This portfolio examines, contextualises and evaluates the contribution of six selected publications focussed on the social model of disability and discrimination within adult nursing in the UK. The publications all appear in peer reviewed journals and trace a developing understanding of the concept "disability‟, recognition of the impact of discrimination and the role that nurses play in sustaining this situation. It develops the idea that a shift towards the social model of disability will be instrumental in challenging disability related discrimination. Implications for adult nursing are examined including the potential of social advocacy and the need for a closer relationship between nursing studies and disability studies. The contribution to the knowledge base is unique in the context of adult nursing suggesting that embracing the social model may facilitate a legitimate contribution to the aims of the disability movement. A framework is developed for the evaluation of the contribution of the submitted papers using the concepts; Model of disability, Interests being served, Non-exploitative approaches and Challenging disablism by extensive dissemination [MINC]. The portfolio draws on many more than the six submitted papers in demonstrating an extensive dissemination strategy. The complexity of the concept of disability and the role of nurses in disability research is explored and critiqued. Contemporary critical theory is drawn on as an epistemological base combining critical analysis and reflexivity with empirical procedures. It concludes with tangible links into future developments of this body of work in championing the need for challenging discrimination and the potential use of the social model as a valuable tool in moving towards this goal.

Pakistani families with disabled children are among the most disadvantaged population groups in the UK. Previous research has indicated difficulties with accessing support services as well as problematic attitudes towards disability within the Pakistani community. As no substantial improvement in their situation was evidenced since early studies in the 1990s, a participatory action research study was undertaken with six Pakistani families to explore how an actionoriented, emancipatory approach could facilitate them to explore their support needs and how these might be met, in further depth. An occupational justice perspective was used to clarify how cultural and familial expectations influenced family members’ occupational balance and well-being. After an exploratory phase in which all family members were interviewed and family interactions observed in their own homes, three action research groups were formed for women, men and children respectively. Each group carried out their own action research around their chosen topic. Through participation in the project the participants gained important skills as well as a better understanding of their situation and how they could be more proactive in improving it. Furthermore, the fact that all family members were actively involved in the project helped them to start implementing changes in behaviour and communication at home. Key findings of the study were that the importance of faith in accepting the disabled child and dealing with negative community attitudes needs to be recognised and fostered; that the social model of disability needs to be more explicit about the influence of religion and culture on the lived experience of disabled people; that the central support need of parents is for practitioners to build up a supportive relationship with them as persons in their own right; and that (the lack of) belongingness had a very significant impact on the disabled child’s and their mothers’ well-being.

The aim of this study is to explore disability issues in the Kuwaiti context through a participatory research project with disabled people. Six disabled people participated in this project as co-researchers, and a further eight informants (disabled and non-disabled) contributed to this research as research participants. The thesis initially provides a critical exploration of the dominant conceptualisations of disability, such as the individual and social models and also includes cultural perspectives. The individual model provides an exploration of disability at the biological level, while the social model analyses disability at the socio-economic level (Bhaskar and Danermark, 2006). Cultural perspectives of disability provide an exploration of disability at the socio-cultural level (Danermark and Gellerstedt, 2004).After this exploration, and in relation to the experiences of the co-researchers, the thesis proposes that each of these singular perspectives can only provide limited conceptual effectiveness. The study then goes on to suggest that, rather than reducing the 'problem' of disability to one limited explanation, it is more productive to take an overarching, and more complex and interactional approach to disability that combines the best aspects of individual and social models as well as cultural and societal perspectives. The findings explore a number of disability issues at different levels. The analysis of the discussions with the co-researchers and interviews with the participants of this study emphasise a number of disability issues related to both the body and society. In relation to the body, both the co-researchers and the participants highlight issues and experiences related to the role of impairment in restricting activity, while at the same time acknowledging the roles of society and culture that play a part in disablement. The findings show the complexity of the understandings of disability and challenge the individual model, the social model and cultural perspectives of disability, and show how 'impairment' and 'disability' interact in the lives of disabled people in Kuwait. The thesis argues that an appropriate model for understanding disability in Kuwait is rooted in a critical realist paradigm that views disability from multiple levels, including biological, medical, psychological, socio-cultural and socio-economic levels. The findings also explore the process of participatory research with the co- researchers. In relation to this, the findings highlight the issues of power relations, skills development and reciprocity, decision making processes, sharing the experiences, and the possibility of this research opening the door for further research and changing people's attitudes on disability.

