Mobilizing feminist disability studies for expansive social work scholarship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Despite overlaps in their theoretical roots and objects of inquiry, feminist disability studies (FDS) have yet to be meaningfully integrated into social work’s eclectic theoretical fabric. In this article, I trace the history and evolution of FDS as an academic field. In doing so, I highlight some of the ways that FDS offers rich conceptualizations of phenomena relevant to social work scholarship, including disability and debility, social justice, the marketization of care, and coalitional care politics. This discussion emphasizes the value of adopting a nuanced conceptualization of care in social work to understand the inextricable linkages between the liberation of care workers and disabled people. In the second section, I examine some current frictions between social work and FDS, and identify generative possibilities of tending to these frictions rather than avoiding them. I present a vision for an expansive future of social work scholarship that mobilizes the conceptual contributions of FDS and begins to redress the ableism endemic in social work research and theory. I focus this discussion on two opportunities: the utility of adopting a gradient understanding of disability identity in social work scholarship, and the value of a coalitional approach to analysing and conceptualizing care.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".