DRAFT DISSERTATION FINAL VERSION
-
Upload
andy-smith -
Category
Documents
-
view
80 -
download
6
Transcript of DRAFT DISSERTATION FINAL VERSION
Dissertation
Did the London 2012 Paralympic Games change attitudes and perceptions towards physically disabled people?
Sociology
Dissertation submitted by Andrew Smith in accordance with the requirements of the University of Huddersfield for the degree of
BSc Sociology
Final Year Project – HHB2002
Andrew Robert Lewis Smith
U1158740018
Tuesday, 10 May 2016
Word Count – 9,802
Abstract
The aim of this dissertation is to evaluate the long term legacy of the London 2012
Paralympics and ascertain if they had the desired effect of changing the attitudes
and perceptions of able-bodied people towards physically disabled people.
This is important because events such as the Paralympic games can be used as a
vehicle for social change but they need to effectively communicate a message that
resonates with wider society in order for to change attitudes and perceptions and
have a lasting legacy.
Much of the contemporary research has used qualitative research methods. For my
research I have chosen to use quantitative research methods. The findings have
been analysed using statistical methods and compared to previous research to
establish any similarities or differences in patterns of behaviour towards physically
disabled people.
The findings show that there has been a change in attitudes and perceptions
towards physically disabled people post London 2012 Paralympic Games and the
games were a contributing factor towards this.
The research will conclude how effective the London 2012 Paralympic games were
in communicating a message of social change for physically disabled people across
society.
Contents page
Acknowledgements
Introduction
Literature review
Methodology
Findings and analysis
Conclusion
References
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my supervisors Chris Cameron and Surya Monro for their
support, assistance and guidance with my dissertation, without which I could not
have completed it.
Also all the lecturers that have held lectures and seminars which have proved
invaluable providing the base knowledge required to complete the dissertation.
Finally I would like to thank Disability Support and Student Support for helping me
through some very difficult times and ensuring that I had right support at the right
time so I could finish my dissertation to the best of my ability.
Chapter 1 – introduction
The aim of this dissertation is to evaluate the long term legacy of the London 2012
Paralympic games and ascertain as to what extent it changed the attitudes and
perceptions of able bodied people towards physically disabled people (Department
for Culture, Media & Sport 2015; Deviren 2014; International Paralympic Committee
2014; Penning 2014; Owens 2013). My research uses the term physically disabled
people because the term ‘disabled’ covers a wide range of disabilities (Barnes,
Mercer & Shakespeare 1999; Thomas 2007), and it is not possible to explore the
impact the games had on people with other disabilities in a short dissertation. It
should be noted that the term disabled people will be used in this dissertation as well
as the term physically disabled people and the definition of the term disability will be
explored in more depth further on in the dissertation. This use of terminology is to
distinguish my research from the research of others. Contemporary research will be
evaluated to determine what effect the legacy has had on the lives of disabled
people and compared to the findings from my own research.
This topic has been chosen because large scale worldwide events such as the
London 2012 Paralympic games have the potential to change the attitudes and
perceptions of society in a short timeframe and make society aware of the barriers
that many people face in their daily lives (Deviren 2014; International Paralympic
Committee 2014; Penning 2014; Owens 2013). What is of interest is whether the
legacy of the games has a long term impact on society with a change in attitudes
and perceptions towards physically disabled people from able bodied people, or if
the effect is short term and able bodied people revert back to their previous attitudes
and perceptions of physically disabled people once the aftermath of the games has
gone (Aiden & McCarthy 2014; Fitzgerald 2012).
Much of the existing literature has focused on the impact the London 2012
Paralympic games had on the lives of physically disabled and other disabled people
(Department for Culture, Media & Sport 2015; Deviren 2014; International
Paralympic Committee 2014; Penning 2014; Owens 2013). There has been a mixed
response with some individuals stating that their lives have got worse since the
games due to cuts to benefits and services. Others have noticed a deterioration in
attitudes towards them (Aiden & McCarthy 2014; Fitzgerald 2012).
Able bodied people have also had research conducted into their attitudes and
perceptions towards disabled people since the games and again there has been a
mixed response from the research. Some research reports a positive shift in
attitudes and perceptions (Deviren 2014; Penning 2014), whilst other research
reports that more needs to be done to bridge the gap in knowledge and
understanding of the abilities and requirements of disabled people by able bodied
people and achieve increased acceptance and equality for disabled people (Aiden &
McCarthy 2014; Fitzgerald 2012).
The objectives of the research are to establish how effective the Paralympic games
are in changing the attitudes and perceptions of society. One of the main aims of the
International Paralympic Committee (IPC) is to promote greater understanding and
acceptance of disabled people through the use of sport as a vehicle to highlight what
disabled people are capable of (Blauwet & Willick 2012; International Paralympic
Committee, About Us No date). If the aims of the IPC have been achieved, then my
research will show a positive change in the attitudes and perceptions of able bodied
people towards physically disabled people.
The dissertation will use the medical and social models of disability (Barnes, Mercer
& Shakespeare 1999; Thomas 2007), as a basis to establish how attitudes and
perceptions towards physically disabled people have changed since the London
2012 Paralympic games. If there has been a positive shift in attitudes and
perceptions the social model of disability will be used as this acknowledges the role
society plays in breaking down barriers for disabled people and creating a more
equal society for the benefit of everybody.
