Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Body-Sensitive Diversity Research Between Enablement and Disablement

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Diversity, Affect and Embodiment in Organizing

Abstract

The chapter discusses the opportunities and limits of the ‘corporeal turn’ for research at the intersection of diversity research and management and organization studies. By focusing on the often neglected category of dis-/ability, the chapter illustrates that body-sensitive diversity research is not necessarily emancipatory. Rather, a close look at the conflictual relationship between dis-/ability and ‘the body’ shows that both the embodiment of individual life experiences and the social processes of enablement and disablement need to be acknowledged. Finally, the chapter pleads for the development of an ‘etho-ontological’ stance toward the supposedly flawed body, which should be accompanied by research on how ways of organizing co-shape bodies and embodiment at work.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abberley, Paul. 2002. Work, disability, disabled people and European social theory. In Disability studies today, ed. Colin Barnes, Mike Oliver, and Len Barton, 121–138. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acker, Joan. 1990. Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society 4: 139–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2006. Inequality regimes: Gender, class, and race in organizations. Gender & Society 20: 441–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashcraft, Karen L. 2013. The glass slipper: ‘Incorporating’ occupational identity in management studies. Academy of Management Review 38: 6–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barad, Karen. 2003. Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 28: 801–831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, Colin, and Geof Mercer. 2005. Disability, work and welfare: Challenging the social exclusion of disabled people. Work, Employment & Society 19: 527–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, Colin, Mike Oliver, and Len Barton. 2002. Disability studies today. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brisenden, Simon. 1998. Independent living and the medical model of disability. In The disability reader. Social science perspectives, ed. Thomas Shakespeare, 20–27. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, Fiona K. 2001. Inciting legal fictions: ‘Disability’s’ date with ontology and the ableist body of law. Griffith Law Review 10: 42–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chia, Robert. 2003. Organization theory as a postmodern science. In The Oxford handbook of organization theory, ed. Haridimos Tsoukas and Christian Knudsen, 113–140. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clever, Iris, and Willemijn Ruberg. 2014. Beyond cultural history? The material turn, praxiography and body history. Humanities 3: 546–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dale, Karen, and Gibson Burrell. 2000. What shape are we in? Organization theory and the organized body. In Body and organization, ed. John Hassard, Ruth Holliday, and Hugh Willmott, 15–30. London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dale, Karen, and Yvonne Latham. 2015. Ethics and entangled embodiment: Bodies-materialities-organization. Organization 22: 166–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, Lennard J. 2006. Constructing normalcy. The bell curve, the novel, and the invention of the disabled body in the nineteenth century. In The disability studies reader, ed. Lennard J. Davis, 2nd ed., 3–16. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobbin, Frank. 2009. Inventing equal opportunity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dobusch, Laura. 2017. Diversity discourses and the articulation of discrimination: The case of public organizations. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 43: 1644–1661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ely, Robin J. 1995. The role of dominant identity and experience in organizational work on diversity. In Diversity in work teams: Research paradigms for a changing workplace, ed. Susan E. Jackson and Marian N. Ruderman, 161–186. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Erevelles, Nirmala. 2011. Introduction: Bodies that do not mater. In Difference in global contexts. Enabling a transformative body politic, ed. Nirmala Erevelles, 1–23. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Foster, Deborah, and Patricia Fosh. 2010. Negotiating ‘difference’: Representing disabled employees in the British workplace. British Journal of Industrial Relations 48: 560–582.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster, Deborah, and Victoria Wass. 2012. Disability in the labour market: An exploration of concepts of the ideal worker and organisational fit that disadvantage employees with impairments. Sociology 47: 705–721.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garland-Thomson, Rosemarie. 2002. Integrating disability, transforming feminist theory. NWSA Journal 14: 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2005. Feminist disability studies. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 30: 1557–1587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gherardi, Silvia. 2003. Feminist theory and organization theory: A dialogue on new bases. In The Oxford handbook of organization theory, ed. Haridimos Tsoukas and Christian Knudsen, 210–236. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodley, Dan. 2011. Disability studies: An interdisciplinary introduction. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hope, Angela. 2011. The body: A review and a theoretical perspective. In Handbook of gender, work, and organization, ed. Emma L. Jeanes, David Knights, and Patricia Yancey Martin, 131–146. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, Bill, and Kevin Paterson. 1997. The social model of disability and the disappearing body: Towards a sociology of impairment. Disability & Society 12: 325–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurst, Rachel. 2003. The international disability rights movement and the ICF. Disability and Rehabilitation 25: 572–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inckle, Kay. 2014. A lame argument: Profoundly disabled embodiment as critical gender politics. Disability & Society 29: 388–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacques, Roy. 2016. Power failure. The short life and premature death of critical “diversity” research. In The Routledge companion to critical management studies, ed. Anshuman Prasad, Pushkala Prasad, Albert J. Mills, and Jean Helms Mills, 140–158. Oxon/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, William B., and Arnold H. Packer. 1987. Workforce 2000: Work and workers in the 21st century. Indianapolis: Hudson Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, Erin, and Frank Dobbin. 1998. How affirmative action became diversity management. American Behavioral Scientist 41: 960–984.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederer, Valérie, Patrick Loisel, Michèle Rivard, and François Champagne. 2014. Exploring the diversity of conceptualizations of work (dis)ability: A scoping review of published definitions. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation 24: 242–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loden, Marylin, and Judy B. Rosener. 1991. America! Managing employee diversity as a vital resource. Homewood: Business One Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, Jenny. 1996. Introduction. In Encounters with strangers. Feminism and disability, ed. Jenny Morris, 1–16. London: The Women’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nkomo, Stella M., and Marcus M. Stewart. 2006. Diverse identities in organizations. In The SAGE handbook of organization studies, ed. Stewart R. Clegg, Cynthia Hardy, Thomas B. Lawrence, and Walter R. Nord, 2nd ed., 520–540. London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, Mike. 1990. The politics of disablement. London: Macmillan Education.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, Mike, and Colin Barnes. 2010. Disability studies, disabled people and the struggle for inclusion. British Journal of Sociology of Education 31: 547–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2012. The new politics of disablement. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Oswick, Cliff, and Mike Noon. 2014. Discourses of diversity, equality and inclusion: Trenchant formulations or transient fashions? British Journal of Management 25: 23–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paterson, Kevin, and Bill Hughes. 1999. Disability studies and phenomenology: The carnal politics of everyday life. Disability & Society 14: 597–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, Christopher. 2013. Radical relationism: A proposal. In Conceptualizing relational sociology: Ontological and theoretical issues, ed. Christopher Powell and François Dépelteau, 187–307. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ragins, Belle R., and Jorge A. Gonzalez. 2003. Understanding diversity in organizations: Getting a grip on a slippery construct. In Organizational behaviour and the state of the science, ed. Jerald Greenberg, 2nd ed., 125–163. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandberg, Jörgen, and Haridimos Tsoukas. 2016. Practice theory. What it is, its philosophy base, and what it offers organization studies. In The Routledge companion to philosophy in organization studies, ed. Raza Mir, Hugh Willmott, and Michelle Greenwood, 184–198. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shakespeare, Thomas. 1992. A response to Liz Crow. Coalition, September, 40–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1998. Introduction. In The disability reader. Social science perspectives, ed. Thomas Shakespeare, 1–3. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014. Disability rights and wrongs revisited. 2nd ed. London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shildrick, Margrit. 2015. ‘Why should our bodies end at the skin?’: Embodiment, boundaries, and somatechnics. Hypatia 30: 13–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, Bent Meier, and Kaspar Villadsen. 2015. The naked manager: The ethical practice of an anti-establishment boss. Organization 22: 251–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swain, John, and Sally French. 2000. Towards an affirmation model of disability. Disability & Society 15: 569–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thanem, Torkild. 2016. The body: Philosophical paradigms and organizational contributions. In The Routledge companion to philosophy in organization studies, ed. Raza Mir, Hugh Willmott, and Michelle Greenwood, 276–284. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, Carol. 2006. Disability and gender: Reflections on theory and research. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research 8: 177–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tøssebro, Jan. 2004. Introduction to the special issue: Understanding disability. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research 6: 3–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Traustadóttir, Rannveig. 2006. Disability and gender: Introduction to the special issue. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research 8: 81–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tremain, Shelley. 2005. Foucault and the government of disability. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, Bryan S. 2001. Disability and the sociology of the body. In Handbook of disability studies, ed. Gary L. Albrecht, Katherine D. Seelman, and Michael Bury, 252–264. Thousand Oaks/London/New Delhi: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation (UPIAS). 1975. Fundamental principles of disability. http://disability-studies.leeds.ac.uk/files/library/UPIAS-fundamental-principles.pdf. Accessed 11 Nov 2017.

