Disability - special issue
Getting our house in order
Sarah Supple takes a look at the portrayal of disability in the psychological literature.
Physical
impairment seems to have always been part of human existence. In the
oldest of remains archaeologists find evidence that humans incurred
severe, deforming injuries and still went on to live for many years. At
some point this physicality took on a social meaning, and at least as
far back as the first century ad, physical impairment has been
stigmatised (e.g. as challenged by Jesus in John 9:1–12). As I am a
disabled woman who is registered blind, I decided to investigate how
contemporary society perceives disability; and because I was training
to be a counselling psychologist at the time, I thought the field of
psychology was an appropriate place to look. What beliefs, implications
and assumptions regarding disability are revealed by and embedded in
modern psychological research? One of the first things I discovered was
that there is an alternative to the traditional medical model that
seems to dominate our society’s understanding regarding disability.
Shakespeare (1993) differentiates between physical impairment and
disability, asserting that the former refers to the embodied
restrictions of a certain physical state, whilst the latter is the
consequence of a society that categorises the former into a socially
devalued and disempowered position. Such oppression stems from an
environment that is hostile towards disability, in which physical and
social barriers inhibit personal choice. This conceptualises disability
as diversity within the human condition, rather than as a lack of
ability (Oliver, 1996).
This view has been adopted by the disability movement, which has grown
in opposition to negative medicalised representations of disability.
Historically, disabled people came to be perceived as sick and as in
need of a cure (see for example Oliver, 1996, and Barnes, 1991). As
disability was likely to be untreatable
in the conventional sense, disabled people came to be seen as tragic
and less valued than those who could recover from illness (French
Gilson & Depoy, 2000).
As psychology developed, it played an inadvertent part in the
predominance of the negative view of disability. Burman (1994) asserts
that as developmental psychology participated in the establishment and
measurement of norms, it created and perpetuated the concept of
‘abnormality’, which was applied to disabled people. This led
psychology to focus on the guilt, shame and loss associated with the
tragedy of being disabled (Lindemann, 1981), and on the presumed
outcomes, such as maladaptive personalities and behaviours (Hersen
& Van Hasselt, 1990).
In this article I will look at several different areas of psychological
research, starting with how affect and cognitive style were linked to
level of impairment.
Affect
Much of the research seems to emphasise the role that negative
emotions play in the psychology of disabled people and how this may
affect the way in which they experience their physical impairment.
Depression seemed to be commonly associated with physical impairment,
and Abberley (1987) suggests that such negative representations have
given disabled people a detrimental status. Dennis et al. (2000)
considered how emotional distress (rather than physiology) affects a
person’s level of impairment. The study constructs stroke patients as
being prone to emotional problems and links this to outcome after a
stroke, measuring this using self-rated questionnaires complemented by
information from medical professionals. Similarly, Hansen et al. (2001)
suggest that the severity of
an individual’s impairment is linked to their mental state. Also,
Hommel et al. (2000) propose that psychological factors are as integral
to disability as physical factors, suggesting that cognitive appraisal
may affect the management of rheumatoid arthritis.
This seems to move towards an assumption that level of impairment is
intrinsically linked to an individual’s emotional and cognitive
characteristics. This focus on subjective qualities maintains a
traditional focus on the individual as deficient, which minimises the
need for change on an institutional or social level, as well as
overlooking any contextual or societal factors affecting level of
impairment. Also much of the research relied upon professionals’
assessments of the participants, which seems to place them as passive
subjects. Often recommendations were made to change the individual’s
way of behaving or thinking in order to facilitate improvement or
rehabilitation. This may reflect psychology’s individualistic focus, as
well as its assumption that disability will have a negative impact upon
a person, which needs to be ‘cured’.
Quality of life
Quality of life (QoL) has been adopted by psychology as an outcome
measure even though some assert that the concept remains poorly defined
(Holmes et al., 1997). Research often seems to make a direct link
between impairment or disability and QoL, implying that the former
affects the latter. Much of the research (e.g. Koplas et al., 1999;
Wahl et al., 1999) does not incorporate the participants’ own
perspectives on their quality of life, relying instead on clinically or
physically defined criteria. Meyers (2000) asserts that research on QoL
displays a historical bias, focusing on the destructive nature of
physical impairment. He feels areas such as health satisfaction and
positive affect should be incorporated, as even people with the most
notable impairment show high levels of happiness. Perhaps the positive
aspects of physical diversity need to be explored more, through
listening to disabled people’s personal accounts.