If there has been a negative shift in attitudes the medical model of disability will be
applied as this promotes the viewpoint that it is the fault of the disabled person that
they do not fit into society and not the fault of society. The disabled person must do
more to fit into society and it is not up to society to assist them.
The dissertation is structured in a logical way with an introduction to the dissertation,
an analysis of contemporary literature, analysis of charts detailing my findings,
analysis and discussion of the findings, methods used to conduct my research and a
conclusion discussing my findings and what impact they have on physically disabled
people and society.
The purpose of each chapter is to bring into focus any research and analysis that
has been conducted into attitudes and perceptions towards disabled people that
impacts on my own research, and compare it with my own research to understand
where it fits into the broader research spectrum.
Each of the chapters will explain what has been found and how the findings fit in with
each other to arrive at a better understanding of the impact the London 2012
Paralympic games had on the attitudes and perceptions of the able bodied public
towards physically disabled people in society.
Chapter 2 – literature review
Introduction
In this chapter I will go through a brief history of the Paralympic games and critically
analyse contemporary research and surveys regarding the legacy of the
Paralympics.
What are the Paralympic Games?
The Paralympic Games are a sporting event organised by the IPC and held every
four years at the same time as the Olympic Games (IPC History No date). The
primary function of the IPC is to allow disabled athletes to compete on equal terms in
order to the sporting ability of disabled people (IPC Sports 2012; Jobling 2012).
Athletes compete in a series sporting events based on the format of the Olympic
Games (IPC No date).
History of the Paralympic Games
The modern day Paralympic Games have their origins in the Stoke Mandeville
Games (SMG) which were organised by Dr Ludwig Guttmann (Blauwet & Willick
2012; IPC History of the movement No date) a world renowned neurologist who
believed in using sport as a means of rehabilitating injured soldiers with spinal cord
injuries and integrating them back into society (IPC History of the movement No
date; Jobling 2012).
The first SMG games were held in July 1948 (IPC History of the movement No date).
It was not until the Rome Olympics of 1960 that the games were renamed the
Paralympic Games a term that has become familiar to millions around the world (IPC
History of the movement No date; Jobling 2012). Since then the games have
developed with the summer games taking place in the same city and venue as the
Olympics after 1988 and the IPC formed in 1989 (IPC History of the movement No
date).
At the first SMG in 1948 sixteen men and women took part competing in archery
(IPC History of the movement No date). Four years later the games became
international when Dutch ex-servicemen took part. When the games were held in
Rome in 1960 (IPC Rome 1960 No date) four hundred athletes from twenty three
countries competed in eight different sports with the primary focus still on athletes
with a spinal cord injury (Jobling 2012).
It was not until Toronto 1976 (IPC Toronto 1976 No date) that blind and amputee
athletes where allowed to compete. In 1980 (IPC Arnhem 1980 No date) the
classification of disabled athletes was expanded to include cerebral palsy (IPC
History of the movement No date).
At the London 2012 Games (IPC London 2012 No date) four thousand, two hundred
and thirty seven athletes competed in twenty different sports. The head of the IPC,
Sir Philip Craven proclaimed the London games to be the greatest Paralympics ever
with records broken for competitors taking part, spectators and worldwide television
audiences.
Key themes of the International Paralympic Committee
One of the primary functions of the IPC is to promote equality, empowerment and
inclusion for all disabled people through sport (Blauwet & Willick 2012; International
Paralympic Committee, About Us No date). This is accomplished through a series of
‘visions’ the IPC has issued (IPC About us No date). These ‘visions’ talk about
challenging stereotypes of disabled people in society in order to change attitudes
and create a more equal society for all (IPC About us No date). In this respect it
could be argued that the IPC vision follows the social model of disability in that it
recognises the need for society to change its attitudes and perceptions of disabled
people in order to achieve greater equality through inclusion.
The games have been accused of being unnecessarily confusing due to the
classification system (IPC Classification No date) used to promote fairness in
competition amongst disabled athletes (Jobling 2012). This system has proved
troublesome in its complexity due to the problems in ensuring athletes compete with
the same level of disability (Jobling 2012).
One of the controversies surrounding the games is the range of disabilities that are
allowed to compete. Only certain disabilities compete in the games and this has led
the IPC to be accused of selective discrimination (Jobling 2012) against the
disabilities that are excluded. This raises the issue of the representation of disability
in society. If the games only showcase athletes with certain disabilities then these
are the disabilities the public will recognise and empathise with in wider society and
other disabilities will be ignored or viewed as a false representation of disability.
Individuals with disabilities not represented at the games may suffer ignorance and
discrimination from a lack of knowledge and understanding in wider society, due to
not being observed and identified by the general population. In this way the games
have the ability to empower certain disabilities whilst disempowering others (Purdue
& Howe 2012).
Empowerment
The IPC envisions that empowering disabled athletes on the world sporting stage
and enabling them to perform in front of millions of spectators and television viewers,
attitudes and perceptions towards all disabled people irrespective of societal and
cultural background will change (Blauwet & Willick 2012; International Paralympic
Committee, About Us No date). Similarly the British Government policy as published
in a report by E Deviren (2014) is to:
‘promote positive attitudes and behaviours towards disabled people to enable
participation in work, community life and wider society, tackling discrimination and
harassment wherever it occurs’
This suggests that the IPC and the British Government have a similar vision and are
working together towards a world where disabled people are living in a society that
empowers and enables disabled people to achieve more as a result of greater
understanding of their needs and abilities. By including people in community
activities such as sport, disabled people can learn new skills, share experiences with
able bodied people and become a valued member of society recognised for what
they can do not what they cannot (Thomas & Smith 2009). This can lead to a greater
level of understanding and co-operation between groups that previously may have
avoided each other due to stereotyping and misconceptions.
