Navigating multiple identities through art-making: stories of artists with congenital and acquired physical impairments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Constructing and negotiating one’s identities is a central life task that continues across the lifespan and occurs within specific social, cultural, and historical contexts. For persons with impairments, dominant social beliefs and ideas embedded within these contexts, are likely to shape self-perceptions and the identities individuals construct. While negative stereotypes and ideas have historically been associated with disability, this diverse group of people has strived, both collectively and individually, to resist negative characterizations. One example of these efforts is the Disability Arts Movement and within the existing literature, we find evidence that creating and sharing art can help individuals with a stigmatized difference develop less negative, and more explicitly positive disability identities (Swain, French & Cameron, 2003), as well as serving as an avenue for developing and affirming one’s valued identity as an artist (Sulewski, 2012). In this study, I build from this evidence to explore the more specific question of how Contemporary Canadian artists with physical impairments, both congenital and acquired, negotiate their multiple intersecting identities. I use disability and artist identities as entry points and investigate how art-making can be used to manage a host of other valued identities. Two theoretical frameworks, the social model of disability, and intersectional theory have guided me in this work. A narrative methodology was used to examine how identities changed over time. Participants were recruited through flyers, word of mouth, list servers, and attending community events. Twelve individuals with acquired and / or congenital physical impairments agreed to be interviewed for this research project. Participants’ identities, in particular their identity as a person with an impairment and an artist, developed and changed over time in multiple ways. These identities solidified over time but were also revised and evolved based on other life experiences. With respect to their embodied experience, they identified environmental and interpersonal challenges, the ways they coped with these challenges, as well as how these experiences informed the process of accepting themselves as persons with different bodies. Additionally, they described their artistic practise, the functions their practise played in their lives over time, and how their practise was informed by living with different bodies. Furthermore, they described their experiences at multiple life stages and in multiple contexts, including family, school, work, along with disability and artistic communities. These experiences supported the development of a host of intersecting identities. More specifically, influencing, and reinforcing both positive and negative self-perceptions tied to disability, artist, family, partner, student and community identities. The multiple ways this study built upon the existing literature and unique contributions were identified. From the results, several research and clinical practice implications were also identified
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".