Dr. Sharon Barnartt Department of Sociology

1. Protests in the Deaf and Disability Communities 1970 - 2003: Past Research and Future Directions Dr. Sharon Barnartt Department of Sociology

2. Some material taken from Disability Protests: Contentious Politics 1970 - 1999 (Gallaudet Univ Press, 2001) But new analyses are also presented

3. Methodology • content analysis OR • event history analysis

4. The Data • Were located using both hand searching and computerized data bases [mostly Lexis Nexus] • Were collected from newspaper & other media reports, organization web sites, and personal accounts • Only included protests that had already happened • N = 880 protests in the US and 326 outside the US Non-newspaper data were verified from other sources

5. Operational Definitions • This was the hard part • They were based upon previous sociological research in collective behavior when possible--but it was not always possible

6. “Protest” • Conducted by 2 or more people • Demands social, not individual, change • Is not related to self-help or money-raising • Uses non-normative tactics • acceptable (~ = protest) • lobbying • petitioning • unacceptable ( = protest) • strike • blocking buses

7. “One Protest” • Same core group • Same issue • Can have sequential tactics • Cannot have simultaneous protests at two locations [or that becomes two protests]

8. “Protests Related to Deafness or Disability” • Protest issues are relevant to PWD’s and/or deaf people OR • Protests are carried out by PWD’S and/or deaf people • Protests related to AIDS, breast cancer, obesity or other medical problems were included if related to disability [For ex: were protesting SS benefit criteria]

9. Results: Part 1 Patterns of US Protests

12. Impairment-related Demands (N = 934)

13. Protest Demands (N = 1206)

14. Categories of Protest Demands

15. Protest targets

16. Results: Part 2 Deafness-related Protests in the US

17. Protests by Year (N = 95)

18. Protest Demands

19. ProtestTargets

20. Results: Part 3 Comparing US to non US Protests

21. ~US Protests by Year (N = 326)

22. Non US Protest Locations

23. Demand Type by Location

24. Demand Categories by Location Differences are statistically significant

25. Targets by US or Not Differences are statistically significant

26. Governmental Targets by US or Not Differences are statistically significant

27. Demand Type by Development Level

28. For example: Protests in India & Pakistan

29. Targets by Development Level Differences are statistically significant

30. Demand Categories by Development Level Differences are statistically significant

31. Part 4The Diffusion of DPN How did it affect protests inside or outside of the US?

32. US Protests by Time Period Differences are statistically significant

33. US Deafness Protests by Time Period and Location

34. ~US, Post DPN Deafness Protest Locations Only 5 occurred before DPN

35. Conclusions: US Protests • were most likely to be cross-disability or to focus on issues related to mobility impairments • were most likely to demand changes in services --it is not correct to call it a Disability Rights movement There are lots of other juicy facts in the book

36. Conclusions: Deafness-related Protests in the US • Protests did not begin with DPN • Most likely to target either state governments or educational institutions • More likely to occur after DPN than were non-deafness related protests

37. US protests more likely to have demands related to mobility impairments have demands related to rights to target state or local gov’ts ~US protests more likely to relate to blindness or deafness target the federal or national gov’t have demands related to services Conclusions: US vs ~US Protests

38. Protests in developed countries more likely to relate to mobility impairments have demands related to rights target local or ‘state’ gov’ts Protests in developing countries more likely to relate to blindness or be cross-disability have demands which do not fit into the rights or services categories target the national government use unusual tactics [data not shown] Conclusions: Developed vs Developing Country Protests

39. Conclusions:The Effects of DPN • To mobilize the US deaf community to a protest level somewhat higher than that of the larger disability community • To mobilize deaf communities outside of the US--although larger proportions of protests unrelated to deafness occurred after DPN in other countries than in the US

40. Possible Directions for Future Research? • Overlaps with protests from other social movements, such as the “Right to Life,” breast cancer, and AIDS movements • Intensive examination of protests cross-culturally • ???