Search results

The purpose of this paper is to provide a commentary on Alex Cockain’s article “De-fusing and re-fusing face-to-face encounters involving autistic persons in Hong Kong”.

The commentary considers the issues raised in Cockain’s article primarily from a focus on Goffman’s concept of “stigma”. Cognitive, emotional and behavioural components of stigma are examined and its wider relevance considered.

There has been less research on the stigma of learning disability than on that of mental health, despite a very early study of learning disability (Edgerton, 1967) using the concept only four years after the publication of Goffman’s (1963) seminal work. A number of points of relevance of stigma are identified including to social role valorisation, visible and invisible stigmas, the concept of “passing”, microaggression, disablism and labelling.

The commentary illustrates the relevance of the concept of stigma to other aspects of learning disability and disability scholarship.

Every employee embodies manifestations of every demographic that attach to him or her different minority and majority statuses at the same time. As these statuses are often related to organizational hierarchies, employees frequently hold positions of dominance and subordination at the same time. Thus, a given individual’s coping strategies (or coping behavior) in terms of minority stress due to organizational processes of hierarchization, marginalization, and discrimination, are very often a simultaneous coping in terms of more than one demographic. Research on minority stress mostly focuses on single demographics representing only single facets of workforce diversity. By integrating the demographics of age, disability status, nationality, ethnicity, race, sexual orientation, and religion into one framework, the intersectional model proposed in this chapter broadens the perspective on minorities and related minority stress in the workplace. It is shown that coping with minority stress because of one demographic must always be interpreted in relation to the other demographics. The manifestation of one demographic can limit or broaden one’s coping resources for coping with minority stress because of another dimension. Thus, the manifestation of one demographic can determine the coping opportunities and coping behavior one applies to situations because of the minority status of another demographic. This coping behavior can include disclosure decisions about invisible demographics. Therefore, organizational interventions aiming to create a supportive workplace environment and equal opportunities for every employee (e.g., diversity management approaches) should include more demographics instead of focusing only on few.

This chapter explores the parental experiences of 21 mothers of young and/or adult children who have been diagnosed with developmental disabilities (DD). Specific attention is paid to mothers’ reflections on marginalization, stress, and resiliency. Intersectionality of marginalization was explored with a select number of participants who identified with minority racial groups, with the LGBTQ community, and/or as a single or young mother. Data were collected via semi-structured interviews and analyzed using the constant comparative method. Eighteen mothers reported experiencing elevated levels of stress specifically related to challenges associated with DD; the need for greater investments of time and money was emphasized. However, nearly every participant highlighted stories of resilience and acclimation to these challenges associated with raising a child with DD. Thirteen mothers overtly discussed experiences of discrimination and marginalization. Some of these scenarios included being stared at or criticized in public, being excluded from social events, and facing discrimination within school settings. Select participants from marginalized backgrounds (being as a young parent, or as Black, single, lesbian, bisexual, and/or transgender) provided insight into how layers of marginalization negatively impacted their parental experiences. These personal accounts provide additional evidence that mothers of children with DD experience courtesy stigma. In addition, they provide a holistic illustration of motherhood experiences that does not center on only negative or positive aspects. Finally, the reports of mothers who identified with multiple marginalized identities strengthen the call for additional empirical focus on intersectionality as it concerns mothers of children with DD.

In this chapter, we consider how the character of Rob Titchener has been developed in The Archers, moving him from hero of the hour to villain of the piece. We draw on a critical disability studies’ perspective to argue that ability and disability have been crucial in turning the character of Rob from the desirable and attractive man who first arrived in the village into a national hate figure, despised by all. We begin this analysis by introducing critical disability studies and studies of ableism as fields of academic inquiry. We then draw on these resources to offer an analysis of the ways in which ability and disability were used as a narrative device to develop Rob’s character. We question the ways in which ability and disability are used to denote ‘good’ and ‘evil’ in the development of characters in cultural texts like The Archers, and end with a plea to scriptwriters to engage differently with dis/ability and to consider the impact of the stories we tell on the everyday lives of disabled people.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the findings from a detailed qualitative PhD study exploring experiences of stigma and discrimination in the lives of people in receipt of “mental health support” at two voluntary sector organisations in the North East of England.

Empirical material was collected during two periods of three-month long ethnographic periods of fieldwork from July to December of 2013 at two organisations providing support to their members who experience or have experienced mental distress. Along with field notes taken during and after periods of participant observation, the empirical material also included 30 interviews with staff (n=10) and members (n=20) across both organisations, along with a series of three focus groups at each organisation.

Staff at the organisations did not demonstrate obvious stigmatising or discriminatory attitudes or behaviours. However, they did attribute “self-stigma” to particular attitudes and behaviours of some of the members they support, referring to how they “made excuses”, “did not try” and/or “avoided situations”.

This paper argues that these attributions resulted from the misrecognition of members’ reactions to experiences of discrimination. The empirical material also suggests that these attributions of self-stigma may be indicative of the material limitations of the support environment, the consequent frustrations of well-intentioned staff, and, overall, as symptoms of neoliberalism. Drawing upon a Mad Studies approach and focussing on self-stigma and its attribution in contemporary mental health support, this paper provides a new perspective, which considers how stigma is linked to discrimination by rethinking what is thought of as “self-stigma”.

The purpose of this paper is to reflect on the response to the scandal of abuse in services for people with intellectual disabilities in the light of research evidence and analysis.

Critical reflection and review of literature. In particular, recent research into possible indicators that a service is at risk of becoming abusive is used to test the hypotheses and implied solutions that are currently being adopted.

That some of the responses to recent scandals are necessary but not sufficient to prevent future harm. Furthermore, some of the proposed solutions may actually increase the likelihood of further abuse. Prevention of abuse requires a broader and more evidence-based response.

The synthesis of research and analysis presented here has not been presented previously in the published literature.