Disabled parents' involvement in their children's education : an examination of good practice. Summary for parents

This leaflet sets out the main findings from research about disabled parents' involvement in their children's education. The research, completed in August 2009, was conducted by a team from Strathclyde University

Disability Studies: What’s the Point?

[Excerpt] While the content of these courses had much to offer in terms of furthering our understanding of the experience of ‘chronic illness’ and the ensuing economic and social outcomes in terms of daily living for disabled people and their families, the central focus always seemed to be either on the physical and psychological consequences of the condition, or the complexity of the relationship between the disabled individual and their social environment. ‘Disability’, usually defined as ‘functional limitation’, was caused by either: chronic illness/impairment or the complex interaction between the limitations of the body and/or mind, and society at large. The dominant ‘personal tragedy’ theory of disability was never seriously questioned and, with one or two notable exceptions, meaningful explanations for society’s responses to, and treatment of, people with impairments, whether real or ascribed, and ‘labelled’ disabled, were conspicuous by their absence

“I’d Rather Be Dead Than Disabled”—The Ableist Conflation and the Meanings of Disability

Despite being assailed for decades by disability activists and disability studies scholars spanning the humanities and social sciences, the medical model of disability—which conceptualizes disability as an individual tragedy or misfortune due to genetic or environmental insult—still today structures many cases of patient–practitioner communication. Synthesizing and recasting work done across critical disability studies and philosophy of disability, I argue that the reason the medical model of disability remains so gallingly entrenched is due to what I call the “ableist conflation” of disability with pain and suffering. In an effort to better equip healthcare practitioners and those invested in health communication to challenge disability stigma, discrimination, and oppression, I lay out the logic of the ableist conflation and interrogate examples of its use. I argue that insofar as the semiosis of pain and suffering is structured by the lived experience of unwelcome bodily transition or variation, experiences of pain inform the ableist conflation by preemptively tying such variability and its attendant disequilibrium to disability. I conclude by discussing how philosophy of disability and critical disability studies might better inform health communication concerning disability, offering a number of conceptual distinctions toward that end

Paralympic cultures: disability as paradigm

This is an article about the Paralympic Games of summer 2012 and the experience of watching them. It rehearses the use of disability as political and cultural identity in relation to theatre and performance studies. Disability identity is not an identity based on similitude, but is a complex and nuanced relationship between singularity of embodied social experience and glimmers of common ground. Taking the works of Rod Michalko and Petra Kuppers as a representative foundation of disability studies, the article offers disability as an epistemological standpoint, a way of thinking, and not an object of thought. The argument works through close readings of three examples to introduce the theatre and performance studies reader to the notion of disability as a paradigm for the consideration of ideas of difference, similitude and identity. The process of reading the Paralympics from the perspective of a disabled person, bike riding sports fan and disability performance scholar gestures to the scope and potential of disability performance studies. The article accumulates three examples of one disabled person navigating a complex set of positions, all of which are iterations of disability. Whilst this critical approach might imply solipsism, the article also considers disability as community

On making disability in rural places more visible: challenges and opportunities [Introduction to a special issue]

This essay prefaces a special issue of the Journal of Rural Studies (JRS) concerned with a sub-field of inquiry that might be termed the rural geography of disability, addressing multiple dimensions of disability, physical and mental, associated with life in rural localities (as conventionally identified). Drawing on three vignettes where rurality and disability co-mingle, the authors explore both bad and good rurals with respect to disability: meaning properties of rural areas that can generate, exacerbate or stigmatise disability, on the one hand, and qualities of rural environments that may prevent, alleviate or mollify disability, on the other. Through a brief review of papers in JRS where disability has made an appearance, together with references across to relevant studies elsewhere, this essay lays the groundwork for a rural geography of disability as well as serving to introduce the papers that follow in the special issue

The Disability Studies Industry

This brief monograph was written in an attempt to discover the general situation of Disability Studies, given that this appears to have become a growth area in academia with various typically illiberal aspects. The findings bear out the initial impression. There is a style of argument, even propaganda (for there is usually little genuine engagement with opposing liberal views), that can be seen in many other areas of academia. It amounts to a relatively new ‘progressive’ industry with various fashionable keywords, phrases and ideologies—often not obviously related to disabilities in any serious way—indicating the nature of the beast: ‘progressive’, ‘radical’, ‘oppression’, ‘bourgeois’, ‘empowerment’, ‘rights’, ‘equal opportunities’, ‘discrimination’, ‘prejudice’, ‘citizenship’, ‘social justice’, ‘socially constructed’, ‘Marxism’, ‘Post Modernism’ and ‘Feminism’. The overall picture is that disability has become increasingly politicised along politically correct lines to the detriment of society as a whole and, eventually, even to the disabled themselves. This is largely caused by the endemic trahison des clercs in our tax-consuming and coercively monopolised university system

College Student Perceptions of Varying Disability Types: Does Contact Experience Matter?

