Our thoughts are with the survivors.

Our thoughts are with the survivors.

It is a phrase I heard repeatedly last week. Often, it came just before someone launched into a detailed, and at times salacious, discussion about the alleged perpetrators. They were rich, famous, entitled — the kind of people we reassure ourselves are far removed from our own workplaces and communities. It would not happen here. I have caught myself thinking that too. But the question we rarely sit with is this: what are we doing to support the survivors among us?

Our thoughts are with the survivors.

Are they, though? Because if they were, Monday morning might look different. Team meetings might include a brief, practical review of safeguarding procedures. People might remind themselves who to contact, what to do, how to respond. Instead, more often than not, the conversation stays informal — confined to kitchens and corridors, dressed up as curiosity but drifting into gossip. That feels closer to the truth.

Our thoughts are with the survivors.

Survivors are not visibly marked. We do not wear lanyards or carry signs. We do not know if it is Tracey in accounts or Tim on reception. What we do know is that media coverage — relentless, graphic, unavoidable — can land heavily on those already carrying harm. While others speculate, they may simply be trying to get through the day: holding it together in meetings, stepping away when it becomes too much, managing reactions no one else can see.

Our thoughts are with the survivors.

But intention without action is thin. I remember being in student accommodation some years ago, pinned against a wall while a man used my wheelchair to block my movement and access to the lift. When I reported it, the response was laughter. No escalation, no safeguarding lens, no sense of urgency. Just an individual left to decide, in the moment, whether something counted as serious.

It is easy to rank experiences, to suggest some incidents are “not as bad” as others. But fear does not scale neatly. If you been victimised before the fear is real. If an organisation cannot respond appropriately to what it considers “small”, it is unlikely to respond well when something more widely recognised as serious occurs.

Our thoughts are with the survivors.

I have also sat through safeguarding training as a trustee, working through scenarios, identifying warning signs, rehearsing appropriate responses. It all made sense in theory. Yet beside me sat someone who quietly shared that when she raised a real concern, she was ignored — deemed “not work-related”. The gap between policy and practice is where people fall through.

Our thoughts are with the survivors.

In our local leisure centre, a broken door to an accessible changing room remained unfixed for months, despite repeated reports. The space was left insecure: discreet, poorly monitored, and vulnerable. It should have been an obvious priority. It was not. Only when I made the situation impossible to ignore — loudly and publicly — was action taken.

Safety should not depend on persistence, confidence, or the willingness to escalate. And yet, too often, it does.

Our thoughts are with the survivors.

There is also a quiet contradiction in how organisations approach disclosure. Publicly, there is increasing recognition of trauma and its impacts. Privately, many people who disclose conditions such as PTSD still find themselves managed out, or deemed unsuitable. The message becomes conflicted: speak up, but not in a way that inconveniences us.

Our thoughts are with the survivors.

So what would it mean to take that statement seriously? It would mean moving beyond sentiment into structure. It would mean having clear, lived safeguarding processes, not just policies on paper. It would mean training that equips people to act, not just to recognise. It would mean environments where concerns are heard, recorded, and addressed — consistently.

Most of all, it would mean being willing to talk about sexual harassment and violence against people without deflection or discomfort. Because if we cannot talk about it honestly, we are unlikely to respond effectively when it happens.

There is work to do. A great deal of it. And it starts by asking whether our thoughts are really with survivors — or whether we have simply learned to say that they are.

The Invisible Ripple

Exploring Systemic Discrimination and Disability Hate Crime through Literature

 

A few years ago, I was tasked with updating out understanding of hate crime in a national report on disability hate crime—a responsibility that weighed heavily, not just in its content but in its broader implications. It was a monumental challenge to condense such an urgent, layered issue into a form that would engage readers without sacrificing its critical findings. The underlying driver of this crime, as I came to understand, is a societal narrative so ingrained it’s often invisible: ableism.  

 

The process of working on that report planted the seeds for something greater. Returning to my PhD allowed me to refine and reframe those academic ideas—inequality, disadvantage, prejudice—into something more accessible. The result is a growing series of books designed to shine a light on systemic discrimination and its deeply personal and institutional impacts. 

