Key Concerns for Critical Disability Studies

The International Journal of Disability and Social Justice is a timely intervention into the interdisciplinary field of Disability Studies. Any new initiative, especially in a pre-existing and maturing field of inquiry, should encourage us all to think critically and reflexively about the key questions and issues that we should be grappling with today. This paper offers an inevitably partial take on some of the key concerns that we think scholars, activists and artists of Disability Studies should be engaging with. Everything we do these days takes place in the shadows cast by the global pandemic. While it is important to acknowledge the centrality of COVID-19 – and the threat this poses to the mind-bodies, politics and everyday realities of disabled people – we want to foreground some preoccupations, ideas and debates emerging from within the field of Disability Studies that will have resonance beyond the pandemic. We will begin the paper by offering a perspective on the contemporary nature and state of Disability Studies;suggesting that many of us are Critical Disability Studies thinkers now. Next, in order to narrow the focus of the discussion in this brief paper, we choose one emergent and popular theoretical orientation – posthuman Disability Studies. Then, we introduce and elaborate on four broad concerns that we think we should engage with;desire, alliances, non/humans and their implications for conceptualising social justice. Throughout the paper we will work through some of the power dynamics, questions of accountability and requirements for a generosity of engagement that these concerns provoke.

Community, work, and family in times of COVID-19

We are living in challenging and uncertain times. At the time this article was edited, there were already more than 2.4 million confirmed cases of the corona virus (COVID-19) (World Health Organization, 2020). Nearly every country across the globe is struggling to reduce the spread of the COVID-19 virus and limit its health, societal, and economic consequences. The full impact on community, work, family, and its intersections is not yet clear. As the Editorial Board of Community, Work & Family, we share a deep concern for the potential impact of this global health pandemic. We similarly stand in awe to all the communities, workers, and families doing their utmost to combat it. In this article, we do not attempt to provide definitive answers or even recommendations to address the problems we are witnessing. We do, however, feel the need to raise a collective voice about the significant potential for increased inequality. COVID-19 is not a great leveler. In all likelihood, COVID-19 will exacerbate existing inequalities, both in its immediate consequences resulting from the drastic measures taken to contain its spread, as well as its potential long-term consequences. These inequalities may take many forms. We highlight a number of them here as they relate to this journal's focus on community, work, and family. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)

Affect, dis/ability and the pandemic.

The pandemic has heightened anxieties, impacted mental health and threatened to create an overwhelming sense of existential dread. We recognise the material ways in which disabled people have been differentially impacted by Covid-19 and make a case for understanding the affective dimensions of the pandemic. We develop a theoretical approach - cutting across medical sociology and critical disability studies - that understands affect as a social, cultural, relational and psychopolitical phenomenon. We introduce a public engagement project that took place in March and April of 2020 that garnered blogspots from around the world to capture the pandemic's impact on the lives of disabled people. Our data analysis reveals three key affective themes: fragility, anxiety and affirmation. To understand the emotional impacts of Covid-19 upon the lives of disabled people we embed critical analyses of affect in the dual processes of disablism and ableism: the dis/ability complex. We conclude by considering how we might conceive of a post-pandemic recovery that places the health and well-being of disabled people at the centre of proceedings.

The COVID-19 pandemic: An opportunity to rethink and harmonise the frequency of follow-up visits for patients with early stage breast cancer.

PURPOSE: While routine, in-person follow-up of early-stage breast cancer patients (EBC) after completion of initial treatment is common, the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in unprecedented changes in clinical practice. A systematic review was performed to evaluate the evidence supporting different frequencies of routine follow-up. METHODS: MEDLINE and the Cochrane Collaboration Library were searched from database inception to July 16, 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies (PCS) evaluating different frequencies of routine follow-up. Citations were assessed by pairs of independent reviewers. Risk of Bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane RoB tool for RCTs and the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for Cohort Studies. Findings were summarized narratively. RESULTS: The literature search identified 3316 studies, of which 7 (6 RCTs and 1 PCS) were eligible. Study endpoints included; quality of life (QoL; 5 RCTs and 1 PCS), disease free survival (DFS) (1 RCT), overall survival (OS) (1 RCT) and cost-effectiveness (1 RCT). The results showed reduction in follow-up frequency had no adverse effect on: QoL (6 studies, n = 920), DFS (1 trial, n = 472) or OS (1 trial, n = 472), but improved cost-effectiveness (1 trial, n = 472). Four RCTs specifically examined follow-up on-demand versus scheduled follow-up visits and found no statistically significant differences in QoL (n = 544). CONCLUSION: While no evidence-based guidelines suggest that follow-up of EBC patients improves DFS or OS, routinely scheduled in-person assessment is common. RCT data suggests that reduced frequency of follow-up has no adverse effects.