Children’s experiences of disability pointers to a social model of childhood disability

Download 99.69 Kb.
Date conversion27.12.2016
Size99.69 Kb.
Children’s experiences of disability – pointers to a social model of childhood disability

Word count for article and abstract – 7000 words

Disabled children have received little attention within the social model of disability: the extent to which it provides an adequate explanatory framework for their experiences has been little explored. Many studies about disabled children make reference to the social model, often in relation to identifying social or material barriers or in formulating recommendations for better services (Morris 1998a, Dowling and Dolan 2001, Murray 2002, Townsley et al 2004, Rabiee et al 2005). Few have focused specifically on children’s perceptions and experiences of impairment and disability, or explored the implications of these for theorizing childhood disability. Watson et al (2000), and Kelly (2005) following Connors and Stalker (2003a), are notable exceptions. Ali et al (2001), in a critical review of the literature relating to Black disabled children, conclude that the disability movement in Britain has neglected children’s experiences.

The research reported in this paper was a two-year study conducted in the Social Work Research Centre at the University of Stirling, funded by the Scottish Executive. A full account can be found in Connors and Stalker (2003b). The paper begins by outlining the study’s theoretical framework, which drew on insights from disability studies and the sociology of childhood. The study’s aims and methods are outlined and some key findings presented. We conclude by speculating why most of the children focused on ‘sameness’ rather than difference in their accounts and the implications of the findings for developing a social model of childhood disability.
Theoretical Framework

The Sociology of Childhood

Until the early 1990s, research on childhood was largely concerned with children's psychological, physical and social development. Children were usually prescribed a passive role in this process and seen through adult eyes (Waksler 1991, Shakespeare and Watson 1998): they were adults in training. The idea that childhood, unlike biological immaturity, might be a social construction influenced by factors such as class, gender and ethnicity emerged through the 'sociology of childhood'. Here, children are recognised as having a unique perspective and actively shaping their own lives (James 1993, James and Prout 1997, Mayall 2002). Listening to children's accounts of their experiences has encouraged recognition that their lives are not homogenous and need to be studied in all their diversity (Brannen and O' Brien 1995). In order to understand general themes in children's lives, it is necessary to pay attention to their narratives and personal experiences. Shakespeare and Watson (1998) pointed to the potential for drawing on insights from both the social model of disability and the sociology of childhood to explore disabled children’s experiences.

Reliance on personal experience, which constitutes much of research with children, has been a contested area within disability studies. Finkelstein (1996) questioned its relevance, believing that attempts on the part of disabled people to describe the detail of their lives is a route back to viewing disability as a tragic event which ‘happens’ to some individuals. Several disabled feminists (Morris 1993, Crow 1996, Thomas 1999) have suggested that not to do so is to ignore lessons from the feminist movement:
In opposition to Finkelstein’s view that a focus on individual lives and experiences fails to enable us to understand (and thus to challenge) the socio-structural, I would agree with those who see life history accounts…….as evidence that ‘the micro’ is constitutive of ‘the macro’. Experiential narratives offer a route to understanding the ‘socio-structural’. (Thomas 1999, p78)

The social relational model of disability

Thomas’ work (1999) was particularly important to our study because she has developed definitions of disability which relate directly to people’s lived experience. She views disability as being rooted in an unequal social relationship. It follows a similar course to racism and sexism and results in 'the social imposition of restrictions of activity on impaired people' by non-impaired people, either through ‘barriers to doing’ or ‘barriers to being'. The former refers to physical, economic and material barriers, such as inaccessible buildings or transport, which restrict or prevent people from undertaking certain activities; the latter refers to hurtful, hostile or inappropriate behaviour which has a negative effect on an individual’s sense of self, affecting what they feel they can be or become. Thomas calls this process ‘psycho-emotional disablism’. Barriers to being are not confined to the personal, one to one level: exclusionary institutional policies and practices can have the same effect.

Thomas also identifies impairment effects, that is, restrictions of activity which result from living with an impairment. This could include the fatigue or discomfort associated with some conditions, or the inability to do certain things. Historically, disability studies has avoided acknowledging the limitations which can be associated with impairment, (Crow 1996). Shakespeare and Watson (2002) see this as a great weakness in social model theory, arguing that impairment is 'experientially .... salient to many'. Thomas (2001) suggests that acknowledging personal experiences of living with impairment and disability is politically unifying because it enables a full range of disability experiences to be recognised and this inclusivity will better represent all disabled people in society (Reeve 2002).


The idea of difference is another debate within disability studies relevant to our research. One view is that difference does not exist but rather individuals' bodies are constructed and then maintained as disabled by social opinions and barriers (Price and Shildrick 1998). An alternative view is that disabled people are 'essentially' different from non-disabled people (Thomas 1999) so that difference is part of the 'essence' of a disabled person. For Morris (1991), having an impairment makes a person fundamentally different from someone who does not have one. This difference exists beyond the socially constructed effects of disablism, making the presence of impairment the key difference between disabled and non-disabled people. Scott-Hill (2004) suggests that difference has been neglected because its acknowledgement poses a threat to the disabled people’s movement and its political message: she calls for more ‘dialogue across difference’.

The fusion of ideas from disability studies and the sociology of childhood is at an early stage and while there are reasons to be cautious, there are indications that it could be a very fruitful relationship (Watson et al 2000) as we seek a framework within which to understand and describe the richness and diversity of disabled children's everyday lives.

Study aims and methods

The aims of the study were

  • To explore disabled children’s understandings of disability

  • To examine the ways in which they negotiate the experience of disability in their daily lives

  • To examine the children’s perceptions of their relationships with professionals and their views of service provision

  • To examine siblings’ perceptions of the effects on them of having a disabled brother or sister,

In this paper, we focus on the first of these aims.

At the beginning of the study – when the research proposal was being written – we recruited two ‘research advisors’, aged 11 and 12, through a voluntary organization for disabled people. The children gave us valuable advice about the design of information and consent leaflets for different age groups, the wording of questions and the suitability of interview materials.
Families were recruited to the study through schools and voluntary organizations, which were asked to pass on letters to parents, and information leaflets and ‘agreement forms’ to children. We were not aiming to recruit a representative sample but rather to include children and young people from a range of age groups, with a variety of impairments, attending different types of school, and so on. Twenty five families, who had 26 disabled children in total, agreed to take part.

Before formal data collection commenced, an initial visit was made to each family to discuss the implications of participating in the research. This provided an opportunity for researcher and family members to begin to get to know one another, agree ground rules, ensure that everyone understood what the study entailed and had an opportunity to ask questions or raise concerns. This meeting enabled the researchers to identify each child’s accustomed communication method and to some extent assess their cognitive ability, thus enabling us to use an appropriate approach in the interviews.

One-to-one guided conversations were conducted with the young disabled people in their own homes, spread over two or three visits. With younger children, a semi structured interview schedule was used, supplemented by a range of activities and communications aids, such as ‘spidergrams’, word choice exercises and picture cards, to engage the child’s interests and facilitate communication. This approach was also used with all the youngsters who had learning disabilities: piloting showed that the more structured format of this questionnaire was more accessible to this group than the topic guide (covering the same subjects) designed for older children.
We asked the children to tell us about ‘a typical day’ at school and at the weekend, relationships with family and friends, their local neighbourhood, experiences at school, pastimes and interests, use of services and future aspirations. While open-ended questions were enough to launch some children on a blow-by-blow account of, for example, everything they had done the previous day, other youngsters, notably those with learning disabilities, needed the question broken up into more manageable chunks, such as ‘what time do you usually get up? What do you like for breakfast?’ We did not include direct questions about impairment in the children’s interview schedules: nor did we think it appropriate to ask the children, in so many words, how they ‘understood disability’. Rather, we preferred to wait and see what they had to say on these topics while telling us about their daily lives generally and in response to specific questions like

  • ‘Are there some things you are quite good at?’

  • ‘Are there any things you find difficult to do?’

  • ‘What’s the best thing about school?’

  • ‘What’s the worst thing?’ ‘

  • Have you ever been bullied at school?’
  • ‘Are there any things you need help to do?’ and

  • ‘If you had a magic wand and you could wish for something to happen, what would you wish?’

If individual children made little or no reference to impairment as the interview proceeded, we raised the subject in follow-up questions, eg: after the ‘magic wand’ question, we might ask ‘What about your disability? Would you change anything about that?’ This was easier with those who had physical or sensory impairments than those with learning disabilities (see Stalker and Connors (2005) for an account of these children’s views and experiences).

Over the last decade, an increasing number of publications have offered guidance on seeking the views of disabled children for consultation or research (eg: Ward 1997, Morris 1998b, Potter and Whittaker 2001, Stone, 2001, Morris 2003). In our experience, talking to disabled children is often no different from talking to any child: it is important to see every child as a child first and with an impairment, second. However, one of the authors (Connors), who conducted most of the fieldwork, is fluent in British Sign Language and Makaton: the ability to draw on these methods was essential to avoid excluding four children from the study. A fifth child used facilitated communication: his mother went through some of the questions with him and passed on the responses to us. Two children had profound multiple impairment and here we interviewed their parents, although being careful not to treat their views as ‘proxy’ data.

Ethical issues are heightened in research with children. Consent was treated as an on-going process: thus, we asked the children at the start of each session if they felt okay about talking to us again, checked that we could tape record what they said, reminded them they could stop at any time or ‘pass’ on any question they did not wish to answer and that nothing they said would be reported to their parents, unless it indicated the children were at risk of harm. One child decided not to proceed with a second interview – which (despite losing potentially valuable data!) reassured us that he did not feel under pressure to participate.

The children, 15 boys and 11 girls, were aged between 7 and 15. There was one Black child, reflecting the relatively low population of Black and minority ethnic families in Scotland, and all had English as their first language. We deliberately avoided using medical diagnoses to recruit children and did not ‘measure’ severity of impairment but simply recorded any conditions or diagnoses which parents or schools tgave us. Broadly, 13 children were described as having learning disabilities, five, sensory impairments and six, physical impairments. As noted above, two had profound/ multiple impairment. The youngsters attended a variety of schools – ‘special’ (segregated), mainstream (inclusive) and ‘integrated’ (segregated units within mainstream schools). All lived in central or southern Scotland.
Twenty-four siblings and 38 parents also took part in one interview each. Semi structured schedules were used to explore their views and experiences – but these are not reported in detail here (see Stalker and Connors (2004) re. siblings’ views about impairment, disablism and difference).
Data recorded on audio or video tape (interviews conducted in British Sign Language) were transcribed in full. The transcripts were read through carefully several times, a sample being read and discussed by both authors. Emerging patterns, common themes and key points were identified and these, together with additional material taken from field notes and pen profiles of the families, were used to distil the findings.
Full details of the methodology can be found in Stalker and Connors (2003).


The findings suggest that children experienced disability in four ways, in terms of impairment, difference, other people's reactions and material barriers.


Much of what children talked about as ‘disability' was impairment and the effects of impairment on their day to day living. (None used the word 'impairment'). Children's main source of information about the cause of their impairments was their parents. Parents told us they tended to use one of three explanations: the child was 'special', impairment was part of God's plan for the family, or there had been an accident or illness around the time of birth. Several parents commented on their dread at being asked for explanations and it was notable that disabled children seemed to ask once and then let the subject drop; perhaps they were aware of the distress felt by parents. Generally, there seemed not to be much discussion within families about impairment. A number of children had never talked to their parents about it and, in some families, there was avoidance and/or silence about the subject. One sibling, a 13 year old boy, reported that his mother had forbidden him to tell other people about his sister’s impairment but rather to ‘keep it in between the family’.

The disabled children tended to see impairment in medical terms - not surprisingly, given that most had a high level of contact with health services. Most had experienced multiple hospital admissions, operations and regular outpatient appointments - all of which might lead them to conclude that having an impairment linked them directly to healthcare professionals. A few had cheerful memories of being in hospital; for example, one said she would give her doctor ‘20 out of 10’ points for helping her while another said his consultant was ’brilliant’. A 10 year old boy with learning disabilities recalled an eye operation he had undergone aged 5 or 6:

Researcher: What happened? Did you go into hospital on your own?
Child: My mum wasn’t allowed to come in with me.
Researcher: Was she not?
Child: Into the theatre
Researcher: Into the theatre. Was she allowed to be with you in the ward?
Child: Yes. Uh-huh
Researcher: Good
Child: What made me scared most was, there were these tongs, they were like that…with big bridges with lights on them, you know, and 'oh, oh, what are they for? What are they for?’
Researcher: Hmm. Hmm.
Child: And there were things all in my mouth.
Researcher: Hmm Hmm

Child: Then everybody was there
Researcher: Ah ha
Child: Then I went ‘Mum!’
Researcher: Hmm. So it’s quite scary. Did it help?
Child: Yeah.
However, none of the children appeared to view impairment as a 'tragedy', despite the close ties between the ‘medical' and 'tragedy' models of disability (Hevey 1993). They made no reference to feeling loss or having a sense of being hard done by.

