Advertisement

Whose Knowledge, Whose Voice? Power, Agency and Resistance in Disability Studies for the Global South

  • JosAnn CutajarEmail author
  • Casimir Adjoe
Chapter
Part of the International Perspectives on Social Policy, Administration, and Practice book series (IPSPAP)

Abstract

Meekosha (2011) maintains that research and theories about disability derive mainly from the global North. Disability studies rarely include non-metropolitan thinkers. Even when it does, this research tends to be seen as context specific, and the social theories which emanate from these studies are rarely referred to in research theorizing disability in the North. This chapter sets out to investigate how this one-way transfer of knowledge affects the way disability studies is conceptualized—whose experiences are incorporated and whose are left out. Multilateral debate and dialogue between disability studies academics and activists in different locations around the world would help add to the knowledge already available in the field, while keeping others informed about what is taking place in ‘similar’ situations elsewhere.

Keywords

Disability research Power Agency Resistance Knowledge transfer Knowledge contestations Colonising research Neocolonialism 

References

  1. Abu-Lughod, L. (1991). Writing against culture. In R. Fox (Ed.), Recapturing anthropology (pp. 137–162). Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press.Google Scholar
  2. Adjoe, C. (2007). Language policy and planning in Ghana: A monolingual ideology, ethos and discourses in a multilingual society? Unpublished PhD dissertation, London University.Google Scholar
  3. Alatas, S. F. (2003). Academic dependency and the global division of labour in the Social Sciences. Sociology, 51(6), 599–613.Google Scholar
  4. Barker, C. (2010). Interdisciplinary dialogues: Disability and postcolonial studies. Review of Disability Studies: An International Journal, 6(3), 15–24.Google Scholar
  5. Bloor, D. (1991). Knowledge and social imagery. Chicago: The Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Briskin, L., & Coulter, R. (1992). Feminist pedagogy: Challenging the normative. Canadian Journal of Education, 17(3), 247–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble. Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Chetcuti, K. (2014, February 2). Half of 25-34 year-olds still living with parents. Timesofmalta.com. Retrieved April 6, 2014, from http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20140202/local/half-of-25-34-year-olds-still-living-with-parents.505083.
  9. Chiseri-Strater, E., & Stone Sunstein, B. S. (1997). Fieldworking: Reading and writing research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  10. Connell, R. (2011). Southern bodies and disability: Re-thinking concepts. Third World Quarterly, 32(8), 1369–1381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cutajar, J. (2009). “Let me learn”. The use of Western derived epistemologies and in/dependence in Maltese classrooms. Paper presented during The First Malta International Forum on Learning, Dolmen Hotel, 25–29 June 2009.Google Scholar
  12. Ghai, A. (2002). Disabled women: An excluded agenda of Indian feminism. Hypatia, 17(3), 49–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ghosh, B. (1998). The postcolonial bazaar: Thoughts on teaching the market in postcolonial objects. Retrieved April 30, 2008, from http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/pmc/text-only/issue.998/9.1ghosh.txt.
  14. Grech, S. (2011). Recolonising debates or perpetuated coloniality? Decentring the spaces of disability, development and community in the global South. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15(1), 87–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Greenman, N. (1996). More than a mother. Some Tewa women reflect on Gia. In G. Etter-Lewis & M. Foster (Eds.), Unrelated kin. Race and gender in women’s personal narratives (pp. 49–67). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Grewal, I. (1996). Home and harem: Nation, gender, empire and the cultures of travel. Leicester: Leicester University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Groce, N., Kett, M., Lang, R., & Trani, J. F. (2011). Disability and poverty: The need for a more nuanced understanding of implications for development policy and practice. Third World Quarterly, 32(8), 1493–1513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Haraway, D. (1988). Situated Knowledge: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hastrup, K. (1992). Writing the ethnography. State of the art. In J. Okely & H. Callaway (Eds.), Anthropology and autobiography (pp. 116–133). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hill Collins, P. (1991). Black feminist thought. Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Hiranandani, V. (2005). Towards a critical theory of disability in social work. Critical Social Work, 6(1). Retrieved September 9, 2013, from http://www1.uwindsor.ca/criticalsocialwork/towards-a-critical-theory-of-disability-in-social-work.
  22. Hondagneu-Sotelo, P. (1996). Immigrant women and paid domestic work. Research, theory and activism. In H. Gottfried (Ed.), Feminism and social change. Bridging theory and practice (pp. 105–122). Urbana: University of Illinois.Google Scholar
  23. John, M. E. (1989). Postcolonial feminists in the western intellectual field: Anthropologists and native informants. Inscriptions, 5, 49–73.Google Scholar
  24. Kaplan, C. (1994). The politics of location as transnational feminist practice. In I. Grewal & C. Kaplan (Eds.), Scattered hegemonies. Postmodern and transitional feminist practices (pp. 137–152). London: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  25. Karthigesu, R. (1996). Mass media and cross cultural communication: Malaysian study. Interim Report. Singapore: AMIC.Google Scholar
  26. Lal, J. (1996). Situating locations: The politics of self, identity and ‘Other’ in living and writing the text. In D. L. Wolf (Ed.), Feminist dilemmas in fieldwork (pp. 185–214). Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  27. Landry, D., & Maclean, G. (1996). The Spivak reader: Selected works of Gayati Chakravorty Spivak. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Lengermann, P. M., & Niebrugge, G. (2008). Contemporary feminist theory. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), Sociological theory (pp. 450–498). Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.Google Scholar
  29. Mazrui, A. (1995). The ‘Other’ as the ‘Self’ under cultural dependency: The impact of the postcolonial university. In G. Brinker-Gabler (Ed.), Encountering the other(s) (pp. 333–362). Albany: Suny P.Google Scholar
  30. Meekosha, H. (2011). Decolonising disability: Thinking and acting globally. Disability & Society, 26(6), 667–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Meekosha, H., & Soldatic, K. (2011). Human rights and the global South: The case of disability. Third World Quarterly, 32(8), 1383–1397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Miles, M. (2007). International strategies for disability—related work in developing countries: Historical, modern and critical reflections. Retrieved July 28, 2014, from http://www.independentliving.org/docs7/miles200701.pdf.
  33. Mohanty, C. T. (1984). Under western eyes: Feminist scholarship and colonial discourses. Boundary 2, 12(3), 333–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Parekh, P. N. (2007). Gender, disability and the postcolonial nexus. Wagadu: Journal of Transnational Women’s and Gender Studies, 4, 142–161.Google Scholar
  35. Pennycook, A. (1994). The cultural politics of English as an international language. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  36. Phoenix, A. (2012). De-colonising practices: Negotiating narratives from racialised and gendered experiences of education. In H. S. Mirza & C. Joseph (Eds.), Black and postcolonial feminisms in new times. Researching educational inequalities (pp. 101–114). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Pratt, M. L. (1992). Imperial eyes. Travel writing and transculturation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Rich, A. (2003). Notes towards a politics of location. In R. Lewis & S. Mills (Eds.), Feminist postcolonial theory: A reader (pp. 29–42). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Richardson, L., & St. Pierre, E. A. (2005). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 959–978). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  40. Said, E. W. (1994). Culture and imperialism. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  41. Soldatic, K. (2013). The transnational sphere of justice: Disability praxis and the politics of impairment. Disability & Society, 28(6), 744–755. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2013.802218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Soldatic, K., & Biyanwila, S. J. (2010). Tsunami and the southern disabled body. Global South: SEPHIS, 6(3), 75–84.Google Scholar
  43. Spiteri Gingell, D. (2011). Policy on independent supported living for disabled persons in Malta. St. Venera: Kummissjoni Nazzjonali Persuni b’Dizabilita’.Google Scholar
  44. Stone, E. (1999). Disability and development in the majority world. In E. Stone (Ed.), Disability and development: Learning from action and research on disability in the majority world (pp. 1–18). Leeds: The Disability Press.Google Scholar
  45. Tuhiwai Smith, L. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous people. London: Zed Books Ltd.Google Scholar
  46. Wendell, S. (1997). Towards a feminist theory of disability. In L. J. Davis (Ed.), The disability studies reader (pp. 260–278). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  47. Wolf, D. L. (1996). Situating feminist dilemmas in fieldwork. In D. L. Wolf (Ed.), Feminist dilemmas in fieldwork (pp. 1–55). Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  48. Yuval-Davis, N. (1997). Gender and Nation. London: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MaltaMsidaMalta
  2. 2.Central University CollegeTemaGhana

Personalised recommendations