The authors wish to thank Dr Ron Beadle, Dr Sandra Corlett and the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions.
Disability as Constructed Difference: A Literature Review and Research Agenda for Management and Organization Studies
Version of Record online: 28 FEB 2012
© 2012 The Authors. International Journal of Management Reviews © 2012 British Academy of Management and Blackwell Publishing Ltd
International Journal of Management Reviews
Special Issue: Advancements in Gender, Diversity and Management Theorising. Guest Editors: Carol Woodhams, Jamie L. Callahan and Beverly Dawn Metcalfe
Volume 14, Issue 2, pages 159–179, June 2012
How to Cite
Williams, J. and Mavin, S. (2012), Disability as Constructed Difference: A Literature Review and Research Agenda for Management and Organization Studies. International Journal of Management Reviews, 14: 159–179. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2012.00329.x
- Issue online: 9 MAY 2012
- Version of Record online: 28 FEB 2012
Disability theory and disabled people's voices have remained marginal in attempts to include a wider range of theoretical perspectives and voices in organization studies. This includes studies of the normative assumptions underpinning socially constructed categories of difference. This paper addresses this gap by reviewing the literature on social categories of difference, intersectional studies and studies across human resource management and diversity literatures. The argument here is that, while research has begun to move from an individualized discourse of disability, disability remains inadequately theorized as a constructed difference. The paper reviews the disability studies literature to identify the relevance of conceptualizing disability for work organizations, problematizes the concepts of disability and impairment and differentiates competing discourses of disability. The contribution of this paper is threefold. First, it offers an alternative social interpretation discourse which argues that disability is constructed as a negated difference through assumed ableism, which is a normative expectation of non-disability. Second, it presents impairment effects as legitimate organizing requirements rather than individualized problems. The paper argues impairment effects, the effects of bodily and cognitive variation, have legitimate implications for how disabled people negotiate organizing contexts. Third, it develops a disability studies lens to advance theoretical approaches to the study of social categories of difference in the field of management and organization studies.