However this could lead to greater levels of expectation from able-bodied people of
disabled people they come across in their daily lives. If the expectation is that every
disabled person can perform to the ability level of a Paralympic athlete this could put
too much pressure on the disabled person and the IPC vision then becomes
disempowering to the everyday disabled person because of this.
The build up to the 2012 games
The build up to the 2012 games was marked by several events aimed at raising the
profile of the athletes and Paralympic sports. The Evening Standard (Evening
Standard 2012), reported that the Olympic torch would be carried through London
passing some of the capitals best known landmarks before the lighting of a
ceremonial cauldron.
Channel 4 (British Athletics 2010) were chosen as the London 2012 Paralympic
official broadcaster and used this opportunity to commission two special television
programmes, one showcasing potential Paralympic team members with the aim to
reveal the athletes personalities, educate the general public about disability sports
and raise the profile of the Paralympics in order to boost ticket sales and viewing
figures for the games themselves.
The other programme was for the launch of Channel 4’s involvement with the
Paralympic games and was aimed at profiling five Paralympic athletes away from
their usual track and field environment and presenting them in locations more
familiar to viewers.
The aim of the Paralympic games is to bring disabled sport closer to a wider, more
varied audience and Gunti (2012) brought attention to this is in an article for My
Handicap, My Chance declaring hope that the games would become a milestone for
disabled sports by showcasing all Paralympic athletes as winners, impressive idols
and highlighting the great achievements they have made in overcoming their
disabilities to perform at the highest level.
Sarah Storey (Storey 2012) said that the games were going to be big, massive and
inspirational, as big an experience as the Olympics and the crowds would be
amazed by the athleticism of the athletes.
Gallagher (2012) mentioned the historic role Great Britain has played in developing
and promoting disabled sport and that expectations were sky high for the team.
The build-up focused on the athleticism and sporting achievements of the athletes
rather than their disabilities (Hodges, Jackson, Scullion, Thompson & Molesworth
2014). This showcased them as athletes first and disabled individuals second. It
could be argued that this had the effect of raising the general public’s expectations of
what physically disabled people can do. The focus is on sporting achievement and
not on disability and the limitations this can place on an individual in society. In doing
this the able bodied general public could wrongly assume that all disabled people are
capable of amazing sporting achievements and pressure them to perform beyond
their capabilities.
Has it changed wider societal attitudes?
Much has been written about the games and the impact the legacy of the games had
on the lives of disabled people in Britain. Whether the legacy had a positive or
negative, impact it can be assumed that this would be reflected in research and
journals issued after the games. Care must be taken when analysing results from
surveys as the figures reported can be misrepresented so as to purposefully put
forward the agenda of the organisation reporting the results (Bryman 2012).
According to statistics from the IPC collated after the London games (IPC London
2012 No date),
1 in 3 UK adults changed their attitude towards people with an impairment; 65%
agree the Paralympics delivered a breakthrough in the way people with an
impairment are viewed in the country – up from a 40% expectation in June 2010;
eight out of ten (81%) British adults thought the Paralympics had a positive impact
on the way people with an impairment are viewed by the public;
These figures would suggest that the games have had a positive impact on changing
societal attitudes and people are more understanding and knowledgeable of disabled
people after the games. Disabled people are viewed as an asset to society rather
than a drain on welfare benefits and a hindrance in everyday life (Department of
Culture, Media and Sport 2015; IPC London 2012 inspiring a generation 2014; and
Channel 4 2012; BBC 2014).
This is backed up by an ONS Survey (Deviren 2014) that reveals people have either
a more positive view of disabled people or their view has not changed 94.6%. It does
not reveal if those whose view has not changed had a positive or negative view of
disabled people prior to the survey which will impact on how people view physically
disabled people. This view is further reinforced with the survey revealing that 88.7%
of the general public either think that the attitudes towards disabled people has either
improved or remained the same, although as with the previous figures caution must
be taken where the view has remained the same as it is not possible to ascertain if
these people had a positive or negative view of disabled people before the survey
was taken.
Research from the London 2012 media centre post games (IPC London 2012
inspiring a generation 2014; Channel 4 2012; BBC 2014) reiterate that changes in
perceptions towards disabled people has occurred post games and that there is a
now a more positive attitude towards disabled people.
These research results reflect a social model of disability in that there has been a
change in society towards greater knowledge and understanding of the issues and
barriers disabled people face in their daily lives and society recognises the need for it
to break down these barriers for disabled people and include them more in society.
As has been previously mentioned some of the survey results need to be
approached with caution as an individual may have had a negative perception of
disabled people prior to the survey but answered no change when asked the
question (Bryman 2012). Some of the findings from the research on attitudes and
perceptions post 2012 games focuses on disabled athletes and not disabled people
you would encounter in daily life. The question here is does the positive attitudes and
perceptions towards disabled athletes translate into the general public’s perception
of disabled people in everyday life or do the general public have differing attitudes
and perceptions towards disabled people in everyday life?
If the general public have a positive attitude and perception towards disabled
athletes and disabled people in general it can be argued that the games have had a
positive effect. If however attitudes and perceptions have only changed towards
disabled athletes and the general public view disabled people in everyday life as a
separate entity, than questions remain as to why attitudes and perceptions have not
changed, why disabled athletes and the disabled general public are viewed
differently and separately and what can be done to change these attitudes and
perceptions for the better so we have a more equal society.
One of the ways to gauge how effective the games have been in changing societal
attitudes is participation in disabled sports post games (Department of Culture,
Media and Sport 2015; House of Lords 2013). It can be argued that if the games
have been successful in changing societal attitudes more disabled people will take
up sport, more people will volunteer at their local sports clubs and children (Jobling
2012) will embrace disability sports on an equal level as sport played by able bodied
people. This education of children (Jobling 2012) about the values of disability sport
is essential in creating a society where all sport is seen as equal whether it is
disabled or able bodied sport.
In contrast to (Deviren 2014; IPC London 2012 inspiring a generation 2014; Channel
4 2012; BBC 2014) research from Aiden and McCarthy (2014) for the charity Scope
found that attitudes towards disabled people had worsened post 2012 games. This
was backed up by an article by Walker and Topping (2013) for the guardian
newspaper. The survey found that 67% of people felt uncomfortable talking to
disabled people, 36% thought disabled people were not as productive as everyone
else, 85% believed that disabled people face prejudice in society, 24% of disabled
people have experienced poor attitudes and behaviours and 21% of 18 – 34 year
olds admitted avoiding talking to a disabled person because there were not sure how
to communicate with them.
This would indicate that public attitudes towards disabled people have not changed
or indeed may have hardened post 2012 Paralympics (Aiden and McCarthy 2014;
Walker and Topping 2013). The positive effect the games were purported to have
had on the attitudes and perceptions of non-disabled people has not materialised
and all the rhetoric and discourses pre and post the 2012 Paralympics has not had
an effect on how the general public view disabled people? In this scenario the legacy
from the 2012 Paralympics not entered into the culture of wider society and improved
the lives of disabled people. These results would fit with the medical model of
disability saying that it is up to the disabled person to break down the barriers they
perceive as stopping them feeling included in society and not society to do it for
them.
Figures can be looked at from different angles (Bryman 2012), and it could be
argued that if 36% of people think that disabled people are not as productive as
everyone else then do 64% believe that they are? Looking at the results this way it
could be argued that the message from the games has entered society and they has
been a positive effect on the lives of disabled people.
The survey goes on to reveal that 43% of the British public do not know anyone who
is disabled. This is a worrying statistics because if non-disabled people are not in
contact with disabled people how can their preconceptions and stereotyped views
about disabled people be challenged and broken down so that disabled and non-
disabled people have a better knowledge and understanding of each other and can
live in a more equal society?
Without breaking down these barriers disabled people will continue to face
discrimination in the workplace and education and able-bodied people will continue
to believe that disabled people are not productive, cannot do the same work as they
do and are a burden on the state and society due to ignorance. A statistic that came
out of the research by Aiden and McCarthy (2014) that gives some hope for the
future is 33% of people stated that getting to know a disabled person would make
them feel more confident around disabled people. Here the challenge is in organising
suitable meetings where disabled and able-bodied people can come together and
discuss any preconceptions they may of each other with a view to achieving a more
tolerant and equal society.
An article by Ahmed (2014) details the problems still being faced by disabled people
post 2012 games. Ahmed, a physically disabled student discusses the problems she
has experienced in finding accessible housing post 2012. Pre 2012 the rhetoric
around the games was of providing accessible housing for disabled people to live in.
However post 2012 these accessible homes have not materialised and disabled
people like Ahmed are having problems finding suitable accommodation.
Ahmed goes on to discuss the problems she has experienced getting around London
on public transport with many of the buses not wheelchair accessible and problems
this causes when travelling around London. In contrast a report from the Department
for Culture, Media and Sport (2015) details improvements in accessible transport
around London although it must be noted that this report is some three years after
Ahmed’s article, and some of these improvements may have taken time to
implement.
Before the games the Mayor of London Boris Johnson (Ahmed 2012) publicly
declared that after the games London would have one of the most accessible
transport infrastructure of anywhere in the world:
London has used the 2012 Games not only to set new standards in the design of sporting venues to help deliver the best Paralympic Games ever but also as a springboard for transforming the UK capital into one of the most accessible cities on earth. (London.Gov.UK 2012)
And Andrew Gibson (Ahmed 2012) stated that:
The legacy of the Paralympics must be accessible housing that will improve theopportunities available to all disabled people. (Andrew Gibson, Vice Chair of Habinteg Housing Association Limited, August 2012)
If those in positions of authority with the power to turn the words of the legacy into
something that disabled people can use and that makes a positive difference to their
lives cannot follow through with their promises how can the general public be
expected to change their attitudes and perspectives and help disabled people lead
more fulfilling lives where they can make a positive contribution to society?
