United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Social Cooperation and Human Dignity

  • Louise Sinden-CarrollEmail author


Systemic intervention often requires a methodological mixture of quantitative, qualitative and participatory action research and auto-ethnographic work. When applying this research mixture, the need for auto-ethnographic advocacy to enable prisoners with hearing loss in New Zealand prisons to achieve equity with hearing-abled prisoners is evident.


  1. ABC Television. (2010). ABC TV Lateline: ABC. Lateline Australian Broadcasting Corporation 25/11/2010. Retrieved from:
  2. Access Economics Pty Ltd. (2006). The economic impact and cost of hearing loss in Australia. Retrieved from Australia:
  3. Baars, B. J., & Gage, N. M. (2010). Cognition, brain and consciousness (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  4. Bateson, G. (1967). Cybernetic explanation. American Behavoral Scientist, 10(8).Google Scholar
  5. Bowers, M. (1981). Hearing impairment in prisoners. Deafness Research Foundation, Dilworth Clinic, Remuera Road, Auckland.Google Scholar
  6. Carlen, P., & Worall, A. (2004). Analysing Women’s Imprisonment Wilian Publishing. ISBN 1 84392 069 7.Google Scholar
  7. CaptionIt!NZ. (2015). Transcript of Sean Plunkett’s attack on all deaf and hard of hearing New Zealanders—totally uncalled for. Retrieved from:
  8. Checkland, P. (1985). From optimizing to learning: A development of systems thinking for the 1990s. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 36(9), 757–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Churchman, C. W. (1979). The systems approach and its enemies. New York: Basic Books Inc.Google Scholar
  10. Coyle, A. (2001). Prisons and the Democratic Process, Presentation at the the New Initiatives in Penal Reform and Access to Justice Conference. Retrieved from:
  11. Dahl, M. (2002). Under-indentification of hearing loss in the Canadian federal inmate population. Retrieved from:
  12. Deaf Aotearoa New Zealand. (2015). Retrieved from:
  13. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  14. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.) (2011). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks :SAGE.Google Scholar
  15. (2015). Equity. Retrieved from:
  16. Falk, S. (2015). In discussion with Writer at the IFHOH Human Rights CRPD workshop in Copenhagen, 2015.Google Scholar
  17. Fetterman, D. M. (2010). Ethnography step by step (3rd ed.). London, UK: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  18. Flood, R. L. (2010). The relationship of ‘systems thinking’ to action research. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 23, 269–284.Google Scholar
  19. Flood, R. L., & Jackson, M. C. (1991). Critical systems thinking: Directed readings. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  20. Flood, R. L., & Romm, N. R. A. (1996). Critical systems thinking current research and practice. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gee, J. (2014). Past Operations Manager, New Zealand Parole Board in conversation with the Writer.Google Scholar
  22. Great Schools Partnership. (2014). Equity. Retrieved from:
  23. Hammersley, M. (2005). Is the evidence-based practice movement doing more good than harm?. Evidence and Policy, 1(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
  24. Health and Disability Commisioners Act. (2009).
  25. International Committee of the Red Cross. (2015). Practice relating to Rule 155.Google Scholar
  26. International Disability Alliance. (2011). International disability alliance. Retrieved from:
  27. International Federation of Hard of Hearing People. (2014). International federation of hard of hearing people. Retrieved from:
  28. Jackson, M. C. (1987). New directions in management science. Gower.Google Scholar
  29. Jackson, M. C. (1991). The origins and nature of critical systems thinking. Systems Practice, 4, 131–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jackson, M. C., & Keys, P. (1984). Towards a system of systems methodologies. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 35(6), 473–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jones, K. (2004). Mission drift in qualitative research, or moving toward a systematic review of qualitative studies, moving back to a more systematic narrative review. The Qualitative Report, 9(1).Google Scholar
  32. Kingdon, J. W. (1993). Agendas and alternatives: How do issues get on public policy agenda’s?. UK: Sage Publications Inc.Google Scholar
  33. McCulloch, J., & Scraton, P. (2009). The violence of incarceration. In Scraton, P., & McCulloch, J. (Eds.) The Violence of Incarceration. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. McIntyre, J. (2002). Critical systemic praxis for social and environmental justice: A case study of management, governance, and polic. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 15(1) 3–35.Google Scholar
  35. McIntyre, J. (2016, March). In discussion with the writer.Google Scholar
  36. McIntyre-Mills, J. (2008). User-centric policy design to address complex prologue xvi. Nova Science Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
  37. McIntyre-Mills, J. (2014). System ethics and non-anthropocentric stewardship: Systemic ethics for social and environmental justice.Google Scholar
  38. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (2nd ed.). United States: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  39. Merriam Webster. (2015). Civilly dead. Merriam Webster. Retrieved from:
  40. Midgley, G. (1992). The sacred and profane in critical systems thinking. Systems Practice, 5(1).Google Scholar
  41. Midgley, G. (2000). Systemic intervention, philosophy, methodology, and practice: Contemporary systems thinking. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
  42. Ministry of Health. (2005). Results from the prisoner health survey. Retrieved from:
  43. National Screening Unit. (2014). Universal newborn hearing screening programme. Retrieved from:
  44. New Zealand Parole Board. (2015). New Zealand Parole Board. Retrieved from:
  45. Nussbaum, M. (2002). Capabilities and disabilities: Justice for mentally disabled citizens. Philosophical Topics, 30(2).Google Scholar
  46. Nussbaum, M. (2006). Frontiers of justice, disability, nationality, species membership. Harvard University, USA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Nussbaum, M. (2011). Creating capabilities. USA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Office for Disability Issues. (2011). New Zealand Sign Language Act Review 2011.Google Scholar
  49. Office for Disability Issues. (2015a). Eliminating access barriers. Retrieved from:
  50. Office for Disability Issues. (2015b). New Zealand disability strategy. Retrieved from:
  51. Owers, A. (2006a). The protection of prisoners’ rights in England and Wales. European Journal of Criminal Policy Research, 12, 85–91.Google Scholar
  52. Owers, A. (2006b). Independent inspection of prisons’. In Jones D (Ed.) Human Prisons. Oxford: Radcliffe Publishing.Google Scholar
  53. Owers, A. (2008). Inspecting places of detention. Criminal Justice Matters, 71, 28–29.Google Scholar
  54. Parkinson, & Drislane. (2011). Qualitative research; defining and designing. Retrieved from:
  55. Parliamentary Counsel Office. (1993). Electoral Act 1993. Retrieved from:
  56. Parliamentary Counsel Office. (2001). Accident Compensation Act 2001. Retrieved from:
  57. Parliamentary Counsel Office. (2013a). New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Retrieved from:
  58. Parliamentary Counsel Office. (2013b). New Zealand Sign Language Act 2006. Retrieved from:
  59. Parliamentary Counsel Office. (2014a). Corrections Act 2014. Retrieved from:
  60. Parliamentary Counsel Office. (2014b). Corrections Regulations 2005. Retrieved from:
  61. Parliamentary Counsel Office. (2015). Crimes Act 1961. Retrieved from:
  62. Pelto, J., & Pelto, G. H. (1970). The structure of inquiry. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Prader-Willi Syndrome Association USA. (2015). Glossary of terms. Retrieved from:
  64. Princeton. (2012). Wordnet search. WordNet Search Princeton. Retrieved from:
  65. Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2001). The Sage handbook of action: Research participative inquiry and practice (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  66. Rittel, W. H. J., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 6(1), 76–84; 155–169.Google Scholar
  67. Romm, N. R. A. (1994). Continuing tensions between soft systems methodology and critical systems heuristics working paper 5. UK: Centre for Systems Studies, University of Hull.Google Scholar
  68. Romm, N. R. A. (1995). Some anomalies in Urlich’s critical and problem-solving approach. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  69. Sacks, O. (1990). Seeing voices. New York: Vintage Book.Google Scholar
  70. Sands, G. (2014). Prison Director of Mt. Eden Corrections Facility, Auckland, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  71. Scott, D. (2008). Thinking about detention. Criminal Justice Matters, 71(Spring).Google Scholar
  72. Sen, A. (2005). Human rights and capablities. Journal of Human Development, 6(2), 152–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Smith, L., & Robinson, B. (2006). Beyond the holding tank: Pathways to rehabilitative and restorative prison policy. Manukau.Google Scholar
  74. Stanley, E. (2011). Human rights and prisons, a review to the Human Rights Commission. Retrieved from:
  75. Television New Zealand (Writer). (2014). Television New Zealand News—TV 1.Google Scholar
  76. The Australian Senate. (2010). Community Affairs References Committee. Retrieved from: ISBN 978-1-74229-208-3. © Commonwealth of Australia 2010.
  77. The National Foundation for the Deaf. (2015). NFD. Retrieved from:
  78. Thomas, T. (2010). Health & Disability Deputy Commissioner in email discussion with Writer.Google Scholar
  79. Ulrich, W. (1983). Critical heuristics of social planning: A new approach to practical philosophy. Bern: Haupt.Google Scholar
  80. Ulrich, W. (1991). Critical heuristics of social systems designs. In R. L. Flood & M. C. Jackson (Eds.), Critical systems thinking: Directed readings. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  81. Ulrich, W. (1996/2014). A primer to critical systems heuristics for action researchers.Google Scholar
  82. United Nations. (1977). Standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners. Retrieved from:
  83. United Nations. (2006). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Retrieved from:
  84. United Nations. (2015a). Un Enable—United Nations. Retrieved from:
  85. United Nations. (2015b). The universal declaration of human rights.Google Scholar
  86. United Nations Human Rights. (2015a). Committee on the elimination of discrimination against women. Retrieved from:
  87. United Nations Human Rights. (2015b). International covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. Retrieved from:
  88. United Nations Human Rights. (2015c). Universal periodic review. Retrieved from:
  89. von Bertalanffy, L. (1969). General systems theory and psychiatry: An overview. In W. Gray, F. K. Duhl, & N. D. Rizzo (Eds.), General systems theory and psychiatry. London: J & A Churchill Ltd.Google Scholar
  90. Wilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. (2010). The spirit level, why equality is better for everyone (2nd ed.). Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  91. Wadsworth, Y. (2010). Building in research and evaluation: Human inquiry for living systems. NSW, Australia: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  92. Work and Income NZ. (2015). Community services card: Low to middle-income families. Retrieved from:
  93. Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton University: Princeton Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.NGO Services LimitedAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations