| pubmed-article:17714341 | 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. | lld:pubmed |
