Advertisement

Body-Sensitive Diversity Research Between Enablement and Disablement

  • Laura Dobusch
Chapter

Abstract

The chapter discusses the opportunities and limits of the ‘corporeal turn’ for research at the intersection of diversity research and management and organization studies. By focusing on the often neglected category of dis-/ability, the chapter illustrates that body-sensitive diversity research is not necessarily emancipatory. Rather, a close look at the conflictual relationship between dis-/ability and ‘the body’ shows that both the embodiment of individual life experiences and the social processes of enablement and disablement need to be acknowledged. Finally, the chapter pleads for the development of an ‘etho-ontological’ stance toward the supposedly flawed body, which should be accompanied by research on how ways of organizing co-shape bodies and embodiment at work.

References

  1. Abberley, Paul. 2002. Work, disability, disabled people and European social theory. In Disability studies today, ed. Colin Barnes, Mike Oliver, and Len Barton, 121–138. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  2. Acker, Joan. 1990. Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society 4: 139–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ———. 2006. Inequality regimes: Gender, class, and race in organizations. Gender & Society 20: 441–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ashcraft, Karen L. 2013. The glass slipper: ‘Incorporating’ occupational identity in management studies. Academy of Management Review 38: 6–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barad, Karen. 2003. Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 28: 801–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barnes, Colin, and Geof Mercer. 2005. Disability, work and welfare: Challenging the social exclusion of disabled people. Work, Employment & Society 19: 527–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barnes, Colin, Mike Oliver, and Len Barton. 2002. Disability studies today. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  8. Brisenden, Simon. 1998. Independent living and the medical model of disability. In The disability reader. Social science perspectives, ed. Thomas Shakespeare, 20–27. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  9. Campbell, Fiona K. 2001. Inciting legal fictions: ‘Disability’s’ date with ontology and the ableist body of law. Griffith Law Review 10: 42–62.Google Scholar
  10. Chia, Robert. 2003. Organization theory as a postmodern science. In The Oxford handbook of organization theory, ed. Haridimos Tsoukas and Christian Knudsen, 113–140. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Clever, Iris, and Willemijn Ruberg. 2014. Beyond cultural history? The material turn, praxiography and body history. Humanities 3: 546–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dale, Karen, and Gibson Burrell. 2000. What shape are we in? Organization theory and the organized body. In Body and organization, ed. John Hassard, Ruth Holliday, and Hugh Willmott, 15–30. London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Dale, Karen, and Yvonne Latham. 2015. Ethics and entangled embodiment: Bodies-materialities-organization. Organization 22: 166–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davis, Lennard J. 2006. Constructing normalcy. The bell curve, the novel, and the invention of the disabled body in the nineteenth century. In The disability studies reader, ed. Lennard J. Davis, 2nd ed., 3–16. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Dobbin, Frank. 2009. Inventing equal opportunity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dobusch, Laura. 2017. Diversity discourses and the articulation of discrimination: The case of public organizations. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 43: 1644–1661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ely, Robin J. 1995. The role of dominant identity and experience in organizational work on diversity. In Diversity in work teams: Research paradigms for a changing workplace, ed. Susan E. Jackson and Marian N. Ruderman, 161–186. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Erevelles, Nirmala. 2011. Introduction: Bodies that do not mater. In Difference in global contexts. Enabling a transformative body politic, ed. Nirmala Erevelles, 1–23. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Foster, Deborah, and Patricia Fosh. 2010. Negotiating ‘difference’: Representing disabled employees in the British workplace. British Journal of Industrial Relations 48: 560–582.Google Scholar
  20. Foster, Deborah, and Victoria Wass. 2012. Disability in the labour market: An exploration of concepts of the ideal worker and organisational fit that disadvantage employees with impairments. Sociology 47: 705–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Garland-Thomson, Rosemarie. 2002. Integrating disability, transforming feminist theory. NWSA Journal 14: 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. ———. 2005. Feminist disability studies. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 30: 1557–1587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gherardi, Silvia. 2003. Feminist theory and organization theory: A dialogue on new bases. In The Oxford handbook of organization theory, ed. Haridimos Tsoukas and Christian Knudsen, 210–236. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Goodley, Dan. 2011. Disability studies: An interdisciplinary introduction. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Hope, Angela. 2011. The body: A review and a theoretical perspective. In Handbook of gender, work, and organization, ed. Emma L. Jeanes, David Knights, and Patricia Yancey Martin, 131–146. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  26. Hughes, Bill, and Kevin Paterson. 1997. The social model of disability and the disappearing body: Towards a sociology of impairment. Disability & Society 12: 325–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hurst, Rachel. 2003. The international disability rights movement and the ICF. Disability and Rehabilitation 25: 572–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Inckle, Kay. 2014. A lame argument: Profoundly disabled embodiment as critical gender politics. Disability & Society 29: 388–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jacques, Roy. 2016. Power failure. The short life and premature death of critical “diversity” research. In The Routledge companion to critical management studies, ed. Anshuman Prasad, Pushkala Prasad, Albert J. Mills, and Jean Helms Mills, 140–158. Oxon/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Johnston, William B., and Arnold H. Packer. 1987. Workforce 2000: Work and workers in the 21st century. Indianapolis: Hudson Institute.Google Scholar
  31. Kelly, Erin, and Frank Dobbin. 1998. How affirmative action became diversity management. American Behavioral Scientist 41: 960–984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lederer, Valérie, Patrick Loisel, Michèle Rivard, and François Champagne. 2014. Exploring the diversity of conceptualizations of work (dis)ability: A scoping review of published definitions. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation 24: 242–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Loden, Marylin, and Judy B. Rosener. 1991. America! Managing employee diversity as a vital resource. Homewood: Business One Irwin.Google Scholar
  34. Morris, Jenny. 1996. Introduction. In Encounters with strangers. Feminism and disability, ed. Jenny Morris, 1–16. London: The Women’s Press.Google Scholar
  35. Nkomo, Stella M., and Marcus M. Stewart. 2006. Diverse identities in organizations. In The SAGE handbook of organization studies, ed. Stewart R. Clegg, Cynthia Hardy, Thomas B. Lawrence, and Walter R. Nord, 2nd ed., 520–540. London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Oliver, Mike. 1990. The politics of disablement. London: Macmillan Education.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Oliver, Mike, and Colin Barnes. 2010. Disability studies, disabled people and the struggle for inclusion. British Journal of Sociology of Education 31: 547–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. ———. 2012. The new politics of disablement. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Oswick, Cliff, and Mike Noon. 2014. Discourses of diversity, equality and inclusion: Trenchant formulations or transient fashions? British Journal of Management 25: 23–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Paterson, Kevin, and Bill Hughes. 1999. Disability studies and phenomenology: The carnal politics of everyday life. Disability & Society 14: 597–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Powell, Christopher. 2013. Radical relationism: A proposal. In Conceptualizing relational sociology: Ontological and theoretical issues, ed. Christopher Powell and François Dépelteau, 187–307. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ragins, Belle R., and Jorge A. Gonzalez. 2003. Understanding diversity in organizations: Getting a grip on a slippery construct. In Organizational behaviour and the state of the science, ed. Jerald Greenberg, 2nd ed., 125–163. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  43. Sandberg, Jörgen, and Haridimos Tsoukas. 2016. Practice theory. What it is, its philosophy base, and what it offers organization studies. In The Routledge companion to philosophy in organization studies, ed. Raza Mir, Hugh Willmott, and Michelle Greenwood, 184–198. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Shakespeare, Thomas. 1992. A response to Liz Crow. Coalition, September, 40–42.Google Scholar
  45. ———. 1998. Introduction. In The disability reader. Social science perspectives, ed. Thomas Shakespeare, 1–3. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  46. ———. 2014. Disability rights and wrongs revisited. 2nd ed. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  47. Shildrick, Margrit. 2015. ‘Why should our bodies end at the skin?’: Embodiment, boundaries, and somatechnics. Hypatia 30: 13–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sørensen, Bent Meier, and Kaspar Villadsen. 2015. The naked manager: The ethical practice of an anti-establishment boss. Organization 22: 251–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Swain, John, and Sally French. 2000. Towards an affirmation model of disability. Disability & Society 15: 569–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Thanem, Torkild. 2016. The body: Philosophical paradigms and organizational contributions. In The Routledge companion to philosophy in organization studies, ed. Raza Mir, Hugh Willmott, and Michelle Greenwood, 276–284. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. Thomas, Carol. 2006. Disability and gender: Reflections on theory and research. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research 8: 177–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tøssebro, Jan. 2004. Introduction to the special issue: Understanding disability. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research 6: 3–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Traustadóttir, Rannveig. 2006. Disability and gender: Introduction to the special issue. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research 8: 81–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tremain, Shelley. 2005. Foucault and the government of disability. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  55. Turner, Bryan S. 2001. Disability and the sociology of the body. In Handbook of disability studies, ed. Gary L. Albrecht, Katherine D. Seelman, and Michael Bury, 252–264. Thousand Oaks/London/New Delhi: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation (UPIAS). 1975. Fundamental principles of disability. http://disability-studies.leeds.ac.uk/files/library/UPIAS-fundamental-principles.pdf. Accessed 11 Nov 2017.
  57. Wacker, Elisabeth. 2012. Geistige Behinderung und Teilhabe an der Gesellschaft. In Handbuch soziale Probleme, ed. Günter Albrecht and Axel Groenemeyer, vol. 1, 601–623. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wendell, Susan. 2010. Toward a feminist theory of disability. In The disability studies reader, ed. Lennard J. Davis, 3rd ed., 336–352. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  59. Williams, Jannine, and Sharon Mavin. 2012. Disability as constructed cifference: A literature review and research agenda for management and organization studies. International Journal of Management Review 14: 159–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Witz, Anne. 2000. Whose body matters? Feminist sociology and the corporeal turn in sociology and feminism. Body & Society 6: 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zanoni, Patrizia, Maddy Janssens, Yvonne Benschop, and Stella Nkomo. 2010. Unpacking diversity, grasping inequality: Rethinking difference through critical perspectives. Organization 17: 9–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zola, Irving K. 1999. Bringing our bodies and ourselves back in: Reflections on a past, present, and future ‘medical sociology’. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 32: 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. ———. 2005. Toward the necessary universalizing of a disabilty policy. The Milbank Quarterly 83: 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Radboud Social Cultural ResearchRadboud UniversityNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations