Theories of labelling have been quite influential in forming the ideological basis for 'non-labelling' policies such as integration and normalization. But the ideological use of such theories often seem to disregard some of the basic insights of those theories. This neglect results in an over-optimistic attitude towards what can be achieved through 'non-labelling' policies. In this article the fallacies of the 'non-labelling' approach are identified, and the relation between the resulting ideology and structural changes within service structures are discussed. Finally, the need for more analytical and less normative research, true to the basic assumptions of the theoretical insights, are pointed out.
The field of disability studies is now established to the degree that it ought to and in fact is opening up for a more critical and self conscious approach to ideas imported from other fields. This forms the background for the present article, which discusses some classical tensions within disability research. Building on the discussion of the social model, three such tensions are discussed: between theory and political action, impairment versus disability and between theoretical and empirical research. Two rather recent trends, intersectionality and juridification, are also discussed and the conclusion is that they should be seen as challenges to disability studies to be taken seriously; not just uncritically applied, but tested and challenged in a way that could also be beneficial for the general discussion about these issues.
Over the last decades social and behavioural research about disability in Sweden has expanded considerably. The development over the last 40 years can be described in four phases of the development: early initiatives, getting integrated, getting established and late developments. It describes a journey from an activity separated from the traditional university system and mainly occupied by evaluating reforms sponsored by short-term grants to an established academic activity with a broad range of research topic and with a growing engagement in theoretical questions. During the past years, disability organizations have reacted critically as they found themselves having little influence on research that is done, a reaction that includes dissatisfaction with what is experienced as inability of researchers to make research politically relevant. What started in a society with a centralized structure and ambitious social engineering ideal now has to find its role in a more decentralized structure where reform ambitions and the role of social movements like disability organizations are different. To balance the need for autonomous research with the ambition of being politically relevant without falling for the temptation of being politically correct is one of the challenges social disability research in Sweden will have to deal with in the near future.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.