University of South Florida Scholar Commons Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate School 2014 (Dis)Abled Gaming: An Autoethnographic Analysis of Decreasing Accessibility For Disabled Gamers Kyle David Romano University of South Florida, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at:https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd Part of theCommunication Commons Scholar Commons Citation Romano, Kyle David, "(Dis)Abled Gaming: An Autoethnographic Analysis of Decreasing Accessibility For Disabled Gamers" (2014). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/5575 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please [email protected]. (Dis)Abled  Gaming:  An  Autoethnographic  Analysis  of  Decreasing  Accessibility  For   Disabled  Gamers     by     Kyle  Romano       A  thesis  submitted  in  partial  fulfillment   of  the  requirements  for  the  degree  of   Master  of  Arts   Department  of  Communication   College  of  Arts  and  Sciences   University  of  South  Florida     Major  Professor:  Ambar  Basu,  Ph.D.   Mahuya  Pal,  Ph.D.   Sara  Green,  Ph.D.     Date  of  Approval:       Keywords:  disability,  accessibility,  video  games,  autoethnography,  communication,   body   Copyright © 2014, Kyle Romano Table  of  Contents     Abstract    ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………  ii     I.  Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………...1     II.  Literature  Review………………………………………………………………………………………….....2   A. Critically  Defining  Disability……………………………………………………………………..2   B. What  is  Accessibility?...............................................................................................................4   C. How  To  Make  Gaming  Accessible……………………………………………………………...7     III.  Methodology/Methods………………………………………………………………………………….12   A. Autoethnography  As  Theory…………………………………………………………………….12   B. Critical  Disability  Theory………………………………………………………………………....13     IV.  Findings  and  Discussion………………………………………………………………………………...15   A. Framing  the  Disabled  Gamer:  Interactions  with  Assumptions  About  the   Disabled  Body……………………………………………………………………………..…15   B. Game  Over?  The  Frustrations  of  Gaming  with  a  Disability………………..30   C. Challenger  Approaching………………………………………………………………...…40     V.  Review……………………………………………………………………………………………………….…..46     VI.  Theoretical  Contributions...……………………………………………………………………………52     References…………………………………………………………………………………………………………57   i Abstract   Within  the  context  of  culture,  disability  has  long  existed  as  a  stigmatizing  quality   (Goffman,  1963).  As  a  result,  people  with  disabilities  are  often  overlooked  or   completely  omitted  from  various,  cultural  artifacts.  This  exclusion  of  people  with   disabilities  is  largely  recognized  as  unproblematic  because  their  disabilities  imply   an  inevitable  failing.  Through  my  own  experiences  as  a  disabled  gamer,  I  have   recognized  that  video  games  have  also  framed  gamers  with  disabilities  as   problematic.  Video  games  are  largely  constructed  in  a  one-­‐size-­‐fits-­‐all  mentality   (Grammenos,  2014),  where  very  specific  people,  with  very  specific  kinds  of  bodies,   are  granted  access  to  play  them.  Since  disabled  gamers  are  not  necessarily  capable   of  playing  video  games  in  similar  ways  that  able-­‐bodied  gamers  can,  it  is  assumed   that  we  can’t  play  video  games  and  that  we  shouldn’t  want  to.  By  using   autoethnography  as  theory,  I  venture  through  a  few  stories  from  my  life  in  which  my   own  disability  has  rendered  gaming  either  difficult  or  impossible.  I  seek  to  use  these   autoethnographic  pieces  as  living  examples  of  the  problems  involved  with  a   traditional  discussion  of  accessibility  for  people  with  disabilities.  This  thesis  is  a  call   for  a  renegotiation  of  “accessibility,”  and  how  generalized  formulations  of  this   concept  are  still  capable  of  excluding  people  who  are  disabled  in  very  particular   ways.  In  accordance  with  Shakespeare’s  (2006)  interactive  model,  I  use  my  stories   to  show  how  my  disability  is  a  culmination  of  both  the  material  and  social  qualities     ii of  my  body.  It  is  from  this  model  that  I  seek  transcendence  from  thinking  of  disabled   bodies  in  either  a  medical  or  social  model  (Oliver,  1990)  approach.  Accessibility   should  be  regarded  as  an  interactive  and  cyclical  process,  which  takes  place   between  the  individual,  her  body,  the  environment,  and  back  again.  An  assessment   of  video  game  accessibility  should  be  referred  to  in  a  similar  way,  where  developers   may  attempt  to  be  inclusive  to  people  of  varying  kinds  and  levels  of  disability,  rather   than  focusing  solely  on  able-­‐bodied  modes  of  gaming.   