Search results

Purpose: This chapter proposes narrative allyship across ability as a practice in which nondisabled researchers work with disabled nonresearchers to co-construct a process that centers and acts on the knowledge contained in and expressed by the lived experience of the disabled nonresearchers. This chapter situates narrative allyship across ability in the landscape of other participatory research practices, with a particular focus on oral history as a social justice praxis.

Approach: In order to explore the potential of this practice, the author outlines and reflects on both the methodology of her oral history graduate thesis work, a narrative project with self-advocates with Down syndrome, and includes and analyzes reflections about narrative allyship from a self-advocate with Down syndrome.

Findings: The author proposes three guiding principles for research as narrative allyship across ability, namely that such research further the interests of narrators as the narrators define them, optimize the autonomy of narrators, and tell stories with, instead of about, narrators.

Implications: This chapter suggests the promise of research praxis as a form of allyship: redressing inequality by addressing power, acknowledging expertise in subjugated knowledges, and connecting research practices to desires for social change or political outcomes. The author models methods by which others might include in their research narrative work across ability and demonstrates the particular value of knowledge produced when researchers attend to the lived expertise of those with disabilities. The practice of narrative allyship across ability has the potential to bring a wide range of experiences and modes of expression into the domains of research, history, policy, and culture that would otherwise exclude them.

During the last two decennia ‘disability’ increasingly has been considered by various academic disciplines like sociology, literature, social sciences, geography and history as a fresh and innovative analytical category with the transformative potential of race, gender, class and sexuality. At the heart of this development is a comprehensive transformation of what is understood by ‘disability’. Traditionally, ‘disability’ was considered to be nothing more than an objective and invariable part of the human body. Nowadays ‘disability’ is primarily presented as the contingent result of the complex and manifold interactions between an individual’s body and its surrounding multilayered reality. This new meaning of ‘disability’ especially has been put forward by what has come to be known as Disability Studies.

This paper aims to explore the intersection of disability and accounting employment.

The paper uses oral history accounts of 12 disabled accountants. The authors investigate narrators' experiences of being disabled people and professional accountants, identify the barriers they encounter in professional employment, and how they (re)negotiate professional work.

The narrators' accounts are complex and diverse. The narratives record a discourse of success, offset by the consistent identification of social and environmental barriers relating to limited opportunities, resources, and support.

The paper develops the limited research on the relationship between disability and the accounting profession, expands the limited literature on disabled professionals' experience of work, provides voice for disabled accountants, adds to the limited oral histories available within accounting, and augments the accumulated literature considering the accounting profession and minorities.

Disability as a consequential social characteristic has not drawn sociologists’ contemporary attention in the way that race, class, gender, and sexuality have. In order to understand why, it is instructive to analyze how disability has been framed since the inception of the American Sociological Society, now known as the American Sociological Association.

Our findings are based on an intensive, systematic, and comprehensive content analysis of 10 years of the Proceedings from the American Sociology Society’s Annual Meetings, 1906–1915.

Three key themes emerged from the content analysis of the proceedings of the first 10 years of the papers delivered at the Annual Meetings (1906–1915). First, people with disabilities were largely invisible in those papers. Second, influenced strongly by a social reform agenda which stressed progress and the powerful eugenics movement of the time, those early presenters who addressed people with disabilities in their papers vilified them. Third, their denigration was met largely with silence in the printed commentary which followed in the proceedings.

In order to understand the present limited attention to disability, researchers need to know the historical context.

Although there have been a number of thoughtful books, edited volumes and review essays exploring the history of the discipline of sociology, none of them have attended to the history of disability within the field. This paper contributes to that historical understanding.

The design and implementation of an interpretive framework to study historically marginalized issues in management is a distinct area of research. This paper aims to propose a multi-method interpretive framework, integrating a historiographical approach and an archival investigation, and use the case of business responses to disability in colonial and post-independence India to elucidate the proposed framework.

This paper provides a summary of a proposed framework for the historical study of marginalized social issues using an interpretive paradigm. It also outlines the advantages and limitations of the proposed framework.

This paper makes a methodological contribution in multi-method interpretive research design for the historical study of socially constructed issues, neglected because of deep prejudice and social exclusion, that offer complex challenges for modern businesses seeking inclusive workplace strategies.

This paper proposes a research framework that contextualizes social issues in history (historiographical study) and cases of business responses to these issues (archival study) for the examination of historically marginalized issues in the business–society relationship.

The purpose of this paper is to comment on the article “Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus: Our Heritage – the role of heritage exhibitions in tackling social isolation.”

This provides some further reflection and points for discussion on topics arising from the themes in the original article.

Issues are raised about the medicalisation of conditions and the ways in which a social and cultural model of disability challenges preconceptions and assumptions about personhood and victim status. Reference is made to the broader context of hidden histories and the ways in which people with learning disabilities are now taking active roles in reclaiming the story of their lives in the past and now.

The paper aims to raise awareness of critical issues of learning disability history prompted by the original paper.

Mental health assessment in people with learning disability can be a challenging process for clinicians. The more severe the cognitive impairment and level of learning disability, the less likely it is that the clinician can reliably confirm the diagnosis of a psychiatric disorder. Coordinated, multi‐modal interdisciplinary team assessment is the way forward, as it draws together the bio‐psychosocial model of interviewing and mental health care planning. In this article we go through the psychiatric assessment structure and highlight the differences in assessing people with learning disability compared with their peers in the general population. We give special consideration to mental health assessments in emergency settings, and to people with challenging behaviour.

This chapter asserts the theoretical importance of a relational approach for examining the historical development of civil rights for people with intellectual disabilities. A relational approach examines contestations over rights as embedded within and across various groups, settings, and times. Through this approach, we see, first, that struggles over rights are primarily struggles over “relational visions,” or the desired relational structure across groups. Second, rights for people with disabilities intersect with rights for other minority groups, and therefore, we must examine the broader stratification and relational structure. Third, rights developed differently depending on relational setting. Finally, rights have been used as “technologies of power,” requiring “normative” behavior for inclusion. Overall, a relational approach provides a set of concepts and a theoretical framework that furthers our understanding of citizenship for people with intellectual disabilities as it transformed through time and as it developed alongside citizenship for other populations.