Historical perspectives on studying families of children with disabilities: A case for critical research
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historically, research on families of children with disabilities has been framed by the medical model, which views disability as a biological deficit, necessarily associated with burden and grief. This body of research does not acknowledge the sociocultural contexts in which the meaning of disability is embedded, or the manner in which deficit-based hegemonic discourses shape the familial experience of having a child with a disability. In this paper, we problematize the medicalization of the phenomenon of disability and resulting research inquiries. We propose the use of narrative inquiry, theoretically grounded in sociocultural perspectives, as a critical research methodology for situating the lives of these families in cultural and sociopolitical contexts. Narrative inquiries complicate conclusions drawn from the medical model and contribute to new insights on the ways in which interpretations of having a child with a disability are mutually negotiated between individuals and society. Keywords: families; children with disabilities; narrative inquiry; disability studies; critical disability theory; qualitative methodology
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it