Researching Disability Politics, Or, Some Problems with the Social Model in Practice

Abstract

A BSTR AC T This article arises from a research project involving the disabled mem bers' group in UN ISO N, and problematises the social m odel which explicitly undergirds the discourses and practices of this group. In abstract terms, there are dangers that the social m odel can be interpreted in a way which privileges some im paired identities over others, sanctions a separatist ghetto which cannot reach out to other groups of disabled and disadvantaged people, and weaves a tangled web around researchers who adhere to the em ancipatory paradigm . In concrete terms, these dangers are explored with reference to the stories of im paired people who believe that they are excluded from the disabled mem bers' group, the predicam ents of ex-disabled and differen tly-disabled people in relation to the m ovement, and the culture of suspicion surrounding academ ics, particularly the`non-disabled' researcher as would-be ally. It is argued that, whilst such identities and issues might appear to be`marginal' ones in the sense of occurring at the boundary of disabled comm unities, disability politics and disability studies, they should not be`marginalised' by disabled activists and academ ics, and indeed that they pose challenges to our collective identities, social m ovements, theoretical m odels and research paradigm s which need to be addressed.

The Disablement Score: An Intersubjective Severity Scale of the Social Exclusion of Disabled People

“…1 This perspective was inherited by Carol Thomas [3], who argued that a disability is a type of "social oppression" against people with impairments defined in cultural and medical terms. 2 In disability studies, Jill C. Humphrey [4] criticizes the activist version of the social model, arguing that it fails to address disabilities considered as less severe or those not visible. 3 There is limited space to discuss the current validity of the social model of disability.…”

“…Proponents of the original social model or Thomas' version can adopt the methodology developed in this paper insofar as the homogeneity of social exclusion experienced by disabled people is denied. Therefore, we can gauge disability severity by measuring social exclusion 4 , rather than measuring the inherent properties of impairments, which cannot easily cross disability types. Some research attempting to quantify disability issues paid attention to the connection between social exclusion and disability, as examined in the next section.…”

“…These question sets are intended to identify disabled people in censuses and other surveys. 4 In the terminology of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) [7], this may be similar to measuring participation restriction.…”

Paying for stories of impairment – parasitic or ethical? Reflections undertaking anthropological research in post-conflict Sierra Leone

“…social models only really make sense in particular contexts'. In this particular cross-cultural context and exchange, nobody had heard of a social model of disability nor were participants interested in my 'system of values' or 'academic biases' (Stone and Priestley 1996;Stone 1997;Humphrey 2000;Mercer 2002). Katsui and Koistinen (2008) seem to have had the same experiences noting that while people were keen to get involved in their research, they do not always have the time, educational background or inclination to become more informed, participate fully or even take control over the research process.…”

Analysing care-related decisions in parents of congenitally deaf children: introduction of an explanatory model

“…Hence the level of analysis is not the human body, but the social structure (Thomas 2002). In the field of deafness, advocates of yet another approach, the cultural-linguistic model, reject the notion of disability Á and as a consequence a basic assumption of the social model Á altogether (Humphrey 2000). In their view, deafness is not a disadvantage, but a characteristic on which a particular identity, language and culture are based Humphries 2005, 2010).…”