Employment in Northern Ireland's Civil Service: Social Barriers and Hyperbole Mean Disabled Need Not Apply

J. Olsen
{"title":"Employment in Northern Ireland's Civil Service: Social Barriers and Hyperbole Mean Disabled Need Not Apply","authors":"J. Olsen","doi":"10.1017/idm.2018.3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The representation of people with disabilities in the Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS) is approximately 44% less than that seen in the civil services of the United States (US) and Great Britain (GB; i.e., the United Kingdom sans Northern Ireland). Various proactive approaches to employing people with disabilities are cited for the success of the US and GB's efforts to increase the representation of disabled people in their civil services. This is important because governments as employers can be the catalyst for large-scale social change. The US and GB governments have demonstrated an intention to be this catalyst. They have done this by (a) establishing goals for the hiring of disabled people; (b) naming executives responsible for reaching these hiring goals; (c) utilising special hiring authorities; (d) executing guaranteed interview schemes; and (e) applying regulations and laws designed to employ and protect people with disabilities. These activities could be adopted in Northern Ireland (NI) to address the current inequalities in the NICS. However, the question remains whether a government that believes it has achieved disability equality in its civil service, despite comparators that say otherwise, can or will make such a concerted effort. An analysis of over 60 US, GB, and NI government and assembly documents, reports, and laws are examined and compared through the lens of critical disability theory (CDT) to identify the disconnect between the representations and the reality of figures presented about the inclusion of those with disabilities in the NICS.","PeriodicalId":53532,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Disability Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Disability Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/idm.2018.3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The representation of people with disabilities in the Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS) is approximately 44% less than that seen in the civil services of the United States (US) and Great Britain (GB; i.e., the United Kingdom sans Northern Ireland). Various proactive approaches to employing people with disabilities are cited for the success of the US and GB's efforts to increase the representation of disabled people in their civil services. This is important because governments as employers can be the catalyst for large-scale social change. The US and GB governments have demonstrated an intention to be this catalyst. They have done this by (a) establishing goals for the hiring of disabled people; (b) naming executives responsible for reaching these hiring goals; (c) utilising special hiring authorities; (d) executing guaranteed interview schemes; and (e) applying regulations and laws designed to employ and protect people with disabilities. These activities could be adopted in Northern Ireland (NI) to address the current inequalities in the NICS. However, the question remains whether a government that believes it has achieved disability equality in its civil service, despite comparators that say otherwise, can or will make such a concerted effort. An analysis of over 60 US, GB, and NI government and assembly documents, reports, and laws are examined and compared through the lens of critical disability theory (CDT) to identify the disconnect between the representations and the reality of figures presented about the inclusion of those with disabilities in the NICS.
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
北爱尔兰公务员的就业:社会障碍和夸张意味着残疾人不需要申请
北爱尔兰公务员制度中残疾人的代表性比美国(US)和大不列颠(GB)的公务员制度少约44%;即联合王国(不包括北爱尔兰)。美国和英国在努力增加残疾人在公务员中的代表性方面取得了成功,原因是采取了各种积极主动的方法来雇用残疾人。这一点很重要,因为政府作为雇主可以成为大规模社会变革的催化剂。美国和英国政府已表现出成为这种催化剂的意愿。他们通过以下方式做到了这一点:(a)制定雇用残疾人的目标;(b)任命负责实现这些招聘目标的高管;(c)利用特别雇用当局;(d)执行保证面谈计划;(e)适用旨在雇用和保护残疾人的法规和法律。北爱尔兰可以采取这些活动,以解决国家间目前的不平等现象。然而,一个认为自己在公务员制度中实现了残疾人平等的政府(尽管比较国的说法与此不同)是否能够或愿意做出这种协调一致的努力,仍然是一个问题。通过批判性残疾理论(CDT)对60多份美国、英国和英国政府和议会文件、报告和法律进行了分析和比较,以确定在NICS中纳入残疾人的表象与现实之间的脱节。
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
International Journal of Disability Management
International Journal of Disability Management Social Sciences-Health (social science)
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Voraussetzungen für eine erfolgreiche Implementierung Vorteile eines gelingenden DisAbility-Managements Interrelated Factors for Return to Work of Sick-Listed Employees in Sweden Disclosing a Diagnosis in the Workplace: Perspective of People With Multiple Sclerosis Mögliche Widerstände
×
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