Submitted by Maria Aparecida (cidazen@gmail.com) on 2017-04-26T14:41:03Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Denisson Gonçalves.pdf: 2137540 bytes, checksum: 6d45b85c224614c1d0ac06f3d7d37728 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-04-26T14:41:03Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Denisson Gonçalves.pdf: 2137540 bytes, checksum: 6d45b85c224614c1d0ac06f3d7d37728 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-02-09 / Nowadays, the deficiency is a multidimensional thematic, approached by the most various areas of the Science, from the spheres of health, like medicine, to Social Sciences, such as Law and Politics. However, this plurivision is something recent, so that until the middle of the 21st century a purely biomedical perspective of the phenomenon of disability prevailed in a hegemonic way, considering it as pathology. The social model of disability emerges as an innovative paradigm, defining disability as the livingness in bodies with impairments in environments with barriers. In these terms, it becomes part of human diversity, not a stigma. In spite of this interpretative revolution, the deficiency is still governed by common standards, by charitable attitudes or even relegated to social invisibility. The Brazilian Law contains a vast number of protective norms for people with disabilities, however, they need enforcement. This misfortune is due in part to the lack of studies on this topic from a legal perspective. Furthermore, even within the sociology of health, the social model is still poorly diffused. Therefore, the objective of this work is to analyze the social model of disability from a Law perspective, showing "if" and "how" the internal legal system is adopting such archetype. The methodology used was the analysis of the content of national and international decisions and legislations, as well as the bibliographic review about the disability. The results found in this study show that the Brazilian State has a mechanism to enforce the rights of people with functional diversity, though, obstacles, such as invisibility, prejudice and socioinstitutional disengagement represent environmental barriers that generate and promote the exclusion of the disabled. / Hodiernamente, a deficiência é uma temática multidimensional, podendo ser abordada pelas mais variadas áreas da Ciência, desde as esferas da saúde, como a medicina, até as Ciências Sociais, como o Direito e Política. Entretanto, esta plurivisão é algo recente, de maneira que até meados do século XXI prevalecia de modo hegemônico uma perspectiva puramente biomédica do fenômeno da deficiência, considerando-a como uma patologia. O modelo social da deficiência surge como um paradigma inovador, definindo deficiência como a vivência em corpos com impedimentos em ambientes com barreiras. Neste sentido, ela se torna parte da diversidade humana e não um estigma. Apesar dessa revolução interpretativa, a deficiência ainda é governada pelos ditames do senso comum, por posturas caritativas ou mesmo relegada à invisibilidade social. O Direito brasileiro contém um amplo rol de normas protetivas das pessoas com deficiência, que contudo, carecem de densificação. Essa mazela deve-se em parte a carência de estudos sobre a temática pela ótica jurídica. Ademais, mesmo no âmbito da sociologia da saúde, o modelo social ainda é pouco difundido. Portanto, o objetivo deste trabalho é analisar o modelo social da deficiência pela perspectiva do Direito, demonstrando “se” e “como” o ordenamento jurídico interno está adotando tal arquétipo. A metodologia utilizada foi a análise de conteúdo de decisões e legislações nacionais e internacionais, bem como a revisão bibliográfica sobre a deficiência. Os resultados encontrados demonstram que o Estado brasileiro dispõe de mecanismo de efetivação dos direitos das pessoas com diversidade funcional, todavia, óbices, como a invisibilidade, preconceito e descomprometimento socioinstitucional representam barreiras ambientais que geram e promovem a exclusão dos deficientes.

<p>The more geneticists discover about which genes cause what traits, the more medical practitioners as well as ethicists will have to deal with questions such as which of the myriad of identifiable conditions could or should be allowed for preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and subsequent implantation via in vitro fertilization. Not a lot of controversy seems to be raised when it comes to performing PGD for serious genetic conditions such as Tay-Sachs disease or Lesch-Nyhan syndrome, but what about other characteristics, for example, those which we normally would call disabilities? This thesis tackles this question, and in partifular the possibility of implanting embryos with that screen positive for deafness, as deaf parents, especially those coming from the Deaf community who see their condition as a positive part of their identity and cultural belongingness, have expressed interest in ensuring the birth of a deaf child. This thesis thus raises the questions: is deafness a disease, or just an unfortunate condition? Are the deaf justified in purposefully implanting a baby diagnosed to be deaf? The thesis tries to grapple with why deaf parents may want deaf children, and show how these wishes may be justified. Concluding that neither the medical model of disease nor the principle-based approach—which weighs beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy and justice—are sufficient in opposing the implantation of deaf babies, it is proposed that a different theory, model or philosophy of health should be espoused if we are still to find the implantation of deaf babies problematic. That is, while the mainstream may ask: “Why ensure the birth of a deaf child?”, we ask, “Why not?” Policymakers and ethicists must be able to tackle this question sufficiently if they would allow to screen for deafness, but only to ensure the birth of hearing children.</p>

