Technology for Independence: A Community-Based Resource Center

Behavioral Sciences and the Law

Volumn 21, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 51-62

  Blanck, Peter ^a,b   Ritchie, Heather ^c   Schmeling, James ^c   Klein, David ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOWA COLLEGE OF LAW   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

^c NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONSUMER; DISABILITY; HUMAN RIGHTS; LAW; POLICY; REVIEW; UNITED STATES;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; DISABLED PERSONS; HUMANS; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; SOCIAL WELFARE; TECHNOLOGY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0037286919     PISSN: 07353936     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/bsl.522     Document Type: Review

References (73)

1. Abberley, P. (1987). The concept of oppression and the development of a social theory of disability. Disability, Handicap and Society, 2, 5-19.
2. Abberley, P. (1992). Counting us out: a discussion of the OPCS disability surveys. Disability, Handicap and Society, 7, 139-157.
3. Anyawu, C. (1988). The technique of PAR in community development. Community Development Journal, 23(1), 11-15.
4. Barnes, C. (1992). Qualitative research: valuable or irrelevant? Disability, Handicap and Society, 7, 115-123.
5. Berven, H. M., & Blanck, P. D. (1998). The economics of the Americans with Disabilities Act: Part II: patents, innovations and assistive technology. Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics and Public Policy, 12, 9-120.
6. Berven, H. M., & Blanck, P. D. (1999). Assistive technology patenting trends and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 17, 47-71.
7. Berven, H., & Blanck, P. (2000). Assistive technology in the workplace and the Americans with Disabilities Act. In P. Blanck (Ed.), Employment, disability, and the Americans with Disabilities Act: Issues in law, public policy, and research (pp. 329-355). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
8. Blanck, P. D. (1998). The Americans with Disabilities Act and the emerging workforce: Employment of people with mental retardation. Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.
9. Blanck, P. D. (Ed.). (2000). Employment, disability, and the Americans with Disabilities Act: Issues in law, public policy, and research. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
10. Blanck, P. D., & Millender, M. (2000). Before disability civil rights: civil war pensions and the politics of disability in America. Alabama Law Review, 52, 1-51.
11. Blanck, P., & Schartz, H. (2001). Towards researching a national employment policy for persons with disabilities. In L. R. McConnell (Ed.), Emerging workforce issues: W.I.A., Ticket to Work, and partnerships: A report on the 22nd Mary E. Switzer Memorial Seminar (pp. 1-10). Alexandria, VA: National Rehabilitation Association.
12. Blanck, P. D., & Turner, A. (1987). Gestalt research: clinical-field-research approaches to studying organizations. In J. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Behavior (pp. 109-125). New York: Prentice-Hall.
13. Bruyère, S. (1993). Participatory action research: overview and implications for family member of persons with disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 3(2), 62-68.
14. Brydon-Miller, M. (1993). Breaking down barriers: accessibility self-advocacy in the disabled community. In P. Park, M. Brydon-Miller, B. Hall, & T. Jackson (Eds.), Voices of change: Participatory research in the United States and Canada (pp. 125-143). Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey.
15. Campbell, M., & Seekins, T. (2000). Whatever happened to PAR? Methodological and administrative challenges of implementing participatory research in applied rehabilitation services. NIDRR Symposium: Best practices in research design and methodology on disability and employment law and policy. Iowa City: University of Iowa College of Law.
16. Cancian, F. (1992). Feminist science: methodologies that challenge inequality. Gender and Society, 6, 623-642.
17. Chataway, C. (1997). An examination of the constraints on mutual inquiry in a participatory action research project. Journal of Social Issues, 53(4), 747-765.
18. Cook, A. M., & Hussey, S. M. (1996). Assistive technologies: Principles and practice. St. Louis: Mosby.
19. Cook, J. A., & Burke, J. (2002). Public policy and employment of people with disabilities: exploring new paradigms, Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 20(6), in press.
20. DeJong, G. (1979). Independent living: from social movement to analytic paradigm. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 60, 435-446.
