University of Humanistic Studies OAI Repository
Not a member yet
11294 research outputs found
Sort by
Politiek, geef ouderenzorg rust en ruimte
No full textIn de verkiezingscampagne was nauwelijks aandacht voor de ouderenzorg, terwijl de problemen in die sector snel toenemen. Door de vergrijzing zullen steeds meer mensen ondersteuning en zorg nodig hebben, terwijl de systemen en organisatievormen nu al vastlopen; er is een groot personeelstekort, de budgetten zijn ontoereikend en er zijn onvoldoende geschikte woningen voor kwetsbare ouderen
Shifting terminology and confusing representations:An examination of intellectual disability terminology in Dutch newspapers from 1950 to 2020
No full textIn order to gain a better understanding of the debates surrounding language preferences, the shifts in intellectual disability terminology in Dutch newspapers were analysed. Using quantitative and qualitative content analysis, this study examined newspaper articles between 1950 and 2020. The results indicated shifts in intellectual disability terminology in newspapers in the direction of organisations of people with disabilities, scholars’, and the government’s preferred terminology. The use of outmoded terms such as “feebleminded” and “mongol” decreased. However, newspapers continued to use outdated and pejorative terminology and traditional narratives. Intellectual disability terminology, particularly the terms “idiot” and “backward,” is frequently employed in non-disability-related contexts to emphasise negative viewpoints. Consequently, newspaper readers are confronted with a confusing array of terms associated with disparate representations of people with intellectual disabilities, ranging from antiquated and negative to positive and inclusive
Who is disabled? On whether the functional definition of disability targets the same individuals as the subjective definition
No full textWith the increased attention to disability as a vulnerability criterion in the Sustainable Development Goals, international organizations and NGOs within the international development sector have started to pay explicit attention to persons with disabilities, including the collection of data on persons with disabilities. The Washington Group Short Set of Questions, which focuses on functional limitations, has been gaining popularity as an assessment tool for disability. This set of questions reflects a categorization of disability that does not necessarily correspond with subjective disability assessments, such as the yes/no question (“do you have a disability?”) which many development actors have used in their assessment tools when they collect disability data This study compares the subjective and the functional limitations assessment tools for disability to answer the question: do they identify the same individuals as persons with disabilities? Based on a survey carried out amongst persons with disabilities in Cambodia, we included both the Washington Group Short Set and a subjective question asking respondents to self-identify their disability type. We find that, although all respondents self-identified as disabled, not all respondents would be considered disabled according to the Washington Group Short Set of questions. In addition, there is little overlap between specific disability types according to a subjective classification method and the domains of functioning measured through the Washington Group methodology. Our findings affirm that categorization as abled or disabled depends on the tool used. This is important, as the assessment approach chosen by those collecting disability data can shape the design choices of policies and programs, and determine who benefits
Shifting Imaginaries: Democratic Pluralism, Religion, and the Internal Minorities Question
No full textConnecting Better and Wider:A Constructivist Grounded Theory and Situational Analysis Exploration of Community Resilience in the Anthropocene Among the Transition Network
No full textHow Tort Can Address Historical Injustice. Exploring the Momentum for the Slavery Justice Movement in Dutch Civil Courts
No full textRecent years have seen an increase in civil litigation of cases of systemic and historical injustice in the Netherlands. Cases regarding war crimes, genocide and other human rights violations in the past and present have reached the Dutch civil courts through tort law. Meanwhile, scholarly disciplines have difficulty understanding the match between tort law and historical injustice cases, distracted by tort’s technicalities and alleged formality. This article provides an interdisciplinary analysis aiming to theoretically clarify the urgency and aspiration put on tort by the slavery justice movement: what potential does tort hold for addressing historical injustice, such as slavery? The article identifies ‘talking points’ between two compatible theories from the sociological and legal disciplines, transformative justice and civil recourse theory, illustrated with cases of systemic and historical injustice. It argues that despite difficulties, tort litigation can be a viable platform to address historical injustices such as colonial slavery. This impact is not dependent on a successful legal outcome: the process can foster agency through process, and participation through inclusion, as core characteristics of remedying historical injustice
