There's a myth in academia that research is inherently only pure or applied. The reality is much more complex. Accessibility research in particular is sometimes dismissed because of a misunderstanding of this issue. Scientists will dismiss it as research because there is an obvious application and social application, leading folks to say "What you're doing is so great for people, but I just don't see how it's research." Accessibility folks who want to get new helpful technology out to users often criticize research as having no impact. As researchers, we should be striving for both -- only by releasing technology to at least a few users can we truly motivate our work, but we should always be pushing the boundaries of what is possible. And sometimes that means our work won't be developed to the point where it's appropriate to used by ordinary users for day-to-day activities. It's a delicate balance to make, but it's not an either-or situation.
This post was brought about because of an article in the New York Times today, discussing this trade-off in science in general:
For those who are interested, you might also read the excellent book Pasteur's Quadrant by Donald E. Stokes, which considers how this issue has evolved over the past few years.
Leave a comment