Search

In Korea the independent living movement has made great strides since the late 1990s. This paper describes the current status and future directions of Centers for Independent Living (CIL) in Korea. This paper discusses the following. First, the demographic and historical perspectives of disabilities are described for context. Second, the disability movement and the independent living movement are described. The current status and operations of CIL are then explored in detail. Finally, the current issues and future directions of CIL are discussed. To facilitate independence among disabled people several critical tasks must be addressed: the establishment of relevant laws, the development of various funding sources, unification of the two associations for CIL, the development of the capacity of CIL staff and the establishment of an international network for sharing information and experiences. Achieving the goals listed above will advance the Korean independent living movement and, therefore, the international independent living movement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the last decade, a growing number of scholars in Disability Studies have begun to critique the social model of disability. This paper documents the movement in these critiques, analyzing several ways paradigms and theories have been used in relation to the social model and the ways in which resistance plays a part in these paradigms. In the second part of the paper, we begin to explore the implications of resistance theory for disability theory, noting that resistance appears to exist throughout all paradigms at play in disability studies while it is rarely explicitly addressed. We conclude by describing the potential use of resistance theory for both theory and praxis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Albinism is a rare genetic condition that affects the pigmentation of the retina, hair and skin. Consequently, people with albinism world-wide experience the stigma and negative repercussions of an unconventional physical appearance, as well as a visual impairment. The medical literature has focused extensively on the genetics of albinism amongst animals, but it has been relatively under-studied and ignored in sociology. People with albinism have rarely had the opportunity to tell their stories; to tell their sorrows and their triumphs. This paper attempts to remedy this failure in social science. In-depth interviews were conducted with seven women and five men, living in various countries globally. The study is framed around Erving Goffman's theory of stigma and 'spoiled identity', as well as the more recent Disability Studies that stresses 'the normals' as being the 'identity spoilers' or the 'problem'. The participants revealed victimisation from various sources including students, teachers, employers, colleagues, strangers and the medical profession. Focus is placed on the strategies that respondents have devised in coping with these adversities. The results identify eight principal methods of reaction and response to the discrimination against people with albinism. These eight different strategies of resistance to the stigmatisation of albinism are essential elements of personal change and even, possibly, social change. This paper quotes respondents' own words. Such methodology offers the chance for people with albinism to voice their experiences, and for us researchers to listen and learn. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper provides a broad-based overview of the development of emancipatory disability research in the UK since its emergence in 1992. Drawing on personal experience in the field, the author responds to several important considerations that need to be addressed before considering adopting this controversial perspective. The paper is divided into two main sections. The first part provides a concise introduction to the thinking that underpins the concept of emancipatory disability research. The second section discusses key elements of this approach including the problem of accountability, the social model of disability, choice of methods and, enpowerment, dissemination and outcomes. The paper concludes by suggesting that whilst there has been considerable progress over the last decade the future of emancipatory disability research remains precarious. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the proposal that by exploring at a micro level the control exercised over children it is possible to identify the wider societal mechanisms for maintaining power at a macro level. The focus of the paper is on the provision of respite care for disabled children in settings away from home. Drawing on principles within childhood sociology and referencing recent research within disability studies consideration is given to issues of ‘power and control’ in relation to disabled children and how that reflects the structure of adult society. The paper concludes with a discussion of the concept of citizenship as a model for change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT This paper reports on part of a wider study concerned with the collaborative efforts of an inquirer and six people with an intellectual disability, to develop a grounded theory explaining the processes by which these informants manage the relationships within their personal communities. The study was conducted through a series of in-depth interviews with each informant; a process characterised by information sharing, tentative theory development and elaboration, and informants' checking the accuracy of the emerging theory. This inductive approach allowed not only an insight into the lives of each informant, but recognised the informants' expertise in matters concerning their own lives and thus facilitated the emergence of theoretical elements of relevance to the informants themselves. The focus of the paper is on the collaborative or partnership approach adopted. The outcomes of the research partnership are detailed and implications drawn for the role of research in the lifestyles of people with an intellectual disability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What is the case for and how would one begin to construct a sociology of impairment? This paper argues that the realignment of the disability/impairment distinction is vital for the identity politics of the disability movement. The body is at the heart of contemporary political and theoretical debate, yet the social model of disability makes it an exile. The transformation of the body from a reactionary to an emancipatory concept implies a sociology of impairment. This paper explores the contribution that post-structuralism and phenomenology might make to this end. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Goodley & Lawthom discussed the role of a community psychology approach in conducting emancipatory disability research. While their aims are entirely laudable, they portrayed mainstream psychology as 'pathologising, voyeuristic, individualising, [and] impairment-obsessed'. This paper presents a reply to Goodley and Lawthom's somewhat outdated arguments for the dismissal of mainstream psychology and argues that the focus on a single 'best' method of researching disability does not serve the best interests of disabled people within society. It is argued that to create a 'new' psychology distinct from the 'mainstream' is unnecessary, undesirable and counter-productive. Mainstream psychology has much to offer disabled people and to dismiss it is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The social model of disability has paid little attention to disabled children, with few attempts to explore how far it provides an adequate explanatory framework for their experiences. This paper reports findings from a two‐year study exploring the lived experiences of 26 disabled children aged 7–15. They experienced disability in four ways—in terms of impairment, difference, other people’s behaviour towards them, and material barriers. Most young people presented themselves as similar to non‐disabled children: it is suggested they may have lacked a positive language with which to discuss difference. It is further argued that Thomas’s (1999) social relational model of disability can help inform understandings of children’s experiences, with ‘barriers to being’ having particular significance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the way 'choice' is constituted by professional and support staff in naturally-occurring-talk within an Australian disability service. That choice is really the choice you have when you are not having a choice, a situation indicative of the wider social milieu and the disablism found in society. Membership Categorisation Analysis is used to highlight the moral reasoning which occurs in the everyday, based upon disablist norms. In light of this, critical reflection upon contemporary bioethics is used to suggest that choice as an expression of autonomy is not only contextual, but far more than the hedonistic approach adopted by Western disability services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article I set out to trace the influence of two major sets of ideas: normalisation/srv, and the social model of disability on inclusive research in learning disability. The argument is that normalisation set the agenda for learning disability research for two or more decades. Inclusive researchers continue to apply normalisation thinking to work with people with learning difficulties, particularly in assuming the role of advocate - offering people the opportunity to take on valued social roles and assuming responsibility for promoting positive images. Latterly, a number of researchers have tried to rise to the challenges posed by emancipatory research, particularly in attempting to find ways to put people with learning difficulties in control. This illustrates the influence of thinking emanating from disability studies. However, the paper shows that whilst some ideas from emancipatory research have been applied in learning disability, there are debates in the disability literature that have not been addressed in learning disability research to date. The result is that inclusive research in learning disability is in danger of being marginalised, both in the context of disability studies and in the context of the broad sweep of learning disability research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Disabled people are marginalised and excluded from `mainstream' society. In general, our understanding of the processes of exclusion is rounded in time and history. In this paper, it is argued that space, as well as time, is instrumental in reproducing and sustaining disablist practices. Disability has distinct spatialities that work to exclude and oppress disabled people. Spaces are currently organised to keep disabled people `in their place' and `written' to convey to disabled people that they are `out of place'. Furthermore, social relations currently work to spatially isolate and marginalise disabled people and their carers. Disability is spatially, as well as socially, constructed. It is contended that an understanding of society's reaction to, and the experiences of, disability should be framed within an approach that combines a spatialised political economy with social constructivism. Unlike neo-Marxist approaches this approach is centred on notions of power rather than capital. Using this approach, the spatialities of disability are explored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We welcome Forshaw's reply to our paper because it opens up debate about psychology and its relationship with the development of an emancipatory disability studies. In our paper we aimed to: (1) raise possibilities for disability studies researchers' engagement with psychology (rather than psychology colonizing disability studies); (2) trace some of the epistemological journeys we underwent in carrying out disability research and community psychology research; (3) consider these possibilities and journeys in relation to previous literature on emancipatory disability research. Forshaw's reply appears to ignore aims (2) and (3) and instead focuses on the ways in which we (mis)represent psychology. He suggests that we: present an inaccurate account of qualitative research in contemporary psychology; make a divisive argument for a 'breakaway group' of community psychologists; epistemologically contradict ourselves because of our concern with 'reality' and social constructionism; argue for only adopting participatory action research; not least, adopt 'simplistic' and 'outdated' views of psychology. We will respond to these criticisms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]