In this article, we heed lessons from Laurel Richardson’s After a Fall: A Sociomedical Sojourn to investigate how nondisabled high school–aged girls are affected by their volunteer experiences in Believe Ballet, a nonprofit organization that provides primary- and secondary-school-aged girls with physical disabilities with the opportunity to dance and perform ballet. Drawing on a qualitative content analysis of three academic years of volunteers’ pre- and post-participation questionnaires, this article focuses specifically on changes in volunteers’ self-reported perceptions of disability and ability. This article also points to directions for future research in the fields of disability, feminist disability, and ableism studies.
AlbrightA. (1998). Strategic abilities: Negotiating the disabled body in dance. Michigan Quarterly Review, 37, 475-501.
2.
AschA. (2004). Critical race theory, feminism, and disability: Reflections on social justice and personal identity. In SmithB. G.HutchisonB. (Eds.), Gendering disability (pp. 9-44). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
3.
BartonL. (1998). Sociology, disability studies and education: Some observations. In ShakespeareT. (Ed.), The disability studies reader: Social science perspectives (pp. 53-64). London, England: Cassell.
4.
BergB. L. (2001). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. New York, NY: Allyn & Bacon.
5.
BordoS. (1993). Unbearable weight: Feminism, western culture, and the body. Berkeley: University of California Press.
6.
BrumbergJ. J. (1997). The body project: An intimate history of American girls. New York, NY: Random House.
7.
CampbellF. K. (1999). “Refleshingly disabled”: Interrogations into the corporeality of “disabled” bodies. The Australian Feminist Law Journal, 12, 57-80.
8.
CampbellF. K. (2001). Inciting legal fictions: “Disability’s” date with ontology and the ableist body of the law. Griffith Law Review, 10, 42-62.
9.
CampbellF. K. (2008). Exploring internal ableism using critical race theory. Disability & Society, 23, 151-162.
10.
CampbellF. K. (2009). Contours of ableism: The production of disability and abledness. London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
11.
ChouinardV. (1997). Making space for disabling differences: Challenging ableist geographies. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 15, 379-390.
DavisK. (1995). Reshaping the female body: The dilemma of cosmetic surgery. New York, NY: Routledge.
14.
DePauwK. P.GavronS. P. (1995). Disability and sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
15.
DonaldsonJ. (1980). Changing attitudes toward handicapped persons: A review and analysis of research. Exceptional Children, 46, 504-514.
16.
FineM.AschA. (1988). Disability beyond stigma: Social interaction, discrimination, and activism. Journal of Social Issues, 44(1), 3-21.
17.
FroschlM.RoussoH.RubinE. (2001). Nothing to do after school: More of an issue for girls. In RoussoH.WehmeyerM. C. (Eds.), Double Jeopardy: Addressing gender equity in special education (pp. 313-336). Albany: State University of New York Press.
18.
GallerR. (2006). The myth of the perfect body. In TaylorV.WhittierN.RuppL. J. (Eds.), Feminist frontiers (7th ed., pp. 165-172). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
19.
Garland-ThomsonR. (1997). Extraordinary bodies: Figuring physical disability in American culture and literature. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
20.
Garland-ThomsonR. (2001). Re-shaping, re-thinking, re-defining: Feminist disability studies. Washington, DC: Center for Women Policy Studies.
21.
Garland-ThomsonR. (2004). Integrating disability, transforming feminist theory. In SmithB. G.HutchisonB. (Eds.), Gendering disability (pp. 73-103). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
22.
GerschickT. J. (2000). Toward a theory of disability and gender. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 25, 1263-1268.
23.
GimlinD. (2002). Body work: Beauty and self-image in American culture. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
24.
GobleC. (2004). Dependence, independence and normality. In SwainJ.FinkelsteinV.FrenchS.OliverM. (Eds.), Disabling barriers—Enabling environments (2nd ed., pp. 41-46). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
25.
HahnH. (1988). Can disability de beautiful?Social Policy, 18(3), 26-32.
HillyerB. (1993). Feminism and disability. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
28.