iii Introduction       In  my  lived  experiences  as  a  physically  disabled  individual,  I  am  hard-­‐ pressed  to  find  ways  of  engaging  with  an  increasingly  able-­‐bodied  world.  In  my   academic  endeavors,  I  struggle  to  convey  disabled  hardships  to  an  audience   dominated  by  able-­‐  bodied  scholars.  Through  Critical  Communication  Theory  and   Critical  Disability  Theory,  I  present  this  project  as  an  autoethnographic  endeavor  to   bridge  the  gap  between  these  theoretical  frameworks  and  my  lived  experiences  as  a   disabled  gamer.  According  to  Adams  and  Holman  Jones  (2008):  “Autoethnography,   whether  a  practice,  a  writing  form,  or  a  particular  perspective  on  knowledge  and   scholarship,  hinges  on  the  push  and  pull  between  and  among  analysis  and  evocation,   personal  experience  and  larger  social,  cultural,  and  political  concerns”  (p.  374).       My  own  identity  as  a  person  with  a  physical  disability  has  been  greatly   impacted  by  an  ability  to  engage  with  video  games.  Growing  up,  my  able-­‐bodied   friends  helped  figure  out  ways  that  I  could  play  sports  with  them.  Though  this  gave   me  access  to  participate  in  physical  activity  with  other  children  who  weren’t   disabled,  it  became  blatantly  apparent  that  I  wouldn’t  excel  at  an  able-­‐bodied  form   of  football,  basketball,  or  street  hockey.  Video  games  always  served  as  a  leveling   ground  between  my  friends  and  myself.       Because  it  was  such  an  easy  transition  from  the  joystick  that  I  used  to   maneuver  my  power  wheel  chair,  my  life  as  a  gamer  began  through  the  medium  of     1 an  arcade  stick-­‐styled  controller  for  the  original  Nintendo  Entertainment   System.  Since  this  time,  technology  has  advanced  in  ways  that  I  never  thought   possible.  While  modern  technology  has  granted  disabled  people  the  ability  to   increase  our  independence  through  engaging  in  activities  such  as  driving,  it  has   done  the  opposite  for  those  of  us  who  identify  ourselves  as  disabled  gamers.  By   implementing  technologies  such  as  motion  control  into  gaming,  gamers  with   mobility  disabilities  such  as  myself  find  it  difficult  if  not  impossible  to  connect  with   video  games.  Coupled  with  a  frequent  unwillingness  by  developers  to  allow  for   gamers  to  customize  the  actions  designated  to  specific  buttons  on  controllers,   referred  to  as  “button  remapping,”  the  gamer  is  required  to  have  a  very  precise   definition  of  dexterity  and  mobility.  In  this  fashion,  the  disabled  gamer  is  either   forced  to  experience  gaming  through  a  very  specific  kind  of  medium,  or  to  forego   gaming  altogether.  Modern  video  game  developers  are  pushing  their  consumers  to   experience  gaming  in  a  rigid  space  that  disabled  individuals  are  losing  access  to.       I  will  give  a  few  accounts  of  my  own  experiences  as  a  disabled  gamer  to  show   how  an  ableist  ideology  has  influenced  the  way  that  video  games  are  constructed.   My  stories  serve  as  examples  of  a  privilege  afforded  to  able-­‐bodied  gamers,  which   disabled  gamers  do  not  have  access  to.  Through  experiencing  limitations  in   interacting  with  modern  video  games,  it  has  become  apparent  to  me  that  the  voices   of  disabled  gamers  often  go  unheard.  By  telling  of  my  own  interaction  with  video   games,  I  hope  to  show  how  a  pervasive,  able-­‐body  ideology  has  begun  to  push   disabled  gamers  away  from  engaging  with  video  games,  an  activity  that  was  more   accessible  in  the  past  than  it  is  now.   1 Literature  Review   A.  Critically  Defining  Disability       With  the  passage  of  the  Americans  With  Disabilities  Act  (ADA)  on  July  26,   1990,  the  United  States  sought  to  offer  its  disabled  citizens  equal  opportunity  and   accessibility  in  the  work  place  and  other  public  arenas.  Following  many  civil  rights   movements  for  the  rights  of  disabled  people  in  the  U.S.  and  overseas,  the  era  hailed   disabled  people  to  the  public  sphere.  What  we  have  learned  from  events  leading  up   to  the  movement,  the  movement  itself,  and  the  aftermath  of  this  struggle,  is  that  a   stigma  still  exists  that  inextricably  binds  debilitating  impairment  to  disabled  people,   where  the  impairment  becomes  a  totalizing  quality  of  the  disabled  person’s  identity.   According  to  Erving  Goffman  (1963),  the  stigmatization  of  a  person  occurs  as  an   indication  of  his  or  her  inability  to  conform  to  societal  expectations  and  rules.   