No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Choreographies of Disablement interrogates the historical relationship between dance and disability to recognize and define ‘disablement’ as a choreographic concept within contemporary dance practice. Working from choreographic analysis, interviews, and theories of sovereignty and crip time I argue ‘disablement’ grows out of the historical nexus in which Western concert dance, through the paradigm of ballet, was cultivated: the seventeenth century French political sphere and the prestige of a sovereign balletomane King. The performances of French kings in the burlesque ballet choreographies of 1624-1627 serve as the historical center of this research because disability has a political role to play at the dawn of concert dance in the West. This insight provides the historical perspective from which I locate the development of ‘disablement’ in the seventeenth century and identify its emergence in twenty-first century choreographies. This dissertation uses the historical and political significance of the burlesque ballets as a touchstone to then analyze three contemporary sites of choreography produced between 2004 and 2016. Chapter 3 considers the repertory of German choreographer Raimund Hoghe, a queer disabled artist. I focus attention on his piece Sacre – The Rite of Spring (2004), which draws upon dance’s historical, canonical past. Chapter 4 focuses on Disabled Theater (2012), devised by French choreographer Jérôme Bel in collaboration with the Swiss-based company Theater Hora, a professional theater company comprised of performers with developmental disabilities. The piece is composed of theatrical tasks, including the presentation of self-choreographed dance solos. Chapter 5 centers on the collaborative performance work, A Fierce Kind of Love (2016), comprised of Philadelphia-based disabled and nondisabled performers with choreography by US dance artist Nichole Canuso. Taken together, my analysis of these sites questions the state of disability within the discursive space of dance studies, and in turn positions ‘disablement’ as a historically inflected site of choreographic thinking materializing in contemporary practice. / Dance

This qualitative study examines the experiences of patients who have undergone renal transplant surgery. Interviews were conducted with six patient informants who received renal transplants one to six months prior to the study. Participants’ narratives offered insight into: the variability of transplant preparation, hopes, experiences, and perspectives of recovery, meanings of recovery, significance of social and economic supports in recovery, and the role of professional staff in providing support and resources during the transplant journey. Their stories are explored in relation to literature on psychosocial aspects of renal transplant and through a critical disability studies lens. The nuances of the social work role in relation to patients’ pre- and post-operative renal transplant journey was explored in depth. Based on the findings and relevant literature, recommendations and suggestions are made on how to expand the social work role in the pre- and post-transplant clinic at St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton. / Thesis / Master of Social Work (MSW)

The purpose of this study was to identify standards related to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) that are desirable for colleges conducting a self-study regarding program accessibility. A Delphi technique was used to determine standards and reach agreement among a panel of professionals concerning criteria to evaluate implementation of the ADA during a self-study or during an accreditation process. The panel's standards were compared to information from a focus group of university students with disabilities. The panel of experts consisted of 30 professionals representing three areas: (a) agencies involved in the implementation and enforcement of the ADA, (b) postsecondary service providers recognized as leaders in their field by the Association on Higher Education and Disability (AHEAD), and (c) legal professionals specializing in the ADA. Students with various disabilities comprised a focus group to provide different voices of the stakeholders' perspective. The panel generated standards from an open questionnaire in the first round of the Delphi. The results were compiled and organized into questionnaire form for phase II. The questionnaire was structured with a four point Likert-type scale allowing the panel to react positively or negatively to including each standard in the evaluation criteria. The scale consisted of: (4) critical, (3) valuable, (2) minimal, and (1) unnecessary. The panel was able to add or change standards in Phase II. In Phase III the standards were listed, and the mean from the ratings in Phase II were reported along with a reminder of the individual's rating in Phase II. The panel could change their ratings to agree with the mean, or they could provide their argument for keeping their original ranking if not matching the mean. The mean was recalculated after Phase III, and data from this round was used to establish the acceptable standards. All standards receiving a total of two-thirds of the responding panel members' votes in the critical and valuable categories were included in the proposed evaluation model. This information was then compared to information collected in the student focus group. The results of both the student focus group and the Delphi technique indicated a difference in perspectives of the stakeholders and experts. The research study revealed that the students were more concerned about services for high-schoolers prior to entering college. In contrast, the experts focused more on policy and administrative responsibilities. The Delphi panel and student focus group agreed on several issues important to program access. Both groups saw financial assistance, including support of assistive technology, as critical. They also agreed on the importance of training faculty, administrators and students about accommodations, as well as legal rights and responsibilities under the ADA. Students and panelists acknowledged a shared responsibility between the college and agencies such as the Department of Rehabilitative Services. However, the panelists did not agree with the students on the areas of outreach and collaboration. Although students valued strengthened transition services and training sessions in secondary schools, the Delphi panel did not mention these as areas for an ADA self-evaluation. It was recommended that the accepted standards be shared with AHEAD, the National Association of ADA Coordinators (NAADAC) and the Council for the Advancement of Standards for Student Services/Development Programs (CAS). AHEAD and NAADAC can use the standards as guidelines for self-evaluation and as a resource for training. It was also recommended that CAS and other accreditation agencies use the developed standards to add more guidance regarding accessibility to the accreditation and self-study process. / Ph. D.

No / This article draws on my personal experience, and on the separate experiences of 'leaving heterosexuality' and of 'being disabled'. I have attempted to find common ground for action between these two groups by interrogating the experience of being sexual. I argue that heterosexuality functions as a social matrix, with exclusionary practices that operate in similar ways towards both groups. Mechanisms may be different, but the experience of exclusion is similar, and is based on similar practices. This article focuses on specific points in the exclusionary process, and illustrates similarities.

No / This paper reports on a study of Pakistani people with epilepsy. It explores their attitudes towards their condition, others’ attitudes, its impact on their lives, and the extent to which they considered themselves as disabled. Epilepsy was variously interpreted within biomedical, folk and religious paradigms. In line with popular understandings, participants associated disability with stable, permanent and visible physical impairments and did not consider themselves as disabled. However, they also recognised a social dimension to their experience. Much of the distress and disadvantage they experienced was socially determined, both through direct prejudice and discrimination, and indirectly through a fear of others’ negative reactions. However, the invisible and unpredictable nature of epilepsy meant that they could conceal their condition and thereby mitigate its social effects. ‘Disability’ was not experienced as a static and permanent state but as a potential identity that was both contingent and contested. The literature portrays people moving from biomedical to social interpretations of disability. However, the tensions experienced by people in the study were more between competing religious interpretations of their condition and, to some extent, between religious and medical approaches. Conceptions of disability, which are presented in the literature as antagonistic and mutually exclusive, were experienced as different dimensions reflecting the complexity of experience. The paper concludes by suggesting that for many people, for whom disability is an ambiguous, contingent and contested identity, public self-identification as disabled is an unrealistic goal. Rather than conceiving of disability as primarily physical or primarily social, it would be better construed as a complex interweaving of multiple factors—physical, environmental, socio-cultural and psychological factors.

No / Through examining the case of people with epilepsy (which, as we demonstrate, has an ambiguous status in relation to both popular and academic conceptions of disability) we explore the fluid, negotiable and contingent nature of identity and, in particular, the identification as ‘disabled’. Disability, we argue, cannot be reduced to either biology or social oppression, or even primarily to biological or social factors: it is the outcome of a complex interaction between a multiplicity of factors – biological, environmental, social, psychological, cultural and political – which will interact and be experienced differently by different people, at different times and in different situations. Rather than conceiving of disability in ‘all or nothing’ terms and of differing explanations as competing and mutually exclusive, it would be more productive to see them as partial and potentially complementary contributions to the better understanding of a complex and multifarious reality.