  • Wacker, Elisabeth. 2012. Geistige Behinderung und Teilhabe an der Gesellschaft. In Handbuch soziale Probleme, ed. Günter Albrecht and Axel Groenemeyer, vol. 1, 601–623. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wendell, Susan. 2010. Toward a feminist theory of disability. In The disability studies reader, ed. Lennard J. Davis, 3rd ed., 336–352. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, Jannine, and Sharon Mavin. 2012. Disability as constructed cifference: A literature review and research agenda for management and organization studies. International Journal of Management Review 14: 159–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witz, Anne. 2000. Whose body matters? Feminist sociology and the corporeal turn in sociology and feminism. Body & Society 6: 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zanoni, Patrizia, Maddy Janssens, Yvonne Benschop, and Stella Nkomo. 2010. Unpacking diversity, grasping inequality: Rethinking difference through critical perspectives. Organization 17: 9–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zola, Irving K. 1999. Bringing our bodies and ourselves back in: Reflections on a past, present, and future ‘medical sociology’. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 32: 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2005. Toward the necessary universalizing of a disabilty policy. The Milbank Quarterly 83: 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Radboud Social Cultural Research, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Laura Dobusch

Authors
  1. Laura Dobusch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura Dobusch .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK

    Marianna Fotaki

  2. Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Alison Pullen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Dobusch, L. (2019). Body-Sensitive Diversity Research Between Enablement and Disablement. In: Fotaki, M., Pullen, A. (eds) Diversity, Affect and Embodiment in Organizing. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98917-4_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation