UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Stigma at work : the consequence of disability and gender inequality Grenon, Gordon Lee 1991

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1991_A8 G74.pdf [ 6.3MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0098772.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0098772-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0098772-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0098772-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0098772-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0098772-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0098772-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0098772-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0098772.ris

Full Text

STIGMA AT WORK: THE CONSEQUENCE OF DISABILITY AND GENDER INEQUALITY by GORDON LEE GRENON B.A., The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1988 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department o f Anthropology and S o c i o l o g y  We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming t o t h e r e q u i r e d standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l 1991 Copyright  Gordon Lee Grenon, 1991  In presenting  this  degree at the  thesis  in  partial fulfilment  of  University of  British Columbia,  I agree  freely available for reference copying  of  department publication  this or of  and study.  thesis for scholarly by  this  his  or  her  Department The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  DE-6 (2/88)  Apr.')  2<?  f?<7 1  requirements that the  I further agree  purposes  representatives.  may be It  thesis for financial gain shall not  permission.  Date  the  for  an  advanced  Library shall make it  that permission for extensive granted  is  by the  understood be  that  allowed without  head  of  my  copying  or  my written  ABSTRACT T h i s t h e s i s presents r e s e a r c h conducted on work, income, educational research  characteristics  is specifically  inequality population.  between the The  of  disabled  people  i n Canada.  and This  concerned with the comparison of gender disabled population  research question  and  the  non-disabled  i s 'what i s the consequence of  d i s a b i l i t y on gender i n e q u a l i t y ? ' . Using  survey  data  Limitations  Survey  (HALS)  where  between  made  across  research  and r e g r e s s i o n The - 'the  the  a wide range of  statistical  from a  the  1986  series  non-disabled social  presented  and  of  Health  and  statistical  and  disabled  Activity  comparisons populations  economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .  includes  both  cross  The  tabulations  analyses.  research  gender gap'  concludes  t h a t the extent of gender i n e q u a l i t y  - i s comparable between the n o n - d i s a b l e d  d i s a b l e d p o p u l a t i o n s . The  and  stigma of d i s a b i l i t y does not appear t o  e i t h e r d i m i n i s h nor exacerbate gender i n e q u a l i t y i n p a i d work.  ii  TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT  i i  TABLE OF CONTENTS  i i i  LIST OF TABLES  vi  LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES  v i i  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  viii  CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION The S i g n i f i c a n c e of Work i n S o c i a l R e l a t i o n s Research on Gender and D i s a b i l i t y  1 3 5  CHAPTER TWO INTRODUCTION Disability Stigma RESEARCH QUESTION Less D i f f e r e n c e s by Gender The Master Status o f D i s a b i l i t y The Consequences of Master Status Greater D i f f e r e n c e s by Gender The Consequences o f M u l t i p l e M i n o r i t y S t a t u s The Gender D i v i s i o n of Resources Comparable D i f f e r e n c e s by Gender  9 10 12 16 16 17 19 20 21 22 23  CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH METHODS O b j e c t i v e s o f the HALS Development and Implementation o f t h e HALS Data C o l l e c t i o n of the HALS P r o c e s s i n and E s t i m a t i o n o f the HALS Data HALS Data L i m i t a t i o n s HALS QUESTIONS Screening Questions Special Aids S o c i a l Services Employment Education Transportation Accommodation R e c r e a t i o n and L i f e s t y l e s Economic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Census Linked C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s MEASUREMENT Disability  24 26 26 28 28 29 31 31 31 32 33 33 33 33 33 34 34 34 35  iii  Impairments A g i l i t y Impairments Hearing Impairments M o b i l i t y Impairments 'Other' Impairments Seeing Impairments Speaking Impairments 'Unknown' Impairments S e v e r i t y o f Impairment Work L i m i t a t i o n s Age Groups Demographic L o c a t i o n Ethnic Origins Highest L e v e l o f S c h o o l i n g Elementary and Secondary Only Other N o n - u n i v e r s i t y Education Only U n i v e r s i t y Education Labour Force Hours Worked Weeks Worked O c c u p a t i o n a l Status Employment and T o t a l Income Low Income Status ANALYSIS CHAPTER FOUR RESEARCH FINDINGS GENERAL POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS Total Population Provincial Distribution Impairment Status M o b i l i t y and A g i l i t y Impairments Psychological, Cognitive, and Speaking Impairments Hearing Impairments Seeing Impairments Category o f Unknown Nature o f Impairment Summary Multiple Disabilities S e v e r i t y Status Work L i m i t a t i o n s Age Groups Urban and R u r a l Status M a r i t a l Status COMPARATIVE ANALYSES OF DIFFERENCES IN WORK, AND INCOME BETWEEN DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED POPULATIONS Labour Force Status Work L i m i t a t i o n s Hours and Weeks Worked O c c u p a t i o n a l Status Summary o f Work C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s iv  35 38 38 38 38 39 39 39 39 42 43 43 43 44 44 44 44 45 46 47 48 48 49 50 53 53 53 55 55 55 57 57 58 58 58 58 60 60 61 62 62 64 68 71 72 73 76  COMPARATIVE DIFFERENCES OF GENDER INEQUALITY BETWEEN DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED POPULATIONS 77 E d u c a t i o n a l Attainment 79 Employment Income 80 T o t a l Income 82 Work L i m i t a t i o n s and Income 84 Income D i f f e r e n c e s Reconsidered 84 Low-Income Status 87 Summary o f Comparative Analyses o f Gender I n e q u a l i t y Between D i s a b l e d and Non-Disabled P o p u l a t i o n s 87 ANALYSES OF THE INTERACTION BETWEEN DISABILITY AND GENDER 89 I n t e r p r e t i n g the Regression A n a l y s i s T a b l e s 90 Employment Income 92 T o t a l Income 95 E d u c a t i o n a l Attainment 98 Reconsidering the I n t e r a c t i o n 98 ANALYSES OF DIFFERENCES WITHIN THE DISABLED POPULATION 100 Employment Income 100 E d u c a t i o n a l Attainment 104 Summary o f Regression Analyses 107 CONCLUSION 108 CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION C o n c l u s i o n o f Research The S i g n i f i c a n c e o f S o c i a l Science D i r e c t i o n s f o r Further Research  111 111 113 116  APPENDIX TABLES  119  GLOSSARY  130  REFERENCES  133  V  LIST OF TABLES Table 1 IMPAIRMENT STATUS IN THE DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION  56  Table 2 MULTIPLE DISABILITY STATUS OF DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION  59  Table 3 SEVERITY STATUS OF DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION  59  Table 4 URBAN AND RURAL STATUS OF DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULUTION 63 Table 5 CENTRAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WOMEN AND MEN IN THE DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION 66 Table 6 LABOUR FORCE STATUS IN DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION  69  Table 7 OCCUPATIONAL STATUS OF DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION  74  Table 8 LOW INCOME STATUS IN DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION  86  Table 9 MULTIPLE REGRESSION: EMPLOYMENT INCOME OF DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION  93  T a b l e 10 MULTIPLE REGRESSION: TOTAL INCOME OF DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION  96  T a b l e 11 MULTIPLE REGRESSION: EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT OF DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION  99  T a b l e 12 MULTIPLE REGRESSION: EMPLOYMENT INCOME OF DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION  101  T a b l e 13 MULTIPLE REGRESSION: EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT OF DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION  105  VI  LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES Table A l AGE GROUPINGS OF DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION  119  T a b l e A2 MARITAL STATUS OF DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION  120  T a b l e A3 HIGHEST LEVEL OF SCHOOLING OF DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION  121  T a b l e A4 1985 T a b l e A5 1985 T a b l e A6 1985  EMPLOYMENT INCOME OF DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION  123  TOTAL INCOME OF DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION  125  CENSUS FAMILY INCOME OF DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION  127  T a b l e A7 TENURE OF DWELLING OF DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION  vii  129  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This  t h e s i s has been f a c i l i t a t e d  number o f i n d i v i d u a l s . I would f i r s t his  insightful  comments,  and  by, and b e n e f i t e d  l i k e t o thank N e i l Guppy f o r  h i s generous  support i n conducting t h e r e s e a r c h .  from, a  and  enthusiastic  Access t o t h e HALS p u b l i c use  m i c r o d a t a was made p o s s i b l e by Adele F u r r i e o f S t a t i s t i c s Canada. I am g r a t e f u l f o r h e r a s s i s t a n c e I am g r e a t l y staff  i n accessing  t h i s data.  indebted t o t h e C h a r l e s Crane Memorial  Library  and v o l u n t e e r s who have f o r many y e a r s t r a n s c r i b e d  massive  volumes o f p r i n t e d overstate  material  my g r a t i t u d e  i n t o t a l k i n g book format. I can not  t o a l l the s t a f f  and v o l u n t e e r s a t Crane  L i b r a r y . I would l i k e t o p a r t i c u l a r l y thank Judy and P a u l T h i e l e , Eloisa, made  Concetta,  Clay,  the university  Catherine,  a more  Kerry,  accessible  and C h r i s .  place  A l l have  f o r people  with  v i s u a l impairments o r b l i n d n e s s . I Gillian  have  also  benefited  Creese and W i l l i a m  ommissions,  errors,  from  McKellin,  or weaknesses  f u l l y my r e s p o n s i b i l i t y .  viii  the i n s i g h t f u l  comments  of  and many o t h e r f r i e n d s . Any i n this  work  o f course a r e  CHAPTER  ONE  INTRODUCTION In  recent  persons w i t h the  years  the  volume  disabilities  social  has  consequences  increasingly  research  on  changed c o n s i d e r a b l y . Research  on  of  challenging  and  character  persons  the  with  traditional  of  disabilities  research  focus  is on  f u n c t i o n - l i m i t a t i o n s i n d a i l y a c t i v i t i e s . T h i s c h a l l e n g e proposes a  shift  in  research  r e h a b i l i t a t i o n or an of  the  place  society.  of  are  or  critical  of  than  in a  examining process,  p r a c t i c e s of people  social  the  individual  with  research  hierarchically factors  critical  segregation,  deinstitutionalization, civil  rights  social  The  i s i m p l i c a t e d i n the  researchers  emergence  dramatic  multidisciplinary theories  from  of  effort  the  of  changes  Programs of  i n t e g r a t i o n i n t o s c h o o l s and work p l a c e s ,  legislation  literature  the  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , and  disabilities.  reflect  this  changing the i n d i v i d u a l t o changing s o c i a l The  segmented  limiting  which have o c c u r r e d i n the l i v e s of d i s a b l e d persons.  and  through  'adapted' l i f e s t y l e toward c r i t i c a l a n a l y s i s  adaption  investigating  degradation  changing  d i s a b l e d people  Rather  rehabilitation  from  critical which  social  Consequently, the d i v e r s i t y  shift  sciences,  research  incorporated education,  of experience  from  institutions.  social has  i n concern  is  a  methods  and  wide and  humanities.  among d i s a b l e d persons  i s i n c r e a s i n g l y being acknowledged. F e m i n i s t r e s e a r c h methods and theories  are  particularly  significant  i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the experiences  in  the  of d i s a b l e d persons. 1  critical  Women w i t h d i s a b i l i t i e s have t y p i c a l l y been absent dominant  research  programs  conducted  to  from t h e  ameliorate  the  consequences o f d i s a b i l i t y . F o r example, i n t h e h e a l t h s c i e n c e s a considerable disease,  volume of r e s e a r c h  diabetes,  of men, w h i l e sexuality there with  on t h e e f f e c t s  medication  no such l i t e r a t u r e addresses (Kutner  and Gray,  i s an absence of medical  social the  and hypertension  o f women  specific  exists  disabilities  Service  on t h e s e x u a l i t y  these  e f f e c t s on t h e  1985: 105-117).  Similarly,  r e s e a r c h on pregnancy among women  (Shaul e t a l , 1985: 133-142). I n t h e  services literature,  discussion.  of renal  women a r e a l s o n o t a b l y planners  and  absent  evaluators  from  conducting  r e s e a r c h on t h e economic needs o f d i s a b l e d persons r a r e l y examine the unique experiences  and p o s i t i o n of women w i t h d i s a b i l i t i e s i n  the f a m i l y , s c h o o l , and work p l a c e  (Kutza, 1985: 68-86).  A c e n t r a l problem r a i s e d i n t h e emerging l i t e r a t u r e on women with  disabilities  minority  status  i s 'what  i n a population?'.  consequence o f being Brooks,  i s t h e consequence  1985; F i n e  Specifically,  female and having  and Asch,  a disability  1988; K a l l e n ,  1990) . The r e s e a r c h here addresses  The r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n developed  in  the following  Chapters  differences concerned  i s 'what  inequality  within  the disabled  with  the general  what  the  (Deegan and  and analyzed  i s t h e consequence  i n work?' The r e s e a r c h population,  effect  of  i n e q u a l i t y i n work, education, and income. 2  is  t h i s problem both e m p i r i c a l l y  theoretically.  on gender  multiple  1989; and Lonsdale,  and  disability  of  of  examines  but i s p r i m a r i l y  disability  on  gender  The  investigation  of t h e stigma  of d i s a b i l i t y  may  seem t o  some a p e r i p h e r a l area o f s o c i a l r e s e a r c h . However, t h e study of stigma and s t a t u s a r e i n f a c t c e n t r a l t o s o c i a l s c i e n c e . Everyone in  differing  stigma, of of  i n s t a n c e s has experienced  or a 'spoiled' identity  how such  discredited  by a  (Goffman, 1963). Thus, t h e study  s i t u a t i o n s a r e experienced and t h e i r consequences i s  significance  to social  researchers  1987). As t h e r e s e a r c h presented experience  being  here  considerably greater  and t h e o r i s t s demonstrates,  (Giddens,  some  s t i g m a t i z a t i o n than  people  do o t h e r s ,  and t h e consequences o f such s t i g m a t i z a t i o n can be s e v e r e . A review and  o f the l i t e r a t u r e a d d r e s s i n g t h e problem o f stigma  status  is  investigation coinciding  presented  of  the  in  social  Chapter and  Two.  economic  m i n o r i t y s t a t u s e s i s presented  An  empirical  consequences  i n Chapter  Four.  of This  e m p i r i c a l evidence was obtained from t h e 1986 H e a l t h and A c t i v i t y Limitations  Survey.  A  d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e HALS  Chapter  Three.  Chapter  Five  methodology i s  presented  in  is  a  concluding  discussion  o f t h e r e s e a r c h and t h e o r i e s p r e s e n t e d here,  and the  s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e f i n d i n g s f o r s o c i a l p o l i c y and r e s e a r c h . The remainder as  o f t h i s i n t r o d u c t o r y Chapter p r o v i d e s a g e n e r a l context  background  to  the  f o l l o w s , i n subsequent  theoretical  and  empirical  work  which  Chapters.  The S i g n i f i c a n c e o f Work i n S o c i a l R e l a t i o n s The r e s e a r c h r e p o r t e d here i s p r i n c i p a l l y concerned experiences disabilities,  o f women  relative  t o men,  both  with  i n t h e labour market, and t h e r e l a t e d 3  and  w i t h the without  consequences  of  these e x p e r i e n c e s . Whether an i n d i v i d u a l has employment o r i s  excluded has  from  p a i d work, and i f employed whether t h e i n d i v i d u a l  t h e o p p o r t u n i t y f o r c a r e e r promotion  'dead  end' j o b ,  the i n d i v i d u a l . important  has severe  o r i s segregated  consequences on t h e l i f e  ina  chances of  T h i s r e s e a r c h begins w i t h t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g  that  l i n k a g e s e x i s t between an i n d i v i d u a l ' s work and h e r o r  his  social  of  social,  relationships,  status,  e d u c a t i o n a l , work,  and i d e n t i t y .  and economic  Thus, a v a r i e t y  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are  examined i n t h i s r e s e a r c h . Work and  i s understood  by many community  o t h e r s as among t h e fundamental  most  people,  least  work  i s necessary  leaders, researchers  forms o f human a c t i v i t y . For  for survival,  some p e r s o n a l f u l f i l l m e n t .  and p r o v i d e s a t  The cumulative work o f m i l l i o n s  of  women and men p u r s u i n g t h e i r own l i v e l i h o o d produces  of  economy and country  life  activity  i n Canada today. Work i s both  and, thus,  a fundamental  social  t h e form a central  institution i n  modern s o c i e t y . The  research  presented  here  is  concerned  with  the  d i f f e r e n c e s i n p a i d work c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s between t h e d i s a b l e d and non-disabled  p o p u l a t i o n s , and women  populations.  C e n t r a l t o t h e study  analysis  and men  o f these  o f t h e consequences a r i s i n g  from  i n each  o f these  differences  is  the  these d i f f e r e n c e s . An  i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e consequences of d i s a b i l i t y and gender f o r an individual's fields the  working  life  can be conducted  from  and methods. T h i s r e s e a r c h i s a s t a t i s t i c a l  national  adult  population  living 4  a myriad  of  a n a l y s i s of  i n households,  that i s  persons  15 t o 64 years o f age not r e s i d i n g i n a p e n a l o r medical  institution. Research on Gender and D i s a b i l i t y The  e x p e r i e n c e s o f women and men w i t h d i s a b i l i t i e s has been  investigated  from  an  array  of m e t h o d o l o g i c a l  and  theoretical  approaches.  The r e s e a r c h here examines these e x p e r i e n c e s  statistical  survey data. The a n a l y s i s of t h i s data was  with  a specific  focus, and has r e v e a l e d g e n e r a l  the e x p e r i e n c e s o f d i s a b l e d persons throughout The  evidence  Limitations  Survey  used  is  conducted  from  the  conducted  i n d i c a t i o n s of  Canada.  Health  by S t a t i s t i c s  through  and  Canada  Activity  i n 1986 as a  p o s t - c e n s a l survey o f persons with d i s a b i l i t i e s . The HALS i s p a r t of  the national  Statistics  Canada  database  program  on  on the recommendation  Committee on t h e D i s a b l e d (Canada, 1981: The  HALS  populations:  disability  questionnaires  children,  adults,  were  from  initiated  by  the Parliamentary  131). conducted  and i n s t i t u t i o n a l  for  three  r e s i d e n t s with  d i s a b i l i t i e s . The survey i s a random and r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s e l e c t i o n of t h e n a t i o n a l p o p u l a t i o n . Over 130,000 persons were i n t e r v i e w e d in  total  rely  from  a l l t h r e e p o p u l a t i o n s . The r e s u l t s  reported  here  on t h e data f o r the l a r g e s t o f these p o p u l a t i o n s - 127,000  adults  (15 y e a r s  conducted  of age or o l d e r )  i n households.  The a n a l y s e s  on t h i s data were l i m i t e d t o t h e working-age p o p u l a t i o n  (15 t o 64 y e a r s o f age). The the  HALS f a c i l i t a t e s d i r e c t  non-disabled  and  disabled  statistical populations  5  comparisons over  a  between  variety  of  selected  census  disabled  and  characteristics.  disabled  The  comparability  populations,  and  the  of  the  large  non-  national  r e p r e s e n t a t i v e sample used, make the HALS the most comprehensive survey  of  most  d i s a b l e d persons  impressive  available  persons  records sample  statistical  anywhere  disabled  (thus of  i n Canada, and  in  has  not  the  world.  been  sets  disabled  Typically,  national  through  s e l e c t e d ) , and  persons  one  on  collected  randomly  non-disabled  data  certainly  to  health  have  permit  of  the  persons data  on  institution  not  provided  direct  a  comparative  analyses. The  HALS process  disability  conforms  questionnaire  identifying  with  method used  operation  and  questions  identify  cognitive,  of  the by  Development  and  a  an  individual  as  having  a  f u n c t i o n a l - l i m i t a t i o n s screening the  Organization  (O.E.C.D.,  range  psychological  of  1982).  different  f o r Economic These  screening  physical,  limitations  in  Co-  sensory,  performing  daily  activities. The  OECD has  developing  statistical  This conformity more  importantly  this  definition  disabled  been the  allows  leading i n t e r n a t i o n a l organization i n  research  on  disabled  persons.  f o r some i n t e r n a t i o n a l c o m p a r a b i l i t y ,  demonstrates of  programs  disability.  the  i n t e r n a t i o n a l acceptance  Again  persons have used widely  other  varying  n a t i o n a l surveys  and  often  but of of  problematic  d e f i n i t i o n s of d i s a b i l i t y . In provides  general,  the  Health  and  randomly  s e l e c t e d n a t i o n a l - l e v e l data  6  Activity  Limitations  Survey  which a l l o w s  for  comparative range  of  analyses census  disability,  with  the  non-disabled  characteristics.  As  well,  population the  over  definition  of  and s c r e e n i n g c r i t e r i a have a h i s t o r y of demonstrated  success a t the i n t e r n a t i o n a l l e v e l . However, the HALS, l i k e census  a  surveys,  must  be  seen  for  what  i t is  -  other  quantitative  measures of human experience. Q u a n t i t a t i v e methodology has g e n e r a l l y been p o r t r a y e d as an objective  means  subjective response, authors  of  collecting  'contamination' to t h i s  used  which i n f a c t objectivity  statistical  to  legitimize  'smoke  the  uncritical  and  a  i s an  Rather,  like  statistical  analyses  are  acceptance  facts',  the In  some  interesting  social  science  as b e i n g s o c i a l  analyses  a p p r o p r i a t e response other  best  social  situated  objectivity as  numerical  to  statistical  scientific  practices,  in  i t s social  context.  statistical  practices  i n nature. T h i s means the o r i e n t a t i o n ,  concepts,  instruments,  be understood  1986).  of c l a i m s t o  I r v i n e and h i s c o l l e a g u e s (1979) understand  The  'given  positivistic  of  methods.  r e s e a r c h as b e i n g  of s t a t i s t i c a l  mirrors'  methodology.  technical  free  in qualitative  (Doyal and H a r r i s ,  complete r e j e c t i o n and  is  i s seen as i n h e r e n t l y suspect as a means of a v o i d i n g  Neither the  which  i s n e i t h e r o b j e c t i v e nor v a l u e - f r e e . T h i s c l a i m t o  problems of s u b j e c t i v i t y  nor  inherent  c l a i m of o b j e c t i v i t y  have r e j e c t e d  mathematics  evidence  as s o c i a l  and  uses of s t a t i s t i c a l  r e s e a r c h need t o  practices.  HALS methodology was  chosen and developed  by  Statistics  Canada w i t h i n a s t r u c t u r e encompassing the i n t e r e s t s of both 7  the  federal  government  institutional  and  from  statistical  Statistics  interests,  professionals process  and  are  the  researchers  design  findings  Canada  at  through  individual a l l stages  to  resulting  itself.  in  Beyond  commitments of  publication. this  the  research  of  the  research  The  complex  are  thus  not  merely an a r b i t r a r y c r e a t i o n , but r a t h e r are more i n need of being  understood  granted  in  i t s social  or completely  dismissed.  context  than  being  taken  for  S t a t i s t i c a l measures f o r a n a t i o n a l p o p u l a t i o n are g e n e r a l l y regarded  as  providing  consequences ineffective the  a  pattern  here  across very  human  the  action. Clearly,  patterns  such  a  does  or  consequence.  indicate  However,  patterns  of  in,  and  methodology  population  qualitative  methods.  provide  critical  sample  Thus,  the  assessment  can  not  research of  the  the  common  l a r g e p o p u l a t i o n s . O b t a i n i n g evidence  random  a  on  is  f o r examining the s u b t l e s o c i a l a c t i o n s r e s u l t i n g i n  measured  presented  of  of,  information  be  research  experiences  from t h i s  achieved  presented hypotheses  size  through here  can  on  the  consequence of d i s a b i l i t y on gender i n e q u a l i t y , but should not understood  as being the only means of t e s t i n g these hypotheses.  8  be  CHAPTER  TWO  INTRODUCTION This gender  research  examines  inequality  in  the  work.  consequence  Much  of  persons t r e a t s d i s a b i l i t y as having for  a l l persons with  the  of  disability  research  on  on  disabled  a common l e v e l of consequence  disabilities.  However, such  a position is  not n e c e s s a r i l y j u s t i f i a b l e , and r e q u i r e s examination. Research  i n the  area  of d i s a b i l i t y  shows women t o be disadvantaged educational/training in  lower  level  levels,  positions,  and  work d i s c u s s e d  i n r e l a t i o n t o men  greater and  through lower  occupational  lower  incomes.  here  concentration Where  research  remains t o be extended i s with regard t o the c h a r a c t e r of gender i n e q u a l i t y among d i s a b l e d persons as compared t o the p o p u l a t i o n . Is the gender gap disabled  and  complicated  by  d i f f e r e n t or comparable between the  non-disabled the  d i s a b l e d women, and  non-disabled  populations?  extraordinary  This  disadvantage  question  encountered  is by  y e t the c a p a c i t y of many d i s a b l e d persons t o  d e a l w i t h disadvantage through an a r r a y of i n v e n t i v e s t r a t e g i e s . T h i s Chapter d i s c u s s e s the research,  and  l i t e r a t u r e . The in  this  relations. analyzing  develops  this  research  this  question  within  f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n r e f l e c t s the g e n e r a l  research Thus,  with the  differences  investigating  the  l i t e r a t u r e most r e l e v a n t t o  the  situating  discussion in  the  is  disabled  s i g n i f i c a n c e of  major c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  disability not  as  as  concerned as  compared  i n the d i s a b l e d p o p u l a t i o n , 9  within  population  gender  concern gender with  i t i s in to  such as  other nature  of  disability.  attainment is  and  conducted  An  examination  employment in  Chapter  of  differences  income w i t h i n the Four  to  identify  in  educational  disabled the  population  s i g n i f i c a n c e of  gender as a s t a t u s w i t h i n the d i s a b l e d p o p u l a t i o n . This  Chapter  begins  with  gender as r e s e a r c h concepts. how  disability  research  is  a  discussion  A  and  operationalized  d i s c u s s i o n of the  theoretical  on d i s a b i l i t y f o l l o w s i n the s e c t i o n on stigma. disability  is  then  disability  and  S p e c i f i c attention i s f i r s t given to  conceptualized  literature.  