 

Pools and Prejudice: The Personal Toll of Ableism  

The first book, Pools and Prejudice, dives into the individual experience of prejudice, exposing its life-altering effects. Through powerful storytelling, it seeks to bridge the gap between abstract concepts and the visceral realities they create. It’s a narrative that challenges readers to confront the hidden privileges and biases shaping our lives.

 

COVER OF POOLS

Jamaica Hollow: When Organizations Fail  

The second book, Jamaica Hollow, turns its focus to the organizational level. It examines the failure of accountability and the legitimacy gap that can spiral into human rights violations. By unravelling these systemic breakdowns, the story reveals the dangerous consequences of ignoring structural discrimination.  

 

COVER OF JAMAICA HOLLOW

What’s Next: Plim Players

The third instalment, Plim Players, is in the works. This book will address cultural factors behind the silencing of certain groups, further peeling back the layers of systemic inequality and offering new ways to think about social justice.  

 

COVER OF PLIM PLAYERS

Why These Stories Matter  

If there’s one thing I’ve learned, it’s that issues like ableism and systemic discrimination thrive in silence and invisibility. My goal with these books is to break that silence. By weaving narratives that inform and provoke, I hope to empower readers to recognise what many choose to ignore—or learn about - and inspire change at both personal, organisational and societal levels.  

 

Leadership challenge 

Systemic discrimination, particularly when it leads to hate crime, is not just a “specialist” issue. It’s a human rights issue that speaks to who we are as a society. Pools and Prejudice, Jamaica Hollow, and the upcoming Plim Players will contribute to a growing understanding and, ultimately, a more mindful way of working for many. 

 

Let these stories open the door to conversations that are long overdue. If you’re ready to look past the surface and into the systems that shape our lives, these books are your next read.   

Unveiling Ableism: Silenced Narratives in Academia

This post is a summary of the "Notes for Academics chapter of the memoir, where i seek to explain the methodological choices I made: 

Unveiling Ableism: Silenced Narratives in Academia

 

In academia, certain voices have long been sidelined, particularly those of disabled individuals. Ableist narratives have overshadowed their experiences, insights, and knowledge. This post aims to shed light on this, exploring the challenges of researching the cultural and linguistic oppression faced by disabled people.

 

Understanding Reality and Knowledge

Before I could begin writing with authenticity, I had to delve deeply into the voices and experiences that shape our understanding of disability. Traditional academic approaches often fail to capture the nuanced realities of disabled people, focusing on experimentation rather than lived experience. These methods tend to ignore systemic barriers and oppression. 

 

Instead, I adopted an approach rooted in activism, culture, and society, drawing on traditions from queer theory, feminism, and post-colonialism. This anti-ableist stance helped me challenge widely held assumptions and amplify marginalised voices. Language, in particular, plays a critical role—both as a tool of empowerment and as a mechanism of oppression. I wanted to challenge harmful stereotypes and hold myself accountable to the disabled population in the way I used language.

 

A Missing Reference Section

A decade ago, a colleague pointed out that the book I was reading lacked half its reference section. This omission denied recognition to many of the scholars cited. It stuck with me, especially in professional settings where terminology like "anti-ableism" was lacking, unlike the clear terms used for other forms of advocacy. As an MA supervisor, I would gauge my students' engagement with authoritative voices through their references. This led me to question why disabled people aren’t acknowledged as a collective, and why their allies aren't seen as activists, much like feminists or anti-racists.

 

Disabled People as Knowers: Testimonial Injustice

 

Ableism keeps disabled people from sharing their knowledge, treating them as lesser and excluding them from academic discourse. This injustice seeps into research, creating ethical concerns about the way knowledge is produced and shared. Our words shape reality, and they can either harm or empower. Careful storytelling is essential in preventing the reinforcement of harmful stereotypes.

 

The Power of Storytelling

 

Storytelling can either amplify silenced voices or further silence them. While it holds the potential to empower marginalised communities, it can also perpetuate oppressive narratives. Storytelling must be seen as a tool for justice, ensuring that it uplifts everyone, particularly those who have been historically marginalised.

 

Language Matters: Speaking Up Against Injustice

 

The language used by the disability rights movement is critical in reflecting the societal treatment of disabled people. Terms like "ableism" shine a spotlight on societal injustices. Disabled People's Organisations use language deliberately to challenge unfair narratives and shift societal perspectives.

 

Fighting for Fair Representation

 

In research, it’s crucial to ensure that disabled voices are heard and that the methods used are inclusive. Disability studies provide valuable insight into the societal issues faced by disabled individuals. Listening to their voices can create stronger, more inclusive stories and discussions.

 

My Testimony: A Journey Through Inequality

 

In the first seven chapters of the book, I reflect on shared human resilience. Childhood activities like riding a bike or playing with friends often contribute more to development than clinical interventions. However, clinical approaches can isolate disabled people, undermining their sense of belonging and making them vulnerable to abuse.

 

Chapters 9 to 19 address the long-term impact of being treated differently. While friendships helped buffer some of the discrimination I faced, the weight of inequality remained heavy. Without language to define ableism in institutions and society, it’s neither acknowledged nor measured. 

 

Chapters 20 to 27 highlight the success achieved when individuals facing sexism, ableism, and xenophobia recognise their own power in the face of oppression. Acknowledging the challenge is the first step towards empowerment.

 

Towards Empowerment and Justice

 

Storytelling plays a pivotal role in dismantling ableism and amplifying disabled voices. It’s our collective responsibility to challenge dominant narratives, break down oppressive structures, and create a more just future. By centring disabled people’s experiences and expertise, we work towards a world where all voices are heard and valued.

 

Txtual Worlds: The Absence of Disabled Voices in Research

 

When diving into research papers, I frequently encountered a lack of references, particularly on global disability issues. Despite the rise of Disability Studies in the '80s, key authors were often absent from mainstream narratives. This led me to question why disabled people aren't trusted as storytellers.

 

Ableist Storytelling

 

Ableism in storytelling manifests in several ways:

1.  Lack of representation:  Disabled characters are often underrepresented or misrepresented.

2.  Stereotyping and tropes:  Harmful stereotypes oversimplify disabled experiences.

3.  Exclusion and invisibility:  Disabled perspectives are frequently ignored.

4.  Limited perspectives:  Able-bodied viewpoints dominate, restricting narrative diversity.

5.  Inaccessible narratives:  Storytelling mediums are often not accessible to disabled audiences.

6.  Reinforcement of ableist norms:  Stories can perpetuate harmful ideologies.

7.  Missed opportunities for inclusion:  Unique perspectives are often overlooked.

 

Challenging Ableism in Storytelling

 

We must strive for authentic representation of disabled people, diversify narratives, and challenge ableist stereotypes. This blog aims to offer an accessible testimony of the experience of ableism, sharing insights through personal narrative.

 

Conclusion: Towards Ethical Storytelling

 

Understanding the impact of ableism is crucial for ethical research. By embracing intersectionality and honouring the unique experiences of disabled individuals, we can ensure that their voices are heard, respected, and valued. Storytelling must not only be inclusive but also challenge the status quo, paving the way for a fairer, more just world.

C-Change- Realigning the stars

At C-Change, our colleagues are committed to embracing diversity, challenging conventional practices, offering choices, inspiring hope, and fostering inclusive environments. We are on a collective journey to explore the history of C-Change, adopt an allied stance, understand the principles of inclusive practice, and discuss ways to promote equality and diversity. This is not my story; it is an organisational account framed through an equality lens.

Exploring the 5 Ps: Integrating Key Principles into Organisational Life

[Description: C-Change constellation: five stars labelled People, Public, Privilege, and Political]

People make C-Change

It’s Personal: If You're Affected, You're Involved

It was a delight to begin by listening to a colleague who shared how things started for the organisation. With the closure of Lennox Hospital, several ‘patients’ with complex requirements were left in need of homes within communities. From the start, C-Change was innovative in finding ways to support the well-being of those previously locked in institutions. With the support of colleagues and the direction of families, people were not only supported better but also more cost-effectively, as intervention costs often dropped over time. I pointed out how the ‘cheaper’ aspect has become important again, sadly, under austerity. Fundamentally, at C-Change, human rights come first, not ‘care’ or ‘aid’ because it's all about prioritising well-being and rights. The conversation continued with longer-serving colleagues explaining to newer members the importance of enabling people to enjoy family homes within their localities. 