Making housing more accessible for disabled people would go towards normalising
the problems they face with access in society and show that with some adaptations
disabled people can live on equal terms to non-disabled people. This would fit in with
the social model of disability in that the disabled person is not the problem but the
problem lies with wider society in not adopting to accessible systems in order to
better integrate disabled people into society. In not providing accessible housing the
authorities are saying that the problem lies with disabled people not doing enough to
help themselves and this links in with the medical model of disability.
In an article by Fitzgerald (2012) published before the Paralympic Games were held
Fitzgerald describes how all the talk prior to the games was of the Olympic Games
and not the Paralympic Games. It would appear that the Olympic Games are viewed
as more important and carry more social capital than the Paralympic Games in
society. According to Fitzgerald (2012) the Paralympics were seen as second rate in
comparison to the Olympics (Fitzgerald 2012; Thomas & Smith 2003; Gilbert &
Schantz; Ellis 2008, Howe 2008a cited Hodges, Jackson, Scullion, Thompson &
Molesworth 2014), and this will influence the attitudes and perceptions of able-
bodied people towards physically disabled people (Hodges et al 2014). Physically
disabled people will be seen as second rate in society (Hughes 2009:400 cited
Hodges et al), because of the extra value and status put on the Olympic Games by
society over the Paralympic Games. Olympic sports stars such as Usain Bolt are
given more cultural capital than Paralympic sports stars like David Weir and this
transfers into the culture of society with disabled people given less cultural capital
that able-bodied people (Fitzgerald 2012; Thomas & Smith 2003; Gilbert & Schantz;
Ellis 2008 cited Hodges et al 2014).
As Slee (2004) citied Fitzgerald (2012) questions “How do we come to know about
disability?” and “What do we know about disability?” Goodley (2011) citied Fitzgerald
(2012) argues that it is through the powerful discourses and ideological frameworks
of others (Hodges et al 2014). If the non-disabled general public are only exposed to
negative discourses through the media and government that portray disabled people
as weak, vulnerable and freaks who take from the state without contributing to
society this will translate into negative stereotypical views on disabled athletes in
comparison to able-bodied athletes (Berger 2008; Ellis 2008; Black & Pretes 2007;
Sancho 2003; Barnes 1992; Cumberbatch & Negrine 1992 cited Hodges 2014).
Able-bodied people believe that Olympians are trying as hard as possible to win a
race and going above and beyond what a member of the general public could
achieve. This is due to the media portrayals and representations of Olympians in
society who are viewed as super humans capable of feats the ordinary person
cannot achieve (Fitzgerald 2012; Thomas & Smith 2003; Gilbert & Schantz; Ellis
2008 cited Hodges et al 2014). A Paralympian is seen as closer to what a member
of the disabled general public can achieve and not performing superhuman feats.
This translates into a negative perception of disabled people who rather than being
viewed as ordinary people doing their best in daily life are viewed as a burden on
society and not doing enough to help themselves and contribute to society (Berger
2008; Ellis 2008; Black & Pretes 2007; Sancho 2003; Barnes 1992; Cumberbatch &
Negrine 1992 cited Hodges 2014; Fitzgerald 2012).
The power the media has in shaping the public’s perception of disabled people is
immense and unchallenged by mainstream society Shakespeare 1999 cited Hodges
et al 2014). The general public are all too ready to stereotype and label others
without having the in-depth knowledge and understanding of what a disabled person
goes through in their daily lives, and the differences between a disabled person and
a Paralympian (Fitzgerald 2012; Wardle; Boyce & Baron 2009; Wilde 2010:41 all
cited Hodges 2014).
The cultural capital apportioned to Olympians and members of the general public is
vastly different to that apportioned to disabled people and Paralympians (Fitzgerald
2012; Thomas & Smith 2003; Gilbert & Schantz; Ellis 2008 cited Hodges et al 2014).
This results in a disproportionately negative view of disabled people in general
society due to the perception that they are not doing enough to contribute and are
having an easy time living on state benefits.
Models of disability
To understand why the able-bodied public have this view of disabled people it is
necessary to understand the two models of disability that currently have the most
social capital in society.
The first model, the medical model purports that disabled people are victims of their
impairment and it is their impairment that causes them problems in society (Barnes,
Mercer & Shakespeare 1999; Thomas 2007). These problems prejudice,
discrimination, inaccessible buildings and unusable transport systems. This means
that disabled people are at a disadvantage in society compared to able-bodied
people and can only function at the same level with the aid of medical intervention.
In contrast the social model says that it is the barriers in society that are the cause of
the disabled person’s inability to fully participate in society on equal terms with an
able-bodied person (Barnes, Mercer & Shakespeare 1999; Thomas 2007), not the
limitations of an individual’s disability. By removing the barriers in society that
prevent a disabled person from leading a fulfilling life such as prejudice,
discrimination, inaccessible buildings and unusable transport systems, the disabled
person can become a more valued member of society and feel more included.
The social model looks to remove the barriers in society that disabled people
encounter and put systems in place that enable them to fully participate in society
and contribute to the best of their abilities (Barnes, Mercer & Shakespeare 1999;
Thomas 2007).
Unfortunately it is the medical model that has influenced such acts as the Equality
Act 2010, (PCS 2015) and these correspondingly has an influence on the negative
attitudes and perceptions of the general public towards disabled people.
