Protests in the Deaf and Disability Communities 1970 - 2003: Past Research and Future Directions Dr. Sharon Barnartt Department of Sociology

Protests in the Deaf and Disability Communities 1970 -

2003: Past Research and Future

Directions

Dr. Sharon Barnartt

Department of Sociology

Some material taken from Disability Protests: Contentious

Politics 1970 - 1999 (Gallaudet Univ Press, 2001)

But new analyses are also presentedBut new analyses are also presented

Methodology

• content analysis

OR

• event history analysis

The Data

• Were located using both hand searching and computerized data bases [mostly Lexis Nexus]

• Were collected from newspaper & other media reports, organization web sites, and personal accounts

• Only included protests

that had already happened

• N = 880 protests in the US and 326 outside the US

–Non-newspaper data were verified from other sources

–Non-newspaper data were verified from other sources

Operational Definitions

• This was the hard part

• They were based upon previous sociological research in collective behavior when possible--but it was not always possible

“Protest”

• Conducted by 2 or more people• Demands social, not individual, change• Is not related to self-help or money-

raising• Uses non-normative tactics

– acceptable (~ = protest)• lobbying• petitioning

– unacceptable ( = protest)• strike• blocking buses

“One Protest”

• Same core group

• Same issue

• Can have sequential tactics

• Cannot have simultaneous protests at two locations [or that becomes two protests]

“Protests Related to Deafness or Disability”

• Protest issues are relevant to PWD’s and/or deaf people OR

• Protests are carried out by PWD’S and/or deaf people

• Protests related to AIDS, breast cancer, obesity or other medical problems were included if related to disability [For ex: were protesting SS benefit criteria]

Results: Part 1

Patterns of US Protests

Protests per year (N =878)

1 0 1

106 5

0

8

16

4

128

18

8

16

8

22

1511

4344

36

5958

51

18

37

54

84

70

77

2722

1514

1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

9019

6919

7119

7319

7519

7719

7919

8119

8319

8519

8719

8919

9119

9319

9519

9719

9920

0120

03

Rehab Actprotests

Rehab Actprotests

ADA passageADA passage

Impairment-related Demands (N = 934)40.5%

24.1%

10.1%

5.9% 5.8%9.0%

2.9%

Cro

ssd

isa

bil

ity

Mo

bil

ity

Dea

fnes

s

Bli

nd

nes

s

Dev

el.

Dis

Psy

chia

tric

Oth

er

Protest Demands (N = 1206)21.9%

19.1%

12.8%

8.5%

5.6% 5.6%

17.4%

9.0%

rights

,ac

cess

ibili

ty

money

serv

ices

,ch

arac

terist

ics

serv

ices

, typ

e

port

raya

ls

educa

tion

law

s or

polic

ies

oth

er

Categories of Protest Demands

39.3% 40.4%

20.3%

rights services all other

10.8%

26.9%

17.3% 17.5%

5.4% 4.9%

2.0%3.5% 3.5%

12.3%

loca

l gov'

t

stat

e gov'

t

feder

al g

ov'

t

com

pan

ies

educa

tional

inst

itutions

tele

thons

med

ia

pro

fess

ional

asso

ciat

ions

the

public

oth

er

Protest targets

Results: Part 2

Deafness-related Protests

in the US

Protests by Year (N = 95)

10

12

3

56

4

7

4 45

6 6

8

67

2

0

pre 1988

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

Protest Demands

21.1%

29.5%

34.7%

14.7%

rightsaccessibility

services education other

ProtestTargets

5.4%

37.6%

7.5%10.8%

38.7%

local or fedgov't

state gov't educinstitutions

media other

Results: Part 3

Comparing US to

non US Protests

~US Protests by Year (N = 326)

3

1113

46

1311

28

19 19

9

25 26

31 3229

36

1970's

1980 - 85

1986 - 89

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

Non US Protest Locations99

38

15

3627 24 25 24

174 7

UK Canada

Israel

W. Eur.

Asia

Africa

Ind. Subc.

Aus. + NZ

E. EurRussia

Arab MidEast

Caribbean

Demand Type by Location

40.5%

24.1%

10.1%

5.9% 5.8%9.0%

2.9%

44.2%

12.1%

18.1%

11.8%

3.7% 4.0%5.9%

crossdisability

mobility deafness blindness DD psychiatric other

US non US

Demand Categories by Location

37.5% 39.0%

23.6%28.7%

52.0%

19.3%

rights services other

US non USDifferences are statistically significant

Differences are statistically significant

Targets by US or Not

52.8%

44.7%

74.4%

25.6%

gov't ~ gov't

US ~ US



Governmental Targets by US or Not

32.9%

67.1%63.2%

36.8%

National level local, state or provincial level

US ~ US



Demand Type by Development Level

37.0%

22.3%

12.7%

5.5% 5.0%8.1%

3.0%

48.0%

6.7%10.7%

32.0%

1.3% 1.3% 0.0%

Crossdisability

Mobility Deaf Blind Devel Psych Other

Developed Developing

For example: Protests in India & Pakistan

37.5%

8.3%

50.0%

4.2%

Crossdisability

Deaf Blind Psych

Targets by Development Level

56.4%

43.6%

78.5%

21.5%

gov't ~ gov't




Demand Categories by Development Level

36.4%

41.6%

22.0%24.1%

43.1%

32.7%

rights services other




Part 4The Diffusion of DPN

How did it affect protests inside or outside of the

US?

US Protests by Time Period

12.6%

22.5%

87.4%

77.5%

Deafness related Non Deafness related

pre DPN post DPN



US Deafness Protests by Time Period and Location

12.8%9.3%

87.2%90.7%

US non US

pre DPN post DPN

~US, Post DPN Deafness Protest Locations

1516

2

14

3 32

12

UK

Can

ada

Israel

W. E

ur.

Asia

Africa

Ind. Su

bc.

Carib

Au

s. NZ

–Only 5 occurred before DPN

–Only 5 occurred before DPN

Conclusions: US Protests

• were most likely to be cross-disability or to focus on issues related to mobility impairments

• were most likely to demand changes in services --it is not correct to call it a Disability Rights movement

–There are lots of other juicy facts in the book

–There are lots of other juicy facts in the book

Conclusions: Deafness-related Protests in the US

• Protests did not begin with DPN

• Most likely to target either state governments or educational institutions

• More likely to occur after DPN than were non-deafness related protests

Conclusions: US vs ~US Protests

• US protests more likely to– have demands

related to mobility impairments

– have demands related to rights

– to target state or local gov’ts

• ~US protests more likely to– relate to blindness

or deafness– target the federal or

national gov’t– have demands

related to services

Conclusions: Developed vs Developing Country Protests• Protests in

developed countries more likely to– relate to mobility

impairments– have demands

related to rights– target local or

‘state’ gov’ts

• Protests in developing countries more likely to– relate to blindness or be

cross-disability – have demands which do

not fit into the rights or services categories

– target the national government

– use unusual tactics [data not shown]

Conclusions:The Effects of DPN

• To mobilize the US deaf community to a protest level somewhat higher than that of the larger disability community

• To mobilize deaf communities outside of the US--although larger proportions of protests unrelated to deafness occurred after DPN in other countries than in the US

Possible Directions for Future Research?

• Overlaps with protests from other social movements, such as the “Right to Life,” breast cancer, and AIDS movements

• Intensive examination of protests cross-culturally

• ???

Documents

Protests in the Deaf and Disability Communities 1970 - 2003: Past Research and Future Directions Dr. Sharon Barnartt Department of Sociology