of  complemented  with  a  The  brief  in  the  literature  d i s c u s s i o n of review  of  the  question  and  t h e o r e t i c a l l i t e r a t u r e on gender. The situates  second  section  discusses  the  i t s r e l a t e d hypotheses i n the  and  gender. T h i s s e c t i o n examines why  and  gender  may  be  expected,  or  not,  research literature  on  disability  the s t a t u s e s of  disability  to  interact  in  terms  of  a l t e r i n g gender i n e q u a l i t y i n the d i s a b l e d p o p u l a t i o n as compared t o the n o n - d i s a b l e d The  population.  f i n a l s e c t i o n of t h i s Chapter d i s c u s s e s the consequences  of s t a t u s d i f f e r e n c e s i n terms of i n e q u a l i t y i n e d u c a t i o n , and  income.  This  section  examines  the  t h e o r e t i c a l l i t e r a t u r e on s e g r e g a t i o n and  work,  methodological  and  i n e q u a l i t y i n work,  the l i n k a g e s between i n e q u a l i t i e s i n education,  work, and  and  income.  Disability The  definitions  of  disability  commonly used  i n the  and h e a l t h s c i e n c e s are based upon a b i o - m e d i c a l model of and  impairments,  or  'abnormalities' 10  in  physical  or  social disease  cognitive  function.  The  significant  science  of  biological  components  of  definitions  organic  p a t h o l o g i c a l context.  claims  to  remove  social  medicine and  Thus, the  meanings  identifies  meaning  bio-medical  from  any  all  within  an  perspective  understanding  of  disability. While the purpose of t h i s r e s e a r c h i s not t o i n v e s t i g a t e the creation  and  consequences  nevertheless modern  of  be  understood  pathology  influence  i l l n e s s and The  impairment  definition  definition national  of  data  developed  by  the  on  medical  that our  those  concepts,  concepts  understanding  of  it  should  derived human  from  health,  (Foucault, 1973). of  disability  disability base  such  used  by  disability.  World  Health  consequences of d i s e a s e and  used  here  Statistics This  follows  Canada  i s the  same  Organization  to  the  for  the  definition  measure  the  impairments.  In the context of h e a l t h experience, a d i s a b i l i t y i s any restriction or l a c k ( r e s u l t i n g from an impairment ) of a b i l i t y t o perform an a c t i v i t y i n the manner or w i t h i n the range c o n s i d e r e d normal f o r a human being (W.H.O., 1980, p.143) . 1  T h i s ' d i s a b i l i t y ' concept questions Living" used  which  have  was  o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d through a s e r i e s of  come t o  be  known as  "Activities  of  Daily  (O.E.C.D., 1982). T h i s f u n c t i o n a l l i m i t a t i o n s approach i s  i n the  older) with screening  n a t i o n a l data two  base f o r a d u l t s  (15  years  m o d i f i c a t i o n s of the A c t i v i t i e s  questionnaire  (Statistics  Canada,  The World Health Organization's impairment i s p r o v i d e d i n the G l o s s a r y . 1  11  of  age  and  of D a i l y L i v i n g 1988).  definition  First,  of  an  individuals aid  a r e not c o n s i d e r e d d i s a b l e d i f they use a t e c h n i c a l  which completely  individual  who  e l i m i n a t e s the l i m i t a t i o n .  uses  a  hearing  a i d and  For example, an  states  there  l i m i t a t i o n when u s i n g the a i d would not be regarded Second,  t h e concept  o f time  i s no  as d i s a b l e d .  has been i n c l u d e d as an a d d i t i o n a l  parameter, and so the l i m i t a t i o n has t o span a p e r i o d o f a t l e a s t s i x months (or t o be expected t o l a s t t h a t l o n g ) . A final  comment on the usage of ' d i s a b l e d ' as a c a t e g o r y i s  n e c e s s a r y . Briesenden that  (1986: 175) and Sutherland  (1981: 15) argue  ' d i s a b l e d ' i s a p e j o r a t i v e and g e n e r a l i z i n g  term  which i s  used t o r e f e r t o a p o p u l a t i o n of people who have l i t t l e  i n common  beyond  n o t f u n c t i o n i n g as people  who  are c a l l e d  'normal' o r  ' a b l e - b o d i e d ' . From t h i s p e r s p e c t i v e , concepts such as ' d i s a b l e d ' suggest  passivity  or  a  general  lacking  i n an  competence o r i n t e l l i g e n c e . S a f i l i o s - R o t h s c h i l d (1986)  accept  however,  they  description people' whose  that  ' d i s a b l e d ' may have  consider  of a  'disabled  social  and ' d i s a b l e d person'  disparate physical  oppress  them.  Disabled  recognize  characteristics people  to  In t h i s  such  as  (1970) and O l i v e r  demeaning  people'  minority.  area  be  connotations; an  context,  accurate 'disabled  a p o p u l a t i o n o f people are uniformly  and person(s)  a r e used  used t o i n this  l a t t e r context i n t h i s research. Stigma Research has  developed  social.  The  into  the experiences  along  two  literature  lines on  the 12  of persons  of  emphases  functional  with -  disabilities  functional  origins  and  (disease,  injury) with  and consequences eliminating  activities.  In  (labelling,  physical  contrast,  barriers  the  of  discriminatory  people  attitudes  and is  t y p i c a l l y r e f e r s t o the f u n c t i o n a l typically  refers  to  the  social  consequences  and p r a c t i c e s .  i s concerned  performing  concerned  f o c u s , have emerged d i f f e r e n c e s  handicap  to  l i t e r a t u r e on  stigmatization)  degradation)  in  ( l i m i t a t i o n s ) of impairment  challenging  these  differences  i n concepts. While consequences  the  social  origins  (segregation,  with  Around  daily  of an  disability impairment,  consequences  of  an  impairment. The  research  consequence to  because  2  concept.  presented  here  Work'. The  Goffman  concerned  with  of the g r e a t e r t h e o r e t i c a l  There which  is  a  two  is  (1963).  fold  i s reflected  r e s e a r c h r e p o r t e d here  work p l a c e ' , and Stigma  is  examination  i n the  title  examines both  -  the  stigma  'Stigma  at  i n the  'the workings, o r process, o f stigma'. used For  here  as  Goffman  i t was  first  c o n c e p t u a l i z e d by  a l l individual's  can  An  individual  when o t h e r s take  an  individual's  becomes d i s c r e d i t e d  self  i d e n t i t y of an i n d i v i d u a l which and  others.  The  possess  a  discreditable.  stigma d u r i n g the course of s o c i a l  i s a 'spoiled' by  of  'stigma  are p o t e n t i a l l y  recognized  social  content of  stigma, and thus a l l i n d i v i d u a l ' s  Stigma  the  of d i s a b i l i t y . However, stigma i s used i n p r e f e r e n c e  handicap  stigma  presented  discrediting  into  account  interaction. i s commonly attributes  The World H e a l t h O r g a n i z a t i o n ' s d e f i n i t i o n of handicap i s p r e s e n t e d i n the G l o s s a r y . 2  13  c o n s t i t u t i n g a stigma are s o c i a l l y i d e n t i f i e d , or marked, through i n t e r a c t i o n . That i s , stigma i s s o c i a l l y produced and  reproduced.  Stigma i s a p p l i e d t o any c o n d i t i o n , a t t r i b u t e , t r a i t , t h a t s y m b o l i c a l l y marks the bearer o f f as s o c i a l l y or  'inferior',  shame  or  and  disgrace.  has  as i t s s u b j e c t i v e  Goffman  or a c t  'unacceptable'  referent  (1963) d i s t i n g u i s h e s  the n o t i o n  of  t h r e e t y p e s of  stigma: (1) b o d i l y stigma, such as blemishes or (2)  stigma  of  character,  such  deformities;  as p s y c h i a t r i c p a t i e n t s ,  w i t h a homosexual o r i e n t a t i o n , and c r i m i n a l s , (3)  stigma  of  social  collectivities,  such  persons  and;  as  ethnic  and  tribal  groups. The  ' s p o i l e d ' i d e n t i t y r e s u l t i n g from stigma can  a master s t a t u s differentiating consequence  (Hughes, 1971) individuals  of a master  which may with  status  a  constitute  diminish c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  common  master  status.  The  i s thus t o emphasize a stigma t o  such an e x t e n t t h a t other d i s t i n g u i s h i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s cease t o be  r e c o g n i z e d i n the i n d i v i d u a l ' s i d e n t i t y . For example  with  disabilities  that  otherwise  may  possess  important  such  a stigmatized  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , such  persons  master as  status  gender,  are  diminished i n t h e i r s i g n i f i c a n c e . Goffman historical action.  does  and  Stigma  extent that 'spoiled'  recognize  cultural  that  a l l stigma  variability  i s implicated  with  by  gender  the and  is  subject  nature  of  handicaps  to  social to  the  f e m i n i n i t y and d i s a b i l i t y are commonly understood as identities  within  specific 14  historical  and  cultural  c o n t e x t s . Goffman  (1963) a l s o d i s c u s s e s a t l e n g t h t h e s t r a t e g i e s  through which i n d i v i d u a l s d e a l w i t h stigma, and more i m p o r t a n t l y deal  with  Thus,  t h e disadvantage  stigma  i s a consequence  as conceived by Goffman r e f e r s  (stigmatization) embodied  which  than  to specific  i n any p h y s i c a l  identity  associated  identity,  or status,  social  action.  gender  as p r o c e s s ,  attributes.  Stigma  i s not  but r a t h e r  is a  social  specific  attributes.  This  social  i s chronically  produced  Connell  rather  more t o a p r o c e s s  attribute  with  Similarly,  o f stigma.  than  (1987)  and reproduced i n  also  originating  conceptualizes  i n male  o r female  physiology. Stigma b r i n g s s e r i o u s disadvantages t o d i s a b l e d persons, and particularly  disabled  disadvantage,  i n d i v i d u a l s may develop a sense o f s o l i d a r i t y w i t h  other  similarly  through  daily  discomforting emphasizes in  women.  However,  s t i g m a t i z e d persons, encounters,  i n dealing  or gain  of how people  situations  (Lonsdale,  self-help  empowerment  and consumer Deegan  advocacy  argues  ' m u l t i p l e ' m i n o r i t y groups,  greater  master  disadvantage.  status  i s useful  theories of s o c i a l  insight,  Deegan  or  (1985)  through  participation  organizations.  T h i s form o f  i s particularly  significant  for  such as women w i t h d i s a b i l i t i e s and  women o f c o l o u r . Thus, stigma should not be understood conferring  such  act i n stressful 1990) .  t h e empowerment of i n d i v i d u a l s  with  Consequently, i t requires  relations.  15  while  s o l e l y as  t h e concept  cautious  of a  application i n  RESEARCH QUESTION D i s a b i l i t y and gender are each a powerful severe  consequences  for  i n d i v i d u a l s . Understanding  the  life  s o c i a l status with  chances  of  stigmatized  the consequence of the i n t e r a c t i o n of  these s t a t u s e s on the i n d i v i d u a l ' s l i f e chances i s important  both  t h e o r e t i c a l l y and e m p i r i c a l l y . The gender  g e n e r a l problem i n t h i s r e s e a r c h i s whether o r not the  inequalities  among the d i s a b l e d p o p u l a t i o n  a r e more or  l e s s severe than, or comparable t o , gender i n e q u a l i t i e s among the non-disabled project  is  p o p u l a t i o n . The 'what  inequality  in  differences  i s the work?'.  i n education  r e s e a r c h compares between  the  comparison less  specific  question  in this  consequence  of  Given  significant  the  disability  research  on  gender  linkages  and income t o d i f f e r e n c e s i n work, t h i s  gender i n e q u a l i t y i n each of these t h r e e  non-disabled  of the extent  differences,  (2)  of  and  disabled  of gender  greater  populations.  inequality  could  d i f f e r e n c e s , or  (3)  areas  Such  reveal  a (1)  comparable  d i f f e r e n c e s between the non-disabled and d i s a b l e d p o p u l a t i o n s . Less D i f f e r e n c e s By Gender Less s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s by gender among d i s a b l e d people as  compared  to  non-disabled  people  i s expected  by  a  'master  s t a t u s ' t h e s i s i n which d i s a b i l i t y s t a t u s d i m i n i s h e s o t h e r stigmas.  Goffman's  (1963)  demonstrates  how  individual's  identity,  status.  Such  certain  master  and  discussion social  stigmas  result  status  of  can  identity  'overwhelm'  an  i n the c r e a t i o n of a master  identities 16  'spoiled'  social  can  have  severe  consequences  for relations  between  such r e l a t i o n s l e a d t o c h r o n i c  individuals.  reproduction  Specifically,  of s o c i a l  inequality  a l o n g l i n e s d e f i n e d by the master s t a t u s . The status.  f o l l o w i n g two s e c t i o n s The f i r s t  production section  review  and r e p r o d u c t i o n  investigates  production The  section  extend t h i s d i s c u s s i o n  o f master  some o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e  o f a master  status.  The  on the  following  some of the consequences a r i s i n g from t h e  and r e p r o d u c t i o n  o f a master s t a t u s .  Master S t a t u s of D i s a b i l i t y M e d i c a l and other h e a l t h care p r o f e s s i o n a l s and i n s t i t u t i o n s  have had a c e n t r a l p o s i t i o n i n the p r o d u c t i o n master  statuses  of  disability.  medicalization  of  hyperactivity.  Health  categories  such  segregated schools.  The stigma  incorporates Medical  dysfunction' an  and  in  (1976)  into  education  professionals have  families,  a  'disturbed'  child's  studied  conditions  disorder  their  of being  f o r the  identity;  the  such in  of  as  using  stigmatized  and  neighbourhoods,  and  child an  has profound  identity  which  a s t a t u s o f ' p s y c h i a t r i c a l l y impaired'. definitions  consequences  criticized  behaviour  as h y p e r k i n e t i c  children  consequences  serious  child  Conrad  and r e p r o d u c t i o n  the  use  of  cognitive  f o r people of  so  definitions  used t o c a t e g o r i z e  impairment  diagnosed. such  as  also  Mercer 'minimal  have (197 3) brain  c h i l d r e n showing a low score on  ' i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t ' but not showing any p a t h o l o g i c a l o r i g i n s .  3  Langness and Levine (1986) estimate t h a t between 75% t o 85% o f a l l diagnoses of 'mental d i s a b i l i t y ' a r e made w i t h no evidence o f p a t h o l o g i c a l o r i g i n . 3  17  Children  diagnosed  as  having  experienced  stigmatization  experiences  of  these  children  and  minimal segregation  diagnosed  situations children  brain  were  as  dysfunction  comparable  hyperactive.  stigmatized  as  In  to  the  each  of  'abnormal',  and  developed w i t h i n t h e i r neighbourhoods and  s c h o o l s a master s t a t u s  which  lead  children  to  severe  identified  segregation.  Each  of  'abnormal'  were  placed  as  c l a s s e s or segregated schools,  and  these  into  institutions  reproduction service  of  of  students  or  clients  Hannon disabled'  (1980)  posed people  activity  of an  to  of  the  impairments  clearly  great could  disabled asexual  informants  reported  disability  in  this  identity being  several  of  concluded  that  The  stigmatized the  revealed  the  context  role  s e r v i c e on  Toronto's  people. 18  night  the  clubs  of  role.  of  'being  in  which  of  homosexual  of  disability  upon i n d i v i d u a l s . Some of  denied  blind  stigma  activities  stigma  of  segregated  social  p a r t i c i p a t e . Hannon's study people  the  between  providers.  l i m i t a t i o n s on  community  In t h i s  divided  and  studying  h i g h l y developed i n the  service  found  are  through  service organizations.  and  production  disability  (1969)  visual  was  'remedial'  school.  observed t o form a very p e r v a s i v e  disabled  imposed  and  population  ' b l i n d n e s s ' was  Scott  ' b l i n d ' was  segregated s c h o o l s the  status  people with  r o l e of being  context,  central  master  organizations.  socialization the  a  found  r a r e l y were r e - i n t e g r a t e d , a t  l e a s t s u c c e s s f u l l y , i n t o t h e i r o r i g i n a l c l a s s or Other  studies  basis for  Hannon's of  their  homosexual  The  above r e s e a r c h  emphasized t h e e f f e c t characteristics. general  on the master s t a t u s  a dominant s t a t u s has on d i m i n i s h i n g  This  diminishing  model of  of master  gender  the a n t i c i p a t e d general  inequality,  they  disagree  status  inequality  p o p u l a t i o n . While Tudor and c o l l e a g u e s agree w i t h  o f d i s a b i l i t y has  anticipates  i n the  with  a  disabled  (1977) and Rushing  diminishing e f f e c t  significantly  other  (1979)  on gender  the process.  Tudor  (et a l , 1977) and Rushing  (1979) argue t h e stigma from having a  psychiatric  lowers  individuals  disability  the  status  (men) more than f o r low-status  of  high-status  i n d i v i d u a l s (women).  T h i s i s a 'reverse d i s c r i m i n a t i o n ' t h e s i s i n which men greater  s t i g m a t i z a t i o n than do women. Research  experience  i n t h i s area has  been l i m i t e d , and c o n t r a d i c t s t h e c o n s i d e r a b l e volume o f r e s e a r c h conducted on m u l t i p l e m i n o r i t y s t a t u s e s d i s c u s s e d below. The  Consequences o f Master Master  status  segregation lesser  employment in  i n t h e work  populations  o r subordinate  altogether  a study  history  relations  of stigmatized  occupations  Status  (Hughes,  cancer,  found  p h y s i c i a n was not as important  can l e a d t o  into a limited  positions  range o f  or exclusion  1971). McCharen and Earp  o f employer's h i r i n g  of breast  place  from  (1985),  p r a c t i c e s towards women w i t h a that  a good  prognosis  from a  as t h e employer's p e r c e p t i o n s o f  b r e a s t cancer p a t i e n t s i n t h e d e c i s i o n whether t o h i r e . T h i s i s a dramatic  demonstration  individual's  identity.  of  the  Employer's  19  effect  stigma  generally  has  perceived  on  an  breast  cancer  patients  as having  poor  e x t e n s i v e p e r i o d s o f medical Beyond  t h e concern  survival  rates,  and r e q u i r i n g  r e l a t e d absence.  of medical  absenteeism,  many  employers  have s e r i o u s concerns r e g a r d i n g t h e competence o f d i s a b l e d people i n t h e i r work p l a c e . Edgerton (1967) found t h a t p e o p l e  identified  as  competence  'mentally  from and  retarded'  encountered m i s t r u s t o f t h e i r  p o t e n t i a l employers, supportive  competence' easily  references  presented  discredited  actions,  or  regardless from  former  by d i s a b l e d by  of t h e i r  employers.  people  stigmatizing  association  with  work  summary,  physical  sheltered  t h e master  status  The 'cloak o f  t o employers  of  i n such  a way t h a t  other  being  characteristics  or  other  people. disabled  demonstrated i n t h e r e s e a r c h l i t e r a t u r e i s r e c o g n i z e d others  can be  a t t r i b u t e s or  workshops  s p e c i a l i z e d employment o r g a n i z a t i o n s f o r d i s a b l e d In  experiences  as  by s e l f and  or r o l e s are  diminished  i n t h e i r s i g n i f i c a n c e i n both immediate encounters and  long  relations.  may  term  Although having  multiple minority  s h i f t t h e degree of stigma i n d i f f e r i n g  situations,  statuses as f o r a  B l a c k woman with a d i s a b i l i t y , t h e r e remains a predominant master status.  From t h i s p e r s p e c t i v e , gender i n e q u a l i t y i n t h e d i s a b l e d  population disabled  i s expected t o be l e s s severe  as compared t o t h e non-  population. Greater D i f f e r e n c e s By Gender  Greater disabilities  gender  inequality  as compared  between  women  t o the non-disabled  and  men  population  with would  i n d i c a t e t h e consequence o f being s t i g m a t i z e d as d i s a b l e d i s more 20  severe  f o r women than f o r men. I n i t i a l  multiple argued  minority  s t a t u s e s was conducted  individuals  severely  than  consequence  r e s e a r c h i n t h i s area of  i n lower  were  labelled  minority  statuses  has  'stigma'  and t h e 'double  with  higher  deviant.  shifted  Research  i n focus  standard'  status  from  thesis,  majority  consequences statuses. critical  of  o f master  However,  literature status,  on  r e s e a r c h on stigma  o f t h e master  status  than  i n multiple to  thesis.  emphasizes  the  multiple minority  i s increasingly  thesis.  a  o r as Deegan and  stigma  rather  as  'deviance'  Brooks (1985: 2) r e f e r t o i t , t h e 'double jeopardy' The  (1966) who  s t a t u s groups were r e a c t e d t o more  individuals  o f being  by S c h e f f  As K a l l e n  becoming  (1989: 52-6)  e x p l a i n s , t h e l a b e l l i n g and deviance t h e o r e t i c a l models o f master s t a t u s need t o become r e s p o n s i v e t o s h i f t s i n s t a t u s i n d i f f e r i n g situations  where  an i n d i v i d u a l  has m u l t i p l e m i n o r i t y s t a t u s e s ,  such as being female and having a d i s a b i l i t y . Double standards o r jeopardy a r e e x p l a i n e d by d i f f e r e n c e s i n stigmatization  of a d i s a b i l i t y  by gender. That  i s t o say, women  e x p e r i e n c e g r e a t e r s t i g m a t i z a t i o n from a d i s a b i l i t y than men with the  same d i s a b i l i t y  - a double  more severe consequences - double  standard  - and thus  experience  jeopardy.  The Consequences o f M u l t i p l e M i n o r i t y Status F i n e and Asch of  disabled  delimiting female  (1985) c o n c e p t u a l i z e t h e s t i g m a t i z e d i d e n t i t y  women  attributes  as  being  'roleless'.  a s s o c i a t e d with  The  negative  the i d e n t i t i e s  and  o f being  and being d i s a b l e d a r e exacerbated when c o i n c i d i n g  i n the  same  individual's  disability  identity.  presents  greater  Specifically,  impediments  the  stigma  t o t h e female  of  gender  i d e n t i t y as compared t o t h e male gender i d e n t i t y . Estroff  (1981)  differentiated gender  observed  by gender,  as w e l l .  the stigmatization  process  and thus had d i f f e r i n g consequences  She found  gender  t o be  significant  Whereas  unacceptable able  character  were  typically  admitted  ways, women were g e n e r a l l y  t o 'cope'  'psychiatric  men  with  situations.  patient' of  the  While,  i s degrading stigmatization  health  f o r acting i n  admitted  f o r not being  t h e stigma  f o r both  by  i n the  diagnoses made o f p a t i e n t s admitted t o a community mental facility.  was  o f being a  women and men, t h e  i s differentiated  by t h e  diagnoses and treatments common t o women and those common t o men. The Gender D i v i s i o n o f Resources Gender  inequality  i n the disabled  p o p u l a t i o n may a l s o be  exacerbated by t h e u n e q u i t a b l e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f s c a r c e r e s o u r c e s . Kutza  (1985) argues  available  t h e government and community r e s o u r c e s made  f o r disabled  persons  are a l l o c a t e d  on t h e b a s i s  of a  p a t r i a r c h i c a l c o n c e p t i o n o f work. Whereas women g e n e r a l l y r e c e i v e s t i g m a t i z e d and l o w - b e n e f i t r e s o u r c e s through  'welfare' services,  men  through  tend  to  receive  greater  resources  r e h a b i l i t a t i o n o r worker's compensation Estroff different encouraged  vocational  services.  (1981) s i m i l a r l y observed t h a t women and men r e c e i v e  services  as p s y c h i a t r i c  t o pursue  skill  outpatients.  training  22  programs  While  men were  and o c c u p a t i o n s ,  women were encouraged  t o look f o r domestic work o p p o r t u n i t i e s , or  t o seek support from f a m i l y members. Comparable D i f f e r e n c e s By Gender Comparable d i f f e r e n c e s non-disabled, disability work, and disability. disability stigma  a  are  indicate that  p e r v a s i v e , and  income are This are  is  not  of d i s a b i l i t y  situation, nor  would  i n the two  inequality  gender  insignificantly not  severe,  to  say  rather  does not  rather  by  and  both gender  and  differences  i n education,  effected  the  that i t may  alter  the stigma of d i s a b i l i t y  'double-standard',  populations, disabled  the be  gender  by  stigma  consequences the  case  inequality.  that In  of of the  this  i s neither a 'master-status'  i t i s a general status lowering  stigma which does not i n t e r a c t with gender i n e q u a l i t y . Master s t a t u s and double standards may  i n f a c t be p r e s e n t i n  a v a r i e t y of s i t u a t i o n s . However, as Bonwich (1985) suggests, the c a p a c i t y of i n d i v i d u a l ' s t o accommodate t o s o c i a l ,  economic,  p h y s i c a l disadvantage through c r e a t i v e s t r a t e g i e s may some c o n d i t i o n s of master  s t a t u s or double s t a n d a r d s .  23  and  ameliorate  CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH METHODS The  data  Limitations  t o be analyzed  Survey  i s from  the s o c i a l  disability.  and economic  The  and  Activity  (HALS) conducted as a supplement o f t h e 1986  Census o f P o p u l a t i o n . The survey of  the Health  HALS  i s a comprehensive  characteristics  i s particularly  questionnaire  o f persons  useful  with  because  a  of i t s  l i n k a g e w i t h t h e 1986 Census which allows comparative a n a l y s i s of the d i s a b l e d and non-disabled variables  listed  variables  on  cover  the  p o p u l a t i o n s over a s e l e c t i o n o f the Census  of  persona1-level,  Population. household,  The  census  and  family  characteristics. The  HALS  is  comprised  of  six  questionnaires.  questionnaire  forms were used  f o r the household  survey  questionnaire  forms were used  f o r the i n s t i t u t i o n s  household survey has forms based on the respondent's location  and age. The two geographic  household  survey  urban c e n t r e s reserves the  are  recognized  provincial  areas,  Territories  by the selected  and Indian  and (2) n o r t h e r n  and Northwest  The  geographical  regions  p r o v i n c i a l areas,  the Yukon  and two  survey.  i n the Yukon and Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s ,  i n southern  provinces,  (1) southern  Four  areas o f excluding  s e l e c t e d urban c e n t r e s , and remote Indian r e s e r v e s . Each o f these regions  has a q u e s t i o n n a i r e  form f o r a d u l t s  (15 y e a r s  o l d e r ) and one f o r c h i l d r e n ( l e s s than 15 years  o f age and  o f age).  The two  q u e s t i o n n a i r e forms f o r i n s t i t u t i o n s a r e a l s o based on age group  24  ( a d u l t s and c h i l d r e n ) but no d i s t i n c t i o n i s made i n t h e forms f o r geographic The  location.  r e s e a r c h r e p o r t e d here  questionnaire southern  forms  areas,  i s concerned  f o r the  and  household  form  04  questionnaire  questions  form  survey  (form  f o r northern  q u e s t i o n n a i r e form f o r n o r t h e r n Canadians the  w i t h t h e two a d u l t  f o r southern  02 f o r  Canada).  The  i s a reduced v e r s i o n of Canadians.  i n the two forms a r e i d e n t i c a l  except  Most  o f the  f o r questions  where geographic l o c a t i o n r e q u i r e s d i s t i n c t i o n . There children  are  two  i n southern  other  household  Canada  (form 03) and n o r t h e r n Canada  05) . As w i t h t h e a d u l t version forms  forms,  o f t h e southern  were  06  questionnaire  the n o r t h e r n form  form  f o r children,  forms f o r (form  05 i s a reduced  03. I n s t i t u t i o n a l  and 07 f o r a d u l t s .  questionnaire The data  from  t h e s e f o u r forms i s not i n c l u d e d i n t h i s r e s e a r c h . HALS disability  i s t h e second being  component  compiled  component was a supplementary Force  Survey.  Disability  However,  Survey,  by  of the n a t i o n a l  Statistics  data base on  Canada.  The  first  survey conducted w i t h a 198 3 Labour  this  i s limited  survey,  the Canadian  Health  and  i n the v a r i a b l e s employed. HALS i s  the most comprehensive s t a t i s t i c a l  survey o f d i s a b l e d persons i n  Canada. The HALS sample excludes persons i n p e n a l o r c o r r e c t i o n a l facilities,  and persons  living  on Indian r e s e r v e s which were not  enumerated as p a r t o f the 1986 Census.  