Disability, Caregiving, and the Virtual World: A Qualitative Study from Assam
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29120/jds.v12i1.779Abstract
Background: Disability and caregiving are shaped by cultural contexts, family dynamics, and societal perceptions. In the digital era, the virtual world has become a key space where disability is represented, often through narratives of resilience that overlook daily struggles. Objective: This study explored the lived experiences of persons with disabilities and their caregivers in Assam, examining how the virtual world influences social perceptions, caregiving practices, and emotional well-being. Methodology: A qualitative case study design was used, involving semi-structured interviews with 8 persons with disabilities and 8 caregivers representing neurological, locomotor, visual, and ENT-related conditions. Thematic analysis of interviews, observations, and field notes captured caregiving realities in Jorhat district and adjoining regions. Results: Digital platforms provided valuable medical information, rehabilitation guidance, and emotional support, reducing caregiver burden and fostering inclusion. However, participants noted a gap between curated online positivity and lived hardships. Misrepresentation often reinforced stigma, trivialised caregiving, and obscured systemic barriers such as discrimination, limited resources, and institutional neglect. Conclusion: While digital spaces hold potential for empowerment, authentic and empathetic representations are needed to bridge the gap between virtual portrayals and lived realities, fostering dignity, inclusion, and resilience.
Keywords: Disability, caregiving, virtual world, social media, psycho-social experiences, qualitative study
References
Abbasi, I. S. (2019). Social media addiction in romantic relationships: Does users’ age influence vulnerability to social media infidelity? Personality and Individual Differences. 139, 277–280.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.10.038
Altman, B. M. (2014). Definitions, concepts, and measures of disability. Annals of Epidemiology, 24(1), 2–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2013.05.018
Akinyode, B. F., & Khan, T. H. (2018). Step by step approach for qualitative data analysis. International Journal of Built Environment and Sustainability 5(3) https://doi.org/ 10.11113/ijbes.v5.n3.267
Ashar, L. C., (2024). Social media impact: How social media sites affect society. Business and Management Blog. American Public University. www.apu.apus.edu/area-of-study/business-and-anagement/resources/how-social-media-sites-affect-society
Berkman, L. F., Sekher, T. V., Capistrant, B., & Zheng, Y. (2012). Social networks, family, and care giving among older adults in India. In aging in Asia: Findings from new and emerging data initiatives. Washington (DC): National Academies Press US, 261–278. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/books/NBK109207/
Bhimani, R. (2014). Understanding the burden on caregivers of people with Parkinson’s: A scoping review of the literature. Rehabilitation Research and Practice, 2014(1), 718527, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/718527
Ghosh, S., Chakraborty, L., & Basu, K. (2022). International discrimination against women and girls with disabilities in educational opportunities in India. World Development Perspectives, 26, 100412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wdp.2022.100412
Hughes, S. L., Giobbie-Hurder, A., Weaver, F. M., Kubal, J. D., & Henderson, W. (1999). Relationship between caregiver burden and health-related quality of life, The Gerontologist, 39(5), 534–545. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/39.5.534
Huo, M., & Kim, K. (2023). Lasting impact of relationships on caregiving difficulties, burden, and rewards Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 40(1), 288–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075221118095
Kellner, D. (1990). Critical theory and the crisis of social theory. Sociological Perspectives, 33(1), 11–33. https://doi.org/10.2307/1388975
Knottnerus, J. A., Tugwell, P. (2018). Ethics of research methodology requires a methodology of research ethics. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 100, 5–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.07.001
Levitt, H. M., Morrill, Z., Collins, K. M., & Rizo, J. L. (2021). The methodological integrity of critical qualitative research: Principles to support design and research review. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 68(3), 357–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000523
Linton, S. (1998). Disability studies/not disability studies. Disability & Society, 13(4), 525–539. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599826588
Liu, Z., Heffernan, C., & Tan, J. (2020). Caregiver burden: A concept analysis. International Journal of Nursing Sciences, 7(4), 438–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnss.2020.07.012
Tew, E. H., Naismith, S. L., Pereira, M., & Lewis, S. J. (2013). Quality of life in Parkinson’s disease caregivers: The contribution of personality traits. BioMed Research International, 2013(1), 151872. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/151872
Thomas, D. R. (2006). A General inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005283748
World Health Organisation. (2023, March 7). Disability. World Health Organisation. www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/disability-and-health
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Jayalakshmi Baruah, Deepshikha Carpenter
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
