Linked Life Data

17714341

Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/17714341

Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
5
pubmed:dateCreated
2007-8-23
pubmed:abstractText
The article analyses five classical texts from the field of disability research/studies. The focus of the analysis is on how disability is defined both on a theoretical level and on an empirical or applied level. The findings suggest that definitional clarity can be questioned. First, a 'traditional' problem of validity occurs in some of the texts. Secondly, lack of clearly expressed and explicit definitions makes it difficult for the reader to understand what the author means with the term disability. Thirdly, some authors alter the definition of disability through their texts, without any explanations, making it arduous for the reader to follow the use and meaning of the term. It is suggested that these problems stem from the lack of proper theorising within the field of disability research. Disability researchers have been focusing on defining separate concepts, without any ambitions to relate them to each other in a theoretical frame. This means that the field of disability research consists of free-floating concepts, poorly related to each other.
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
IM
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:month
Jul
pubmed:issn
0141-9889
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:volume
29
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
750-66
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:year
2007
pubmed:articleTitle
The fuzzy buzz word: conceptualisations of disability in disability research classics.
pubmed:affiliation
Department of Sociology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. lars.gronvik@soc.uu.se
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't