Our approach to disability

The AI-EMPOWERED project recognises that disability is a concept that is complex, dynamic, multidimensional and contested (Ghoshal, 2018).

While acknowledging this complexity, it is important to explore how definitions influence access, identity, and recognition. Disability is not solely about diagnostic categorisation; it carries socio-political weight that shapes whose experiences are acknowledged and whose are excluded (Francis & Silvers, 2016).

Several approaches to its definition exist with noted tensions present between definitions and their practical implications for understanding of ‘disability’.

These definitions serve specific administrative functions but often fail to capture the lived realities of disabled people. By anchoring disability within eligibility or impairment-based criteria, such framings risk reinforcing ableist assumptions about capability and worth (Brown & Ramlackhan, 2022; Charitsis & Lehtiniemi, 2023)

Additionally, contemporary disability scholarship encourages reflection on how disability is situated within broader systems of oppression and marginalisation. This perspective challenges researchers and practitioners to consider intersectionality, agency, equity, and not just terminology (Kaplan & Celik, 2023; Yılmaz, 2024). 

The institutional approach defines disabled people as those currently eligible for statutory financial support in work. Disability is defined for statistical purposes by the UK Government as presence of a long lasting physical or mental health condition or illness and that this condition or illness reduces the ability to carry-out day-to-day activities (Government Analysis Function, 2024).

This definition reflects the medical model of disability, which frames disability primarily as a health-related limitation residing within the individual (Shakespeare, 2006). While useful for administrative purposes, this approach tends to overlook how social and structural barriers shape disabled people's experiences and opportunities (Oliver, 2013).

Definitions of disability have thus pivoted toward a social definition (rather than medical) in which disability is seen as a socially constructed concept where ‘disability is the result of the interaction between people living with impairments and an environment filled with physical, attitudinal, communication and social barriers’ (Yang and Lin, 2023).

While the social model has advanced understandings of disability as shaped by environmental and attitudinal barriers (Yang & Lin, 2025), it does not fully account for the phenomenon of disability denialism, namely the systemic tendency to ignore, erase, or invalidate disabled people's experiences. This denialism manifests in data collection practices, policy framings, and cultural narratives that either exclude disability altogether or reduce it to a deficit to be overcome (Brown & Ramlackhan, 2022; Charitsis & Lehtiniemi, 2023). As Tarvainen (2019) argues, ableist narrative circulation can lead to epistemic injustice, where disabled people’s stories are either silenced or distorted to fit dominant norms. Such denialism reinforces the marginalisation of disabled people by denying their narrative agency and undermining their visibility in public discourse.

Acknowledging these limitations, disability can additionally be taken as a self-perceived state reflecting how people view their own limitations.

Whether spoken or written, the language used to refer to disabled people reflects underlying perceptions and can shape how others view them (Auslander & Gold, 1999). Language serves both personal and professional functions but also mirrors “societal trends” (Hayton & Dimitriou, 2019, p. 3). It influences public attitudes, policy decisions, clinical practice, and research directions (Vivanti, 2020), and affects how people think, feel, and act toward disabled individuals (Caplan, 1995). Terms that carry negative connotations have been described as “disabling language” (La Forge, 1991, p. 1395), and may be used by professionals, caregivers, or disabled people themselves. The acceptability of specific terminology varies across societies, cultures, and individual preferences (Dunn & Andrews, 2015; Graby, 2016). These factors shape not only how people speak, but also what is offered, accessed, or sought in support and recognition.

In this project, we refer to adults and adopt identity-first terminology (e.g., “disabled people”) in alignment with the UK disabled people’s movement and prevailing usage in UK policy, while also capturing whether they are eligible and/or in receipt of statutory financial support. This choice reflects a commitment to recognising disability as a socio-political identity, while also respecting participants’ right to self-identify using language that best represents their lived experience.

References

Auslander, G. K., & Gold, N. (1999). Disability terminology in the media: A comparison of newspaper reports in Canada and Israel. Social Science & Medicine, 48(10), 1395-1405.

Brown, N., & Ramlackhan, K. (2022). Exploring experiences of ableism in academia: A constructivist inquiry. Higher Education, 83(6), 1225-1239.

Caplan, B. (1995). Choose your words! Division 22 presidential address. Rehabilitation Psychology, 40(3), 233.

Charitsis, V., & Lehtiniemi, T. (2023). Data ableism: Ability expectations and marginalization in automated societies. Television & New Media, 24(1), 3-18.

Dunn, D. S., & Andrews, E. E. (2015). Person-first and identity-first language: Developing psychologists’ cultural competence using disability language. American psychologist, 70(3), 255.

Francis, L., & Silvers, A. (2016). Perspectives on the meaning of “disability”. AMA Journal of Ethics, 18(10), 1025-1033.

Graby, S. (2016). Unworkable Conditions: work, benefits and disabled people’s resistance to capitalism. Association for Social and Political Philosophy Conference, London.

Hayton, J., & Dimitriou, D. (2019). What's in a word? Distinguishing between Habilitation and Re-habilitation. International Journal of Orientation & Mobility, 10(1), 1-4.

Kaplan, G., & Celik, P. (2023). Intersectionality of disability and cultural/linguistic diversity in the UK: a literature review. Frontiers in Education,

La Forge, J. (1991). Preferred language practice in professional rehabilitation journals. The Journal of Rehabilitation, 57(1), 49.

Oliver, M. (2013). The social model of disability: Thirty years on. Disability & Society, 28(7), 1024-1026.

Shakespeare, T. (2006). The social model of disability. The disability studies reader, 2(3), 197-204.

Tarvainen, M. (2019). Ableism and the life stories of people with disabilities. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 21(1).

Vivanti, G. (2020). Ask the Editor: What is the Most Appropriate Way to Talk About Individuals with a Diagnosis of Autism? Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 50(2), 691-693.