Content uploaded by Maureen Ann Linden
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Maureen Ann Linden on Dec 28, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Work 48 (2014) 65–67 65
DOI 10.3233/WOR-141857
IOS Press
Guest Editorial
Telework research and practice: Impacts on
people with disabilities
Maureen Linden
Center for Assistive Technology and Environmental Access, Georgia Institute of Technology, 490 10th Street, NW,
Atlanta, GA 30318, USA
Tel.: +1 404 894 0561; Fax: +1 404 894 9320; E-mail: Maureen.linden@coa.gatech.edu
1. Introduction
Advances in Information Communication Technolo-
gies (ICTs), particularly in the mobility of computing
power and virtual private networking (VPN) capabili-
ties, have provided unprecedented flexibility regarding
how and where work is performed. Employees, par-
ticularly those in knowledge-based jobs, are no longer
tethered to a specific location to complete work.
While technological advances provide the capac-
ity for work from remote locations, the motivations
for doing so are broad, encompassing legislated en-
vironmental considerations and perceived benefits to
the employer and employee alike. The 1990 Amend-
ments to the Clean Air Act mandated a 25% reduc-
tion in employee commutes for large organizations,
and similar trip reductions for major cities [1]. The
Clean Air Act did not specifically mandate telework
as a required form of trip reduction; however, its role
in reducing traffic and air pollution was explicitly de-
tailed in the National Telecommuting and Air Qual-
ity Act [2]. Among the employer benefits for telework
are the ability to recruit and retain talented employ-
ees, increase productivity, and reduce operation and
real estate expenses [3,4], while employee benefits in-
clude increased productivity, job satisfaction, and flex-
ibility [5–8].
Telework has been defined as the “practice of sub-
stituting communications and/or computer technology
for actual travel to work or a central office” [9].
This definition encompasses a broad range of work
practices, including: those who work solely from
home [9–15], those who work from home to sup-
plement other work modes [9–15], home-based or
self-employment [9,12,14], flexible workplaces [9,11],
work from community-based telework centers [9–11,
13,15], and work conducted while traveling [9–11].
While all of these work modes are considered to be
telework, there are inherent differences between them
and relative advantages to each of them, particularly to
individuals with disabilities.
Telework has the potential to facilitate employment
for people with disabilities by removing barriers pre-
sented in traditional work environments and replac-
ing the need to be physically at a specific location
with ICT [9]. This exchange removes architectural and
transportation barriers for those with physical, sen-
sory, and cognitive limitations by allowing them to
work in their home environment which, ideally, has
been optimized to their functional abilities [10,11,15].
Additionally, telework allows employees to control
their own schedules, thereby accommodating fatigue,
stamina, and pain-related barriers to traditional full-
time work [10,15,16]. It allows access to medically-
related personal care services during the workday [15,
16]. In many cases, these services are only covered by
insurance if they are provided in the home. Finally, it
is thought that telework may benefit employees with
disabilities by reducing disability-related bias and dis-
crimination [10].
1051-9815/14/$27.50 c
2014 – IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved
66 M. Linden / Guest Editorial
Despite the increase of telework among the general
population, and the relative benefits of telework for
people with disabilities, there has not been an increase
in employment for people with disabilities attributed
to telework. The U.S Department of Labor, Office of
Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) examined tele-
work practices of public and private sector employers,
finding that 80% had employees with disabilities and
23% had employees who telework, but only 8% had
employees with disabilities who telework [17].
Additional empirical information reveals that the
practice of telework, despite its potential for alleviating
barriers, falls short because of employers’ perspectives
and policies. The ODEP study found that only 25%
of employers had positions dedicated to telework. Of
these, almost half had policies requiring a probationary
period of on-site work,and 25% required the employee
to maintain an on-site work schedule while telework-
ing [17]. A related survey of 1200 “telework-friendly
employers” found that only 10% of them were willing
to hire new employees directly into telework roles [18],
preferring established employees with a known work
history to enter telework roles. These perspectives and
practices are not discriminatory, in that do not dif-
fer based on the employee’s disability status [17,18].
Rather, they create barriers to telework for those whose
disabilities make traditional work schedules and com-
muting difficult or impossible.
Unfortunately, telework may present other barriers
for individuals with disabilities. A study of work loca-
tion and accommodation use for individuals with dis-
abilities found that only 47% of those who telework re-
ported that it was an accommodation for their job. Of
those, three-quarters felt the accommodation was im-
portant to their job, but 43% were dissatisfied with tele-
work as a job accommodation[19]. These facts suggest
that individuals with disabilities have complex reasons
for teleworking, and that telework as a job accommo-
dation may not provide equivalent access to employ-
ment.
The apparent benefits of telework for those with
disabilities have not resulted in its adoption, nor do
those who have adopted it necessarily view it in a pos-
itive light. Additional data about telework practices in
general, and telework for individuals with disabilities
specifically, is necessary before we can begin to de-
termine how to best implement telework programs to
overcome barriers to employment for people with dis-
abilities in ways that encourage the adoption of tele-
work programs by employers and employees alike.
