Suchergebnisse

This special issue sought to open a space for critical debates and reflections on the issues and challenges of bringing together Indigeneity and disability as an intersecting identity. The overall aim was to question and challenge existing approaches to modern Western understandings of disability, how it is regulated, governed and experienced once the cultural identity of being Indigenous is positioned at the fore. As editors of this special edition, we were conscious of our own cultural identities, Karen being first generation Australian of Southern European descent, and John being of the Yuin Nation of Australia's Aboriginal peoples. We engaged our own sense of the possibilities of examining the critical importance of alliances between non-Indigenous and Indigenous researchers working together as a partnership at a time when Australia's political environment had largely ignored Indigenous and non-Indigenous efforts to further Indigenous claims for national constitutional recognition. Unlike other white settler societies such as Canada, USA and New Zealand, Australia has never had a formal Treaty explicitly recognizing Indigenous Australia as the original owners, nor are Indigenous peoples recognized within our main constitutional instrument, despite more recent combined advocacy for this very realization. Thus, the struggles for Indigenous recognition and rights to culture, kin, and country remain highly contested within the white settler colonial nation of Australia. This political backdrop spurred our interest to bring together researchers, practitioners, and activists who work at the edges of disability and Indigenous practice. We wanted researchers who understand the politics of reconciliation but also the longstanding issues that underpin such politics. This is reflected in the gamut of theoretical positioning and empirical explications that engage with situated local knowledges, spaces and places, alongside the intensive structural political and institutional negotiations of sovereignty, settler colonial nation-state power and its everyday embodied negotiations for First Peoples living with disability. This broad scoping of the special edition henceforth, hopes to reconcile the divergent global representations that are occurring within specific historical, political and geographic contexts, without the privileging or dominance of a particular standpoint.

AbstractThe lack of culturally appropriate services contributes to the low participation rate of Indigenous people in disability services. Understanding how disability is conceptualised is essential to developing culturally appropriate disability services. This study aimed to critically compare the conceptualisation of disability between Indigenous people and NSW government and non‐government disability service agencies. Indigenous and policy sources were obtained from purposive and snowball sampling. The Indigenous conceptualisation of disability was understood through representations by Indigenous spokespeople in journal and newspaper articles and audiovisual materials. The disability service agency conceptualisation of disability was represented through the annual reports and programme guidelines of the NSW government agency and seven non‐government disability agencies. The occupational justice framework guided critical analysis at the cultural interface. Four themes were identified: power and self‐determination, eligibility, otherness, and identity and labels. Data showed disability agencies promote self‐determination for Indigenous people and conceptualise disability as impairments affecting functioning, when assessing service access eligibility. Most Indigenous people do not self‐identify as disabled and are categorised as culturally different within policies. Indigenous people experience marginalisation due to their cultural identity. Indigenous people are required to conform to the conceptualisation of disability proffered by agencies to access services. To develop culturally appropriate services, agencies must collaborate with Indigenous communities.

Trends in US PO on government regulation are examined based on data from the Policy Change & Public Opinion Change Project at the National Opinion Research Center, U of Chicago, Ill. Two characteristics are noted: (1) an underlying ambivalence & stability, & (2) a responsiveness to events & objective conditions. Ambivalence toward regulation is seen to be "rational," ie, consistent with theories of economic or collective self-interest. The public may be willing to have some regulations relaxed, as long as others protecting it from harm are left intact or strengthened. 16 References. AA.

AbstractWorldwide health and social outcomes of Indigenous people are poorer than those of non‐Indigenous. In Australia, the Indigenous population experience disability at more than twice the rate of the non‐Indigenous population, and a quarter live in geographically remote areas. The challenges associated with accessing services and supports in remote communities can impact on a good life for Aboriginal people with disability. Interviews were conducted with Aboriginal people (Anangu) with disability and family carers from remote Central Australian communities and service workers. Thematic data analysis determined factors Anangu viewed as essential to living a good life: connection to their Lands, being with family and engaging in cultural activities. Workers' support for a good life involves "Proper Way" help and an understanding of Anangu culture. Three culturally relevant strengths‐based concepts are important in supporting Anangu with disability to live a good life: being connected to the Lands and family, sharing together and working together.