.
Davis,F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008.
12.
Davis,F. D., Bagozzi,R. P., Warshaw,P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982.
13.
Dengler, K., & Matthes, B. (2021) Folgen des technologischen Wandels für den Arbeitsmarkt: Auch komplexere Tätigkeiten könnten zunehmend automatisiert werden. (IAB-Kurzbericht 13/2021) [Consequences of technological change for the labor market: More complex activities could also be increasingly automated (IAB Short Report 13/2021)]. Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung. http://doku.iab.de/kurzber/2021/kb2021-13.pdf.
14.
Dirks,S., Bühler,C. (2018). Assistive technologies for people with cognitive impairments: Which factors influence technology acceptance? In M.Antona & C.Stephanidis (Eds.), Lecture notes in computer science: Vol. 10907. Universal access in human-computer interaction: Methods, technologies, and users (pp. 503–516). Springer International Publishing.
15.
Droegemueller,B., Mielke,C., Haux,R., Diehl,A. (2020). Acceptance study on the usage of health-enabling technologies in therapy and diagnostics for people with mental disorders. In A.Värri, J.Delgado, P.Gallos, Hägglund, M., Härinen, K., U.-M.Kinnunen, L.Pape-Haugaard, L.-M.Peltronen, K.Saranto, & P.Scott (Eds.), Integrated citizen centered digital health andsocial care: Citizens as data producers and service co-creators (pp. 57–61). IOS Press. https://doi.org/10.3233/SHTI200694.
16.
Engels, D. (2016) Chancen und Risiken der Digitalisierung der Arbeitswelt für die Beschäftigung von Menschen mit Behinderung: Forschungsbericht 467. [Opportunities and risks of the digitalization of the world of work for the employment of people with disabilities: Research report 467] Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales; Institut für Sozialforschung und Gesellschaftspolitik GmbH. https://www.bmas.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/PDF-Publikationen/Forschungsberichte/fb-467-digitalisierung-behinderung.pdf;jsessionid=E03A38880E3D346E90271488E684155D?__blob=publicationFile&v=3.
17.
Fishbein,M., Ajzen,I. (1975), Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley.
18.
Gessl,A. S., Schlögl,S., Mevenkamp,N. (2019). On theperceptions and acceptance of artificially intelligent robotics andthe psychology of the future elderly. Behaviour & Information Technology, 38(11), 1068–1087. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2019.1566499.
19.
Gillitzer,S., Thienel,C., Duda,A., Renner,J., Hornberg,C. (2023). Partizipative Forschung mit Menschen mit Behinderungen: Ein Beispiel für die Umsetzung partizipativer Gesundheitsforschung in Werkstätten für behinderte Menschen (WfbM) [Participatory research with people with disabilities: An example of implementing participatory health research in workshops for people with disabilities]. Prävention und Gesundheitsförderung, 18, 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11553-021-00928-8.
20.
Hartwick,J., Barki,H. (1994). Explaining the role of user participation in information system use. Management Science, 40(4), 440–465.
21.
Jackson,C. M., Chow,S., Leitch,R. A. (1997). Toward an understanding of the behavioral intention to use an information system. Decision Sciences, 28(2), 357–389. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1997.tb01315.x.
22.
Jochmaring,J., York,J. (2023). Inclusion opportunities of work. 4.0? Employment realities of people with disabilities in Germany, Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 25(1), 29–44. https://doi.org/10.16993/sjdr.896.
23.
Jockisch,M. (2010). Das Technologieakzeptanzmodell [The technology acceptance model]. In G.Bandow & H. H.“Holzmüller (Eds.),Das ist gar kein Modell¡ “ [“That’s not a model at all!”] (pp. 233–254). Gabler. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-8349-8484-5_11.
24.
Kreidenwels,H. (2018). Digitalisierung ändert nichts –außer alles: Chancen und Risiken für Einrichtungen der Behindertenhilfe [Digitization changes nothing – except everything: Opportunities and risks for facilities in disability care]. Teilhabe, 57(3), 122–125.
Kunzendorf,M. (2019) Berufsfeld Arbeit/ Beruf [Occupational field work/occupation]. In I.Bosse, J.-R.Schluchter, & I. .Zorn (Eds.), Handbuch Inklusion und Medienbildung [Handbook Inclusion and Media Education] (pp. 146–156). Beltz Juventa.
27.
Kutscher,N. (2020) Ethische Fragen Sozialer Arbeit im Kontext von Digitalisierung [Ethical issues of social work in the context of digitalization]. In N.Kutscher, T.Ley, U.Seelmeyer, F.Siller, A.Tillmann, & I.Zorn (Eds.), Handbuch Soziale Arbeit und Digitalisierung [Handbook social work and digitalization] (pp. 347–361). Beltz Juventa.
28.
Llorens,R., Noé,E., Ferri,J., Alcañiz,M. (2015). Videogame-based group therapy to improve self-awareness and socialskills after traumatic brain injury. Journal of NeuroEngineering & Rehabilitation, 12, 37. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-015-0029-1.
29.
Lord,S. E., McGurk,S. R., Nicholson,J., Carpenter-Song,E. A., Tauscher,J. S., Becker,D. R., Swanson,S. J., Drake,R. E., Bond,G. R. (2014). The potential of technology for enhancing individual placement and support supported employment. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 37(2), 99–106. https://doi.org/10.1037/prj0000070.
30.
Marshall,T., Goldberg,R. W., Braude,L., Dougherty,R. H., Daniels,A. S., Ghose,S. S., George,P., Delphin-Rittmon,M. E. (2014). Supported Employment: Assessing the evidence. Psychiatric Services, 65(1), 16–23. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201300262.
31.
Mattern,L. (2019). Unterstützte Beschäftigung als Instrument zur Umsetzung inklusiver Arbeit: Gelingensbedingungen aus Sicht von Arbeitgebern [Supported employment as a tool forimplementing inclusive work: conditions for success from theperspective of employers]. Diskussionsforum Rehabilitations- Und Teilhaberecht, D19–2019.
32.
Oschmiansky,F., Kaps,P. (2019). Was das Konzept der Unterstützten Beschäftigung leistet [What the concept of Supported Employment does]. WSI-Mitteilungen, 72(5), 373–381. https://doi.org/10.5771/0342-300X-2019-5-373.
33.
Oschmiansky, F., Kaps, P., Kowalczyk, K. (2018) Unterstützte Beschäftigung: Instrument der Wiedereingliederung und zum Erhalt der Beschäftigungsfähigkeit. (Working Paper Forschungsförderung, No. 061) [Supported employment: Instrument for reintegration and maintaining employability (Working paper research funding)]. Hans-Böckler-Stiftung. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:101:1-2018040415820.
34.
Petrie,H., Carmien,S., Lewis,A. (2018) Assistive technology abandonment: Research realities and potentials. In K.Miesenberger & G.Kouroupetroglou (Eds.), Lecture notes in computer science: Vol. 10897. Computers Helping People with Special Needs (pp. 532–540). Springer International Publishing.
35.
Quenzel,G., Hurrelmann,K. (2019). Ursachen und Folgen von Bildungsarmut [Causes and consequences of educational poverty]. In G.Quenzel & K.Hurrelmann (Eds.), Handbuch Bildungsarmut [Handbook Educational Poverty] (pp. 3–28). Springer VS.
36.
Remmers, P. (2018) Mensch-Roboter-Interaktion: Philosophische und ethische Perspektiven [Human-robot interaction: Philosophical and ethical perspectives.]. Logos Verlag .
37.
Revermann, C., Gerlinger, K., (2009) Chancen und Perspektiven behinderungskompensierender Technologien am Arbeitsplatz. Endbericht zum TA-Projekt (Arbeitsbericht Nr. 129) [Opportunities and prospects for disability-compensating technologies in the workplace. Final report on the TA project (Working report no. 129)]. https://doi.org/10.5445/IR/1000103513.
38.
Robey,D. (1979). User attitudes and management information system use. Academy of Management Journal, 22(3), 527–538. https://doi.org/10.5465/255742.
39.
Schallenkammer,N. (2016) Offene Leitfadeninterviews im Kontext sogenannter geistiger Behinderung [Open-ended guided interviews in the context of so-called mental disability]. In D.Katzenbach (Ed.), Qualitative Forschungsmethoden in der Sonderpädagogik [Qualitative research methods in special education] (pp. 45–55). Kohlhammer Verlag.
Seils, E., Baumann, H. (2019) Trends und Verbreitung atypischer Beschäftigung: Eine Auswertung regionaler Daten. (Policy Brief WSI, Nr. 34) [Trends and prevalence of atypical employment: An analysis of regional data. (Policy Brief WSI, No. 34)]. Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliches Institut. https://www.boeckler.de/pdf/p_wsi_pb_34_2019.pdf.
42.
Silva Farias,J., MesquitaResende, M. (2020). Impact of training on the implementation of a new electronic system and acceptance of new technologies in a federal institution of higher education. Revista De Administração Da UFSM, 13(4), 773–791. https://doi.org/10.5902/1983465932624.
43.
Vaezipour,A., Aldridge,D., Koenig,S., Theodoros,D., Russell,T. (2021). It’s really exciting to think where it could go”: A mixed-method investigation of clinician acceptance, barriers and enablers of virtual reality technology in communication rehabilitation. Disability and Rehabilitation, 44(15), 3946–3958. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2021.1895333.
44.
Vaezipour,A., Whelan,B. M., Wall,K., Theodoros,D. (2019). Acceptance of rehabilitation technology in adults with moderate tosevere traumatic brain injury, their caregivers, and healthcareprofessionals: A systematic review. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 34(4), E67–E82. https://doi.org/10.1097/HTR.0000000000000462.
Venkatesh,V., Davis,F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.
47.
Venkatesh,V., Morris,M. G., Davis,F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS
Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540.
48.
Venkatesh,V., Thong,J. Y. L., Xu,X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412.
49.
Weller,S. I. (2020) Substituierbarkeitspotenziale von Berufen bei Beschäftigung mit Behinderung [Substitutability potential of occupations in employment with disability]. In B.Ziegler & R.Tenberg (Eds.), Berichte zur beruflichen Bildung. Berufsbildung 4.0: Steht die berufliche Bildung vor einem Umbruch? [Reports on vocational education. Vocational education 4.0: Is vocational education on the verge of an upheaval?] (pp. 110–127). Verlag Barbara Budrich.
50.
Yousafzai,S. Y., Foxall,G. R., Pallister,J. G. (2007). Technology acceptance: A meta-analysis of the TAM: Part 1, Journal of Modelling in Management, 2(3), 251–280. https://doi.org/10.1108/17465660710834453.
