This case study addresses the innovation, adoption, and ethical issues of exoskeletons as assistive devices for individuals with disabilities. Exoskeletons promise enhanced mobility and independence, but in transitioning from the military market, they pose the question of whose needs they are really trying to serve. The case contrasts the medical model—disability as an individual shortcoming—with the social model—disability as a matter of how infrastructure and norms present barriers. Exoskeletons consistently reinforce the notion that disabled bodies need to conform to able-bodied norms, but are too costly for the majority of users. Drawing on the writing of disabled writers and veterans, the research unmasks the gap between high technology and the daily reality of disabled populations: technology priced at hundreds of thousands of dollars, requiring extensive training, and perhaps not being sufficient to meet users' requirements. The narrative also bemoans the emphasis on "fixing" disabled bodies instead of accessible spaces and low-tech fixings that are within reach. Finally, the case examines the impact of military agendas on prosthetic and exoskeleton design and invites the students to question who gets to define what constitutes technological progress, how disabled individuals can be better included in the design process, and if enhancement is at the expense of justice and genuine accessibility.

Tech for Humanity was funded by a grant from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.