1 Underpinning this framework is the principle of "no participation without representation" (Kichen, 2000 Oliver, 1992) or, "nothing about us without us". This framework is comprised of a set of principles and practices which include: the researcher surrendering claims to objectivity in favour of an overt political orientation towards improving the lives of disabled people the use of the social model of disability as the underpinning theoretical foundation and control and accountability being deferred to disabled people (Stone and Priestly, 1996). In this context, one of the most influential models is the "emancipatory" framework (Barnes, 2003 Stone and Priestly, 1996). In contrast, in disability studies research, political and ethical legitimacy is premised on avoiding exploitation and inequality and ensuring that outcomes directly improve the lives of disabled people. Nearly two decades after Hunt's initial exposé, Kichen (2000) found that disabled people still had negative experiences of participating in research and often felt exploited by it. According to Oliver "disabled people have come to see research as a violation of their experience, as irrelevant to their needs and as failing to improve their material circumstances and quality of life" (1992: 105). The oppressive nature of research which purports to be about disabled people has remained a key concern within disability studies, and not just in terms of the research itself, but also in terms of "oppressive theoretical paradigm" and "oppressive set of social relations" (Stone and Priestly, 1996: 699). He highlighted the politics of objectivity and accountability, exploitation and oppression and mandated that disability research should benefit disabled people. Hunt's analysis of the power and politics of research laid the foundations of disability research. Hunt, however, subverted their discourse: "Miller and Gwynne make various references to residents as parasites and see us as essentially feeding off society not only economically but emotionally as well … The real parasites are those like Miller and Gwynne who grow fat by feeding on others miseries" (1981: 11). Miller and Gwynne's depiction of disabled people throughout their work was discriminatory and inflammatory, positioning disabled people as burdens and parasites. For example, Miller and Gwynne argued that in residential care, "the essential task to be carried out is to help the inmates to make their transition from a social death to physical death" (1981:10). Hunt (1981) challenged Miller and Gwynne's claim to objective findings by demonstrating that they had prioritised the perspective of practitioners over disabled people and reiterated wider social prejudices about disability. However, Miller and Gwynne's findings focused on improving the lot of practitioners rather than the quality of life and rights of disabled people. Miller and Gwynne had been commissioned to research the experiences of disabled people who were confined to institutional living following agitation by The Union of Impaired People Against Segregation (UIPAS). Hunt (1981) discredited the work of formerly esteemed researchers Eric Miller and Geraldina Gwynne by highlighting the ableist and unethical basis of their work. At the forefront of this challenge in the UK was Paul Hunt (Stone and Priestly, 1996). Introduction: The Politics of Disability Researchĭisability research (and disability studies) emerged from the activism of disabled people who not only challenged oppressive legal and social structures, but also the ways in which research was used to legitimate that oppression.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |