Search results

The purpose of this paper is to draw attention to the work of sociologists who laid the foundation for queer and crip approaches to disability and to address how queer and crip theory has and can help to re-conceptualize our understandings of health, illness, disability, and sexuality.

This paper is an examination of historical moments and prominent literature within medical sociology and sociology of disability. Sociological and popular understandings of disability and sexuality have often mirrored each other historically. Although this literature review focuses primarily on medical sociology and disability studies literature, some works of scholars specializing in gender studies, sexuality, literature, history, and queer studies are also included

In this paper, I argue that the medicalization and pathologization of human differences specifically as it pertains to sexuality and disability within the medical sociological literature have led to constructionist, social model, and feminist critiques. It is these critiques that then laid the foundation for the development of queer and crip theoretical approaches to both disability and sexuality.

Crip and queer approaches to disability provide a clear call for future sociological research. Few social science scholars have applied queer and crip approaches in empirical studies on disability. The majority of work in this area is located in the humanities and concerned with literary criticism. A broader array of empirical work on the intersection of sexuality and disability from queer/crip perspectives is needed both to refine these postmodern theoretical models and to examine their implications for the complex lived experience that lies at the intersection of sexuality and disability. In queering disability and cripping sexuality and gender, we may be able not only to more fully conceptualize disability, sexuality, and gender as individual social categories, but also to more fully understand the complex intersection of these social locations.

In this chapter, the authors examine the challenges presented by supporting higher education students with disabilities in an online learning environment and put forth a discussion and recommendations for delivering literacy supports to geographically disparate students in fully online courses by embracing the social model of disability and universal design principals as opposed to the typical medical model of disability that it pervasive in educational systems. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, educational institutions are required to promote auxiliary aids and services. Broadly defined, these aids are meant to enhance communication, inclusion, and participation of people with disabilities. The discussion of the resources put forth in this chapter begins with an exploration of the evolving consensus on the nature of disability and the standard (medical) model for providing accommodations and supports for students with disabilities, which was developed before the rise of online and blended learning environments. Next, the authors explore the problems inherent in the use of the medical model and highlight how the social model and universal design for learning can be utilized to empower learners and enhance their learning experiences in online and blended learning environments. The discussion returns to the importance of inclusion, participation, and engagement for students with disabilities no matter the modality of learning. This chapter concludes with a comparison of two models of support and recommended changes for implementation of best practices to enhance literacy supports in online learning environments.

This study introduces an ecological framework for disabilities meant to provide a new model of viewing and learning about disabilities and special education. This model projects a multi-systemic view of factors that influence a person's life, where people with disabilities are active actors in the development of the world. The increased awareness about interconnectedness, globalization, inter- and trans-disciplinarity, influences on human experience, greening, sustainability, inequality, inequity and lack of opportunities is shifting how people think about potential and growth.

The methodological approach is qualitative, interpretive research.

In disability studies, the Ecological Model of Disabilities helps reframe this uniqueness as part of the spectrum of human experiences. In special education, the Ecoducation Model helps reframe the learning experience.

This research is conceptual, but it is also all-inclusive, rendering itself to a wide application in educational settings.

The Ecoducation Model for Special Education is specific to the education of children and adults with disabilities, and it is directly compatible with the broader Ecological Model of Disabilities. These ecological models can be applied to all levels of the ecological system, and to different ecodemes of population. Nevertheless, the ecological models need to be locally implemented, with general principles tailored to national traditions, laws and resources.

Advocating for the pursuit of individual well-being within the larger society, both models call for practical changes in a multitude of areas, including legislation and policy, training of professional personnel, sufficient financial input in programs designed for the care of children and adults with disabilities, change in societal mentalities to fight discrimination, disempowerment and isolation. Because the scope of ecological frameworks is incommensurate, being both interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary, further research possibilities are countless. The ecological perspective opens the fields of disability studies and special education to new theoretical and empirical possibilities.

Two epistemological models are described as new frameworks in disability studies: the Ecological Model of Disabilities and the Ecoducation Model for Special Education. Both are original models that look into the education and inclusion of the person with disabilities.

