The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
'Learning Difficulties', the Social Model of Disability and Impairment: Challenging epistemologies
Abstract
Critical researchers enter into an investigation with their assumptions on the table, so no one is confused concerning the epistemological and political baggage they bring with them to the research site (Kincheloe & McLaren, 1998, p. 265). A theory of disability as oppression recognises and, in the present context, emphasies the social origins of impairment. (Abberley, 1987, in Barton and Oliver, 1997, p176, my emphasis.) Identification with the label of 'learning difficulties' has contradictory personal and political implications for people so-labelled. While this identification has allowed people to organise collectively through the self-advocacy movement, pervasive understandings of 'learning difficulties' that permeate many societal settings tend to be framed in ways that directly confirm a personal tragedy model of disability and impairment. This paper argues for a reconsideration of impairment in relation to 'learning difficulties', to challenge pervasive assumptions in relation to 'learning difficulties' - at the level of epistemology - and to construct four inclusive epistemological foundations . The first, deconstructing impairment , draws upon a body of literature that has exposed the social nature of diagnostic criteria and destabilised naturalised notions of 'learning difficulties'. The second, impairment, as storied , brings in the accounts of people with 'learning difficulties' that locate impairment in, and as, personal and social narratives. Thirdly, reculturising impairment highlights emergent resilient cultures of people with 'learning difficulties' that re-culturise impairment. Fourthly, epistemological impacts , grounds the analysis by calling for an attention to the ways in which assumptions about the origins of 'learning difficulties' impact upon the treatment of people so-labelled.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017) · Aldine (Routledge reprint) · doi:10.4324/9780203793206 · Cited by 25,789
Fee, D., & Fairclough, N. (1993) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2074659 · Cited by 11,611
Oliver, M. (1990) · doi:10.1007/978-1-349-20895-1 · Cited by 4,227
Cited by
OLNEY, M. F., & BROCKELMAN, K. F. (2003) · Disability & Society · doi:10.1080/713662200 · Cited by 189
Web accessibility design recommendations for people with cognitive disabilities
Friedman, M. G., & Bryen, D. N. (2007) · Technology and Disability · doi:10.3233/tad-2007-19406 · Cited by 171
The role of theory in disability research ‐springboard or strait‐jacket?
Gustavsson, A. (2004) · Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research · doi:10.1080/15017410409512639 · Cited by 92
Simpson, J., McMillan, H., & Reeve, D. (2013) · Parkinson's Disease · doi:10.1155/2013/608562 · Cited by 56
Conder, J. A., Mirfin‐Veitch, B. F., & Gates, S. (2015) · Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities · doi:10.1111/jar.12153 · Cited by 30
Metadata
- Authors
- Goodley, D.
- Venue
- Disability & Society
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2001-03
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 207-231
- ISSN
- 0267-4645 (ISSN-L)
- 0968-7599
- 1360-0508
- OpenAlex
- W2005174794
- Cited by
- 382
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 21.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: 'Learning Difficulties', the Social Model of Disability and Impairment: Challenging epistemologies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/09687590120035816
- The paper
- Goodley, D. (2001). 'Learning Difficulties', the Social Model of Disability and Impairment: Challenging epistemologies. Disability & Society. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687590120035816
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.