Ableism

14,000,000 Leading Edge Experts on the ideXlab platform

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

The Experts below are selected from a list of 2220 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Joel Michael Reynolds - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • the harm of Ableism medical error and epistemic injustice
    2019
    Co-Authors: David Penaguzman, Joel Michael Reynolds
    Abstract:

    We argue that epistemic errors rooted in group- or identity-based biases, especially those pertaining to disability, are under-theorized in the literature on medical error. After sketching dominant taxonomies of medical error, we turn to the field of social epistemology to understand the role that what we call 'epistemic schemas' play in contributing to medical errors that disproportionately affect patients from historically oppressed social groups. We examine the effects of this unequal distribution through a detailed case study of Ableism. We explore four primary mechanisms through which the epistemic schema of Ableism distorts communication between non-disabled physicians and disabled patients: testimonial injustice, epistemic overconfidence, epistemic erasure, and epistemic derailing. We close with a discussion of the larger import of research concerning epistemic injustice for medical practice and equitable healthcare delivery.

  • the harm of Ableism medical error and epistemic injustice
    2019
    Co-Authors: David Penaguzman, Joel Michael Reynolds
    Abstract:

    This paper argues that epistemic errors rooted in group- or identity-based biases, especially those pertaining to disability, are undertheorized in the literature on medical error. After sketching dominant taxonomies of medical error, we turn to the field of social epistemology to understand the role that epistemic schemas play in contributing to medical errors that disproportionately affect patients from marginalized social groups. We examine the effects of this unequal distribution through a detailed case study of Ableism. There are four primary mechanisms through which the epistemic schema of Ableism distorts communication between nondisabled physicians and disabled patients: testimonial injustice, epistemic overconfidence, epistemic erasure, and epistemic derailing. Measures against epistemic injustices in general and against schema-based medical errors in particular are ultimately issues of justice that must be better addressed at all levels of health care practice.

David Penaguzman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • the harm of Ableism medical error and epistemic injustice
    2019
    Co-Authors: David Penaguzman, Joel Michael Reynolds
    Abstract:

    We argue that epistemic errors rooted in group- or identity-based biases, especially those pertaining to disability, are under-theorized in the literature on medical error. After sketching dominant taxonomies of medical error, we turn to the field of social epistemology to understand the role that what we call 'epistemic schemas' play in contributing to medical errors that disproportionately affect patients from historically oppressed social groups. We examine the effects of this unequal distribution through a detailed case study of Ableism. We explore four primary mechanisms through which the epistemic schema of Ableism distorts communication between non-disabled physicians and disabled patients: testimonial injustice, epistemic overconfidence, epistemic erasure, and epistemic derailing. We close with a discussion of the larger import of research concerning epistemic injustice for medical practice and equitable healthcare delivery.

  • the harm of Ableism medical error and epistemic injustice
    2019
    Co-Authors: David Penaguzman, Joel Michael Reynolds
    Abstract:

    This paper argues that epistemic errors rooted in group- or identity-based biases, especially those pertaining to disability, are undertheorized in the literature on medical error. After sketching dominant taxonomies of medical error, we turn to the field of social epistemology to understand the role that epistemic schemas play in contributing to medical errors that disproportionately affect patients from marginalized social groups. We examine the effects of this unequal distribution through a detailed case study of Ableism. There are four primary mechanisms through which the epistemic schema of Ableism distorts communication between nondisabled physicians and disabled patients: testimonial injustice, epistemic overconfidence, epistemic erasure, and epistemic derailing. Measures against epistemic injustices in general and against schema-based medical errors in particular are ultimately issues of justice that must be better addressed at all levels of health care practice.

Paul Harpur - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Ableism at work disablement and hierarchies of impairment
    2019
    Co-Authors: Paul Harpur
    Abstract:

    The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities promotes ability equality, but this is not experienced in national laws. Australia, Canada, Ireland, the UK and the US all have one thing in common: regulatory frameworks which treat workers with psychosocial disabilities less favorably than workers with either physical or sensory disabilities. Ableism at Work is a comprehensive and comparative legal, practical and theoretical analysis of workplace inequalities experienced by workers with psychosocial disabilities. Whether it be denying anti-discrimination protection to people with episodic disabilities, addictions or other psychological impairments, failing to make reasonable accommodations/adjustments for workers with psychosocial disabilities, or denying them workers' compensation or occupational health and safety protections, regulatory interventions imbed inequalities. Ableism, sanism and prejudice are expressly stated in laws, reflected in judgments, and perpetuated by workplace practices and this book enables advocates, policy makers and lawmakers to understand the wider context in which systems discriminate workers with psychosocial disabilities.

