Time: Tuesday, 27/Aug/2024: 13:15 - 14:45 Session Chair: Marina Democratous |
Location: Room 113 in ΧΩΔ 02 (Common Teaching Facilities [CTF02]) [Floor 1] Cap: 60 |
Paper
(Re)thinking Intersectionality and Dis-ability through Post-humanist Intra-viewing
University of Plymouth
Presenting Author:
The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals prioritise the elimination of poverty and inequalities, and position education as key to civic and cultural participation (UN, 2015). At a European level, it is claimed that social diversity and equality in higher education (HE) are conditions of European competitiveness in the context of Europe’s changing demographic profile (Claeys-Kulik, Jørgensen, & Stöber, 2019). Yet, despite the Paris Declaration of EU member states that promoted citizenship, freedom, tolerance and non-discrimination through education (European Education and Culture Executive Agency, 2016), at an institutional level, research undertaken by the European University Association has identified barriers to the realisation of strategic objectives specifically related to equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI), particularly, lack of both resources and awareness (Claeys-Kulik, Jørgensen, & Stöber, 2019).
In contrast to the pervasive liberal humanist discourse of equality of opportunity, EDI initiatives in higher education imply awareness that students from socially marginalised demographics are likely to require additional resource and support in order to achieve equal outcomes, thereby complementing the use of participation rates as accountability-related institutional demonstrations of the inclusion of specific demographics. However, the aforementioned report notes variability in the extent to which intersectionality is addressed, where intersectionality describes student identification with ‘various dimensions of diversity’ (Claeys-Kulik, Jørgensen, & Stöber, 2019, p.24) such as gender, socio-economic disadvantage, disability. In Deleuze’s (1995) configuration of the ‘control’ society, reconfigured by Rouvroy (2013, p.157) as ‘algorithmic governmentality’, participation rate data comprises ‘infra-individual digital traces of impersonal, disparate, heterogeneous, dividualized facets of daily life and interactions’, meaning that, for instance, the embodied intersection of dis-ability and disadvantage or lower socio-economic status is neglected. The reported small-scale study focuses on higher education students’ experience of this specific intersection but problematises an additive configuration of intersectionality (the accumulation of oppressions) in favour of a working hypothesis that intersectionality denotes variable and qualitatively distinctive experiences.
Following (Charteris & Smardon, 2019, p.6), the notion of voicework is problematic, risking tokenism and unaltered hegemonic institutional power relations. Nevertheless, this research can be read as contributing to ‘discourses of refusal’ that ‘trouble structures of neoliberal accountability and responsibilisation through setting up new spaces of refusal and reflexivity’, in contrast to discourses of governmentality and accountability which position students as, respectively, passive consumer informants (Demetriou, 2001) or as assurers of the quality of institutional provision (Keddie, 2015). We refer to the interview as intra-viewing, drawing on Foucault’s (1980, 2012) configuration of power as relational, and Deleuze’s (1994, p.29) refusal to view difference solely in terms of contradiction or opposition and positing of an underlying radical relationality. When applied to the interview, researcher and researched remain imbricated in the discourses associated with institutionally codified ethical practice, which assume a power relation and the vulnerability of socially marginalised participants (British Educational Research Association, BERA, 2018); yet, concurrent with and beneath such socially constructed individuated identities, they are also ‘larval subjects’ (Deleuze, 1994, p.78) - subjects-in-process in a relational space characterised by fluidity not fixed categories of identity.
Project aims:
1) To investigate the lived experience of students classified as dis-abled and of lower socio-economic status.
2) To reconfigure the interview process as a generative process (not only as a power differential between researcher-researched), affording more control to participants.
3) To reconsider the concept of intersectionality (rejecting additive conceptualisations) and identifying any distinctive features associated with the intersection of socio-economic status and dis-ability.
4) To contribute to the literature on HE student 'voice' (examining discourses around 'voice' in the context of our findings).
Research question:
What is the embodied experience of the intersection of dis-ability and lower socio-economic status for HE students in an English university?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used
Ethical approval was granted by a Faculty Research Ethics and Integrity Committee at the University of Plymouth, UK, in January 2024. The adopted methodology is qualitative with data collection involving relatively unstructured interviews, conceived as intra-views to reflect the relational conceptualisation of power in Foucault (1980, 2012) and the radical intra-subjectivity posited by Deleuze (1994). This strategy permits adherence to BERA (2018) and institutional ethical research practice guidelines while also being informed by posthumanist theorising which precludes the objectification of participants as ‘other’ and posits an interview process in which the binary of researcher and researched is replaced by the recognition that, despite socially ascribed and fixed identities, individuals ‘express their perspectives through a necessarily vague assemblage of affects and sensations’ when encountering the possible worlds that others present (Stark, 2012, p.105); hence the generative nature of the intra-view.
