Disability Studies According to Wikipedia

Written by Kelly Coons with support from the DAC team.

Note: This article was written on June 3 and June 4, 2021. Both Wikipedia articles and Google searches change over time, so what you find may vary.

Everyone loves Wikipedia. (Except maybe teachers who see Wikipedia cited on papers, rather than students using the actual citations at the bottom of Wikipedia articles.) Wikipedia is such a presence on the Internet that its article for any given subject is almost always on the first page of Google results—and often listed as the very first result. As a result, there is a powerful perception of Wikipedia as a neutral source of knowledge.

Part One examines a Google search result for “disability studies” and compares it to related queries.

Part Two analyzes the series of drop-down menus before the table of contents on the Wikipedia entry for “disability studies.”

Part Three begins the survey of the table of contents by close-reading Sections One Through Three and starting Section Four.

Part Four ends the survey of the table of contents by close-reading the rest of Section Four, as well as Section Five through Seven.

Part One:

No knowledge is neutral. Everything we know and are taught is informed by factors like the instructor’s lived experience and the mechanisms of the educational system, including the search engine itself.

And it looks like the search engine indeed features Wikipedia first this time.

This difference is significant because even the people who avoid Wikipedia find “scholarly” resources (i.e: JSTOR, Society for Disability Studies”) before “charities” or “medical” ones: a far cry from the results received when “Googling” a specific disability or even the word “disability.”

I am curious about how these results differ outside the United States. Would a comparable government agency also be the first results, promising $3,000 a month? (“Those darn people with disabilities, just in it for the money!”)

Part Two:

Leaving Google (or your alternate search engine of choice) behind, it is time to look at Wikipedia itself. The purpose of this blog post is not to question the validity of the Wikipedia article—even high-traffic articles (i.e: “Islam”) have teams of people working to maintain tonality and accuracy—but to analyze what gets highlighted in such a high-profile position.

And before we even get into the article proper, we have something to ponder.

This does not surprise me. For one, searches for “disability studies” and “disability rights” are connected. Secondly, there is a widespread belief that disability studies is “for academia” and disability rights (i.e: policy and street activism) is “for the people.” While disability studies scholars have worked to break down that wall—Disability Studies Quarterly, for instance, is an open-access journal—the fact remains that the academy is inaccessible to many groups, including people with disabilities.

The first paragraph of the Wikipedia article correctly points out a central theme of our field being how to define disability, and it focuses on the distinction made between “impairment” and “disability,” naming (and linking to) the social and medical models of disability, and touching upon how a current thrust of scholarship has been about questioning if a binary is the best way to understand the issue. 

My attention is drawn to the series of drop-down menus on the right.

“Theories and models” is first, and it includes the previously-linked pages about the medical model of disability and the social model of disability. It looks like this page is the page about “Disability theory” and a newer and older term share spotlight on the “Ableism / Disablism” page.

The “Education” tab is more interesting to me. Is it about how to educate people about disabilities, or how to educate people with disabilities?

Ah. I see it is the latter. It is interesting that “Mainstreaming” is first, especially since it is not the first term in alphabetical order. I wonder if, in previous iterations of this page, something like “Special education” was first on the list. “Special school” and “special needs,” though, surprise me as terms that appear on this list, especially since “Individualized Education Program” and “Special education” already appear and cover the same topic with less dehumanizing language. (Come on, they can’t even say “specialized school”?)

Next is “Therapy,” which only includes “Physical,” “Occupational,” and “Speech.” I was confused about this… until I remembered that things like art and music therapy are not generally covered by insurance.

Speaking of insurance, I was sure I would find that under “Societal implications” (which, um, the Wikipedia pages for “homosexuality” and “African-Americans,” other marginalized groups, do not have “Societal implications” sections! Not even the “Black Power” article does, which, honestly, I expected, considering, you know, the amount of institutional racism in the United States, never mind the world.)

But, no, the first three terms were a pleasant surprise! …Followed by the whiplash of “people-first language” (Why not an article about the debates over language in general, from person-first versus identity-first, to language about disability VS illness VS neurodivergence, to even debates over capitalization?) and “pejorative terms.”

Once again, I looked at the Wikipedia pages for other marginalized groups as a basis of comparison.

This is the “Prejudice” drop-down menu on the “African-Americans” page. Prejudice gets its own drop-down menu, and it is the last one on the list. I am not saying that this is “good representation” either, but at least it does not have an easy-to-access article about inflammatory terms.

To be clear: I do not think that people should be barred from seeing inflammatory terms—I think there is a value in allies learning these words so they can recognize them and call people out for using them—but the fact remains that those words are often triggering. To be honest, this “pejorative terms” article may warrant a post all its own, so I will move on from it, except to mention that it bizarrely mentions the person-first versus identity-first debate right under a paragraph explaining “The following is a list of terms used to describe disabilities or people with disabilities may be considered negative or offensive by people with or without disabilities.” The actual names of conditions co-exist with slurs. It would seem to me that a better use of space would be to simply have a section before the list that says that the names of conditions are sometimes weaponized.

