APA – In Practice!

Instructions
Last class, we learned the guidelines for APA formatting. Today, we will be putting what we
learned into practice!

Pretend you have just written a paper entitled, “Beneath the Barriers: Exploring the Ideologies
that Limit Support for Disabled Persons” (see below for paper). All you have left to do is
format the paper according to APA. This is your task!

Here are the areas that need to be completed/created in order to fulfill the APA formatting for
your paper:

1. A Title Page
2. Header Information
3. In-Text Citations - Using the “secondary sources page” at the end of the paper, complete
the in-text citations according to APA. Some will be direct quotes, while others will
require you to paraphrase the information. Areas where in-text citations are required have
been highlighted for your convenience.
4. References Page of all the secondary sources indicated

You can write directly on the paper. I have uploaded an electronic copy on our blackboard site
for those interested in completing the task electronically.

Beneath the Barriers: Exploring the Ideologies that Limit Support for Disabled Persons

“Definitions of disability officially accepted by government bureaucracies and social

service agencies determine people’s legal and practical entitlement to many forms of assistance”

(Davidson, 13/01/10). The perspectives and practices involved in determining access of support

services for those disabled from motor vehicle accidents appear to be based upon traditional

ideologies of disability, or more specifically, Individual and Medical/Rehabilitative Models of

Disability. Disabled bodies are judged or examined based on a “hierarchy of embodiment"

_________________________ ADD IN-TEXT CITATION FOR THE DIRECT QUOTE.

DATA FROM Garland-Thomson on page 65). In order to determine whether or not they are in

need of support services. Support services are predominately based on medical and bureaucratic
measures (or “expert” figures), and consequently, a disabled voice/identity becomes ignored. In

the health industry, individuals prefer opinions that are grounded in evidence or theory, and

therefore, the ideas expressed in this paper will be situated in and supported by theory as well.

A focus on the body

The process of determining access to support services for disabled persons appears

heavily based on multiple comparisons between the functioning of disabled and nondisabled

bodies. In this case, the focus is on the individual body and what it can or cannot do. For

example, in the sample questions that guide an assessor’s examinations, “functional limitations

and/or physical restrictions as a direct result of the MVA” is a frequent inquiry. A focus on the

body is representative of Individual and Medical/Rehabilitative Models of Disability, where

“disability becomes viewed as an individual problem based on function and loss”

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

PARAPHRASE THE ABOVE QUOTE AND THEN ADD IN-TEXT CITATION. DATA

FROM Oliver on page 20.

The disabled body is viewed as less functional than the nondisabled body, and therefore,

the former is considered “impaired”. When examining the documentation, “impaired” is the most

commonly used adjective to describe a disabled body: “Does the claimant suffer from an

impairment?” In these documents, disability or impairment is defined as a “loss or abnormality

of a psychological, physiological, or anatomical structure or function”. According to Davidson

(13/01/10), “disability [is seen] as the property of the person with the impairment”. As a result of
such “property definitions”, the labelled impaired body is then viewed as different or a deviation

from what is normal- the nondisabled body (Davidson, 13/01/10).

Garland-Thomson (2009) explores definitions of disability, suggesting that impairment

and limitations are dependent on the comparison of bodies to determined norms that consist of

form and functional guidelines (p. 64). This notion of “normal bodies” is clearly represented in

the process, where words such as “abnormal” are often used to describe body functions.

Measuring health status with functioning in assessments is confounding and problematic

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

PARAPHRASE THE ABOVE QUOTE AND THEN ADD IN-TEXT CITATION. DATA

FROM Krahn, Fujiura, Drum, Cardinal, & Nosek on page 50. Although partially reflective

of Individual and Medical Models, their attempts to disentangle measurements of functional

abilities is commendable, as they suggest that a disabled individual’s health status can be based

on characteristics other than “functional penalties” (Krahn et al., 2009, p. 50).

In addition to functionality of the physical body, there is also, what I like to call, the

mental body. At times, “psychological loss” is not included in the documentation of the process.

