File(s) under permanent embargo
The use and abuse of 'community' and 'neighbourhood' within disability research: an exposé, clarification, and recommendation
Almost invariably in the disability literature, the terms 'neighbourhood' and 'community' are used as though they have some commonly understood meaning. They do not, and authors rarely offer a definition. This problem adds opacity to the literature describing people's living environment and the nature of their interaction with others living in the same area. This ambiguity becomes crucial to understanding when these terms are linked to other vague, but emotionally-charged words, such as 'inclusion' or 'integration'. This review presents some of the ways 'neighbourhood' and 'community' may be correctly employed. It also explores the theoretical basis for understanding how and why their use may be misleading. Finally, it is demonstrated that the assumed relevance of neighbourhood participation for life quality has been greatly exaggerated. We recommend that authors carefully define their use of these terms in order to facilitate understanding free from emotional bias.
History
Journal
International journal of developmental disabilitiesVolume
61Issue
2Pagination
68 - 75Publisher
Taylor & FrancisLocation
London, Eng.Publisher DOI
ISSN
2047-3869eISSN
2047-3877Language
engPublication classification
C Journal article; C1 Refereed article in a scholarly journalCopyright notice
2015, British Society for Developmental DisabilitiesUsage metrics
Categories
No categories selectedKeywords
Social SciencesScience & TechnologyLife Sciences & BiomedicineEducation, SpecialRehabilitationEducation & Educational Researchcommunityneighbourhoodquality of lifeshare-homessubjective well-beingQUALITY-OF-LIFESOCIAL INCLUSIONINTELLECTUAL DISABILITIESMENTAL-RETARDATIONPEOPLEINTEGRATIONURBANSATISFACTIONDEINSTITUTIONALIZATIONNETWORKS
Licence
Exports
RefWorks
BibTeX
Ref. manager
Endnote
DataCite
NLM
DC