Aculturation

**Effects of Acculturation on Assistive Technology Service Delivery**
Howard P. Parette Illinois State University Mary Blake Huer California State University-Fullerton Marcia Scherer University of Rochester Medical Center

//Abstract - Effects of Acculturation// This article offers a process for understanding the concept of acculturation within the context of assistive technology (AT) decision-making. Encouraging professionals to consider the influence from extent of acculturation on AT service delivery, the authors provide two types of information: academic discussions of topics such as the processes of assimilation, integration, separation, and/or marginalization, and personal stories from immigrant families and families within varying socioeconomic levels. Several different dimensions which may have a mediating influence on acculturation are integrated into the discussion of the necessity for more effective partnering with family members whose children have disabilities. Conclusions drawn should enable professionals to discover more appropriate solutions for and selection of AT devices from a broader culturally sensitive perspective.

Given the increasing number of students with disabilities from diverse cultural backgrounds who are being served in special education settings (Harry, 1992), professionals have begun to focus attention on processes and strategies for ensuring culturally sensitive assistive technology (AT) decision-making (Parette, Huer, & VanBiervliet, in press; Vanbiervliet & Parette, 1999). In the past seven years, numerous individuals have discussed the impact of culture on AT decision-making (Hourcade, Parette, & Huer, 1997; Parette, 1998; Soto, 2000; Soto, Huer, & Taylor, 1997). Culture has been defined as a common set of beliefs, values, behaviors, and communication patterns that are shared by a particular group of people and learned as a function of social membership (Soto, 1994; Soto et al., 1997). It has also been described as a lens through which individuals see themselves in relation to others and the world (Battle, 1993; Soto et al., 1997). Culture exerts a strong influence on the way in which professionals behave toward family members in educational processes, and also affects the manner in which family members perceive and respond to professionals (Misra, 1994). Inherent in AT decision-making is the assumption that partnerships between professionals, family members, and the user are desirable to most effectively identify appropriate AT solutions for use by students with disabilities (Lahm & Sizemore, 2002; Parette, VanBiervliet, & Hourcade, 2000).

These partnerships in making decisions about AT solutions include consideration being given to a wide range of both low-tech and high-tech AT devices. Examples of commonly used AT classroom devices include (a) simple communication boards and wallets, (b) electronic communication devices, (c) mobility aids, such as long canes and powered wheelchairs, (d) expanded or adapted keyboards, touch windows, and speech recognition systems, and (e) magnification devices and computer screen reading adaptations (Parette & McMahan, 2002).

Partnerships between professionals and families are also more effective when consideration is given to cultural issues that enable the AT team to better understand the characteristics and requirements of the milieu/environments where AT will be used (Institute for Matching Person and Technology, 2003). Cultural issues have been shown to influence many aspects of AT decision-making. For example, African American families have suggested that a preference not to use augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) devices in public settings due to the stigma associated with having attention focused on the child and family (Huer, 1998; Smith-Lewis, 1992). Asian American families have reported a preference that AT technical assistance and training be provided by community liaisons rather than school personnel (Parette & Huer, 2002). These and other reports (Hourcade et al., 1997; Huer, 2000; Huer, Saenz, & Doan, 2001; Stuart & Parette, 2002; VanBiervliet & Parette, 1999) reflect a growing research base that has contributed to an enhanced recognition of the importance of culture in AT decision-making.

As noted by Lamorey (2002), "Understanding and building on a family's cultural understandings of disability is essential in creating partnerships with parents of children receiving special education services" (p. 67). If professionals accept the basic tenet that an understanding of culture, both in terms of milieus/environments and family perspectives, is integral to more effective AT decision-making, one aspect to the dimension of culture that is little understood, and remains to be explored, is acculturation.

The remainder of this article will focus on a discussion of the process of acculturation and its relationship to AT decision-making. A range of influences on the complex acculturation process will be noted, along with a discussion of socioeconomic status and its relationship to acculturation. Finally, specific recommendations having relevance to AT teams will be presented.