2. Special issue overview
This special issue is devoted to providing some of
the information necessary to achieve this goal. To do
so, it provides a cross-discipline examination of tele-
work, tapping into theory and research from manage-
ment and business arenas, disability research, disabil-
ity policy development, and the provision of vocational
rehabilitation services. The issue is arranged in 12 ar-
ticles. The first three provide theoretical and empirical
examination of the psycho-social impacts of telework
for a general population. Higgins, et al, examines the
differences in conflicts between work and family re-
sponsibilities between four work modes. Golden and
Watt discuss factors which would promote a telework
to seek help from co-workers when necessary. Finally,
Duxbury and Halinsky explain how telework changes
the perception of work and family role overload.
The next two articles examine telework practices as
accommodations for people with disabilities based on
emerging evidence. Moon, et al, updates an existing
model of telework practice based on new research stud-
ies, while McNaughton, et al, report on the results of
focus group discussions for teleworkers with complex
communication needs.
Four articles voice the experiences of individuals
with disabilities who are participating in telework.
Through a case study, Quinton details the experi-
ences of a woman who chose self-employment to over-
come attitudinal barriers which lead to underemploy-
ment. Berg and Balassa-Myracle narrate their individ-
ual journeys from traditional employment to business
owners. Finally, Gilman details a program successful
at creating employment opportunities for people with
disabilities.
References
[1] Clean air acts as ammended. Volume 42 U.S.C. §7401 et seq.
1990.
[2] National telecommuting and air quality act. Volume HR
2084/Public Law 106-69, Section 3651999.
[3] Garrett RK, Danziger JN. Which telework? Defining and test-
ing a taxonomy of technology-mediated work at a distance.
Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 2007; 25(1): 27-47.
[4] Martin B, McDonnel R. Is telework effective for organiza-
tions? Management Research Review 2012; 35(7): 602-616.
[5] Bailey DE, Kurland NB. A review of telework research: Find-
ings, new directions, and lessons for the study of modern
work. Journal of Organizational Behavior. Volume 23: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2002. p. 383.
[6] Dixon TL, Webster J. Family structure and the telecommuter’s
quality of life. IGI Global; 1998. p. 42-49.
M. Linden / Guest Editorial 67
[7] DuBrin AJ. Comparison of the job satisfaction and produc-
tivity of telecommuters versus in-house employees: A re-
search note on work in progress. Psychological Reports 1991;
68(3c): 1223-1234.
[8] Hill EJ, Miller BC, Weiner SP, Colihan JOE. Influences of
the virtual office on aspects of work and work/life balance.
Personnel Psychology 1998; 51(3): 667-683.
[9] Hesse BW. Curb cuts in the virtual community: Telework
and persons with disabilities. Proceedings of the 28th Annual
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences: IEEE;
1995. p. 418-424.
[10] Anderson J, Bricout JC, West MD. Telecommuting: Meeting
the needs of businesses and employees with disabilities. Jour-
nal of Vocational Rehabilitation 2001; 16: 97-104.
[11] Baker PMA, Moon NW, Ward AC. Virtual exclusion and tele-
work: Barriers and opportunities of technocentric workplace
accommodation policy. Work: A Journal of Prevention, As-
sessment and Rehabilitation 2006; 27(4): 421-430.
[12] Bricout JC, Baker PMA, Ward AC, Moon NW. Telework and
the disability divide. In: Ferro A, Dwivedi YK, Gil-Garcia JR,
Williams MD, editors. Handbook of research on overcoming
digital divides: Constructing an equitable and competitive in-
formation society Volume 1. Hershey, New York: Information
Science Reference; 2010. p. 155-178.
[13] Montreuil S, Lippel K. Telework and occupational health: A
quebec empirical study and regulatory implications. Safety
Science 2003; 41(4): 339-358.
[14] Schweitzer L, Duxbury L. Benchmarking the use of telework
arrangements in canada. Canadian Journal of Administrative
Sciences 2006; 23: 105-117.
[15] West MD, Anderson J. Telework and employees with disabil-
ities: Accommodation and funding options. Journal of Voca-
tional Rehabilitation 2005; 23: 115-122.
[16] Bricout JC. Using telework to enhance return to work out-
comes for individuals with spinal cord injuries. NeuroReha-
bilitation 2004; 19: 147-159.
[17] West MD, Davis AN, Salnick R, Runsa R. Telework/telecom-
muting pilot research project. In: U.S. Department of Labor –
Office of Disability Employment Policy, editor 2007.
[18] Anderson J, Douma F. Telework for workers with disabili-
ties pilot projects synthesis report. Minneapolis, MN: Office
of Disability Employment Policy, U.S. Department of Labor,
2009.
[19] Linden MA. Teleworkers with disabilities: Characteristics and
accommodation use. Work A Journal of Prevention, Assess-
ment, and Rehabilitation in press.