I'm always struck that the roots of the organisation mirror the emergence of the Disabled People's Movement and its fight for deinstitutionalisation. I was working for a DPO at the time but was too young and inexperienced to grasp the significance of the Movement. Only later did I connect the dots, and realise the meaning, the coalescence of smaller groups of d/Disabled individuals seeking to leave hospitals so their well-being needs were addressed as well as their medical needs. Hence, the Medical Model/Social Model distinction, while criticised today, made much more sense in this historical context and the nature of the fight.

I always enjoy C-Change's culture of ‘Radical Hospitality’ because it is about empathy and interaction, not just an initial greeting. It’s about fostering a sense of belonging and anticipating changes, understanding that while needs may be universal, individual wishes and preferences matter immensely. I don't need to declare, identify or fill in a form to ask for help. Plus, because I know the answer will be ‘yes,’ I'm never afraid to ask. It’s the intentionality behind my colleagues' interactions that fosters well-being, far more than rigid lists of do’s and don’ts, which can often be limiting.

Question: Well-being?

1. What is important for me?

2. What is important to me?

 Allied Position and Unearned Privilege

While many individuals will experience things differently, it is crucial for us, as colleagues, to acknowledge and address the disadvantages many face without reinforcing the common stereotypes imposed on them. C-Change has a long-standing tradition of viewing each person as unique; they are team leaders, responsible for the decisions made about their support (or helped to do so). Our colleagues amplify diverse voices, ensuring that each individual's needs, wants, dreams and unique identities are fully acknowledged and respected.

The feedback to the questions I raised, was intended to raise the matter of practice based on medical ‘musts’ rather than human needs, wants, and wishes. I shared with colleagues that I've often forgone things that may appear essential to others (e.g., parking) in favour of things that bring me huge joy (e.g. fires). Very quickly, colleagues understood how personal choice is, and that with limited time, energy, and money, the freedom to choose was important in order not to simply focus on need but the wider range of things we each require for our well-being. If we reduce access to essential needs, most will struggle or suffer. Furthermore, if we only apply well-being to health matters it's too late.

Public Matter - Professionals Natter

We then began a conversation about Personalisation, Standards, and Citizenship. I offered that during my time at C-Change, I'd observed that the organisation had a counter-narrative. One that moved in the opposite direction to many service providers within the care sector. I felt that working in different ways, with alternative wording, and an aim to uphold human rights, produced a culture that was often (positively) at odds with institutional and public assumptions.

A huge amount of great practice was shared, with colleagues keen to explore how and why things go wrong at times.

Jo’s Narrative: Not a Service User but a Person We Work For

Jo is not a client but a brother, neighbour, student, voter, train enthusiast, and teammate. The narrative of Jo’s life challenges conventional labels, highlighting his full humanity.

A Privilege: Adopting an Allied Position

Mea culpa, I did shoehorn my willingness to share ideas of critical theory behind the word ‘privilege.’ For colleagues, privilege is a delighted pride they have in their roles, a tangible feeling of honoring the lives of those they support. The energy in the room rose as everyone shared their stories. “My colleague said they got more from the person they support than the person got from them!” was shared with huge joy - I teared up. Imagine if such feelings were shared across the entire social care sector. A stark contradiction, I felt, to the daily barrage of negative press many are subjected to. The flaying by paper-cut of thoughtless comments, reiterated niceties no doubt well-intentioned, but oppressive, dehumanising, and disempowering over time. Yet you can't say, “I've lost it,” because people judge, as they can't see you've been kicked repeatedly in the same spot over years.

From a critical perspective, privilege means being able to live without the disadvantage of a specific and characteristic discrimination. For example, my privilege is living free of classism, homophobia, and racism… no one other than me knows exactly how far or narrow the extent of my overall unearned dis/advantage spreads. What I can say is that from this intersectional position, facing ableism is a disadvantage (not my lack of ability). If my advantage is not facing racism, then the privilege of many is not facing ableism. In domestic violence organisations, the political alignment is to feminism. Therefore, I’m gappy to say that reference to disability equality is instinctive C-Change because of the population within the org. My colleagues are anti-ableists almost intuitively, but I’d guess it is because there has been much work/learning in the past and along the way.

“Non-disabled privilege is unearned advantage, the absence of the prejudice, discrimination, and injustice weighing on the disabled population. A position often left unarticulated and unchallenged.”

We talked a great deal about how privilege relates to politics, policy, and practice. Many voiced their intent to learn more.

