השוואת שיטות

	Disability Autoethnography	Disability Critical Discourse Analysis
תחום	Disability Studies	Disability Studies
משפחה	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
שנת המקור	2020	2015
הוגה השיטה	Devva Kasnitz (critical disability autoethnography)	Jan Grue
סוג	Autoethnographic qualitative method for disability research	Critical-discourse-analytic method applied to disability
מקור מכונן	Kasnitz, D. (2020). The Politics of Disability Performativity: An Autoethnography. Current Anthropology, 61(S21), S16-S25.	Grue, J. (2015). Disability and Discourse Analysis (Interdisciplinary Disability Studies). Farnham: Ashgate. ISBN: 9781472432926
כינויים	Critical Disability Autoethnography, Autoethnography in Disability Studies, Disability Performativity Autoethnography, Crip Autoethnography	Disability Discourse Analysis, Critical Discourse Analysis of Disability, Disability CDA, Discourse Analysis of Disability Representation
קשורות	3	3
תקציר	Disability autoethnography is a qualitative method in which a disabled researcher uses their own embodied experience and everyday interactions as ethnographic data to analyze how disability is lived, performed, and positioned. In Devva Kasnitz's 2020 Current Anthropology article on the politics of disability performativity, she analyzes recorded dialogues from her own life with mobility and speech impairments to examine her biopolitical positioning as disabled, connecting intimate encounters to ableism and the disability-justice movement. The method's distinctive premise is that the disabled researcher is not a neutral observer of disability but a privileged knower whose own experience is a legitimate and revealing source of theory.	Disability critical discourse analysis applies the tools of critical discourse analysis (CDA) to disability, treating disability as a phenomenon that is constructed in and through language. Set out systematically in Jan Grue's 2015 book Disability and Discourse Analysis, the method brings together disability studies and CDA to examine how texts and talk — in media, politics, clinical settings, and everyday life — construe disability, position disabled people, and naturalize particular understandings (deficit, tragedy, rights) through specific linguistic choices. Its distinctive claim is that the language used to talk about disability is not a neutral description of a prior reality but part of how disability is socially produced and contested.