This article investigates how normative attitudes about work construct barriers to workers who are blind and visually impaired. The researcher collected narratives about rhetorical experiences from blind and visually impaired participants in the United States and analyzed accounts of these workplace interactions to identify rhetorical commonplaces that drive arguments about work. These commonplaces reveal the ableist assumptions that construct access barriers and constrain rhetorical possibilities for disabled workers’ self-advocacy. The author proposes that business and professional communication students and practitioners should engage in collaborative approaches to flexible thinking and leadership necessary for reimagining work in ways that promote accessibility.
Aristotle. (2007).On rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse(2nd ed.,KennedyG. A.Trans.).Oxford, England:Oxford University Press. (Original work published 4th century B.C.E.)
3.
CampbellF. K.(2014).Ableism as transformative practice. InCockerC.Hafford-LetchfieldT.(Eds.),Rethinking anti-discriminatory and anti-oppressive theories for social work practice(pp.78-92).London, England:Palgrave Macmillan.
4.
Capella McDonnallM.O’MallyJ.CruddenA. (2014).Employer knowledge of and attitudes toward employees who are blind or visually impaired.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness,108,213-225.
5.
CharmazK.(2014).Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis(2nd ed.).London, England:Sage.
DeKayS. H.(2012).Interpersonal communication in the workplace: A largely unexplored region.Business Communication Quarterly,75,449-452.https://doi.org/10.1177/1080569912458966
9.
EngelD. M.MungerF. W.(2003).Rights of inclusion: Law and identity in the life stories of Americans with disabilities.Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press.
10.
FosterD.WassV.(2013).Disability in the labour market: An exploration of concepts of the ideal worker and organisational fit that disadvantage employees with impairments.Sociology,47,705-721.https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038512454245
11.
GoertzY. H. H.van LieropB. A. G.HoukesI.NijhuisF. J. N.(2010).Factors related to the employment of visually impaired persons: A systematic literature review.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness,104,404-418.
HynesG. E.(2012).Improving employees’ interpersonal communication competencies: A qualitative study.Business Communication Quarterly,75,466-475.https://doi.org/10.1177/1080569912458965
KitchinR.ShirlowP.ShuttleworthI.(1998).On the margins: Disabled people’s experience of employment in Donegal, West Ireland.Disability & Society,13,785-806.https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599826515
16.
LarkinA.(2013).Web accessibility statements: Connecting professional writing, corporate social responsibility, and Burkean rhetoric. InMelonconL.(Ed.),Rhetorical accessability: At the intersection of technical communication and disability studies(pp.175-202).Amityville, NY:Baywood.
17.
LynchK. A.(2013).Survey reveals myths and misconceptions abundant among hiring managers about the capabilities of people who are visually impaired.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness,107,408-410.
18.
MelonconL.(Ed.). (2013).Rhetorical accessability: At the intersection of technical communication and disability studies.Amityville, NY:Baywood.
19.
National Federation of the Blind. (2017).Statistical facts about blindness in the United States. Retrieved fromhttps://nfb.org/blindness-statistics
20.
O’BrienR.(2004).Voices from the edge: Narratives about the Americans with Disabilities Act.New York, NY:Oxford University Press.
21.
OswalS. K.HewettB. L.(2013).Accessibility challenges for visually impaired students and their online writing instructors. InMelonconL.(Ed),Rhetorical accessability: At the intersection of technical communication and disability studies(pp.135-156).Amityville, NY:Baywood.
22.
OswalS. K.MelonconL.(2014).Paying attention to accessibility when designing online courses in technical and professional communication.Journal of Business and Technical Communication,28,271-300.https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651914524780
23.
PalmeriJ.(2006).Disability studies, cultural analysis, and the critical practice of technical communication pedagogy.Technical Communication Quarterly,15,49-65.https://doi.org/10.1207/s15427625tcq1501_5
24.
PassE.(2013).Accessibility and the web design student. InMelonconL.(Ed.),Rhetorical accessability: At the intersection of technical communication and disability studies(pp.115-134).Amityville, NY:Baywood.
25.
PriceM.SalzerM. S.O’SheaA.KerschbaumS. L.(2017).Disclosure of mental disability by college and university faculty: The negotiation of accommodations, supports, and barriers.Disability Studies Quarterly,37(2). Retrieved fromhttp://dsq-sds.org/article/view/5487/4653
26.
RoblesM. M.(2012).Executive perceptions of the top 10 soft skills needed in today’s workplace.Business Communication Quarterly,75,453-465.https://doi.org/10.1177/1080569912460400
27.
SarrettJ.(2017).Interviews, disclosures, and misperceptions: Autistic adults’ perspectives on employment related challenges.Disability Studies Quarterly,37(2).https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v37i2.5524
28.
TitchkoskyT.(2011).The question of access: Disability, space, meaning.Toronto, Ontario, Canada:University of Toronto Press.
29.
WaltersS.(2010).Toward an accessible pedagogy: Dis/ability, multimodality, and universal design in the technical communication classroom.Technical Communication Quarterly,19,427-454.https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2010.502090
30.
WilsonJ. C.(2000).Making disability visible: How disability studies might transform the medical and science writing classroom.Technical Communication Quarterly,9,149-161.https://doi.org/10.1080/10572250009364691
31.
WittmerJ. L.-S.LinC.(2017).Valuing employees with disabilities: A chain effect of pro-disability climate on organizational commitment.Disability Studies Quarterly,37(3).https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v37i3.5555
