Research Definitions of Disability

Today, I discussed the types of definitions used for the UNCRPD and PwD Acts.
Several issues came up, the brief topics of these questions had to do with the following:

1. How language itself changes over a period and therefore it's effect on definitions
2. How various definitions and terms used are not devised by the people identified
3. How, many forms of disability are left out of the simple, classificatory definitions

In relation to #2, the most interesting point that was briefly discussed in the class was the Theory/ Philosophy of Justice of John Rawls and its later development. See one of my talks in this connection.

Continuing with the structure of definitions in general, I discussed the key features of any definitions which are its structure, its source, orientation (who does the definition talk about), and most importantly whether the definition makes a distinction between concepts about disability and empirical measures taken to ensure the rights of PwD/ DP. Further, it was mentioned that there are two main TYPES:
Type I: For Medical/ clinical, administrative purposes
Type II: For research purposes
Type II is clearly not easily acceptable and difficult to understand too. However, as I stressed that that is where the course is going, especially its insistence on the process of disability and the various personal accounts of disability which provide documented set of experiences and any definition arising out of investigating these are more worthwhile.
Here are the specific details:
Let me summarise most of what we discussed in the class today:
1. First slide is about the "key Features" of a definition, i.e., if the definition is a curry, what are its ingredients? Structure, Orientation and Source are most important. And within the last, there are two essentials types, (i) history of the definition, that is, how it came about, and (ii) who/ which group is the creator of the definition. So if we take this last meaning of source, and orientation, then we can say that it's important to know who makes the definition and for whom. As part of the structure, Himangshu pointed out that actually the PwD definition is structurally a list, whereas, the UNCRPD definition is not. Although this is essentially correct, it is also not the case that a list cannot be formed through a structure of paragraph, for example, it is possible to create a list through commas in a para also. The 4th point of the slide is very important, in fact, perhaps the most important issue that we are trying to understand in this course. It is this difference between disability as a concept and as observable, empirical facts. We discussed Rationalism and Empiricism in this regard and also talked about the social, economical perspectives of these as seen in the choice of careers, for example. I showed how "knowledge by indirect means", roughly Rationalism, is difficult to understand because it's not visible. Thus disability as a concept is much harder to understand. Anyhow, it was also pointed out that therefore this feature of definitions is harder to spot.
Wrt the next slide, it was pointed out that interpretablity between terms is important for communication between different groups associated with disability to take place. Then we looked at the two major types of definitions (recall that earlier we had seen the ways of defining disability but not types as such) where Type I is not only the most popular but also the most needed. The next slide pointed out when does the need to have a legal definition arise, it is needed when a particular benefit must reach a particular group in a just manner. Then we looked a the definition of disability as in US Dept of Health and recognised the wide coverage yet the preciseness of that definition. Finally, still within Type I (i.e., Administrative/ clinical), we looked at disability definition from public health perspective and discussed the importance of disability statistics for understanding the distribution of disability or epidemiology for the general public and also for specific groups who are the beneficiary of disability related acts.