Hi
I have been following the discussion about agency and disability as
relational with interest - although I have struggled with some of it.
However, I would appreciate more discussion of how it relates to life
stories / biographies. I have read work on biography and learning
disabilities, but could do with some pointers on drawing out links between
this and the agency/structure issue, and indeed the social model. For
example, while biographies might be effective in integrating the experience
of disability, impairment, identity and agency in a phenomenological sense,
does it risk being misused to justify individualised explanations of
disability?
I am undertaking biographical interviews for my research into the
experiences of disabled staff in the personal social services, the
contributions they make, the difficulties/barriers faced and career
development over time. However, as well as the barriers (typical of a
social model approach) I have been interested in impairment, agency (both
in terms of contribution to work with service users and strategies employed
in relation to other staff, the organisation, career deveopment etc.) and
identity (how this might feed into professional values, ways of working
etc.).
The approach that I intended to take was to set individual agency in the
context of structural constraints In terms of the discussion that has
already taken place about the relational nature of disability, I guess my
intended approach would 'fit' best with Mark Priestley's comments about
disability being relational to structures. However, the actual data seems
to call for a more multi-layered approach which recognises that people at
'lower' levels in organisations have considerable scope as agents, in that
they can act to either reinforce or ameliorate structural constraints on
disabled colleagues. And also, reflecting Marian's comments, that the
capacity to exercise agency in these organisations is not evenly
distributed among disabled staff. Although this can sometimes be related to
gender, age, race, seniority, nature of impairment etc., it is not always
easy to account for it in purely structural terms. This seems to support
what several people have been saying about the relational nature of both
disability and impairment.
I would also be interested in accessing critiques of Giddens and
structuration theory.. At first glance, this seems to offer a means of
integrating action and structure, but it is obvious from earlier
discussions on the list that it is considered to have weaknesses. Could
anyone suggest useful reading on this?
I realise that this may not take the discussion much further for others,
but I would welcome suggestions.
Rhoda Castle
PhD Student
Social Work & Applied Social Studies
Staffordshire University
Stoke-on-Trent
R. Castle
<[log in to unmask]>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|