Search

It has long been held that participation in sport, physical activity (PA) and physical education (PE) can yield valuable benefits for young people (Bailey et al., 2009. The educational benefits claimed for physical education and school sport: An academic review. Research Papers in Education, 24(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671520701809817). Recently, there has been much focus on the role of such activities for moral development in support of social inclusion and social justice agendas, often centred within the broad field of sport-for-development (Coalter, 2013. Sport for development. Routledge; Rossi & Jeanes, 2016. Education, pedagogy and sport for development: Addressing seldom asked questions. Sport, Education and Society, 21(4), 483–494. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2016.1160373). However, disability, and the social inclusion of disabled people, has been somewhat overlooked by policy, practice, and research in this field. This article considers findings from a study investigating a sports-based educational programme, Playdagogy, designed for use with children/young people and intended to: (1) raise disability-awareness, (2) promote positive attitudes to disabled people and (3) foster inclusion. In focusing on promoting understandings of disability and inclusion through ‘inclusive’ sport-based games, Playdagogy reflects a recognition of the need to critique ‘normalized’ and exclusionary conceptions and practices in youth sport (Fitzgerald, 2009. Disability and youth sport. Routledge). While progress has been made to conceptualise ‘anti-disablist’ or ‘anti-ableist’ pedagogies within the context of inclusive education (Beckett, 2015. Anti-oppressive pedagogy and disability: Possibilities and challenges. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 17(1), 76–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/15017419.2013.835278), it has been slow to trace this into relevant curricula or teaching/learning strategies (Symeonidou & Loizou, 2018. Disability studies as a framework to design disability awareness programs: No need for ‘magic’ to facilitate children’s understanding. Disability & Society, 33(8), 1234–1258. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2018.1488677). Playdagogy can be viewed as an attempt to achieve translation of pedagogy into practice. A mixed method approach was employed to capture experiences of programme staff, educators, and pupils (aged 6–12 ) involved in the Playdagogy programme. Findings highlight key issues related to the experience of delivering and undertaking Playdagogy activities from all stakeholders’ perspectives. In acknowledging claims that educational messages are often inherent but not explicit within these kinds of sport for development programmes (Rossi & Jeanes, 2016. Education, pedagogy and sport for development: Addressing seldom asked questions. Sport, Education and Society, 21(4), 483–494. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2016.1160373), we add to calls for closer examination of the educational process and impact of such initiatives and examine the place of an inclusion/disability focus in future SfD work.

This article aims to reorient thinking about the relationship between the long-standing social model of disability and the rapidly emerging human rights model. In particular, it contests the influe...

This article discusses the findings of an empirical study, the first to investigate Taiwanese and Hong Kong parents’ perspectives on their disabled children’s play. The study employed an online survey to explore parents’ views on (a) the value of play for their child; (b) their child’s experiences of play (e.g. where and with whom they play); c) what, if any, barriers their child experiences in/to play. Our analysis shows that disabled children living in Taiwan and Hong Kong face many of the same barriers to play as disabled children elsewhere (e.g. in the West), but that these barriers have distinct ‘local formations’ resulting from, for example, high-density urban-living, family-based welfare systems, prevailing gendered family roles/relations, persistent social stigma towards disabled people and their families and intense valuing of academic achieve ment within Chinese cultures. We present this article as an original contribution to Disabled Children’s Childhood Studies, to Global Disability Studies and Play Studies. The article concludes by mapping an agenda for further research into access to and inclusion in play for disabled children living in East Asia.

In this article, we explore and develop the utility for social movement studies of Michel Foucault’s conceptualization of heterotopia. Informed by Foucault’s theorizing, we propose a heuristic typology of social movement heterotopias. Five heterotopia ‘types’ are considered: ‘contained’, ‘mobile’, ‘cloud’, ‘encounter’ and ‘rhizomic’. Each has particular attributes, but all challenge normal, routine politics. They do so by being, from the perspective of state and capital, either in the ‘wrong’ place, moving in the ‘wrong’ way, or involving the ‘wrong’ connections, affinities or organization. These are constructed-types, proposed for the purpose of description, comparison and prediction. These social movement heterotopias are different types of space that facilitate practices of resistance and transgression. We situate Foucault’s writing on heterotopia at a pivotal moment in his intellectual career, when he became increasingly concerned with how particular mechanisms for modulating the creative forc...

This article engages with debates about the UK Disabled People’s Movement’s ‘Big Idea’ – the social model of disability – positioning this as an ‘oppositional device’. This concept is adapted from the work of the art theorist and activist Brian Holmes, elaborated using insights from Foucault and others. The model’s primary operation is introducing contingency into the present, facilitating disabled people’s resistance-practices. We recognise, however, that the device can operate in a disciplinary manner when adopted by a machinery of government. Whilst our primary goal is to understand the character and operation of the social model, by providing a more general definition of an oppositional device as the concrete operation of technologies of power, we also propose a concept potentially useful for the analysis of the resistance-practices of activists involved in a wide variety of struggles. This concept may thus have implications for wider social and political analysis.

In this paper, we consider the potential of combining design, engineering and sociological perspectives with user perspectives, as part of a user-centered, inclusive design process. Our particular interest lies in the design of inclusive toys and games that disabled and non-disabled children can play together and which foster positive interactions between children across difference. We explore the challenges and opportunities associated with working in a transdisciplinary mode, where knowledge production evolves from dynamic tension between different disciplinary perspectives and those of non-academic stakeholders. We argue that the latter is of particular importance within any design process that seeks to provide accessibility and empower users. Such transdisciplinarity involves an upstream approach to the involvement of non-academic interests in the design process and knowledge production, rather than limiting the engagement of/with users to the dissemination end point stage of research (Barry, forthcoming). The paper draws upon two case studies of projects conducted by the authors. Both projects involve the use of co-operative inquiry [14] with children and we seek to extract the pedagogical implications of both projects for future design, including that within the field of ICT and digital technologies, with and for children.