HughesB. (2004). Disability and the body. In SwainJ.FinkelsteinV.FrenchS.OliverM. (Eds.), Disabling barriers—Enabling environments (2nd ed., pp. 63-68). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
29.
InaharaM. (2009). The body which is not one: The body, femininity and disability. Body & Society, 15(1), 47-62.
30.
KimmelM. (2004). The gendered society (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
31.
KingS. M.RosenbaumP. L.ArmstrongR. W.MilnerR. (2008). An epidemiological study of children’s attitudes toward disability. Developmental medicine & child neurology, 31, 237-245.
32.
MandersonL.PeakeS. (2005). Men in motion: Disability and the performance of masculinity. In SandahlC.AuslanderP. (Eds.), Bodies in commotion: Disability & performance (pp. 230-241). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
33.
McConkeyR.DowlingS.HassanD.MenkeS. (2012). Promoting social inclusion through unified sports for youth with intellectual disabilities: A five-nation study. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 57, 923-935.
34.
McReuerR. (2002). Compulsory able-bodiedness and queer/disabled existence. In Garland-ThomsonR.BrueggemannB. J.SnyderS. L. (Eds.), Disability studies: Enabling the humanities (pp. 88-99). New York, NY: The Modern Language Association of America.
35.
PriceJ.ShildrickM. (2002). Bodies together: Touch, ethics, and disability. In CorkerT. M.ShakespeareT. (Eds.), Disability/postmodernity: Embodying disability theory (pp. 62-75). New York, NY: Continuum.
36.
PunchK. F. (2005). Introduction to qualitative research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
37.
QuinlanM. M.BatesB. R. (2008). Dancers and discourses of (dis)ability: Heather Mill’s embodiment of disability on Dancing with the Stars. Text and Performance Quarterly, 1(2), 64-80.
38.
RichardsonL. (2007). Writing: A method of inquiry. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 923-948). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
39.
RichardsonL. (2013). After a fall: A sociomedical sojourn. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
40.
RichardsonL.FonowM. M.CookJ. A. (1985). From gender seminar to gender community. Teaching Sociology, 12, 313-324.
41.
RosenbaumP. L.ArmstrongR. W.KingS. M. (1986). Children’s attitudes toward disabled peers: A self-report measure. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 11, 517-530.
42.
RosenbaumP. L.ArmstrongR. W.KingS. M. (1988). Determinants of children’s attitudes toward disability: A review of evidence. Children’s Health Care, 17, 32-39.
43.
RoussoH. (1996). Sexuality and a positive sense of self. In KrotoskiD.NosekM.TurkM. (Eds.), Women with physical disabilities: Achieving and maintaining health and well-being (pp. 109-115). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
44.
RoussoH. (2001). Strong proud sisters: Girls and young women with disabilities. Washington, DC: Center for Women Policy Studies.
45.
SandahlC.AuslanderP. (2005). Introduction: Disability studies in commotion with performance studies. In SandahlC.AuslanderP. (Eds.), Bodies in commotion: Disability and performance (pp. 1-12). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
46.
SherlockJ. (1996). Dance and the culture of the body: Where is the grotesque?Women’s Studies International Forum, 19, 525-533.
47.
SilversA. (2002). The crooked timber of humanity: Disability, ideology and the aesthetic. In CorkerM.ShakespeareT. (Eds.), Disability/postmodernity: Embodying disability theory (pp. 228-244). London, England: Continuum.
SnyderS. L.MitchellD. T. (2001). Re-engaging the body: Disability studies and the resistance to embodiment. Public Culture, 13, 367-389.
50.
StaubD. (2005). Inclusion and other kids: Here’s what research shows so far about inclusion’s effect on nondisabled students. Tempe, AZ: National Institute for Urban School Reform.
51.
ThorneB. (1999). Gender play: Girls and boys in school. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
52.
WendellS. (2006). Toward a feminist theory of disability. In DavisL. J. (Ed.), The disability studies reader (2nd ed., pp. 243-256). New York, NY: Routledge.
53.
WolbringG. (2008). The politics of ableism. Development, 51, 252-258.
