Critical Methodologies in Disability Studies: Narrative Life History and Institutional Observations in Social Services Analysis

This paper presents a methodological framework for the critical analysis of social services, grounded in the rich body of international, particularly Anglo-American, literature on disability studies. Drawing on the theoretical contributions of key scholars in the field, such as Colin Barnes and Geoffrey Mercer, James I. Charlton, and Michael Oliver, I explore the intersection of disability and social policy through a critical lens. These foundational studies highlight how disability is constructed socially and politically, and how welfare systems often perpetuate exclusion and marginalization, rather than empowerment. Based on this theoretical background my research’s empirical part has two pillars.

Firstly, in my research, I concluded narrative life history interviews, which allow for collecting in-depth, personal stories from individuals with disabilities. This approach aligns with the broader disability studies' emphasis on lived experience as a site of knowledge production (Linton, 1998). By foregrounding personal narratives, I seek to challenge traditional power dynamics in research, creating space for participants to shape the discourse around disability and welfare (Charlton, 2000).

Secondly, I am using the observational method of "courtroom ethnography" during social benefit negotiations, a novel approach in disability studies research. This method, inspired by Arlene S. Kanter (2011) and Sagit Mor (2005), allows for examining how legal and bureaucratic frameworks shape the everyday experiences of disabled individuals. The research's aim is to capture the often-overlooked power relations at play in these institutional settings.

These results may contribute to the ongoing conversation within disability studies about the role of the state in shaping the lives of disabled citizens. It seeks to combine qualitative methodologies to critically examine how social services can either reinforce or resist the politics of disablement (Oliver, 1997) while pushing the boundaries of traditional research methods in the field.