25  O b j e c t i v e s o f the HALS The  o b j e c t i v e s o f the HALS as s e t out by S t a t i s t i c s  Canada  (1988) a r e : (1) t o extend t h e coverage of t h e n a t i o n a l d a t a base on disability t o i n c l u d e r e s i d e n t s o f t h e Yukon and Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s , on I n d i a n r e s e r v e s , and i n i n s t i t u t i o n s f o r d i s a b l e d persons; (2) t o i n t e r v i e w a s u f f i c i e n t number o f persons w i t h d i s a b i l i t i e s t o enable t h e r e l e a s e of data f o r s u b p r o v i n c i a l a r e a s , and o f the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f persons w i t h d i s a b i l i t i e s o f low p r e v a l e n c e (such as A l z h e i m e r ' s d i s e a s e ) ; and (3) t o extend t h e d e f i n i t i o n of d i s a b i l i t y t o i n c l u d e i n d i v i d u a l s whose d i s a b i l i t y i s due s o l e l y t o the presence o f a p s y c h i a t r i c condition. Development and Implementation o f t h e HALS The HALS was developed by S t a t i s t i c s Canada through meetings with  representatives  departments, and  from  federal,  agencies, crown  f o r disabled  persons  provincial,  corporations, to  determine  and  territorial  and a s s o c i a t i o n s o f their  specific  data  requirements. The HALS q u e s t i o n n a i r e was i n t e n d e d t o c o l l e c t t h e most r e l e v a n t data f o r p o l i c y and s e r v i c e The HALS was implemented  development.  through two s t a g e s . F i r s t ,  a s e t of  q u e s t i o n s on a c t i v i t y l i m i t a t i o n s was i n c l u d e d i n t h e 1986 Census of  Population  designing  questionnaire  a sample  frame  to  assist  from which  Statistics  to select  Canada  in  individuals for  p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e p o s t - c e n s a l survey (HALS). The HALS was completed through i n t e r v i e w s i n households i n t h e autumn o f 1986, and  i n institutions  fieldwork Canada.  was HALS  i n the s p r i n g o f 1987. A l l i n t e r v i e w i n g and  conducted  by t r a i n e d  enumerators  were 26  enumerators selected  from from  Statistics the  Census  enumerators,  and r e c e i v e d a d d i t i o n a l t r a i n i n g  f o r c o n d u c t i n g the  HALS. The  household  stages.  First,  survey  completed  Question  20  on  in  198 6  consisted  activity  of  limitations  d i s a b i l i t i e s i n c l u d e d on the Census long form, which was every  fifth  survey, order  a  household, large  to  was  part  used  of the  to i d e n t i f y ,  potential  two  prior  disabled  f o c u s survey r e s o u r c e s on the t a r g e t  and  asked of  t o the HALS  population, i n  group  as much as  possible. From a l l persons who  were p o s i t i v e l y i d e n t i f i e d as d i s a b l e d  through q u e s t i o n 20 of the Census,  a s e l e c t i o n of 112,000 persons  was  HALS. T h i s  made  known  for inclusion  as  positively from  the  the  elderly  on  Indian  by  Census,  test  persons  and  positively  that  with  sample p o p u l a t i o n ,  a l l persons  a  identified  persons  disabilities  would  Canada  with  mild may  selection  persons.  t e s t was  disabilities  Statistics  identified  representative  a small f i e l d  with  q u e s t i o n 20.  field  included  reserves,  of  the 1986  the  sample,  i f a l l persons  identified from  'Yes'  remainder  conducting assess  the  into  Prior  to  conducted  to  be  positively  (1988)  determined  disabilities, not  and  be  positively  i d e n t i f i e d by q u e s t i o n 20. A sample of 72,500 persons  "negatively  i d e n t i f i e d " by the Census q u e s t i o n 20 were s e l e c t e d f o r i n c l u s i o n in  the  HALS  interviewing.  were t r a n s f e r r e d response persons  t o one were  t o the  From  this  'No'  sample  5%  of  'Yes' sample on the b a s i s o f a p o s i t i v e  of the HALS s c r e e n i n g q u e s t i o n s . Thus,  included  persons  in  the  HALS  household  survey  184,500  of  which  115,500 i n d i v i d u a l s were i n c l u d e d i n the 'Yes' sample o f d i s a b l e d persons. Data C o l l e c t i o n o f t h e HALS For the  t h e completion  o f the HALS q u e s t i o n n a i r e stage most of  'Yes' sample was i n t e r v i e w e d i n person,  sample adult  was  interviewed  sample  member  were  by telephone.  interviewed  o f t h e household  with  and most o f t h e 'No'  Approximately, the a s s i s t a n c e  12% o f t h e of  due t o t h e p h y s i c a l o r p s y c h o l o g i c a l  s t a t e o f t h e respondent. T h i s s i t u a t i o n was unavoidable, extent  to  which  the  presence  of  another  90%;  response  rate  f o r t h e household  but the  household  i n f l u e n c e d r e s u l t s i s unknowable g i v e n the survey The  another  survey  member  design. of adults  was  3% r e f u s a l s ; 6% no c o n t a c t was made; and 1% non-response f o r  'other'  reasons  f o r both  t h e 'Yes' and 'No' samples  (Statistics  Canada, 1988: 3 ) . P r o c e s s i n g and E s t i m a t i o n of the HALS Data Each r e c o r d entered on the HALS household data base i n c l u d e s both  the  HALS  questionnaire  q u e s t i o n n a i r e f o r each person persons. editing  A l l HALS data for validity  erroneous  data  was  and  corresponding  Census  i n c l u d e d i n t h e sample o f d i s a b l e d  base r e c o r d s  and c o n s i s t e n c y identified  the  as  were s u b j e c t e d  t o computer  of responses.  Missing or  'unknown', o r imputed  using  o t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n from the same respondent. In  sample  surveys  of a p o p u l a t i o n ,  each  respondent  i n the  sample i s used t o r e p r e s e n t a subset of persons i n t h e p o p u l a t i o n being  studied.  Thus,  each  o f the HALS 28  data  base  records  was  assigned persons  a  numeric  being  account  t o correspond  with  T h i s numeric weight  non-response,  and  t h e number of was m o d i f i e d t o  discrepancies  between  the  being s t u d i e d and the t a r g e t p o p u l a t i o n . The r e s u l t s  of  t h e survey  an  estimate  population. size,  represented.  for  population  weight  were m u l t i p l i e d of  what  Weighted  i s used  by t h i s numeric weight t o p r o v i d e  the response data,  would  adjusted  be  f o r the  entire  to r e f l e c t  the true  sample  i n t h e a n a l y s i s which f o l l o w s . HALS Data L i m i t a t i o n s  Statistics sample  from t h e HALS data base a r e e s t i m a t e s based  survey  of  a  portion  of  the  (approximately 1 out of every 25 persons 1  out o f every  Canada,  300 persons  Canadian  population  i n t h e 'Yes' sample, and  f o r t h e 'No'  1988: 4 ) . These s t a t i s t i c s  on a  sample)  (Statistics  a r e s u b j e c t t o both  sampling  and non-sampling e r r o r s . A  sampling  error  i s the d i f f e r e n c e  between  t h e estimate  o b t a i n e d from a sample p o p u l a t i o n and t h e r e s u l t which would have come  from  a  total  c o l l e c t i o n procedures. estimated  from  population Sampling  t h e survey  census  using  the  same  data  e r r o r s i n t h e HALS data base were  data. The degree o f e r r o r  i s measured  by t h e standard d e v i a t i o n from the estimate. Where data was found t o have a sampling  e r r o r g r e a t e r than 25% o f i t s e s t i m a t e  deemed  and omitted.  error  unreliable  Data  found  t o have  a  i t was  sampling  i n t h e range o f 16.5% t o 25% i s marked, and needs t o be  used w i t h c a u t i o n . A l l data having a sampling  29  e r r o r of l e s s  than  16.5%  i s regarded  without  by S t a t i s t i c s  Canada  (1988)  t o be  reliable  restrictions.  Non-sampling  errors  a r e more  response,  and p r o c e s s i n g . Non-response t o q u e s t i o n s a l s o  and  i n observation, causes  e r r o r i n data.  Integrating the  differences target  errors  identify  Non-sampling  reduced  include  to  evaluate.  non-sampling  errors  difficult  the HALS  problem  between  of  errors  t h e census  observation  t h e sample  population  observation  of  with  of  error  p o p u l a t i o n has  by  reducing  p o p u l a t i o n i n t h e HALS  a l l persons  with  the  and the  disabilities.  Further  the omission  o f some  may have o c c u r r e d from  I n d i a n r e s e r v e s not enumerated i n the census, and some  collective  dwellings.  Statistics  However,  these  omissions  a r e judged  by  Canada (1988) t o be n e g l i g i b l e i n t h e i r impact. Thus, o b s e r v a t i o n errors  were  assessed  insignificant The depends  Canada  of  non-response  on t h e l e v e l  errors  o f non-response  as h a v i n g an  In p r i n c i p l e ,  t h e consequences  on  survey  estimates  and p a r t i c u l a r l y  between the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  respondents.  (1988)  i n f l u e n c e on the HALS data.  impact  differences  greater  by S t a t i s t i c s  o f respondents  and non-  the more severe these d i f f e r e n c e s , the a r e f o r the accuracy  of the  e s t i m a t e s . A t o t a l non-response occurs when a respondent be  interviewed.  A  partial  questionnaire i s only p a r t i a l l y The  response  Statistics  Canada  rate  on any  non-response  occurs  survey can not  when  the  completed.  f o r the HALS household  (1988) regards t h i s 30  survey  as an a c c e p t a b l e  was 90%. response  rate. the  Statistics  basis  of  non-responses the census  Canada a d j u s t e d the numeric weighing of data on  the  total  can be  non-response  accounted  to identify  errors  rate.  f o r at  The  least  impact  of  partially  total  by u s i n g  i n demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  the sample r e s u l t i n g from t o t a l  of  non-responses.  HALS QUESTIONS This  section  d e s c r i b e s each  section  of q u e s t i o n s asked  in  the HALS. F u r t h e r d e f i n i t i o n of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s measured are p r o v i d e d i n the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n of "Measurement". Screening Questions The  first  section  of  screening  q u e s t i o n s . The  determine  i f the  activities  the  household  questions i n t h i s  respondents  are  limited  survey  contain  section  a r e used  in their  the to  day-to-day  ( A c t i v i t i e s of D a i l y L i v i n g ) because of a c o n d i t i o n or  h e a l t h problem which  i s expected t o l a s t s i x months or more. The  respondents a r e asked whether they have problems p e r f o r m i n g these even  when  brace, due  and to  using  a  special  o t h e r s . Other learning  a i d such  as  glasses,  q u e s t i o n s are asked  disabilities  and  hearing aid,  about  limitations  long-term  emotional,  p s y c h o l o g i c a l , nervous and mental h e a l t h c o n d i t i o n s o r problems. Special Aids The about  second  special  special  aids  section  aids.  The  used  or  of  the  household  purpose needed  of t h i s by  the  survey section  has i s to  respondent  to  questions identify help  in  t r a n s p o r t a t i o n and a c t i n g independently. Questions a r e a l s o asked about  the respondent's  use  of p r e s c r i p t i o n 31  and  non-prescription  medication.  Ross  and  questions  on  not a l l o w  f o r l i n k a g e between use  success  in  use  the  of  Shillington  technical  labour  (1990:  aids  market.  and  71)  criticized  services  since  of s p e c i a l a i d s and Such  a  linkage  the  they  did  s e r v i c e s to  would  have  been  b e n e f i c i a l t o the present study. Social The obtain  purpose of information  problem  affects  t h i s section on  his  household a c t i v i t i e s personal  to  how  the  or  her  and  determine  other the  in  Ross and  this  section  economic  to  do  s u r v e y s may  not  This  is  between not  of  the  the  asking  social  actual  Such  health  everyday  information  needed  by  point  out  of  as  the  service  such  is  disabled  groups.  r e s o u r c e s may  services  but they do not have access t o .  32  or  usage  As  to is  in  access  well,  needs  individuals  withdraw completely  recreation.  r e s o u r c e s may  and  questions  information  l e v e l of need as  HALS q u e s t i o n n a i r e  respondents which  out  investigating differences  l e v e l of usage of such s e r v i c e s and need. The  of  i s to  meals, shopping, managing  linkage  from p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n work, education,  of  survey  carry  support  unfortunate  w i t h o u t a c c e s s t o s e r v i c e s and  level  to  housework.  different  reflect  household  independently.  permit  particularly for  services  ability  S h i l l i n g t o n (1990: 71)  status.  important,  the  respondent's c o n d i t i o n  level  persons t o c o n t i n u e t o l i v e As  of  such as p r e p a r i n g  finances,  intended  Services  Thus,  the  not r e f l e c t  the  addresses t h i s problem technical  aids  they  by  need  Employment The  fourth  providing  section  i n f o r m a t i o n on  of  questions  has  the  the employment b a r r i e r s  objective  of  encountered  by  d i s a b l e d persons i n and not i n the labour f o r c e . Education The health  intent  problems  population  by  of t h i s  s e c t i o n i s t o determine the impact  have on e d u c a t i o n a l attainment. A n a l y s i s age  of  onset  allows  for  comparisons  that  o f the between  d i s a b l e d and n o n - d i s a b l e d persons. Transportation The  questions  in  this  section  address  the  encountered by d i s a b l e d persons i n u s i n g the l o c a l system  and  the d i f f i c u l t i e s  problems  transportation  experienced w h i l e t r a v e l l i n g  longer  d i s t a n c e s by a i r p l a n e , bus, t r a i n , or automobile. Accommodation This  section  respondent  asks  questions  about  uses or needs f o r e n t e r i n g ,  special  leaving,  features  or moving  the about  i n s i d e the r e s i d e n c e . R e c r e a t i o n and This physical  section and  d e a l s with  leisure  the respondent's  activities  eating  as w e l l The  as h i s or her  use  provide  i n f o r m a t i o n of the extent of the respondent's  some of the problems  habits.  participation  alcohol  and  and  Lifestyles  encountered  activities.  33  questions are  smoking,  intended  in participation  in  to  activities i n these  Economic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s The  purpose of t h i s s e c t i o n i s t o o b t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n on  e x t r a o r d i n a r y "out-of-pocket"  the  expenses i n c u r r e d and the amount of  d i s a b i l i t y or compensatory income r e c e i v e d by the respondent. Census Linked C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Throughout  the  HALS s e c t i o n s , q u e s t i o n s  were s e l e c t e d from the 1986 provide  the  data  are  i n c l u d e d which  Census of P o p u l a t i o n . These q u e s t i o n s  f o r comparison  between  the  disabled  and  non-  d i s a b l e d p o p u l a t i o n . The  s e l e c t e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s from the Census  which  the  are  included  in  HALS  come  from  a l l four  u n i v e r s e s i n v e s t i g a t e d i n the Census. These u n i v e r s e s  of  the  are:  (1) p o p u l a t i o n u n i v e r s e which i n c l u d e s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s r e l a t e d t o demographics, force;  (2)  variables; universe Some presented  ethnicity, family  (3)  language,  universe  household  of  schooling, census  universe  and  income and  labour  economic  family  v a r i a b l e s ; and  (4)  dwellings  the  research  characteristics. of  these  here.  questions  These  are  central  characteristics  to  are  discussed  in  the  f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n on "Measurement". MEASUREMENT T h i s s e c t i o n p r o v i d e s i n f o r m a t i o n on how discussed  in this  research  was  measured  each c h a r a c t e r i s t i c  and  HALS. To ensure c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of respondents, has  organized  a l l data  categorized  in  the  S t a t i s t i c s Canada  i n t o c a t e g o r i z e d groupings.  Understanding  the d e f i n i t i o n s of the c a t e g o r i e s used f o r each c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i s important  for interpreting  the  data 34  presented  i n the  HALS.  The  questions  referred  questionnaire  to  below  from  the HALS  household  survey  (form 02) presented i n the appendix. Disability  The  disability  disabilities definitions HALS  as  a  rate percent  of d i s a b i l i t y  i n this  i s the number  Chapter,  and i n Chapter  in  disability,  and respondents  HALS  f o r comparative  disabled  the t o t a l  identifies  with  population. Further  or  Two.  The v a r i a b l e  respondents  who  without a d i s a b i l i t y .  This  analysis  population;  respondents  a r e d i s c u s s e d above i n s e c t i o n s on the  "Disabled"  allows  the  of  of  between  analysis  the disabled  of  either  named  have  a  variable and non-  one  o f the  populations. Impairments The HALS c a t e g o r i z e s impairment, s i x groupings o f m o b i l i t y , a g i l i t y , other.  An  'unknown'  identified did  as d i s a b l e d ,  not s t a t e  persons  category  with  each  into  s e e i n g , h e a r i n g , speaking and  includes  a l l persons  but d i d not s t a t e  one o f t h e i r  multiple  o r type o f d i s a b i l i t y ,  their  impairments  disabilities.  The  who  were  impairment,  or  i n t h e case o f  HALS  record  layout  p r o v i d e s space f o r a maximum o f s i x d i s a b i l i t i e s t o be r e c o g n i z e d f o r each respondent. The HALS micro data p u b l i c use f i l e p r o v i d e s variables  to  identify  respondents  i n each  one  of  the s i x  d i s a b i l i t y populations. The which This  HALS i d e n t i f i e d  are similar format  impairments  t o those used  through s c r e e n i n g q u e s t i o n s  previously  by t h e OECD (1982) .  o f u s i n g s c r e e n i n g q u e s t i o n s has been used w i t h i n 35  surveys  i n Europe,  and D i s a b i l i t y The  the  U.S.A. and  Canada  (1983  Canadian  Survey).  screening questions  identify  the  specific  impairment. For example, s c r e e n i n g q u e s t i o n A1C main  c o n d i t i o n or  ability  to  Health  hear  health a  problem  conversation  which with  the  asks what i s the  limits  one  cause of  or  the  respondents  more  people.  The  respondent i s p r o v i d e d with 14 c h o i c e s which i n c l u d e : c o n g e n i t a l , aging,  injury  through  accident  in  home  or  work,  violent  act,  s t r o k e , d i s e a s e , and other s p e c i f i c d i s o r d e r s w i t h the ear. Thus, it  i s possible to  the  investigate specific  population. This research  between  general  impairment  The seeing "yes"  screening  has  question  use  trouble;  for  a  speaking  for agility,  three  and  and  the d i f f e r e n c e s  thus  refers  only  to  and the unknown c a t e g o r y .  questions  impairments  c o n d i t i o n s among  i s concerned w i t h  categories,  the s i x d i s a b i l i t y groupings  health  point  scale  "completely  impairments  hearing, of:  unable".  is  a  two  mobility "no"  The  point  and  trouble; screening  scale:  "no"  t r o u b l e ; and  "yes" has t r o u b l e . These 17 s c r e e n i n g q u e s t i o n s  are  the  set  was  original  used  to  duplicated of  test  used  by  whether  any  each other.  questions  the  related  to  sensory  and  concluded  t h a t each q u e s t i o n rather  than  mental  (1982) . F a c t o r  the  physical  on  score  of  T h i s concern  questions  the  OECD  OECD was  screening  impairments.  d i d i n c r e a s e the  impairments. 36  questions  r a i s e d g i v e n the  impairments  duplicating  analysis  scores  as  number  compared  MacDowell  to  (1988)  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n of for  the  physical  Statistics  Canada added another  s i x screening questions  to  the HALS beyond the o r i g i n a l seventeen  OECD s c r e e n i n g q u e s t i o n s .  Two  questions  of  the  additional  disabilities. activities sports  Another two  at  or  positively,  but the  cover  sensory  q u e s t i o n covers g e n e r a l l i m i t a t i o n s i n  home, work,  leisure.  impairment,  screening  school, t r a v e l l i n g ,  participating  Where t h i s  g e n e r a l q u e s t i o n was  no  questions  other  respondent's  impairment  in  responded t o  where  identified  an  was  categorized  as  "unknown". Statistics respondents or  Canada  with  psychiatric  questions not  on  provide  designed  three  questions  learning d i s a b i l i t i e s , disabilities.  an  Unfortunately,  scoring for intensity  score  cognitively  scale  for  f o r persons  since  other  q u e s t i o n s . The  as  do  the  these  original  impairments  identifying  the  more  only a  seventeen  will  themselves  limitations  severely  lower  disabled  i n the o r i g i n a l seventeen  and MacDowell and Newell,  mental  impairment  with  no  37  other  be  respondents screening three  i s r e j e c t e d by 1987)  as i t may  l e a d t o i n c r e a s i n g the s e v e r i t y score f o r respondent's  mild  the  as l e a r n i n g ,  a l t e r n a t i v e would have been t o weight these  (1988: 15-6,  do  t h a t w h i l e the absence  q u e s t i o n s on mental impairments. However, weighing MacDowell  screening  or p s y c h i a t r i c a l l y d i s a b l e d , the e f f e c t would not  significant identified  these  l e a r n i n g , c o g n i t i v e and p s y c h i a t r i c d i s a b i l i t i e s  intensity  severity  identify  cognitive d i s a b i l i t i e s ,  OECD q u e s t i o n s . MacDowell (1988) concluded of  to  impairments.  As  with well,  Nunnally  (1967:  278)  questions  whether  weighing  provides  any  g r e a t e r d i s c r i m i n a t i o n as compared t o u s i n g a d d i t i o n a l q u e s t i o n s . These  specific  impairment through Agility  used  to  identify  the s c r e e n i n g q u e s t i o n s are l i s t e d  impairments are l i m i t a t i o n s  d r e s s or undress, grasp  get i n or out of bed,  or handle  positively A16,  limitations  an  below.  Impairments  Agility  to  activity  A17,  to  any  A18,  impairment.  Hearing  Impairments  Hearing  of  these  A19,  screening  identifies  impairments  questions  the  a r e g u l a r telephone,  A13,  respondent  include limitations  fingers  food. Responding A14,  as  i n the  hear what i s being s a i d i n c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h one or hear through  t o bend,  c u t t o e n a i l s , use  o b j e c t s , t o reach or c u t own  and  agility  i n the a b i l i t y  A15,  having  an  ability  to  or more  persons  even w i t h a h e a r i n g a i d . A  h e a r i n g impairment i s i d e n t i f i e d w i t h a p o s i t i v e answer t o one the s c r e e n i n g q u e s t i o n s A l , A2, Mobility  or  of  A3A.  Impairments  M o b i l i t y impairments i n c l u d e l i m i t a t i o n s i n a b i l i t y t o walk, move from room t o room, c a r r y an o b j e c t f o r 10 metres, or stand for  long  periods  of  time.  The  screening  i d e n t i f y m o b i l i t y impairments are: A8, "Other" The because  questions  A9, A10,  A l l , and  used  to  A12.  Impairments category of  disabilities,  of  learning  "other"  impairments  disabilities,  or developmental  includes  emotional  or  d e l a y . A respondent 38  limitations psychiatric  i s identified  as h a v i n g one o f these "other" impairments i f he o r she responds p o s i t i v e l y t o one o f these s c r e e n i n g q u e s t i o n s A21 o r A22. Seeing  Impairments  Seeing  impairments  r e a d o r d i n a r y newsprint  include  limitations  i n the a b i l i t y  or t o see someone from f o u r metres away,  even when wearing g l a s s e s . As w e l l , a respondent having  a  seeing  diagnosed identify  impairment  as l e g a l a seeing  to  when  blindness.  she  or  he  The s c r e e n i n g  impairment with  i s i d e n t i f i e d as has  a  condition  questions  a respondent  used t o  a r e : A4, A5 and  A6A. Speaking  Impairments  Speaking  impairments a r e l i m i t a t i o n s i n a b i l i t y t o speak and  be understood  by o t h e r s . The s c r e e n i n g q u e s t i o n used t o i d e n t i f y  a speaking  impairment i s A7.  "Unknown" Impairments This  category  includes  a l l respondents  who  identified  themselves as d i s a b l e d , but d i d not s p e c i f y t h e nature disability. either  T h i s occurs when a respondent  of screening  questions  A2 0 o r A23  of t h e i r  answers p o s i t i v e l y t o but does not respond  p o s i t i v e l y t o any o f t h e other s c r e e n i n g q u e s t i o n s . S e v e r i t y of Impairments Disability questions provide  that  surveys  generally  a r e combined  an o v e r a l l  score  use  a  set  following a suitable  indicating  the s e v e r i t y  of  screening  algorithm to of d i s a b i l i t y .  T h i s s c o r e may then be c a t e g o r i z e d i n t o d i s c r e t e l e v e l s ,  such as  " m i l d " , "moderate" and "severe" d i s a b i l i t y . Such a s c o r e p r o v i d e s 39  an  overall  indication  comparative levels  analysis  functional  between  groups  level, of  and  A  variety  a  respondent,  Scales  or  functional disabilities  disabilities).  o f a l t e r n a t i v e s have been used  scale.  permitting  differing  ( i . e , comparing incomes f o r persons w i t h m i l d  t o persons w i t h severe  such  of  either  separate  provide  scores  a  f o r constructing  single  f o r each  score  f o r each  impairment  f o r each  respondent. The score used by the HALS i s a s i n g l e s c o r e g i v e n t o each  individual.  The i n t e n s i t y  and range o f a l l impairments f o r  each respondent a r e measured on a d i s a b i l i t y s c a l e developed f o r the HALS (MacDowell, 1988). The d i s a b i l i t y s c o r e s have a p o s s i b l e range  from  responses  1 t o 43. T h i s s e v e r i t y s c a l e was developed t o t h e twenty-one  screening questions seeing the  counting  The s c o r i n g i s d e r i v e d  severity  one p o i n t  of d a i l y  p l u s two a d d i t i o n a l q u e s t i o n s  disabilities.  separate  "activities  scores  f o r each  f o r each  partial  loss  u s i n g the  living"  (ADL)  on h e a r i n g and  by adding screening  together question;  of f u n c t i o n  and two  p o i n t s f o r each complete l o s s o f f u n c t i o n , per q u e s t i o n . The than  t o t a l score i s then c a t e g o r i z e d as f o l l o w s : m i l d i s l e s s  5 p o i n t s ; moderate i s 5 t o 10 p o i n t s , and severe  more p o i n t s  (MacDowell,  1988). These c a t e g o r i e s w h i l e  are designed  t o be e a s i l y understood  i s 11 o r arbitrary  by u s e r ' s , and comparable t o  s c a l e s used elsewhere (such as the OECD 1982). The c a t e g o r i e s a r e set  to reflect  percent "mild"  t h e e x p e c t a t i o n t h a t t h e r e should  (approximately category,  with  45%) o f the d i s a b l e d the second 40  largest  be t h e l a r g e s t  population  portion  i n the  (approximately  30%)  in  the  "moderate"  category,  and  the  smallest  portion  (approximately 20%) i n t h e "severe" c a t e g o r y . The c a t e g o r i e s a l s o were s e l e c t e d  to reflect  the HALS. C o n s i s t e n t  usage o f t e c h n i c a l a i d s as measured i n  use o f a i d s  and s e r v i c e s was observed f o r  g e n e r a l l y 4% o r respondents w i t h a score of 1 t o 4; however, a t a score  o f 5 t h e use of s p e c i a l  increases selected  to generally t o respect  aids  and s e r v i c e s  12%. F i n a l l y ,  the d i g n i t y  dramatically  the c a t e g o r y l a b e l s  of the respondents,  were  and a v o i d  l a b e l s which may be p e j o r a t i v e . T h i s approach of a s s i g n i n g a s i n g l e score t o each respondent i s c o m p l i c a t e d s i n c e i t r e q u i r e s a s i n g l e measure t o r e f l e c t both t h e i n t e n s i t y and range o f each impairment o f t h e respondent. The range  of  an  impairment  impairment  refers  limits activity  to  the  (i.e,arthritic  areas  in  which  impairments may  the limit  a range o f a c t i v i t i e s of a g i l i t y and m o b i l i t y ) . The i n t e n s i t y of an  impairment  i s the extent  of the s p e c i f i c  limitation (i.e,  p a r t i a l o r t o t a l l o s s of f u n c t i o n ) . The score i n c r e a s e s w i t h both the range and i n t e n s i t y o f impairment. An o v e r a l l both  score f o r each respondent i s i n t e n d e d t o r e f l e c t  the i n t e n s i t y  comparisons  and range  of d i s a b i l i t i e s ;  o f " s e v e r i t y of d i s a b i l i t y "  example,  comparisons  can  be  made  arthritic  impairment which p a r t i a l l y  and thus, permit  between respondents. For  of  a  respondent  with  an  l i m i t s f u n c t i o n s i n a range  of a c t i v i t i e s t o a respondent who i s t o t a l l y deaf. This  approach  makes  assumptions  about  the  relative  importance o f range and i n t e n s i t y of an impairment w i t h o u t making 41  explicit HALS  the  r e l a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e s . MacDowell  scoring  variety  of  scale  after  conducting  alternative scales. scale  and  statistical  MacDowell  category  (1988) produced  (1988)  scheme are  tests  the  on  concluded  this  disability  best  s u i t e d approach f o r the purposes of the HALS.  a  that  statistically  the  Work L i m i t a t i o n s The extent  HALS of  further  activity  categories  are  employment  section  The were:  (1)  limited,  (2)  disabled  operationalized of  the  through  HALS  and  the  questions discussed  of  four  population settings.  questions  two  general  be  mild,  disabled not  population  l i m i t e d , (2)  as  the  on  respondents  who  (3) completely unable  and  i n k i n d or amount of a c t i v i t y a t work or a t s c h o o l . i s categorized  disabled  and  as:  limited  highly  correlated  medium  and  Respondents  with  severe,  were  (1) d i s a b l e d but not i n work,  the  Cohen  and;  (3)  above (1990)  severity  Thus  limited in  disabled  expected  categories  identified  and  of  significant  c l a s s i f i c a t i o n schemes.  considered  answered p o s i t i v e l y t o one and  in  above i n the s e c t i o n  i s categorized  l i m i t e d , or  v a r i a t i o n betweens these two  D69,  These  activity  c o m p l e t e l y unable t o work. While these c l a s s e s might be to  by  Impairments.  the p o p u l a t i o n work;  the  limitations in a variety  l i m i t a t i o n s screening S e v e r i t y of  categorizes  as  limited  of Questions 2 0 ( i i ) ,  D73.  42  at  work  if  they  2 3 ( i i ) , D19,  D55,  Age Groups The birthday  age  of  each  respondent  as o f the census  was  reference  for their  date  most  o f June  3  recent  1986. To  ensure c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y o f respondents, t h e HALS c a t e g o r i z e s each respondent's  age i n t o  five  year age groups.  The youngest  five five  year  age group  i s the 15 t o 19 year o l d group. The o l d e s t  year  age group  i s the 80 t o 84 year o l d group. The h i g h e s t age  group  i s f o r a l l respondents  research  85 y e a r s o f age o r o l d e r .  i s concerned w i t h the t e n "working-age"  This  groups from 15  t o 64 y e a r s o f age. Demographic L o c a t i o n The HALS i d e n t i f i e s respondents demographic  l o c a l e s through  (1) p r o v i n c e o r t e r r i t o r y and (2) census m e t r o p o l i t a n area, other urban  area  or r u r a l  province  or  located.  As  either  area.  territory well,  Respondents  i n which  respondents  an urban area  are categorized  their  permanent  are categorized  (one o f the i d e n t i f i e d  i n t o the  address i s  as r e s i d i n g i n  census m e t r o p o l i t a n  areas) o r a r u r a l area. The i d e n t i f i e d census m e t r o p o l i t a n areas are:  S t . John's; H a l i f a x ; Montreal; Toronto; Winnipeg;  Edmonton;  Vancouver,  and; other  urban  areas.  This  Calgary;  research i s  concerned w i t h comparisons of urban and r u r a l areas, and not w i t h d i f f e r e n c e s between s p e c i f i c census m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a s . Ethnic Origins Ethnic  origins  refers  t o the e t h n i c  or c u l t u r a l  groups t o  which t h e respondent o r the respondent's a n c e s t o r s belong. E t h n i c or c u l t u r a l group r e f e r s t o the a n c e s t r y o f t h e respondent and i s 43  distinct the  from  citizenship  or n a t i o n a l i t y .  respondents e t h n i c o r i g i n  reasons  of c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y  respondents  categorizes  i n t o only one o f t h r e e groups f o r  requirements.  are categorized  The HALS  as  one  Unfortunately, a l l  of: b r i t i s h ;  french, or;  other. Highest L e v e l o f S c h o o l i n g The  HALS measures and c a t e g o r i z e s e d u c a t i o n a l attainment of  respondents  by t h e i r  highest  level  of schooling  achieved.  The  c a t e g o r i e s used by the HALS a r e : Elementary and Secondary only *no s c h o o l i n g o r k i n d e r g a r t e n •grades 1 t o 4 *grades 5 t o 8 •grades 9 t o 10 •grades 11 t o 13 •high school graduation c e r t i f i c a t e • t r a d e s c e r t i f i c a t e or diploma Other N o n - U n i v e r s i t y Education only •some post-secondary education but without other n o n - u n i v e r s i t y or t r a d e s c e r t i f i c a t e or diploma, and with a t r a d e s c e r t i f i c a t e •some post-secondary education with a t r a d e s c e r t i f i c a t e o r diploma •some post-secondary education with a n o n - u n i v e r s i t y c e r t i f i c a t e or diploma U n i v e r s i t y Education some u n i v e r s i t y without a degree without other n o n - u n i v e r s i t y education •some u n i v e r s i t y without a c e r t i f i c a t e , diploma o r degree •some u n i v e r s i t y with a t r a d e s c e r t i f i c a t e o r diploma • u n i v e r s i t y c e r t i f i c a t e or diploma below b a c h e l o r l e v e l w i t h other n o n - u n i v e r s i t y education •some u n i v e r s i t y and n o n - u n i v e r s i t y without a c e r t i f i c a t e , diploma o r degree •some u n i v e r s i t y and n o n - u n i v e r s i t y with a t r a d e s c e r t i f i c a t e o r diploma •some u n i v e r s i t y with a n o n - u n i v e r s i t y c e r t i f i c a t e o r diploma •some n o n - u n i v e r s i t y with an u n i v e r s i t y c e r t i f i c a t e o r diploma below b a c h e l o r l e v e l u n i v e r s i t y w i t h a degree • b a c h e l o r ' s o r f i r s t p r o f e s s i o n a l degree • u n i v e r s i t y c e r t i f i c a t e above b a c h e l o r ' s degree •master's degree •earned d o c t o r a t e degree 44  Although  this  variable  is  described  as  "highest  level  s c h o o l i n g " , i m p l y i n g a h i e r a r c h y of e d u c a t i o n a l attainment, are  in fact  a number of  i n s t a n c e s which v i o l a t e  the  The  research  a n a l y s i s here c o l l a p s e d these c a t e g o r i e s i n t o  of  there  hierarchy. years  of s c h o o l i n g as f o l l o w s : * l e s s than 1 year (0.5 y e a r s ) ; *1 t o 5 y e a r s (2.5 y e a r s ) ; •6 t o 8 y e a r s (6.5 y e a r s ) ; •9 or more y e a r s , but l e s s than high s c h o o l g r a d u a t i o n (9.5 years); * h i g h s c h o o l g r a d u a t i o n (12 y e a r s ) ; *1 year of post-secondary (13 y e a r s ) ; *3 y e a r s of post-secondary (15 y e a r s ) ; • b a c h e l o r ' s degree (17 y e a r s ) ; • b a c h e l o r ' s degree and c e r t i f i c a t e or diploma (18 y e a r s ) ; •master's degree (19 y e a r s ) , and; • d o c t o r a l degree (21 y e a r s ) . This  method  of  years  of  schooling  measure of e d u c a t i o n a l attainment Labour  allows  population  a  more  direct  in statistical analysis. Force  Labour f o r c e s t a t u s r e f e r s t o the age  for  (excluding  labour market a c t i v i t y institutional  of  the  working  residents)  who  i n the week p r i o r t o enumeration were employed or unemployed.  The  remainder of the working age p o p u l a t i o n i s c l a s s i f i e d as  "not  i n the l a b o u r f o r c e " . Respondents prior  to  considered  enumeration:  housework and volunteer  are  other  work; or  because of own  (1)  did  employed any  who  work  at  during all,  the  week  excluding  maintenance or r e p a i r s of the d w e l l i n g , (2)  were absent  from  their  temporary i l l n e s s or d i s a b i l i t y ,  job  or  45  business  vacation,  d i s p u t e a t t h e i r p l a c e of work, or were absent f o r o t h e r  and  labour  reasons.  A respondent  i s c o n s i d e r e d unemployed when d u r i n g t h e week  p r i o r t o enumeration: for  employment  (1) was without work, had a c t i v e l y searched  i n the p r e v i o u s f o u r weeks and was  available to  work; o r (2) was on a " l a y - o f f " and expected t o r e t u r n t o t h e i r job;  or  (3) had d e f i n i t e  plans t o s t a r t  work  i n four  weeks or  less. Respondents are c l a s s i f i e d as not i n t h e l a b o u r f o r c e who i n the week p r i o r  t o enumeration  were u n w i l l i n g o r unable t o o f f e r  or s u p p l y t h e i r  labour s e r v i c e s under c o n d i t i o n s e x i s t i n g  labour  This  market.  classification  includes  i n the  respondents  who  searched f o r work d u r i n g the p r e v i o u s f o u r weeks but who were not available  to  start  work  in  the  reference  week.  As  well,  i n d i v i d u a l s not i n the labour f o r c e a r e : respondents who d i d not work f o r pay; d i d not have a new less;  were not on a temporary  job to s t a r t  lay-off,  i n f o u r weeks o r  o r ; had not searched f o r  p a i d work i n t h e f o u r weeks p r i o r t o enumeration. Common measures of labour f o r c e a c t i v i t y and  unemployment r a t e s .  respondents population force  i n the  The p a r t i c i p a t i o n  labour  force  as  a  are p a r t i c i p a t i o n  rate  i s t h e number of  percent  of  the  total  ( e x c l u d i n g respondents who d i d not s t a t e t h e i r labour  activity) .  The  unemployment  rate  is  the  number  of  respondents who were unemployed as a p e r c e n t o f a l l respondents e i t h e r employed o r unemployed. Hours Worked The  measure of hours  a c t u a l number  worked  i n the r e f e r e n c e week i s the  of hours t h a t respondents worked i n t h e week p r i o r 46  to  enumeration i n 1986. T h i s  salary, farm  tips  includes  hours worked  o r commission, hours worked  or p r o f e s s i o n a l  practice,  f o r wages,  i n one's own b u s i n e s s ,  or hours worked without pay i n a  f a m i l y b u s i n e s s o r farm owned o r operated by a r e l a t i v e l i v i n g i n the or  same household. "Work" i n t h i s d e f i n i t i o n e x c l u d e s housework other  work.  maintenance o r r e p a i r s  The  HALS  provides  population  from  1 t o 65  around t h e home and v o l u n t e e r  measures  of  hours  hours per week.  worked  f o r the  A l l respondents  who  worked 66 o r more hours per week a r e c a t e g o r i z e d t o g e t h e r . Weeks Worked The HALS p r o v i d e s i n f o r m a t i o n on the number o f weeks i n 1985 during  which a respondent worked even i f f o r o n l y  a few hours.  T h i s measure i n c l u d e s weeks of v a c a t i o n o r s i c k l e a v e w i t h pay or paid  absence  excludes  on  housework  training  courses.  or other  "Work"  in this  definition  maintenance o r r e p a i r s  around the  home, and v o l u n t e e r work. Respondents a r e i d e n t i f i e d  as working  52 weeks even i f they d i d work f o r fewer weeks so l o n g as they were  paid  for a full  year  ( i . e , school  month b a s i s ) . The c a t e g o r i e s f o r weeks of work a r e : *no weeks i n 1986, and worked before 1985; *no weeks i n 1985, and worked i n 1986; •worked 1 t o 13 weeks f u l l time; •worked 1 t o 13 weeks p a r t time; •worked 14 t o 26 weeks f u l l time; •worked 14 t o 26 weeks p a r t time; •worked 27 t o 39 weeks f u l l time; •worked 27 t o 39 weeks p a r t time; •worked 40 t o 48 weeks f u l l time; •worked 40 t o 48 weeks p a r t time; •worked 49 t o 52 weeks f u l l time, and; •worked 49 t o 52 weeks p a r t time. 47  teachers  paid  on a 12  Occupational Occupational respondent  to  status  Status  i s measured  identify  their  i n the  HALS by  occupation.  c a t e g o r i z e s s p e c i f i c occupations  Statistics  occupational  occupations.  the  Canada  i n t o o c c u p a t i o n a l groups. In the  case of the HALS, requirements of c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y twelve  asking  groups  being  used  to  result  i n only  categorize  all  These o c c u p a t i o n a l groups are:  *upper l e v e l management; •middle and other management; •professionals; • s e m i - p r o f e s s i o n a l s and t e c h n i c i a n s ; •supervisors; •foremen and forewomen; • c l e r i c a l workers; • s a l e workers; • s e r v i c e workers; • s k i l l e d c r a f t s and t r a d e s ; • s e m i - s k i l l e d manual workers, and; •other manual workers; A complete l i s t i n g each  of which s p e c i f i c  occupational  group  used  in  occupations the  HALS  are is  included i n  available  in  S t a t i s t i c s Canada (1989: appendix H). Employment and T o t a l Income Employment income  and  categories.  employment earnings all  total The  income  employment  during  1985.  The  0 1 t o 999 1000 t o 2999 3000 t o 4999 5000 t o 6999 7000 t o 9999 10 000 t o 14  999 48  measured  income total  income from a l l sources d u r i n g 1985.  income c a t e g o r i e s are both: $ $ $ $ $ $ $  is  The  in  measure  the is  HALS  by  for a l l  income measure i s f o r employment and  total  $ $ $ $ $  15 20 25 30 35  000 000 000 000 000  to to to to or  19 999 24 999 29 999 34 999 more Low Income S t a t u s  Statistics  Canada  does  not measure  poverty,  rather, i t  d e f i n e s a s e t o f income ' c u t - o f f s ' below which people may be s a i d to  live  in  'straitened  similar  convention  when e s t i m a t i n g low income s t a t u s  income a v a i l a b l e  includes  a l l sources  various  poverty  Low  measured  total  to  circumstances'.  t o the household o f income  employment e a r n i n g s , investment t r a n s f e r s . A household  such  income  rates.  from  status i s  The  accepted  i s t o examine t h e a l l members. T h i s  as, but not l i m i t e d t o ,  income, pensions, and government  i s d e f i n e d here as any l i v i n g arrangement  i n which people who a r e r e l a t e d t o one another by b l o o d , marriage or common-law r e l a t i o n s share a common d w e l l i n g . A household's when  a family  total  income  clothing,  1985 income was deemed below t h e c u t - o f f p o i n t  was r e q u i r e d than  t o spend  the average  and s h e l t e r .  at least  Canadian  This level  family  2 0%  more o f  does  on  o f income l e a v e s v e r y  its  food,  limited  money f o r o t h e r requirements of d a i l y l i v i n g . The low income c u t offs  v a r y by both household  persons, example one  and  urban  family  or r u r a l  size,  location  t o a maximum  o f seven  o f t h e household.  i n 1985, the low income c u t - o f f s f o r l a r g e c i t i e s  person,  $10 200; two persons,  100; and f o u r persons, $20 800.  49  For were:  $13 500; t h r e e persons,  $18  Ross and S h i l l i n g t o n income  cut-off  levels  (1990: 18) p o i n t out t h a t these low-  a r e not a d j u s t e d  f a c t t h a t many d i s a b l e d persons the  non-disabled  upwards t o r e f l e c t the  have h i g h e r c o s t s o f l i v i n g  population.  Obviously,  respondents  than with  s u b s t a n t i a l l y h i g h e r e x t r a o r d i n a r y l i v i n g c o s t s as a r e s u l t o f a health  c o n d i t i o n may  status  criteria  cut-off asked  point  1985  services. only  while  what  for a  meet t h e s p i r i t  having  for their  respondents  during  i n fact  an income  household  above t h e f o r m a l l y s e t  size.  The HALS q u e s t i o n n a i r e  'extra out-of-pocket'  variety  Unfortunately,  of  health  the data  o f t h e low-income  expenses they  related  products  r e l e a s e d by S t a t i s t i c s  shows whether expenses where i n c u r r e d , without  made and  Canada  amounts, i n  each o f these seven areas. ANALYSIS The  HALS  analyzed  with  extended  release  Terminal  file  System  f o r adults  the  (15 years  Statistical  3.0 (MTS).  Package  (SPSSx)  on  The data  the  of age and over)  was  for Social  Sciences  university's  Michigan  a n a l y s i s was  a comparison o f  gender d i f f e r e n c e s i n the d i s a b l e d p o p u l a t i o n as compared t o the n o n - d i s a b l e d p o p u l a t i o n . T h i s comparison of gender d i f f e r e n c e s i n socio-economic disabled  populations  disability significance income;  characteristics  f o r men  provides and  between  the d i s a b l e d  a measure o f t h e consequences o f  women.  The  characteristics  f o r t h i s r e s e a r c h are: l e v e l o f e d u c a t i o n ;  occupation;  hours  of  and non-  work;  labour f o r c e s t a t u s . 50  living  of  most  personal  arrangements;  and  Where  the  statistical ethnic,  populations  reliability  age  or  large  enough  to  groups  in  the  disabled  be made with the r e s p e c t i v e  population  Comparative a n a l y s e s of t h e s e  by  conducted  will  statistically  also  be  reliable.  These  where the  further  such  s o c i a l group i n the  non-disabled population. region  provide  f o r a n a l y s i s of gender d i f f e r e n c e s among  class  comparisons w i l l  are  variables  populations  l e v e l s of  remain  analysis  could  determine the s i g n i f i c a n c e of a d i s a b i l i t y ' s consequences f o r  men  and  (as  women  in  e t h n i c i t y , age, The  relation c l a s s , and  analysis  disabilities  to  other  to  characteristics  region).  considers  compared  social  a  the  consequence  singular  disability.  of  multiple  For  example,  i n v e s t i g a t i n g the consequences of mental and m o b i l i t y is  complicated  by  the  these populations. have a  secondary  mobility agility. secondary have the of  The  impairment  hearing  i n speech. As  generally  have  a  However,  this  well,  differs  by  generally a  impairment  in  had  the  lowest r a t e  of  group  was  also  to  l e a s t severe consequences from d i s a b i l i t y . disability  among  persons w i t h  secondary  impaired p o p u l a t i o n  disabilities.  multiple  than men  disabilities  I n d i v i d u a l s with a mental impairment  impairment The  prevalence of m u l t i p l e  impairments  The  gender. Women are  shown  presence  less  likely  t o have a s i n g l e d i s a b i l i t y . time of  onset of a d i s a b i l i t y was  also considered.  i n v e s t i g a t i o n of gender d i f f e r e n c e s by p e r i o d of d i s a b i l i t y (such as  childhood,  adulthood,  related  consideration  was  late the 51  adulthood) was provision  of  The onset  conducted. benefits  A  and  compensation. are  Persons d i s a b l e d  while  work or  i n an  accident  compensated through insurance s e r v i c e s above s t a n d a r d p u b l i c  s e r v i c e s and  b e n e f i t s f o r d i s a b l e d persons.  Finally, examined  the  to  region  in  determine  which  the  services  and  provinces  and w i t h i n p r o v i n c e s  integration  benefits  and  occupational l e v e l s of differ  structure  region.  the  throughout  of  statistical  For  The  regions,  urban/rural  The  and  research  focus of  women  of  and  has  men  the in  the  between  consequences f o r the e x t e n t of  between  persons  As  well,  urban  and  since rural  sample was  for  subprovincial on  generated  the areas also  organized  estimates  for  living  be  here was  Indian for  to the  areas  reserves, provincial  concerned w i t h major Canadian  comparisons.  research work.  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and  impact  the  v a r i a b l e s described  in  disability  statistical  can  social  relations  a  status.  persons  estimates  populations.  was  differences  with  HALS household  disabled  Canada.  lives  socio-economic s t a t u s of d i s a b l e d  generation  characteristics  persons  varies  The  individual  d i f f e r e n c e s i n the p r o v i s i o n of  socio-economic  i n t e g r a t i o n and  with  permit  for  an  regional  consequences of a d i s a b i l i t y . The  for  at  i s the It  is  important  conditions  between  consequence of  which  disability  and  to may  examine  above were i n v e s t i g a t e d f o r t h e i r  52  other  significantly  gender.  s i g n i f i c a n c e t o the r e l a t i o n s between d i s a b i l i t y and  disability  The  other  statistical gender.  CHAPTER FOUR RESEARCH FINDINGS T h i s Chapter p r e s e n t s from  the  HALS.  The  the data  first  for selected characteristics  section  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the p o p u l a t i o n . The comparative measuring  a n a l y s i s of  gender  sections  of  those  inequality  this  Chapter  presents  second s e c t i o n p r o v i d e s a  characteristics in  the  present  most  population. the  income  concerned  i n the  with  population.  examining  The  the  first  to  final  two  from  multiple  and employment  of these  interaction  relevant  The  findings  r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s e s of e d u c a t i o n a l attainment, total  descriptive  and  sections i s  between,  and  the  s i g n i f i c a n c e o f , d i s a b i l i t y and gender as measured by income.  The  following  the  disabled  s e c t i o n examines population  research  is  with  the  extent  regards  to  principally  concerned  of  variation  education with,  working age p o p u l a t i o n u n l e s s otherwise  and  and  within income.  refers  to,  This the  stated.  GENERAL POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS This for  the  s e c t i o n provides  population.  The  data  of  descriptive characteristics  f o l l o w i n g two  s e c t i o n s of  this  Chapter  p r e s e n t s f i n d i n g s of analyses of gender i n e q u a l i t y i n employment, and r e l a t e d  characteristics. Total Population  The  percentage  population  of a d u l t s  account f o r 52.5% of  of  people  (15 years  with  disabilities  of age  or o l d e r )  i n the  i s 14.3%. Women  of t h i s d i s a b l e d a d u l t p o p u l a t i o n and  the a d u l t non-disabled  population. 53  general  for  50.9%  There were 97.7% o f women and 96.8% o f men w i t h  disabilities  of working age r e s i d i n g i n p r i v a t e households, w i t h t h e remainder residing 1990).  i n health  There  related institutions  i s a difference  i n rates  (Harvey  of i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n  between women and men i n t h e e l d e r l y  population  women  reside  as compared  institutions. non-disabled  t o 11.5% o f men  This  research  population  i s concerned  of women  and Tepperman,  19.0% of  i n health  with  and men  where  related  t h e d i s a b l e d and  residing  i n private  households. Comparisons population  of  the  a r e complicated  structure  disabled  and  non-disabled  by s u b s t a n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e age  o f each p o p u l a t i o n .  Persons o f working  y e a r s o f age) r e p r e s e n t 78.2% of t h e n o n - d i s a b l e d represent division  only  age (15 t o 64 p o p u l a t i o n , but  63.3% o f t h e d i s a b l e d p o p u l a t i o n .  of the population  groups i s necessary,  adult  into  particularly  working  As a  result,  age and e l d e r l y  age  f o r examination o f employment,  l a b o u r f o r c e and income c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . D i s a b l e d persons account f o r 10.4% o f t h e working age p o p u l a t i o n . While  women  comprise make  57.2% o f  population,  women  population.  In t h e non-disabled  the disabled  up 49.7% o f t h e d i s a b l e d population  women  elderly  working age account f o r  56.5% o f e l d e r l y persons and f o r 50.3% o f persons o f working age.  and  The h i g h e r  rates  the higher  proportion  partly  arise  of i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n o f women  f o r e l d e r l y women  i n the e l d e r l y  because women, on average, l i v e  longer  population than men. A  f u r t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n of t h e h i g h e r r a t e of i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n of 54  elderly  women c o u l d be t h a t  independent necessary  e l d e r l y women a r e l e s s e c o n o m i c a l l y  than men, and thus not as a b l e t o a c q u i r e  f o r remaining  particularly  relevant  i n a private  household.  This  services may be  i n areas where community s e r v i c e s p r o v i d e d  a t low o r no c o s t a r e l e s s a v a i l a b l e . Provincial The generally  Distribution  distribution reflects  of d i s a b l e d persons i n Canada by p r o v i n c e  the d i s t r i b u t i o n  more meaningful comparison province The  rate  of the t o t a l  comes from d i s a b i l i t y  population. A rates  f o r each  (the percentage of t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n w i t h d i s a b i l i t i e s ) . of d i s a b i l i t y  f o r persons  age 15 y e a r s and o l d e r i s  c o n s i s t e n t l y h i g h e r f o r women than f o r men i n a l l p r o v i n c e s , and the  Northwest  Territories.  Only  in British  Columbia  are the  d i s a b i l i t y r a t e s s i m i l a r between women and men. I n t h e Yukon, t h e d i s a b i l i t y r a t e i s h i g h e r f o r men than f o r women. Impairment S t a t u s T h i s s e c t i o n shows t h e p o r t i o n of d i s a b l e d persons who have an a c t i v i t y  limitation  i n each o f t h e impairment  g r o u p i n g s . The  data below i s shown i n t a b l e 1. m o b i l i t y and a g i l i t y The  most  limitations.  impairments  common  Mobility  group  of  impairments  impairments are present  are among  mobility 67.6% o f  women and 51.0% o f men i n the d i s a b l e d p o p u l a t i o n . I n d i v i d u a l s w i t h a m o b i l i t y impairment commonly a l s o have an agility  impairment.  Agility  impairments  a r e t h e second  most  common group o f l i m i t a t i o n s . The percentage o f a g i l i t y impaired 55  Table 1 IMPAIRMENT STATUS IN THE DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION o o  Women  o o  Men  Women as a %  Mobility  67.6  51.0  56.7  Agility  56.0  47.8  53.7  Other  27.7  28.3  49.2  Hearing  18.5  28.6  39.0  Seeing  12.6  10.5  54.3  Speaking  5.5  6.7  44.8  Unknown  7.1  9.7  41.8  56  persons for  i n the disabled  population  men. Women comprise  the majority  (56.7%) and a g i l i t y  impaired  consistently  a  have  i s 56.0% f o r women and 47.8% of the mobility  (53.7%) p o p u l a t i o n s .  higher  rate  of  impaired  As w e l l , women  mobility  and  agility  impairments than men f o r a l l age groups. psychological, The  c o g n i t i v e and speaking impairments  'other'  scheme  category  includes  respondents  psychiatric disabilities, population with  a  including  speaking  cognitive  in Statistics  classification  learning,  cognitive  and  i s t h e t h i r d l a r g e s t among t h e d i s a b l e d  27.7% o f women and 28.3% o f men. Persons  impairment  disability.  with  Canada's  commonly  have  a  psychological  Among t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y  population,  Speaking  impairments a r e t h e l e a s t common group o f l i m i t a t i o n s .  speaking  population  impairment.  psychologically speaking d i s a b l e d hearing  a r e not as common.  5.5% o f women and 6.7% o f men have a Women  cognitively  account  f o r 49.2%  disabled  and  of the  44.8% o f t h e  population.  impairments  Hearing of  and  impairments  and c o g n i t i v e l y  disabled  In t h e d i s a b l e d  speaking  or  impairments c o n s t i t u t e t h e f o u r t h most common group  l i m i t a t i o n s . Hearing  impairments  are present  among 18.5%  of  women and 28.6% o f men. Hearing impaired persons have t h e lowest rate  of multiple  hearing  disability.  impaired p o p u l a t i o n .  Women comprise This  only  i s the smallest  39.0% o f t h e percentage f o r  women i n a l l t h e census groupings of l i m i t a t i o n s . However, t h e  57  higher  general  rate  of hearing  impairments  f o r men compared t o  women i s not c o n s i s t e n t f o r a l l age groups. seeing  impairments  Seeing  impairments  a r e t h e second  least  common g r o u p i n g o f  impairments. In t h e d i s a b l e d p o p u l a t i o n 12.6% o f women and 10.5% of  men have  a seeing  impairment.  Women r e p r e s e n t  54.3% o f t h e  s e e i n g impaired p o p u l a t i o n . c a t e g o r y o f unknown nature o f impairment Among t h e d i s a b l e d p o p u l a t i o n 7.1% o f women and 9.7% o f men had  an impairment  which  was i d e n t i f i e d  but t h e n a t u r e  of the  l i m i t a t i o n was not s p e c i f i e d . summary In  summary,  agility, hearing and  for  and s e e i n g  more  often  than  men  have  mobility,  impairments. Men more o f t e n than women have  and speaking impairments. The presence o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l  cognitive  highest  women  disability  concentration  men i s i n h e a r i n g  among  women  and men  o f women i s i n m o b i l i t y  i s similar.  The  impairments, and  impairments. Although women have a h i g h e r  i n c i d e n c e than men o f m o b i l i t y impairment f o r a l l age groups, t h e higher  i n c i d e n c e o f h e a r i n g impairments i n men i s n o t c o n s i s t e n t  i n a l l age groups  (Harvey and Tepperman, 1990). Multiple D i s a b i l i t i e s  The p o r t i o n of d i s a b l e d persons w i t h a s i n g l e impairment i s 40.9%  f o r women and 48.9% f o r men. Persons w i t h two impairments  account  f o r 35.5% o f women and 30.0% of men w i t h d i s a b i l i t i e s .  The presence o f t h r e e o r more impairments was i d e n t i f i e d i n 23.6% 58  Table 2 MULTIPLE DISABILITY STATUS OF DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATIONS Number o f C o n d i t i o n s (%) 4  5  6 o r more  14.4  6.4  2.4  0.4  30.0  13.4  5.5  1.7  0.5  54.0  51.4  1  2  Women  40.9  35.5  Men  48.9  45.3  Women as a Percentage of Pop.  3  53.6  58.1  Table 3 SEVERITY STATUS OF DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION 0  "6  Women  Men Women as a Percentage of Pop.  0  ,  "o  0  ,  o  Mild  Moderate  Severe  48.7  34.5  16.7  100.0  54.5  31.5  13.9  100.0  46.9  52.0  53.7  59  Total  49.7  44.8  of  women and 21.1% o f men. In summary, women more o f t e n than men  have m u l t i p l e d i s a b i l i t i e s , as i s demonstrated  i n t a b l e 2.  S e v e r i t y Status Fewer women (48.7%) than men (54.5%) have m i l d  disabilities.  Moderately d i s a b l e d persons account f o r 34.5% o f women and 31.5% of  men. Persons  identified  as s e v e r e l y d i s a b l e d  r e p r e s e n t 16.7%  of  women and 13.9% o f men. Table 3 shows men a r e i n g e n e r a l more  s e v e r e l y d i s a b l e d than men. Women c o n s i s t e n t l y have both a lower rate  of mild  disability  disability  and h i g h e r r a t e s of moderate and severe  as compared t o men f o r a l l age groups.  This higher  p r o p o r t i o n o f women than men w i t h moderate o r severe  disabilities  reflects  the higher  c o n c e n t r a t i o n of women  i n t h e o l d e r age  groups. The r a t e s o f moderate and severe d i s a b i l i t y  increase with  age throughout t h e p o p u l a t i o n . Work L i m i t a t i o n s A  further  resulting at  from  measure  used  an impairment  i n HALS  of a c t i v i t y  limitations  i s degree  of ' a c t i v i t y  limitations  work'. D i s a b l e d persons were asked t o s t a t e whether they were  limited  i n t h e k i n d o r amount of a c t i v i t y  they c o u l d perform a t  work. I n d i v i d u a l s who were l i m i t e d i n t h e k i n d o r amount o f work activity  they  could  partially  limited  discussed  here  on  perform  were  i n , o r completely work  limitations  then  asked  unable was  i f they  t o work.  obtained  were  The data  from  Cohen  (1990). Women (41%) a r e more l i k e l y than men (29%) t o be completely unable t o work. The g r e a t e s t d i f f e r e n c e by gender i n t h e r a t e of 60  being  completely  years.  This higher  completely  representation  unable  representation disabilities. older  unable t o work i s i n t h e age groups o f 45 t o 64  to  i s consistent  of women among persons Related  t o these higher  age d i s t r i b u t i o n  men. The r a t e o f being each  work  of women among t h e p o p u l a t i o n  age group,  as compared completely  with rates  with  the  multiple  higher  o r severe  f o r women i s t h e i r  t o t h e age d i s t r i b u t i o n of  unable t o work i n c r e a s e s  as i s seen with  rates  of multiple  with  and severe  disabilities. Persons w i t h m u l t i p l e d i s a b i l i t i e s  reported greater rates of  work l i m i t a t i o n than persons with a s i n g l e d i s a b i l i t y .  P e r i o d of  onset i s a l s o r e l a t e d t o these r a t e s , persons d i s a b l e d as youths (24 y e a r s  o f age o r l e s s ) r e p o r t e d  lower r a t e s o f work l i m i t a t i o n  than persons d i s a b l e d as o l d e r a d u l t s  (45-64 years  o f age).  Cohen  (1990: 21) found t h e most s i g n i f i c a n t determinant o f t h e a b i l i t y t o work was s e v e r i t y of d i s a b i l i t y . Age  Groups  Among t h e d i s a b l e d working age p o p u l a t i o n t h e average age o f women i s 45.1 years and of men i s 44.6 y e a r s . The average age f o r the 35.1  non-disabled f o r men.  population population  is  be  a  disability  As  i s evident  substantially  even with  comparison. T h i s may  working age p o p u l a t i o n  older  the exclusion  older  consequence with  from  i s 35.4 f o r women and i s table than  of e l d e r l y  A l , the disabled the  non-disabled  persons  age s t r u c t u r e i n t h e d i s a b l e d of  increased  increased  likelihood  of  age. While t h e d i s a b i l i t y  from t h e population onset  rate  of  rises  for  successive  age groups,  the majority  of disabled  persons  (63.3%) a r e l e s s than 65 years o f age. Among young a d u l t s (15 t o 24 years o f age) 4.4% o f persons have  a disability.  Women account  f o r 48.4% o f d i s a b l e d young  a d u l t s and f o r 49.6% of non-disabled a d u l t s . D i s a b l e d persons  r e p r e s e n t 7.7% o f middle  age a d u l t s (25 t o  44 y e a r s o f age). Among t h e middle age p o p u l a t i o n , women 49.6%  o f d i s a b l e d persons and 50.3% o f n o n - d i s a b l e d Finally,  population  d i s a b l e d persons  (45 t o 64 years  d i s a b l e d persons  comprise  comprise  persons.  20.0% o f t h e o l d e r a d u l t  of age). Women r e p r e s e n t  and 51.1% of non-disabled persons  50.1%  of  i n middle age  population. Urban and R u r a l Status D i s a b l e d persons the  rural  working  non-disabled (79.2%)  women  living  c o n s t i t u t e 10.2% o f t h e urban and 11.2% o f  age p o p u l a t i o n . Table (79.1%)  i n urban  and men areas  4 shows t h e p o r t i o n o f  (78.3%)  and d i s a b l e d women  a r e a l l comparable.  However,  d i s a b l e d men have a lower c o n c e n t r a t i o n a t 74.7% i n urban a r e a s . M a r i t a l Status Table disabled of  A2  provides  data  and d i s a b l e d persons.  on t h e m a r i t a l  status  of  non—  In t h e d i s a b l e d p o p u l a t i o n 59.2%  women and 64.9% of men a r e married.  Among t h e n o n - d i s a b l e d  p o p u l a t i o n 62.9% o f women and 60.2% o f men a r e m a r r i e d . A h i g h e r percentage disabled  of d i s a b l e d (10.6%) as compared t o non-  (5.8%) people a r e d i v o r c e d o r separated. The percentages  d i v o r c e d o r separated a r e more s i m i l a r f o r n o n - d i s a b l e d women 62  Table 4 URBAN AND RURAL STATUS OF DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION DISABLED o  o  Women  Men  NON-DISABLED Women as a %  Q.  o  Women  Men  Women as a %  Urban  79.2  74.7  51.2  79.1  78.3  50.6  Rural  20.8  25.3  44.9  20.9  21.7  49.4  100.0  100.0  49.7  100.0  100.0  50.3  Total Population  63  (6.7%) and men (4.8%) as compared t o t h e percentages f o r d i s a b l e d women  (13.3%)  percentages  and  differ  men more  (7.4%). by gender  than f o r t h e non-disabled A  The  divorced  or  separation  f o r the disabled  population  population.  lower percentage of women (18.5%) and men (25.1%) i n t h e  d i s a b l e d p o p u l a t i o n as compared t o non-disabled men  (34.3%) a r e s i n g l e .  differences disabled  This  women (27.5%) and  d i f f e r e n c e i s probably  i n age composition  between  related to  the non-disabled  and  populations.  D i s a b l e d women (9.1%) and men (2.1%) a r e widowed more o f t e n as  compared  t o non-disabled  women  (3.0%)  and men  (0.6%). The  percentages f o r d i s a b l e d women and men d i f f e r more by gender than the  percentages f o r non-disabled  patterning  might  be t h e r e s u l t  women and men. Once a g a i n  this  o f t h e o l d e r age composition o f  the d i s a b l e d p o p u l a t i o n . In of  summary,  divorce,  the disabled population  separation,  and  widowed  has h i g h e r than  the  percentages non-disabled  p o p u l a t i o n . As w e l l , these percentages d i f f e r more by gender f o r the  disabled  as compared  t o t h e non-disabled  population.  The  d i s a b l e d p o p u l a t i o n has lower percentages o f s i n g l e women and men than t h e n o n - d i s a b l e d  p o p u l a t i o n . The o l d e r age s t r u c t u r e f o r t h e  d i s a b l e d p o p u l a t i o n may c o n t r i b u t e t o these d i f f e r e n c e s . COMPARATIVE  ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENCES IN WORK. EDUCATION.  AND INCOME BETWEEN DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED POPULATIONS The  previous  differences  and  section similarities  illustrated between 64  some  of  the  the d i s a b l e d  general  and non-  disabled  populations,  experiences  of  women  with and  particular  men  in  each  attention  of  these  C o n s i d e r a b l e d i f f e r e n c e s i n some of these g e n e r a l suggests  potential  differences  in  social  and  to  the  populations.  characteristics economic  status  between and w i t h i n these p o p u l a t i o n s . T h i s s e c t i o n examines those work, e d u c a t i o n a l and of  income c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which are i n d i c a t o r s  inequality. The  first  differences  of  this  s e c t i o n i s concerned  with  i n work between and w i t h i n d i s a b l e d and  populations. first  part  The  general  work  characteristics  general  non-disabled  examined  in  s e r i e s of comparisons are: labour f o r c e a c t i v i t y ;  full  time  and  permanent  employment;  and  this  level  of  occupational  distribution. The these  second p a r t of t h i s s e c t i o n examines the consequences of  d i f f e r e n c e s i n work c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .  attainment  is  differences. attainment, are  used  Chapter  Two,  inequality tests  to  A  as  an  explanatory  series  of  comparative  employment  and  total  address 'what  the  income,  central  consequence  and  research  does  three An  hypotheses  overview  of  hypotheses  educational  factor of  of  question have  status  posed on  comparative around  these  educational  low-income  disability  developed  these  well,  analyses  i n work?' T h i s second s e r i e s of  the  question.  examined  As  the  in  gender analyses research  i s presented  in  the  i n t r o d u c t i o n t o the second s e r i e s of comparative a n a l y s e s . Table  5 provides  s e v e r a l of the more s i g n i f i c a n t  measures from the f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n s of the 65  inequality  comparative  Table 5 CENTRAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WOMEN AND MEN IN THE DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATIONS: S c h o o l i n g , Employment, and Income DISABLED Women LFPR  Men  37.0%  58.0%  Rate o f 31.2% Employment i n the LFS  50.8%  Average Years o f Schooling  10.28  10.64  Average Total Income  7704.66 17116.67  11695.17 19869.76 Average Employment Incomel 30.3% 50.3%  NON-DISABLED Ratio/%W 38.7%W 37.9%W 41.0% 0.97R 49.7%W 0.45R 49.7%W 0.59R 37.9%W  Men  67.7%  88.1%  60.0%  79.8%  12.23  12.36  10382.80 20390.71 13484.68 22134.73 60.0%  79.8%  43.8%W 43.2%W 69.9% 0.99R 50.3%W 0.51R 50.3%W 0.61R 43.2%W  29.8%W  31.9%  58.1%  35.7%W  Low Income Status  54.7%W  15.4%  12.8%  55.0%W  25.6%  19097.72 26946.77  Ratio/%W  Average 18363.93 25466.11 Employment Income2 14.0% 33.2% 31.2%  0.72R  Women  (notes continued on f o l l o w i n g page)  66  0.71R  (continued from p r e v i o u s page) LFPR Labour Force P a r t i c i p a t i o n Rate i s t h e number of persons e i t h e r employed o r unemployed as a percentage of t h e p o p u l a t i o n . R R a t i o i s t h e average f o r women d i v i d e d by t h e average f o r men. ER Employment Rate i s t h e number of persons who a r e employed as a percentage of t h e t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n ( e x c l u d i n g those who d i d not s t a t e t h e i r l a b o u r force status). % T h i s i s t h e percentage f o r women and men i n t h e d i s a b l e d and non-disabled p o p u l a t i o n s ( e x c l u d i n g where % r e f e r s t o a LFPR and ER). %W T h i s i s t h e percentage of women from t h e cases i n each row by d i s a b l e d and n o n - d i s a b l e d . 1 Employment income f o r a l l i n d i v i d u a l s who worked. 2 Employment income f o r a l l i n d i v i d u a l s who worked f u l l time (35 hours o r more d u r i n g r e f e r e n c e week) f o r 40 t o 52 weeks.  67  a n a l y s e s . Over each o f these measures, women a r e disadvantaged as compared  to  populations.  men  f o r both  The notes  the non-disabled  t o the t a b l e provide  and  disabled  further explanation  of these measures. Labour Force Differences non-disabled striking table the  i n labour  and  Status  f o r c e s t a t u s between and w i t h i n t h e  disabled  populations  contrast provided  i s perhaps  by t h e HALS data  as i l l u s t r a t e d i n  6. While t h e m a j o r i t y o f non-disabled people  majority  Within  o f d i s a b l e d people  these  populations  t h e most  a r e employed,  a r e not i n t h e labour  considerable  difference  also  force. exists  between women and men i n labour f o r c e p a r t i c i p a t i o n . The r a t e of labour  force participation  with d i s a b i l i t i e s it  i s 88.1%.  labour  and f o r non-disabled women i t i s 67.7% and men  Disabled  persons  force participation  are disadvantaged Persons employed  rate,  participating  and  a r e disadvantaged  by t h e i r low  and women i n both  populations  i n r e l a t i o n t o men.  o r unemployed  employment,  i n the  (without  available  unemployed as a percentage in  i s 37.0% f o r women and 58.0% f o r men  labour  force  employment,  t o work).  The  are  actively  number  of  either seeking persons  (the unemployment r a t e ) o f a l l persons  t h e labour f o r c e i s g e n e r a l l y used t o i n d i c a t e t h e extent of  unmet  need  population women  f o r employment has c o n s i d e r a b l y  (17.0%)  and men  i n the population. higher  (14.2%)  rates  as compared  d i s a b l e d women (11.6%) and men (9.4%). 68  The d i s a b l e d  o f unemployment f o r to rates  for  non-  Table 6 LABOUR FORCE STATUS IN DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION DISABLED o  g.  NON-DISABLED o  Women as a %  Men  Women as a %  Women  Not i n t h e Labour 61.5 Force NPR  40.0  60.3  32.1  11.9  73.2  Lab. Force P a r t . Rate (LFPR)  37.0  58.0  38.7  67.7  88.1  43.8  Employed  31.2ER  50.8  37.9  60.0  79.8  43.2  Unemployed  17.OUR  14.2  43.0  11.6  9.4  49.1  "5  Women  % Men  Stated  1.6  2.0  43.7  0  0  0  Total Population  100.0  100.0  49.7  100.0  100.0  50.3  Not  ER Employment r a t e i s the number o f employed persons as a percentage o f t h e t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n ( e x c l u d i n g those persons who d i d not s t a t e t h e i r labour f o r c e s t a t u s ) . UR Unemployment r a t e i s the number o f persons who a r e unemployed as a percentage o f a l l persons e i t h e r employed o r unemployed. LFPR Labour Force P a r t i c i p a t i o n Rate i s t h e number o f persons e i t h e r employed o r unemployed as a percentage of the t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n . NPR N o n - p a r t i c i p a t i o n Rate i s the number o f persons not i n the labour f o r c e as a percentage o f the t o t a l population.  69  While t h e number of d i s a b l e d people who a r e unemployed form a  relatively  force, total  high  percentage  t h e unemployed  form  of disabled  a relatively  people  i n t h e labour  low percentage  d i s a b l e d p o p u l a t i o n . Thus, while t h e unemployment r a t e f o r  d i s a b l e d women i s 17.0%, only 6.3% of a l l women w i t h are  of t h e  unemployed and a c t i v e l y  arises  from t h e very  not  i n t h e labour  nor  actively  unmet  seeking  employment.  disabilities  This  situation  high percentage o f d i s a b l e d people who a r e  f o r c e , t h a t i s people who a r e n e i t h e r employed  seeking  employment.  need f o r employment  This  suggests  the extent of  among d i s a b l e d people may be g r e a t e r  than i s i n d i c a t e d by t h e unemployment r a t e . The  difference  percentage the  of the population  disabled  Thus,  between  the  populations  population difference  t h e unemployment  rate  and t h e  who a r e unemployed i s g r e a t e r f o r  than  f o r the non-disabled  between  i n t h e a c t u a l extent  disabled  and  population. non-disabled  o f unmet need f o r employment i s  l i k e l y g r e a t e r than i s suggested by comparing unemployment r a t e s . For  this  reason  comparing  disabled populations  t h e percentages  o f d i s a b l e d and non-  who a r e employed i s a more u s e f u l i n d i c a t o r  of d i s p a r i t i e s i n labour f o r c e a c t i v i t y between d i s a b l e d and nondisabled  populations.  The  employment  rate  i s t h e number  o f persons  employed as a percentage o f t h e t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n who d i d not i d e n t i f y employment  among  their  disabled  labour women  force (31.2%)  s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than among non-disabled 70  who a r e  (excluding  those  s t a t u s ) . The r a t e s o f and men  (50.8%) a r e  women (60.0%) and men  (79.8%). As w e l l , t h e r a t i o o f employed women t o men i s lower f o r the  disabled  population between  population  (0.76).  women  (0.61)  Thus,  and men  than  f o r the  the differences i s relatively  non-disabled  i n employment  greater  among  rates  disabled  persons than among non-disabled persons. In  summary,  labour  market,  higher  rate  disabled  have  persons  fewer  o f unmet  participate  employment  need  f a r less  opportunities,  f o r employment  than  in  the  and have a  do n o n - d i s a b l e d  persons. Furthermore, women a r e s e r i o u s l y disadvantaged by t h e i r labour  f o r c e s t a t u s as compared t o men i n both d i s a b l e d  disabled to  men  gender disabled  populations. indicates  Comparison o f t h e r a t i o  greater  i n the disabled  difference  i n level  population  as  o f gender  o f employment by  compared  t o t h e non-  i n hours  occupational  status,  important  and employment r a t e s a r e i n s u f f i c i e n t  inequality.  differences  are  o f employed women  population.  Labour f o r c e a c t i v i t y measures  and non-  worked  Employment  p e r week,  and earnings.  f o r assessing  rates  do not r e f l e c t  weeks worked  p e r year,  Each o f these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  t h e extent  o f gender  inequality i n  work. work l i m i t a t i o n s Before  examining  t h e other  employment,  i t i s necessary  limitations  on labour  t o consider  force a c t i v i t y .  women and men not i n t h e labour work  characteristics  (Cohen, 1989: 22).  force  related  the influence  Eighty  to  o f work  percent of disabled  are completely  unable t o  A t l e a s t some of t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between 71  disabled can  and non-disabled  be e x p l a i n e d  populations  by t h e r a t e  i n labour  of persons  force  completely  activity  unable t o  work. However, s i n c e women and men have a s i m i l a r r a t e o f being completely  unable  t o work,  even when c o n t r o l l i n g (1989)  did find  gender  differences  remain  f o r being completely unable  i n general  that  women  with  as g r e a t  t o work. Cohen a  partial  work  l i m i t a t i o n without employment were more l i k e l y t o be n o t a c t i v e l y seeking  employment,  and thus  not i n t h e labour f o r c e .  p a r t i a l work l i m i t a t i o n s and without to  Men w i t h  employment were more  likely  be a c t i v e l y seeking employment, o r unemployed, than were women  (Cohen, 1989). Hours and Weeks Worked The  level  of  temporary/seasonal,  employment  and f u l l  (full  year)  time,  a r e important  part  i n d i c a t o r s of  economic s t a t u s . The m a j o r i t y o f n o n - d i s a b l e d women men  (60.0%) and  (79.8%), and a m i n o r i t y of d i s a b l e d women (30.3%) and h a l f of  disabled  men  (50.3%)  decline significantly who worked and  time,  (full  35 hours  percentage  had employment  time and f u l l  o r more  lower  1985. These  rates  f o r both non-disabled and d i s a b l e d persons  o f persons  significantly  during  during  year)  at least  40 weeks i n 1985,  the r e f e r e n c e week  who worked  full  time  i n 1986. The  and f u l l  year i s  among d i s a b l e d women (14.0%) and men (33.2%)  than among n o n - d i s a b l e d women (31.9%) and men (58.1%). This part  concentration  time  disadvantage  and  of non-disabled  temporary  f o r women.  or  seasonal  The consequence  72  and d i s a b l e d women i n work of t h i s  is a  serious  situation i s  demonstrated  i n t h e disadvantaged  income  level  o f women as  compared t o men i n both p o p u l a t i o n s d i s c u s s e d below. Occupational As  noted  above  women and men a r i s e  Status  differences  i n employment  between  from d i f f e r e n c e s i n hours and weeks worked,  and p a r t i c u l a r l y  from o c c u p a t i o n a l  the  distributions  occupational  income  distribution.  Differences i n  of women and men a r e g e n e r a l l y  r e f e r r e d t o as t h e gender d i v i s i o n o f labour. The gender d i v i s i o n of l a b o u r i s t h e p a t t e r n of o c c u p a t i o n a l s e g r e g a t i o n o f women and men  into  different  job tasks.  The gender  division  of  labour  o r i g i n a t e s i n t h e process by which t h e gender i d e n t i t i e s o f women and  men  become  (Cockburn,  associated  1983; 1985).  neutral a b i l i t i e s ; the  gender  with  Skills  i n this  rather s k i l l s ,  identities  specific  skills  and  tasks  sense a r e n o t s o c i a l l y  and t a l e n t s , a r e i m p l i c a t e d i n  o f women and men. As a consequence work  becomes i d e n t i f i e d as e i t h e r 'men's work' o r 'women's work'. The  analysis  here  of  occupational  distributions  conducted  t o assess  t h e consequence of d i s a b i l i t y  division  of  labour.  paid  The  occupational  was  on t h e gender  distribution  of  d i s a b l e d women and men i s shown i n t a b l e 7 t o be comparable with the  occupational  distributions  of non-disabled  women  and men.  T a b l e 7 shows t h e gender d i f f e r e n c e s i n o c c u p a t i o n a l d i s t r i b u t i o n a r e comparable f o r each p o p u l a t i o n . T h i s suggests people  who  obtain  employment  have  been  those d i s a b l e d  integrated  into the  o c c u p a t i o n a l d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e l a r g e r p o p u l a t i o n . Thus,  73  Table 7 OCCUPATIONAL STATUS OF DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION WOMEN MEN o % % Non- Index of % Non- Index of *S Disabled Disabled D i s s i m i l . Disabled Disabled D i s s i m i l . Upper Management  0.2*  0.6  0.4*  1.8  2.5  0.7  Middle and Other Management  3.7  5.9  2.2  7.1  9.0  1.9  Profession  12.8  15.8  3.0  8.5  10.9  2.4  Semi-Professionals & Technic.  6.6  4.9  1.7  3.2  4.4  1.2  Supervisor  2.4  3.1  0.7  2.5  2.6  0.1  Foremen/ women  0.6  0.5*  0.1*  3.4  5.2  1.8  Clerical Workers  29.4  31.8  2.4  5.9  5.3  0.6  Sale Workers  8.8  8.9  0.1  7.6  7.7  0.1  Service Workers  11.9  12.6  0.5  5.5  6.6  1.1  Skilled C r a f t s and Trades  1.1  1.5  0.4  15.1  13.1  2.0  Semi-Skill Manual Workers  5.7  2.5  3.2  15.1  13.7  1.4  (continued on f o l l o w i n g page) 74  (continued from p r e v i o u s  page)  WOMEN  MEN  g.o % Non- Index of % Non- Index o f Disabled Disabled D i s s i m i l Disabled Disabled D i s s i m i l . o *o  Other Manual Workers Not  Stated  Total  11.1  10.0  1.1  19.5  16.9  2.6  5.7  1.9  3.8  4.6  2.1  2.5  100.0  100.0  100.0  100.0  9.8  9.3  * High sampling v a r i a n c e ( c o e f f i c i e n t o f between 16.5% and 25%). T h i s measure should be used with c a u t i o n . Index of D i s s i m i l a r i t y shows the a b s o l u t e d i f f e r e n c e between percentages f o r d i s a b l e d and non-disabled women, and between d i s a b l e d and n o n - d i s a b l e d men f o r each o c c u p a t i o n a l group. The t o t a l score f o r the index i s the sum of scores f o r each o c c u p a t i o n a l group d i v i d e d by two. T h i s score shows what percentage of people would have t o change t h e i r o c c u p a t i o n a l group t o make the o c c u p a t i o n a l d i s t r i b u t i o n d i r e c t l y comparable between d i s a b l e d and non-disabled women, and between d i s a b l e d and non - d i s a b l e d men.  75  disability division  does  of paid  The  not appear  to significantly  effect  t h e gender  labour.  comparability  of o c c u p a t i o n a l  distribution  by  gender  r e g a r d l e s s o f presence o r absence o f d i s a b i l i t i e s i s i n d i c a t e d by the  index  of d i s s i m i l a r i t y  as presented  i n t a b l e 7. The index of  d i s s i m i l a r i t y between women and men i n t h e d i s a b l e d p o p u l a t i o n i s 9.8 and i n t h e non-disabled dissimilarity  measures  population  differences  i t i s 9.3. The index of  i n percentage  distribution.  T h i s measure shows what percentage of t h e p o p u l a t i o n would have to  change  directly  occupations  comparable between non-disabled  non-disabled The  distributions  t o be  and d i s a b l e d women, and  and d i s a b l e d men.  o c c u p a t i o n a l grouping  version broad  f o r the occupational  o f t h e 1981 census  occupational  scheme used i n HALS i s a c o l l a p s e d classification  categories  of occupations.  o f HALS may d i m i n i s h  The  significant  d i f f e r e n c e s within the occupational categories. Summary of Work C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s The  comparison  of  d i s a b l e d and non-disabled extent  o f employment  permanent  gender  differences  between  persons has t o t h i s p o i n t examined: t h e  and unemployment;  employment;  i n work  and  the  level  of f u l l  occupational  time and  distribution.  D i f f e r e n c e s i n gender over a l l of these v a r i a b l e s a r e s i g n i f i c a n t for  both d i s a b l e d and non-disabled  are  also  disadvantaged  populations.  i n a l l these  areas  Disabled  as compared  persons t o non-  d i s a b l e d persons. In g e n e r a l , d i s a b i l i t y i s more s i g n i f i c a n t gender  i n explaining  differences 76  i n labour  force  than  s t a t u s , and  gender  is  more  significant  than  disability  in  explaining  d i f f e r e n c e s i n occupational status. The  a n a l y s i s below i s concerned with comparing the extent of  gender d i f f e r e n c e s between d i s a b l e d and a l o n g more d i r e c t measures of  non-disabled  populations  inequality.  COMPARATIVE ANALYSES OF GENDER INEQUALITY BETWEEN DISABLED AND The  comparative  established disabled this  that  and  disabled  and  analyses  gender  concerns  of  gender  differences  non-disabled  research  NON-DISABLED POPULATIONS  are  populations. how  non-disabled  gender  differences  significant  The  central  differences  p o p u l a t i o n s . To  for  the  central  disability  question have  (1)  were: 'double  on  gender  disability  jeopardy'  s t a t u s f o r both The  in this  as  for  research:  vary  examine t h i s  inequality master  question,  women,  i n work?'