Indeed, for some children it seemed that having an impairment was not a ‘big deal’ in their lives. When offered a ‘magic wand’ and asked if they would like to change anything about themselves or their lives, only three referred to their impairment - two said they would like to be able to walk and one wanted better vision. One girl with mobility difficulties compared herself favourably to other children:

When I see people as they two are, I think ‘gosh’ and I'm like glad I can walk and people see me and I walk like this.
When a boy, aged 9, was asked if he ever wished he didn't have to use a wheelchair, the reply was:
That's it, I'm in a wheelchair so just get on with it...just get on with what you're doing.
The children did tell us about what Thomas (1999) calls 'impairment effects' (restrictions of activity which result from living with impairment, as opposed to restrictions caused by social or material barriers). They talked about repeated chest infections, tiring easily, being in pain, having difficulty completing school work. At the same time, most seemed to have learned to manage - or at least put up with - these things. Most children appeared to have a practical, pragmatic attitude to their impairment. The majority appeared happy with themselves and were not looking for a 'cure'. However, there were some indications that a few of the younger children thought they would outgrow their impairment. The mother of a 9 year old Deaf boy said he thought he would grow into a hearing adult. (This child had no contact with Deaf adults). Only one younger child thought she would need support when she grew up, in contrast to most of the older ones, who recognised they would need support in some form or other.


Parents usually thought their children were aware of themselves as different from other children, but most of the children did not mention it. Instead, the majority focused on the ways their lives were similar to or the same as those of their peers. Most said they felt happy ‘most of the time’, had a sense of achievement through school or sports and saw themselves as good friends and helpful classmates. They were active beings with opportunities to mould at least some aspects of their lives. Most felt they had enough say in their lives - although some teenagers, like many youngsters of that age, were struggling with their parents about being allowed more independence. One girl said of her mother:

She’s got to understand that she can’t rule my life any more...I just want to make up my own mind now because she’s always deciding for me, like what’s best for me and sometimes I get angry. She just doesn’t realize that I’m grown up now but soon I’m going to be 14 and I won’t be a wee girl any more.
When asked what they would be doing at their parents’ age, the children revealed very similar aspirations to those of other youngsters, for example, becoming a builder, soldier, fireman, vet, nurse or ‘singer and dancer’.
Most problems the children identified were in the here and now: it was striking that on this subject their responses differed from their parents’ accounts. Most parents were able to tell us about occasions where their child had been discriminated against, treated badly or faced some difficulty - but the children themselves painted a different picture of the issues which concerned them. Some, particularly in the older group, reported a high level of boredom; many of these young people attended special schools and so had few, if any, friends in their local communities. One teenager explained:
It’s like weird because people at my [segregated] school, they are not as much my friends as people here ‘cos I don’t know them that much. My friends past the years, they come to my house but not them. They’ve never even seen my house.
As Cavet (1998) points out, at this age, leisure and friendship ‘happen’ either in young people's homes or venues like sporting facilities or shopping centres, neither of which may be accessible to some disabled adolescents and teenagers.

Fifteen children in the sample had some degree of learning disabilities. These youngsters made very few references to their impairment, with only one mentioning her diagnosis. This 13 year old girl had written a story about herself for the researcher, with whom she had this exchange as they read it together:

Researcher: What’s that? My name is …

Child: Pat Brownlie, I have De Soto syndrome.

Researcher: Right. Tell me what De Soto syndrome is.

Child: Em…eh…. What is it again?

Researcher: How does it make you feel?...

Child: Different.
It was interesting that, unlike Pat, most of the children focused on 'sameness’: in many cases, it would be hard to avoid or minimise their difference. Our evidence suggests that it was the way difference was responded to and managed which was crucial.
Some schools with 'inclusive' policies seemed to take the view that difference should not even be acknowledged. We were not allowed to make contact with families through some schools because our research was about disabled children and they were not to be singled out (despite the fact that all the interviews were to take place in the family home). One danger of treating all children 'the same’ is that rules and procedures designed for the majority do not always fit the minority. In an example from a mainstream school, one mother told us that her 14 year old son, a wheelchair user, had been left alone in the school during fire drill:
He was telling me the other day how they did the fire alarm and everybody was screaming out in the playground. Richard was still in the school and everybody was outside. He was saying 'Mum, I was really, really worried about what happens if there's a real fire.' No one came to his assistance at all.

Where difference was badly managed, children could feel hurt and excluded, resulting in the ‘barriers to being’ that Thomas (1999) identifies. One boy, who attended an integrated unit within a mainstream school, asked his mother what he had done 'wrong' to be placed in a 'special' class. Lack of information and explanation had led him to equate difference with badness or naughtiness.

Some special schools seemed to focus on difference in an unhelpful way, defining the children in terms of their impairment. At one school, teachers apparently referred to pupils as 'wheelchairs' and 'walkers'. A wheelchair user at this school commented: 'It's sad because we're just the same. We just can't walk, that's all the difference.' Another pupil at this school told us: 'I'm happy being a cerebral palsy.' Despite her stated ‘happiness’, it seems unlikely that being publicly labeled in this way - and then apparently internalising the definition - would help children develop a rounded sense of self. At the same time, a couple of children believed that needs relating to their impairment were better met in special school than they would be in mainstream, with one boy commenting: A Deaf girl preferred to be :
Where there’s signing, where everyone signs, all the teachers, all the children.

Researcher: Why is that better than going to a school with hearing children?

Child: Hearing children – no one signs. I don’t understand them and they don’t understand me.
Echoing findings made elsewhere (Davis and Watson 2001, Skar and Tam 2001), there were several reports of children in mainstream schools feeling unhappy with their special needs assistants (SNAs), whose role is to facilitate inclusion. One older girl was very annoyed that at break times her SNA regularly took her to the younger children’s playground when, understandably, she wanted to mix with young people of her own age. In another case, a SNA always took a pupil into the nursery class at lunch times, because she (the SNA) was friendly with the nursery staff!
On the other hand, some schools responded to difference in a positive way. Many children had
extra aids and equipment at school or were taken out of their classes for one-to-one

tuition. Much of this support seemed to be well embedded in

daily routines and not made into an issue. The mother of a boy attending mainstream school recounted:

There was that time, remember, when.... they'd asked a question in the big hall ... It was 'does anybody in here think they are special?' and he put his hand up and said 'I am because I have cerebral palsy' and ... he went out to the front and spoke about his disability to everybody.

It could be argued that encouraging children to see themselves as ‘special’ because they have an impairment is not a positive way forward. As indicated earlier in this paper in relation to different types of school, the word ‘special’ can be a euphemism (or justification) for segregated facilities. ‘Special’ might also be seen as a somewhat mawkish or sentimental way of portraying disabled children. However some parents used this word to emphasise that that their children were unique and valued individuals. Most worked hard to give the children the message that they were just as good as their brothers and sisters and any other children, that it was possible to be different but equal.
Reactions of other people

Nevertheless, children could be made to feel different and of lesser value by the unhelpful and sometimes hostile words and actions of others, whether people they knew or complete strangers. These are another example of what Thomas (1999) refers to as ‘barriers to being', relating to the psycho-emotional dimension of disability. We were told of incidents where people unknown to the child had acted insensitively, for example

• Staring

• Talking down, as if addressing a young child

• Inappropriate comments

• Inappropriate behaviour

• Overt sympathy.

