This article discusses the relationship between the social and medical models of disability and between the academic and NGO communities in that field. Interviews with professionals from Norwegian disability NGOs show that while they share some of the political goals of the social model, they have a somewhat narrow understanding of the model’s critical potential. A false dichotomy has emerged in NGO discourse: The medical model, which originated as a negative construct within the social model, is reinterpreted as a legitimate conceptual alternative. This hinders dialogue between academe and the NGO community, and hampers the critical potential of the NGOs. In order to eliminate the dichotomy, it is necessary to develop the social model more extensively in discourse contexts outside the academic field.
Gleeson, Brendan. 1999. “Recovering a ‘Subjugated History’: Disability and the Institution in the Industrial City.”Australian Geographical Studies 371:114.
Grue, Jan. 2009. “Critical discourse analysis, topoi and mystification: Disability policy documents from a Norwegian NGO.”Discourse Studies 111:285–308.
Hahn, Harlan. 1984. “Reconceptualizing disability: a political science perspective.”Rehabilitation literature 451.
Krieger, Linda Hamilton. 2003. Backlash against the ADA : reinterpreting disability rights. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Longmore, Paul K.. 2003. Why I burned my book and other essays on disability. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
O’Halloran, K. A.2005. “Mystification and social agent absences: a critical discourse analysis using evolutionary psychology.”Journal of Pragmatics 371:1945–1964.
O’Halloran, Kieran. 2003. Critical Discourse Analysis and Cognition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Oliver, Michael. 1990. The Politics of Disablement, Critical Texts in Social Work and the Welfare State. London: MacMillan Press.
Oliver, Michael. 1996. Understanding Disability, From Theory to Practice. New York: St. Martins Press.
Samaha, A. M.. 2007. “What Good Is the Social Model of Disability?”UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW REVIEW 741:1251–1308.
Shakespeare, Tom. 2006. Disability rights and wrongs. London: Routledge.
Siebers, Tobin. 2008. Disability theory. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Snyder, Sharon L., and David T. Mitchell. 2006. Cultural locations of disability. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Stiker, Henri-Jacques. 1999 [1982]. A history of disability. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Stone, Deborah A.. 1984. The disabled state. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Thomas, Carol. 1999. Female forms : experiencing and understanding disability. Buckingham: Open University Press.
UPIAS. 1976. “The Fundamental Principles of Disability.” edited by Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation. London: UPIAS.
Weiss, Gilbert, and Ruth Wodak. 2003. Critical discourse analysis : theory and interdisciplinarity. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wendell, Susan. 1996. The rejected body : feminist philosophical reflections on disability. New York: Routledge.
Wodak, Ruth, and Michael Meyer (Eds.). 2001. Methods of critical discourse analysis. London: Sage.
Wodak, Ruth, and Anton Pelinka. 2002. The Haider phenomenon in Austria. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers.
Wodak, Ruth, and Teun Adrianus van Dijk. 2000. Racism at the top : parliamentary discourses on ethnic issues in six European states. Klagenfurt: Drava Verlag.
Cited by (5)
Cited by five other publications
Li, Zhiwei & Caiyun Qi
2023. Why can’t children with autism integrate into society in China? Study based on the perspective of NGO classification. Frontiers in Public Health 11
Engwall, Kristina
2016. How disability is conceptualized in individual discrimination complaints. International Journal of Discrimination and the Law 16:4 ► pp. 214 ff.
Lundberg, Camilla & Eva Simonsen
2015. Disability in court: intersectionality and rule of law. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research 17:sup1 ► pp. 7 ff.
Smith, Kent & Keith Tudor
2015. To be registered, or not to be registered – is that the question?. Asia Pacific Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy 6:1-2 ► pp. 3 ff.
Grue, Jan
2014. Technically disabled, ill for all practical purposes? Myalgic encephalopathy/chronic fatigue syndrome discourse in Norway. Disability & Society 29:2 ► pp. 213 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.