Logo
ScienceStack
Table of Contents
Fetching ...
Sign In

"I Don't Trust Any Professional Research Tool": A Re-Imagination of Knowledge Production Workflows by, with, and for Blind and Low-Vision Researchers

Omar Khan, JooYoung Seo

TL;DR

This study investigates how blind and low-vision (BLV) researchers experience and navigate accessibility barriers across the full research workflow. Using an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design and activity theory as a lens, the authors document pervasive systemic obstacles, from literature reviews to manuscript submission, and reveal how BLV researchers rely on workarounds, AI, and collaboration—often at high hidden labor costs. The findings show that commercial tooling and evaluation norms entrench epistemic marginalization, and they propose actionable recommendations for tool developers, institutions, conferences, and publishers to adopt accessibility-first, participatory design, and justice-centered evaluation practices. The work emphasizes transforming research infrastructure toward universal design to enable autonomous participation and to realize epistemic justice for BLV scholars, with careful attention to AI-assisted tools and verification labor in scholarly practice.

Abstract

Research touts universal participation through accessibility initiatives, yet blind and low-vision (BLV) researchers face systematic exclusion as visual representations dominate modern research workflows. To materialize inclusive processes, we, as BLV researchers, examined how our peers combat inaccessible infrastructures. Through an explanatory sequential mixed-methods approach, we conducted a cross-sectional, observational survey (n=57) and follow-up semi-structured interviews (n=15), analyzing open-ended data using reflexive thematic analysis and framing findings through activity theory to highlight research's systemic shortcomings. We expose how BLV researchers sacrifice autonomy and shoulder physical burdens, with nearly one-fifth unable to independently perform literature review or evaluate visual outputs, delegating tasks to sighted colleagues or relying on AI-driven retrieval to circumvent fatigue. Researchers also voiced frustration with specialized tools, citing developers' performative responses and losing deserved professional accolades. We seek follow-through on research's promises through design recommendations that reconceptualize accessibility as fundamental to successful research and supporting BLV scholars' workflows.

"I Don't Trust Any Professional Research Tool": A Re-Imagination of Knowledge Production Workflows by, with, and for Blind and Low-Vision Researchers

TL;DR

This study investigates how blind and low-vision (BLV) researchers experience and navigate accessibility barriers across the full research workflow. Using an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design and activity theory as a lens, the authors document pervasive systemic obstacles, from literature reviews to manuscript submission, and reveal how BLV researchers rely on workarounds, AI, and collaboration—often at high hidden labor costs. The findings show that commercial tooling and evaluation norms entrench epistemic marginalization, and they propose actionable recommendations for tool developers, institutions, conferences, and publishers to adopt accessibility-first, participatory design, and justice-centered evaluation practices. The work emphasizes transforming research infrastructure toward universal design to enable autonomous participation and to realize epistemic justice for BLV scholars, with careful attention to AI-assisted tools and verification labor in scholarly practice.

Abstract

Research touts universal participation through accessibility initiatives, yet blind and low-vision (BLV) researchers face systematic exclusion as visual representations dominate modern research workflows. To materialize inclusive processes, we, as BLV researchers, examined how our peers combat inaccessible infrastructures. Through an explanatory sequential mixed-methods approach, we conducted a cross-sectional, observational survey (n=57) and follow-up semi-structured interviews (n=15), analyzing open-ended data using reflexive thematic analysis and framing findings through activity theory to highlight research's systemic shortcomings. We expose how BLV researchers sacrifice autonomy and shoulder physical burdens, with nearly one-fifth unable to independently perform literature review or evaluate visual outputs, delegating tasks to sighted colleagues or relying on AI-driven retrieval to circumvent fatigue. Researchers also voiced frustration with specialized tools, citing developers' performative responses and losing deserved professional accolades. We seek follow-through on research's promises through design recommendations that reconceptualize accessibility as fundamental to successful research and supporting BLV scholars' workflows.
Paper Structure (47 sections, 4 figures, 2 tables)

This paper contains 47 sections, 4 figures, 2 tables.

Table of Contents

  1. Introduction
  2. Related Work
  3. Theoretical Framework
  4. Systemic Barriers in Research Activity Systems
  5. Towards Re-Imagining Equitable Research Participation
  6. Methods
  7. Positionality and Reflexivity
  8. Participant Recruitment
  9. Survey Design
  10. Interview Design
  11. Data Collection
  12. Data Analysis
  13. Findings
  14. Research Tool Choices Among BLV Researchers (RQ1)
  15. Critical Access Barriers Manifesting Across Research Stages (RQ2)
  16. ...and 32 more sections

Figures (4)

  • Figure 1: Activity theory core constructs mapped to BLV researchers' workflows.
  • Figure 2: Distribution of tool usage among participants (n=57).
  • Figure 3: Distribution of tool Likert scale ratings among participants (n=57).
  • Figure 4: Mean accessibility challenge ratings among participants, from 1 being most inaccessible to 5 being most accessible (n=57).