Children who used wheelchairs seemed to be a particular target for the public at large. An older boy, who had difficulty eating, disliked going out to restaurants because he was stared at. He used a wheelchair and got annoyed when people bent down to talk to him as if he was 'small' or 'stupid':

I don’t mind if it’s wee boys or wee girls that look at me but if it’s adults…they should know. It’s as if they’ve never seen a wheelchair before and they have, eh?
A 13 year old girl with learning disabilities described the harassment which she and her single mother had experienced from neighbours, including:
The man next door came to our door and rattled the letter box and shouted ‘come out you cows or I will get you’. So we called the police and then they did not believe us because I was a special needs.
Other children could also be cruel: almost half the disabled children had experienced bullying, either at school or in their local neighbourhood. One boy reported that he was ‘made fun of’ at school ‘about nearly every day.’ His mother reported he had once had a good day in school because no-one had called him ‘blindie’. Although the children were very hurt by this kind of behaviour, a few took active steps to deal with it, reporting the bullying to parents or teachers. One girl faced up to the bullies herself and was not bothered by them again. A few were not above giving as good as they got, as this boy’s response shows:
No, I just bully them back. Or if they started kicking us, I’d kick them back.
Material barriers

Thomas (1999) describes 'barriers to doing' as restrictions of activity arising from social or physical factors. These caused significant difficulties in the children's lives. They included

• Lack of access to leisure facilities and clubs, especially for teenagers

Transport difficulties

• Paucity of after-school activities

• Lack of support with communication.

One boy reported he had been unable to go to a mainstream high school with friends from primary school because parts of the building were not accessible to him. A 13 year old boy who wanted to go shopping with his friends at the weekend found that his local Shopmobility scheme had no children’s wheelchairs. A 14 year old who wanted to attend an evening youth club at school was told it was not possible to arrange accessible transport at that time. It was suggested he remain in school after afternoon lessons ended until the club began. Understandably, he was not willing to wait around in school by himself for four hours – nor to attend the youth club wearing his school uniform.

There was less evidence of material barriers in the accounts given by children with learning disabilities. Some complained of boredom at weekends and school holidays, sometimes linked to the fact that they attended a school outside their neighbourhood and lacked friends locally. Alternatively they may have been less affected by – or aware of – the physical barriers affecting some of the children with physical and sensory impairments.


So, children experienced disability in terms of impairment, difference, other people’s behaviour and material barriers. Some had negative experiences of the way difference was handled at school; many encountered hurtful or hostile reactions from other people, and many also came up against physical barriers which restricted their day to day lives. Despite all this, most of the children presented themselves as much the same as others - young people with fairly ordinary lives. They focused on sameness. Why?

There could be a number of explanations. First, it may be that some of the children felt they had to minimise or deny their difference. Youth culture and consumerism exert heavy pressure on young people to follow the crowd, keep up with others, not to stand out. Disabled youngsters are by no means immune to such pressure albeit, as Hughes et al (2005) argue, they may find themselves excluded from ‘going with the flow’. The concept and practice of ‘passing’ as 'normal' was first identified by Edgerton (1967) in his longitudinal study of people with learning disabilities in the US. More recently, Watson et al (2000) reported that some children with invisible impairments exclude themselves from the 'disability' category. A significant number of children in our study were not encouraged to talk about impairment and disability at home or at school. These attitudes - or pressures - would tend to discourage children from talking about difference. It is notable that children at special schools tended to talk more openly about their impairments - although the schools themselves still seemed to be operating out of a medical model of disability.

Secondly – and taking a different tack - we could argue that children in this study are self-directing agents, choosing to manage their day to day lives and experience of disability in a matter of fact way. It is important to stress here that the children's (mostly positive) accounts of their lives differ significantly from earlier research findings about disabled children based on parents' or professionals' views which tend to be considerably more negative (see Baldwin and Carlisle 1994). Some of the older children were also active in responding to the hostile responses of other people, although there was less they could do about the structural barriers they came up against. They were also developing frameworks within which to understand the behaviors shown to them and, as active agents, chose not to be categorized by these responses. Impairment, and the resulting disability, was not seen as a defining feature of their identities. This concurs with the findings of Priestley et al (1999) who note that although children could identify the disabling barriers they encountered, they were still keen to be seen as ‘normal’, if different, and resisted being defined as disabled. However, there were exceptions, like the girl who described herself a ‘a cerebral palsy’.

However, we lean towards a third explanation. Perhaps the children were neither ‘in denial’ nor fully in command of resisting the various barriers they face. It may be that they did not have a language with which to discuss difference. We have already noted that they lacked contact with disabled adults; they did not have positive role models of disabled people, nor opportunities to share stories about their lives with other disabled children. Without this framework, it could be that children strove to be – or appear - the same as their non-disabled peers. If so, then there is a need for disabled children to have contact with organisations of disabled people and access to information and ideas about social models of disability. A counter-narrative is a critique of dominant public narratives constructed by people excluded from mainstream society to tell their own story (Thomas 1999). The social model of disability is a counter narrative (which has had considerable impact) - but up to now children’s narratives have played little part in its construction. Thus, there is a need for the social model to take children’s experiences on board. How can it do this?