. The (2)  (3)  gender  and;  analyses. around  consequence  status;  does  hypotheses  disability as  in  between  i n Chapter Two 'what  both  question  t h r e e hypotheses are t e s t e d i n the f o l l o w i n g s e r i e s of These t h r e e hypotheses were developed  above  a  as  a  pervasive  populations.  disability  as  a  master  status  thesis  anticipates a  l e s s e r e x t e n t of gender i n e q u a l i t y w i t h i n the d i s a b l e d p o p u l a t i o n as compared t o the non-disabled as  being  social  pervasive  status,  following disabled  so  such  as as  measures  will  population  as  population. D i s a b i l i t y  t o d i m i n i s h the gender. show l e s s  This  thesis  inequality  compared t o the  77  significance argues by  i s viewed of that  gender  non-disabled  other  in  the the  population.  This  hypothesis  will  be supported  i f the r a t i o  on  inequality  measures f o r women t o men i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r among d i s a b l e d persons  as compared t o non-disabled  persons.  The h y p o t h e s i s t h a t d i s a b i l i t y poses a 'double women agrees  with  t h e master  status thesis  effect  i s present  between d i s a b i l i t y  thesis  anticipates  within  t h e d i s a b l e d p o p u l a t i o n as compared  that  population.  The  exaggerating,  rather  such  as gender.  gender  stigma than  Thus,  of  reflect  t h a t an i n t e r a c t i o n  and gender. However,  inequality  will  be more  disability  this  this  severe  t o the non-disabled is  interpreted  diminishing, existing  using  jeopardy' f o r  social  interpretation  status,  the following  measures  should  disabled  p o p u l a t i o n as compared t o t h e n o n - d i s a b l e d p o p u l a t i o n .  Support  for this  inequality ratios  a greater difference  as  hypothesis  will  be  demonstrated  f o r women t o men a r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y  d i s a b l e d persons as compared t o non-disabled The extent and  final  hypothesis  o f gender  non-disabled  stigma  by gender  inequality  presented  populations.  of d i s a b i l i t y  This  as lowering  where t h e lower among  persons.  anticipated  t o be present  f o r the  i n both  hypothesis the status  a  comparable  the disabled  interpreted the o f persons  with  d i s a b i l i t i e s but a n t i c i p a t e s t h a t gender i s so p e r v a s i v e a s o c i a l s t a t u s as not t o be a l t e r e d by, o r t o i n t e r a c t w i t h , of  disability.  will  This  thesis  suggests  the d i f f e r e n c e s  t h e stigma by gender  be comparable between d i s a b l e d and n o n - d i s a b l e d p o p u l a t i o n s  a c r o s s i n e q u a l i t y measures. Where i n e q u a l i t y r a t i o s f o r women t o  78  men  a r e comparable between d i s a b l e d and n o n - d i s a b l e d  support  populations,  f o r t h i s hypothesis w i l l be demonstrated.  The  f o l l o w i n g measures were s e l e c t e d f o r t e s t i n g  hypotheses  since  each  o f these  explanation  of  these  attainment) ,  or  they  differences  characteristics  differences highlight  t h e above  e i t h e r o f f e r an  (as w i t h  educational  t h e consequences  of  these  (as with t h e income measures). E d u c a t i o n a l Attainment  The  f o l l o w i n g comparison o f e d u c a t i o n a l  attainment  o f women  and men i n t h e d i s a b l e d and non-disabled  populations provides the  first  The d i f f e r e n c e s between  the  direct  average  test levels  o f these  hypotheses.  of e d u c a t i o n a l  attainment  are minimal f o r both d i s a b l e d and non-disabled shown  i n table  attainment year  t h e average  f o r women and men d i f f e r  populations,  level  by l e s s  as i s  of educational  than o n e - h a l f  of a  o f s c h o o l i n g f o r both p o p u l a t i o n s . The r a t i o o f t h e average  number  of years  disabled  of schooling  population  population. the  5. In f a c t ,  f o r women and men  and  f o r women t o men i s 0.97 i n t h e  i t i s 0.99  The comparison o f these  hypothesis  i n the  ratios  provides  non-disabled support f o r  t h a t gender i n e q u a l i t y i s comparable between t h e  d i s a b l e d and t h e non-disabled  populations.  D i s a b i l i t y i s f a r more s i g n i f i c a n t i n e x p l a i n i n g d i f f e r e n c e s in  educational  educational  attainment  attainment  than i s gender when comparing both t h e  distribution  of the population,  average l e v e l o f e d u c a t i o n a l attainment 16  shows  women  a r e concentrated 79  and t h e  for the population.  i n lower  educational  Table levels  relative average  t o men  for  by d i s a b l e d  persons  i n comparison  t h e average  among d i s a b l e d  of number  persons  i s 12.36 f o r men.  persons  non-disabled  are highly  population  concentrated  distribution  of schooling  i s 10.28 f o r women and i s 10.64  Furthermore,  These d i f f e r e n c e s i n average  disabled  with  of years  men, among t h e non-disabled t h e average  and  examining  i s c o n s i d e r a b l y g r e a t e r than t h e d i f f e r e n c e between women  men. Whereas  attained  in  t o men i n both p o p u l a t i o n s . However, t h e disadvantage  experienced  and  p o p u l a t i o n s . As w e l l ,  number o f years of s c h o o l i n g women a r e disadvantaged i n  comparison  persons  f o r both  i s 12.23 f o r women  Table  a t lower  A3  shows  disabled  educational  levels.  l e v e l of e d u c a t i o n a l attainment, and across  and n o n - d i s a b l e d persons  educational may a r i s e  levels  from  between  differences i n  the age composition of each p o p u l a t i o n . Beyond educational of  gender, attainment  disability.  emotional,  or  disadvantaged or  unknown  these  with  psychiatric  than  significant  differences  in  w i t h i n t h e d i s a b l e d p o p u l a t i o n i s nature  Persons  groups  analyses  seeing,  impairments  a r e persons  impairments.  disability  comparative  another  This  speaking,  are considerably  with a g i l i t y , pattern  mobility,  the  general  this  work  more  hearing,  of disadvantage  i s continued throughout of  cognitive,  between  s e r i e s of  and  income  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s d i s c u s s e d here. Employment Income Employment income i s perhaps  t h e b e s t measure o f success i n  the l a b o u r market. Thus, t e s t i n g t h e r e s e a r c h hypotheses 80  with the  measured  differences  assessment  the disabled  (0.61) p o p u l a t i o n s , gender  comparable further  may  be  t h e best  i s made o f t h e r a t i o o f average  f o r women t o men between  disabled  income  o f these hypotheses.  When comparison income  i n employment  employment  (0.59)  and non-  i n e q u a l i t y i s r e v e a l e d t o be  between these p o p u l a t i o n s (see t a b l e 5 ) . T h i s p r o v i d e s  support  comparable  f o r the hypothesis  between  disabled  that  gender  and n o n - d i s a b l e d  inequality i s  p o p u l a t i o n s , and  thus gender s h o u l d be understood t o be a p e r v a s i v e s t a t u s . In  g e n e r a l , gender  disability average  i s shown  t o be more  significant  than  i n i n f l u e n c i n g employment income. While women earn on  only  60% of average  between d i s a b l e d approximately  earnings  f o r men, t h e d i f f e r e n c e  and non-disabled persons i n average e a r n i n g s i s  10%. The r a t i o  o f average  employment  income f o r  d i s a b l e d t o n o n - d i s a b l e d persons i s 0.87 f o r women and i t i s 0.90 for  men. These  population  differences  distributions  are also  over  evident  employment  i n comparing t h e  income  categories  as  p r e s e n t e d i n t a b l e A4. The  disadvantage  i n employment  income e x p e r i e n c e d by women  declines  among t h e f u l l  time and permanent employed p o p u l a t i o n .  However,  women account  f o r a considerably  persons among  employed  full  a l l persons  populations. populations  time and f u l l employed.  The s t r i k i n g further  lower  year than women account f o r  This  pattern  similarity  o f such  supports  81  percentage o f  the  exists  in  both  p a t t e r n s i n both  hypothesis  that  gender  inequality  is  comparable  between  disabled  and  average  employment  non-disabled  populations. The  differences  disability  groups  in  reflects  a  similar  income  pattern  observed  e d u c a t i o n a l attainment. Persons w i t h s e e i n g , speaking, emotional,  or p s y c h i a t r i c  comparison  with  between in  cognitive,  impairments are more disadvantaged  agility,  mobility,  hearing  or  in  unknown  impairments. The  support  comparable  f o r the  between  hypothesis  disabled  p r o v i d e d by comparative attainment and average  and  that  gender  non-disabled  analyses of average  inequality  is  populations  is  l e v e l of e d u c a t i o n a l  employment income. However, the employment  r a t e s p r e s e n t e d above demonstrate the h i g h r a t e of e x c l u s i o n from employment  experienced  by  disabled  persons.  Thus,  employment  income i s the primary source of income f o r a f a r s m a l l e r p o r t i o n of  d i s a b l e d persons  situation, disabled  the comparative  and  hypotheses  than  non-disabled  f o r non-disabled  persons.  Given  this  analyses of gender i n e q u a l i t y between p o p u l a t i o n s was  extended  w i t h measured d i f f e r e n c e s i n average  total  to test  the  income.  T o t a l Income Research expanding  on  the  gender  analysis  i n c l u d e an examination  inequality beyond  from  a  high  employment  work  benefits  rate  income r e v e a l s the of  exclusion  e x p e r i e n c e d i n the d i s a b l e d p o p u l a t i o n . 82  from  characteristics  of the consequences of b e i n g excluded  employment. A n a l y s i s of t o t a l income  in  from  to from  consequence  on  employment  as  Table disabled ratio for  5 provides  the r a t i o  of average  persons t o non-disabled persons  f o r employment  disabled  income. The r a t i o  total  income f o r  i s lower than t h e same o f average  total  income  t o n o n - d i s a b l e d i s 0.74 f o r women and i s 0.84  for  men. It  was a n t i c i p a t e d  income  of exclusion  effect  between gender  that  from  employment  While  limited  population of disabled persons,  employment  may  inequality  gender  be  o f t h e consequence  may r e v e a l  an  on  interaction  and d i s a b i l i t y not observed f o r employment  income.  disabled  gender  examination  may be comparable persons  inequality  greater  among  with  between t h e  employment  among persons disabled  t o non-  excluded  persons  from  than non-  d i s a b l e d persons. A comparison found  less  populations gender  of gender  comparability than  remains  was  differences  between  found  the disabled  with  more s i g n i f i c a n t  i n average  employment  income  and n o n - d i s a b l e d income.  However,  income  from a l l  i n influencing  s o u r c e s than does d i s a b i l i t y . The r a t i o  total  o f average t o t a l  income  f o r women t o men i s 0.45 f o r d i s a b l e d persons and 0.51 f o r nondisabled  persons.  population  These  distributions  ratios over  reflect total  the differences income  categories  in as  p r e s e n t e d i n t a b l e A5. The  ratio  o f average  total  income f o r d i s a b l e d  persons t o  n o n - d i s a b l e d persons i s 0.74 f o r women and i t i s 0.84 f o r men. I t is and  significant between  that  differences  disabled  i n income between women and men  and non-disabled persons 83  a r e g r e a t e r by  total  income  employment  than  by  employment  significantly  income.  reduces  This  inequality  suggests by  that  gender  for  d i s a b l e d persons i n comparison t o n o n - d i s a b l e d persons. Differences groups  in  average  are s i g n i f i c a n t l y  income.  Since  sources,  such  disability  total  less  income  than  i s t h e case  t h e m a j o r i t y of d i s a b l e d as  welfare,  the differences  which  between  do  in total  persons not  i n employment rely  vary  income  disability  by  between  on income nature  of  disability  groups a r e minimized. T h i s l e v e l l i n g e f f e c t on income from income assistance between  programs  may  disability  and  be  diminishing  gender  which  an  interaction  otherwise  may  effect  have  been  present. work l i m i t a t i o n s and income Work l i m i t a t i o n s have a l a r g e impact on t h e t o t a l incomes o f individuals. limited  Cohen  (1990:  i n the kind  11-3) found t h a t persons who were not  or amount  double  t h e 1985 average  unable  t o work. The gender  for  each  work  employment further  limitation  i s central  of work they  income of persons difference  who  perform had  were completely  i n income remained  category. T h i s  t o the s t a t u s  could  further  of disabled  confirms  large that  persons. The  i n t e g r a t i o n of d i s a b l e d persons i n t o t h e e n t i r e range of  occupations i s e s s e n t i a l  f o r d i m i n i s h i n g t h e s o c i a l and economic  i n e q u a l i t y e x p e r i e n c e d by many d i s a b l e d persons. Income D i f f e r e n c e s Reconsidered The  differences  i n employment and t o t a l  incomes by gender,  between d i s a b l e d and non-disabled persons, and between d i s a b i l i t y 84  groups the  a r e severe. However, these measures may n o t f u l l y  actual  material  individuals wealth  reside.  conditions To r e f l e c t  census  family  distributions  income.  these  differences  incomes  significant  income used A6  Table  f o r disabled  distributions  total  t h e household  i n which  i n household  i t i s necessary t o examine f a m i l y o r household  common measure o f household  The  of  the d i s t r i b u t i o n s  i n terms  of  than d i s a b i l i t y  indicating  Canada i s  the population  and n o n - d i s a b l e d persons  reflect  income. A  by S t a t i s t i c s  presents  reflect  by  gender.  f o r employment and gender  to  be  more  i n explaining population differences  i n income. A  further  dwelling women  as presented  are  purchased  less  than  difference  A7. This table  i n table  i n households  non-disabled in a  T h i s measure  a more  conditions  severe  and  household suggest  that  consequence  shows  of  disabled or  being  i s no s i g n i f i c a n t  disabled  which  i s tenure  owned  a r e non-disabled women. There  living  purchased.  of m a t e r i a l  concentrated  between  percentage  with  measure  i n terms  i s owned  or  of  being  disability  i s associated  on t h e m a t e r i a l  c o n d i t i o n s of  women than f o r men. However, tenure of d w e l l i n g i s n o t as p r e c i s e a measure as i s household  income.  A dramatic measure of t h e d i f f e r e n c e s is has  o b t a i n e d from set a  i n household  a n a l y z i n g low-income s t a t u s .  series  of  income  to identify  'cut-offs'  those  Statistics  by  with  Canada  size  and  community  size  Households  d e s i g n a t e d w i t h t h e low-income s t a t u s a r e s u b s i s t i n g 85  households  family  incomes  'low-income'.  Table 8 LOW INCOME STATUS IN DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION Q.  Women Above L i n e  Below L i n e  Total Population  DISABLED a.  Men  Women as a %  o  *o  NON-DISABLED  Women  O,  Men  Women as a %  68.8  74.4  47.9  84.6  87.2  49.6  31.2  25.6  54.7  15.4  12.8  55.0  100.0  100.0  49.8  100.0  100.0  50.3  86  at  an income  individuals low  level  which  i s below  most  'poverty  i n these households a r e i d e n t i f i e d  income s t a t u s .  To t e s t  lines'. A l l  i n HALS as having  i f t h e d i f f e r e n c e s i n employment and  t o t a l income do r e f l e c t t h e m a t e r i a l c o n d i t i o n s o f i n d i v i d u a l s , a comparative  analysis  o f low-income  status  non-disabled  women and men was conducted.  between  d i s a b l e d and  Low-Income Status Table  8 shows women account  low-income (55.0%)  population  persons.  This  low-income p o p u l a t i o n further  supports  among  f o r a similar portion  disabled  comparability  (54.7%)  and n o n - d i s a b l e d  that  gender  comparable between d i s a b l e d and non-disabled The and  (25.6%) and men  non-disabled further poor  of the persons  inequality i s  populations.  r a t e s o f low-income s t a t u s among d i s a b l e d women (31.2%)  men  (15.4%)  non-disabled  of women's p o r t i o n  between d i s a b l e d  the hypothesis  and  of the  a r e double (12.8%).  populations  demonstrates  labour  disability  force  the rates  This  f o r non-disabled  difference  i n t h e extent  t h e severe  position  of  d i s a b l e d and  low-income  consequences  of disabled  i s more s i g n i f i c a n t  between  women  arising  persons.  In  status  from t h e general,  i n e x p l a i n i n g d i f f e r e n c e s i n low-  income s t a t u s than i s gender. Summary o f Comparative Analyses of Gender I n e q u a l i t y Between D i s a b l e d and Non-disabled The  disadvantage i n average e d u c a t i o n a l  employment compared  and t o t a l  Populations attainment,  incomes, and low-income s t a t u s  average  o f women as  t o men i s comparable between t h e d i s a b l e d and t h e non87  disabled gender  populations. inequality  disabled  hypothesis  disabled  persons  comparative severely  and  total  disabled  recognizes  as  analyses  are  the disabled  compared  presented  disadvantaged  the to  severe  above show t h a t  i n educational  disabled  attainment,  comparisons  disabled  of average  employment  employment t o non-  and t o t a l  and non-disabled p o p u l a t i o n s  persons who o b t a i n  income r e l a t i v e  income.  employment  employment  t o non-disabled  This  indicates  their  indicated  by t h e r a t e  have t w i c e t h e r a t e of low-income s t a t u s  high rate of non-participation  s i g n i f i c a n c e of  economic i n e q u a l i t y .  Disabled  persons i s women and  as compared t o non-  situation i s associated i n t h e labour  As w e l l ,  income than by  f o ra l l disabled  o f low-income s t a t u s .  women and men. T h i s  disadvantage  persons d e c r e a s e s .  f o r d i s a b l e d women i n d i m i n i s h i n g  income  suggests t h a t f o r  the p a r t i c u l a r  The s i g n i f i c a n c e o f employment  disabled  The  persons  i n comparison  gender d i f f e r e n c e s a r e more s i m i l a r by employment  men  persons.  of  persons.  between d i s a b l e d  total  and non-  disadvantage  non-disabled  incomes, and low-income s t a t u s  The  in  i s comparable between  that  populations.  This  those  T h i s evidence supports t h e h y p o t h e s i s  with the  f o r c e among d i s a b l e d  persons as compared t o non-disabled persons. In  general,  disability  d i f f e r e n c e s i n labour low-income differences  status.  i s most  significant  force a c t i v i t y , educational Gender  i n occupational  i s most  significant  distribution, 88  i n explaining attainment, and in  explaining  and employment  and  total  income.  Generally,  no  interaction  was  observed  d i s a b i l i t y and gender i n e d u c a t i o n a l attainment The gender  absence of an may  result  populations  which As  was  Chapter,  disabled  significantly  obscure  an  from  complex such  illustrated and  To  a  test  interaction  differences an  in  effect  the  non-disabled  across  characteristics.  or income.  i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t between d i s a b i l i t y  obscures  analyses.  between  variety if  effect  from  section  women  and  of  men  general  this differ  population  variations  a series  these  comparative  first  of  these  between  and  significantly  of m u l t i p l e  regressions  were conducted. Within found  to  the d i s a b l e d p o p u l a t i o n the nature  be  attainment,  significant  throughout  persons  seeing,  with  disadvantaged h e a r i n g , and  in  associations  speaking,  activity,  educational  to  or  population.  'other'  persons  In  general,  impairments  with  agility,  INTERACTION BETWEEN DISABILITY AND  where  mobility,  in  work.  variables  While  useful  among v a r i a b l e s , these  of  were  GENDER  s e c t i o n d i s c u s s e d r e s u l t s of c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n s  interactions  regressions variables  disabled  correlations for  differences  complex  force  'unknown' impairments.  previous  simple  the  relation  ANALYSES OF THE  and  labour  was  and employment income. T o t a l income i n d i c a t e d g r e a t e r  comparability  The  in  of d i s a b i l i t y  among  educational computed  to  associated for  with  gender  identifying  simple  analyses  explanatory attainment  determine  89  the  and  do  not  account f o r  factors.  Multiple  income  selected  extent  to  which  the  educational  and  income d i f f e r e n c e s by gender c o u l d  be  explained  by t h e s e v a r i a b l e s . Before of  how  discussing  to  interpret  analysis  tables  analyses  examines  as  measured  income.  the r e g r e s s i o n the measures  i s provided.  variety  significance  in  presented  The  first  of  attainment,  other  incomes o f t h e non-disabled  the  i n the of  regression  disability  and gender  were  tested  educational  and d i s a b l e d  and  total  for  their  attainment  identifies  differences  the most  within  the  significant  disabled  income. T h i s s e r i e s of analyses significance  of  gender  in  and  populations.  The second p a r t has a s e r i e s of m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n which  outline  regression  and employment  variables  influencing  a brief  series  the i n t e r a c t i o n between  by e d u c a t i o n a l  A  analyses,  variables  population  by  analyses  f o r explaining education  and  i s concerned w i t h i d e n t i f y i n g the  relation  to  other  e x p l a i n i n g these d i f f e r e n c e s i n the d i s a b l e d  variables  for  population.  I n t e r p r e t i n g the Regression A n a l y s i s T a b l e s The  two  regression  measures tables  most  are  important  the  for  significance  interpreting  the  levels  the  and  u n s t a n d a r d i z e d c o e f f i c i e n t s . The s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l i n d i c a t e s the p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t the r e g r e s s i o n c o e f f i c i e n t (i.e.. measure  that  the  effect  i s not  due  to  i s not e q u a l t o zero  chance).  coefficient  i s deemed t o be r e l i a b l e with a s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l which  i s e q u a l t o or l e s s than .050. I f the measure significant, effect  A  the v a r i a b l e  i s shown t o not be  i s deemed t o not have  on the dependent v a r i a b l e . I f the measure  a  significant  i s significant a  90  we then  look t o t h e unstandardized c o e f f i c i e n t  f o r the l e v e l of  the e f f e c t on t h e dependent v a r i a b l e . To t e s t  t h e t h r e e hypotheses  s e t out above r e q u i r e s  looking  f o r an i n t e r a c t i o n between being female and h a v i n g a d i s a b i l i t y . The of to  specific  i n t e r a c t i o n which i s o f i n t e r e s t here  disadvantage. be  I f the variable  significant,  disadvantage  this  resulting  means  from  'disabled we  female'  can p r e d i c t  i s the level i s n o t shown  the extent of  being a female w i t h a d i s a b i l i t y on  the b a s i s o f what disadvantage occurs from b e i n g female or  non-disabled)  and from  having  a disability  (disabled  (being female o r  male). The c o n c l u s i o n would then be t h a t no i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t i s present  between  gender  and t h e stigma  of d i s a b i l i t y  f o r that  dependent v a r i a b l e . If  being  disadvantage there  resulting  a disability  incurs  which i s shown t o be s i g n i f i c a n t ,  i s an i n t e r a c t i o n  dependent  a  a woman with  variable.  we conclude  between gender and d i s a b i l i t y  This  means  from c o i n c i d i n g stigmata  disability)  a measure o f  can not be  the  level  of  that  f o r that  disadvantage  ( i . e . b e i n g female and having  predicted  by  simply  summing t h e  disadvantage measured f o r each o f these s t i g m a t i z e d s t a t u s e s . If the  unstandardized  female'. of  a significant  coefficient  i s i d e n t i f i e d , we then examine f o r the v a r i a b l e  'disabled  T h i s measure i n d i c a t e s t h e d i f f e r e n c e between t h e l e v e l  disadvantage  level  interaction  from  o f expected  being  a woman w i t h  disadvantaged  from  being a d i s a b l e d  p r e d i c t e d by each o f t h e separate v a r i a b l e s 91  a disability  and t h e woman as  'sex' (being female)  and  'disabled'  coefficient from  being  (having  a  i s positive  disability).  i t indicates  I f the unstandardized  a less  severe  a d i s a b l e d woman than would be expected  consequence from  summing  the s e p a r a t e disadvantages measured f o r being female and having a disability.  This indicates  a master s t a t u s e f f e c t  from having a  d i s a b i l i t y which p a r t i a l l y d i m i n i s h e s t h e disadvantage s t i g m a t i z e d s t a t u s e s , such as being female. coefficient  i s negative,  this  indicates  from  other  I f the unstandardized  there  i s an a d d i t i o n a l  i n c r e m e n t a l p e n a l t y f o r both being female and having a d i s a b i l i t y beyond  what  disadvantage  s e p a r a t e disadvantage disability.  This  would  be  expected  by  measures f o r being female  indicates  a double  standard  summing t h e  and f o r having a thesis  since the  consequence o f d i s a b i l i t y i s more severe f o r women than f o r men. Employment Income U s i n g t h e above d e s c r i b e d process t o examine t a b l e 9, we can determine  whether  an  interaction  exists  between  gender  and  d i s a b i l i t y i n terms o f employment income. S t a t e d d i f f e r e n t l y , t h e e x t e n t o f gender i n e q u a l i t y i n employment income can be assessed as g r e a t e r , l e s s e r ,  o r comparable  i n t h e d i s a b l e d p o p u l a t i o n as  compared t o t h e non-disabled p o p u l a t i o n . As  shown i n t a b l e  significance disadvantage different equally  level from  from  9, t h e v a r i a b l e of  being  . 1985.  This  ' d i s a b l e d female' measure  a d i s a b l e d woman  has a  indicates  the  i s not s i g n i f i c a n t l y  zero, and so t h e a d d i t i v e and i n t e r a c t i v e models  f i t t h e data.  Thus,  no s i g n i f i c a n t  interaction  effect  between gender and d i s a b i l i t y i s i n d i c a t e d f o r employment income. 92  Table 9 MULTIPLE REGRESSION: EMPLOYMENT INCOME OF DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION (employment income g r e a t e r than zero) Independent Variables  Unstandardized Coefficients  Standardized Coefficients  Significance Levels  D i s a b l e d Female Sex Disabled  392.696 -5587.290 -875.329  .004 -.220 -.016  .1985 .0000 .0000  F u l l Year Hours Worked P a r t Time Work  10574.860 43.002 -651.488  .396 .043 -.020  .0000 .0000 .0000  Upper Management Professional M i d d l e Management Foremen/women Semi-Professional S k i l l e d Worker Supervisor S e m i - S k i l l e d Worker S a l e s Worker Manual Worker S e r v i c e Worker  7681.593 5867.298 4383.664 3020.817 1918.136 1187.538 656.143 213.532 -231.577 -391.758 -1512.840  .080 .159 .094 .042 .032 .026 .009 .005 -.005 -.011 -.034  .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0017 .1454 .0949 .0016 .0000  665.589 545.762  .167 .019  .0000 .0000  Married Was M a r r i e d Presence o f C h i l d r e n Persons i n Household  4406.871 2960.758 -631.476 -47.515  .167 .064 -.017 -.006  .0000 .0000 .0000 .0522  Urban North B r i t i s h Columbia Prairies Ontario Quebec Moved W i t h i n 5 Years  1868.707 5032.177 1981.444 1113.406 1210.914 795.324 -650.942  .058 .024 .049 .034 .047 .027 -.026  .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000  -3997.395 230.335  -.040 .009  .0000 .0023  Education Vocation  Recent Immigrant B r i t i s h Origins  (continued on f o l l o w i n g page) 93  (continued from p r e v i o u s page) Bilingual French Language No O f f i c i a l Language Experience Constant R Square (adjusted)  784.896 -464.008 -1222.273  .025 -.012 -.007  . 