Intersectional Praxis and Disability in Higher Education

IF 1.4 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Social Inclusion Pub Date : 2023-08-29 DOI:10.17645/si.v11i4.7085
M. Sépulchre
{"title":"Intersectional Praxis and Disability in Higher Education","authors":"M. Sépulchre","doi":"10.17645/si.v11i4.7085","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article explores whether intersectional praxis can be discerned in the provision of disability/accessibility resources in higher education in Sweden and the United States. Analysing interviews with administrative staff based on hypothetical scenarios (vignettes) that could qualify as situations of disability discrimination, this article identifies several situations of (missed) opportunities for intersectional praxis. It then proceeds with a discussion of participants’ conceptions of disability and organisational possibilities for collaborations with other offices at their university or college. Although opportunities for intersectional praxis are generally absent or missed in both countries, the article argues that American participants were closer to such critical praxis because they tended to consider disability in terms of barriers and as a structural issue, and advocated for the recognition of disability as diversity. By contrast, the Swedish participants seemed further away from an intersectional praxis because they tended to view disability as a difficulty that requires individualised support measures and as a situational issue regarding the learning environment. The article proposes that these differences are connected to differences regarding disability and anti‐discrimination politics in both countries. In the US, disability politics have been characterised by a civil rights and social justice approach, while in Sweden disability politics have been conceived in terms of welfare services and a relational approach to disability. This article concludes that the conception of intersectionality as a critical praxis offers an original lens to gain new insights into how disability inclusion is promoted in different contexts.","PeriodicalId":37948,"journal":{"name":"Social Inclusion","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Inclusion","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v11i4.7085","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This article explores whether intersectional praxis can be discerned in the provision of disability/accessibility resources in higher education in Sweden and the United States. Analysing interviews with administrative staff based on hypothetical scenarios (vignettes) that could qualify as situations of disability discrimination, this article identifies several situations of (missed) opportunities for intersectional praxis. It then proceeds with a discussion of participants’ conceptions of disability and organisational possibilities for collaborations with other offices at their university or college. Although opportunities for intersectional praxis are generally absent or missed in both countries, the article argues that American participants were closer to such critical praxis because they tended to consider disability in terms of barriers and as a structural issue, and advocated for the recognition of disability as diversity. By contrast, the Swedish participants seemed further away from an intersectional praxis because they tended to view disability as a difficulty that requires individualised support measures and as a situational issue regarding the learning environment. The article proposes that these differences are connected to differences regarding disability and anti‐discrimination politics in both countries. In the US, disability politics have been characterised by a civil rights and social justice approach, while in Sweden disability politics have been conceived in terms of welfare services and a relational approach to disability. This article concludes that the conception of intersectionality as a critical praxis offers an original lens to gain new insights into how disability inclusion is promoted in different contexts.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
高等教育中的交叉实践与残疾
本文探讨了在瑞典和美国的高等教育中,在提供残疾/无障碍资源方面是否可以发现交叉实践。本文分析了基于可能被视为残疾歧视情况的假设情景(小插曲)对行政人员的采访,确定了几种交叉实践机会(错过)的情况。然后,它继续讨论参与者的残疾概念以及与大学或学院其他办公室合作的组织可能性。尽管这两个国家普遍缺乏或错过了跨部门实践的机会,但文章认为,美国参与者更接近这种批判性实践,因为他们倾向于从障碍和结构性问题的角度考虑残疾,并主张承认残疾是多样性。相比之下,瑞典参与者似乎更远离交叉实践,因为他们倾向于将残疾视为一种需要个性化支持措施的困难,并将其视为一个与学习环境有关的情境问题。文章认为,这些差异与两国在残疾和反歧视政治方面的差异有关。在美国,残疾政治的特点是民权和社会正义方法,而在瑞典,残疾政治是从福利服务和残疾关系方法的角度考虑的。这篇文章的结论是,交叉性作为一种批判性实践的概念提供了一个新颖的视角,可以深入了解如何在不同的背景下促进残疾包容。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Social Inclusion
Social Inclusion Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
114
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: Social Inclusion is a peer-reviewed open access journal, which provides academics and policy-makers with a forum to discuss and promote a more socially inclusive society. The journal encourages researchers to publish their results on topics concerning social and cultural cohesiveness, marginalized social groups, social stratification, minority-majority interaction, cultural diversity, national identity, and core-periphery relations, while making significant contributions to the understanding and enhancement of social inclusion worldwide. Social Inclusion aims at being an interdisciplinary journal, covering a broad range of topics, such as immigration, poverty, education, minorities, disability, discrimination, and inequality, with a special focus on studies which discuss solutions, strategies and models for social inclusion. Social Inclusion invites contributions from a broad range of disciplinary backgrounds and specializations, inter alia sociology, political science, international relations, history, cultural studies, geography, media studies, educational studies, communication science, and language studies. We welcome conceptual analysis, historical perspectives, and investigations based on empirical findings, while accepting regular research articles, review articles, commentaries, and reviews.
期刊最新文献
Disability, Religion, and Gender: Exploring Experiences of Exclusion in India Through an Intersectional Lens Intersecting Disability and Poverty in the Global South: Barriers to the Localization of the UNCRPD Disabled People and the Intersectional Nature of Social Inclusion Discourses of Digitalisation and the Positioning of Workers in Primary Care: A Norwegian Case Study Work‐Related ICT Use and the Dissolution of Boundaries Between Work and Private Life
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1