Unfolding (of) theories, not programmes (programs?)
Keywords:EOC, linguistics, Disability Studies, Gerund, Nominal
I question, provocatively, whether disability studies (DS) as a discipline deserves to be called studies. When a field zeroes in on any claim about ‘realities’, I think, it actually treads on shaky grounds. The general fear of theories necessarily leads to a form of anti-intellectualism that is most often cloaked in an activist’s guise. The question really is how does one release DS from this bondage of pragmatism and practicalities. In this piece, I want to talk about a bit of this and a bit of that, aimlessly. In fact, that is the aim, I think.
Bhattacharya, T. (2018). Being Human, Again, Part 2. neScholar, 4(1), pp. 44-53.
Bhattacharya, T. (2020). Service and Knowledge: The Emergence of Disability Studies Extension. In N. Mehrotra (ed.), Disability Studies in India, Singapore: Springer, pp. 111-132.
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2022 Author; InJCDS
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Protected by CC by 4.0
Our public licenses are intended for use by those authorized to give the public permission to use material in ways otherwise restricted by copyright and certain other rights. Our licenses are irrevocable. Licensors should read and understand the terms and conditions of the license they choose before applying it. Licensors should also secure all rights necessary before applying our licenses so that the public can reuse the material as expected. Licensors should clearly mark any material not subject to the license. This includes other CC-licensed material, or material used under an exception or limitation to copyright