Revisiting the foundations of (critical) disability studies
2019
- 44Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage44
- Abstract Views44
Book Chapter Description
This chapter explores the historical foundations of British disability studies, arguing that social model ideas developed in the 1970s continue to be of relevance today. The chapter begins with a note on terminology before outlining the origins and development of disability studies and, in particular, the social model of disability in the UK. From the outset, social model ideas were widely endorsed by wheelchair users and people with physical impairments, but were less enthusiastically received by people with other impairments, some of whose experiences were missing from early social model discussion. In recent years, discussion has been expanded to include people with a wider range of impairments and some of these more inclusive and nuanced discussions are now situated under a banner of critical disability studies. This chapter aims to explore disability studies and critical disability studies, identifying key aspects of both approaches. Drawing on the experiences of people with learning difficulties and mental health service users/survivors, the chapter goes on to present a counter critique to critical disability studies in the form of a manifesto for an inclusive social model...
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know