  • sexism and racism why not Ableism calling for a cultural shift in the approach to disability discrimination
    2011
    Co-Authors: Paul Harpur
    Abstract:

    Sex and racial discrimination have been labeled as sexism and racism respectively. These descriptors are well-known and accepted. This article analyses why disability discrimination does not have a similar label and argues that the term 'Ableism' should be adopted as a descriptor for disability discrimination. This article applies legal and cultural examples to articulate the argument that Ableism should be adopted as an appropriate descriptor.

  • sexism and racism why not Ableism calling for a cultural shift in the approach to disability discrimination
    2009
    Co-Authors: Paul Harpur
    Abstract:

    Argument for the adoption of the term 'Ableism' as a label and as a strategy for moving towards a social justice model of disability - analogy with the terms 'sexism' and 'racism' - recognition that it is the responsibility of all people to remove barriers to inclusion and that society should adopt 'universal design' to reduce unnecessary barriers to full rights for disabled persons - operation of anti-discrimination legislation in relation to disabled people.

Carli Friedman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • mapping Ableism a two dimensional model of explicit and implicit disability attitudes
    2019
    Co-Authors: Carli Friedman
    Abstract:

    Nondisabled people often experience a combination of negative and positive feelings towards disabled people. There are often large discrepancies between what nondisabled and disabled people view as positive treatment towards disabled people, with disabled people often viewing nondisabled people’s actions as inappropriate, despite nondisabled people believing they had good intentions. Since disability attitudes are complex, both explicit (conscious) attitudes and implicit (unconscious) attitudes need to be measured. Different combinations of explicit and implicit bias can be organized into four different categories: symbolic prejudice, aversive prejudice, principled conservative, and truly low prejudiced. To explore this phenomenon, we analyzed secondary explicit and implicit disability prejudice data from approximately 350,000 nondisabled people and categorized people’s prejudice styles according to an adapted version of Son Hing et al.’s (2008) two-dimensional model of racial prejudice. Findings revealed most nondisabled people were prejudiced in the aversive Ableism fashion, with low explicit prejudice and high implicit prejudice. These findings mirror past research that suggests nondisabled people may believe they feel positively towards disabled people but actually hold negative attitudes which they disassociate or rationalize. Mapping the different ways Ableism operates is one of the first of many necessary steps to dismantle Ableism.

  • the symbolic Ableism scale
    2019
    Co-Authors: Carli Friedman, Jessica M Awsumb
    Abstract:

    This study validates the Symbolic Ableism Scale (SAS), which examines subtle prejudice. The SAS has four underlying themes: individualism; recognition of continuing discrimination; empathy for disabled people; and, excessive demands. The SAS is a tool that can be used to help understand how contradicting disability ideologies manifest in modern society to determine how best to counteract them.

  • Defining Disability: Understandings of and Attitudes Towards Ableism and Disability
    2017
    Co-Authors: Carli Friedman, Aleksa Owen
    Abstract:

    Disabled people, amidst political and social gains, continue to experience discrimination in multiple areas. Understanding how such discrimination, named here as Ableism , operates is important and may require studying perspectives of people who do not claim a disability identity.  Ableism may be expressed in a number of ways, and examining how a particular group, in this case siblings of disabled people, understand and value disability may contribute to overall understandings about how Ableism works. Thus, the purpose of this study is to explore relationships between siblings of disabled people's broad societal understandings of disability and their attitudes towards it. In order to tease out this relationship further we have also examined factors that impact how people define disability. Using both social psychological and sociological approaches, we have contextualized individual attitudes as providing additional new information about social meanings of disability, and set this study's results against the larger backdrops of debates over meanings of disability within Disability Studies. In our research, participants revealed complex understandings of disability, but most often defined disability as preventing or slowing action, as an atypical function, a lack of independence, and as a socially constructed obstacle. Participants' unconscious (implicit) disability attitudes significantly related to their understandings of disability as lacking independence, impairment, and/or in relation to the norm, and their conscious (explicit) disability attitudes. Moreover, longer employment in a disability-related industry was correlated with defining disability as a general difference, rather than as slowing or limiting of tasks.

