Search

Formal Language: In this essay, I reflect on the systematic exclusion of people with intellectual disabilities from philosophy even as their personhood is subject to ongoing philosophical debates. Theorizing this disenfranchisement as a form of epistemic oppression, I consider it in the context of the invalidation of disabled perspectives more broadly and characteristics of knowledge-production that confer credibility in philosophy. I end with a call for transformation through the framework of disability justice. I include an Easy Read summary, a plain language companion, and discussion questions, which restate my argument in simplified language and invite dialogue, demonstrating how philosophy might resist epistemic gatekeeping and imagine knowledge-production otherwise. Plain Language: This essay is about philosophy and intellectual disability (ID). People with ID do not get to do philosophy very much. Some reasons they are left out are: – Disabled people are not believed when they talk about their lives. – The way we write in philosophy makes it hard for people with ID to join. I think we should change how we do philosophy. I wrote a summary that is easy to read. I wrote questions to talk about together. I want to think about how to do philosophy better. Easy Read Summary: Philosophers are thinkers. They think about how the world is and how it should be. They think about intellectual disability (ID). Some thinkers say people with intellectual disabilities (ID) are worth less than other people. Most people with intellectual disabilities (ID) do not get to say what they think. We can change how we think by including people with intellectual disabilities (ID). We can believe what people with intellectual disabilities (ID) say about their lives. We can write and speak in simple ways. We can give people help thinking and making decisions. We can include people who do not speak or write. We can think as a community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mental health and well-being are increasingly important topics in discussions on public health. The COVID-19 pandemic further revealed critical gaps in existing mental health services as factors such as job losses and corresponding financial issues, prolonged physical illness and death, and physical isolation led to a sharp rise in mental health conditions. As such, there is increasing interest in the viability and desirability of digital mental health applications. While these dedicated applications vary widely, from platforms that connect users with healthcare professionals to diagnostic tools to self-assessments, this article specifically explores the implications of digital mental health applications in the form of chatbots. Chatbots can be text based or voice enabled and may be rule based (i.e., linguistics based) or based on machine learning (ML). They can utilize the power of conversational agents well-suited to task-oriented interactions, like Apple’s Siri, Amazon’s Alexa, or Google Assistant. But increasingly, chatbot developers are leveraging conversational artificial intelligence (AI), which is the suite of tools and techniques that allow a computer program to seemingly carry out a conversational experience with a person or a group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The last three issues of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (IDD) have featured perspectives from a diverse set of contributors on how the field of intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) is being impacted by COVID-19. As four newly appointed faculty members with diverse backgrounds, the editor of IDD invited us to share our experiences with beginning academic careers during this unique time. In making this request, he pointed out that approximately half the members of the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD) are those who have some type of affiliation with an institution of higher education. While the perspectives outlined in this article do not represent those of all early career faculty, we hope our stories resonate with IDD readers who may be facing similar circumstances. This article includes a series of brief essays addressing how the pandemic has affected our academic job searches, research, teaching, and service. Although penned by different authors, each section encompasses our collective experiences, concerns, and hopes for the broader IDD community. We close with guiding questions that might support more socially responsive and integrated approaches to traditional academic roles as faculty continue to navigate the repercussions of COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents an interview with Andreas Sjöström, vice president and chief technology officer for Sogeti and Capgemini Scandinavia. Topics discussed include Sjöström having boarded a Scandinavian Airlines plane from Stockholm to Paris using an NFC chip embedded in his hand in place of a boarding pass.

Background There has been little qualitative analysis of the experience of stigma, social comparisons and conception of identity among adults with intellectual disabilities ( ID). This study aimed to develop an understanding of how adults with intellectual disabilities experience their own disability, and any implications relating to self-esteem, stigma and social interactions. Materials and Methods Fifteen adults with intellectual disabilities were interviewed using semi-structured, open-ended questions regarding disability, social interactions and self-esteem. Interviews were analysed independently by two researchers using interpretive phenomenological analysis. Results Three major themes emerged during analysis, exploring pressure on participants to behave in a socially normative way, tendency to produce personal definitions of disability and consistently limited knowledge of and discomfort around common disability terminology. Conclusions Participants' clearly experienced feelings of difference, despite a lack of articulation. Limited understanding of both terminology and conceptualization of disability status could negatively impact self-esteem, person-centred actions and political movement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief overview of policy regarding employment for individuals with intellectual disabilities (ID) in the USA. Drawing from recent data, it assesses the impact of policy on current employment services and rates of employment. Design/methodology/approach – An introduction provides details regarding the benefits of employment for individuals with disabilities, current demographic information in the USA and salient definitions. Next, ten key national laws and one state law relating to employment for individuals with disabilities are outlined briefly. Finally, current outcomes for adults with disabilities are presented in order to assess the implementation and effectiveness of the legislation presented. Findings – Whilst this paper is a policy review, and therefore no novel findings have been produced, it is clear by juxtaposing the mandates enacted by the US Government with practical outcomes that there is a need to assess implementation and effectiveness of such legislation. Originality/value – It is imperative to scrutinize policy in the context of practical outcomes in order to assess its viability and relevance. Additionally, it is crucial that practitioners and academics be aware of the legislation that impacts the populations with whom they interact. Finally, in the context of this publication, it is important that researchers and practitioners in the UK understand US policy, and likewise US professionals understand UK policies in order to facilitate greater cross-cultural communication and collaboration for the mutual benefit of both nations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As the population of younger adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities continues to grow, adult day services is positioned to be a key provider of community-based care and support. In this article, researchers examine how adult day centers that serve younger adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities differ from centers that serve older and mixed age groups. One-way analyses of variance and post hoc analyses of 490 adult day services centers (N= 490) revealed significant differences in terms of participant, staffing, and organizational characteristics. These findings have important implications for service providers, researchers, and policy makers. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]