Disability and Media

Disability and Media

Issue Editors:

Dr M Shuaib Mohamed Haneef, Professor, Department of Electronic Media & Mass Communication, Pondicherry University

Dr Heena Kausar, Research Assistant, Department of Electronic Media & Mass Communication, Pondicherry University

 

Disability and media are two different academic domain and it is important how do we connect and make relationships between them. While disability studies are a relatively new field, media studies have a long-established presence in academia. Both exists independently from long time in academia and the intersection of these fields offers rich insights. To integrate disability with media studies in innovative ways, one “need perspectives and methodological tools to analyse how disability shapes media text, technologies, and industries-and how our media in turn, shape what it means to be “disabled” or “able-bodied” in contemporary society” (Ellcessor, Hagood & Kirkpatrick, 2017, p.3).

Media plays a pivotal role in shaping societal attitudes towards disability. Historically, media representations have often perpetuated stereotypes, depicting disabled people as objects of pity, or as fundamentally different from the norm. Such portrayals reinforce societal prejudices and contribute to social and political marginalisation of disabled people, perpetuating the outdated medical model. Such depictions contribute to ableist attitudes, which in turn reproduce the social and material conditions of disability. In contemporary Indian media these neoliberal agendas seen as an important platform for identity politics, especially for marginalised community (Bendukurthi & Raman, 2020). However, there has been a gradual shift from medical to social model and now in the early 21st centuries, Critical disability studies (CDS) emerged and integrate disability into broader critical discussions (Tremain 2005; Erevelles 2005; Meekosha 2006; Pothier & Devlin 2006; Shildrick 2007; Gustafson 2007; Roets & Goodley 2008; Hosking 2008; Campbell, 2008). It advocates intersectionality, diversity, inclusivity, advocacy, increased awareness and politicising the predominant Eurocentric model of disability studies (Goodley, 2020; Shildrick, 2012; Feely, 2016; Baglieri, 2022).

Similarly, Technological advancements serve as potential tools that facilitate independence   and media accessibility and promote greater autonomy among disabled people (Dobransky & Hargittai, 2021). But there remain significant gaps that need to be addressed. Like issues of digital inclusion and accessibility become crucial in today’s Indian digital landscape.  Moreover, when COVID-19 pandemic hit India and globally it further underscored the importance of digital technology as an accessibility tool, while also highlighting its limitations (Goggin & Ellis, 2020). The shift to online platforms for work, education, entertainment and social interaction has created both opportunities and challenges. On one hand, digital platforms have provided new avenues for participation and engagement for disabled people. On the other hand, the rapid transition has exposed issues related to digital literacy, technology accessibility, and the lack of accessibility features (Parida & Sinha, 2021; Bendukurthi & Raman, 2020: Ellcessor, 2020; Lazar & Wentz, 2020). For instance, accessibility in traditional media is limited for visually impaired audiences. Audio descripted films are limited on OTT platforms and so do on TV and theatre. Even though the program is broadcast in audio description there will be significant lack in vernacular languages and accessibility features.

Thus, the relationship between disability and media is a crucial area of scholarly inquiry that illuminates how social constructions and individual experiences of disability are shaped and transformed. This approach necessitates examining media texts within the “material contexts of their reception, and the active participation of audiences in producing meanings” (Ellcessor, Hagood, & Kirkpatrick, 2017, p.14). Therefore, media and cultural representations should not be confined to purely textual analysis but should be part of an integrated approach to media studies (Ellcessor, Hagood, & Kirkpatrick, 2017). This exploration involves analysing texts, audiences, industries, and social contexts, as well as employing diverse methodological frameworks including aesthetic, discursive, and representational analysis, along with theories of post-structuralism, posthumanism, affect, assemblages, phenomenology, and embodiment (Ellcessor, Hagood, & Kirkpatrick, 2017). This call for papers seeks to delve into the nuanced relationship between disability and media, aiming to highlight both the challenges and opportunities inherent in this intersection.

We seek original research and theoretical papers that address a broad range of topics related to disability, including social and cultural perspectives, disability rights and advocacy, inclusivity, assistive technologies, media representation, and intersectionality. Our aim is to contribute to interdisciplinary dialogue and expand the understanding of disability through diverse and inclusive scholarly work.

