The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Integrating Disability, Transforming Feminist Theory
Abstract
This essay aims to amplify feminist theory by articulating and fostering feminist disability theory. It names feminist disability studies as an academic field of inquiry, describes work that is already underway, calls for needed study and sets an agenda for future work in feminist disability studies. Feminist disability theory augments the terms and confronts the limits of the ways we understand human diversity, the materiality of the body, multiculturalism, and the social formations that interpret bodily differences. The essay asserts that integrating disability as a category of analysis and a system of representation deepens, expands, and challenges feminist theory. To elaborate on these premises, the essay discusses four fundamental and interpenetrating domains of feminist theory: representation, the body, identity, and activism, suggesting some critical inquiries that considering disability can generate within these theoretical arenas.
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
Claiming disability: knowledge and identity
(1998) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.35-6303 · Cited by 1,518
Abortion Wars: A Half Century of Struggle, 1950-2000
Tone, A., & Solinger, R. (2000) · The American Historical Review · doi:10.2307/2651915 · Cited by 130
Cited by
Considerations on Mainstreaming Intersectionality
Dhamoon, R. K. (2011) · Political Research Quarterly · doi:10.1177/1065912910379227 · Cited by 647
Work in the Intersections: A Black Feminist Disability Framework
Bailey, M., & Mobley, I. A. (2019) · Gender & Society · doi:10.1177/0891243218801523 · Cited by 310
Living Disability Theory: Reflections on Access, Research, and Design
Hofmann, M., Kasnitz, D., Mankoff, J., & Bennett, C. L. (2020) · Proceedings of the 22nd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility · doi:10.1145/3373625.3416996 · Cited by 200
Hernández-Saca, D. I., Gutmann Kahn, L., & Cannon, M. A. (2018) · Review of Research in Education · doi:10.3102/0091732x18762439 · Cited by 108
Disabling incarceration: connecting disability to divergent confinements in the USA
Ben-Moshe, L. (2013) · Critical Sociology · doi:10.1177/0896920511430864 · Cited by 102
Brilmyer, G. (2018) · Archival Science · doi:10.1007/s10502-018-9287-6 · Cited by 66
Algorithmic harms and digital ageism in the use of surveillance technologies in nursing homes
Berridge, C., & Grigorovich, A. (2022) · Frontiers in Sociology · doi:10.3389/fsoc.2022.957246 · Cited by 47
“Connecting this to earlier critiques of medical and technological interventions on disabled lives (Davis, 2003; Garland-Thompson, 2006; Hamraie and Fritsch, 2019), these scholars demonstrate how AI technologies similarly rely on the assumption that we need to “overcome” disability through…”
BackgroundFixated on Ability: Questioning Ableist Metaphors in Feminist Theories of Resistance
May, V. M., & Ferri, B. A. (2005) · Prose Studies · doi:10.1080/01440350500068999 · Cited by 48
Gravel-Patry, F. (2023) · Feminist Media Studies · doi:10.1080/14680777.2022.2149603 · Cited by 3
Metadata
- Authors
- Garland-Thomson, R.
- Venue
- NWSA Journal
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 2002-10
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 1-32
- ISSN
- 1040-0656 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-1889
- OpenAlex
- W2007817087
- Cited by
- 1,004
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 14.92
- 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
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.