The more geneticists discover about which genes cause what traits, the more medical practitioners as well as ethicists will have to deal with questions such as which of the myriad of identifiable conditions could or should be allowed for preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and subsequent implantation via in vitro fertilization. Not a lot of controversy seems to be raised when it comes to performing PGD for serious genetic conditions such as Tay-Sachs disease or Lesch-Nyhan syndrome, but what about other characteristics, for example, those which we normally would call disabilities? This thesis tackles this question, and in partifular the possibility of implanting embryos with that screen positive for deafness, as deaf parents, especially those coming from the Deaf community who see their condition as a positive part of their identity and cultural belongingness, have expressed interest in ensuring the birth of a deaf child. This thesis thus raises the questions: is deafness a disease, or just an unfortunate condition? Are the deaf justified in purposefully implanting a baby diagnosed to be deaf? The thesis tries to grapple with why deaf parents may want deaf children, and show how these wishes may be justified. Concluding that neither the medical model of disease nor the principle-based approach—which weighs beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy and justice—are sufficient in opposing the implantation of deaf babies, it is proposed that a different theory, model or philosophy of health should be espoused if we are still to find the implantation of deaf babies problematic. That is, while the mainstream may ask: “Why ensure the birth of a deaf child?”, we ask, “Why not?” Policymakers and ethicists must be able to tackle this question sufficiently if they would allow to screen for deafness, but only to ensure the birth of hearing children.

The disability community is one of the largest minority groups vulnerable to social exclusion and marginalization, too often forced into poverty, unemployment and social isolation through dependence on the state. This is the result of systemic discrimination, and is being challenged by the social model of disability which frames disability as a political creation: it proposes that barriers, prejudice, and exclusion created by society (purposely or inadvertently) are the ultimate factors defining disability. The social model empowers people with disabilities to dismantle barriers so they have choice, flexibility, and control to gain the dignity, autonomy, equality, and solidarity associated with human rights and citizenship, and calls for research that takes an emancipatory approach and has a political commitment to confront oppression and exclusion. This interdisciplinary Masters thesis looks at the ways co-operatives can be vehicles for inclusion and empowerment for the disability community. It looks particularly at the multi-stakeholder model of co-operative, which is especially promising for the empowerment of the disability community as it brings together different member categories in an appropriate form of interdependence. My research uses case study methodology to explore how socially constructed barriers are the impairment to development in the disability community and to identify successes where informal multi-stakeholder co-operatives have been used to empower people with disabilities through analysis on four dimensions: how consumer-controlled the co-op is, use of multi-stakeholder alliances, promotion of the social model of disability, and ability to promote economic inclusion and social solidarity. The disability community needs new opportunities for empowerment and community development to overcome disadvantage and marginalization, and this thesis explores the potential of multi-stakeholder co-operatives, vis-à-vis the social model of disability, to do this. This research will help shape policies needed to foster social inclusion to empower people with disabilities and build disability solidarity through co-operative development.

This paper is concerned with the developed area of Kurdistan, the Iraqi Kurdistan, and this paper will try to underline the situation of persons with disabilities living standards in Kurdistan. The research problem concerned with this topic is, what is being done by the different actors who have the power to influence the living standards of persons with disabilities in the region of Kurdistan. The purpose and aims of this paper is to highlight the importance of these living standards for these persons and how they feel they are being treated by the society as whole, both from the society (the people around them), and also the government, authorities and organizations at place for aid and assistance to those people. The main course of this paper has been laid on interviews with official persons from government and associations in Kurdistan. On the authorities and similar side, Salah Yousif Mohammed, the directorate of Disabled Care Duhok has been interviewed, together with Nassrat Mohammed Salem, the director of ZheenHandi Capped Association, Wahid Saeed Chicho, the director of Little People of Kurdistan Association and Khabat Islam Muhamad, Dohuk Program Manager for the Voice of Older People (VOP). These interviews together with interviews with persons with disabilities have laid forward a comprehensive matter of facts at hand to study. Social Constructivism, Human Security and Disability have been chosen as theoretical framework of this paper to help for better understanding of the purpose of this paper. Both Social Constructivism and Human Security help to define and better understand the concept of Disability in Kurdistan. The Social Model of Disability in Sweden has also been included in Disability for better understanding of a successful example.