Page 2 Effects of Acculturation

Acculturation has been described as a powerful determinant of attitudes and behaviors and it affects many aspects of child and family functioning (Smart & Smart, 1992a). It has been defined in a variety of ways. A simplistic definition suggested by Ruiz (1981) suggested that acculturation involves giving up old ways and adopting new ways. Others have described it as the "extent to which ethnic-cultural minorities participate in the cultural traditions, values, assumptions, and practices of the dominant White society" (Landrine & Klonoff, 1995, p. 124).
 * Toward an Understanding of Acculturation**

Inherent in these and other definitions of acculturation is the notion of individual change in response to various influences. Wide ranges of individual acculturation effects have previously been demonstrated with regard to various health-related attitudes and social behaviors (Kunkel, 1990; Pomales & Williams, 1989; Ponce & Atkinson, 1989; Sutton, 1999; Wells, Hough, Golding, & Burnam, 1987; Woods, Montgomery, Belliard, Belle, Nortey, & Ramírez, 2002). These studies suggest that (a) individual acculturation may be an important consideration during AT decision-making, especially when there are various family members who are in different stages of acculturation and who are asked for input and participation in decision-making processes; and (b) such influences must be considered by team members during AT decision-making, as family members may vary markedly with regard to their degree of alignment with Anglo-European American cultural values. The degree to which a particular decision-maker in the family has been acculturated to AT may have marked impact on the extent to which he/she is familiar with and may be responsive to particular devices and services recommended or implemented by Anglo-European American professionals.

With regard to technology, all persons in our society are familiar with changing, or becoming acculturated to the wide range of technologies currently available. For example, many individuals who decades ago were hesitant to use computers to increase productivity now would have great difficulty working in a modern business environment in the absence of such tools. Similarly, the increasing popularity and resulting use of other modern devices, such as VCRs, cell phones, fax machines, and other technologies reflect acculturation changes among people. In a general sense, students with disabilities and their families may be deemed to becoming more acculturated to the presence of AT in classroom and other environments/milieus-and expecting AT with greater frequency (Lahm & Sizemore, 2002).

However, it is important to recognize that not all persons respond to acculturation influences in the same way, as evidenced by those elements of our society who continue to resist using new and emerging technologies in favor of earlier, learned ways of doing things. One such example may be for families of children with disabilities with whom professionals must collaborate in the process of developing individualized service plans (i.e., there may be resistance to accepting and implementing assistive technologies recommended for children, thus undermining the intent of the AT decision-making team and creating tension/dissonance with the family). Such resistance and its impact on AT decision-making may be influenced by a range of factors that will be explored in the following sections.

Acculturation cannot be understood as a simple process of reaction to changes in cultural context, but rather as an active response to challenges experienced when confronted with cultural changes (Schmitz, 1994). In the past, some professionals may have tended to view the process in a bipolar way, i.e., all persons move along a continuum ranging from separated to assimilated (see Figure 1). Such a simplistic perception of acculturation assumes that people either change or don't change with regard to acceptance and use of new and emerging technologies depending on the nature and degree of a range of acculturation forces, or influences (e.g., experiences, SES, developmental expectations for the child, child needs, technology features, cultural values). Persons most likely to be resistive to change might be those with the least range of influences or knowledge regarding the technologies which are available. The work of Everett Rogers on the diffusion of innovations is illustrative of this phenomenon and he makes the distinction between innovators, early adopters, and other categories of adopters (Rogers, 1995). Rogers' work analyzes, as well as helps explain, the adaptation of a new innovation. In other words it helps to explain the process of social change in response to an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption. The perceived newness of the idea for the individual determines his/her reaction to it (Rogers, 1995).
 * Acculturation: A Continuum or Matrix of Influences?**

Page 3 Effects of Acculturation

Examples of persons who initially might be separated from mainstream thinking about technologies would include immigrants to the U.S. For these individuals it would be anticipated that with the passage of time and increasingly greater exposure to a range of influences (and the pressure to change along with other people) (see Figure 1), persons would be anticipated to change their behaviors accordingly. For example, the influence of differences in age (Penaloza, 1994), gender (Hazuda, Stem, & Haffner, 1988), recency of arrival (Kealey, 1989), occupation (AlkhaziJi, Gardner, Martin, & Paolillo, 1997; Elkholy, 1985), education (AlkhaziJi et al., 1997), socioeconomic status (Payne, 1998), and other factors all have potential effects on AT acculturation (Herz & Gullone, 1999; Hyun, 2001; Kagitcibasi & Poortinga, 2000; Nauck, 2001; Stewart, Bond, Deeds, & Chung, 1999) as these influences can affect an individual's exposure to technology.

