Ethical Dilemmas of Disability Inclusion—Emerging Ethics of Activism and Care: Introduction to the Special Issue
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background and ContextThe International Labor Organization (ILO) estimates that 386 million of the world's working-age people have some kind of disability (ILO, 2024).This is only a fraction of the 1.3 billion people currently identifying as disabled (United Nations Department of Economic & Social Affairs, 2024).Disabled people live, learn, self-advocate and are entrepreneurs.By interacting with others who often lack first-person experiences of disability, they influence a wide range of social norms.Employment is a fundamental human right, yet with unemployment among disabled people reaching as high as 80% in some countries or for certain disabilities, disability advocates have long fought against the systemic barriers that deny this right.(Keen & Oulton, 2009;Lovegood & Dorado, 2025; United Nations Department of Economic & Social Affairs, 2024).For instance, taking stock of progress over the five decades since the passage of the US Rehabilitation Act in 1973, (Schur et al., 2024) conclude that people with disabilities still face significant employment disparities with an employment rate of 37.1% in 2023 compared to 75.0% for those without disabilities.Furthermore, they show that disabled people earn 15% less on average, are twice as likely to live in poverty, and often encounter workplace discrimination, lack of support, lower job security, and precarious work conditions.The latest United Nations' Flagship Report on Disabilities and Development (2024) concludes that disabled people have been left behind and that progress is insufficient and, in some cases, has stagnated or reversed.Aspects of life such as identity, self-representation, and voice often demand significant additional personal investment-of effort, energy, and emotion-from disabled individuals (Branzei & Zeyen, 2025a;Zeyen & Branzei, 2023).Aspects of life such as identity, self-representation, and voice often demand significant additional personal investment-of effort, energy, and emotion-from disabled individuals (Watermeyer & Swartz, 2024).uch discrimination is often discussed under the umbrella of ableism-bias against disabled people rooted in a preference for normative, nondisabled bodies and minds (Campbell, 2009;Wolbring, 2008); or disableism-the systemic exclusion of disabled people through institutional structures and practices (Goodley, 2013;Miller et al., 2004;Wolbring, 2008).Against this backdrop, two emerging areas of inquirythe intersectionality of disabled people (Wolbring & Nasir, 2024) and the equity, diversity and inclusion of disabled people (Wolbring & Lillywhite, 2021)-are increasingly being examined through the lenses of ableism and disableism, offering new insights into how discrimination operates and how it might be dismantled within management and organization studies.The call for papers for this special issue (Zeyen et al., 2022) was motivated by the enduring discrepancy between the state of the world and the state of the field in management *
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,008 | 0,013 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».