Conclusion
From the literature reviewed it can be ascertained that there are two separate views
on the legacy of the London 2012 Paralympic Games. One view is that it was
successful in changing the attitudes and perceptions of able-bodied people towards
physically disabled people. The other reflects the lived experiences of disabled
people and this view says that the legacy did not have the desired effect of changing
the lives of disabled people and that in some cases their lives have got worse.
Taking this into account it could be argued that whilst the attitudes and perceptions
of able-bodied people have changed this has not filtered down into changing the
lived experiences of disabled people.
Chapter 3 – methodology
Introduction
In this chapter I will discuss the methodological approach I took to my research and
how I conducted my research.
Methodological approach
The methodological approach I took with my research was based on the social and
medical models of disability. My reasons for this are that they are used as indicators
of social attitudes with regards to how disabled people are perceived in society by
able-bodied people (Barnes, Mercer & Shakespeare 1997; Finklestein (1980) citied
in Thomas 2007).
The social model is an ideological stance that says that society is the problem for
disabled people by putting up barriers and restrictions that make disabled people’s
lives more difficult and reduces their ability to integrate into society and make a
valued contribution. The social model says that by removing these barriers and
restrictions disabled people can integrate into society, make a valued contribution
and lead a full life in the same way as an able-bodied person (Barnes, Mercer &
Shakespeare 1997; Thomas 2007).
The medical model follows a functionalist approach and says it is the fault of the
disabled person and not society that they unable to integrate and contribute the
same as an able-bodied person. It is up to the disabled person to fix their own
problems and become a more effective member of society, not society to do it for
them (Barnes, Mercer & Shakespeare 1997; Thomas 2007).
Research approach
I chose to use the quantitative method of research for my dissertation as much of the
previous research had used the qualitative method and I was interested to find out if
the results would be different when the respondents were presented with a series of
questions rather than having the chance to explore the issues in-depth.
The quantitative research method is based on the notion that all social situations can
be quantified, measured and expressed numerically (Bryman 2016; Creswell 2014;
Gray 2014; Robson & McCartan 2014). Once the responses have been gathered
they can be analysed and interpreted by statistical methods to establish any patterns
of social behaviour.
The ontological standpoint is realism as opposed to idealism. Reality is independent
of the observer and has an existence outside the individual members of society. This
is opposed to idealism which purports that reality is within the mental state of the
observer and it is human ideas, beliefs and values that shape society not numbers
(Bryman 2016; Gray 2014; Robson & McCartan 2014).
The epistemology is positivism. This states that an objective truth can be established
with some certainty through rational methods such as statistics. Positivist see society
as shaping the individual and how they think and behave in society. The opposite is
interpretivism which states that an individual is a complex being capable of rational
and logical thought based on their own experiences independent of society (Bryman
2016; Gray 2014; Robson & McCartan 2014).
The aim of the quantitative method is to establish facts and this is achieved through
correlation, association and difference between numbers. This process is deductive
and aims to identify a problem, review related literature and identify a theoretical
framework to base questions around (Bryman 2016; Gray 2014; Robson & McCartan
2014).
When conducting quantitative research you collect information relevant to the
question, analyse and interpret the information and form conclusions from the
analysis and interpretation of any statistics (Bryman 2016; Creswell 2014; Gray
2014; Robson & McCartan 2014).
Quantitative research can be in the form of questionnaires, surveys, experiments,
observation and content analysis (Bryman 2016; Creswell 2014; Gray 2014; Robson
& McCartan 2014).
My research
My hypotheses was that the London 2012 Paralympic Games did change the
attitudes and perceptions of able-bodied people towards physically disabled people.
For my research I chose to devise a questionnaire based on research from my
literature review that I believed would give me the answers as to what effect the
legacy of the London 2012 Paralympics was.
These questions were structured using a six-point multiple-indicator (Kelly and De
Graff 1997 cited in Bryman 2016) or continuum scale (Gray 2014), ranging from
strongly agree, agree, slightly agree to slightly disagree, disagree and strongly
disagree. I wanted to give the respondent no option of an ‘I don’t know’ answer
deliberately as I wanted to avoid such answers which can skew responses and make
research findings inconclusive. Questions included but were not limited to:
‘The 2012 Paralympics changed how I viewed physically disabled people’, ‘I feel
more comfortable talking to physically disabled people after the 2012 Paralympics’
and ‘I believe that Paralympic sports are easier to compete in than Olympic sports’
The questions were constructed to reflect the association between the Paralympic
Games and physical disability (Hodges et al 2014) but intended to get participants
thinking about physically disabled people they may come across in their daily lives
and the effect the games had on their attitudes and perceptions towards them.
Categories for the responses were coded under the following demographics:
Age: 16-24 and 25-75
Ethnicity: White and Any Other
Occupation: Student and Staff
Sex: Male and Female
These categories were chosen as are easy to analyse and interpret in a short space
of time.
Using Bristol Online Survey (BOS 2016) a questionnaire was constructed online and
sent out electronically to students and members of staff at the University of
Huddersfield. Participants were selected at random using the universities register.
Invitations to take part in the research were sent out by email.
When I had reached a level of responses which I had agreed with my supervisor I
began to input the results into a database using IBM Statistical Package for the
Social Sciences (SPSS).
Once the responses had been inputted into SPSS the results were available for
analysis. Using SPSS I used the crosstabulation function to analyse them for volume
of responses in each category, to establish if there were any patterns due to age,
ethnicity, occupation and sex (Bryman 2016).