This process is common across cultural groups (e.g., immigrants, migrants, indigenous groups, refugees) as well as voluntary and involuntary groups (Berry & Sam, 1997). Using a bipolar model when beginning to attempt to explore and understand the process of acculturation with regard to AT, persons from different cultures with whom professionals work during AT decision-making processes might also be viewed from a generational perspective (i.e., each successive generation would become more acculturated and thus presumably more accepting of AT). Immigrants from particular cultural backgrounds with whom professionals are working would, assuming a bipolar conceptual model, have different tendencies to be accepting of AT being considered for their children depending on whether they are first or second generation family members.

For example, Chuang, Parette, and Huer (2002) reported on family concerns of first generation Chinese families who had augmentative and alternative communication needs. The concerns articulated by family members were somewhat different than expected based on what the literature reports about the cultural characteristics of persons from Asian cultures, suggesting the influence of acculturation across generations. Similarly, Huer, Saenz, and Doan (2001) and Huer, Parette, and Saenz (2001) found that attitudes toward children with disabilities were somewhat different for immigrant families than might have been anticipated based on examinations of the literature.

Other ways of explaining acculturation abound in the professional literature. Of particular importance has been the work of Berry and colleagues (Berry, Kim, Power, Young, & Bujaki, 1989; Berry, Poortinga, Segall, & Dasen, 1992; Berry & Sam, 1997) who described acculturation strategies, or ways an individual relates to the dominant culture. These include (a) assimilation, (b) integration, (c) separation, and (d) marginalization (see Figure 2). These four processes include the extent to which persons approach or avoid interaction with the dominant culture and the degree to which persons maintain or relinquish attributes of the native culture.

//Assimilation.// The process of assimilation may be deemed to occur to the extent that a person desires contact with the dominant culture while not necessarily maintaining an identity with his/her native culture. This may be a typical expectation of many AT decision-making teams in public school settings at the present time (i.e., that both users and families are assimilated into the prevalent AT culture, and thus should be accepting of AT recommendations made and the expected implementation of AT solutions in the home setting). Research has demonstrated that some cultural groups prefer not to be assimilated (Pew Hispanic Center/Kaiser Family Foundation, 2002; Swaidan & Marshall, 2001) in varying aspects of American society. The extent to which families from diverse cultural backgrounds may reasonably be anticipated to be accepting of AT is relatively unknown at this juncture in time, though efforts have been made to identify both user and service provider goals and preferences have been noted in the literature (Institute for Matching Person and Technology, 2003).

//Integration.// The process of integration occurs when individuals who desire to maintain their cultural identity also desire a high level of interaction with the dominant culture. Many ethnic groups tend to prefer integration vs. assimilation into American culture (Laroche, Kim, Hui, & Joy, 1996; Swaidan & Marshall, 2001). Historically, many immigrants tend to be more concerned than second generation family members about fitting into the dominant culture vs. maintenance of their cultural roots (Zhang & Carrasquillo, 1995), even though immigrants may practice their own native culture at home. With regard to AT service delivery, this would suggest that families may accept some AT strategies and reject others depending on the environmental context in which the strategies are to be implemented. For example, in a recent study of first generation Chinese families and their augmentative and alternative communication preferences (Chuang, Parette, & Huer, 2002), a mother noted her desire for the child to embrace their cultural background:

Interviewer: Will you have any expectations of these symbols that they should have more Chinese culture awareness, or Taiwanese culture awareness? Mother: Language has to follow culture, culture has to follow people. So, this has to follow the history. So, it is necessary if he can comprehend these things. All these things are going to connect together, so of course it will be better to let him realize as much as possible. (Chuang, 2002, p. 8)

Page 4 Effects of Acculturation

In this and other instances during structured interviews with family members, families revealed a tendency toward integration by clinging to certain values and expectations specific to their culture while wanting to also be accepted into the dominant society.