This article discusses findings from an Economic and Social Research Council-funded study exploring non-disabled children’s ideas about disability. This represents the first in-depth sociological investigation of children’s ideas about disabled people as members of wider society. Data are presented from focus group discussions with children aged 6–7 and 10–11. The article draws upon William H. Sewell Jr’s theorizing of structure and agency and, in particular, employs his concept of ‘cultural schemas’. The article explores non-disabled children’s enactment of various cultural schemas relating to disability and argues that although they are capable of questioning, even transforming, schemas, they are primarily engaged in enacting a series of ‘hegemonic’ schemas that maintain their privileged position as non-disabled people. The article concludes by urging schools and educationalists to do more to encourage non-disabled children to think differently and positively about disabled people.

This article outlines the findings of an Economic and Social Research Council-funded study exploring the role of English state primary schools in promoting positive attitudes towards disabled people. Data emerging from a survey of schools and interviews with teachers are presented. The article considers progress made by schools against particular aspects of the Disability Equality Duty 2006. The project was underpinned by a working model of anti-disablist education resulting from a ‘conversation’ between various models of anti-oppressive education and disability politics. It explores the rationale for a ‘courageous’ form of anti-disablist education, definition of this, schools’ engagement in this type of practice and challenges to promoting such an ideal.

This article outlines the findings of a new study that explores the portrayal of disability within a sample of the primary‐age children's literature most readily available to UK schools. The kind of literature to which children are exposed is likely to influence their general perceptions of social life. How disability is handled by authors is therefore important from the standpoint of disability equality. Findings suggest that whilst there are some good examples of inclusive literature ‘out there’, discriminatory language and/or negative stereotypes about disability continue to be present in a range of more contemporary children's books. Clearly, more still needs to be done to ensure that schools and teachers are provided with information relating to the best examples of inclusion literature and efforts must continue to be made to inform authors, publishers and illustrators about how to approach the issue of disability.

In the United Kingdom, the introduction of the Disability Equality Duty 2006 has provided a new window of opportunity to promote the idea that education has a role to play in changing non‐disabled children/young people’s attitudes towards disabled people. This article explores the issues raised by the application of the Disability Equality Duty to English schools. The remainder of the article then seeks to ‘map the territory’ for future research into the role that education might play in challenging disabling attitudes and building an inclusive society.

This article draws upon qualitative research carried out by the author and funded by the ESRC. One of the central aims of this research was to investigate the nature of the UK disability movement's ‘struggle’ and to evaluate critically the idea that it is a ‘new’ social movement. Consideration of the disability movement in relation to both ‘new’ social movements and to wider social movement theorising has suggested that it may not be possible to understand this movement, entirely, by using any of the existing models. This article concludes by outlining the possible starting point for a new approach to understanding the disability movement based upon forging a closer link between citizenship and social movement theory and upon a focus on the nature of engagement. Empirical evidence from the research is included in this article in the form of quotations from respondents, all of whom are/were members of organisations that are run by disabled people. All respondents’ names have been removed to maintain their anonymity.

Perhaps largely due to the successful campaigning of a number of pressure groups and social movements, but also due to the established position of related subjects within academia, there is a now almost routine consideration of class, ethnicity, gender and sexuality in relation to citizenship. Disability and the position of disabled people as “citizens” has not, however, received as much attention. It is the assertion of this article that this is a significant fact, for a consideration of disability in relation to citizenship provides useful insights into the strengths and weaknesses of some important theories of citizenship. Further, it demonstrates the need for an approach that takes account of the increasing uncertainty of groups such as disabled people towards their own identities and that conceives citizenship as being a process of “proactive engagement” towards a “reflexive position”.

The specific purpose of this chapter is to consider the key findings of the research upon which this book is based. To this end, the qualitative data1 presented has been grouped according to four main categories or themes. These themes are as follows

Prior to the 1970s, to have an impairment was regarded as a ‘personal tragedy’ and this thinking existed not only within the wider public sphere but was also a major influence upon service providers and policy-makers. As Barnes et al (1999: 10) have commented, these prejudices and stereotypes had profound and unfortunate effects upon the lives of disabled people

As previously discussed within Chapter 2, despite centuries of theorizing, citizenship remains a contested concept. Whilst a widely agreed definition of what exactly ‘citizenship’ entails remains largely elusive, certain themes are recurrent within contemporary theorizing. As shown in the discussion in Chapter 2, issues of ‘identity’ and ‘difference’ are now at the heart of most contemporary citizenship theorizing. That these two issues have become of major importance must largely be the result of successful campaigning by a variety of pressure groups. Consequently, such things as class, ethnicity, employment status and sexuality are now routinely considered by citizenship theorists and have greatly affected thinking in this field. Disability, however, has been largely ignored and yet the findings of the research referenced in this book suggest that this omission may be unwise, for what a consideration of disability tells us does not always sit comfortably with recent citizenship theorizing. Indeed, it is the argument here that a consideration of disability related issues is invaluable for it provides useful insights into the shortcomings of many key theories of citizenship and demonstrates the need for ongoing theorizing in this field.