The purpose of this paper is to present the results of a critical analysis of the disability models developed to date and of how they function in practice. Furthermore, it aims to answer the following question: which model of disability (MD) will provide the most suitable foundation for any course of action undertaken in the process of planning accessible tourism development in the future?

In the first stage of the study a critical analysis of the MDs described in the literature as well as in selected reports and expert opinions relating to people with disability (PwD) was performer. These findings then became the basis for the second stage of the study which focuses on identifying attitudes within society towards the types of tourism on offer connected to the analysed MDs. The applied research methods include an analysis of a survey (2013, 2014) carried out face-to-face and on the SurveyMonkey web site. The study group consisted of 619 people (from Poland, Russia, Germany, Portugal, Slovakia, Canada, Tunisia and Great Britain).

The great diversity of disabilities makes finding a universal solution in the creation of accessible tourism supply a complex task. This supports the need for a flexible “mix of various models” aimed at finding optimal solutions and the personalisation of tourism. In this context the greatest potential in the development of accessible tourism are models which are a synthesis of many determiners of disability such as the biopsychosocial or the geographical model of disability. The dynamics of accessible tourism development is likely to be increasingly influenced by the economic model, reflecting current trends for the personalisation of tourism supply.

The survey was carried out mainly within the European Community, the exception being respondents from Irkutsk in eastern (Asian) Russia. In order to gain a global view of the development of accessible tourism, research should be performed in countries representing all continents or tourist regions. Additionally, reflecting the definition of accessible tourism its beneficiaries – PwD – should participate in decision-making processes. Tourism service providers who are directly engaged in tourism supply also have a role to play. Their opinions and attitudes towards the development of accessible tourism determine its very nature in reality.

The survey on attitudes in society regarding the organisation of tourist trips for PwD confirmed conclusions from the analysis of the practical implications of various disability models in the creation of tourism supply that a single universal, optimal solution does not exist. All of the described MD can be applied in the development of a diverse tourism supply. The proposed model “diversification of supply […]” is the theoretical basis for the conscious development of accessible tourism in practice which in accordance with changes observed in the tourism market is undergoing increasing diversification and personalisation.

In each of the tourism supply for PwD types the economic model of disability based on the identification of PwD needs and surrounding society is important. The number of PwD and the scope of necessary services, social support (PwD often travel accompanied by one to three people) is determined by income in all the sectors identified in the structure of tourism supply. From the economic point of view, awareness of different types of disability and the diverse models describing it are significant aids in the segmentation of tourism supply and placement of products accessible to PwD on the tourism market.

The paper presents a new, critical perspective on the selected MD, the key to which is the search for optimal solutions in the development of accessible tourism. The analysis performed indicated the need for a synthesis of paradigms at the core of the conceptualisation of particular models, including those often regarded as being contrary (medical and social). The results of studies would give tourism providers important data on an increasingly competitive tourism market, and also affect changes in how PwD, the elderly, are viewed, from the category of “relatively poor” to “attractive, using a wide range of services”.

This article aims to provide a new paradigm for thinking about disability, which can be applied to other social groups, historically invisible and whose rights have been violated. The Model of Communication and Legitimate Acknowledgement of Disability (MCLAD) tries to break with the logic of continuing to add terms and euphemisms around the issue. The author proposes a new line to think about relationships in democratic societies. Taking the step from inclusion to acknowledgment does not imply another way of naming the disability, but rather addressing the problem from concrete practices of recognition. In order to arrive at the proposal of the MCLAD, the author will make a journey that addresses how disability has been understood throughout history, according to the study of different authors.

Disability has been perceived over time in many different ways, which led some authors to build models in order to explain certain social approaches to the subject. This article traces a journey from the first model to the present. In turn, it proposes a new one: the MCLAD, which is characterized by a paradigm shift: moving from inclusion to acknowledgment. To substantiate this, three categories are presented: acknowledgment, distance and vulnerability. The different theories and concepts that support the model will also be presented. The purpose of the MCLAD is to deepen the idea of empowering people with disabilities as part of today’s diverse societies and closing historically constructed gaps which are still in force.

