The Bureaucratic Making of Disability
Abstract
Making use of interpretive methods of social inquiry, informed by disability studies, I show how the Western bureaucratic orientation is particularly troubled by those unable to keep the rules. Disability is, today, a term used to delineate such an inability. Exploring the meaning of bureaucratic definitions of disability can help us learn something about the organising force of bureaucracy on our lives. In particular, this paper explores a paradox found within the bureaucratic orientation whereby disability is conceptualised as lack of function resulting in an inability to keep the rules that is, nonetheless, managed by the imposition of further rules that need to be kept. Ultimately, this paper tries to reveal what becomes of disability under bureaucratic control not only to learn something about how bureaucracy works but also to learn something about how disability is made meaningful.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A recent governmental report raises concerns about inequitable outcomes: students with disabilities experience lower well-being, more discrimination or harassment, and study environments not designed to be accessible, resulting in multiple barriers.
“but a recent governmental report raises concerns about inequitable outcomes: Students with disabilities experience lower well-being, more discrimination /harassment compared with their non-disabled counterparts, and they interact with study environments that are not designed to be accessible -resulting in multiple barriers [81].”
From Neurodiversity and the Accessible University: Exploring Organizational Barriers, Access Labor and Opportunities for Change (2024) · cites this paper as [81]
These findings confirm existing studies on the existence of barriers to equal access in Danish higher education and support previous research demonstrating that universities often act as neurodiversity cold spots, presenting a wide range of inaccessibility issues.
“These findings unfortunately confirm existing studies on the existence of barriers to equal access in Danish higher education [78], [81] and support previous research demonstrating that universities often act as neurodiversity”
From Neurodiversity and the Accessible University: Exploring Organizational Barriers, Access Labor and Opportunities for Change (2024) · cites this paper as [81]
Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is officially recommended but currently not officially reinforced by the Danish state as a way to make education more accessible.
“A good place to start is incorporating structured approaches like Universal Design for Learning (UDL) which is officially recommended -but currently not officially”
From Neurodiversity and the Accessible University: Exploring Organizational Barriers, Access Labor and Opportunities for Change (2024) · cites this paper as [81]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
Cited by 11
- Authors
- Titchkosky, T.
- Corresponding author
- Titchkosky, Tanya
- ORCID
- Titchkosky, Tanya
- Venue
- New Formations
- Publisher
- Lawrence and Wishart
- Published
- 2020-06-01
- Volume
- 100
- Issue
- 100
- Pages
- 198-208
- ISSN
- 0950-2378 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3045321321
- Cited by
- 11
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2
- FWCI
- 1.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- New Formations (publishedVersion)
- Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Disability Rights and Representation
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Foucault, Power, and Ethics
- Keywords
- disability, bureaucracy, bureaucratic control, rules, disability studies, social control, rule-following
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