Our findings show that Thomas’ social relational model of disability, which was developed from women’s accounts of disability, can also inform our understandings of disabled children’s experiences. First, despite the fact that the majority had relatively little information about the cause and in some cases, nature of their impairments, impairment was a significant part of their daily experience. They reported various ‘impairment effects’. In addition, our analysis showed some significant differences in the experiences and perceptions of those with learning disabilities compared to those with physical and sensory impairment. Secondly, there was evidence of ‘barriers to doing’ in the children’s accounts, particularly those with physical or sensory impairments. They identified various material, structural and institutional barriers which restricted their activities.

Thirdly, the young people told us about their experiences of being excluded or made to feel inferior by the comments and behaviour of others, sometimes thoughtless, sometimes deliberately hurtful. Some parents strove to give their disabled children positive messages about their value and worth and fought for them to have an ordinary life, for example, to attend mainstream schools or be included in local activities, and some children received good support from teachers or other professionals. Nevertheless, they could be brought up against their difference, so to speak, in a negative way by other people’s reactions, at both a personal and institutional level. In the children’s accounts, it was these incidents which upset them most, albeit some showed active resistance to, or rejection of, the labels or restrictions others sought to impose on them. Thus, in thinking about disabled childhoods, ‘impairment effects’, ‘barriers to doing’ and ‘barriers to being’ all seem to have a place. Our findings suggest that the last of these may have particular significance during childhood years, when young people are going through important stages of identity formation which may lay the foundations of self confidence and self worth for years to come.

It is early days and these ideas are no more than a potential starting point. There is need for a two-way process, in which disabled children have access to ideas and information about social models of disability, and social models of disability take account of their experiences and understandings. To facilitate this process, we need to open up more space for conversations between disabled

children, disability activists and researchers, and their allies.


Ali, Z.., Qulsom F., Bywaters P., Wallace, L. and Singh, G (2001) Disability, ethnicity and childhood: a critical review of research, Disability & Society, 16 (7), 949-968

Brannen J. and O' Brien M. (1995) 'Childhood and the sociological gaze: paradigms and paradoxes' Sociology 29 (4), 729-737

Cavet J. (1998) Leisure and friendship, in: C. Robinson and K. Stalker (Eds.) Growing up with Disability (London, Jessica Kingsley)

Connors, C. and Stalker, K. (2003a) Barriers to ‘being’; the psycho-emotional dimension of disability in the lives of disabled children, paper presented at Disability Studies: Theory, Policy and Practice, University of Lancaster, 4-6 September.

Connors, C. and Stalker, K (2003b) The views and experiences of disabled children and their siblings: a positive outlook. (London, Jessica Kingsley)

Crow, L.. (1996) Including all of our lives: renewing the social model of disability in: C. Barnes and G. Mercer (Eds) Exploring the divide: illness and disability. (Leeds, The Disability Press)

Davis, J. and Watson, N (2001) Where are the children’s experiences? Analysing social and cultural exclusion in ‘special’ and ‘mainstream’ schools, Disability & Society 16 (5), 671-687

Dowling, M. and Dolan, L. (2001) Disabilities - inequalities and the social model, Disability & Society, 16 (1), 21-36

Edgerton, R. B. (1967) The cloak of competence,: stigma in the lives of the mentally retarded (San Francisco, University of California Press)

Finkelstein, V. (1996) Outside, inside out Coalition, April, 30-36

Hevey, D. (1993) The tragedy principle: strategies for change in the representation of disabled people, in: J. Swain, V. Finkelstein, S. French and M. Oliver (Eds.) Disabling Barriers - Enabling Environment (London, Sage)

Hughes, B., Russell, R. and Paterson, K. (2005) Nothing to be had ‘off the peg’: consumption, identity and the immobilization of young disabled people, Disability & Society, 20 (1), 3-18

James, A. (1993) Childhood identities: self and social relationships in the experience of the child. (Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press)

James, A. and Prout, A. (Eds.) (1997) Constructing and reconstructing childhood: contemporary issues in the sociological study of childhood. (London, Falmer)

Kelly, B. (2005) ‘Chocolate…makes you autism’: Impairment, disability and childhood identities, Disability & Society 20 (3) 261-276

Mayall, B. (2002) Towards a sociology for childhood (Maidenhead, Open University Press)

Morris, J. (1991) Pride against prejudice: transforming attitudes to disability, (London, The Women's Press)

Morris, J. (1993) Gender and disability, in J. Swain, V. Finkelstein, S. French and M. Oliver (Eds.) Disabling barriers - enabling environments (London, Sage)

Morris, J. (1998a) Still missing? Disabled children and the Children Act (London, Who Cares? Trust)

Morris J (1998b) Don’t Leave Us Out: Involving disabled children and young people with communication impairments, (York, Joseph Rowntree Foundation)

Morris J (2003) Including all children: finding out about the experiences of children with communication and/or cognitive impairments Children and Society, 17 (5)) 337-348

Murray, P. (2002) Hello! Are you listening? Disabled teenagers’ experiences of access to inclusive leisure (York, York Publishing Services)

Potter C and Whittaker C (2001) Enabling communication in children with autism, (London, Jessica Kingsley)

Price, J. and Shildrick, M. (1998) Uncertain thoughts on the disabled body, in M. Shildrick and J. Price (Eds.) Vital signs: feminist reconstructions of the biological body, (Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press)

Priestley, M., Corker, M. and Watson, N. (1999) Unfinished business: disabled children and disability identity, Disability Studies Quarterly 19 (2)

Rabiee, P., Sloper, P. and Beresford, B (2005) Doing research with children and young people who do not use speech to communicate, Children and Society

Reeve, D. (2002) Negotiating psycho-emotional dimensions of disability and their influence on identity construction, Disability and Society 17 (5) 493-508

Scott-Hill, M (2004) Impairment, difference and identity, in: J. Swain, S. French, C Barnes and C Thomas (Eds.) Disabling Barriers - Enabling Environment (London, Sage)

Shakespeare, T. and Watson, N. (1998) Theoretical perspectives on research with disabled children, in C. Robinson and K. Stalker (Eds.) Growing up with Disability, (London, Jessica Kingsley)

Shakespeare, T. and Watson, N. (2002) The social model of disability: an outdated ideology? Research in Social Science and Disability 2, 9-28

Skar L and Tamm (2001) My assistant and I: Disabled children’s and adolescents’ roles and relationships to their assistants, Disability & Society 16 (7) 917-931

Stalker, K. and Connors, C. (2003) Communicating with disabled children, Adoption & Fostering 27 (1) 26-35

Stalker, K. and Connors, C. (2004) Children’s perceptions of their disabled siblings: “she’s different but it’s normal for us”, Children & Society, 18, 218-230

Stalker, K. and Connors, C. (2005) Children with learning disabilities talking about their everyday lives: in G. Grant, P. Goward, M. Richardson and P. Ramcharan (Eds.) Learning disability: A life cycle approach to valuing people, (Maidenhead, Open University Press)

Stone E (2001) Consulting with disabled children and young people, findings 741 (York, Joseph Rowntree Foundation)

Thomas, C. (1999) Female forms: experiencing and understanding disability (Buckingham, Open University Press)

Thomas, C. (2001) 'Feminism and disability: the theoretical and political significance of the personal and the experiential' in L. Barton Disability, politics and the struggle for change (Ed) (London, David Fulton)

Townsley, R., Abbott, D. and Watson, D. (2004) Making a difference? Exploring the impact of multi-agency working on disabled children with complex needs, their families and the professionals who support them (Bristol, Policy Press)

Waksler, F. (Ed.) (1991) Studying the social world of children: sociological readings (London, Falmer)

Ward, L (1997) Seen and heard: involving disabled children and young people in research and development projects (York, Joseph Rowntree Foundation)

Watson, N., Shakespeare, T., Cunningham-Burley, S., Barnes, C., Corker, M., Davis, J. and Priestley, M. (2000) Life as a disabled child: A qualitative study of young people's experiences and perspectives: final report to the ESRC, Department of Nursing Studies, University of Edinburgh

The database is protected by copyright © 2017
send message

    Main page