These results were further analysed using the independent measures ‘t’ test to
establish if any of the results were significant at the 0.05 level. This level is the
standard used to investigate significance in results from SPSS (Bryman 2016).
The results were then put into graph form to enable easier interpretation of the
results in a visual format. The graphs can be found in Chapter 4 – findings and
analysis. The findings were then written up below the graphs in order to provide a
written interpretation of the results to go with the graph.
The strengths of my survey are that I can reach a large volume of possible
participants in a short space of time. One of the weaknesses is that you may only get
a small number of responses which may mean sending the survey out several times
in order to achieve the required number of responses (Bryman 2016; Creswell 2014;
Gray 2014; Robson & McCartan 2014).
Ethically, because the questionnaires were only being sent to staff and students at
the university there was not expected to be a problem with the age of the
respondents. All questions were devised and sent before the ethics committee who
approved them and again because of the structured nature of the questions and
because no sensitive issues were asked there was no problems with the questions
(Bryman 2016; Creswell 2014; Gray 2014; Robson & McCartan 2014).
Conclusion
In conclusion using a quantitative method of research can produce a large volume of
results which can be analysed and interpreted quickly in comparison to a qualitative
study. This produces a large volume of responses which can be used to make
assumptions about the larger population. However the responses do not go into the
in-depth detail that a qualitative study does.
Chapter 4 – findings and analysis
Chart a: To show the distribution of responses to the question ‘The 2012 Paralympics changed how I viewed physically disabled people’
Overall more respondents agreed (8) with the question than disagreed (6). This
indicates a potential difference within the distribution that may be accounted for by
another variable.
A crosstabulation for age (see appendix a) shows more 26-75 (66.7%) agreed with
this question.
A crosstabulation for ethnicity (see appendix e) shows more White (60.0%) agreed
with this question.
A crosstabulation for occupation (see appendix o) shows more Staff (66.7%) agreed
with this question.
A crosstabulation for sex (see appendix s) shows more females (71.5%) agreed with
the question.
The difference was tested for statistical significance (see appendix y) using the
independent measures ‘t’ test and the results are not significant at the 0.05 level (see
appendix z).
---------------------
Chart a: To show the distribution of responses to the question ‘I feel more comfortable around physically disabled people after the 2012 Paralympics’.
Overall more respondents agreed (8) with the question than disagreed (6) with it.
This indicates a potential difference within the distribution that may be accounted for
by another variable.
A crosstabulation for age (see appendix a) shows more 16-25 (62.5%) agreed with
this question.
A crosstabulation for ethnicity (see appendix e) shows more BAME (75.0%) agreed
with this question.
A crosstabulation for occupation (see appendix o) shows more Student (62.5%)
agreed with this question.
A crosstabulation for sex (see appendix s) shows more females (71.5%) agreed with
this question
The difference was tested for statistical significance (see appendix y) using the
independent measures ‘t’ test and the results are not significant at the 0.05 level (see
appendix z).
---------------------
Chart a: To show the distribution of responses to the question ‘I feel more comfortable talking to physically disabled people after the 2012 Paralympics’.
Overall more respondents agreed (8) with the question than disagreed (6) with it.
This indicates a potential difference within the distribution that may be accounted for
by another variable.
A crosstabulation for age (see appendix a) shows more 16-25 (62.5%) agreed with
this question.
A crosstabulation for ethnicity (see appendix e) shows more BAME (75.0%) agreed
with this question.
A crosstabulation for occupation (see appendix o) shows more Student (62.5%)
agreed with this question.
A crosstabulation for sex (see appendix s) shows more females (71.5%) agreed with
this question.
The difference was tested for statistical significance (see appendix y) using the
independent measures ‘t’ test and the results are not significant at the 0.05 level (see
appendix z).
---------------------
Chart a: To show the distribution of responses to the question ‘Seeing a Paralympic athlete perform increases my expectations of what physically disabled people can do in everyday life’.
Overall more respondents agreed (11) with the question than disagreed (3) with it.
This indicates a potential difference within the distribution that may be accounted for
by another variable.
A crosstabulation for age (see appendix a) shows more 26-75 (83.3%) agreed with
this question.
A crosstabulation for ethnicity (see appendix e) shows more White (80.0%) agreed
with this question.
A crosstabulation for occupation (see appendix o) shows more Staff (83.3%) agreed
with this question.
A crosstabulation for sex (see appendix s) shows more females (85.7%) agreed with
this question.
The difference was tested for statistical significance (see appendix y) using the
independent measures ‘t’ test and the results are not significant at the 0.05 level (see
appendix z).
---------------------
Chart a: To show the distribution of responses to the question ‘I feel that watching a Paralympic athlete in competition accurately reflects a physically disabled person’s abilities in everyday life’.
Overall respondents agreed (7) and disagreed (7) equally. This indicates no potential
difference within the distribution that may be accounted for by another variable.
A crosstabulation for age (see appendix a) shows more 26-75 (66.7%) agreed with
this question.
A crosstabulation for ethnicity (see appendix e) shows more BAME (75.0%) agreed
with this question.
A crosstabulation for occupation (see appendix o) shows more Staff (66.7%) agreed
with this question.
A crosstabulation for sex (see appendix s) shows more females (57.2%) agreed with
this question.