0000 .0061 .0084  117.307  . 124  .0000 .0000  -4726.814 .53190  Reference c a t e g o r i e s are c l e r i c a l r e g i o n , and E n g l i s h language.  94  workers,  single,  Atlantic  Gender employment  i s shown  i n table  9  t o have  a major  on  income, w i t h women e a r n i n g $5,587.29 l e s s than men i n  1985 when t h e other v a r i a b l e s a r e c o n t r o l l e d . Having results  effect  i n earnings  disability,  with  o f $875.33  everything  support  the hypothesis  between  the non-disabled  gender  i s shown  explaining  else  that  than  individuals  controlled.  gender  more  inequality  significant  i n employment  a  results  i s comparable  than  income  without  These  and d i s a b l e d p o p u l a t i o n s .  t o be  differences  less  a disability  Furthermore,  disability  in  i n the general  p o p u l a t i o n . These r e s u l t s a r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e n o n - r e g r e s s i o n findings discussed e a r l i e r . T o t a l Income A  regression  determine was  analysis  for total  income  was conducted  to  i f an i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t between gender and d i s a b i l i t y  observed  f o r a l l sources o f income. I t was h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t  the absence o f an i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t f o r employment  income may be  the consequence o f d i s i n c e n t i v e s i n w e l f a r e programs a g a i n s t low income  employment.  discourage receipt  only  of t h i s  cancellation  Welfare  programs  time  o r minimum  part level  standard o f l i v i n g ,  m e d i c a t i o n coverage,  less  than  generally,  employment often  since  results i n  f o r d i s a b l e d persons t o  such as h e a l t h c a r e  services,  and income a s s i s t a n c e .  Women's income from 077.42  wage  income  o f many b e n e f i t s necessary  maintain t h e i r  $6  o f employment  i n Canada,  a l l sources  the t o t a l  c o n t r o l l e d . Furthermore,  i s shown i n t a b l e  income f o r men w i t h  10 t o be  a l l factors  t h e t o t a l income f o r d i s a b l e d people i s 95  Table 10 MULTIPLE REGRESSION TOTAL INCOME FOR DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION ( t o t a l income g r e a t e r than zero) Independent Variables  Unstandardized Coefficients  Standardized Coefficients  Significance Levels  D i s a b l e d Female Sex Disabled  553.654 -6077.415 -995.939  - .237  .009  —.024  .0029 .0000 .0000  Labour Force Status F u l l Year P a r t Time Work Hours Worked  1635.678 10161.543 -903.230 45.812  .055 .398 - .028 .073  .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000  730.947 501.220  .190 .016  .0000 .0000  Education Vocation Married Was M a r r i e d Presence o f C h i l d r e n Persons In Household  4113.980 3711.774 134.820 5.692  .156 .085 .004 6 •708E-04  .0000 .0000 . 1558 .7821  Urban North B r i t i s h Columbia Prairies Ontario Quebec Moved W i t h i n 5 Years  1265.580 4398.985 1224.321 807.305 632.989 -11.222 -323.756  .040 .019 .030 .024 . 024 -3 .827E-04 .013  .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .9385 .0000  Recent Immigration B r i t i s h Origins  -2851.244 355.461  Bilingual French Language No O f f i c i a l Language  1205.059 213.779 -2091.599 182.565  Age Group  .014  .0000 .0000  . 037 . 006 .013  .0000 . 1289 .0000  . 188  . 0000  —  .0000  -7847.932  Constant R Square (adjusted) Reference region.  — —. 029  .52926  c a t e g o r i e s are s i n g l e ,  96  E n g l i s h language,  and A t l a n t i c  $995.94  lower  However, higher  disabled than  total  than  the t o t a l  women  would  income  have  f o r non-disabled  a total  be expected  income  by summing  which  i s $553.65  t h e disadvantage i n  income f o r being female and having a d i s a b i l i t y ,  factors  are controlled.  This  people.  i s t o say, w h i l e  when a l l  t h e l e v e l of  disadvantage i n t o t a l income f o r d i s a b l e d women i s expected t o be $7 073.35 ( a f t e r summing t h e measured l e v e l s o f disadvantage being  female  and from having a d i s a b i l i t y ) ,  the actual  from  l e v e l of  measured disadvantage i n t o t a l income i s $6 519.70 as compared t o the  rest  of  the general  population,  when  a l l factors  are  hypothesis  that  controlled. These less  findings  gender  compared  support  inequality  t h e master  exists  status  i n the disabled  t o t h e non-disabled p o p u l a t i o n . However,  p o p u l a t i o n as the provision  of w e l f a r e s e r v i c e s t o people with a low income may be p a r t i a l l y standardizing  income among t h e p o p u l a t i o n . A f u r t h e r  also  there  be t h a t  remain  in  individuals inclusion  a  i s a minimum  household,  become  and  level  o f income  f a c t o r may  necessary t o  below  this  subsistence  and  thus  not  'homeless',  level  eligible for  i n t h e HALS. The l e v e l o f e f f e c t from these  situations  can n o t be measured g i v e n t h e sample d e s i g n . Finally, more total  as w i t h employment  significant income  income, gender i s shown t o be a  e x p l a n a t i o n than  i n the general  disability  of differences i n  p o p u l a t i o n , when  controlled.  97  a l l factors are  E d u c a t i o n a l Attainment Education  i s generally  employment  income.  significant  effect  assumed  As was shown  t o be a good  i n table  9,  p r e d i c t o r of  education  has a  on employment income. The h i g h e r t h e l e v e l o f  e d u c a t i o n a l attainment t h e h i g h e r t h e l e v e l o f employment income, when a l l f a c t o r s a r e c o n t r o l l e d f o r t h e g e n e r a l p o p u l a t i o n . Thus, examining t h e consequence of gender and d i s a b i l i t y on e d u c a t i o n a l attainment i s a f u r t h e r i n d i c a t o r o f s o c i a l Table persons  inequality.  11 shows t h a t t h e e d u c a t i o n a l attainment  i s f a r lower  of disabled  (1.3 years lower) than t h a t o f n o n - d i s a b l e d  persons, when a l l f a c t o r s a r e c o n t r o l l e d . As w e l l , women a r e a l s o disadvantaged w i t h an e d u c a t i o n a l attainment l e v e l which i s j u s t less  than  However,  one month disabled  (0.073  women  years)  have  less  than  that  f o r men.  an e d u c a t i o n a l attainment  level  which i s j u s t under two months (0.149 years) l e s s than what would be  expected  having  g i v e n t h e sum of disadvantage  a disability.  Thus, an i n t e r a c t i o n  from b e i n g female and effect  between gender  and d i s a b i l i t y i s observed f o r e d u c a t i o n a l attainment. r e c o n s i d e r i n g t h e i n t e r a c t i o n between d i s a b i l i t y and gender Gender i s shown i n t a b l e 11 t o be s i g n i f i c a n t differences  i n e d u c a t i o n a l attainment  i n explaining  when c o n t r o l l i n g  f o r the  presence o r absence of d i s a b i l i t y . However, t a b l e 13 shows gender is  not s i g n i f i c a n t  nature, are  severity,  controlled.  i n effecting  multiplicity,  These  results  educational  attainment  and age o f onset from  table  of d i s a b i l i t y  13 i n d i c a t e  that the  s i g n i f i c a n c e a t t r i b u t e d t o gender i n t a b l e 11 a r i s e from t h e 98  when  Table 11 MULTIPLE REGRESSION EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT OF DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION Independent Variables  Unstandardized Coefficients  Standardized Coefficients  Significance Levels  -0.149 -0.073 -1.294  -.010 -.011 -.118  .0138 .0002 . 0000  0.976 0.470  .040 .070  .0000 .0000  Bilingual French Language No O f f i c i a l Language  0.860 -1.195 -5.671  .100 -.125 -.145  .0000 . 0000 .0000  Age Group  -0.039  -.158  .0000  Constant  13.507  D i s a b l e d Female Sex Disabled Recent Immigrant B r i t i s h Origins  R Square (adjusted)  .11977  Reference c a t e g o r y i s E n g l i s h language.  99  .0000  distribution table  o f women and men i n t h e v a r i a b l e s l i s t e d  13. T h i s  compared  means,  and i n t h e more  results  i n gender  absence  of  interaction  being  disability effect  11  measured  within  between given  the disabled  severity, multiplicity,  as  i n table  11. The  and gender i n  gender  population  groups  t h e presence o r  disability  that  disabled  disability  when o n l y  i s controlled,  o f women as  and m u l t i p l y  disadvantaged  significant  i s questionable  significant nature,  representation  t o men among t h e more s e v e r e l y  populations,  table  the higher  above from  itself  i s not  when c o n t r o l l i n g f o r  and age o f onset  of d i s a b i l i t y ,  as shown i n t a b l e 13. ANALYSES OF DIFFERENCES WITHIN THE DISABLED POPULATION This with  section  an  continues  examination  population. attainment  The  of  the process differences  analysis  and employment  of regression  conducted  within here  the  uses  analysis disabled  educational  income t o measure t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f  gender i n e x p l a i n i n g d i f f e r e n c e s w i t h i n t h e d i s a b l e d  population.  Employment Income Gender  i s highly  significant  i n explaining  employment income w i t h i n the d i s a b l e d p o p u l a t i o n table  12. I n 1985, d i s a b l e d  disabled  men  i n employment  women earned income,  differences i n as i n d i c a t e d i n  $6 185.07  when  less  than  a l l factors  are  controlled. Other  significant  variables  i n explaining  employment income w i t h i n t h e d i s a b l e d p o p u l a t i o n  differences i n a r e working  full  year, e d u c a t i o n , m a r i t a l s t a t u s , urban s t a t u s , and n o t speaking 100  Table 12 MULTIPLE REGRESSION EMPLOYMENT INCOME FOR DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION (employment income g r e a t e r than zero) Independent Variables  Unstandardized Coefficients  Sex  Standardized Coefficients  Significance Levels  -6185..072  -.240  .0000  9965..798 16..592 -636. .088  .372 .017 -.020  .0000 .2456 .2796  7219. ,095 4771. .776 3807..973 3057..096 2359..905 76..382 -182. .531 -487. ,413 -649. .380 -928. .970 -1005..175  . 189 .048 .078 .040 .042 .002 -.005 -.006 -.014 -.018 -.023  . 0000 .0003 . 0000 .0029 .0026 .9074 .7530 . 6377 . 3443 . 1910 . 1184  Education Vocation  420, .567 550, .504  . 114 .019  .0000 .1418  Mobility Agility Seeing Hearing Speaking Unknown  2435,.744 1261, .715 1166, ,576 902, .991 -985, .091 2289,.472  .098 . 050 .025 .033 -.014 .061  . 0000 .0377 . 1462 . 1379 . 3751 . 0010  60,.214 177, .931 182. .554 -1370,.885 -1618,.309  . 017 . 187 .238 -.055 -.106  .4275 .0003 .0002 .0002 .0009  .219 3232 , 1489. .239 -395, .547 -21. .304  . 120 .039 -.010 -.002  . 0000 .0205 .5177 .8626  F u l l Year Hours Worked P a r t Time Work Professional Upper Management Middle Management Foremen/women Semi-Professional S k i l l e d Worker Manual Worker Supervisor S e m i - S k i l l e d Worker S e r v i c e Worker S a l e s Worker  Severity Duration Age o f Onset Work L i m i t a t i o n Multiple Disability Married Was M a r r i e d Presence o f C h i l d r e n Persons In Household  (continued on f o l l o w i n g page)  101  (continued from p r e v i o u s page) Urban North B r i t i s h Columbia Prairies Ontario Quebec Moved W i t h i n 5 Years  1074.001 3882.792 1482.805 -610.269 1204.877 350.975 454.712  .036 .017 .037 -.020 .048 .010 .018 -.018 -9.511E-05  . 0084 .1793 .0364 .3299 . 0373 .7050 . 1877 . 1589 .9947  Recent Immigrant B r i t i s h Origins  -2864.122 -2.376  Bilingual French Language No O f f i c i a l Language  68.028 319.584 -8687.229  .002 .008 -.050  .9022 .7402 .0001  -73.373  -.079  . 1134  Experience Constant R Square (adjusted)  -353.399  .8262  .45483  Reference c a t e g o r i e s are c l e r i c a l worker, 'other' s i n g l e , A t l a n t i c r e g i o n , and E n g l i s h language.  102  disabilities,  an  official  language. These a r e a l l s i g n i f i c a n t  variables within  the g e n e r a l p o p u l a t i o n as w e l l . A  number  differences not  of v a r i a b l e s which are s i g n i f i c a n t  i n employment  significant  income f o r the g e n e r a l  f o r e x p l a i n i n g employment  i n explaining population are  income d i f f e r e n c e s i n  the d i s a b l e d p o p u l a t i o n . Among  higher  level  m a n a g e r i a l and p r o f e s s i o n a l c a t e g o r i e s have a s i g n i f i c a n t  effect  on the  the  employment  disabled  population  income as compared  general  population  only  t o other  most  the  occupations.  occupations  show  While i n  significant  d i f f e r e n c e s i n employment income. Whereas r e g i o n has a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on employment  income  i n t h e g e n e r a l p o p u l a t i o n , among the d i s a b l e d p o p u l a t i o n the only r e g i o n s which have a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t  on employment  income a r e  O n t a r i o and B r i t i s h Columbia. Another demographic v a r i a b l e , urban residency within  does the  have  a  significant  disabled  effect  population.  on  When  employment  other  income  factors  are  controlled,  l i v i n g i n an urban area i n c r e a s e s a d i s a b l e d person's  employment  income  by  $1,074  over  d i s a b l e d people l i v i n g i n r u r a l As  well,  disabled result  population, from  examination immigrants  income  that  effect  being  a recent  of  on employment  immigrant  income f o r the  when a l l f a c t o r s a r e c o n t r o l l e d . T h i s  immigration  regulations  as p a r t of the immigration with  employment  areas.  i t i s interesting  does not have a s i g n i f i c a n t  the  disabilities 103  are  which  require  a  assessment. As a likely  to  have  may  medical result, milder  impairments, or meet p r e f e r e n t i a l c r i t e r i a i n t h e i r o c c u p a t i o n business  investments.  Significant disability uneven with  or  d i f f e r e n c e s i n employment  suggests  i n the  disabled  mobility,  disadvantaged The  integration into  population.  agility  and  impairments  the  'unknown'  degree  (i.e., is  in  of  nature  employment  has  been  women and  impairments  men  are  less  limitation  or  number  the  more  disadvantaged  income,  when  all  factors  are  of  of  onset  disability  The  the  older  less  an  individual  disadvantage  he  or  i s at she  age is  of in  of an  c o n t r o l l e d . A l s o r e l a t e d t o employment income i s the age disability.  of  disabilities.  work  'multiple') employment  by  Specifically,  than people with other  greater  individual  that  income  onset of  employment  income, when a l l f a c t o r s are c o n t r o l l e d . E d u c a t i o n a l Attainment Gender  is  not  significant,  as  shown  in  e x p l a i n i n g d i f f e r e n c e s i n e d u c a t i o n a l attainment population, since  an  that  when  effect  i n educational factors  multiplicity, does not  13,  in  i n the d i s a b l e d  when a l l f a c t o r s are c o n t r o l l e d . T h i s i s i n t e r e s t i n g interaction  disability  table  of  duration  is  observed  attainment impairment  and  have a s i g n i f i c a n t  age  of  effect  between  i n t a b l e 11. such  as  onset  are  on  gender  and  This indicates  nature,  severity,  c o n t r o l l e d , gender  educational  attainment  in  employment  income,  is  the d i s a b l e d p o p u l a t i o n . Educational  attainment,  like  s i g n i f i c a n t l y e f f e c t e d by nature of d i s a b i l i t y . There are 104  three  Table 13 MULTIPLE REGRESSION EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT OF DISABLED WORKING AGE Independent Variables  Unstandardized Coefficients  Standardized Coefficients  POPULATION Significance Levels  Sex  -0.115  -.014  .0919  Hearing Agility Mobility Seeing Speaking Unknown  1.189 1.010 0.643 0.627 -0.311 1.474  . 127 .127 .079 .051 -.019 .103  .0000 .0000 .0000 . 0000 .0000 .0000  Age o f Onset Duration Severity Multiple Disability  -0.055 -0.069 -0.070 -0.833  -.254 -.241 -.086 -.218  . 0000 .0000 .0000 .0000  0.157 0.561  .004 .070  .6573 . 0000  Bilingual French Language No O f f i c i a l Language  0.421 -1.635 -5.684  .037 -.145 -.178  .0000 .0000 .0000  Constant  13.806  Recent Immigration B r i t i s h Origins  R Square (adjusted) Reference language.  categories  .0000  .17723 are  'other'  105  disabilities,  and  English  general with  levels  o f disadvantage  'unknown',  1.189,  and  hearing,  1.010  attainment  psychiatric  impairments.  includes 0.643,  people and  educational (people  with  0.627  controlled. reference  respectively  most  impairments  educational  with  show  attainment  with  in  c o g n i t i v e or  impairments  grouping who  disadvantage  have in  t o the reference population when  disadvantaged  and people  1.474,  disadvantage  less  disabilities) ,  p o p u l a t i o n o f people  impairments, speaking  or s e e i n g  People  show  l e a s t disadvantaged  as compared  'other'  less  t o people  The second  mobility  of d i s a b i l i t y .  impairments  respectively  years  The  agility  as compared  attainment  with  and  years  educational  by nature  with  speaking  nearly  a l l factors  grouping  cognitive  includes and  of  the  psychiatric  impairments.  one-third  are  People a  year  with less  as compared t o t h e r e f e r e n c e p o p u l a t i o n ,  when e v e r y t h i n g i s c o n t r o l l e d . These and  findings  training  indicate  programs  is  that  integration  uneven  between  into  educational  populations  with  d i f f e r e n t d i s a b i l i t i e s . The l e v e l o f e d u c a t i o n a l attainment shown by  persons  identify  with  the  'unknown'  nature  of  impairments  their  (persons  disability)  is  severity,  and  who  d i d not  difficult  to  i n t e r p r e t g i v e n t h e sample d e s i g n . Age  at  multiplicity  onset, of  duration,  disability  a l l are s i g n i f i c a n t  particularly i n explaining  d i f f e r e n c e s i n e d u c a t i o n a l attainment i n t h e d i s a b l e d p o p u l a t i o n , when a l l f a c t o r s are c o n t r o l l e d . The disadvantage  i n educational  attainment w i t h a h i g h e r age a t onset i n d i c a t e s t h a t 106  individuals  experiencing education  disability  or t r a i n i n g  disadvantages  at a  younger  as a s t r a t e g y  age may  further  f o r compensating  their  for  the  from having a d i s a b i l i t y . Summary of Regression  These s e r i e s  Analyses  o f r e g r e s s i o n analyses  support  the hypothesis  t h a t gender i n e q u a l i t y i s comparable between t h e n o n - d i s a b l e d and disabled  populations  analysis of t o t a l gap  income supports  income.  The  the hypothesis  regression  t h a t t h e gender  i s s m a l l e r i n t h e d i s a b l e d p o p u l a t i o n as compared t o t h e non-  disabled the  f o r employment  population.  However, t h i s  percentages  of d i s a b l e d  high  interaction women  may r e s u l t  and men  reliant  from upon  income a s s i s t a n c e programs which tend t o s t a n d a r d i z e income. Finally, disability the  an  and gender  disabled  effect  on  severity,  interaction  effect  population,  educational  gender  does  attainment  multiplicity,  distribution  observed  i n e d u c a t i o n a l attainment. not have  when  factors  and age of onset  c o n t r o l l e d . Thus, t h e observed the  i s also  o f women  between  However w i t h i n a  significant  like  nature,  of d i s a b i l i t y are  i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t may r e s u l t from and men  within  these  disability  v a r i a b l e s c o n t r o l l e d f o r i n t a b l e 13. Within explaining significant As  the disabled  population,  gender  d i f f e r e n c e s i n employment  income,  i s significant i n b u t gender  i n explaining differences i n educational  w e l l , t h e nature of d i s a b i l i t y  i s an important  with  speaking  or  'other' 107  impairments  attainment.  explanation of  d i f f e r e n c e s i n income and p a r t i c u l a r l y i n e d u c a t i o n a l Persons  i s not  attainment.  a r e t h e most  disadvantaged  group  i n terms  of  employment  and  educational  attainment. CONCLUSION The disabled A  disabled  population  population  fundamental  difference  i s an o l d e r  population.  This  significant  differences  Also  educational explains  between  related  the disabled  from t h e non-  these  to differences  differences  the disabled  i n age d i s t r i b u t i o n i s r e l a t e d t o  between  attainment.  and n o n - d i s a b l e d  age d i s t r i b u t i o n among  difference  However,  populations  i n marital  i n age d i s t r i b u t i o n i s  age d i s t r i b u t i o n o n l y  i n educational  d i s a b l e d and d i s a b l e d The  significantly  over a v a r i e t y of important c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .  populations  status.  differs  attainment  partly  between non-  populations.  urban and r u r a l d i s t r i b u t i o n s of t h e d i s a b l e d  disabled  populations  a r e comparable.  slightly  l e s s concentrated  However,  disabled  and nonmen a r e  i n urban areas than a r e n o n - d i s a b l e d  men. Within the disabled  population  considerable  differences are  found between women and men by nature, m u l t i p l i c i t y , of  disability.  disabilities associated to  men.  limitation perform.  Women i n general than  do  men.  have more m u l t i p l e  This  difference  and s e v e r i t y and severe  i s also  likely  w i t h t h e h i g h e r age d i s t r i b u t i o n o f women as compared A  further  measure  i n the kind Again  women  of  impairment  o r amount experience  a c t i v i t y than do men. 108  of work greater  i s the extent  of  an i n d i v i d u a l can limitation  i n work  Related  to  educational concerned by  these  above  attainment,  differences  work  and  income.  these  inequality  simple  in  and  comparative  educational  differences  This  w i t h comparing the extent of these  gender between the d i s a b l e d  general  are  in  research  latter  is  differences  n o n - d i s a b l e d p o p u l a t i o n s . In analyses  attainment,  showed  work,  that  and  gender  income  is  comparable between the d i s a b l e d and n o n - d i s a b l e d p o p u l a t i o n s . These  comparative  significant attainment, household.  analyses  also  showed d i s a b i l i t y  than gender i n e x p l a i n i n g d i f f e r e n c e s i n e d u c a t i o n a l labour Gender  force  activity,  and  i s most s i g n i f i c a n t  These simple comparative  this  of  in a  low-income differences  incomes.  analyses do not c o n t r o l f o r a wide  population differences  Chapter.  living  in explaining  i n o c c u p a t i o n , and employment and t o t a l  range  i s more  indicated  at  the  beginning  Thus, m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s e s were  of  conducted  t o s p e c i f i c a l l y examine the i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t between gender and disability  i n income and e d u c a t i o n a l attainment.  In examining  the s p e c i f i c i n t e r a c t i o n between d i s a b i l i t y  gender, t h e r e i s no Interestingly, income  the  i s smaller  interaction difference  i n the  observed between  disabled  f o r employment  women  and  men  p o p u l a t i o n than  income.  in  result  standardizing  services  population  with  income. F i n a l l y , observed  a  on  very  income high  from  percentage  welfare of  persons  total  i n the  d i s a b l e d p o p u l a t i o n . T h i s i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t may effect  and  non-  from  with  on a  the a low  an i n t e r a c t i o n between d i s a b i l i t y and gender i s  f o r e d u c a t i o n a l attainment. S p e c i f i c a l l y , the d i f f e r e n c e 109  between women and men i n e d u c a t i o n a l attainment disabled  population  However,  this  distribution  i s greater i n the  as compared t o t h e n o n - d i s a b l e d  interaction  effect  population.  may have more t o do w i t h t h e  o f women and men over  c e r t a i n v a r i a b l e s , than  with  t h e impact o f d i s a b i l i t y on gender r e l a t i o n s . These  f i n d i n g s support  t h e hypothesis  that  t h e stigma  of  d i s a b i l i t y and gender a r e each a p e r v a s i v e process o f s e g r e g a t i o n i n work. Furthermore, having of  employment l e s s e n s t h e disadvantage  disability. When  gender income.  analyzing  differences  i s significant However,  i n the disabled  i n explaining  gender  i s not  d i f f e r e n c e s i n e d u c a t i o n a l attainment. 'other'  differences significant  population,  i n employment i n explaining  Persons w i t h a speaking o r  ( p s y c h o l o g i c a l o r c o g n i t i v e ) impairment a r e c o n s i s t e n t l y  the most disadvantaged  grouping  i n the disabled population.  110  CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION AND This  Chapter  findings,  and  Following  this  this  begins  the  research  with  CONCLUSION a  discussion  conclusions  summary  are  for social  supported  discussions  s e r v i c e s and  of  of  by  the  research  this  the  evidence.  i m p l i c a t i o n s of  p r a c t i c e s , and d i r e c t i o n s  for further research. Conclusion of Research T h i s r e s e a r c h has existing  between  peoples.  The  women and  regression  disability  and  stigma  disability  neither  of of  demonstrated the severe men,  and  analyses  social  non-disabled  found  no  inequality  and  disabled  interaction  between  gender i n employment income. T h i s means, t h a t the  which  and  gender  i s diminished  are by  each  the  a  pervasive  presence  of  status,  the  other  status. Given the h i g h r a t e of e x c l u s i o n from the l a b o u r f o r c e among d i s a b l e d people,  a r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s of income from a l l sources  was  conducted t o t e s t i f an i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t between d i s a b i l i t y  and  gender i s present  a n a l y s i s of t o t a l disability  and  i n the g e n e r a l p o p u l a t i o n . The  income i n d i c a t e d an i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t between  gender.  This  finding  provides  support  master s t a t u s hypothesis t h a t the stigma of d i s a b i l i t y the  consequence of gender. However, t h i s  be  the  result  dependence  on  regression  of  the  income  disabled from  interaction  population's  welfare  services  for  diminishes effect  may  rate  of  high which  s t a n d a r d i z i n g e f f e c t on income across the p o p u l a t i o n .  the  has  a  Regression attainment. was  analyses  An  observed  analysis  were  interaction f o r the  examined  also  effect  general  conducted  for  educational  between d i s a b i l i t y  population.  educational  This  attainment  first  for  a  and  gender  regression number  of  v a r i a b l e s i n c l u d i n g presence or absence of a d i s a b i l i t y . However, when  a  more  population  was  multiplicity, not  t o be  later the  extensive  regression  age  of  significant  onset  of  in effecting  a n a l y s i s suggests t h a t the population  distributions multiplicity, To  the  of  i s the  women  and  disability,  disabled severity,  gender was  educational  found  attainment.  This  i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t observed f o r  result men  of the  for  differences in  the  nature,  the  severity,  and age of onset of d i s a b i l i t y .  summarize, the r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s f o r employment income  indicated  that  gender  disabled  and  analyses  for  total  inconclusive  given  disability  low-income  inequality  disabled  is  populations.  income the  and  comparable However,  educational  considerations  between  the  regression  attainment  raised.  non-  In  remain general,  i s a more s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r than gender i n e x p l a i n i n g  differences  i n educational s t a t u s . Gender  disability  in  attainment,  Within  the  explaining  differences  This  force status,  f a c t o r than i s  in  disability  f o r e d u c a t i o n a l attainment  i n d i c a t e s i n t e g r a t i o n has 112  and  occupational  incomes.  