Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-7fx5l Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-18T17:59:03.210Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The difference model of disability: A change in direction for vocational rehabilitation practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2020

Jonathon S. Breen Open the ORCID record for Jonathon S. Breen [Opens in a new window]  and
Susan Forwell
Jonathon S. Breen*
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
Susan Forwell
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
*
*Corresponding author. Email: jon@jonbreen.ca
Get access

Abstract

Vocational rehabilitation provides guidance and support to individuals with disabilities entering the workforce. Employment plans include considerations of goals, the job market, and pre-existing or trainable skills on the part of job seekers. This process also includes an understanding of the social forces that affect employment goals. Current models of disability include the medical, social, and embodiment models. Each is cognitively based and assumes an element of responsibility or blame, that is, respectively, focused on the individual with a disability, the community, or a combination of these two factors. The difference model of disability offers an alternative understanding of disability by providing an affect-based framework that eliminates the premise of blame. This conceptualization of disability provides a new approach to vocational rehabilitation.

Keywords

Disabilityemploymentrehabilitation practicetheorydifference model

Information

Type
Articles
Information
The Australian Journal of Rehabilitation Counselling , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , July 2020 , pp. 12 - 17
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press and The Australian Journal of Rehabilitation Counselling

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Becker, G. (1957). The economics of discrimination. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bonaccio, S., Connelly, C., Gellatly, I., Jetha, A., & Martin Ginis, K. (2019). The participation of people with disabilities in the workplace across the employment cycle: Employer concerns and research evidence. Journal of Business and Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-9602-5Google ScholarPubMed
Breen, J. (2018a). The co-worker acceptance of disabled employees (CADE) scale: a study to gather evidence of content validity (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2429/67749 10.1037/t75368-000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breen, J. (2018b). Attitudes toward employees with disabilities: A systematic review of self-report measures. Australian Journal of Rehabilitation Counselling, 24(2), 67–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breen, J. (2019). Developing the Co-Worker Acceptance of Disabled Employees (CADE) Scale. Australian Journal of Rehabilitation Counselling, 25(1), 1–14.10.1017/jrc.2019.6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damasio, A. (2010). Self comes to mind. New York, NY: Pantheon, Books.Google Scholar
Davis, L. (2000). Nude Venuses, Medusa's body, and phantom limbs: Disability and visuality. In Mitchell, D. & Snyder, S. (Eds.), The body and physical difference (pp. 51–70). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Furr, R., & Bacharach, V. (2014). Psychometrics: An introduction (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Gawronski, B., & Baudenhausen, G. (2006). Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: An integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change. Psychological Bulletin, 132(5), 692–731.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Lynn, M. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research, 35(6), 382–286.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oliver, M. (1990). The politics of disablement. London, UK: MacMillan.10.1007/978-1-349-20895-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, M. (2013). The social model of disability: Thirty years on. Disability and Society, 28(7), 1024–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary (2009). 2nd edition on CD-ROM (v. 4.0). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rioux, M., & Patton, L. (2014). Employment equity and disability: Moving forward to achieve employment integration and fulfil promises of inclusion and participation. In Agócs, C. (Ed.), Employment equity in Canada: The legacy of the Abella report (pp. 133–155). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.10.3138/9781442668515-009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, C. (2004). Rescuing a social relational understanding of disability. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 6(1), 22–36.10.1080/15017410409512637CrossRefGoogle Scholar