  • siblings of people with disabilities explicit and implicit disability attitude divergence
    2017
    Co-Authors: Carli Friedman
    Abstract:

    Siblings of people with disabilities have more exposure to people with disabilities than most nondisabled people, uniquely positioning them toward disability, yet less is known about how this might impact their attitudes. This study examined siblings' disability attitudes by determining siblings' explicit and implicit disability bias, mapping their 2-dimensional prejudice, and examining theoretical variables that might be relevant to their attitudes. To do so, the Disability Attitudes Implicit Association Test, the Symbolic Ableism Scale, and survey questions were administered to 48 siblings. Findings revealed the majority of the siblings implicitly preferred nondisabled people, despite reporting low levels of explicit attitudes.

Gregor Wolbring - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • analyzing the discourse surrounding autism in the new york times using an Ableism lens
    2014
    Co-Authors: Alshaba Billawala, Gregor Wolbring
    Abstract:

    The topic of Autism is highly within academic literature (over 20000 articles in the database PubMed of US National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health and the public domain (79 Million hits in Google).  Newspapers also show a great interest in autism.  However despite the prevalence of autism coverage very little media analysis has been performed. We present here an analysis of the coverage of autism in the New York Times from the time the term autism first appeared (1973) to 2012.   Ability expectations and preferences are one dynamic through which members of a group judge others, themselves and their lives. Ability preferences and judgments are at the root of many rules of behaviours and customs. Ableism was one lens through which we analyzed the discourse surrounding autism in the NYT.  We found that readers that rely on the NYT as a primary source of information get very limited information about what autism is and what factors are associated with autism and they are heavily exposed to a medical narrative. We suggest that the negative, medical narrative adds to the problems people with autism face. Keywords: autism; perception; media; New York Times; language; Ableism

  • citizenship education through an ability expectation and Ableism lens the challenge of science and technology and disabled people
    2012
    Co-Authors: Gregor Wolbring
    Abstract:

    Citizenship education has been debated for some time and has faced various challenges over time. This paper introduces the lens of “Ableism” and ability expectations to the citizenship education discourse. The author contends that the cultural dynamic of ability expectations and Ableism (not only expecting certain abilities, but also perceiving certain abilities as essential) was one factor that has and will continue to shape citizenship and citizenship education. It focuses on three areas of citizenship education: (a) active citizenship; (b) citizenship education for a diverse population; and (c) global citizenship. It covers two ability-related challenges, namely: disabled people, who are often seen as lacking expected species-typical body abilities, and, advances of science and technology that generate new abilities. The author contends that the impact of ability expectations and Ableism on citizenship and citizenship education, locally and in a globalized world, is an important and under-researched area.

  • expanding Ableism taking down the ghettoization of impact of disability studies scholars
    2012
    Co-Authors: Gregor Wolbring
    Abstract:

    This paper highlights the utility of an expanded Ableism concept beyond how it is used in disability studies; expanding the concept of Ableism so it connects with all aspects of societies and making Ableism applicable to many academic fields. It introduces this expanded form of Ableism as a new angle of cultural research and suggests it to be one possible venue for disability studies scholars to escape the ghettoization of their impact.

  • The Politics of Ableism
    2008
    Co-Authors: Gregor Wolbring
    Abstract:

    Gregor Wolbring at the invitation of the Editor to continue the ideas of an earlier article published in volume 49 number 4 shares with Development readers his understanding of the concept of Ableism. He argues that the term ability should not be used just in relation to disabled people but understood in a broader cultural perspective. He highlights different forms of Ableism, the role of new and emerging technologies, the consequences of different forms of Ableism and the importance of dealing with the concept of Ableism on the policy level, and proposes the need for a field of ability studies that examine Ableism.