Archive for March, 2013|Monthly archive page

Special Issue of the International Journal of Disability, Community & Rehabilitation (IJDCR) with the theme What Sorts of People Should There Be?

In General inquiry into, application and development of Ableism Ethics and Governance on March 30, 2013 at 7:22 pm

Special Issue of the International Journal of Disability, Community & Rehabilitation (IJDCR) with the theme What Sorts of People Should There Be?
Edited by Gregor Wolbring, Associate Professor Community, Rehabilitation and Disability Studies, Department of Community Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary, Canada is now available.



What Sorts of People Should There Be? From Descriptive to Normative Humanity, by Kirk Allison

Portrayals of and Arguments around different Eugenic Practices: Past and Present, by Natalie Ball and Gregor Wolbring

Ethically Communicating a Prenatal Down Syndrome Diagnosis: a Theoretical Model Describing its impact on Pregnancy Termination Decisions, by Zachary P. Hart

Screened Out of Existence: The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Selective Screening Policies, by Janet E. Lord

Prohibiting Preferences: Unjustifiable Discrimination against Deaf People Who Want a Deaf Child, by Albany Lucas

What Sorts of People Should be Included… and How? Introducing the BMX model of Inclusion, by Erica S. McFadden and Judith A. Snow

In the Best Interests of Whom? Wrongful Life and Birth Torts: A Regretful Return of State-Sanctioned Ableism, Ian McIntosh and Anne Sommers

Dumps For Humans: the Institutionalization and Citizenship of People with Intellectual and Psychiatric Disabilities in Guatemala, by Samantha L. Serrano


Call for Papers for a Special Issue of the Peace Studies Journal Theme: “Disability Studies and Ability Studies: Two Lenses to Investigate Peace

In General inquiry into, application and development of Ableism Ethics and Governance on March 30, 2013 at 7:14 pm

Call for Papers for a Special Issue of the Peace Studies Journal

Theme: “Disability Studies and Ability Studies: Two Lenses to Investigate Peace


Guest Editor:

Gregor Wolbring, Community Rehabilitation and Disability Studies,

Dept. of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary


The Peace Studies Journal is an international interdisciplinary free online peer-reviewed scholarly journal.


Disability Studies is an interdisciplinary/multidisciplinary academic discipline that investigates the situation disabled people face [1] involving activists, teachers, artists, practitioners, and researchers [1]. Ability studies is linked to disability studies in the sense that disability studies covers people who are impacted by body related (physical, mental…) ability expectations and that the term ableism (the cultural dynamic that one perceives certain abilities as essential) was coined by disabled people to highlight the negative situation disabled people experience because they are labeled as not having the required ability expectations. However ability studies goes beyond body related ability expectations. Ability Studies investigates in general how ability expectation (want stage) and ableism (need stage) hierarchies and preferences come to pass and the impact of such hierarchies and preferences [2-3]. Ability Studies investigates: (a) the social, cultural, legal, political, ethical and other considerations by which any given ability may be judged, which leads to favoring one ability over another; (b) the impact and consequence of favoring certain abilities and rejecting others; (c) the consequences of ableism in its different forms, and its relationship with and impact on other isms [2-3].Peace is an ever evolving concept whose relation to disabled people and to ability expectations is so far under-investigated. We accept any peace related topic as long as it engages with it through an ability studies lens or disability studies lens or both.


We invite potential contributors (scholars, activists, and community leaders to submit

articles of 3000-5000 words (excluding figures and tables) of original research and scholarship (empirical, theoretical and conceptual)that engage with the concept of peace through the disability studies lens, the ability studies lens or both.


Please submit full article to the Guest Editor via e-mail at:
gwolbrin[at]ucalgary.ca by 15 July, 2013


Every submitted article will be subject to anonymous peer review and recommendations arising.


As to possible areas linked to the theme the below is a sample list of possible topics”



Concept of Peace;

Peace between human and nonhuman animals;

Peace between humans and the environment;

Peace and eco-ability;

Peace and eco-ableism;

Peace and disabled people;

Peace and ability expectations;

Peace and active citizenship;

Peace and law

Peace and community;

Future of Peace

Peace and activism and social movements

Peace and science and technology;

Peace and human enhancement;

Peace and subjective well-being;

Peace and body image;

Peace and Disablism;

Peace and medical and social health policies

Peace and elderly people, youthism and ageism

The ethics of Peace;

Peace and resolution of ability expectation conflicts

Peace and transformative ability expectations;

Peace and social change discourses

Peace and ability privilege

Peace and resilience

Peace and adaptation

Peace and transformative justice

Peace and energy insecurity

Peace and climate change insecurity

Peace and water and sanitation insecurity

Peace and human insecurity

Peace within families

Transformative peace

Peace and sport



Reference List

1.                    Society for Disability Studies. Guidelines for disability studies programs Society for disability studies [Online], 2012. http://disstudies.org/guidelines-for-disability-studies-programs/.

2.                    Wolbring, G., Why NBIC?  Why Human Performance Enhancement? Innovation; The European Journal of Social Science Research 2008, 21 (1), 25-40.

3.                    Wolbring, G., Expanding Ableism: Taking down the Ghettoization of Impact of Disability Studies Scholars. Societies 2012, 2 (3), 75-83.