Sexuality and reproduction
Sexuality has been included in psychological measures of QoL, such
as the World Health Organization’s Quality of Life Scale. However,
sexuality is often omitted from the representations of disabled bodies
and thus estranged from the identities of disabled people. It has been
suggested that disabled people are treated in an asexual way by their
parents and healthcare workers (Hallum, 1995), and that this is fuelled
by the belief that disabled people are incapable of having or being
interested in sex.
Berman et al. (1999) examined sexual knowledge, sexual behaviour and
beliefs about sexuality among adolescents with congenital physical
impairments. They felt that the lack of research in this field was
disturbing, because sexuality is a central concern of adolescents and
their families, and because its absence in the literature reinforces
the myth that disabled people are not sexual. They found that
adolescents with physical impairments are generally uninformed or
misinformed about sexual knowledge and how it relates to their
impairment.
The picture doesn’t improve in the area of reproduction. Collins (1999)
highlights the paradox that women with physical disabilities are being
denied equal access
to reproductive technologies, whilst being controlled and threatened by
them. The paper sees that many disabled women will have pregnancy –
usually a private domain – publicly controlled for them.
Perhaps there is a more sinister reason why sexuality is not associated
with disabled people – the idea that disabled people should not
procreate or increase
in number. Even women who are against abortion in principle will have
prenatal testing to screen for impairment and would have an abortion if
it is found (Kyle et al., 1988). In fact, the law in Britain allows a
pregnancy to be terminated at any stage if the fetus is shown to be
‘seriously handicapped’ – perhaps a reflection of the attitude that
Swain and French (2000) suggest underlies Western culture: ‘you are
better dead than disabled’.
Research dealing with sexual oppression should acknowledge that some
physical impairments may have a profound affect on women’s ability to
conceive or carry a child, whilst avoiding a presumption that this is
problematic for all disabled women. Physical restrictions are quite
different from social ones and are not necessarily detrimental to one’s
sexuality. There also seems to be a focus on heterosexual disabled men
and women in the research, overlooking any diversity in sexuality.
Therapy
The last theme I considered was how disability issues impact on the
practice of therapy. The way in which disability is dealt with by
psychologists, and in turn by institutions that train them, shapes how
disabled people are theorised about. Such theorising contributes to how
disabled people are perceived and categorised; that is, as deviant or
abnormal (Burman, 1994). This will in turn impact upon societal
representations of disability and therefore on the experiences of
disabled people.
Fuertes et al. (2001) undertook research considering how counsellor
multiculturalism competency impacts on the practice of therapy. This is
an approach that recognises the existence of multiple belief systems
and perspectives, asserting the need for counsellors to attend
competently to the culture and context in which clients operate.
Disability can be conceptualised as such a cultural identity (Sue et
al., 1992), and the disabled movement itself conceptualises such a
cultural identity as stemming from a common experience of societal
oppression (e.g. Abberley, 1987; Swain & French, 2000). However,
although a multicultural approach is potentially liberating, leading to
a deeper understanding of the phenomenology of disabled people, it
needs to be further explored, ensuring that disabled people themselves
are involved in the research process.
Another issue (considered by Chaudhuri, 1999) concerns how a disabled
psychotherapist may affect the therapeutic alliance. He suggests that
personal contact and interaction are essential between non-disabled and
disabled colleagues, but that this can be affected by anxiety and an
avoidance reaction stemming from a fear
of losing one’s own bodily integrity (e.g. Anisfeld, 1993).
Furthermore, Chaudhuri postulated that the wheelchair becomes a sign of
the psychiatrist’s mortality and thus provokes fears about the
mortality of those around him or her. This clearly
perpetuates historical prejudice using psychotherapeutic theory in a
way that legitimates and continually constructs disabled people as
different and intimidating. Chaudhuri also considers how the client may
perceive the disabled body as indicative of cognitive or emotional
problems, which may affect the therapeutic relationship. This seems to
echo the presumption that disability fundamentally affects one’s
personal attributes, which is evident in much psychological research.