Although first generation migrants (i.e., those who have immigrated to the new society) are expected to change their values to a certain extent, second generation migrants (as a result of being raised in the new country) are expected to differ from traditional values to a greater extent (Georgas, Berry, Shaw, Christakopoulou, & Mylonas, 1996; Phinney, Du Pont, Espinosa, Revill, & Sanders, 1994). However, contingent on influential variables, a relatively high degree of value maintenance may also be expected in the second generation (Georgas et al., 1996; Nauck, 1995).

//Separation.// The process of separation occurs with low levels of interaction with the dominant culture (and related microcultural groups) while desiring a close connection with and affirmation of their native culture. Separation involves resistance to the dominant culture and its value systems and attempts to change the environment where the person lives (Swaidan & Marhall, 2001). In the U.S., this is difficult to achieve as it would require creation of an environment in which the original culture dominates in the midst of powerful dominant cultural forces including established standards for living in a democratic, consumer-oriented society, a range of individual freedoms within the culture, the influence of friends within the community, a competitive economy, and influence of the media. However, it does exist in, for example, members of the Deaf Culture, where deaf individuals are expected to communicate via American Sign Language and not through oral communication. Members of the Deaf Culture often are encouraged to reject cochlear implants and technology use that would make it appear that the person "is trying not to be Deaf" (Scherer, in press).

//Marginalization.// The process of marginalization occurs when persons choose not to identify with either their native cultures or the dominant culture (e.g., in case of enforced cultural loss combined with enforced segregation). Elements of the culture that somehow survive every attempt at being destroyed are systematically belittled or denigrated. Indigenous practices may be labeled as pagan religions, primitive art, and folk medicinal practice, with persons from the dominant culture conceding that such belief systems exist but are viewed as being inferior to the prevailing mainstream culture (e.g., what occurred in the U.S. with indigenous Native American tribes). In the U.S., there is a long history of persons with disabilities being marginalized (Hahn, 2000; Hanks, n.d.). With regard to AT usage, there has been a historical precedent in the U.S. to develop assistive technologies employing development philosophies that plague computer-based systems, in that these systems do not consider the needs and capabilities of persons with disabilities (Flemming, Morrisey, & Klinghorn, 1997; Vanderheiden & Tobais, 1998). Similarly, rejection (or failure to acknowledge) of important cultural values held by family members may potentially result in unwillingness to participate in AT decision-making processes (Parette & Petch-Hogan, 2000).

Geographic and social isolation of the family from exposure to technology have been noted to be mitigating factors that can potentially impact AT usage by families (Torres-Davis & Trivelli, 1994). One issue that has emerged in the past decade is the blurring of distinction between culture and socioeconomic level; persons in lower SES settings may have substantially different AT acculturation experiences than persons in middle and upper income environments. As noted by Smart and Smart (1992b), professionals often perceive that factors attributed to specific cultural groups are actually the result of economic conditions.
 * Socioeconomic Status as a Mediating Influence on Acculturation**

Recent discussions regarding the Digital Divide (National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 2003; The Center for the Study of Technology and Society, 2003) illustrate the growing recognition of the government and other entities that differences in technology utilization (e.g., computers and use of the Internet) is influenced more by economic and geographic than cultural factors. When individuals from culturally diverse backgrounds are afforded the opportunity to access and use computers, more often than not their use patterns vary little from patterns exhibited by Anglo-European Americans (Ledbetter, 2000; Pastore, 2000; Walsh, Gazala, & Ham, 2000).

