The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Parasites, Pawns and Partners: Disability Research and the Role of Non-Disabled Researchers
Abstract
Important methodological questions are raised by the act of researching disablement. Disability research has attracted much methodological criticism from disabled people who argue that it has taken place within an oppressive theoretical paradigm and within an oppressive set of social relations. These issues are of heightened significance for non-disabled researchers and bear many similarities to those faced by researchers investigating barriers to the social inclusion of women, Black and 'Third World' peoples. Such challenges have led to the development of an 'emancipatory' research paradigm. Six principles of emancipatory research are identified and the authors own research projects are critically examined within this framework. A number of contradictions are identified and an attempt made to balance the twin requirements of political action and academic rigour.
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
Oliver, M. (1990) · doi:10.1007/978-1-349-20895-1 · Cited by 4,227
Rural development : putting the last first
Chambers, R. (1983) · OpenDocs (Institute of Development Studies) · Cited by 2,895
The Everyday World as Problematic: A Feminist Sociology.
Sprague, J., & Smith, D. E. (1989) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2073155 · Cited by 2,455
The Concept of Oppression and the Development of a Social Theory of Disability
Abberley, P. (1987) · Disability, Handicap & Society · doi:10.1080/02674648766780021 · Cited by 842
Breaking out: Feminist consciousness and feminist research
Stanley, L., & Wise, S. (1983) · Cited by 517
Smith, W. R. (1982) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.2307/1963087 · Cited by 508
Feminist praxis: research, theory and epistemology in feminist sociology
(1990) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.28-1839 · Cited by 469
Zarb, G. (1992) · Disability, Handicap & Society · doi:10.1080/02674649266780161 · Cited by 341
Personal and Political: A Feminist Perspective on Researching Physical Disability
Morris, J. (1992) · Disability, Handicap & Society · doi:10.1080/02674649266780181 · Cited by 283
Qualitative Research: Valuable or Irrelevant?
Barnes, C. (1992) · Disability, Handicap & Society · doi:10.1080/02674649266780151 · Cited by 189
Cited by
What a Difference a Decade Makes: Reflections on doing ‘emancipatory’ disability research
BARNES, C. (2003) · Disability & Society · doi:10.1080/713662197 · Cited by 406
From Cure to Community: Transforming Notions of Autism
Bagatell, N. (2010) · Ethos · doi:10.1111/j.1548-1352.2009.01080.x · Cited by 327
Neurodiversity Studies: A New Critical Paradigm
(2020) · doi:10.4324/9780429322297 · Cited by 211
Emara, I. (2025) · International Journal of Qualitative Methods · doi:10.1177/16094069251320858 · Cited by 8
Metadata
- Authors
- Stone, E., & Priestley, M.
- Venue
- The British Journal of Sociology
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1996-12
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 699
- ISSN
- 0007-1315 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2119823228
- Cited by
- 438
- References
- 11
- FWCI
- 11.67
- 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: Parasites, Pawns and Partners: Disability Research and the Role of Non-Disabled Researchers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/591081
- The paper
- Stone, E., & Priestley, M. (1996). Parasites, Pawns and Partners: Disability Research and the Role of Non-Disabled Researchers. The British Journal of Sociology. https://doi.org/10.2307/591081
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.