The MCLAD proposes three categories: acknowledgment, distance and vulnerability. In turn, in each of them, there is a link between three axes: person with disability/society/state, analyzing the dynamics of these relationships presented, will provide us with the necessary elements to understand the proposed turnaround.

Although the different models will be presented according to the chronological order of definition over time, all of them still coexist today, in many cases in hybrid and naturalized ways in social practices. Recognizing what practices and conceptions are behind each model, allows us to recognize and resignify the ways of communicating toward people with disabilities (PWD) and on the issue of disability. It also allows other specific recognition practices, such as the legitimization of public policies from the laws that protect them.

To replace the paradigm of inclusion for that of acknowledgment and to recognize how the three categories (acknowledgment, distance and vulnerability) are linked with the three issues (PWD – society and state) allowing specific relationship and practises of legitimate or not acknowledgement. When the author affirms that the MCLAD implies a paradigm shift, the author means that it provides some elements from legitimate acknowledgment to complement aspects which inclusion does not address, and that the other models did not take into account. These are: the self-acknowledgment of people with disabilities and the sense of responsibility linked to empowerment; vulnerability as a category of reconciliation, which is typical of every human being; the contribution of the Phenomenology of the Among to think about how relationships and practices actually occur in society and, finally, the role of the state, which must watch over all its citizens, avoiding the distance between discourse (laws) and practices and, above all, avoiding exclusion from the system due to lack of monitoring of actions.

It should be noted that the MCLAD starts from the idea of language as a constructor of realities and conceives communication as an enabler of the acknowledgment of the other, who is also subject to rights. At the same time, it vindicates the voice of people with disabilities as protagonists (“Nothing about us without us”) and fosters the need for PWD themselves to be active in their struggles, promulgating legitimate acknowledgment. At the same time, it points out that the empowerment of PWD implies not only that they are aware of their rights but also that they themselves know and fulfill their duties within the democratic societies of which they are a part of and which, at least discursively, are regulated by laws. In other words, being empowered is also being responsible for living in society.

The main contribution that the MCLAD has to offer is to replace the paradigm of inclusion for that of acknowledgment. And, throughout the path followed in this article, an attempt has been made to establish that the turnaround is not to capriciously install a new concept (acknowledgment), but to demonstrate that the new paradigm involves three categories that sustain and support a model that seeks to be the basis for effective public policies, for a society that values diversity and for people who feel worthy and contribute to dignify others.

This chapter reviews qualitative research on parenting children with disabilities published over the last 50 years to explore whether shifts in academic discourse and changes in professional training have affected research on parenting and/or the experiences of parents who are the subject of such research.

An extensive literature search was conducted, and 78 peer-reviewed, qualitative studies on the experience of parenting a child with a disability were included in the sample. Themes were extracted from the reviewed literature and compared across decades.

The findings of the present review suggest that some aspects of the parenting experience have changed very little. In particular, parents continue to experience negative reactions such as stress and anomie, especially early in their children’s lives, and socially imposed barriers such as unhelpful professionals, and a lack of needed services continue to create problems and inspire an entrepreneurial response. In addition, stigmatizing encounters with others continue to be a common occurrence. In contrast to earlier decades, studies conducted in more recent years have begun to use the social model of disability as an analytic frame and also increasingly report that parents are questioning and challenging the concept of “normal” itself.

Additional improvements are needed in professional education and services to reduce the negative reactions experienced by parents of children with disabilities.

The findings of this meta-analysis can serve as a guide to future research on parenting children with disabilities.

This paper was written to show that what has come to be called the social model of disability appeared as the primary analytical framework in research published by sociologists in the 1960s and 1970s. Although the name and constructs of the model have changed over the years, its roots are clearly present in the earlier sociological literature. The author looked for evidence of these roots.

The paper’s findings are based on a literature review and synthesis. For illustrative purposes, four publications were selected as case examples.

All of the components of the social model – locus of the problem in society, activism as a solution, and consumer control – appeared in the earlier literature. In addition, these studies conducted in the 1970s and earlier distinguished between the individual and social model, although they used different terminology.