Participants will be recruited through professional and student networks in a purposive and opportunistic sampling process (Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2014), following distribution of a participant information sheet advising of the aims and objectives of the research. Consent forms will be signed prior to intra-views which will be recorded and transcribed.
The sample is likely to include 5-10 students drawn from undergraduate and postgraduate levels of study that are classified within the institution as having a disability and self-identifying as of lower socio-economic status or working class.
Intra-views will last approximately one hour and be transcribed by the interviewer. No harm or distress caused to intra-viewees is envisaged, however, should this occur, the intra-viewer will signpost appropriate sources of support. Participants will be assured of anonymity and confidentiality through, for example, the use of fictionalised names at analysis and reporting stages, and strict adherence to secure data storage guidelines.
A validation exercise will be undertaken, permitting participants to contribute to any necessary refinement of the analytic process (Pascoe Leahy, 2021).
Data will be collated using NVivo software and data analysis will be executed collaboratively and reflexively, following Braun and Clarke (2020), in a reflexive, deductive, and inductive thematic analysis to identify key themes.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings
The outcomes are uncertain as the study is intended to be exploratory (with the potential for upscaling), however, it is anticipated that the results will contribute to an international literature that questions the positioning of students from the selected demographic:
The tendency in research narratives and institutional discourse related to intersectionality to homogenise experiences through descriptors such as ‘disabled students’ and ‘disadvantaged students’ will be found to be problematic. Such unitary categories risk the neglect of the complex interplay of marginalising processes, institutional discourses, and individuated student trajectories (Shuttleworth, Wedgewood & Wilson, 2012).
Similarly, it is highly likely that the uncritical mobilisation of the descriptor ‘inclusive education’ in institutional and policy discourse will be critiqued (Romstein, 2015).
The influence of other marginalising factors and discourse such as gender will be shown to complicate the students’ experience of varied dis-abilities and lower socio-economic status (Jung Kim, Parish & Skinner, 2017).
Primarily, the specificity of different experiences of an intersection of varied dis-abilities and relative economic disadvantage will be highlighted, prompting a reconfiguration of intersectionality.
It is envisaged that participants will comment on their experiences of institutional discourses around ‘voice’ and voicework, and the extent to which their expressed views are acknowledged and acted upon.
Data analysis will be completed early in 2024 and it is anticipated that data analysis will identify some of these issues and participant perspectives pertaining to them, and additional themes to be derived inductively.
References
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2020): One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, DOI: 10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238
British Educational Research Association. 2018. Ethical guidelines for education research (4th edition). https://www.bera.ac.uk/publication/ethical-guidelines-for-educational-research-2018
Charteris, J., & Smardon, D. 2019. Democratic contribution or information for reform? Prevailing and emerging discourses of student voice. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 44 (6), 1-18. https://doi.org/ 10.14221/ajte.2018v44n6.1
Claeys-Kulik, A.-L., Ekman Jørgensen, T. & Stöber, H. 2019. Diversity, equity and inclusion in European higher education institutions. European University Association.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. 2001. Research methods in education (5th edition). Routledge Falmer.
Deleuze, G. 1994. Difference and repetition. Trans. P. Patton. Columbia University Press.
Deleuze, G. 1995. Negotiations. Trans. M. Joughin. Columbia University Press.
Demetriou, D.Z. 2001. Connell’s concept of hegemonic masculinity: A critique. Theory and Society, 30, 337-361. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017596718715
European Education and Culture Executive Agency. 2016. Promoting citizenship and the common values of freedom, tolerance and non-discrimination through education: Overview of education policy developments in Europe following the Paris Declaration of 17 March 2015. Publications Office, 2016. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2797/396908
Foucault, M. (1980) The history of sexuality, Vol. 1: An introduction, transl. Robert Hurley
Pantheon.
Foucault, M. (2012). The courage of truth: The government of self and others II. Palgrave Macmillan.
