Great question Chapal Da! I’m afraid I’ve my response is more questions to you, to break down the different ways that it’s more of a priority or not.
First to separate out the difference in priority between organizations working on disability and those that don’t.
For organizations working on disability, how do you assess what the level of priority is, and the barriers that you’ve faced when you’ve tried to raise it further? I confess that, in my own work on disability, I haven’t raised this subject as much as it deserves. Part of that is the way our work gets silo’d into different areas; part of that is that I don’t know enough details of, say, how AT relates to the area I worked on, employment issues.
For organizations not relating to disability… how do you find the relevance they see in the framing of “assistive technology”? From the outside of the work, I do wonder what is the difference between “technology” (which is very fashionable) and “assistive technology” (which sounds niche).
Am sure you have lots of numbers that demonstrate this lack of priority – for instance size of investments in AT sector vs investments in disability-inclusive ODA. Or even, if you can estimate, the difference between investments in assistive tech that is articulated in many different places (such as glasses) and disability-specific services. It’s not clear to me which sector would be bigger.
I didn’t know that there was a movement of people in terms of being AT-users – I guess I will hear more about that and much more when the report comes out. Looking forward to it.