Reuniting Speech-Impaired People with Their Voices: Sound Technologies for Disability and Why They Matter for Organisation Studies


  • Domenico Napolitano Scuola Superiore Meridionale, Naples (Italy)



sound technology, speech syinthesis, voice cloning, disability studies, media studies, organisation studies


This paper intends to provide an analysis of sound and voice technologies for speech-impaired people regarded as sites of knowledge production about disability. The study will focus on the case of Google’s project to reunite speech-impaired users with their voices using voice cloning technology, an evolution of speech synthesis that allows the reconstruction of the sonic and timbral characteristics of a person’s voice. Addressing both the narratives and representations – which reveal a medical model of disability as an external flaw to be cured through technology – and the material practices and operations enacted by those technologies – which highlight epistemologies of human variation, embodiment and accessibility built into the software –, the paper shows that disability as a social construct is co-constituted in the interaction of these levels. In this regard, the following research proposes a socio-technical model of disability theorisation that combines techno-scientific knowledge, cultural values, images of the user, material operations and organisational practices. From this perspective, the paper argues that the study of disabilities would benefit from the contribution of organisation studies and media studies in order to reveal the ‘constructedness’ of disability and able-bodiedness, and the role of media technologies, institutions, and representations in producing and upholding – as well as potentially challenging – such constructions.


Alper, M. (2017), Giving Voice: Mobile Communication, Disability, and Inequality, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Anderson, C. (2008, June 23), “The End of Theory: The Data Deluge Makes the Scientific Method Obsolete”, in Wired. Available online at (last accessed: May 19, 2020).

Barnes, C. (2004), “Disability, Disability Studies and the Academy”, in J. Swain, S. French, C. Barnes, and C. Thomas (eds), Disabling Barriers, Enabling Environments, pp. 28–33, London: SAGE.

Brunsson, N., Rasche, A., and Seidl, D. (2012), “The Dynamics of Standardization: Three Perspectives on Standards in Organization Studies”, Organization Studies, 33 (5-6): 613–632.

Butler, J. (1990), Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, New York/London: Routledge.

Campbell, F.K. (2005), “Legislating Disability: Negative Ontologies and the Government of Legal Identities”, in S. Tremain (ed.), Foucault and the Government of Disability, pp. 108–130, Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

Chen, Y., Casagrande, N., Zhang, Y., and Brenner, M., (2019), “Using WaveNet Technology to Reunite Speech-Impaired Users with Their Original Voices”, Google DeepMind [weblog]. Available online at (last accessed: June 30, 2021).

Connor, S. (2000), Dumbstruck: A Cultural History of Ventriloquism, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Czarniawska, B. (2015), A Theory of Organizing, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Derrida, J. (2010 [1967]), Voice and Phenomenon: Introduction to the Problem of the Sign in Husserl’s Phenomenology, trans. by L. Lawlor, Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

Ellcessor, E., Hagood, M., and Kirkpatrick, B. (2017), “Introduction: Toward a Disability Media Studies”, in E. Ellcessor and B. Kirkpatrick (eds.), Disability Media Studies, pp. 1–28, New York, NY: New York University Press.

Ellis, K., and Kent, M. (2011), Disability and New Media, New York, NY: Routledge.

Ernst, W. (2016), Sonic Time Machines: Explicit Sound, Sirenic Voices and Implicit Sonicity, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Flynn, J. (2021), “Helping Actor Val Kilmer Reclaim His Voice”, Sonantic [weblog]. Available online at (last accessed: August 10, 2021).

Garland Thomson, R. (2001), “Seeing the Disabled: Visual Rhetorics of Disability in Popular Photography”, in P.K. Longmore and L. Umansky (eds.), The New Disability History: American Perspectives, pp. 355–74, New York, NY: New York University Press.

Goggin, G. (2009), “Disability and the Ethics of Listening”, Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 23 (4): 489–502.

Goggin, G., and Newell, C. (2003), Digital Disability: The Social Construction of Disability in New Media, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Hagood, M. (2017), “Disability and Biomediation: Tinnitus as Phantom Disability”, in E. Ellcessor and B. Kirkpatrick (eds), Disability Media Studies, pp. 311–329, New York, NY: New York University Press.

Hamraie, A. (2017), Building Access: Universal Design and the Politics of Disability, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Haraway, D. (1991), Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature, London: Free Association Books.

Hirschman, A.O. (1970), Exit Voice and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kafer, A. (2013), Feminist, Queer, Crip, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Law, J., and Hassard, J. (eds) (1999), Actor Network Theory and After, Oxford: Blackwell.

Marr, B. (2019, May 6), “Artificial Intelligence Can Now Copy Your Voice: What Does That Mean for Humans?”, Forbes. Available online at (last accessed: July 20, 2021).

Mills, M. (2011), “Deafening: Noise and the Engineering of Communication in the Telephone System”, Grey Room, 43: 118–143.

Mills, M. (2012), “Do Signals Have Politics? Inscribing Abilities in Cochlear Implants”, in T. Pinch and K. Bijsterveld (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Sound Studies, pp. 320–346, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Mills, M. (2020), “Testing Hearing with Speech”, in V. Tkaczyk, M. Mills and A. Hui (eds), Testing Hearing: The Making of Modern Aurality, pp. 23–48, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Mills, M., and Sterne, J. (2017), “Afterword II: Dismediation – Three Proposals, Six Tactics”, in E. Ellcessor and B. Kirkpatrick (eds), Disability Media Studies, pp. 365–378, New York, NY: New York University Press.

Moser, I. (2006), “Disability and the Promises of Technology: Technology, Subjectivity and Embodiment within an Order of the Normal”, Information, Communication & Society, 9 (3): 373–395.

Moser, I., and Law, J. (2003), “‘Making Voices’: New Media Technologies, Disabilities, and Articulation”, in G. Liestøl, A. Morrison, and T. Rasmussen (eds), Digital Media Revisited, pp. 491–520, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

MODULATE (2020), “Voice Skins and Individual Identity”, Modulate [weblog]. Available online at (last accessed: July 25, 2021).

Mumby, D.K. (2008), “Theorizing the Future of Critical Organization Studies”, in D. Barry and H. Hansen (eds), The SAGE Handbook of New Approaches in Management and Organization, pp. 27–28, Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

Napolitano, D. (2020a), “The Cultural Origins of Voice Cloning”, in M. Verdicchio, M. Carvalhais, L. Ribas and A.

Rangel (eds), xCoAx 2020 Proceedings of the Eighth Conference on Computation, Communication, Aesthetics & X. Available online at (last accessed: July 30, 2021).

Napolitano, D. (2020b), “‘Where’s the Voice of the Machine?’ An Ethnography of Artificial Voice Socio-Technical Networks”, Etnografia e Ricerca Qualitativa, 3: 351-372.

Natale, S. (2021), Deceitful Media: Artificial Intelligence and Social Life after the Turing Test, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Natale, S., and Pasulka, D. (2019), Believing in Bits: Digital Media and the Supernatural, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Oliver, M. (1996), Understanding Disability: From Theory to Practice, Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Parikka, J. (2012), What is Media Archeology?, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Pinch, T., and Bijsterveld, K. (eds) (2012), The Oxford Handbook of Sound Studies, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Siebers, T. (2008), Disability Theory, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Singh, R. (2019), Profiling Humans from Their Voice, Singapore: Springer.

Sterne, J. (2003a), The Audible Past: Origins of Sound Reproduction, Durham/London: Duke University Press.

Sterne, J. (2003b), “Bourdieu, Technique, and Technology”, Cultural Studies, 17 (3-4): 367–389.

Sterne, J. (ed.) (2012), The Sound Studies Reader, New York, NY: Routledge.

Sterne, J. (2021), Diminished Faculties: A Political Phenomenology of Impairment, Durham/London: Duke University Press.

Swain, J., French, S., and Cameron, C. (2003), Controversial Issues in a Disabling Society, Buckingham: Open University Press.

Turow, J. (2021), Voice Catchers: How Marketers Listen in to Exploit Your Feelings, Your Privacy, and Your

Wallet, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Williams, J., and Mavin, S. (2012), “Disability as Constructed Difference: A Literature Review and Research Agenda for Management and Organization Studies”, International Journal of Management Reviews, 14: 159–179.

Wilson, M. (2018, June 3), “The War on What’s Real”, The fast Company. Available online at (last accessed: November 15, 2020).

Woolgar, S. (1991), “The Turn to Technology in Social Studies of Science”, Science, Technology, and Human Values, 16 (1): 20–50.




How to Cite

Napolitano, D. (2022). Reuniting Speech-Impaired People with Their Voices: Sound Technologies for Disability and Why They Matter for Organisation Studies. PuntOorg International Journal, 7(1), 6–21.