Jung Kim, E., Parish, S. L. & Skinner, T. 2017. The impact of gender and disability on the economic well-being of disabled women in the United Kingdom: A longitudinal study between 2009 and 2014. Social Policy and Administration, 53 (7), 1064-1080.
Keddie, A. (2015). Student voice and teacher accountability: Possibilities and problematics. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 23 (2), 225–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2014.977806
Pascoe Leahy, C. (2022) The afterlife of interviews: explicit ethics and subtle ethics in sensitive or distressing qualitative research, Qualitative Research, 22 (5), 777-794.
Romstein, K. 2015. Neoliberal values and disability: Critical approach to inclusive education. Quality, Social Justice and Accountability in Education Worldwide, 13 (1), 327-322.
Rouvroy, A. 2013. The end(s) of critique: Data-behaviourism vs. due-process. In M. Hildebrandt & K. De Vries (eds.), Privacy, due process and the computational turn. Philosophers of law meet philosophers of technology (pp.143-168). Routledge.
Shuttleworth, R., Wedgewood, N., & Wilson, N. J. 2012. The dilemma of disabled masculinity. Men and Masculinities, 15 (2), 174-194.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X12439879
Stark, H. 2012. Deleuze and love. Angelaki, 17 (1), 99-113. DOI:10.1080/0969725X.2012.671669
Paper
Childhood and Disability - An Intersectional Analysis of Adultist and Ableist Entanglements
1Leibniz University of Hannover, Germany; 2Martin-Luther-University of Halle-Wittenberg, Germany
Presenting Author:While the discourse on the rights and participation of disabled people is hardly focusing on children, the discourse on children's rights is hardly ever considering children with disabilities. The proposal aims to analyse the largely separate discourses on childhood and disability, children's rights and the rights of disabled people and their participation. In doing so, it intends to emphasise the potential of discourse entanglement for the implementation of the rights of children and young people with disabilities.
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UN-CRC, UN 1989) calls for the realization of 'protection', 'provision' and 'participation'. One of the four guiding principles of the UN CRC stipulates that 'the best interests of the child' (Art. 3, para. 1) should be taken into account in the best possible way in all measures that affect them. However, in Germany, as in many other countries, the innovative potential of the UN CRC is underestimated. All Children but especially children who contradict norms of a presumed ‘normal childhood’, such as children with disabilities, are treated in a patronising way, with children's rights being reduced to the legal groups of protection rights and rights to care and services and participatory rights being neglected. Such a practice contradicts UN CRC, which recognises children as independent legal subjects from birth, doing so in a binding form under international law for the first time (Lindmeier 2023). The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD, UN 2006) which aims to ensure the rights of disabled people of all ages, also implies a comprehensive recognition of the interests, participation rights and subject status of children in Art. 7 para. 3 (Rossa, 2014). This assures the right of disabled children to be heard (Art. 12 UN CRC) in a double manner.
Nevertheless, there are serious deficits in the establishment of sustainable and effective participation opportunities for children and young people with disabilities and their agency(Lindmeier, 2023; Mac Arthur et al. 2007). In practice, the participation of children with disabilities does not sufficiently fulfil the requirements of both conventions. In particular, participants do not have sufficient clarity about their roles and functions and the resulting power to influence. There is also a lack of transparency and accessible communication, and the interests of children with disabilities are hardly represented, "not to mention by children and young people themselves" (Deutsches Institut für Menschenrechte, 2015, 10).