disabled population,  often s i g n i f i c a n t  labour  i s a more s i g n i f i c a n t  d i s t r i b u t i o n , employment and t o t a l  income.  of  conducted which c o n t r o l l e d f o r nature, and  general  analysis  groups are more  than f o r employment  been more uneven  within  the  disabled  population  Specifically, disabilities disabled  people  i n schools  with  a r e among  population  speaking,  the most  than  i n t h e work  psychiatric,  or  disadvantaged  f o r educational  cognitive  groups  attainment  place.  i n the  and  employment  effected  by age o f  income. Employment onset,  income i s a l s o s i g n i f i c a n t l y  or duration,  and m u l t i p l i c i t y  e x t e n t o f work l i m i t a t i o n s .  o f d i s a b i l i t y , as w e l l as  Other s i g n i f i c a n t  factors  d i s a b i l i t y f o r e d u c a t i o n a l attainment a r e s e v e r i t y , age  related to  multiplicity,  o f onset, and d u r a t i o n of d i s a b i l i t y . The The  S i g n i f i c a n c e of S o c i a l  discussion  knowledge i n t o social policy The  social  may  begins  life.  by s i t u a t i n g  social  scientific  D i s c u s s i o n o f some i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r  from t h i s r e s e a r c h concludes t h i s  effects  persons  here  Science  section.  s o c i a l s c i e n c e has had on t h e l i v e s o f d i s a b l e d  appear  insignificant  as compared  t o t h e dramatic  m e d i c a l and m a t e r i a l i n t e r v e n t i o n by t h e h e a l t h s c i e n c e s i n t o t h e lives  of disabled  not  only  the  concepts  persons. However, s o c i a l  informs s o c i a l p o l i c y developed  scientist  f o r s o c i a l change, to interpret  can a l s o become c o n s t i t u t i v e  action  and i n s t i t u t i o n s  354).  For  example,  and s t r a t e g i e s  by s o c i a l  a c t i o n and i n s t i t u t i o n s  s c i e n t i f i c knowledge  being  the  organization  understood  by Canadians along  'industry'  and many  other  investigated  lines  113  o f t h e very  (Giddens, work  of ' c a p i t a l ' ,  concepts were  e x p l a n a t i o n s o f economic a c t i v i t y .  of  originally  social  1984: 281-  and  markets  'investment', theoretical  The  linkage  science and  are  between  particularly  theorists  interpret  the  of  consumer  advocacy,  between the  and  and  civil  from the  the  eighteenth,  decades have  health  sciences health  can  become  sciences.  have  been  sciences  rights  promoting  It  e m p i r i c a l and  re-  existing  nineteenth  interchanged  as  re-  and  i n changing the  position  institutionalization twentieth  centuries  d u r i n g the  not of  have  sciences.  knowledge w i t h  if  a  literatures  social  unreasonable t o  significant,  people  theoretical  p a r t i c u l a r l y the  i s not  to  self-help,  among d i s a b l e d  de-institutionalization each  by  d i s a b l e d p e o p l e s ' movement and  organizations f a c i l i t a t i n g  ( F o u c a u l t , 1973), and three  researchers  social scientists  individuals  Organizations  e d u c a t i o n , humanities, and  the  of  social  social  concepts p o p u l a r i z e d  concepts developed by  disciplines.  drawn e x t e n s i v e l y  during  While  and  i n s t i t u t i o n s . T h i s process of a p p r o p r i a t i o n and  variety  well,  movements  s o c i a l movements i n f u r t h e r c h a l l e n g i n g  appropriation exists  As  social  knowledge and  experiences  a p p r o p r i a t e d by p r a c t i c e s and  new  significant.  draw upon the  s o c i a l movements, the  in  the  previous  the  social  argue the  social  more  so,  than  d i s a b l e d persons  the in  communities. Given t h i s p o t e n t i a l in  social  direct  life,  results  does c e r t a i n l y  it of  is  any  position difficult  social  inform a v a r i e t y  of s o c i a l s c i e n t i f i c knowledge to  discuss  research. of  people.  114  what  However,  service p o l i c i e s  will this for  be  the  research disabled  First, to  the s i g n i f i c a n c e of o b t a i n i n g employment i s d i f f i c u l t  o v e r s t a t e . The  women and  men  c o m p a r a b i l i t y of o c c u p a t i o n a l d i s t r i b u t i o n s f o r  i n both  the non-disabled  i n d i c a t e s t h a t those d i s a b l e d people who not e x p e r i e n c e d of  and  disabled  populations  o b t a i n e d employment have  s i g n i f i c a n t o c c u p a t i o n a l s e g r e g a t i o n on the b a s i s  disability.  However, i t i s c l e a r t h a t o n l y a m i n o r i t y of  d i s a b l e d p o p u l a t i o n have obtained  the  employment.  The h i g h r a t e of e x c l u s i o n from the labour market i s r e l a t e d to  the  severe  educational  people.  Achieving  education  i s necessary  disadvantage  greater  experienced  integration  into  by  all  disabled  levels  of  to f a c i l i t a t e greater i n t e g r a t i o n into  the  l a b o u r market. In g e n e r a l , people  have  s e r v i c e s and  been  resources  criticized  for  used t o a s s i s t  being  'welfare'  disabled  rather  than  'employment' o r i e n t e d programs. For example, e d u c a t i o n a l programs and  services  leaves  have  emphasized  d i s a b l e d people  market,  and  competition,  with  thus  searching  low  wages, and  vocational  skills  i n low  f o r jobs  training  demand i n the  i n areas  steady  part  time  of h i g h  poor job s e c u r i t y . As w e l l ,  s e r v i c e s g e n e r a l l y discourages d i s a b l e d people wage or  which  employment  The  loss  of  often labour  employee welfare  from a c c e p t i n g  medical  coverage  low and  income f o r a low wage, temporary, or p a r t time job i s not  worthwhile government's  for  many  equitable  disabled  people.  employment  modest o b j e c t i v e s .  115  program  Finally, has  not  the  federal  met  its  own  Services  and r e s o u r c e s  made a v a i l a b l e  to disabled  people  must support t h e development of s k i l l s which make d i s a b l e d people truly  competitive  assistance entry  i n t h e labour  market.  and medical s e r v i c e s must f a c i l i t a t e ,  o f income  not discourage,  i n t o t h e labour market. As w e l l , l e g i s l a t i o n and  regulations  promoting  must t r u l y r e f l e c t The  needs  experienced segregation  integration, particularly  reported t o be  by  women,  here  given  also  people  need  i n terms  by women w i t h and  equality  to reflect  need  women w i t h  of l e g i s l a t i o n  to reflect  regulations,  greater  disadvantage  of  occupational  disabilities.  legislation  and r e g u l a t i o n s f o r  the a d d i t i o n a l  directed  t h e unique  disadvantage  Furthermore, at  programs,  realizing  experiences  gender  and needs o f  disabilities. D i r e c t i o n s f o r Further  research  requiring  areas  f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s than what c o u l d be accomplished  using  First,  required.  What  reported  Research  here draws a t t e n t i o n t o s e v e r a l  HALS.  further  research  on women and d i s a b i l i t y i s  can t h e experiences  integrated  into,  satisfying,  secure,  policies  that  to the a d d i t i o n a l  particularly  and development  experienced  The  indicates  and employment income. The p r o v i s i o n o f s e r v i c e s and  resources, disabled  i n t o employment,  'affirmative action' principles.  research  attention  the  Provision  and  those  who  and p r e s t i g i o u s  f o r integration  of women  of disabled  women who have  have  excluded  been  employment  from,  contribute  i n employment?  How  to  do t h e  e x p e r i e n c e s of d i s a b l e d mothers d i f f e r from n o n - d i s a b l e d mothers? 116  As  well,  differ  between  centrality this is  how does  disabled  women  However, e q u a l l y  the centrality The stigma  identity  sexual  identity  and  and  non-disabled  experiences women?  The  o f work t o s o c i a l l i f e has been emphasized throughout  research.  1981).  female  of sexual  important, and o f t e n identity  of d i s a b i l i t y  to social  i s associated  overlooked,  life  with  (Duffy,  an  asexual  (Hannon, 1980) which i s f a r t o o o f t e n i n c o r p o r a t e d  into  r e s e a r c h as a p r e s u p p o s i t i o n . The  interactions  between  disability  and  e t h n i c i t y are  important f o r f u r t h e r s t a t u s r e s e a r c h . Two g e n e r a l q u e s t i o n a r i s e here:  (1) what  inequality?;  i s t h e consequence  the  T h i s second q u e s t i o n ,  people o f an e t h n i c m i n o r i t y basis  on  ethnic  and (2) how does d i s a b i l i t y and e t h n i c i t y r e l a t e t o  self-definition?. do  of d i s a b i l i t y  of their  stated d i f f e r e n t l y ,  asks  i d e n t i f y themselves p r i m a r i l y on  ethnicity  or d i s a b i l i t y ,  or equally  as  d i s a b l e d and an e t h n i c m i n o r i t y ? . Research How  does  on s o c i a l  social  disability?  c l a s s and d i s a b i l i t y  class  Do s o c i a l  effect  i s also  t h e experience  s e r v i c e s and r e s o u r c e s  of  required. having  a  f o r d i s a b l e d people  d i m i n i s h o r exacerbate d i f f e r e n c e s i n s o c i a l c l a s s ? Research i n t o t h e impact of technology on t h e i n t e g r a t i o n of disabled for  people  assessing  current  implies  that  assist  people  integration.  i n t o schools,  strategies  t h e development with  However,  work, and r e c r e a t i o n i s important of i n t e g r a t i o n . Common  of new t e c h n o l o g i c a l  disabilities research 117  has  devices  facilitated  i s necessary  to  sense to  greater  assess  how  t e c h n o l o g y has e f f e c t e d the education,  employment, and r e c r e a t i o n  of d i s a b l e d people? I t may be the case t h a t t e c h n o l o g y has facilitated  a change  i n segregation  rather  than  actual  greater  integration. Research disabilities urgently and into the help  into to  the s t r a t e g i e s  achieve  used  independent  by women and men  and  satisfying  with  lives  is  needed. What have been the consequences o f l e g i s l a t i o n  r e g u l a t i o n s implemented t o i n t e g r a t e people w i t h schools,  employment,  housing,  and p u b l i c  disabilities  services?  new s o c i a l movements o f d i s a b l e d people which i n c l u d e (Kolb,  1985; Saxton,  r i g h t s organizations  1985),  consumer  advocacy,  and  How  do  selfcivil  r e l a t e to i n d i v i d u a l experiences of greater  independence and meaning i n l i f e ?  118  APPENDIX TABLES Table A l AGE GROUPINGS OF DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION DISABLED NON-DISABLED o o Q. Women % o o Women "8 Men as a % Women Groups as a % Women Men 15-19  4.0  4.5  47.0  11.4  12.3  48.5  20-24  5.9  6.0  49.4  14.0  13.8  50.6  25-29  6.9  7.1  48.9  14.4  13.9  51.3  30-34  9.0  9.6  48.0  13.2  13.2  50.3  35-39  9.4  9.8  48.8  11.7  12.0  49.6  40-44  9.9  8.9  52.4  9.6  9.9  49.6  45-49  9.3  9.2  49.9  7.3  7.7  49.0  50-54  11.0  12.4  46.6  6.8  6.2  52.5  55-59  15.2  14.6  50.6  5.7  6.2  48.5  60-64  19.4  17.8  51.9  5.9  4.8  55.2  Total  100.0  100.0  49.7  100.0  100.0  50.3  119  Table A2 MARITAL STATUS OF DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION DISABLED % Women Married  Single  o "5  Men  NON-DISABLED Women as a %  % Women  o  Men  Women as a %  59.2  64.9  47.4  62.9  60.2  51.4  18.5  25.1  42.2  27.5  34.3  44.8  Divorced  8.7  4.9  63.6  3.6  2.8  56.4  Separated  4.6  3.0  60.0  3.1  2.0  60.3  Widowed  9.1  2.1  80.6  3.0  0.6  82.9  Total Population  100.0  100.0  49.7  120  100.0  100.0  50.3  Table A3 HIGHEST LEVEL OF SCHOOLING OF DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION DISABLED Average Years o f Schooling  o *o  Women  o  Men  NON-DISABLED o o  Women as a %  Women  Q. •o  Men  Women as a %  0.5  3.2  2.2  59.6  0.5  0.4  56.0  2.5  4.9  4.6  51.3  1.2  1.3  49.3  6.5  22.4  20.4  52.0  9.2  9.8  48.9  9.5  17.3  16.0  51.7  13.5  13.7  50.0  12  12.0  15.8  43.0  16.4  17.1  49.3  (continued on f o l l o w i n g page)  121  (continued from p r e v i o u s page) Disabled o  Women  Q, *o  Non-Disabled  Men  Women as a %  o  Women  g.  Men  Women as a %  13  29.3  28.0  50.8  40.2  35.6  53.4  15  3.7  5.0  42.3  7.0  7.0  50.4  17  5.8  6.7  45.9  10.0  11.5  46.9  18  0.8  0.4  68.7  0.9  1.2  44.5  19  0.6  0.7  43.6  1.0  2.2  30.9  21  0.02  0.2  10.0  0.1  0.4  20.6  100.0  100.0  49.7  100.0  100.0  50.3  Total Population  122  Table A4 1985 EMPLOYMENT INCOME OF DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION DISABLED NON-DISABLED o Women % Women "5 "5 Men as a % Women Average Men as a % Women g.  Q. O  Tnr« A T Y i a  0  58.6  35.4  62.1  31.3  13.2  70.5  500  4.4  3.7  54.2  4.6  3.1  60.1  2000  5.8  4.7  54.6  8.4  5.8  59.5  4000  3.9  4.3  47.1  6.0  4.2  59.5  6000  3.4  2.5  57.6  5.7  3.8  60.6  8500  4.8  3.8  55.2  7.8  5.5  59.1  12500  5.8  6.7  45.9  11.1  8.3  57.5  17500  4.5  7.1  38.6  9.2  9.3  49.9  22500  3.7  7.7  32.4  6.6  9.3  40.4  27500  2.5  6.4  27.9  4.2  10.4  29.3  32500  1.4  7.0  16.4  2.4  7.9  23.4  (continued on f o l l o w i n g page) 123  (continued  from  previous  page)  DISABLED % Women  40000  Total Population  % Men  NON-DISABLED Women as a %  % Women  % Men  Women as a %  1.2  10.6  10.1  2.6  18.7  12.4  100.0  100.0  49.7  100.0  100.0  50.3  124  T a b l e A5 1985 TOTAL INCOME OF DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION DISABLED NON-DISABLED o o g. o Women Women o o "5 "o Men as a % Women as a % Women Men 0  24.7  7.3  77.0  20.4  7.8  72.7  7.3  3.8  65.7  5.5  3.2  63.6  1000-2999  8.7  4.8  64.1  9.1  5.4  63.2  3000-4999  10.3  8.5  54.6  6.9  4.4  61.6  5000-6999  11.6  6.9  62.3  7.2  3.9  64.9  7000-9999  9.7  8.0  54.5  9.4  5.6  62.8  1000014999  10.8  11.9  47.2  13.3  8.9  60.4  1500019999  6.1  9.1  39.9  10.0  10.4  49.4  2000024999  3.9  10.5  26.8  7.3  10.0  42.3  2500029999  3.3  7.9  29.1  4.7  10.8  30.4  3000034999  1.5  7.5  16.2  2.9  8.9  25.0  1-999  (continued on f o l l o w i n g page) 125  (continued from previous page) 35000 or more Total Population  2.2  13.7  13.8  3.5  20.9  14.5  100.0  100.0  49.7  100.0  100.0  50.3  126  Table A6 1985 CENSUS FAMILY TOTAL INCOME OF DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION DISABLED NON-DISABLED g. Q. o Women Women o % *o Men as a % Men as a % Women Women Less Than Zero  0.2  0.3  40.6  0.3  0.3  50.9  0  2.6  2.0  56.2  1.0  0.8  55.3  1000-4999  9.0  9.0  49.7  4.4  3.7  54.5  5000-9999  15.6  10.0  60.7  6.0  4.7  56.5  1000014999  10.9  9.6  53.0  7.0  5.9  54.5  1500019999  10.4  8.9  53.7  7.5  6.9  52.3  2000024999  8.9  9.5  48.3  7.8  7.8  50.5  2500029999  8.4  8.7  48.9  9.5  9.5  50.3  3000034999  6.2  8.6  41.4  9.4  9.9  49.0  3500039999  6.8  8.6  44.0  8.5  9.4  47.8  4000049999  7.6  10.8  40.9  13.7  14.2  49.3  (continued on f o l l o w i n g page) 127  (continued from previous page) 50000 and above  13.3  14.0  48.5  24.9  26.8  48.5  Total Population  100.0  100.0  49.7  100.0  100.0  50.3  128  Table A7 TENURE OF DWELLING OF DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION DISABLED  Household on Reserve  o o  o  Women 1.1  NON-DISABLED o  o  o, o  Men  Women as a %  Women  Men  Women as a %  0.9  56.8  0.8  0.8  50.2  Owned o r Being Bought  61.6  69.5  46.7  69.6  71.6  49.6  Rented  37.3  29.7  55.6  29.6  27.6  52.1  100.0  100.0  49.9  100.0  100.0  50.3  Total Population  362 m i s s i n g  observations  129  GLOSSARY This  section  definitions  of  provides  impairment,  the  World  Health  disability,  and  Organization's  handicap  (W.H.O.,  1980). Impairment Definition In loss  t h e context  or  of health  abnormality  of  experience,  an impairment  psychological,  i s any  physiological,  or  a n a t o m i c a l s t r u c t u r e or f u n c t i o n . "Impairment" i s more i n c l u s i v e than  "disorder"  i n that  i t covers  losses  such as t h e l o s s o f a  l e g . The l o s s o f a l e g i s an impairment, but i s not a d i s o r d e r . Characteristics Impairment i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by l o s s e s o r a b n o r m a l i t i e s  that  may be temporary o r permanent, and t h a t i n c l u d e t h e e x i s t e n c e or occurence tissue, mental  of  an  or other  anomaly,  defect,  or  loss  in a  limb,  organ,  s t r u c t u r e o f the body, i n c l u d i n g t h e systems o f  function.  Impairment  represents  e x t e r i o r i z a t i o n of  p a t h o l o g i c a l s t a t e , and i n p r i n c i p l e i t r e f l e c t s d i s t u r b a n c e s the  at  l e v e l o f t h e organ. Disability  Definition In  t h e context  restriction  or lack  perform an a c t i v i t y  of h e a l t h  experience,  a disability  i s any  ( r e s u l t i n g from an impairment) o f a b i l i t y t o i n the manner or w i t h i n t h e range  normal f o r a human being.  130  considered  Characteristics Disability customarily these may  i s characterized  expected  activity  be temporary  by excesses or d e f i c i e n c i e s performance  and  or permanent, r e v e r s i b l e or  and p r o g r e s s i v e or r e g r e s s i v e . D i s a b i l i t i e s may consequence  of  particularly  impairment,  impairment  or  psychologically,  impairment.  behaviour,  Disability  as  a  response  represents  and  irreversible,  a r i s e as a d i r e c t  of  to a physical,  of  the  individual,  sensory,  or other  objectification  of  an  and as such i t r e f l e c t s d i s t u r b a n c e s a t the l e v e l of  the person. Disability composite as  concerned  activities  essential  disturbances care  is  with  abilities,  in  the  form  of  and behaviours, t h a t are g e n e r a l l y accepted  components i n behaving  of  everyday  life.  Examples  i n an a p p r o p r i a t e manner,  include  i n personal  (such as e x c r e t o r y c o n t r o l and the a b i l i t y t o wash and  o n e s e l f ) , i n the performance of other a c t i v i t i e s o f d a i l y and i n locomotor a c t i v i t i e s  feed  living,  (such as the a b i l i t y t o walk). Handicap  Definition In  the  context  of  health  experience,  a  handicap  disadvantage f o r a g i v e n i n d i v i d u a l , r e s u l t i n g from an  is  a  impairment  or a d i s a b i l i t y , t h a t l i m i t s or prevents the f u l f i l m e n t of a r o l e that  i s normal  (depending on  factors) f o r that  age,  individual.  131  sex, and  social  and  cultural  Characteristics Handicap individual's norm.  It  is  concerned  situation is  individual's  with  the  o r experience  characterized  performance  by  or status  value  when  a  attached  i t departs  discordance  to  an  from t h e  between  the  and t h e e x p e c t a t i o n s o f t h e  i n d i v i d u a l h i m s e l f o r h e r s e l f or o f t h e p a r t i c u l a r group o f which he  i s a member.  impairment  or  consequences  a  Handicap  thus  represents s o c i a l i z a t i o n  disability,  and  as  such  o f an  i t reflects  the  f o r t h e i n d i v i d u a l - c u l t u r a l , s o c i a l , economic, and  environmental  - that  stem  from  t h e presence  o f impairment  or  disability. Disadvantage  arises  from f a i l u r e or i n a b i l i t y t o conform t o  the e x p e c t a t i o n s o r norms o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s u n i v e r s e . Handicap thus o c c u r s when t h e r e i s i n t e r f e r e n c e  i n the a b i l i t y t o sustain  what might be d e s i g n a t e d as " s u r v i v a l r o l e s " . Classification It  i s important  classification  to  i s neither  recognize a  that  taxonomy  of  of i n d i v i d u a l s .  circumstances  i n which  disabled  themselves,  circumstances  that  disadvantage  r e l a t i v e t o t h e i r peers when viewed  society.  132  nor a  i t i s a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of  people place  handicap  disadvantage  classification  of  Rather  t h e W.H.O.  are  such  likely  to  individuals  find at  a  from t h e norms  REFERENCES Becker, Gaylene and Joanne K. J a u r e g u i . 1985. "The I n v i s i b l e I s o l a t i o n o f Deaf Women: I t s E f f e c t s on S o c i a l Awareness", i n Deegan and Brooks, I b i d . Bonwich, Emily. 1985. "Sex Role A t t i t u d e s and Role R e o r g a n i z a t i o n i n S p i n a l Cord I n j u r e d Women" i n Deegan and Brooks, I b i d . B r i s e n d e n , Simon. 1986. "Independent L i v i n g and the M e d i c a l Model of D i s a b i l i t y " , D i s a b i l i t y , Handicap, and S o c i e t y , 2 ( 2 ) . Canada, 1981. O b s t a c l e s : Report o f t h e S p e c i a l P a r l i a m e n t a r y Committee on t h e D i s a b l e d and t h e Handicapped. Ottawa, ON: M i n i s t e r o f Supply and S e r v i c e s . Cockburn, Cynthia. 1983. B r o t h e r s : Male Dominance T e c h n o l o g i c a l Change. London, UK: P l u t o P r e s s .  and  Cockburn, C y n t h i a . 1985. Machinery o f Dominance: Women. Men, T e c h n o l o g i c a l Know-How. London, UK: P l u t o P r e s s .  and  Cohen, Gary L. 1989. D i s a b i l i t y and t h e Labour Market: An A n a l y s i s o f D i s a b l e d Persons Not In The Labour Force. Ottawa, ON: S t a t i s t i c s Canada. Cohen, Gary L. 1990. A P r o f i l e o f Three Ottawa, ON: S t a t i s t i c s Canada.  Disabled  Populations.  C o n n e l l , R.W. 1987. Gender and Power: S o c i e t y , t h e Person, and Sexual P o l i t i c s . Cambridge, UK: P o l i t y P r e s s . Conrad, Peter. 1976. I d e n t i f y i n g Hyperactive C h i l d r e n : The M e d i c a l i z a t i o n o f Deviant Behavior. Toronto, ON: L e x i n g t o n Books. Deegan, Mary Jo. 1985. " M u l t i p l e M i n o r i t y Groups: A Case Study o f P h y s i c a l l y D i s a b l e d Women" i n Deegan and Brooks, I b i d . Deegan, Mary J o and Nancy A. Brooks (eds). 1985. Women and Disability: The Double Handicap. New Brunswick, NJ: T r a n s a c t i o n Books. Doyal, Len and Roger H a r r i s . 1986. Empiricism. E x p l a n a t i o n , and R a t i o n a l i t y : An I n t r o d u c t i o n t o the P h i l o s o p h y o f t h e S o c i a l S c i e n c e s . London, UK: Routledge and Kegan P a u l . Edgerton, Robert B. 1967. Cloak o f Competence: Stigma i n t h e L i v e s o f t h e M e n t a l l y Retarded. Berkeley, CA: U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a Press.  133  Estroff, Sue E. 1981. Making I t Crazy: An Ethnography o f P s y c h i a t r i c P a t i e n t s i n an American Community. Berkeley, CA: U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a Press. Fine,  M i c h e l l e and Adrienne Asch. 1985. " D i s a b l e d Women: Sexism without t h e P e d e s t a l " , i n Deegan and Brooks. I b i d .  Fine,  M i c h e l l e and Adrienne Asch (eds). 1988. Women with D i s a b i l i t i e s : Essays i n Psychology, C u l t u r e , and P o l i t i c s . P h i l a d e l p h i a , PA: Temple U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s .  F o u c a u l t , M i c h e l . 1973. B i r t h o f t h e C l i n i c : An Archaeology o f M e d i c a l P e r c e p t i o n , t r a n s l a t e d by A.M. Sheridan Smith. New York, NY: Pantheon Books. Giddens, Anthony. 1984. The C o n s t i t u t i o n o f S o c i e t y : O u t l i n e o f the Theory o f S t r u c t u r a t i o n . Berkeley, CA: U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a Press. Giddens, Anthony. 1987. " E r v i n g Goffman as a Systematic S o c i a l Theorist", i n h i s , S o c i a l Theory and Modern S o c i o l o g y . S t a n f o r d , CA: S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . Goffman, E r v i n g . 1963. Stigma: Notes on t h e Management o f S p o i l e d I d e n t i t y . New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, I n c . Hannon, G. 1980. "No Sorrow, No P i t y : D i s a b l e d " , Body P o l i t i c , Feb: 19-22.  A  Hughes, E v e r e t t . 1971. The S o c i o l o g i c a l Eye.  Report  on t h e Gay  Chicago,  I I : Aldine.  I r v i n e , John, Ian M i l e s , and J e f f Evans (eds). 1979. D e m y s t i f y i n g S o c i a l S t a t i s t i c s . Pluto Press. Langness, L.L. and Harold G. Levine (eds). 1986. C u l t u r e and Retardation: L i f e Histories of M i l d l y Mentally Retarded Persons i n American S o c i e t y . Dordrecht, Netherlands: D. Riedel Publishing. Kallen, Evelyn. Stigmatized Press. Kolb,  1989. L a b e l Me Human: M i n o r i t y R i g h t s o f Canadians. Toronto, ON: U n i v e r s i t y o f Toronto  Cynthia. 1985. " A s s e r t i v e n e s s T r a i n i n g f o r Women V i s u a l Impairments" i n Deegan and Brooks, I b i d .  with  Kutner, Nancy G. and Heather L. Gray. 1985. "Women and Chronic Renal F a i l u r e : Some Neglected Issues", i n Deegan and Brooks (eds), I b i d . Kutza, E l i z a b e t h Ann. 1985. " B e n e f i t s f o r t h e D i s a b l e d : B e n e f i c i a l f o r Women?", i n Deegan and Brooks, I b i d . 134  How  McCharen, Nancy and J o Anne L. Earp. 1985. "Toward a Model o f F a c t o r s I n f l u e n c i n g t h e H i r i n g o f Women w i t h a H i s t o r y o f B r e a s t Cancer" i n Deegan and Brooks, I b i d . MacDowell, I a n . 1988. A D i s a b i l i t y ON: S t a t i s t i c s Canada. MacDowell, Ian and C. Newell. NY: Oxford.  Score  f o r t h e HALS. Ottawa,  1987. Measuring H e a l t h .  New York,  Mercer, Jane R. 1973. L a b e l l i n g t h e M e n t a l l y Retarded: C l i n i c a l and Social System Perspectives on Mental Retardation. Berkeley, CA: U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a P r e s s . Nunnally, J.C. 1967. Psychometric Hill.  Theory. New York, NY: McGraw-  O l i v e r , M. 1986. " S o c i a l P o l i c y and D i s a b i l i t y : Some T h e o r e t i c a l I s s u e s " , D i s a b i l i t y . Handicap, and S o c i e t y , 1 ( 1 ) . Organization f o r Economic Co-operation and Development (O.E.C.D.). 1982. S p e c i a l Study #5: Measuring D i s a b i l i t y . Ross,  David P. and E. R i c h a r d S h i l l i n g t o n . 1990. An Economic P r o f i l e o f Persons with D i s a b i l i t i e s i n Canada. Ottawa, ON: Department o f the S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e o f Canada.  Rushing, W.A. 1979. "The F u n c t i o n a l Importance o f Sex Roles and Sex R e l a t e d Behavior i n S o c i e t a l Reactions t o Residual Deviance", J o u r n a l o f Health and S o c i a l Behavior, 20: 208217. S a f i l i o s - R o t h s c h i l d , Constantina. 1970. The S o c i o l o g y and S o c i a l Psychology o f D i s a b i l i t y and R e h a b i l i t a t i o n . Random House. Saxton, Marsha. 1985. "Peer Counseling T r a i n i n g Program f o r D i s a b l e d Women: A T o o l f o r S o c i a l and I n d i v i d u a l Change" i n Deegan and Brooks, I b i d . S c h e f f , T . J . 1966. Being Chicago, IL: A l d i n e . S c o t t , Robert. Foundation.  Mentally  1969. The Making  111: A S o c i o l o g i c a l of Blind  Theory.  Men. R u s s e l l  Sage  Shaul, Susan, Pamela J . Dowling and B e r n i c e F. Laden. 1985. " L i k e Other Women: P e r s p e c t i v e s o f Mothers with Physical D i s a b i l i t i e s " , i n Deegan and Brooks (eds), I b i d . Statistics Canada. 1987. Census Canada 1986: R e f e r e n c e D i c t i o n a r y . Ottawa, ON: M i n i s t e r o f Supply and S e r v i c e s Canada. 135  S t a t i s t i c s Canada. Survey: User's Services.  1988. The H e a l t h and A c t i v i t y L i m i t a t i o n s Guide. Ottawa, ON: M i n i s t r y of Supply and  S t a t i s t i c s Canada. 1989. The H e a l t h Survey: Micro-data User's Guide Ottawa, ON: S t a t i s t i c s Canada. S u t h e r l a n d , A l l a n T. 1981.  D i s a b l e d We  and A c t i v i t y L i m i t a t i o n s - A d u l t s i n Households. Stand.  Souvenir  Press.  Tudor, W. , J.F. Tudor, and W.R. Gove. 1977. "The E f f e c t s of Sex Role D i f f e r e n c e s on the C o n t r o l of Mental I l l n e s s " , J o u r n a l of H e a l t h and S o c i a l Behavior. 18: 98-112. World Health Organization (W.H.O.). 1980. International C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Impairments, D i s a b i l i t i e s , and Handicaps: A Manual of C l a s s i f i c a t i o n R e l a t i n g t o the Consequences of D i s e a s e . Geneva, S w i t z e r l a n d . World H e a l t h O r g a n i z a t i o n .  136  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0098772/manifest

Comment

Related Items