We welcome papers that address, but are not limited to, the following topics:

• Media representations of disability
• Disability activism and advocacy in the media
• Aesthetics of disability in media and the arts
• Disability and digital technology usage and challenges
• Disability, accessibility and digital literacy
• Disability representation in films
• Intersectionality of disability, race, gender, sexuality
• Disability and assistive media technology
• Disabled online identities
• Disability in an ableist newsroom culture
• Social media and disability
• Digital technology and media accessibility
• Film watching experiences with audio description
• Historical perspectives on disability in the media

By exploring these themes, we hope to foster a deeper understanding of the role media plays in shaping the discourse around disability and to promote more inclusivity in media.

The journal welcomes research articles (6000–8000 words), theoretical essays, and short commentaries or case studies. All submissions should adhere to the journal’s formatting and citation guidelines (APA 7th Edition). Submissions should be original and not under consideration elsewhere.

 

Few Dates to remember:

Abstract Submission Deadline: February 5, 2027

Notification of Abstract Acceptance: February 20, 2027

Deadline for submission of full paper: April 30, 2027

First round of peer review: June 15, 2027

Revision of manuscripts due: July 30, 2027

Anticipated publication: September, 2027

 

References

Baglieri, S. (2022). Disability studies and the inclusive classroom: Critical practices for embracing diversity in education. Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003138808.

Bendukurthi, N., & Raman, U. (2020). What’s it all worth? The political economy of disability representation in Indian media. In K. Ellis, G. Goggin, B. Haller, & R. Curtis (Eds.), The Routledge companion to disability and media (pp. 22–34). Routledge.

Campbell, F. K. (2008). Exploring internalized ableism using critical race theory. Disability & Society, 23(2), 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687590701841190.

Dobransky, K., & Hargittai, E. (2021). The closing skills gap: Revisiting the digital disability divide. In E. Hargittai (Ed.), Handbook of digital inequality (pp. 274–282). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Ellcessor, E., Hagood, M., & Kirkpatrick, B. (2017). Toward a disability media studies. Television & New Media, 18(3), 193–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476416677215.

Ellcessor, E. (2020). Digital media accessibility: An evolving infrastructure of possibility. In K. Ellis, G. Goggin, B. Haller, & R. Curtis (Eds.), The Routledge companion to disability and media (pp. 243–251). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315716008-23.

Erevelles, N. (2005). (Dis)embodied form: Issues of disabled women. Disability Studies Quarterly, 25(2). https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v25i2.567.

Feely, M. (2016). Disability studies after the ontological turn: A return to the material world and material bodies without a return to essentialism. Disability & Society, 31(7), 863–883. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2016.1208603.

Goggin, G., & Ellis, K. (2020). Disability, communication, and life itself in the COVID-19 pandemic. Health Sociology Review, 29(2), 168–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/14461242.2020.1784020.

Goodley, D. (2020). Disability and other human questions. Emerald Publishing Limited.

Gustafson, K. (2007). Parallel disciplines: Critical race theory, disability studies, and the disciplinary gap between them [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the Law and Society Association, Berlin, Germany.

Hosking, D. L. (2008). Critical disability theory [Paper presentation]. 4th Biennial Disability Studies Conference, Lancaster University, UK.

Lazar, J., Wentz, B., Jaeger, P. T., & Gorham, U. (2021). A socio-legal framework for improving the accessibility of research articles for people with disabilities. Journal of Business & Technology Law, 16(2), 223–257.

Meekosha, H. (2006). What the hell are you? An intercategorical analysis of race, ethnicity, gender and disability in the Australian body politic. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 8(2–3), 161–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/15017410600831309.

Parida, M., & Sinha, M. (2021). Pandemic and disability: Challenges faced and role of technology. Technology and Disability, 33(4), 245–252. https://doi.org/10.3233/TAD-200311.

Pothier, D., & Devlin, R. F. (Eds.). (2006). Critical disability theory: Essays in philosophy, politics, policy, and law. UBC Press.

Roets, G., & Goodley, D. (2008). The (be)comings and goings of ‘developmental disabilities’: The cultural politics of ‘impairment’. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 29(2), 239–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596300801966971.

Shildrick, M. (2007). Contested pleasures: The sociopolitical economy of disability and sexuality. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 4(1), 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1525/srsp.2007.4.1.53.

Shildrick, M. (2012). Critical disability studies: Rethinking the conventions for the age of postmodernity. In N. Watson, A. Roulstone, & C. Thomas (Eds.), Routledge handbook of disability studies (pp. 30–41). Routledge.