‘Disability Is an Art. It's an Ingenious Way to Live.’: Integrating Disability Justice Principles and Critical Feminisms in Social Work to Promote Inclusion and Anti-Ableism in Professional Praxis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Disability communities engaged with social work recognize how critical feminist inquiry and disability justice principles often overlap to promote anti-ableist theorizing, research, practice, and education. Both the feminist scholarship and the disability justice movement center the voices and perspectives of those most excluded, reflecting the intersectional experiences of disability communities in social work. In this brief, we draw on significant events, such as the impact of climate change and criminal legal systems on disabled people, to map connections between critical feminisms, disability justice principles, and social work values. In re-imagining disability justice as a form of critical feminism, we highlight parallels in their guiding principles and explore how their multi-issue frameworks interrogate the same systems of power and oppression. Through this re-envisioning, we build upon the knowledge offered by intersectional disability communities that center interdependence as practices of survival and resistance. The authors suggest that social workers engaged with principles of disability justice and critical feminisms would do well to consider interdependence, collective care, and mutual aid as pathways toward inclusive and anti-ableist professional praxis.
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 | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".