The proposal analyses the concepts of disability and childhood, agency and vulnerability, using critical discourse analysis. In doing so, it aims at changing the view of children with disabilities by paying more attention to children's agency (Ehrenberg 2023; Priestley, 2020), informed by an understanding of children as active social actors. A general attribution of children with disabilities as vulnerable bears the risk of stigmatizing them instead of building upon their resources, and the risk of distracting from social inequality and emerging power relations instead of critically discussing and breaking them down (Schmitt, 2019). In order establish an inclusive childhood education, it is necessary, on the one hand, to focus more strongly on children's interests and, on the other hand, not to neglect group-specific vulnerability. In addition, it is necessary to take into account the communicative conditions under which disabled children can assert their right to be heard. The final question is therefore how disabled children realize agency under these conditions and what significance the perspective on children's rights and interests has. This will be discussed in conclusion with reference to the authors' initial empirical work and will result in suggestions on participatory research methods suitable to involve disabled children in a meaningful way.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used
The proposal uses the method of critical discourse analysis to analyse, critically discuss and emphasize dominant knowledge structures and bring together different discourses (Traue et al. 2014). Firstly, the right to participation and agency of children with disabilities is analysed on the basis of international human rights documents. In particular, General Comment No. 7 on the right to participation of the UN CRPD is analysed. This is followed by an exemplary analysis of press releases from international organisations on the 30th anniversary of the UN CRC, which shows that the participation rights and agency of children are, at first glance, relevant. A power-critical analysis is used to determine whether the voices of the children merely serve to amplify and authorize the voices of the adult actors, and what image of an "ideal childhood" they produce. Discourses are producing a social meaning through communicative and strategic action in a situationally enduring way. Critical discourse analysis was theoretically founded by Michael Foucault, among others, who defines discourses as “procedures that act as principles of classification, arrangement and distribution” (Foucault 2014, 17) and emphasizes the reciprocal relationship between knowledge and power in discourses. Consequently, knowledge is generated as well as structured and transported through discourse. In this case, it is knowledge about children and people with disabilities as (not) capable of speech and as beings with (limited) potential for autonomy. Embedded in this is both the image of an ‘ideal child’ and a ‘good childhood’ (Sünker & Bühler-Niederberger, 2020).
As discourse analysis aims to examine contemporary concepts and the knowledge embedded in them, the focus is on their historical context as well as their temporal and situational localization and the subjectivations contained therein (Traue et al. 2014). The knowledge disseminated therein specifically guides interpretation processes, produces truths and creates classifications (Kerner 2017). Thus, the relationship between power and knowledge in discourses becomes recognizable.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings
The analysis shows that in the relationship between power and knowledge, an image of disabled children emerges which, leads to a double vulnerability of disabled children through prejudice and the denial of rights. The intersectional discourse analysis shows that childhood and disability both have an inherent construction of imperfection linked to concepts of ability. Both children and people with disabilities are addressed as insufficiently capable, dependent and deficient compared to non-disabled adults. In intersection of disability with childhood as a specifically vulnerable phase of life, an ascribed double vulnerability emerges, which restricts the the opportunities for agency and participation of children with disabilities.
Thus, the interaction of adultism and ableism leads to discrimination which is not even discussed openly but hidden beneath a protective approach. The aim of inclusive childhood education should be to understand and address the relationship between independence and dependency, the significance of vulnerability and agency (Schmitt, 2019) and the generational order (Eckermann & Heinzel, 2018) more precisely in the context of disability.
References
Deutsches Institut für Menschenrechte (2015). Parallelbericht an den UN-Fachausschuss für die Rechte von Menschen mit Behinderungen anlässlich der Prüfung des ersten Staatenberichts Deutschlands gemäß Artikel 35 der UN-Behindertenrechtskonvention. Berlin: Deutsches Institut für Menschenrechte.
Eckermann, T. & Heinzel, F. (2018). Kindheitsforschung: Eine erziehungswissenschaftliche Perspektive. In A. Kleeberg-Niepage & S. Rademacher (Hrsg.), Kindheits- und Jugendforschung in der Kritik: Interdisziplinäre Perspektiven auf zentrale Begriffe und Konzepte (S. 251–272). Heidelberg, Berlin: Springer.
Ehrenberg, K. (2023): Das aktuelle Thema. Agency von Kindern. Sonderpädagogische Förderung heute 68(2), 121-122.
Foucault, M. (2014): Die Ordnung des Diskurses. In M. Foucault & R. Konersmann (Hrsg.): Die Ordnung des Diskurses. (13. Aufl., S. 7- 49). Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Taschenbücher.
Kerner, I. (2017). Postkoloniale Theorien zur Einführung. 3.Aufl. Hamburg.
Liebel, M. (2015). Kinderinteressen. Zwischen Paternalismus und Partizipation. Weinheim: Beltz Juventa.
Lindmeier, C. (2011). Inklusive Bildung und Kinderrechte. In: Gemeinsam leben. Zeitschrift für Inklusion 19, 205-218.
Lindmeier, C. (2023). Partizipation behinderter Kinder und Jugendlicher aus kinderrechtlicher Perspektive. In: Gemeinsam leben 31/1, 26-36.
MacArthur, J., S.Sharp, B. Kelly, and M. Gaffney. 2007. Disabled children negotiating school life: Agency, difference and teaching practice. International Journal of Children’s Rights 15(1): 99–120.
