MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1563912608 · doi:10.1111/1467-9566.12320

Shakespeare, T. (ed.) Disability Research Today: International Perspectives. London and New York: Routledge. 2015. 254pp £29.99 ISBN 978–0415748445 (pbk)

2015· article· en· W1563912608 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maria Berghs

Notice bibliographique

RevueSociology of Health & Illness · 2015
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueDisability Rights and Representation
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésDisability studiesSociologyInternational Classification of Functioning, Disability and HealthEmpirical researchReading (process)AbleismInclusion (mineral)Diversity (politics)IntersectionalitySocial model of disabilityPsychologyGender studiesEpistemologyPolitical scienceRehabilitationPsychiatryLaw

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

‘What are we doing, when we do disability studies?’ Tom Shakespeare begins his edited collection Disability Research Today: International Perspectives by asking this question. In answering it, he notes that the chapters are framed within his intellectual biases and ‘preferences for what disability studies should be’ (p. 2). The book is organised into four parts: (i) illness and impairment; (ii) disabling processes; (iii) care and control, and; (iv) communication and representation. Disability, for Shakespeare, is a ‘complex, diverse and above all multi-factorial phenomenon’ that should mainly draw on ‘empirical research, rather than theory alone’ (p. 3). In keeping with his insistence on an empirical focus, most of the chapters do not explicitly espouse a bio-psycho-social model or focus on disability, as interpreted in terms of the World Health Organization's (WHO) international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF) – except for Corbisiero's chapter. Most focus on disability as ‘social-relational’. Disability studies are inclusive enough to accommodate diversity but some activists and scholars in critical disability studies or using a social model approach find Shakespeare's seemingly blind espousal of the ICF and WHO problematic, and will be reading this book wondering if his work is still relevant to critical disability studies and sociology (although I think that this book illustrates he is trying to say something more nuanced). There are chapters where, empirically and theoretically, Shakespeare is on the mark in identifying important areas of research, for example, in terms of intersectionality to homelessness, aging or violence against disabled women in India. The qualitative and quantitative depth and quality of the research is to be commended and gives a nice overview of interesting scholarship. Shakespeare also fittingly recognises where some of the future research challenges of disability studies are located, in terms of technological advances and the importance of big data. When thinking of research evidence and links to policy and practice, the gold standard is the randomised controlled trial (RCT). RCTs are not discussed in this book but would fit well with Shakespeare's research interests in rehabilitation (where the ICF has been very influential) and might open a critical approach to rethinking its hegemony. I was particularly interested in Ishihara's chapter ‘Learning from Tojisha Kenkyu’ (p. 27), where psychiatric patients take the lead in developing treatment regimes. The chapter also is connected to the innovative ideas currently being developed in mad studies and neurodiverse debates (such as in McWade et al. 2015). In terms of the intersections between disability studies and the sociology of health and illness, Ferrie and Watson's chapter on ‘The psycho-social impact of impairments: the case of motor neuron disease’ (p. 43) will be of interest in that they develop a social relational model of disability. Although Shakespeare does not want to focus on the social model, this chapter is indebted to the theoretical work of Carol Thomas by building on her idea of psycho-emotional disablism, illustrating that theory is still fundamental but reified. This points to some of the dangers of thinking that you can create silos in certain disability models or theories in a discipline. In many of the chapters there is a sense that innovation, in terms of theoretical development, will happen only through interdisciplinary work. As such, the book feels a little out of touch with some of the current debates in sociology, anthropology and disability studies. In particular, it seems out of touch with the political urgency of disability activism, the questioning of neoliberalism, the impact of austerity, conflicts, rethinking our sociological futures and how particular paradigms of disability become linked into the politics of ‘who counts’ (Ginsburg and Rapp 2015). Most of these studies are also located in middle to high income countries. This edited collection neglects research and debates on decolonising disability in the global south and on rethinking ontological and epistemological foundations. Part of that movement of decolonisation is a questioning of the boundaries of inclusion set by disability elites or institutions based in the global north. The theoretical richness and crucial empirical work being done in Australia, Canada and the USA is also missing, for example, how sites of intervention and incarceration become interlinked to disability. I would not call this book truly international or representative of the variety of approaches in disability studies. However, it is a nice reference book in showcasing empirical disability research and how the field is growing methodologically in new and exciting directions. It should appeal to students, academics and practitioners in a range of fields such as sociology and social policy.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,008
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,227
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,993

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0080,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,010
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,164
Tête enseignante GPT0,464
Écart entre enseignants0,300 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2015
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueSociology of Health & IllnessMême sujetDisability Rights and RepresentationTravaux en français237 207