Talk:Disability studies
Disability Start‑class | |||||||
|
unsubstantiated claims
I agree with the below Kikidawgzzz. This article is heavily slanted and biased in terms of its political viewpoint. Just about every point made is couched in Crypto-Marxist Language.
i have added the link to Marxism. Since so much of the writing & ideological driven phrases aka 'The Personal is Political' arise from Marxism.
I am of the opinion that there is a strong need to return a more balanced sociopolitical point of view to the writing.
Moreover, not everything to do with Disability Studies can or should be described in terms of the political.
. . .
As I also say over at the WikiProject page, this article's number of unsubstantiated claims is so high that it actually makes for a major problem given its inherent status as a more "top-priority" article in the Disability series on Wikipedia. I hope that those of us working on these things, and other editors too, can add appropriate citations. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you - were you thinking specifically of the "Criticisms" section there? There are at least two "Citation needed" tags there. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
The only "citation" listed in the "Criticisms" section is a link to a PDF of political diatribe peppered throughout with specious, non-evidential claims. The cited "article" is not a peer-reviewed article published in a reputable journal. The "Criticisms" section as it is now written should be regarded with high suspicion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.214.68.72 (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- I just rewrote the introduction, so that it was better sourced and included some of the history (in the US). I included the resent shift toward interdisciplinary connections and criticism of the Social Model. I'm going to go ahead and delete the stuff in the criticism section that doesn't relate to a specific tenant of the field (e.g. the shifting toward identity politics). If you can find a relevant source, please feel free to add it back in. I did find a source for criticism of disability studies for not exploring connections to race, gender, and sexuality studies.
- social model:http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0968759042000181776#.VRR8IUv_xYY
- connections: http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/1273/1303
Also I haven't used this introduction to a collection of disability related essays in Women, Gender, and Families of Color, but it seems potentially useful: http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/women_gender_and_families_of_color/v002/2.2.ben-moshe.html Xttina.Garnet (talk) 20:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Potential references
I am rescuing the following references from article How disability should be researched by Sonafaraz (talk · contribs), tagged for speedy deletion as a duplicate of this article (CSD A10), as these references may be useful for this article, even if the content is not.
- Barnes, C. (2003). "What a Difference a Decade Makes: Reflections on doing 'emancipitory' disability research". Disability & Society, 3-17.
- Bernard, R. (2013). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Thousands Oak: SAGE Publication, Inc.
- Bricher, G. (2000). "Disabled People, Health Professionals and the Social Model of Disability: can there be a research relationship?" Disability and Society, 781-793.
- Clear, M. (1999). "The 'Normal' and the Monstrous in Disability Research". Disability and Society, 435-448.
- Morrison, L. J. (2006). "A Matter of Definition: Acknowledging Consumer/Survivor Experiences through Narrative". Radical Psychology, 60-79.
- Oliver, M. (1992). "Changing the Social Relations of Research Production". Disability and Society, 101-113.
- Oliver, M. (1983). The Individual and Social Model of Disability. London: UPSIA.
- Oliver, M., & Colin, B. (1997). "All We Are Saying is Give Disabled Researchers a Chance". Disability and Society, 811-813.
הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 04:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Here is some interesting things I found while working on the history section:
- Penny L. Richards (2004). "Disability and the Historical Geography of Immigration", Disability Studies Quarterly, Volume 24, No. 3. http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/505/682.
- Kim E. Nielsen (2008). "Historical Thinking and Disability History" Disability Studies Quarterly, Volume 28, No.3. http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/107/107 (Note: really interesting article about how other areas of oppression can be viewed though the disability model).
- Negin H. Goodrich (2014) "A Persian Alice in Disability Literature Wonderland: Disability Studies in Iran" Disability Studies Quarterly, Vol. 34, No.2, http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/4255
- Lisa Pfahl, Justin J.W. Powell (2014). "Subversive Status: Disability Studies in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland" Disability Studies Quarterly. Vol. 34, No. 2. http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/4256
Xttina.Garnet (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Excessive External links
The "External links" list is far too long - it should contain only a handful of the most impostant and universally relevant links. It should not contain a bunch of links to an arbitrary selection of university DS programme websites. See WP:EL, WP:ELNO and WP:ELNEVER for guidance on what should be included and excluded. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. Particularly individual courses or institutions are not appropriate.--SabreBD (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- The Bibliography is a similarly arbitrary collection of "stuff" which doesn't actually serve any purpose in the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- This problem is getting worse - the WP:LISTCRUFT needs to be pruned back. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)