Studies exploring prejudices between groups have suggested that contact is related to attitudes. This relationship has been studied in the context of attitudes toward people with disabilities and has yielded inconsistent results. Other variables, such as gender, type of relationship, and the type of disability, have been studied in conjunction with and distinct from the contact variable. The present study, conducted among college students, investigated if the contact experience or the exposure to a specific type of disability in a vignette individually were associated with the attitude variable of social distance, as well as if there was an interaction between the two independent variables. Contact experience did not significantly predict scores on the social distance measure; however, type of disability was a significant predictor of undergraduate students’ social distance attitudes. Specifically, physical disability predicted significantly lower scores of social distance than intellectual disability, Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity disorder, and Autism Spectrum Disorder. The results of this research were consistent with prior studies measuring similar variables, prompting a need for further research on the role of contact experience and disability type in forming prejudices toward people with disabilities. As type of disability seems to play a significant role in attitudes toward people with disabilities, greater efforts should be directed towards educating students and faculty on non-physical disability types

Disabilty in Older Adults with Depression

Depression is a leading cause of disability among older adults which can change the scope of daily life for older adults and threaten their ability to live independently in the community. This dissertation explored task disability in older adults with depression in three studies. A unique aspect of the studies was the assessment of disability through performance-testing. The first study examined task disability patterns in a sample of older adults with depression being treated as inpatients (n = 60) or outpatients (n = 59). Rasch analysis revealed that the degree of disability for task domains (functional mobility [FM], basic activities of daily living [BADL], instrumental activities of daily living [IADL] with a greater physical component [IADL-physical], and IADL with a greater cognitive component [IADL-cognitive]), and task items, was different for older women whose depression resulted in inpatient versus outpatient treatment. With the same sample, the second study examined the impact of information processing speed on task disability. The patients were separated into groups by speed of processing (slower patients, n = 76; faster patients, n = 23) based on their performance on the Trail Making Test - B. Speed of processing was associated with severity of depression and both depression and slower speed of processing interfered more with effortful processing tasks (i.e., IADL-cognitive and IADL-physical) and less with tasks requiring automatic processing (i.e. FM). The third study compared physician rated disability on the Global Assessment of Function (GAF) Scale with performance-disability observed on the Performance Assessment of Self-Care Skills (PASS) in a hospitalized community-based sample separated into subgroups by readmission status (readmit patients, n = 15; non-readmit patients, n = 43). There was a lack of concordance between the measures with only the GAF Scale showing significant reduction in disability at discharge. Findings from these studies suggest that for older adults with depression, there may be sentinel tasks which are disability indicators and those tasks may differ based on speed of processing. The lack of concordance between the disability measures suggests the need for consideration of performance-based testing of daily life tasks as a component of usual care

Disability: getting it “right”.

This paper critically engages with Tom Shakespeare’s book Disability rights and wrongs. It concentrates on his attempt to demolish the social model of disability, as well as his sketch of an “alternative” approach to understanding “disability”. Shakespeare’s critique, it is argued, does British disability studies a “wrong” by presenting it as a meagre discipline that has not been able to engage with disability and impairment effects in an analytically sophisticated fashion. What was required was a measured presentation and evaluation of the rich mix of theoretical and empirically based ideas to be found in the discipline, as the groundwork for forward thinking located within a social oppression paradigm. Shakespeare’s undermining of the discipline’s credibility in the eyes of outsiders and newcomers represents a diversionary missed opportunity by an influential writer and activist. Shakespeare’s book1 has certainly stirred up debate, and invited a flurry of angry reviews, in disability studies (DS) in the UK—the social science discipline that has been developing radical ideas about disability and disablism since the 1980s. Peopled by both disabled academics and like-minded non-disabled researchers and writers, the DS community recognises that Shakespeare’s book seeks to deliver a fatal wound to what he sees as its sacred cow: the British social model of disability. Shakespeare explains that what he calls the “strong” version of the social model of disability was formulated by Michael Oliver, a leading DS writer and disability activist, on the basis of the social and political ideas advanced in the 1970s by a group of disabled individuals fighting to free themselves from what they experienced as an oppressive care system that relegated and segregated people with serious impairments to residential institutions and to the category of the unemployable.2 3 In short, the social model asserts that “disability” is not caused

Why Disability Studies Scholars Must Challenge Transmisogyny and Transphobia

We argue the need for coalition between trans and disability studies and activism, and that Disability Studies gives us the tools for this task. Our argument rests upon six facets. First and foremost, we explicitly acknowledge the existence of trans disabled people, arguing that Disability Studies must recognise the diversity of disabled people’s lives. Second, we consider how the homogenisation of womanhood, too often employed in transmisogonist arguments particularly when coming from those claiming to be feminists, harm both non-disabled trans women and cis disabled women. This leads to our third point, that Feminist Disability studies must be anti-reductive, exploring how gendered experiences rest upon other social positions (disability, queerness, race etc.) Fourth, we reflect upon the ways in which Disability Studies and feminism share a struggle for bodily autonomy, and that this should include trans people’s bodily autonomy. Finally, we argue that Trans and Disability Studies and activism share complex and critical relationships with medicine, making Disability and Trans Studies useful allies in the fight for better universal health care. We conclude by calling for our colleagues in Disability Studies to challenge transmisogony and transphobia and that transphobia is not compatible with Disability Studies perspectives