Politicizing self-advocacy: Disabled students navigating ableist expectations in postsecondary education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The student self-advocacy literature commonly claims that although self-advocacy is a vital skill that disabled students require to succeed in postsecondary education, many of these students experience a significant ‘skills-deficit’ in this area. This paper seeks to intervene in this literature by proposing opportunities to ‘politicize’ self-advocacy and move away from its individual, deficit-focused approach. To do so, the paper reports findings from a qualitative study at a research-intensive Canadian university. Interviews with 11 disabled students revealed a perception that there is an institutionally endorsed ‘right way’ to self-advocate that included expectations to: (1) register for formal accommodations; (2) embody visible/physical disability; (3) perform less disabled; and (4) make others comfortable. Rooted in ableism, these harmful expectations adopt misconceptions of disability as predictable and visible, and burden students with demands that they make their self-advocacy convenient for those to whom they are self-advocating. As a form of resistance to these ableist expectations, students described their own ‘better way’ of negotiating self-advocacy and disability on campus. This ‘better way’ offers opportunities for ‘politicizing’ self-advocacy by recognizing ableism and the harms of the self-advocacy model, affirming disabled student knowledge and community, and enacting their visions for institutional change. Vital to this politicization is a move away from staff and nondisabled-led initiatives like self-advocacy training to address a perceived skills-deficit in individual students. Politicizing self-advocacy moves instead towards disabled students as full partners in conducting research and informing student services and staff training based on their collective lived expertise and strategic practices.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".