Date post: | 28-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | diana-townsend |
View: | 212 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Protests in the Deaf and Disability Communities 1970 -
2003: Past Research and Future
Directions
Dr. Sharon Barnartt
Department of Sociology
Some material taken from Disability Protests: Contentious
Politics 1970 - 1999 (Gallaudet Univ Press, 2001)
But new analyses are also presentedBut new analyses are also presented
Methodology
• content analysis
OR
• event history analysis
The Data
• Were located using both hand searching and computerized data bases [mostly Lexis Nexus]
• Were collected from newspaper & other media reports, organization web sites, and personal accounts
• Only included protests
that had already happened
• N = 880 protests in the US and 326 outside the US
–Non-newspaper data were verified from other sources
–Non-newspaper data were verified from other sources
Operational Definitions
• This was the hard part
• They were based upon previous sociological research in collective behavior when possible--but it was not always possible
“Protest”
• Conducted by 2 or more people• Demands social, not individual, change• Is not related to self-help or money-
raising• Uses non-normative tactics
– acceptable (~ = protest)• lobbying• petitioning
– unacceptable ( = protest)• strike• blocking buses
“One Protest”
• Same core group
• Same issue
• Can have sequential tactics
• Cannot have simultaneous protests at two locations [or that becomes two protests]
“Protests Related to Deafness or Disability”
• Protest issues are relevant to PWD’s and/or deaf people OR
• Protests are carried out by PWD’S and/or deaf people
• Protests related to AIDS, breast cancer, obesity or other medical problems were included if related to disability [For ex: were protesting SS benefit criteria]
Results: Part 1
Patterns of US Protests
Protests per year (N =878)
1 0 1
106 5
0
8
16
4
128
18
8
16
8
22
1511
4344
36
5958
51
18
37
54
84
70
77
2722
1514
1969
1971
1973
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
9019
6919
7119
7319
7519
7719
7919
8119
8319
8519
8719
8919
9119
9319
9519
9719
9920
0120
03
Rehab Actprotests
Rehab Actprotests
ADA passageADA passage
Impairment-related Demands (N = 934)40.5%
24.1%
10.1%
5.9% 5.8%9.0%
2.9%
Cro
ssd
isa
bil
ity
Mo
bil
ity
Dea
fnes
s
Bli
nd
nes
s
Dev
el.
Dis
Psy
chia
tric
Oth
er
Protest Demands (N = 1206)21.9%
19.1%
12.8%
8.5%
5.6% 5.6%
17.4%
9.0%
rights
,ac
cess
ibili
ty
money
serv
ices
,ch
arac
terist
ics
serv
ices
, typ
e
port
raya
ls
educa
tion
law
s or
polic
ies
oth
er
Categories of Protest Demands
39.3% 40.4%
20.3%
rights services all other
10.8%
26.9%
17.3% 17.5%
5.4% 4.9%
2.0%3.5% 3.5%
12.3%
loca
l gov'
t
stat
e gov'
t
feder
al g
ov'
t
com
pan
ies
educa
tional
inst
itutions
tele
thons
med
ia
pro
fess
ional
asso
ciat
ions
the
public
oth
er
Protest targets
Results: Part 2
Deafness-related Protests
in the US
Protests by Year (N = 95)
10
12
3
56
4
7
4 45
6 6
8
67
2
0
pre 1988
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Protest Demands
21.1%
29.5%
34.7%
14.7%
rightsaccessibility
services education other
ProtestTargets
5.4%
37.6%
7.5%10.8%
38.7%
local or fedgov't
state gov't educinstitutions
media other
Results: Part 3
Comparing US to
non US Protests
~US Protests by Year (N = 326)
3
1113
46
1311
28
19 19
9
25 26
31 3229
36
1970's
1980 - 85
1986 - 89
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Non US Protest Locations99
38
15
3627 24 25 24
174 7
UK Canada
Israel
W. Eur.
Asia
Africa
Ind. Subc.
Aus. + NZ
E. EurRussia
Arab MidEast
Caribbean
Demand Type by Location
40.5%
24.1%
10.1%
5.9% 5.8%9.0%
2.9%
44.2%
12.1%
18.1%
11.8%
3.7% 4.0%5.9%
crossdisability
mobility deafness blindness DD psychiatric other
US non US
Demand Categories by Location
37.5% 39.0%
23.6%28.7%
52.0%
19.3%
rights services other
US non USDifferences are statistically significant
Differences are statistically significant
Targets by US or Not
52.8%
44.7%
74.4%
25.6%
gov't ~ gov't
US ~ US
Differences are statistically significant
Differences are statistically significant
Governmental Targets by US or Not
32.9%
67.1%63.2%
36.8%
National level local, state or provincial level
US ~ US
Differences are statistically significant
Differences are statistically significant
Demand Type by Development Level
37.0%
22.3%
12.7%
5.5% 5.0%8.1%
3.0%
48.0%
6.7%10.7%
32.0%
1.3% 1.3% 0.0%
Crossdisability
Mobility Deaf Blind Devel Psych Other
Developed Developing
For example: Protests in India & Pakistan
37.5%
8.3%
50.0%
4.2%
Crossdisability
Deaf Blind Psych
Targets by Development Level
56.4%
43.6%
78.5%
21.5%
gov't ~ gov't
Developed Developing
Differences are statistically significant
Differences are statistically significant
Demand Categories by Development Level
36.4%
41.6%
22.0%24.1%
43.1%
32.7%
rights services other
Developed Developing
Differences are statistically significant
Differences are statistically significant
Part 4The Diffusion of DPN
How did it affect protests inside or outside of the
US?
US Protests by Time Period
12.6%
22.5%
87.4%
77.5%
Deafness related Non Deafness related
pre DPN post DPN
Differences are statistically significant
Differences are statistically significant
US Deafness Protests by Time Period and Location
12.8%9.3%
87.2%90.7%
US non US
pre DPN post DPN
~US, Post DPN Deafness Protest Locations
1516
2
14
3 32
12
UK
Can
ada
Israel
W. E
ur.
Asia
Africa
Ind. Su
bc.
Carib
Au
s. NZ
–Only 5 occurred before DPN
–Only 5 occurred before DPN
Conclusions: US Protests
• were most likely to be cross-disability or to focus on issues related to mobility impairments
• were most likely to demand changes in services --it is not correct to call it a Disability Rights movement
–There are lots of other juicy facts in the book
–There are lots of other juicy facts in the book
Conclusions: Deafness-related Protests in the US
• Protests did not begin with DPN
• Most likely to target either state governments or educational institutions
• More likely to occur after DPN than were non-deafness related protests
Conclusions: US vs ~US Protests
• US protests more likely to– have demands
related to mobility impairments
– have demands related to rights
– to target state or local gov’ts
• ~US protests more likely to– relate to blindness
or deafness– target the federal or
national gov’t– have demands
related to services
Conclusions: Developed vs Developing Country Protests• Protests in
developed countries more likely to– relate to mobility
impairments– have demands
related to rights– target local or
‘state’ gov’ts
• Protests in developing countries more likely to– relate to blindness or be
cross-disability – have demands which do
not fit into the rights or services categories
– target the national government
– use unusual tactics [data not shown]
Conclusions:The Effects of DPN
• To mobilize the US deaf community to a protest level somewhat higher than that of the larger disability community
• To mobilize deaf communities outside of the US--although larger proportions of protests unrelated to deafness occurred after DPN in other countries than in the US
Possible Directions for Future Research?
• Overlaps with protests from other social movements, such as the “Right to Life,” breast cancer, and AIDS movements
• Intensive examination of protests cross-culturally
• ???