Summary

‘What are we doing, when we do disability studies?’ Tom Shakespeare begins his edited collection Disability Research Today: International Perspectives by asking this question. In answering it, he notes that the chapters are framed within his intellectual biases and ‘preferences for what disability studies should be’ (p. 2). The book is organised into four parts: (i) illness and impairment; (ii) disabling processes; (iii) care and control, and; (iv) communication and representation. Disability, for Shakespeare, is a ‘complex, diverse and above all multi-factorial phenomenon’ that should mainly draw on ‘empirical research, rather than theory alone’ (p. 3). In keeping with his insistence on an empirical focus, most of the chapters do not explicitly espouse a bio-psycho-social model or focus on disability, as interpreted in terms of the World Health Organization's (WHO) international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF) – except for Corbisiero's chapter. Most focus on disability as ‘social-relational’. Disability studies are inclusive enough to accommodate diversity but some activists and scholars in critical disability studies or using a social model approach find Shakespeare's seemingly blind espousal of the ICF and WHO problematic, and will be reading this book wondering if his work is still relevant to critical disability studies and sociology (although I think that this book illustrates he is trying to say something more nuanced). There are chapters where, empirically and theoretically, Shakespeare is on the mark in identifying important areas of research, for example, in terms of intersectionality to homelessness, aging or violence against disabled women in India. The qualitative and quantitative depth and quality of the research is to be commended and gives a nice overview of interesting scholarship. Shakespeare also fittingly recognises where some of the future research challenges of disability studies are located, in terms of technological advances and the importance of big data. When thinking of research evidence and links to policy and practice, the gold standard is the randomised controlled trial (RCT). RCTs are not discussed in this book but would fit well with Shakespeare's research interests in rehabilitation (where the ICF has been very influential) and might open a critical approach to rethinking its hegemony. I was particularly interested in Ishihara's chapter ‘Learning from Tojisha Kenkyu’ (p. 27), where psychiatric patients take the lead in developing treatment regimes. The chapter also is connected to the innovative ideas currently being developed in mad studies and neurodiverse debates (such as in McWade et al. 2015). In terms of the intersections between disability studies and the sociology of health and illness, Ferrie and Watson's chapter on ‘The psycho-social impact of impairments: the case of motor neuron disease’ (p. 43) will be of interest in that they develop a social relational model of disability. Although Shakespeare does not want to focus on the social model, this chapter is indebted to the theoretical work of Carol Thomas by building on her idea of psycho-emotional disablism, illustrating that theory is still fundamental but reified. This points to some of the dangers of thinking that you can create silos in certain disability models or theories in a discipline. In many of the chapters there is a sense that innovation, in terms of theoretical development, will happen only through interdisciplinary work. As such, the book feels a little out of touch with some of the current debates in sociology, anthropology and disability studies. In particular, it seems out of touch with the political urgency of disability activism, the questioning of neoliberalism, the impact of austerity, conflicts, rethinking our sociological futures and how particular paradigms of disability become linked into the politics of ‘who counts’ (Ginsburg and Rapp 2015). Most of these studies are also located in middle to high income countries. This edited collection neglects research and debates on decolonising disability in the global south and on rethinking ontological and epistemological foundations. Part of that movement of decolonisation is a questioning of the boundaries of inclusion set by disability elites or institutions based in the global north. The theoretical richness and crucial empirical work being done in Australia, Canada and the USA is also missing, for example, how sites of intervention and incarceration become interlinked to disability. I would not call this book truly international or representative of the variety of approaches in disability studies. However, it is a nice reference book in showcasing empirical disability research and how the field is growing methodologically in new and exciting directions. It should appeal to students, academics and practitioners in a range of fields such as sociology and social policy.