21. Drake, R. (1996). A critique of the role of the traditional charities. In L. Barton (Ed.), Disability & society: Emerging issues and insights (pp. 147-166). Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman.
22. Eriksson, K. (1999). Linking social science working life research and work reform: a role for universities. In D. J. Greenwood (Ed.), Action research: From practice to writing in an international action research development program (pp. 131-146). Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.
23. Fine, M., & Asch, A. (1988). Disability beyond stigma: social interaction, discrimination, and activism. Journal of Social Issues, 44(1), 3-21.
24. Galvin, J. C., & Scherer, M. J. (1996). Evaluation, selecting, and using appropriate assistive technology. New York: Aspen.
25. Gaventa, J. (1993). The powerful, the powerless, and the experts: knowledge struggles in an information age. In P. Park, M. Brydon-Miller, B. Hall, & T. Jackson (Eds.), Voices of change: Participatory research in the United States and Canada (pp. 21-40). Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey.
26. Gill, C. (2001). The social experience of disability. In G. Albrecht, K. Seelman, & M. Bury (Eds.), Handbook of disability studies (pp. 351-372). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27. Gorelick, S. (1991). Contradictions in feminist methodology. Gender and Society, 5, 459-477.
28. Greenwood, D. J. (1999). Action research: From practice to writing in an international action research development program. Philadelphia, PA: Benjamin.
29. Hahn, H. (1984). Changing perception of disability and the future of rehabilitation. In Social influences in rehabilitation planning: Blueprint for the 21st century: A report of the Ninth Mary E. Switzer Memorial Seminar (pp. 53-55). Alexandria, VA: National Rehabilitation Association.
30. Hahn, H. (1985). Disability policy and the problem of discrimination. American Behavioral Scientist, 28, 293-318.
31. Hahn, H. (1988). The politics of physical differences: disability and discrimination. Journal of Social Issues, 44(1), 39-47.
32. Horton, B. (1993). The Appalachian Land Ownership Study: research and citizen action in Appalachia. In P. Park, M. Brydon-Miller, B. Hall, & T. Jackson (Eds.), Voices of change: Participatory research in the United States and Canada (pp. 65-84). Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey.
33. Jackson, T. (1993). A way of working: Participatory research and the Aboriginal movement in Canada. In P. Park, M. Brydon-Miller, B. Hall, & T. Jackson (Eds.), Voices of change: participatory research in the United States and Canada (pp. 47-64). Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey.
34. Kondrat, M. E., & Juliá, M. (1997). Participation action research: self-reliant research strategies for human social development. Social Development Issues, 19(1), 32-47.
35. Lewin, K. (1999). Group decision and social change. In T. M. Newcomb, & E. L. Hartley (Eds.), The complete social scientist: a Kurt Lewin reader (pp. 330-341). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
36. Linton, S. (1998). Claiming disability: Knowledge and identity. New York: New York University.
37. Low, J., Shelley, J., & O'Connor, M. (2000). Problematic success: an account of top-down participatory action research with women with multiple sclerosis. Field Methods, 12(1), 29-48.
38. Maguire, P. (1987). Doing participatory research: A feminist approach. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.
39. Maguire, P. (1993). Challenges, contradictions, and celebrations: attempting participatory research as a doctoral student. In P. Park, M. Brydon-Miller, B. Hall, & T. Jackson (Eds.), Voices of change: Participatory research in the United States and Canada (pp. 157-176). Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey.
40. Mahlstedt, D. (1999). Power, social change, and the process of feminist research. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 111-115.
41. Mason, R., & Boutilier, M. (1996). The challenge of genuine power sharing in participatory research: the gap between theory and practice. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, 15, 145-152.
42. McTaggart, R. (1997). Guiding principles for participatory action research. In R. McTaggart (Ed.), Participatory action research: International contexts and consequences (pp. 25-43). Albany, NY: State University of New York.
43. Meyerson, L. (1988). The social psychology of disability: 1948 and 1988. Journal of Social Issues, 44(1), 173-188.
44. Morrell-Bellai, T., & Boydell, K. (1994). The experience of mental health consumer as researcher. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health 13(1), 97-110.
45. National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research. (2000). NIDRR long range plan. Retrieved November 12, 2002, from http://www.neddr.org/new/announcements/nidrr_lrp/nidrrlrp.pdf
46. Oliver, M. (1990). The politics of disablement. A sociological approach. New York: St. Martin's.
47. Oliver, M. (1992). Changing the social relations of research production? Disability, Handicap and Society, 7, 101-114.
48. Oliver, M. (1996). A sociology of disability or a disablist sociology? In L. Barton (Ed.), Disability and society: Emerging issues and insights (pp. 18-42). Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman.
49. Parker, G., & Baldwin, S. (1992). Confessions of a jobbing researcher. Disability, Handicap and Society, 7, 197-203.
50. Pfeiffer, D. (2002). The philosophical foundations of disability studies. Disability Studies Quarterly, 22(2), 3-23.
51. Puckett, J., & Harkavy, I. (1999). The action research tradition in the United States: towards a strategy for revitalizing the social sciences, the University, and the American city. In D. Greenwood (Ed.), Action research: From practice to writing in an international action research development program (pp. 147-168). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamin.
52. Rapp, C., Shera, W., & Kisthardt, W. (1993). Research strategies for consumer empowerment of people with severe mental illness. Social Work, 39, 727-735.
53. Reinharz, S. (1992). Feminist methods in social research. New York: Oxford University Press.
54. Ritchie, H., & Blanck, P. (2003). The promise of the internet for disability: a study of on-line services and web site accessibility at centres for independent living. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 21, 5-26.
55. Rodgers, J. (1999). Trying to get it right: undertaking research involving people with learning difficulties. Disability and Society, 14, 421-433.
56. Schartz, K., Schartz, H. A., & Blanck, P. (2002). Employment of persons with disabilities in information technology jobs: literature review for "IT works". Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 20, 637-657.
57. Scherer, M. J. (1996). Living in a state of stuck: How technology impacts the lives of people with disabilities. New York: Brookline.
58. Schwochau, S., & Blanck, P. D. (2000). The economics of the Americans with Disabilities Act: Part III - Does the ADA disable the disabled? Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law, 21, 271-313.
59. Sclove, R. E., Scammell, M. L., & Holland, B. (1998). Community-based research in the United States. Amherst, MA: Loka Institute.
60. Scotch, R. (2002). Paradigms of American social research on disability: what's new? Disability Studies Quarterly, 22(2), 23-34.
61. Seelman, K. (1993). Assistive technology policy: a road to independence for individuals with disabilities. Journal of Social Issues, 49(2), 115-136.
62. Seelman, K. (1998). Blueprint for the Millennium: An analysis of regional hearings on assistive technology for people with disabilities. Washington, DC: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved April 1, 2002, from www.ed.gov./offices/OSERS/NIDRR
63. Seelman, K. (2000). Science and technology policy: is disability a missing factor? Assistive Technology, 12, 144-153.
64. Silverstein, R. (2000). Emerging disability policy framework: a guidepost for analyzing public policy. Iowa Law Review, 85, 1691-1801.
65. Simonson, L., & Bushaw, V. A. (1993). Participatory action research: easier said than done. The American Sociologist 24(1), 27-37.
66. Stone, E., & Priestley, M. (1996). Parasites, pawns and partners: disability research and the role of non-disabled researchers. British Journal of Sociology, 47, 699-716.
67. Stringer, E. (1996). Action research: A handbook for practitioners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
68. Taylor, G. (1999). Empowerment, identity, and participatory research: using social action research to challenge isolation for deaf and hard of hearing people from minority ethnic communities. Disability and Society, 14, 369-384.
69. Technology Related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities Act, P.L. 103-218.
70. Tewey, B. P. (1997). Building participatory action research partnerships in disability and rehabilitation research. Washington, DC: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services, U.S. Department of Education.
71. Whyte, W. F. (Ed.). (1991). Participatory action research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
72. Whyte, W. F. (1995). Encounters with participatory action research. Qualitative Sociology, 18, 289-299.
73. Zarb, G. (1992). On the road to Damascus: first steps towards changing the relations of disability research production. Disability, Handicap and Society, 7, 125-138.