In this article, we conduct a discourse analysis of 60 articles to reveal themes that describe how games journalism reflects and constitutes understandings of disability and accessibility in gaming. First, we map prior research on media’s relationship to disability, as well as approaches to disability in game studies, including the introduction of two primary paradigms for addressing issues of accessibility in gaming. Second, the project reveals six thematic categories that describe how game journalism reflects and constitutes understandings of disability and accessibility in gaming: gamers with disabilities, portraying disability, game design, game controllers, discussing accessibility, and advocacy. Further comparison of the categories reveals four additional themes of discourses, namely, self-congratulations, fetishization, awareness as advocacy, and problem-solving. The article concludes with implications for the games industry, for theory, and for how the field of game studies can investigate disability.
AndersonS. L.JohnsonM. R. (2021). Gamer identities of video game live streamers with disabilities. Information, Communication & Society. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2021.1907433
2.
AntoniadesT. (2016). Psychosis and Hellblade: A journey grappling with reality. Medium, 25, 2016.
3.
BalanO.MoldoveanuA.MoldoveanuF. (2015). Navigational audio games: An effective approach toward improving spatial contextual learning for blind people. International Journal on Disability and Human Development, I(2), 109-118. doi:10.1515/ijdhd-2014-0018
BarnesC. (1992). Disabling imagery and the media: An exploration of the principles for media representations of disabled people. London: British Council of Organisations of Disabled People.
6.
BednarekM.CapleH. (2014). Why do news values matter? Towards a new methodological framework for analysing news discourse in critical discourse analysis and beyond. Discourse & Society, 25(2), 135-158. doi:10.1177/0957926513516041
7.
BierreK. J.ChetwyndJ.EllisB.HinnD. M.LudiS.WestinT. (2005). Game not over: Accessibility issues in video games. In International conference in human-computer interaction, HCII 2005, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 22-27 July 2005.
8.
BrownM.AndersonS. L. (2020). Designing for disability: Evaluating the state of accessibility design in video games. Games and Culture. doi:10.1177/1555412020971500
CarrD (2019). Methodology, representation, and games. Games and Culture, 14(7-8), 707-723. doi:10.1177/1555412017728641
11.
ChangY.-J.ChenS.-F.HuangJ.-D. (2011). A Kinect-based system for physical rehabilitation: A pilot study for young adults with motor disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32(6), 2566-2570. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2011.07.002
CoxK. (2012). Gaming accessibility project hopes to help more developers make games disabled gamers can play. Kotakur, 4, 2012.
14.
DavisL. J. (1995). Enforcing normalcy: Disability, deafness and the body. London: Verso.
15.
DavisL. J. (2010). Constructing normalcy. In DavisL. J. (Ed.), The disability studies reader (3rd ed., pp. 3-19). New York: Routledge.
16.
DavisL. J. (2014). The end of normal: Identity in a biocultural era. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
17.
DerbyJ. (2016). Virtual realities: The use of violent video games in U.S. military recruitment and treatment of mental disability caused by war. Disability Studies Quarterly, 36(1). http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/4704/4209
18.
EllcessorE.HagoodM.KirkpatrickB. (2017). Introduction: Toward a disability media studies. In EllcessorE.KirkpatrickB. (Eds.), Disability media studies (pp. 1-28). New York: NYU Press.
19.
EllcessorE.KirkpatrickB. (Eds.), (2017). Disability media studies. New York: NYU Press.
20.
FaircloughN. (1992). Discourse and social change. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
21.
Garland-ThompsonR. (1997). Extraordinary bodies: Figuring physical disability in American culture and literature. New York: Columbia University Press.
22.
Garland-ThompsonR. (2001). Seeing the disabled: Visual rhetorics of disability in popular photography. In LongmoreP. K.UmanskyL. (Eds.), The new disability history: American perspectives (pp. 355-374). New York: New York University Press.
23.
GlaserB.StraussA. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
GriliopoulosD. (2011). Special report: Accessibility in games. PCGamer, 30, 2011.
26.
GunnA. M. (2011). Discourses that silence and deflect attention away from the interests of low-wage workers experiencing job loss. Critical Discourse Studies, 8(1), 31-44. doi:10.1080/17405904.2011.533569
27.
KatoP. M. (2010). Video games in health care: Closing the gap. Review of General Psychology, 14(2), 113-121. doi:10.1037/a0019441
28.
LintonS. (1998). Claiming disability: Knowledge and identity. New York: New York University Press.
29.
MarinoM. T.BeecherC. C. (2010). Conceptualizing RTI in 21st-century secondary science classrooms: Video games’ potential to provide tiered support and progress monitoring for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33, 299-311. doi:10.1177/073194871003300407
30.
MarinoM. T.GotchC. M.IsraelM.VasquezE.IIIBashamJ. D.BechtK. (2014). UDL in the middle school science classroom: Can video games and alternative text heighten engagement and learning for students with learning disabilities?Learning Disability Quarterly, 37(2), 87-99. doi:10.1177/0731948713503963
31.
McRuerR. (2006). Compulsory able-bodiedness and queer/disabled existence. In DavisL. J. (Ed), The disability studies reader (3rd ed., pp. 88-99). New York: Routledge.
32.
NordenM. F. (1994). The cinema of isolation: A history of physical disability in the movies. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
33.
O’TooleC. J. (2013). Disclosing our relationships to disabilities: An invitation for disability studies scholars. Disability Studies Quarterly, 33(2). http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/3708/3226
SchroederJ. E. (2009). Fetishization. In DonsbachW. (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of communication (pp. 1803-1808). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781405186407.wbiecf026
39.
ShakespeareT. (2014). The social model of disability. In DavisL. J. (Ed.), The disability studies reader (3rd ed., pp. 214-221). New York: Routledge.
40.
ShumwayD. R. (2000). Fetishizing fetishism: Commodities, goods, and the meaning of consumer culture. Rethinking Marxism, 12(1), 1-15. doi:10.1080/08935690009358989
41.
SnyderS. L.BrueggemannB. J.Garland-ThompsonR. (2002). Introduction: Integrating disability into teaching and scholarship. In SnyderS. L.BrueggemannB. J.Garland-ThompsonR. (Eds.), Disability studies: Enabling the humanities (pp. 1-15). New York: The Modern Language Association of America.
42.
SnyderS. L.MitchellD. T. (2006). Cultural locations of disability. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
43.
StendalK. (2012). How do people with disability use and experience virtual worlds and ICT: A literature review. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, 5(1), 1-17. doi:10.4101/jvwr.v5i1.6173
44.
StraussA. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York: Cambridge University Press.
45.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
46.
WagmanJ.DeeK.TiptonA.WhismanA. (2017). Constructing sexuality and fetishizing women in American history: Debunking myths in popular culture from Pocahontas to the cold war. The Seneca Falls Dialogues Journal, 2, 117-139.
47.
WästerforsD. (2011). Stretching capabilities: Children with disabilities playing tv and computer games. Disability & Society, 26(3), 337-349. doi:10.1080/09687599.2011.560417
