Search

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]

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]

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]

Definitive of the disability studies approach is the social model, pioneered by the Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation, formalised by Vic Finkelstein and Mike Oliver, and since codified as the central tenet of the self-organised disability movement. In passing, it is important to note that this ideological position should be properly located in British disability politics: the movement in other countries, while adopting a social or minority group approach, have not built their campaign and self-definition around the social model. Since 1992, however, a range of disabled voices have raised questions and suggested developments which are needed in order to make the model more adequate and more relevant to disabled people's lives. These critiques have centred on the inclusion of impairment and personal experience within the social model, and have been hotly resisted by other activists and theorists of the movement. For example, Vic Finkelstein has recently argued strongly and widely that the effect of considering personal experience and impairment is to dilute the effectiveness of the social model. This has to be understood in the context of the historical tendency to explain disabled people's experience with reference to impairment, and the tradition of "sympathetic biography." The purpose of this article is to suggest that internal differences are actually relatively minor: using examples from academics outside disability studies, it argues that the battle for the social model has by no means been won in the world at large, and that therefore the main priority is to advocate a social analysis of disability.

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]

Social exclusion is a popular and widely used concept in the social sciences as well as in current European policy rhetoric. However, there is no general agreement on the content and use of the term; it has been used differently and for different purposes in different historical and social contexts. In this article, the social exclusion is understood as life‐historical phenomenon. Two cases have been selected as representing the most extreme trajectories based on a larger follow‐up study concerning former students of residential institutions for young people with emotional and/or behavioural difficulties in Finland. The cases give us an example of a detailed life‐course analysis, with the emphasis on risk and protective factors and demonstrate that the process of social exclusion is a complicated issue that cannot totally be understood by analysing the statistical connections between certain risk factors and the life‐course. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Both social capital and social inclusion have emerged as significant concepts for human services in the last decade and yet their inter-relationship remains largely unexplored. This article argues that, whilst they are similar in their vision for a healthy society, they adopt sufficiently different perspectives to stimulate and challenge each other. This can be well illustrated by reference to services for people with a learning disability. Commissioners and providers of learning disability services are encouraged through this article to harness both concepts in order to assist in the process of modernizing services and increasing life opportunities for the people they support. It is argued that it is not possible to understand the full consequences of adopting either theoretical position without an adequate understanding of the other. Examples are given of the implications of this for advocacy services, day opportunities, rural communities, transition and staff training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]