Page 5 Effects of Acculturation

Although the available literature fails to make distinctions between children with and without disabilities with regard to computer utilization, reports have indicated discrepancies in the manner that resources have been allocated for children with disabilities from culturally diverse groups (Inge & Shepherd, 1995; Lockard, Abrams, & Many, 1997; Resta, 1992). In a study of assistive technology needs in North Carolina (Trachtman & Pierce, 1995), the average cost per child for assistive devices used by African American young children was one-third that of their Anglo-European American counterparts. The investigators concluded that such discrepancies might be attributable to (a) differences in the prevalence of primary disorders reported for the various ethnic groups participating in the study, (b) greater reported needs for high-cost devices by Anglo-European American respondents, and (c) more frequent reports by African American respondents for no equipment needs. It may also be that African American family members are under-identified for special education services due to family resistance to the use of labels and to their preferences not to have devices that call attention to the families, in other words, AT is seen as stigmatizing (Parette, Brotherson, Hoge, & Hostetler, 1996).

In another study, Cole and Griffin (1987) reported that family members have expressed concerns that greater computer resource allocations have been made in school settings serving middle and upper income children than for their lower income peers. More recently, it has been suggested that the low priority of our society on equal access to telecommunications hardware, combined with skepticism among the poor regarding the potential benefits of technology, significantly hinder the deployment of computer infrastructures in impoverished neighborhoods (Benton Foundation, 1998).

A report by Milone and Salpeter (1996) observed that budgetary constraints have widened the gaps between lower SES individuals and middle and upper SES with regard to the availability of technology in home settings. Children and teachers in impoverished school districts are less likely to have computers in their homes (Piller, 1992) due to a direct relationship between ownership and income--the lower the income, the lower the access (Rose, 2000). However, as noted by Shashaani (1994), parental attitudes played a greater role in student interest in home computers than did SES. These attitudes are shaped by experiences with professionals, and when such experiences are negative, the willingness of parents from culturally diverse backgrounds to work with school personnel will be affected. For this reason, plus others, it is important when conducting an AT assessment to survey parents on their perspectives and use of technologies (Judge & Parette, 2000; Scherer, in press).

Such findings were supported by Payne's (1998) recent work that focuses on the operational assumption that middle class mores and norms conflict with the hidden rules of persons from low SES backgrounds. Payne refers to generational poverty, or values that are passed from one generation to the next that are simply assumed because of circumstances and conditions in which individuals live over time. If persons in low SES environments do not have technology, and are accustomed to not having it available, then this can become an expectation or assumption of lifestyle that may not resonate with Anglo-European American professionals who feel that AT should be used in the home setting for a child with a disability. It is particularly important to understand the rules and values of individuals from diverse backgrounds if effective interactions are to be maintained by professionals during AT decision-making. Barerra (1993) noted that the acculturation process can result in significant stressors being placed on family members, especially when behaviors associated with competence in one environment differ from those in other settings.

Page 6 Effects of Acculturation

A parallel interpretation is offered Harry (1992), who noted that specific behavioral characteristics associated with individuals within a particular ethnic group was tied to economics and class vs. being typical of the ethnic group as a whole. Smart and Smart (1992b) reported that:

Poverty may lie at the root of many behaviors which could be misdiagnosed as having an internal locus. . . Upon closer inspection. . . it becomes apparent that "free" services [e.g., AT, emphasis added] are costly when the client must leave work, pay for child-care, pay transportation costs, and provide an interpreter, all problems with an economic basis rather than a cultural or psychogenic basis (p. 32).

According to Harry (1992), parents of poor children from culturally diverse backgrounds and who have disabilities have many disadvantages when they are dealing with school systems. A central assumption may be that because a family is poor and from a culturally diverse background, they do not value education for their child (Harry 1992; Podemski, Marsh, Smith, & Price, 1995), and thus may not value AT. Upper middle-class families have greater educational abilities, social status, earning potential and resources, and social networks in comparison to working-class families (Harry 1992; Podemski et al., 1995). Sometimes, despite the desires of many families who reside in poverty to be involved their children's education, the unequal balance of power precludes some families from culturally diverse backgrounds from having effective involvement in educational processes (Grossman, 1995; Harry, 1992; Mlawer, 1993; Podemski et al. 1995).

