Historical perspectives on studying families of children with disabilities: A case for critical research
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.029 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.043 | 0.096 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".