And of course if yu have not been published I suppose your ideas are not
valid? That is what makes me sick about the whole academic business and it
is a business, an economic and social construct in its own right, excluding
people at the grass roots from the franchise being essentially gatekeepers
and preservers of "sacred" ideologies.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The Disability-Research Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of m99m
> Sent: 18 March 2004 15:50
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Casus Shelli Belli [?] (some refs)
> Thank you, Bruce Henderson! But if the original Casus post might
> be used in
> evidence, I'd better list some refs (that I was too sleepy to list at 0200
> this morning, UK time), so that people can read a fuller text of what was
> actually written, and smile at my feeble effort to boil it down to a few
> Bickenbach JE, Chatterji S, Badley EM & Üstün TB (1999) Models of
> disablement, universalism and the international classification of
> impairments, disabilities and handicaps. Social Science & Medicine, 48:
> (This, incidentally, includes three of the authors whose later book on Dis
> and Culture I was slamming a couple of weeks back on the list. But I
> thought they did well in this paper).
> Finkelstein V (1999) Extended review: "Doing Disability Research", Colin
> Barnes, Geof Mercer (ed), 1997, Leeds, Disability Press. Disability &
> Society 14: 859-78.
> (Of course, Vic F has a considerable acreage of papers of his own, some of
> them on the web. But a review of other people's stuff is a great place for
> saying what you really think rather less cautiously than in a formal,
> indexed paper...)
> Shakespeare T & Watson N (2001) The Social Model of Disability:
> an outdated
> ideology? Research in Social Science and Disability, Vol. 2, pp. 9-28.
> (It's a pity this is in a journal-cum-research-review-series that
> is not so
> widely available. Did they perhaps try the paper on a more widely
> circulated journal, which was unwilling to publish it? Anyhow, as
> a 'second thoughts' paper, it's well worth reading. It gives a much more
> sympathetic portrayal than I could manage, of positions from which
> Shakespeare & Watson were moving on).
> Stiker H-J (1999) Using historical anthropology to _think_ disability. In:
> B Holzer, A Vreede & G Weigt (eds) Disability in Different Cultures
> (Bielefeld, Transcript).
> A fair idea of currents in North American disability studies can be had
> from a trawl through the massive Handbook edited by Albrecht et al, in
> which SMODs play their part, but are hardly dominant:
> Albrecht G, Seelman KD & Bury M (eds) (2001) Handbook of Disability
> Studies. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
> If I might inadvertently have left an impression of Mark as a kind of non-
> rude mechanical, oiling the list wheels while the high philosophy passed
> over his head, the following, in which he discusses the merits and
> arguments about various models, might correct any such idea:
> Priestley M. (1998) Constructions and creations: idealism, materialism and
> disability theory. Disability & Society 13 (1) 75-94.
> There is of course a fair amount of other critical material on SMODs, as
> well as defensive material by SMOD adherents. Also the material recently
> listed by Shelley Tremain, with which I'm not yet familiar, but
> no doubt it
> contains a trenchant critique.
> ________________End of message______________________
> Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
> are now located at:
> You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
________________End of message______________________
Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
are now located at:
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.