The Intersection of Pseudoscience, Ethnocentrism, and Ableism in Australian Disability Policy

The convergence of pseudoscience, ethnocentrism, and ableism gives rise to an intricate and detrimental network that has a substantial influence on Australian disability policy, frequently resulting in superficial and patronising approaches. Here is an analysis or a detailed explanation. The convergence of pseudoscience, ethnocentrism, and ableism gives rise to an intricate and detrimental network that has a substantial influence on Australian disability policy, frequently resulting in superficial and patronising approaches. Here is an analysis or a detailed explanation.:

1. The Intertwined Ideologies:

Ableism: Ableism is fundamentally rooted in the notion that individuals with disabilities possess an innate inferiority or diminished capability compared to those without disabilities. This bias results in the manifestation of discrimination and prejudice towards individuals with disabilities (McDermott, 2022).

Ethnocentrism: This ideology revolves around the conviction that one’s own culture or ethnicity is better than others. Within the realm of disability, ethnocentrism can be observed as a lack of acknowledgement and appreciation for the varied experiences and requirements of disabled individuals from different cultural origins (Anastasiou et al., 2014) (Janz, 2019).

The term pseudoscience encompasses the application of ideas or practices that are purported to have a scientific basis yet lack empirical evidence. When pseudoscience infiltrates disability policy, it can lead to the implementation of policies that are not only inefficient but also pose potential risks, as they are based on unsupported assertions.In the study conducted by Dirth and Adams in 2019, The references cited are Fougeyrollas et al. (2019) and Pal (2018).The reference “Soltani et al., 2017” is provided..

2. How These Ideologies Intersect in Disability Policy:

Justifying Exclusion and Limited Support: Prejudiced attitudes based on ableism, typically driven by ethnocentric perspectives and pseudoscientific notions, can result in the implementation of policies that restrict the rights, opportunities, and assistance provided to individuals with disabilities. As an illustration:

Funding Allocation: The allocation of resources may exhibit bias towards solutions preferred by dominant cultural groups or influenced by anecdotal evidence, rather than being grounded in solid research. Consequently, disabled individuals from minority backgrounds or those with less “visible” disabilities may face disadvantages in accessing these resources. (Equity and inclusion in research financing, 2021)(Dirth & Adams, 2019)The reference is from Ling et al. (2017)..

Service Accessibility: Some services may fail to take into account cultural sensitivity or accessibility for all individuals, thereby causing obstacles for disabled individuals from varied language or cultural backgrounds (CIHR dictionary of terminology used in accessibility and systemic ableism, 2023).The citation is from Olasagasti-Ibargoien et al. (2023).

Perpetuating Stereotypes and Low Expectations: Ethnocentric and ableist attitudes may influence the development of policies that perpetuate derogatory perceptions regarding disabled individuals, particularly those belonging to marginalised communities. Consequently, this can result in:

Limited Employment Opportunities: Discrimination in recruiting and promotion can occur when specific ethnic backgrounds and disabled individuals are subjected to assumptions about their abilities. Studies conducted by Bonaccio et al. (2019) and Gewurtz et al. (2016) have highlighted this.

Australia's history of colonisation and the continued marginalisation of Indigenous communities exacerbate these issues by disregarding Indigenous viewpoints (Main Features - Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People with disability information sheet, 2017). The source cited is "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with disability, 2017."

Cultural Disconnect: Disability services frequently exhibit a deficiency in comprehending and appreciating Indigenous cultural perspectives and practices, resulting in a lack of trust and hesitancy to participate (Ferdinand et al., 2021) (Trounson et al., 2020).

Stolen Generations Legacy: The historical practice of forcibly separating Indigenous children, frequently motivated by ableist and racist beliefs, persists in causing intergenerational trauma and fostering a lack of confidence in societal institutions (Turnbull‐Roberts et al., 2021).

3. Tokenism and Condescension:

Disabled individuals are often superficially included in policy discussions, yet their voices are marginalised and their expertise undervalued.

Condescending Attitudes: Policies may be framed from a paternalistic perspective, assuming that disabled people need to be “protected” or “fixed” rather than empowered to make their own choices(Ymous et al., 2020)(Morris, 1997)(French, 1994)(The Techno-Inclusive Model of Disability, 2022).