However, Chaudhuri goes on to assert that the therapist can work with
their disability, using it to explore transferencial issues and
facilitate a much-needed opportunity to consider the impact a therapist
has on therapy. He feels that psychoanalysis needs to find a better
understanding of disability, moving away from a purely negative concept
of it as symbolic of death and castration anxiety.
Still much to do?
The research I looked at was only a tiny sample of the work undertaken regarding disability, and my search stopped at 2001.
I wonder if the picture has changed significantly in the last four
years, or whether this is still an indication of some of the attitudes
present within psychology? Are traditional medical perspectives of
disability still predominant? Is disability still perceived as a
largely negative phenomenon, associated with negative affect, lowered
quality of life and diminished sexuality, as well as provoking anxiety
in others? Or is disability research finally catching up with work done
regarding other socially oppressed minorities in the areas of race,
gender and sexuality?
Overwhelmingly, the assumption seems to be that disability is a
physical problem, affected by an individual’s thoughts and behaviours.
The research rarely considered any social or contextual issues that may
contribute to the experience of being disabled. Furthermore the
research seemed to treat disabled people as a homogeneous group,
sharing traits and experiences, with little or no consideration given
to how such a category is defined or what diversity may exist within it.
The paradox is that psychological theory regarding disability will not
evolve without fresh perspectives provided by research. But the
research seems to be based on, and thus perpetuates, traditional,
largely negative presumptions about disability and disabled people.
Therefore, psychological practitioners need to be aware of what
representations and assumptions they hold regarding disability, as well
as how the institutions they train and work in deal with the topic of
disability.
This is particularly important because psychology as a discipline plays
a central role in the diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation of
disabled people. Thus such reflection is necessary in order to avoid
perpetuating the past pathologising of disabled people, which has
reinforced their status as ‘other’ and abnormal. In order to challenge
such discrimination, psychologists need to research issues that are
relevant to disabled people based on their perspectives and which
embrace diversity, making space for a variety of perspectives on
disability.
- Sarah Supple is a counselling psychologist with the Northamptonshire
Health Care NHS Trust. E-mail: [email protected].
Discuss and debate
Is the medical model of disability still prevalent within psychology and the NHS?
What do you think the implications of the Disability Discrimination Act are for psychologists?
Do you think disability issues should be treated as a separate field of study within psychology?
Have your say on these or other issues this article raises. Write to
our Letters page on [email protected] or at the Leicester address
– 500 words or less, please. Or you can contribute to our online forum
on this or any other topic – go to www.thepsychologist.org.uk.
References
Abberley, P. (1987). The concept of oppression and the development
of a social theory of disability. Disability, Handicap and Society, 2,
5–19.
Anisfeld, L. (1993). The therapist’s disability at an adaptive context.
In J. Aronson (Ed.) Listening and interpreting. New York: Schribners.
Barnes, C. (1991). Disabled people in Britain and discrimination: A
case for anti-discrimination legislation. London: Hurst, in Association
with the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People.
Berman, H., Harris, D., Enright, R., Gilpin, M., Cathers, T. &
Bukovy, G. (1999). Sexuality and the adolescent with a physical
disability: Understandings and misunderstandings. Issues in Pediatric
Nursing, 22, 183–196.
Burman, E. (1994). Deconstructing developmental psychology. London: Routledge.
Chaudhuri, R.M. (1999). Dynamic psychotherapy and the disabled
psychiatrist. Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis, 27,
239–251.
Collins, C. (1999). Reproductive technologies for women with physical disabilities. Sexuality and Disability, 117, 299–307.
Dennis, M., O’Rourke, S., Lewis, S., Sharpe, M. & Warlow, C.
(2000). Emotional outcomes after stroke: Factors associated with poor
outcome. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 68, 47–52.
French Gilson, S. & Depoy, E. (2000). Multiculturalism and
disability: A critical perspective. Disability and Society, 15, 207–218.
Fuertes, J.N., Bartolomeo, M. & Nichols, M. (2001). Future research
directions in the study of counsellor multicultural competency. Journal
of Multicultural Counselling and Development, 29, 3–12.
Hallum, A. (1995). Disability and the transition to adulthood: Issues
for the disabled child, the family, and the pediatrician. Current
Problems in Pediatrics, 25, 12–50.
Hansen, M.S., Fink, P., Frydenburg, M., Oxhoj, M.L., Sondergaard, L.
& Erisken, M. (2001). Mental disorders in medical inpatients and
the association to severity of illness, self-rated physical disability
and health perception. Psychosomatics, 42, 41–47.
Hersen, H. & Van Hasselt, V.V. (1990). Psychological aspects of
development and physical disabilities. A casework. London: Sage.
Holmes, S., Coyle, A. & Thomson, E. (1997). Quality of life in
survivors of bone marrow transplant. Journal of Cancer Nursing, 1,
106–116.
Hommel, K.A., Chaney, J.M., Mullins, L.L., Palmer, W., Wees, S. &
Klein, H. (2000). The contribution of attributional style to perceived
disability in rheumatoid arthritis: A longitudinal study. Journal of
Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 7, 113–120.
Koplas, P.A., Gans, H.B., Wisely, M.P. et al. (1999). Quality of life
and Parkinson’s disease. Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological
Sciences and Medical Sciences, 54(4), M197–M202.
Kyle, D., Cummins, C. & Evans, S. (1988). Factors affecting the
uptake of screening for neural tube defects. British Journal of
Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 95, 560–564.
Lindemann, J.E. (1981). Psychological and behavioural aspects of physical disability. London: Plenum Press.
Meyers, A.R. (2000). From function to felicitude: Physical disability
and the search for happiness in health services research. American
Journal on Mental Retardation, 105, 342–351.
Oliver, M. (1996). Understanding disability: From theory to practice. New York and Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Shakespeare, T. (1993). Disabled people’s self organisation: A new
social movement? Disability, Handicap and Society, 8, 249–264.
Sue, D.W., Carter, R.T., Casas, J.M. et al. (1998). Multicultural
counselling competencies: Individual and organisational development.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Swain, J. & French, S. (2000). Towards an affirmation model of disability. Disability and Society, 15(4), 569–582.
Wahl, A., Moum, T., Hanestad, B.R. & Wiklund, I. (1999). The
relationship between demographic and clinical variables and quality of
life aspects in patients with psoriasis. Quality of Life Research, 8,
319–326.
Weblinks
Disability studies archive: tinyurl.com/6puwu
Disability Now: www.disabilitynow.org.uk
British Counsel of Disabled People: www.bcodp.org.uk
Disability and the parenting paradox
Lisa Woolfson on the challenges facing the parents of disabled children.
Parents of disabled children face all the usual challenges of
parenting: how to teach their child to sleep through the night; how to
help them develop independence; how to ensure they are successful,
academically and socially. But because we live in a society that views
disability as a tragedy (e.g. Barton, 1996), parents of disabled
children are likely to experience additional parenting challenges, such
as coping with family and friends’ responses to disability.
Furthermore, caregiving demands can provide a daily challenge, with
child behaviour problems frequently reported (e.g. Roberts &
Lawton, 2001). What help is available to them from psychological theory?
Importance of cognitive change
Recent research has focused on effective use of cognitive change in
adapting to parenting a disabled child. For example, Lustig (2002)
found that cognitive reframing of problematic events as manageable,
rather than passive acceptance that parenting a child with a disability
is problematic, was associated with family adjustment. Parents in
another study (Scorgie et al., 1999) reported learning to think of
their children as ‘children’ rather than ‘disabled children’, and
viewing themselves as parents rather than therapists. Scorgie and
Sobsey (2000) reported changed perception of what was important in life
in three areas: personal growth, relations with others, and overall
values. Parents in this study reported greater compassion, stronger
marriages, expanded friendship networks, and making the most of each
day.
But why is cognitive change required? Perhaps sharing societal beliefs
about disability being a tragedy isn’t compatible with effective
parenting of disabled children. Parents of disabled children may have a
particular set of social-cognitive dimensions to address and may need
to develop new attitudes and beliefs about disability in general and
their child’s disability in particular. For example, when considering
the area of problematic behaviour in disabled children, I have
suggested (Woolfson, 2004) that viewing behaviour problems as part of
the disability can hinder parents from teaching their children
discipline as they would with typically developing children.
Which frameworks might help?
It is important then for us to understand parents’ beliefs about
disability and about child-rearing. Only in this way can proposed
interventions be tailored appropriately to parents’ needs.
Psychological frameworks that have been applied to other areas can
usefully be applied to this field.
For example, the self-regulation model (Leventhal et al., 1992)
provides a valuable framework for exploring patients’ views of their
illness and how these regulate coping outcomes. The key idea here is
that patients’ beliefs about their illness, for example what impact it
will have on day-to-day living or whether it can be cured, play an
important role in how they cope with that illness and in health
outcomes. It is currently being used in the field of adult chronic
illness, for example with Huntington’s disease (Helder et al., 2002)
and irritable bowel syndrome (Rutter & Rutter, 2002), to
investigate patients’ cognitions about the nature, length, cause,
outcomes and curability of the conditions.
These dimensions may provide a useful framework for exploration of
representations of disability, as for illness. Furthermore they may be
applicable beyond regulation of self, as in the model, to regulation of
other, where the focus is on parents’ beliefs about disability not in
themselves but in their children. Parents’ beliefs about their child’s
disabilities across the dimensions of nature of condition, causes,
consequences and extent to which the condition might be cured or
controlled, might similarly impact on parental coping, parenting
behaviour and child well-being outcomes (such as child behaviour and
social adjustment).
Another valuable framework for examining people’s beliefs about what
has caused a particular outcome is Weiner’s (1985) attribution theory.
Attributional causes are classified as to locus (due to self or
circumstances?), stability (typical of me or just chance?) and
controllability (can I do something to change this?). Attributional
analysis has been used in a number of areas related to, but not
directly focused on, the parenting of developmentally disabled
children. For example, there are several studies on the attributions of
children with learning difficulties (e.g. Robertson, 2000); on parent
attributions and child achievement (e.g. Georgiou, 1999); parent
attributions and child behaviour (e.g. Bugental, 1987; Miller, 1995);
and parental attributions and child-rearing practice (e.g. Himelstein
et al., 1991).
Applying an attribution framework to parenting developmentally disabled
children, Chavira et al. (2000) found that most of the mothers in their
sample did not perceive their disabled children as being responsible
for any problematic behaviour. However those who did experienced
negative emotions. This finding extends beyond the study’s Latina
mothers to other populations and to children without disabilities (e.g.
Bugental et al., 1989).
A parenting paradox
So we have a thorny situation. On the one hand, attributing
responsibility to the child for problematic behaviour is linked with
parental negative emotional reaction thatis itself associated with
harsh parent behavioural responses (Graham et al., 2001), and
aggressive child behaviour (Dix & Lochman, 1990); on the other
hand, in order to begin to effect change in their children’s behaviour,
parents need to view their children as having some responsibility and
control over their behaviour.
Like parents of typically developing children, parents of children with
developmental disabilities can also try to teach their children how to
behave in more socially acceptable ways. Of course, many parents will
not require professional interventions to address this; but for those
who do, involvement can focus on three key areas. Certainly advice on
strategies for management of their child’s behaviour will be a key
area. But in order to help parents effect change in their child’s
behaviour, psychologists may also need to help them identify cognitions
about responsibility and control that may be barriers to planned
strategies. Where parents view difficult behaviour as a necessary part
of the child’s disability, psychologists can work to persuade them that
behavioural improvement is something that parent and child can try to
address, even though goals for change may be modest. Parents of
children with cerebral palsy reported examples of such cognitive shifts
following an early intervention programme (Woolfson, 1999), e.g. ‘I try
now not to let her get away with things because of the cerebral palsy’,
‘I do check her now because she’s got to learn’. Parents in this study
reported the positive effects of taking an active approach with their
children: ‘I feel as if I’m actually doing something to help her. I
feel much better about her and me.’
For some children with severe disabilities, behavioural change will be
difficult to effect and even small changes will require considerable
parental perseverance. Some of my most recent research suggests that
parents of children with learning disabilities who used behaviour
control in their parenting experienced more stress than parents who
were more laissez-faire in their approach. Trying to achieve
behavioural change, with its implications of parental and child
responsibility and the negative affect that may be associated with
this, suggests that a third key area for psychologists is provision of
emotional support for parents who are engaged in such an emotionally
demanding task.
- Dr Lisa Woolfson is a senior lecturer with the Department of
Psychology, University of Strathclyde. E-mail:
[email protected].
Weblinks
Dr Woolfson’s homepage: www.strath.ac.uk/Departments/Psychology/
staff/woolfson.html
ParentView: tinyurl.com/6slaq
Discuss and debate
What does responsibility and control mean for a child with severe learning difficulties and communication impairments?
To what extent can psychological models of illness be applied to disability?
Have your say on these or other issues this article raises. Write to
our Letters page on [email protected] or at the Leicester address
– 500 words or less, please. Or you can contribute to our online forum
on this or any other topic – go to www.thepsychologist.org.uk and
follow the links.
References
Barton, L. (1996). Sociology and disability: Some emerging issues.
In L. Barton (Ed.) Disability and society: Emerging issues and insights
(pp.3–17). London: Longman.
Bugental, D. (1987). Attributions as moderator variables within social
interactional systems. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 5,
469–484.
Bugental, D., Blue, J. & Cruzcosa, M. (1989). Perceived control
over caregiving outcomes: implications for child abuse. Developmental
Psychology, 25, 532–539.
Chavira, V., Lopez, S., Blacher, J. & Shapiro, J. (2000). Latina
mothers’ attributions, emotions and reactions to the problem behaviours
of their children with developmental disabilities. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 41, 245–252.
Dix, T. & Lochman, J. (1990). Social cognition and negative
reactions to children. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9,
418–438.
Georgiou, S. (1999). Parental attributions as predictors of involvement
and influences on child achievement. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 69, 409–429.
Graham, S., Weiner, B., Cobb, M. & Henderson, T. (2001). An
attributional analysis of child abuse among low-income African-American
mothers. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 20, 233–257.
Helder, D., Kaptein, A., van Kempen, G., Weinamn, J., van Houwelingen,
H. & Roos, R. (2002). Living with Huntington’s disease. British
Journal of Health Psychology, 7, 449–462.
Himelstein, S., Graham, S. & Weiner, B. (1991). An attributional
analysis of maternal beliefs about the importance of child-rearing
beliefs. Child Development, 62, 301–310.
Leventhal, H., Diefenbach, M. & Leventhal, E. (1992). Illness cognition. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 16, 143–163.
Lustig, D. (2002). Family coping in families with a child with a
disability. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and
Developmental Disabilities, 37(1), 14–32.
Miller, S. (1995). Parents’ attributions for their children’s behaviour. Child Development, 66, 1557–1584.
Roberts, K. & Lawton, D. (2001). Acknowledging the extra care
parents give their disabled children. Child: Care, Health and
Development, 27, 307–319.
Robertson, J. (2000). Is attribution training a worthwhile classroom
intervention for K-12 students with learning difficulties? Educational
Psychology Review, 12(1), 111–134.
Rutter, C. & Rutter, D. (2002). Illness representation, coping and
outcome in irritable bowel syndrome. British Journal of Health
Psychology, 7, 377–391.
Scorgie, K. & Sobsey, D. (2000). Transformational outcomes
associated with parenting children who have disabilities. Mental
Retardation, 38, 195–206.
Scorgie, K., Wilgosh, L. & McDonald, L. (1999). Transforming
partnerships. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and
Developmental Disabilities, 34(4), 395–405.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement, motivation, and emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548–573.
Woolfson, L. (1999). Using a model of transactional developmental
regulation to evaluate the effectiveness of an early intervention
programme for preschool children with motor impairments. Child Care,
Health and Development, 25(1), 55–79.
Woolfson, L. (2004). Family well-being and disabled children: a
psychosocial model of disability-related child behaviour problems.
British Journal of Health Psychology, 9, 1–13.
Community psychology - Towards an empowering vision of disability
Rebecca Lawthom and Dan Goodley urge psychologists to enable rather than disable.
Is psychology a source of oppression for disabled people, or a
resource for enabling individual and collective empowerment?
Historically, psychology’s impairment focus has risked presenting a
personal tragedy view of disabled people. This must not remain the
case.
British disability studies – the radical academic and social movement
(Please note that some pictures may have been removed for copyright reasons)
BPS Members can discuss this article
Already a member? Or Create an account
Not a member? Find out about becoming a member or subscriber
Comments
Equality Act working group
I have started a group in our community for all this.
Register at https://www.mpapro.co.uk/community/registration
Then find https://www.mpapro.co.uk/community/groups/29-eawg and apply to join (it’s a closed group)
And then see this discussion https://www.mpapro.co.uk/community/groups/29-eawg/apps/27-discussions/item/35