The “Personal assistance” drop-down menu, at least, is inoffensive.

I once again question the ordering of these terms. The two general “themes” of physical objects as aids and the design philosophy of accessibility are not even organized together, such as the case of “Mobility aid” being between “Assisted living” and “Physical accessibility.”

You know what I do not see here, under the “Socioeconomic assistance” menu? Any mention of any of the “Therapy” or “Personal assistance” being economically inaccessible!

Once again, the “Groups & Organizations” menu is fine, as is “Disabled sports” and “Culture,” although I question “Disabled sports” (Should it be “Disability sports” also?) being before “Culture.” I would argue, after all, that sports are a part of culture.

All of this discussion is about content before the table of contents!

Part Three:

In Part Three of this series, we finally reach the table of contents.

Numbers Seven Through Ten are standard for Wikipedia articles. What is most interesting to me is the “Intersectionality” section.

Ah, but we can’t put the cart before the horse! Let’s see how Wikipedia summarizes the history of disability studies (and it does say disability studies, not Disability Studies, for those who are interested in that debate)!

Hey, look, it’s us!

The two links depicted here could also be fruitful subjects of inquiry.

The section goes on to chart the growth of disability studies in the 2000s by tracking the number of disability studies courses and degree programs offered. It is notable that disability studies is still predominantly talked about in the United States. In my time as a DSQ intern, I have heard my more senior members note the precipitous rise in contributors outside the United States to Disability Studies Quarterly. That trend is one to track! The section concludes with postulating that the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990 fueled this rise.

I think all this information is accurate and important, but I note the absence of the discussion of activism, which once again cements the divide between the academy and “the people.” This is all the history section has to say about the history of activism in the history of disability studies.

Student activism is important, but what about the activism of professors and other staff members? And what of those who do research outside of academia, from independent scholars to activists who use Internet platforms to have global research? Perhaps these people are “saved” for the article about “disability rights,” which is not to be confused with disability studies.

How does Wikipedia define disability studies, anyway?

…Oh. It just quotes us. That’s a little boring.

Moving onto the next section, this article has an entire section dedicated to medical humanities! Considering that one of the initial goals of disability studies was to call for the institution of medicine to see people with disabilities as people with agency, I think this would make our disability studies forebearers happy.

The next section is the eagerly-awaited (by me, at least) intersectionality section! It begins with a warning that this section is American-centric.

So if you are a member of the disability studies community outside of the United States, consider sharing your perspective in this space!

I was going to say that this is not an uncommon warning on Wikipedia articles, but when I went looking through other new areas of academic study, I did not find similar warnings on the “gender studies,” “women’s studies,” “men’s studies,” or “queer studies” articles.

Queer studies actually has an entire section dedicated to its implementation at institutions outside of the United States.

The Intersectionality section is too long to continue in this part. The next part will finish off this series!

Part Four:

The summary of the Intersectionality section introduces the “Double Jeopardy” problem, which is not exclusive to disability studies. (For those who are unaware, the “Double Jeopardy” problem refers to how people who have more than one marginalized identity face difficulties that “stack.”) It then says that people continue to be taught in a restrictive way, that figures histories as separate, as opposed to being interconnected.

The section’s first subheading is race. It names Christopher Bell (who has both a Wikipedia article, which is linked, and a scholarship named after him, which is mentioned) as a forefather of this field of inquiry. It goes on to discuss several scholars who argue that BIPOC people with disabilities have had to create a model of disability that is more radical than the social model of disability because that model erases their experiences. It highlights how disabled bodies have often been racialized to compound the categorization as “lesser.”

The section’s second subheading is feminism. This subheading immediately names “Feminist Disability Studies.” In the previous subheading, “DisCrit,” the combination of critical race studies and disability studies, was not named until the end of the first paragraph. It also names a duo of foremothers, Rosemarie Garland-Thomson and Alison Kafer, although only the former has a Wikipedia article of her own. It points out how feminism’s goal is sexual accessibility, while disability studies has a parallel goal of physical accessibility. It marries this comparison of parallel accessibilities by introducing Abby L. Wilkerson’s work on erotophobia, which bars many minority groups’ access to sexual agency, including people with disabilities.

Interestingly, that section about erotophobia is not in the third subheading: gender and sexuality. It is worth noting that this subheading is massive. It has a whopping eight paragraphs! Its whole first paragraph is dedicated to introducing the term “crip theory.” It names several formative pieces of the field, including Christopher Bell’s Blackness and Disability, which was previously mentioned in the race subheading.

Paragraphs Two and Three list other important works in crip theory in a bulleted list. The only other time this mode of organization appears in this Wikipedia article is in the definition of disability studies (and the original definition it is quoting from uses bullet points).

Interestingly, this page is an archived version. This definition of disability studies is not found on the same page of the SDS website anymore.

Never fear, though! The issue is that Wikipedia was citing disstudies.org/index.php/about-sds/what-is-ds. The name of the page is now disstudies.org/index.php/about-sds/what-is-disability-studies/. The text of the pages are the same.

It is fascinating to me that the Wikipedia page uses the mode of bullet-point lists so infrequently and uses the mode of large paragraphs. It would seem to me that the former is more accessible to members of the disability community (and the general community of Wikipedia readers), especially those who are not disability studies scholars, who likely are not using Wikipedia to understand the history of their area of research, than the latter.

Is this accessible to you?

Paragraph Four talks about the previous categorization of queer identities as mental illnesses in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

Paragraph Five talks about a famous guardianship case in which the result was generally considered a victory by the queer community but a defeat by the disabled community (a queer partner was granted custody of a woman who acquired physical disability via brain injury). What does it mean that a partner can become the executor of legal rights under our current legal system? The paragraph ends by talking about support groups that serve queer people with disabilities.

Paragraph Six points out studies that point to how queerness is more common in the disability community than in the able-bodied population, and Paragraph Seven returns to the issue of “Double Jeopardy” when it comes to the experience of “coming out.”

Paragraph Eight talks about queer studies and points to how a “crip future” is also a “queer future,” because it does not equate productivity (or reproductivity) with success.

Admittedly, this fourth subheading confuses me.

Maybe it’s the font, which is different than the font of all the other subheadings. Maybe it’s the improper capitalization on the heading.

Or maybe it’s “…the life experiences of Josie a young woman who does not identify as a particular gender living with a lifelong illness and disability.” Never mind the lack of commas here. If Josie does not identify as a particular gender, then Josie is not a woman!

The text of the article does not even deign to mention that it’s talking about a case study conducted by a previously mentioned team of scholars! (Drummond and Brotman were referenced in the “Gender and sexuaity” subheading.)

I do not disagree with the inclusion of a section about the shared experience of “invisibility” between queer communities and disabled communities. What I do question is why it warrants being in a different subheading than “Gender and sexuality,” since the intersection between queerness and disability is still what is being discussed.

Especially when the new section’s opening sentence is patently false.

If the article wants to dedicate its own subheading to the experience of invisibility, I think it would be wise to bring all the previous subheadings into conversation by, for example, talking about the shared experience of “invisibility” against a white, heterosexual, cisgender, upper-middle class “default.”

The fifth subheading is about social class. It talks about how the experience of disability differs depending on a person’s socioeconomic class and how poverty can in fact cause disability and vice versa. It also touches upon how there is scholarly work about how disability is a category constructed by capitalism, but, unlike in previous subheadings, it does not name any scholars in particular.

You have two sources, but you won’t name them in the article?

The final subheading in the Intersectionality section is “Activism,” but it only names one activist: Joni Eareckson Tada. (And, unlike me, it doesn’t even provide a link to information about her, despite there being a Wikipedia article about her!) Interestingly, the one activist mentioned comes from a religious perspective, but there is no section about religion in the Intersectionality section of this article.

I mean, there has to be more information out there than just evangelicals—like Joni Eareckson Tada—targeting people with disabilities.

Now it’s time to look at the Criticism section!

This is… surprisingly short. I mean, I didn’t even have to zoom out to get this in one screenshot!

The first subheading talks about a recent thrust of disability studies has been about challenging the rejection of the medical model of disability, particularly by people with chronic illnesses, many of whom want a cure. It also briefly introduces some other models of disability.

The second subheading addresses how disability studies began by solely focusing on people with physical disabilities and how people with disabilities that cannot be seen—from those with mental illness to neurodivergent people—have very different experiences that people whose disabilities are readily visible. It ends with how crip theory wants to challenge the dichotomy between physical difference and mental difference.

The list of “notable disability studies theorists” includes some people who were mentioned previously in the article (i.e: Rosemarie Garland-Thomson and Robert McRuer) but not others (i.e: Christopher Bell).

I was curious about the demographic makeup of this list, so I compiled a list of my own.

• Total people listed= 16
• People on the list who are white= 12 (75%)
  • I will note that no Black, Indigneous, or Latinx people were on the list
• People on the list who are female= 6 (37.5%)
• People on the list who are non-binary= 1 (6.25%)
• People on the list who are male= 9 (56.25%)
• People on the list who have a “physical disability” (according to their Wikipedia pages)= 4 (25%)
  • Plus someone who does have a physical disability, but their Wikipedia page doesn’t mention that makes that (31.25%)
• People on the list who have an “invisible disability” (according to their Wikipedia pages)= 1 (6.25%)
• People on the list who are based outside the United States= 5 (31.25%)

And a last tally, as an interesting contrast to many fields of study:

• People on the list who are currently alive= 12 (75%)

Last are the “See also” articles.

I am curious about why “developmental disability” is here when one of the criticisms talked about is that developmental disability is not talked about enough? I also do not know what “matching person and technology model” is. My guess is it is about making technologies like AAC economically accessible?

Overall, while I do think that this Wikipedia article is correct, it is restrictive in its scope—much like the predominant way of teaching it criticizes.