4. Addressing the Intersection:

Centreing Lived Experience: Disability policy must be developed in genuine partnership with disabled people from all backgrounds, ensuring their voices are heard and their expertise is valued(How to Embed a Disability Economic Justice Policy Framework in Domestic Policy Making, 2023)(National Disability Strategy, 2021)(Meaningful Participation of Persons with Disabilities in the Decision-Making Processes, 2023).

Culturally Safe and Appropriate Services: Services need to be culturally sensitive, accessible, and responsive to the diverse needs of disabled people, including those from Indigenous and culturally and linguistically diverse communities(Puszka et al., 2022)(Serious Problems Experienced by Diverse People with Disabilities, 2021)(Engaging CALD communities in the NDIS, n.d).

Challenging Pseudoscience: Policy decisions should be grounded in evidence-based research and best practices, rejecting harmful pseudoscientific claims(CIHR glossary of terms used in accessibility and systemic ableism, 2023)(Antony et al., 2022)(Luke et al., 2022).

Investing in Inclusive Education: Promoting disability awareness and challenging ableist and ethnocentric attitudes from a young age is crucial for creating a more inclusive society(Inclusion and education, 2020)(Recommendations, 2020).

By acknowledging and addressing the harmful intersection of pseudoscience, ethnocentrism, and ableism, Australia can move towards a more just and equitable disability policy landscape that genuinely supports the rights and well-being of all disabled people(Zaks, 2023)(Athanasou, 2021)(Trounson et al., 2020)(Steel, 2019).

Some light reading

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with disability. (2017, April 20). https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Previousproducts/4430.0Main%20Features802015?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=4430.0&issue=2015&num=&view=

Anastasiou, D., Kauffman, J M., & Michail, D. (2014, December 2). Disability in Multicultural Theory. SAGE Publishing, 27(1), 3-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207314558595

Antony, C., Campbell, M., C?té, S., Bruno, G., Tinglin, C., & Lai, J. (2022, September 15). Informing care pathways and policies for children and youth with Indigenous perspectives to advance Canada’s National Autism Strategy. Frontiers Media, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.916256

Athanasou, J A. (2021, May 6). A landscape of disadvantage: The impact of disability on earning and learning in Australia. Cambridge University Press, 27(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1017/jrc.2021.4

Bonaccio, S., Connelly, C E., Gellatly, I R., Jetha, A., & Ginis, K A M. (2019, January 22). The Participation of People with Disabilities in the Workplace Across the Employment Cycle: Employer Concerns and Research Evidence. Springer Science+Business Media, 35(2), 135-158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-9602-5

CIHR glossary of terms used in accessibility and systemic ableism. (2023, May 5). https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/53446.html

Dirth, T P., & Adams, G. (2019, April 5). Decolonial theory and disability studies: On the modernity/coloniality of ability. PsychOpen, 7(1), 260-289. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v7i1.762

Engaging CALD communities in the NDIS. (n.d). https://anglicaresa.com.au/wp-content/uploads/NDIS-CALD-Report-FINAL-2017.pdf

Equity and inclusivity in research funding. (2021, January 1). https://researchsupport.admin.ox.ac.uk/equity-and-inclusivity-in-research-funding

Ferdinand, A., Massey, L., Cullen, J., Temple, J., Meiselbach, K., Paradies, Y., Baynam, G., Savarirayan, R., & Kelaher, M. (2021, March 1). Culturally competent communication in Indigenous disability assessment: a qualitative study. BioMed Central, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-021-01402-9

Fougeyrollas, P., Boucher, N., Edwards, G., Grenier, Y., & Noreau, L. (2019, January 1). The Disability Creation Process Model: A Comprehensive Explanation of Disabling Situations as a Guide to Developing Policy and Service Programs. Stockholm University Press, 21(1), 25-37. https://doi.org/10.16993/sjdr.62

French, S. (1994, October 1). Attitudes of Health Professionals towards Disabled People A Discussion and Review of the Literature. Elsevier BV, 80(10), 687-693. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0031-9406(10)60932-7

Gewurtz, R., Langan, S., & Shand, D. (2016, May 31). Hiring people with disabilities: A scoping review. IOS Press, 54(1), 135-148. https://doi.org/10.3233/wor-162265