Priestley, A. (2020). Care-Experienced Young People: Agency and Empowerment. Children & Society 34 (6): 521–536.
Rossa, E. (2014). Kinderrechte. Das Übereinkommen der Rechte des Kindes im internationalen und nationalen Kontext. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag.
Schmitt, C. (2019). Agency und Vulnerabilität. Soziale Arbeit 68 (8), 282–288. doi:10.5771/0490-1606-2019-8-282
Schröter, A., Meyer, D.; Ehrenberg, K.; Giese, L.-S. & Lindmeier, B. (in press). Machtkritische Perspektiven auf Agency und Teilhabe von Kindern. In S. Schuppener, A. Langner, A. Goldbach, K. Mannewitz & N. Leonhardt (Hrsg.), Machtkontexte – Kritische Reflexionen von Wissensordnungen, Wissensproduktion und Wissensvermittlung.
Sünker, H. & Bühler-Niederberger, D. (2020). Kindheit und Gesellschaft. In: R. Braches-Chyrek, C. Röhner, H. Sünker & M. Hopf (Hrsg.): Handbuch Frühe Kindheit. 2. Aufl. Opladen, Berlin & Toronto, S. 43-53.
Traue, B., Pfahl, L. & Schürmann, L.: Diskursanalyse. In: N. Baur & J. Blasius (Hrsg.): Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung. Wiesbaden 2014, S. 493-508.
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989). https://www.unicef.org/child-rights-convention/convention-text
United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with disabilities. (2006). https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-persons-disabilities
Paper
An Intersectional Approach Towards the Experiences of Women with Disabilities in Education and Society
University of Cyprus, Cyprus
Presenting Author:This study falls within the feminist approach of Disability Studies and Inclusive Education. It also draws upon the concept of intersectionality which is addressed by Critical Disability Studies and other disciplines.
Personal experiences of disability are considered important by disability feminists, since they lead to unique experiences which vary even for persons who live in the same cultural contexts (Morris, 1996; Thomas, 1999). Disability feminists highlight the fact that women with disabilities are oppressed on the basis of disability and gender. They also argue that they may also experience multiple oppression because of their gender, race, and disability giving a more comprehensive understanding of personal experiences (Vernon, 1996, 1998). More recently, Critical Disability Studies scholars draw upon the concept of intersectionality to further highlight that the identities of women with disabilities intersect and define their experiences in different areas of life (Goodley, 2017). This concept was developed by Crenshaw (1989, 1991) and has been informing different disciplines. Furthermore, Goodley, Lawthom, and Runswick-Cole (2014) refer to the DisHuman, and they focus on the ways in which people with disabilities tend to be considered "less human" and dehumanized.
The narratives shared by people with disabilities regarding their experiences within the educational system, taking into account their intersecting identities and how these aspects influence their educational or social integration or exclusion, highlight the significance of implementing fair pedagogical approaches that are deeply connected to the diverse identities and experiences of students (Janzen, 2019; Schwitzman, 2019). Therefore, the adoption of an intersectional perspective in education is not just beneficial but essential for fostering inclusion and ensuring equitable opportunities for all students. Most of the literature focusses on the barriers posed by segregating or mainstream settings and call for inclusive education. Personal experiences during school life may enhance this argument and shed light on how the identified barriers impact children’s lives. At the same time, personal experiences may illuminate new parameters that define school experiences. These experiences may be relevant to children’s different identities and their intersections and the relevance of these identities to other factors such as the family and the cultural context. Thus, it is important to consider personal experiences in education if we are to adopt a social justice perspective in policy and practice, infused by inclusive education ideology (Liasidou, 2013).
This study aims to examine how the experiences of women with disabilities at school and their intersectional identities can help us conceptualize how the education system and other factors oppresses or empowers them. The research question is: How do the intersectional identities of women with disabilities and other factors influence their life trajectory through their experiences in the education system?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used
This paper constitutes a part of a PhD research project and will focus on the experiences of women with disabilities in education from the perspective of intersectionality.
A sample of 12 women was selected through purposive and chain sampling (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2008), meeting the criteria set for the study, i.e. women with any type of impairment; with two or more identities for which they are likely to experience discrimination, including disability (e.g. sexual orientation, social class, immigrant/refugee background); aged between 18-70 years old.
Specifically, the participants included two women with hearing impairment, two women with visual impairment, four women with various physical impairments, one woman with intellectual disability, one woman with mental health issues, one woman with multiple sclerosis, and one woman with cerebral palsy, all aged between 25 and 65 years old. Their experiences in the education system varied in several aspects, particularly concerning the context in which they studied (mainstream or special) and how each context interacted with their intersecting identities or characteristics.
The methodology involved gathering data through an audio-recorded oral history interview, followed by a second interview centered on the participant's personal objects or artifacts. Prior to participation, all individuals were provided with comprehensive information regarding the research focus and their rights throughout the process, encompassing aspects such as anonymity, the right to withdraw at any point, and the right to verify interview transcriptions. Informed consent was obtained through signed consent forms. The oral history interviews were conducted by one of the abstract's two authors, who took measures to ensure that her background did not act as barrier, fostering an environment where participants felt at ease sharing their stories (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2008). Data were analyzed in the language that the interviews were contacted.
Thematic narrative analysis was selected as a content analysis method as it merges well with the concept of intersectionality and highlights important aspects of one’s intersecting identities contextualizing the story in numerous different ways (Esposito & Evans-Winters, 2022).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings
The analysis reveals that the experiences of women with disabilities in education are affected by numerous factors and differ, mainly according to the framework in which they studied as children. For example, Athena, a woman with visual impairment found her transition from a special school consisting only of girls to a mainstream school shocking, impacting her life trajectory:
“I spent primary education at the School for the Blind, I only had 4 female classmates…So after [experiencing] this protective environment, high school inclusion came to me as a psychological and a social shock.”
The educational framework seems to play a crucial role in women’s experiences in education. However, intersecting identities and other factors such as family perspectives, affect their experiences both at school and adult life. Specifically, Athena’s life trajectory was also affected by the extreme protectiveness of her mother. One of the important topics she raised was her emancipation, something she had also confirmed through a personal object:
“This is the first keyring of my apartment keys. It was such a nice feeling […], that yes, this is my space, my home. I got the responsibility of looking after it, clean it.”
The independence she needs because of the experiences she had mainly in the educational and family context, seems to affect other areas as well, such as love relationships:
“Regarding relationship issues, I have settled on one but I’m not looking for anything more. It's just a relationship, [...] self-understanding that it's… It's something I keep a secret from everyone. And it doesn't bother me, I'm calm. Emotionally I value him, […] but we are friends, sex friends.”
In conclusion, this paper calls for a focussed discussion on how the intersecting experiences of women with disabilities in education can inform inclusive education and contribute in reducing ableist thinking.
References
Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2008). The Methodology of Educational Research. London and NY: Routledge.
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 189, 139-167.
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 46, 1241-1299.
Esposito, J. & Evans-Winters, V. (2022). Introduction to Intersectional Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Goodley, D. (2017). Disability Studies: An Interdisciplinary Introduction. London: Sage Publications.
Goodley, D., Lawthom, R. & Runswick Cole, K. (2014b). Dis/ability and austerity: Beyond work and slow death. Disability and Society, 29(6), 980-984.
Janzen, M. D. (2019). Children’s “mis”behaviours: An ethical engagement with the mystery of the other. Journal for Curriculum Theory (JCT) Special Issue: The Curriculum of Disability Studies: Multiple Perspectives on Dis/Ability. 34(1), 91-99.
Liasidou, A. (2013). Intersectional understandings of disability and implications for a social justice reform agenda in education policy and practice. Disability & Society, 28(3), 299-312.
Morris, J. (1996). Introduction. In J. Morris (Ed.), Encounters with strangers: Feminism and disability. London: The Women’s Press.
Schwitzman, T. E. (2019). “Dealing with Diversity and Difference”: A DisCrit analysis of teacher education curriculum at a Minority Serving Institution. Journal for Curriculum Theory (JCT) Special Issue: The Curriculum of Disability Studies: Multiple Perspectives on Dis/Ability. 34(1), 50-71.
Thomas, C. (1999). Female forms. Experiencing and understanding disability. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Vernon, A. (1996). A stranger in many camps: The experience of disabled black and ethnic minority women. In J. Morris (Ed.), Encounters with strangers: Feminism and disability. London: The Women’s Press.
Vernon, A. (1998). Multiple oppression and the disabled people’s movement. In T. Shakespeare (Ed.), The disability reader. London: Continuum.