Researchers need to go beyond simple electronic literature searches in order to find books and articles written prior to 1980. Otherwise, they may be “reinventing the wheel.”

Most recent literature in disability studies acknowledges a debt to the social model theorists of the 1990s. This paper suggests that their debt extends back much further and that the social model is part of a long tradition of sociological thinking.

Purpose: The purpose of this chapter is to scrutinize the apparent alliance between international and local disability rights movements by contextualizing the process in which the disability rights model is being diffused globally. It seeks to critically examine the transplantation and promotion of the international disability rights movement's rights-based model in China.

Approach: This chapter draws from 18 in-depth interviews with local and international disability rights activists through multisite ethnographic fieldwork in China in 2019.

Findings: This chapter finds that despite opening up spaces for resistance and emancipation locally, the international disability rights movement nevertheless constitutes what I call an enclave of rights that insulates the international rights model from the political, social, and economic realities on the ground. In the case of China, the authoritarian politics that define the relationship between the state and civil society, as well as the economic vulnerability of people with disabilities in the post-socialist market economy, limit, if not invalidate, the rights model espoused by the international disability rights movement.

Implications: The findings of this chapter challenge and complicate the current scholarship of the transnational disability rights movement beyond its normative claims of emancipation. They also explore potential spaces and direction for building a new transnational alliance that takes into account the local experience of disability in a rapidly globalized world.

Using data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) matched to administrative records, we examine mortality risk and participation in the Disability Insurance (DI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) disability programs from a long-term perspective. Over a period of 14 years, we analyze the effect of self-reported health and disability on the probability of death and disability program entry among individuals aged 18–48 in 1984. We also assess DI and SSI programs from a life-cycle perspective. Self-reported poor health and severe disability at baseline are strongly correlated with death over the 14-year follow-up period. These variables also are strong predictors of disability program participation over the follow-up period among non-participants at baseline or before, with increasing marginal probabilities in the out-years. Our cross-sectional models are consistent with recent studies that find that the work-prevented measure is useful in modeling DI entry. However, once self-reported health and functional limitations are accounted for, the longitudinal entry models provide conflicting DI results for the work-prevented measure, suggesting that, contrary to claims based on cross-sectional or short-time horizon application models, the work-prevented measure is an unreliable indicator of severity. The risk of SSI and DI participation is significantly greater for individuals who die, suggesting that future mortality captures the effect of case severity and deterioration of health during the follow-up period. From a life-cycle perspective, a substantially greater proportion of individuals participate in SSI or DI at some point in their lives compared to typical cross-sectional estimates of participation, especially among minorities, people with less than a high school education, and those with early onset of poor health and/or disabilities. Cross-sectional estimates for the Social Security area population indicate SSI and DI participation rates of no more than 5% combined in 2000. In contrast, for individuals aged 43–48 in 1984, we observe a cumulative lifetime SSI and/or DI participation rate of 14%. The corresponding figure is 32% for individuals in that age group who did not graduate from high school, suggesting the need for human capital investments and/or improved work incentives.

To investigate the extent to which disability discourages an individual from going on the job market, using data from an Italian survey.

We use an extended definition of labour force participation based on being employed or currently seeking work even if the persons declare themselves as housewives, students, retired or in any other condition otherwise. We use probit, sequential and multinomial logit models for analysing labour force participation and outcomes. We distinguish between the impact of disability in its strict sense and chronic illness explaining the difference.

In all variants we find that chronic illness is a stronger deterrent for labour force participation than disability. Women are more discouraged compared to men. Intellectual disability is the strongest barrier and hearing the least influential. In a sequential decision-making process, we find that disability affects both labour force participation decision and the ability to be employed but not so much the choice between part-time and full-time.

Policies providing tailored solutions for improved access to education and health care for disabled persons will enhance their work opportunities.

Data set is cross-sectional and characterised by attrition. It would be interesting to compare results with a longitudinal and more representative data set.

We have a unique data set from a survey which was specifically targeted at people who were identified as disabled in a previous survey. The Italian context is also special due to its high legal employment quotas and noncompliance sanctions.