How to Embed a Disability Economic Justice Policy Framework in Domestic Policy Making. (2023, January 12). https://tcf.org/content/commentary/how-to-embed-a-disability-economic-justice-policy-framework-in-domestic-policy-making/

Inclusion and education. (2020, May 18). https://gem-report-2020.unesco.org/thematic/

Janz, H L. (2019, April 28). Ableism: the undiagnosed malady afflicting medicine. Canadian Medical Association, 191(17), E478-E479. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.180903

Ling, N., Streim, J E., Pezzin, L E., Kurichi, J E., Xie, D., Bogner, H R., Kwong, P L., Asch, S M., & Hennessy, S. (2017, March 29). Disparities in receipt of recommended care among younger versus older medicare beneficiaries: a cohort study. BioMed Central, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2168-5

Luke, J., Verbunt, E., Zhang, A., Bamblett, M., Johnson, G., Salamone, C., Thomas, D., Eades, S., Gubhaju, L., Kelaher, M., & Jones, A M. (2022, June 1). Questioning the ethics of evidence-based practice for Indigenous health and social settings in Australia. BMJ, 7(6), e009167-e009167. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2022-009167

Main Features - Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with disability information sheet. (2017, April 20). https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Previousproducts/4430.0Main%20Features852015?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=4430.0&issue=2015&num=&view=

McDermott, L G E. (2022, September 22). Introducing political disability identity as a framework for studying disability in physics. https://doi.org/10.1119/perc.2022.pr.mcdermott

Meaningful Participation of Persons with Disabilities in the Decision-Making Processes. (2023, July 1). https://www.undp.org/georgia/publications/pwds-participation-in-decision-making

Morris, J. (1997, March 1). Care of Empowerment? A Disability Rights Perspective. Wiley, 31(1), 54-60. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9515.00037

National Disability Strategy. (2021, July 27). https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-disability-strategy/forewords-about-this-strategy-action-across-the-uk-executive-summary-acknowledgements

Olasagasti-Ibargoien, J., Casta?eda-Babarro, A., León-Guere?o, P., & Uria-Olaizola, N. (2023, June 16). Barriers to Physical Activity for Women with Physical Disabilities: A Systematic Review. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, 8(2), 82-82. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfmk8020082

Pal, G C. (2018, December 1). Disability, Social Policy and Inclusiveness: The Missing Links. SAGE Publishing, 4(2), 301-324. https://doi.org/10.1177/2394481118817960

Puszka, S., Walsh, C., Markham, F., Barney, J., Yap, M., & Dreise, T. (2022, September 23). Community‐based social care models for indigenous people with disability: A scoping review of scholarly and policy literature. Wiley-Blackwell, 30(6). https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.14040

Recommendations. (2020, May 20). https://gem-report-2020.unesco.org/recommendations/

Serious Problems Experienced by Diverse People with Disabilities. (2021, December 2). https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/jr/pwdwc-phcw/index.html

Soltani, S., Takian, A., Sari, A A., Majdzadeh, R., & Kamali, M. (2017, December 30). Cultural barriers in access to healthcare services for people with disability in Iran: A qualitative study. Iran University of Medical Sciences, 31(1), 293-299. https://doi.org/10.14196/mjiri.31.51

Steel, E. (2019, May 22). The Duplicity of Choice and Empowerment: Disability Rights Diluted in Australia’s Policies on Assistive Technology. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, 9(2), 39-39. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc9020039

The Techno-Inclusive Model of Disability. (2022, August 3). https://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/handle/10012/18481

Trounson, J S., Gibbs, J., Kostrz, K., McDonald, R., & Peters, A. (2020, December 21). A systematic literature review of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander engagement with disability services. Taylor & Francis, 37(6), 891-915. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2020.1862640

Turnbull‐Roberts, V., Salter, M., & Newton, B J. (2021, July 26). Trauma then and now: Implications of adoption reform for First Nations children. Wiley, 27(2), 163-172. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12865

Ymous, A., Spiel, K., Keyes, O., Williams, A., Good, J., Hornecker, E., & Bennett, C L. (2020, April 25). “I am just terrified of my future” ? Epistemic Violence in Disability Related Technology Research. https://doi.org/10.1145/3334480.3381828

Zaks, Z. (2023, September 15). Changing the medical model of disability to the normalisation model of disability: clarifying the past to create a new future direction. Taylor & Francis, 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2023.2255926