Suchergebnisse

This article explores how disabled workers engage with the ableist discourse of disability as lower productivity in constructing positive identities in the workplace. Disabled employees inhabit a contradictory discursive position: as disabled individuals, they are discursively constructed for what they are unable to do, whereas as employees they are constituted as human resources and expected to be able to produce and create value. Our discourse analysis of 30 in-depth interviews with disabled employees identifies three types of discursive practices through which they construct positive workplace identities: (1) practices contesting the discourse of lower productivity as commonly defined; (2) practices contesting the discourse of lower productivity by redefining productivity; and (3) practices reaffirming the discourse of lower productivity yet refusing individual responsibility for it. The study advances the disability literature by highlighting how disabled speakers sustain positive workplace identities despite the negative institutionalized expectations of lower productivity both by challenging and reproducing ableism as an organizing principle.

Welfare states in Europe and other parts of the western world have placed strong emphasis on activation of persons who receive social security benefits, rendering welfare state arrangements conditional upon active participation in the open labour market. Persons with disabilities are increasingly also targeted by activation policies, although the compulsory character of these policies is not yet as strong as with regard to other target groups. The emphasis on activation in social policy coincides with growing attention for disabled persons´ right to work, which is made explicit in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. As a consequence, many welfare states have passed legislation and implemented policy instruments aimed at supporting persons with disabilities in entering the labour market, developing necessary skills, obtaining and maintaining jobs. These initiatives are commonly referred to as supported employment programmes. Although they share a general aim, they exist in different shapes and pursue their goals using different methods, starting from different assumptions. Research has generated evidence for the effectiveness of supported employment programmes and of their different components. However, less attention has been given to the assumptions underlying the services provided to persons with disabilities. Within disability studies these are of particular importance, because they impact the degree to which services can be considered as beneficial to disabled persons´ enjoyment of their human rights. In this study we aimed to uncover different assumptions behind employment support service provision and their consequences for service providers´ approach of their clients. We analysed from a critical discursive perspective qualitative interviews with representatives of 8 employment support services in Flanders, Belgium. Through a process of open coding text fragments that pertained to service providers´ views on activation and the position of persons with disabilities were selected for classification and further interpretation. The results show that on the one hand all services place much emphasis on the individual and his/her workability and responsibility, potentially confirming exclusion processes in the open labour market. On the other hand, the individual understanding of employment support was also challenged based on collective notions of citizenship, empowerment and social justice.

In recent decades a rich debate has evolved in the academic field of disability studies. In literature, arguments for different theoretical approaches have been put forward. Two distinctive models can be identified: the individual model and the social model. Individual models are characterized by explanation of disability within the individual; the medical model being a typical example. Activists inside and outside the academic world have criticized considerably the medicalisation on disability and as a reaction developed a social model. Social models tend to emphasize macro-sociological factors as explanations for disability. Nevertheless the reasoning of disability as social construction or social creation is also open to criticism. In this article we advocate an eclectic-integrated approach of disability in research and practice.

Factors contributing to parents' decision when they choose between cochlear implantation (CI) and traditional hearing aids for their child were examined. The subjects were children with severe/profound hearing loss, born 1999-2001, registered in the universal neonatal hearing screening program in the Flanders region of Belgium. Qualitative data collected retrospectively from parents were subjected to thematic content analysis. In their responses to professional advice, parents were segmented into 3 groups: (a) those whose primary considerations were the importance of oral language development and the relative potential of CI and traditional hearing aids; (b) those for whom alternative factors (e.g., medical risks, ethical issues) were paramount, even in the face of professional advocacy of CI; (c) those who followed professional advice against CI. The researchers conclude that care professionals should be sensitive to the impact of their advice and other factors in parental decision making.

The study examined factors in deaf parents' decision between cochlear implantation (CI) and traditional hearing aids for their child. The subjects were 6 Flemish children ages 5-9 years with severe/profound congenital hearing loss, with at least 1 deaf parent. The researchers, who conducted thematic content analysis of qualitative data collected through parent interviews, found that with the exception of a family with 1 hearing parent, parents gave priority to Deaf identity, sign language, and ethical issues in deciding between CI and hearing aids. Medical risks were also mentioned. The researchers conclude that the decision-making processes of the parents involved factors that have also been found among hearing parents, as well as aspects that have not been reported to play a role in hearing parents' decision making. A further conclusion is that deaf parents' perspective merits attention in professional practice and empirical research.