For example, the disability certificate only requests that assessors highlight particular body parts

that have been injured. In my opinion, there are two concerns with this matter. First, “limited

reference and acknowledgement undermines the importance of health and support for

psychological disabilities” ____________________________ ADD IN-TEXT CITATION

FOR THE DIRECT QUOTE. DATA FROM Smith. According to Hunt & Mesquita (2006),

mental disabilities endure more stigma and discrimination than physical disabilities, which leads
to neglect, inadequate accessibility of support services, insufficient budgetary resources, and

inappropriate institutionalization of persons (p. 355). Second, it does not seem appropriate to

dichotomize physical and mental illness in the first place, as they are usually interdependent

(Szasz; as cited in Davidson, 10/02/10). Overall, through a critical disability lens, it is notable

that focusing on the body (as demonstrated in the process) is a product of conventional and

stereotypical images of disability, particularly those that speak to Individual and

Medical/Rehabilitative Models of Disability.

A focus on professional dominance and expertise

Disabled persons are often governed by other parties in their accessibility of support

services. “...The terms of reference and the means of access have, as a rule, not been determined

by disabled people but rather by nondisabled authorities”

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

PARAPHRASE THE ABOVE QUOTE AND THEN ADD IN-TEXT CITATION. DATA

FROM Oliver on page 260. With respect to the process, claimants are dominated by insurance

companies, assessors, IE companies, and most likely even the lawyers who are supposed to

represent their voice. These parties are considered the experts, and thus hold the power to

determine whether or not persons disabled from MVA’s “deserve” support services. Professional

dominance and expertise are reflective of Individual and Medical/Rehabilitative Models of

Disability. The control of insurance companies, IE companies, and assessors over claimants

corresponds to the hierarchal relationships between helper (the professional) and helped (the

disabled person), as illustrated by Davidson (13/01/10). Professionals are considered the experts,
as is blatantly expressed in the documentation of the process. For example, insurance companies

send claimants letters stating that “we have scheduled the following assessments to be

conducted... [and] that failure to attend these appointments will affect entitlement to benefits”.

Similarly, IE companies control where and when claimants need to attend these assessments.

Malacrida’s (2009) discussion of Foucault’s time-out rooms and the gaze can be adapted

to this discussion on expertise. The structure and purpose of time-out rooms are material

representations of society’s beliefs towards bodies; particularly that disabled bodies were viewed

as “less than”, and therefore, unworthy of humane treatment (Malacrida, 2009, p. 185 & 186).

The practice of professional dominance and expertise that occurs in the process reflects similar

constructions of the body (i.e. nondisabled body with power that controls the subjects of the

gaze, the disabled body). Smith (2009) looks deeper into this power dynamic between people,

specifically physicians and their disabled patients. She explores “the quality of communication

between physicians and disabled persons, suggesting that there is an overall dissatisfaction”

_________________________________________ ADD IN-TEXT CITATION FOR THE

DIRECT QUOTE. DATA FROM Smith. Although commonly defined as the experts, disabled

persons (specifically the participants in her study) believed that medical professionals hold

limited knowledge in “disability literacy” or “disability culture”, which can affect their quality of

care and support (Smith, 2009, p. 211). These limitations possibly occur within the process as

well.

The inclusion of a disabled voice in the process can potentially lead to a more equitable

availability and accessibility of support services. It may be difficult to change the organization of

these assessments (in terms of being heavily based on Individual and MedicalRehabilitative

Models), but greater consideration for disabled persons can be established. Transforming the
language is the first, simplest, and most important step; to create a language that does not reflect

traditional ideologies of disability.

Secondary Sources Page

Below, please find the citation information you require to complete in-text citations and the
references page

Author: Garland-Thomson, R.
Date of Publication: (2009).
Title of Article: Disability, Identity, and Representation: An Introduction.
Editors of Book: T. Titchkosky & R. Michalko
Name of Edited Book: Rethinking Normalcy
Page range of article: (pp. 63-74).
Location of Publisher: Toronto
Publisher: Canadian Scholars Press.

Authors: Krahn, G., Fujiura, G., Drum, C., Cardinal, B. & Nosek, M.
Date of Publication: (2009).
Title of Article: The dilemma of measuring perceived health status in the context of disability.
Title of Journal: Disability and Health Journal
Volume: 2
Issue: 5
Page range of article: 49-56

Author: Oliver, M.
Date of Publication: (2009).
Title of Book: The Social Model in Context: Rethinking Normalcy
Location of Publisher: Toronto
Publisher: Canadian Scholars Press

Author: Smith, D.
Date of Publication: (2009)
Title of Web Article: Disparities in patient-physician communication for persons with a
disability from the 2006 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS).
URL: www.disabilityandhealth.ca