Parents with cultural, socioeconomic, and limited English proficiency (LEP) backgrounds may not want school personnel to advocate for their children's special education and AT needs. When families and school staff differ in their opinions about a child's special education and AT needs, it may become apparent to families that the goals of the school staff are aligned with the goals of the school district (i.e., the hidden curriculum) (Scherer, in press), rather than with those of the individual student thus presenting a conflict for families (Harry, 1992).

It is generally stated that among Anglo-European American AT professionals' value systems education, hard work, family involvement in the schools, use of AT, and other such values may culminate in increased opportunities for children with disabilities (Roseberry-McKibbin, 2002). With regard to AT in particular, professionals may have strongly held beliefs that use of devices and services can result in increased independence and the acquisition of important school-related skills (Ray & Warden, 1995; Scherer, 1998a). Such expectations may be at odds with the values and degree of technology acculturation associated with the culture of poverty (Payne, 1998). For example, while professionals may advocate for increased independence for children with disabilities, families within culturally diverse populations may expect or be accustomed to increased dependence in the presence of a disability.

Such contrasts between belief systems may be observed during AT team decision-making intervals. For example, families may be encouraged to assume AT advocacy activities such as funding and information-gathering for their children (Alper, Schloss, & Schloss, 1994; Mlawer, 1993; Simpson, 1996). They may also be expected to participate on teams and advocate for their children if effective AT decision-making is to occur (Parette, Hourcade, & VanBiervliet, 1993). Finally, they may be expected to use AT in the home and other community settings. While each of these expectations may be communicated or encouraged from the perspective of the professional within the dominant culture, it does not necessarily mean that the families will agree to or assume these presumed responsibilities, especially if stigmatizing effects are perceived by the family (Smith-Lewis, 1992) or fears that use of AT will delay the acquisition of important developmental milestones (Allaire, Gressard, Blackman, & Hostler, 1991; Berry, 1987). Therefore, professionals may need to become familiar with such issues and may wish to develop alternative strategies for presentation and implementation during team decision-making.

Page 7 Effects of Acculturation

Acknowledging the impact of acculturation on AT decision-making will, of necessity, require teachers and other professionals to better understand to what extent families currently use technology during team processes (Institute for Matching Person and Technology, 2003). This understanding will: (a) provide insights into the comfort with which the family may be able to discuss specific AT solutions considered during team processes, (b) assist the team in understanding the priorities, concerns, and resources of families during AT decision-making, and (c) enable the selection of devices from a more culturally sensitive perspective. For example, Scherer (2002) presented an insightful narrative reported by Holland (2002) regarding conversations held with a Native American male having a C6 spinal cord injury during the Matching Person and Technology (MPT) assessment process (Scherer, 1998b). In the interview described, it is apparent how dissonance can occur when assessment strategies driven from an Anglo-European American perspective create internal states of confusion, stress, or reticence. Given that the interviewee had limited English proficiency, the interviewer used a translator to facilitate ease of communication during this interview process. In using the Matching Person and Technology assessment forms (Institute for Matching Person and Technology, 2003), the Initial Worksheet was not difficult to complete since the interviewee was able to both list limitations and identify goals for each area. Holland (2002) noted that the interviewee liked this worksheet given its focus on positive aspects of life functioning and also allowed him to do some futures visioning and identify how AT might benefit him. Other components of the MPT assessment process were more difficult since his past experiences with AT could not be expressed using his native language. Compounding the assessment process was a strongly held Native American cultural value (i.e., minimization of self-disclosure to others) that inhibited his ability to discuss issues of a personal nature, particularly when the person asking questions was a female. Holland (2002) noted observing shame in the facial expressions of the interviewee whenever a negative response to questions occurred. The intensity of the emotions exhibited by the interviewee during this assessment process, and the insights gained by the interviewer were marked:
 * Conclusions**

