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

Paper Title

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

Publication Info

• Topic area: Accessibility in research workflows for blind and low-vision (BLV) researchers.
• Keywords: Accessibility, blind researchers, low-vision researchers, research tools, systemic barriers, activity theory, inclusive design, knowledge production, assistive technology, workflows.

Background and Problem

• Problem / challenge: BLV researchers face systemic exclusion due to inaccessible research tools and workflows, limiting their ability to independently perform critical tasks such as literature review, data analysis, and manuscript preparation.
• Significance: Accessibility in research is essential for equitable participation and knowledge production, enabling diverse perspectives and methodological innovations.
• Motivation and related work: Previous studies have highlighted accessibility challenges in specific research steps but lack comprehensive analysis of BLV researchers' workflows and systemic barriers. This study builds on activity theory to examine these challenges holistically.

Solution

• Proposed approach: An explanatory sequential mixed-methods study combining surveys (n=57) and interviews (n=15) to document BLV researchers' experiences, barriers, and strategies across the research lifecycle.
• Novelty:
  1. Empirical documentation of accessibility barriers across research stages and tools.
  2. Systemic analysis of structural inequities in research ecosystems using activity theory.
  3. Actionable recommendations for tool developers, institutions, and research communities to foster equitable participation.
• Procedure and key techniques:
  • Surveys captured tool usage, accessibility challenges, and satisfaction ratings.
  • Semi-structured interviews provided deeper insights into workflows, adaptive strategies, and professional impacts.
  • Reflexive thematic analysis framed findings within activity theory, identifying contradictions between system components (tools, rules, community, etc.).

Results

• Concrete findings:
  • BLV researchers predominantly use general-purpose tools like Google Docs and Excel over specialized software due to accessibility failures.
  • Literature review tools and data analysis platforms are among the most inaccessible stages, with satisfaction ratings averaging 2.58/5 for data analysis tools.
  • Nearly 17% of participants delegate literature review tasks to sighted colleagues or rely on AI-driven retrieval.
• Advantage over baselines: The study identifies systemic barriers beyond individual tool failures, emphasizing structural contradictions in research ecosystems that exclude BLV researchers.
• Experiments / evaluation:
  • Quantitative survey data identified high-barrier stages and tools.
  • Qualitative interviews explored adaptive strategies, hidden labor, and professional impacts.
  • Activity theory provided a systemic lens to analyze cascading contradictions.
• Limitations and future work:
  • Limited participant diversity and cross-sectional design may not capture longitudinal changes or discipline-specific challenges.
  • Future studies should investigate accessibility in physical research environments and across other disabilities.

Summary

This study reveals pervasive accessibility barriers faced by BLV researchers across the research lifecycle, driven by systemic contradictions in tools, institutional practices, and evaluation standards. Using activity theory, the authors highlight how inaccessible tools and workflows reshape BLV researchers' methodologies, collaborations, and career trajectories. Participants developed creative workarounds, such as leveraging AI and redistributing tasks, but these adaptations often come at significant costs. The study advocates for universal design principles, institutional support, and reimagined evaluation criteria to enable equitable participation in knowledge production.