Human Rights and Panel Principles: Participation, Accountability, Non-discrimination, Empowerment, Legality.

Political: Control - Fundamental to Well-being

Choice and control are not just important; they are essential to well-being because of their profound impact on health. At C-Change, discussions about finances are clearly defined by people's ownership of their money, empowering individuals to make decisions based on personal desires rather than imposed ideas about needs. This way, C-Change can offer choice and control, not just a few options, fostering resilience. Furthermore, the ongoing relationship with people ensures that preferences are understood and expected to change. Personal networks—family, friends, and neighbours—also play a significant role in daily choices, ensuring present happiness and long-term well-being.

Principles of Inclusive Practice - Choice: Ensuring respect in service provision without imposing restrictive norms of working practice.

Positive: Cultivating Hope

I felt it was ironic that we got to the exuberant and high-energy part just as I was physically fit to drop. As I set the groups up to work, I reflected on how much easier it was to work with three impairments, not five! And that when people observe you doing a job well, they’re largely unaware of the effort required. It used to be far easier to spend most energy on the job than now having to spend it on personal movement - both physical and mental. I often watch my colleagues work effortlessly with others, taking a minute to appreciate how much intentionality goes into making this possible!

Anticipation allows us to envision a hopeful future, creating a proactive rather than reactive environment. At C-Change, discussions about the future are filled with optimism, encouraging actions that turn aspirations into reality.

Questions:

1. What are six things that I value and take for granted in my life?

2. Can the people we work for do the same?

The conversation moved into party politics, unsurprisingly given recent events in the UK.

Web of Accountabilities

Closing the gap [legitimacy] between professional accounts and the voice of the people we work for demands that we add more to strategic conversations than financial consideration. At C-Change, when teams talk about the rights, they intentionally realign the conversation to the 5 Ps. This means that well-being is considered and human rights are honoured. As the (bad) graph below shows, when more time is given to what is possible, political, and a privilege rights are denied less often - colleagues don't stop at the individual (people).

Turning to the keywords in our discussions—hospitality, citizenship, choice, control, anticipation—these elements interconnect like a web, creating a space that could help sense, if not measure, accountability. At C-Change, I plotted a culture of proximity and trust, essential for recognising and responding to others' needs and feelings. Rather than stop at people, the organisational conversations I’ve been part of extend far further to encompass their strategic objectives.

Final Thoughts

engaging with C-Change's narrative provides many insights, but certainly articulates and reinforces the transformative power of accountability in whose voice and storytelling underpin change.

Note: I have purposefully omitted the more personal stuff we shared because, while illustrative, there is a difference between sharing personal experience and organisational know-how in public.

Podcast Gold: Transforming Tomorrow

In Transforming Tomorrow  “Professor Jan Bebbington and Paul Turner delve into the work that the Pentland Centre members undertake, and how this impacts on business. These are short, accessible listens, helping you keep up to date with the most current research - from biodiversity to modern slavery, seabeds to factory floors”

 

Fashionably late to the party, I found myself immersed in the world of Transforming Tomorrow. It is a captivating podcast that reignited a spark of thought about ethical research. JB's infectious enthusiasm and solution-focused approach to research was delightful, and I must confess, his accent was welcome on a rainy Wednesday.

 

Using my research practice*, I’d like to share four aspects that particularly caught my attention in the Dr Jouffray episodes:

 

It struck me:

 

1. Power of Language 

JB's thoughts on shared vocabulary, especially his liking for the word ‘stewardship’ struck a chord. While I've previously used the term in the context of leadership activity - I too hadn't associated it with such contention. It sparked thoughts on the nuanced nature of wording and the transient nature of definition in research contexts. I remember swapping deviant for divergent to qualify an alternative tone of narrative, and a voice that could add nuance to, not oppose, conventional assumptions.

 

2. Multidisciplinary Associations

 JB and Jan's conversation on multidisciplinary associations resonated deeply. In my Phd phase, I found myself delving into disciplines way beyond my initial grasp at undergraduate level. It's a common journey, where insights gained in later stages of exploration often go beyond the depth of the initial study. The blend of disciplines is a rich tapestry that fosters a profound - if not a broad - understanding of associated subjects. 

 

3. Ethical Accountants and Breaking Stereotypes:

   Paul's good-natured teasing of accountants brought a smile to my face. It reminded me of my own prejudices before encountering accounting professionals in organisational, academic and management roles. The accountants I've known have been surprisingly activist and politically sensitive, shattering my stereotype of the number-focused and heartless bean-counter.

 

I saw this as I was writing: 

 

 

 4. Star organisations and positive transformation 

Happenstance, it was luck that I already worked with an organisation that was delivering services in a fashion that countered typical ways of doing things within their sector. Doing what could be conceived as impossible by normal standards. By giving clients the greater portion of a budget usually held by the service provider, people had choices that enabled opportunities for happiness, and at a cheaper rate for those typically viewed as most complex. An accounting practice currently ignored in social care.

 

***

 

As a leadership scholar with a focus on social justice, my academic work and research dealt with EDI and language practice. The initial thrust of my MA research was to explore "inclusive practice," but, like stewardship, the notion of inclusion proved to be contested, controversial and contentious. Respect, intertwined with well-being and social justice, emerged as a central theme instead. I drew on interviews with educational leaders in a thematic study. Since I’ve erred towards ideas of privilege and critical theory.

 

Navigating academic environments has presented its own challenges. Due to my visible impairment, assumptions are made about my academic background.  People tend to assume my discipline is Disability Studies, steering me towards the rooms with special educational needs on the door rather than workshops on ethical development. This certainly highlights the prejudice that disabled researchers often face - we only have one interest, one field and one expertise. More likely to be the subject/respondent than the knowledge holder in the study, some go as far as to say we are mere data.

 

When contemplating PhD questions, sustainability was important because it was a growing strategic concern at the time; and ethical development coupled well with accountability and legitimacy theory. From my point of view, there was no reason why disability should matter at all in this context of organisational / community interface.  The realisation dawned later that the identities of researchers do impact their work, I had to recognise the significance of sensitivity, and leveraging one's strengths in terms of skill, knowledge and know-how. (I'd led disability equality training for 2 decades - I had professional wisdom !)

 

Turning to the literature, Hine’s paper uses Socratic dialogue to lay out thoughts on the societal cost of organisational ‘waste’. Her work has left a lasting impression years later. It was easy to see where many organisations failed to be accountable to 10% of the population they need to serve by ignoring those who do not fit in - let alone get in the door. Oswick et al’s exploration of knowledge transmission and the erosion of sharp disciplinary edges resonated with my own observation of interdisciplinary blending - or lack of it.  Much was lost in translation when disability-specific texts were domesticated, sometimes shifting meaning and adding bias and stereotype. As I discovered when wanting to review the overlapping literature - little coproduction was available. There was only one paper on sustainability and disability that I could find, thankfully giving both subjects equal weighting. Instead, I used literature analysis to explain why a review was impossible.  The work revealed that in many EDI texts disabled scholars and authors were at best politely reworded, or replaced by an ableist narrative that ignored any reference to disability equality theory or disabled theorists - no ideas, activist agenda or reference to disabled authors, Disability Studies, or the Disabled people's movement. I’ll add that these are easily accessed which suggests a lack of trust in testimonials.

 

I felt compelled to investigate why organisations were willing to spurn disabled people ‘s skills, knowledge and professional wisdom, by ignoring their authority and experience from academic and working life - and at a great cost to society (GDGs!). 

 

Picture it like a big, buzzing conversation. But guess what? The voices of the disabled population are kind of missing from the chit-chat. It's like they're on the outskirts, and assumptions are sneakily tucked away in the stories we tell. Now, here’s the game plan: We're switching up the usual academic talk to fight against this ableist vibe. We're throwing shade on those assumptions that biased researchers casually toss around in their own language. It's a bit like saying, "Hold up, we need to shake things up a bit.” Can we roll out a fresh take on academic authority - one that’s legit. No more hushing up the voices that are divergent, lets shout out evidence-based knowledge but in a way that highlights Disability Studies - giving a nod to the fact that disabled folks need to be authors and co-authors, not just a footnote. Think of it as a step towards setting those voices free. In a nutshell, we're turning up the volume on the voices that often get brushed aside. It's time for a research revolution!

 

 

Account-ability: human rights in disability conversation 

 

 Starting a conversation on disability equality in the workplace

 

Progress and Leadership 

 

 

 

 

---

 

Thank you, Paul, Jan and JB for providing a captivating auditory experience that also reignited the flames of curiosity. It served as a reminder of the richness found in the intersection of diverse disciplines and the power of breaking stereotypes in academia.

 

 

Bibliography:

- Fenney Salked, D. (2016). Sustainable lifestyles for all? Disability equality, sustainability and the limitations of current UK policy. Disability & Society, 447-464

- Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

- Hines, R. (1988). The Sociopolitical Paradigm in Financial Accounting Research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 13(3), 251-261.

- Oswick, C., Fleming, P., & Hanlon, G. (2011). From borrowing to blending: rethinking the processes of organizational theory building. Academy of Management Review, 318–337.

 

*Ethnography: the craftsmanship of revealing culture through words.

Ableism: a specific type of oppression, akin to homophobia, racism and sexism, held in the culture and language that inform society’s debates.

Anti-ableist: a defined position against ableism, the oppression that disabled people face – like feminist or anti-racist.

 

Progress and Leadership

 

Disability Equality gives us a way of articulating the voice of disabled people, but equality and accountability are part of an organisation's long-term vision.  Therefore leadership teams need to ensure organisations develop alternative working practice that challenge the legitimacy gap.

 

While the recruitment of people who are visibly different is good, those who acquire impairments at work are estimated at 86% of the disabled workforce. If 400, 000 professionals leave employment every year, that is a huge cost to business. 

 

As John West-Burnham wrote: “Our judgements about almost all social interactions, organisations and communities depend upon our perceptions of the relationships involved’ and ‘If the prevailing orthodoxy is [discriminatory] …  on an equitable basis then the role of leadership has to be to question and challenge that orthodoxy. The more deeply embedded the orthodoxy the greater the need for transformational leaders”.  (West-Burnham, 2009, p. 12)

 

We cannot say whether discrimination or impairment is a causal factor, but we can state that the barriers facing professionals at interviews probably persist throughout their career, and therefore impact those who become disabled mid- or late-career. Therefore, institutional discrimination almost certainly plays a large part in the absence of disabled professionals at senior and board levels. Viewed thus, matters of diversity and adjustments are also important in the progression of skilled, talented and experienced individuals. 

A disabled professional’s CV will possibly show shorter than average spans in multiple roles within different organisations. This eclectic mix of knowledge and skills has become the norm. The disabled professional will also have gained rich experience within and beyond employment that needs to be recognised as strategic, extensive and maybe overachieving. This makes their suitability for promotion obvious, yet they rarely achieve it, preferring to leave instead. As we saw in the discussion about trust, assumptions about the lack of excellence within the disabled population need to be challenged and extended to the diversity of roles available across the board. 

 

 The power of representation

•       As the Disability Power 100 list shows, increasing the representation of disabled people as achievers is ever more important to counter misrepresentation and replace outdated ideas with the real experience of positive relationships. 

•       It is therefore critical to “recognise, celebrate and promote” the contribution of disabled individuals as equally capable, creative and productive workers in their field who bring knowledge, expertise and craftsmanship to their workplace. While helping to shift attitudes and expectations, visibility challenges culture. 

 

    the end of a tale but the beginning of a journey 

 

Together, the four posts sections spell out an alternative understanding of working with disabled professionals. Starting with language, workplace culture can change, and the transformation depends on us, as employers, to follow the lead of the disabled community*  those who have actively challenged the attack on their human rights. 

 

Together they provide an extended terminology that will help employers to talk with more certainty about:

•       the disabled worker  the person, their skills, experience, qualifications and particular knowledge

•       disablism   the barriers, negative attitudes and working practices faced by disabled people but not by their non-disabled colleagues within organisations, sectors or professions (eg fear, lack of awareness, avoidance, micro-aggression, stairs, complex or incomplete policies)

•       ableism – the misrepresentation or silencing in the documents, communications and wider storytelling of organisations 

•       impairment, condition, difference or functioning – private information, the disclosure of which is a disabled individual’s choice to disclose: the same is true for their identity as a disabled person

•       inclusive practice an ongoing process of adjusting equitably to diversity.

 

It is all very good news, as addressing the prejudice, discrimination and inequality disabled workers face