Goffman  notes:  “He  [or  she]  is  thus  reduced  in  our  minds  from  a  whole  and  usual   person  to  a  tainted,  discounted  one.  Such  an  attribute  is  a  stigma,  especially  when  its   discrediting  effect  is  very  extensive;  sometimes  it  is  also  called  a  failing,  a   shortcoming,  a  handicap”  (p.  3).  For  the  individual  living  with  a  stigma  placed  upon   her  by  society,  engaging  with  non-­‐stigmatized  members  of  society  becomes  taxing,   as  it  often  both  draws  attention  toward  the  stigmatized  individual’s  stigmatizing   quality,  and  as  a  justification  for  treating  a  stigmatized  individual  differently  (Ellis,   1998).       2 In  an  attempt  to  push  back  against  a  medicalized  stigmatization  of  disabled   people,  sociologist  Michael  Oliver  (1990)  created  a  social  model  of  disability.  Oliver   posits  that  disability  is  not  simply  defined  on  an  individual  or  medical  level.  He   claims  that  disability  should  not  be  defined  by  individual  and  biological  limitations   and  instead  should  function  as  an  entity  created  through  societal  interaction.  He   states:  “A  social  theory  of  disability,  however,  must  be  located  within  the  experience   of  disabled  people  themselves  and  their  attempts,  not  only  to  redefine  disability  but   also  to  construct  a  political  movement  amongst  themselves  and  to  develop  services   commensurate  with  their  own,  self-­‐defined  needs”  (p.  11).  This  social  model  of   disability  offered  law  makers  a  rationale  for  recognizing  the  disabled  as  a  group  of   people  who  were  politically  and  socially  disenfranchised  by  their  government.       Since  Oliver  posited  his  social  model,  scholars  have  begun  to  unearth  the   implications  behind  assessing  the  disabled  experience  from  an  exclusively  societal   perspective.  Currently,  important  work  conducted  in  disability  studies  is  engaged   with  expounding  upon  the  social  model  of  disability,  where  the  social,  medical,  and   individual  qualities  of  disabled  people’s  lives  are  regarded  as  inextricably   interconnected  (Barnes,  2012;  Davis,  2006;  Linton,  2006;  McMahan,  2005;  Priestly,   2003;  Shakespeare,  2006;  Siebers,  2006).  Shakespeare  (2006)  explains  that  a   proper  model  of  disability  places  these  three  aspects  of  the  disabled  person’s   identity  in  interaction  with  each  other.  This  interactive  model  of  disability  is   instructive  to  critiquing  the  accessibility  of  gaming  because  it  allows  for  us  to  look  at   accessibility  as  a  complicated  process  that  takes  place  between  the  gamer,  her   physical  limitations,  and  how  her  experience  with  gaming  has  an  impact  on  society     3 as  whole.   B.  What  is  Accessibility?       Before  I  can  discuss  the  resources  that  developers  have  at  their  disposal   toward  creating  a  more  accessible  environment  for  disabled  and  able-­‐bodied   gamers  alike,  I  must  first  address  the  problems  involved  in  creating  such  a  space.   What  exactly  is  accessibility?  If  we  were  to  ask  a  scholar  such  as  Oliver  (1990),  it   would  be  very  easy  to  assume  that  he  would  take  up  an  argument  stating  how   accessibility  for  disabled  individuals  entails  a  type  of  universal  access  in  which  all   structures  should  be  simultaneously  accessible  to  people  who  have  varying  levels  of   physical,  cognitive,  and/or  developmental  disabilities.  Wendell  (1996)  would  be   quick  to  defend  this  sentiment,  echoing  that  the  environment  is  responsible  for   disabling  individuals:  “Thus,  disability  is  socially  constructed  through  the  failure  or   unwillingness  to  create  ability  among  people  who  do  not  fit  the  physical  and  mental   profile  of  ‘paradigm’  citizens”  (p.  41).  Is  it  access  to  a  particular  environment  that   creates  disability,  is  the  issue  of  accessibility  tied  to  a  very  individual  interpretation   of  what  it  means  to  be  disabled,  or  are  these  inquiries  connected?       As  I  have  shown,  disability  is  best  described  as  only  a  part  of  a  person’s   identity,  interconnected  with  many  other  qualities  that  define  who  she  is.  If   disability  is  such  a  complicated  piece  of  a  person’s  identity,  then  what  are  we  to   make  of  the  disabled  body  and  its  relation  to  accessibility?  The  disabled  body  is   what  Ian  Hacking  (1999)  would  describe  as  an  “interactive  kind.”  For  instance,   because  a  particular  building  may  only  have  stairs  leading  to  its  entrance,  it  may  be   impossible  for  a  quadriplegic  man,  who  utilizes  a  power  wheel  chair  to  compensate     4