It was obvious that he wanted to answer accurately, but he struggled immensely with those items that he described as being weak in character. I told him that we did not have to complete this form if he was too uncomfortable. He stated that he was uncomfortable but also knew that his responses would be important for this project. On several of his answers, he began to cry and we had to give him time to recover and talk about the emotion before moving on. At one point all four of the tech team members were in tears from the emotion that the consumer had shared with us. I struggled with the process of completing the surveys because I felt that they were violating a very private part of this consumer. I don't recall exactly when the revelation hit me, but I do remember the insight that I suddenly had - even though the consumer had experienced emotional pain during the process, it was an avenue that had allowed this Native American to release his feelings and talk about deep rooted issues that had been a part of him for years. It was actually cathartic in nature and was moving him from a place of despair to a place of hope. When I finally realized this, I understood the importance of the MPT process. It isn't just about finding the right assistive technology for a consumer, it is about a person-centered process that takes a consumer through a progression of steps to become more comfortable with his/her disability and more independent in all areas of his/her life (Holland, 2002, p.5).

Page 8 Effects of Acculturation

As the above quote indicates, acculturation (i.e., attitudinal and cultural factors) comprises a key component of a technology user's perspective of AT, support use in general, and degree of confidence and trust in professionals and their recommendations.

Specific recommendations that may be considered to assist professionals during AT decision-making include the following:

1. Recognize that a child's acculturation to AT may be different from that of other family members, and that such differences may potentially influence the degree of participation in AT decision-making and implementation processes.

2. Meet with family members and engage them in a discussion of their child's strengths and areas of challenge that they feel are important to share. Bevan-Brown (2001) has suggested that during any information-gathering approach, best practice should include the (a) right person, (b) asking the right questions (c) of the right people, (d) in the right way, (e) at the right place, and (f) right time.

3. Instead of telling family members what the school is doing, provide them with possible strategies coupled with rationales and expected outcomes, and then ask for their preferences regarding which strategies they feel are most appropriate. This will ego-invest them in the adopted strategy or strategies.

4. Ask family members to develop a plan for follow-through at home (if they feel home implementation is appropriate), again ego-investing them in solutions.

5. Ensure that a mechanism for ongoing communication with the family is in place that is sensitive to their preferences, routines, and resources. An important component of this mechanism is to ensure that evaluative information regarding both the child and family's satisfaction with the AT solution has been included in the recommendation.

Such strategies on the part of practitioners reflect a better understanding of the influence of acculturation on AT service delivery, and may contribute to more effective partnering with family members whose children have disabilities. It may also minimize the potential for AT abandonment (Phillips & Zhao, 1993). Though no professional may ever fully comprehend the extent of contributions by all the factors that affect acculturation, and thus understand their potential impact on AT service delivery, understanding and sensitivity are critical for the professional. Presented in Table 1 are assumptions and parameters of AT decision-making relative to the acculturation process.

Parette, Huer, and VanBiervliet (in press) have recommended a four-step process that builds on Kalyanpur and Harry's (1999) work. These steps include (a) identifying the cultural values embedded in the professional's interpretation of the family and/or student's AT needs or in the recommendation for services, (b) determining whether the family recognizes and values these assumptions, and if not, how their perception differs from that of the professional, (c) acknowledging and respecting cultural differences identified, and fully explaining the cultural basis of the professional assumptions, and (d) determining the most effective way to adapt professional interpretations and recommendations to the value system of the family.

With increasing numbers of students with disabilities from diverse cultural backgrounds being served in special education settings, professionals must shift their attention to processes and strategies for ensuring culturally sensitive assistive technology (AT) decision-making. An increased understanding of and collaboration between the family and practitioner will enable the discovery of appropriate solutions for and selection of AT devices from a more culturally sensitive perspective.

Author Information Howard P. Parette is the Kara A. Peters Endowed Chair in Assistive Technology in the Special Education Department at Illinois State University.

Mary Blake Huer is a Professor in the Department of Speech Communication, Program in Communicative Disorders, at California State University, Fullerton. She is also the current Chair of the International Committee of the International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication (ISAAC).

Marcia Scherer is Director of the Institute for Matching Person and Technology and Associate Professor of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation at the University of Rochester Medical Center.

Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Phil Parette, Department of Special Education, Department of Special Education, Illinois State University, Campus Box 5910, Normal, IL 61790-5910. Email to Phil Parette (hpparet@ilstu.edu), Mary Huer (huer@cox.