The disability community is one of the largest minority groups vulnerable to social exclusion and marginalization, too often forced into poverty, unemployment and social isolation through dependence on the state. This is the result of systemic discrimination, and is being challenged by the social model of disability which frames disability as a political creation: it proposes that barriers, prejudice, and exclusion created by society (purposely or inadvertently) are the ultimate factors defining disability. The social model empowers people with disabilities to dismantle barriers so they have choice, flexibility, and control to gain the dignity, autonomy, equality, and solidarity associated with human rights and citizenship, and calls for research that takes an emancipatory approach and has a political commitment to confront oppression and exclusion. This interdisciplinary Masters thesis looks at the ways co-operatives can be vehicles for inclusion and empowerment for the disability community. It looks particularly at the multi-stakeholder model of co-operative, which is especially promising for the empowerment of the disability community as it brings together different member categories in an appropriate form of interdependence. My research uses case study methodology to explore how socially constructed barriers are the impairment to development in the disability community and to identify successes where informal multi-stakeholder co-operatives have been used to empower people with disabilities through analysis on four dimensions: how consumer-controlled the co-op is, use of multi-stakeholder alliances, promotion of the social model of disability, and ability to promote economic inclusion and social solidarity. The disability community needs new opportunities for empowerment and community development to overcome disadvantage and marginalization, and this thesis explores the potential of multi-stakeholder co-operatives, vis-à-vis the social model of disability, to do this. This research will help shape policies needed to foster social inclusion to empower people with disabilities and build disability solidarity through co-operative development.

The purpose of this research is to examine the institutional narrative of substance use disorders (SUDs) in the U.S. military and the extent to which it reflects the medicalization process. Three general research questions guided my analysis of the narrative surrounding SUDs in the military: (1) How does the military characterize the problems and resolutions of SUDs? (2) How and to what extent does this narrative reflect medicalization? (3) What are the limitations inherent in the institutional narrative of SUDs in the military? In order to address these questions, I draw on three conceptual lenses: (1) The work of Loseke (2007) and others on the powers of institutional narratives; (2) The work of Conrad and Schneider (1980) in which they propose that medicalization can be understood in multiple ways and on at least three distinct levels (the conceptual, the institutional, and the interactive); and (3) The work of disability scholars on the limitations of the medical model and the importance of adopting a social model of the causes and consequences of disability (Oliver and Barnes 2012; Shakespeare 2014; Berger 2012). In this study, I use these lenses to conduct a textual analysis of the VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline for Management of Substance Use Disorders. This manual was developed under the auspices of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and the Department of Defense (DoD) pursuant to directives from the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA). The document was designed to provide recommendations for the performance or exclusion of specific procedures or services related to identification and response to substance use among active duty personnel and veterans in all branches of the US military. The information and recommendations presented in the document were then disseminated throughout all branches of the military for implementation. This document is, therefore, a powerful codification of the institutional narrative of substance use in the military. Using Conrad and Schneider’s model as a template (1980), I examined the document in order to see how the military has framed the discussion surrounding SUDs. My analysis began with a close reading of the manual several times without much reflection in order to get a general feeling for the story being constructed by the text. However, as I continued with the close reading, I began making comments about the practices and overall impressions the manual puts forth. After several readings and thorough note taking, it became clear that there was a significant amount of medicalization occurring throughout the military manual, and evidence for medicalization could be seen on all three of the levels suggested by Conrad and Schneider. Words and phrases of text were eventually coded and categorized into the three levels of medicalization. The narrative within the document depicts a specific story of how the military addresses matters involving SUDs through a system of screening, assessment and treatment. First, the document’s language relating to diagnostic assessments, laboratory biomarkers and other screening devices used to categorize and measure one’s substance use can all be considered evidence for medicalization at the conceptual level. Multiple segments of text have been identified and categorized on a conceptual level. Second, clear indications of medicalization on the institutional level can be seen with references to specialty treatment, “specialty care” and “other clinics.” Again, multiple text segments have been identified as being representative of medicalization at the institutional level. Finally, evidence for interactive medicalization can be seen through the use of medical referrals, pharmacological treatments and the ongoing monitoring of medical consequences of substance use. The findings suggest that the military has adopted what many now consider a medical model approach toward understanding substance use and evidence can be found at all three levels of medicalization proposed by Conrad and Schneider. Strengths and weaknesses of exclusive reliance on a medicalized narrative of the causes of substance use among military personnel and veterans are discussed in light of the lessons learned from the social model of disability and other critiques of medicalization. I conclude that the success of a medicalized response to substance use may be hampered by the tension between the two widely circulating cultural narratives that intersect in the case of substance use among military personnel.