The difference was tested for statistical significance (see appendix y) using the
independent measures ‘t’ test and the results are not significant at the 0.05 level (see
appendix z).
---------------------
Chart a: To show the distribution of responses to the question ‘The 2012 Paralympics increased my knowledge and awareness of physically disabled people’.
Overall more respondents agreed (12) with the question than disagreed (2) with it.
This indicates a potential difference within the distribution that may be accounted for
by another variable.
A crosstabulation for age (see appendix a) shows more 26-75 (100.0%) agreed with
this question.
A crosstabulation for ethnicity (see appendix e) shows more White (90.0%) agreed
with this question.
A crosstabulation for occupation (see appendix o) shows more Staff (100.0%)
agreed with this question.
A crosstabulation for sex (see appendix s) shows more males (100%) agreed with
this question.
The difference was tested for statistical significance (see appendix y) using the
independent measures ‘t’ test and the results are not significant at the 0.05 level (see
appendix z).
---------------------
Chart a: To show the distribution of responses to the question ‘I believe that Paralympic sports are easier to compete in than Olympic sports’.
Overall more respondents disagreed (12) with the question than agreed (2) with it.
This indicates a potential difference within the distribution that may be accounted for
by another variable.
A crosstabulation for age (see appendix a) shows more 26-75 (16.7%) agreed with
this question.
A crosstabulation for ethnicity (see appendix e) shows more BAME (25.0%) agreed
with this question.
A crosstabulation for occupation (see appendix o) shows more Staff (16.7%) agreed
with this question.
A crosstabulation for sex (see appendix s) shows more females (28.6%) agreed with
this question.
The difference was tested for statistical significance (see appendix y) using the
independent measures ‘t’ test and the results are not significant at the 0.05 level (see
appendix z).
---------------------
Chart a: To show the distribution of responses to the question ‘I would be willing to try a wheelchair Paralympic sport to get a feeling of what it is like’.
Overall more respondents strongly agreed (9) with the question than disagreed (5)
with it. This indicates a potential difference within the distribution that may be
accounted for by another variable.
A crosstabulation for age (see appendix a) shows more 16-25 (75.0%) agreed with
this question.
A crosstabulation for ethnicity (see appendix e) shows more BAME (75.0%) agreed
with this question.
A crosstabulation for occupation (see appendix o) shows more Student (75.0%)
agreed with this question.
A crosstabulation for sex (see appendix s) shows more males (71.5%) agreed with
this question.
The difference was tested for statistical significance (see appendix y) using the
independent measures ‘t’ test and the results are not significant at the 0.05 level (see
appendix z)
---------------------
Chart a: To show the distribution of responses to the question ‘I believe that physically disabled people have an easier life after the 2012 Paralympics’.
Overall more respondents strongly disagreed (12) with the question than disagreed
(2) with it. This indicates a potential difference within the distribution that may be
accounted for by another variable.
A crosstabulation for age (see appendix a) shows more 26-75 (16.7%) agreed with
this question.
A crosstabulation for ethnicity (see appendix e) shows more BAME (25.0%) agreed
with this question.
A crosstabulation for occupation (see appendix o) shows more Staff (16.7%) agreed
with this question.
A crosstabulation for sex (see appendix s) shows more females (28.6%) agreed with
this question.
The difference was tested for statistical significance (see appendix y) using the
independent measures ‘t’ test and the results are not significant at the 0.05 level (see
appendix z).
---------------------
Chart a: To show the distribution of responses to the question ‘I view physically disabled people as more able, less able or equal to non-physically disabled people when doing general everyday tasks such as housework, shopping or travelling’.
Overall more respondents viewed physically disabled people as equal (12),
compared to less able (11) and more able (1), indicating a potential difference within
the distribution that may be accounted for by another variable.
A crosstabulation for age (see appendix a) shows more 26-75 (9.1%) answered
‘More able’, more 16-25 (61.5%) answered ‘Equal’ and more 26-75 (54.5%)
answered ‘Less able’.
A crosstabulation for ethnicity (see appendix e) shows more White (6.7%) answered
‘More able’, more White (53.3%) answered ‘Equal’ and more BAME (55.6%)
answered ‘Less able’.
A crosstabulation for occupation (see appendix o) shows more Staff (10.0%)
answered ‘More able’, more Student (57.1%) answered ‘Equal’ and more Staff
(50.0%) answered ‘Less able’.
A crosstabulation for sex (see appendix s) shows more males (11.1%) answered
‘More able’, more males (55.6%) answered ‘Equal’ and more females (53.3%)
answered ‘Less able’.
The difference was tested for statistical significance (see appendix y) using the
independent measures ‘t’ test and the results are not significant at the 0.05 level (see
appendix z).
---------------------
Chart a: To show the distribution of responses to the question ‘I believe that physically disabled people do enough to help themselves with their daily lives’.
Overall more respondents agreed (24) with the question than disagreed (0) with it.
This indicates no potential difference within the distribution that may be accounted
for by another variable.
A crosstabulation for age (see appendix a) shows that 100% of 16-25 and 26-75
agreed with this question.
A crosstabulation for ethnicity (see appendix e) shows that 100.0% of White and
BAME agreed with this question.
A crosstabulation for occupation (see appendix o) shows that 100% of Student and
Staff agreed with this question.
A crosstabulation for sex (see appendix s) shows that males (100%) and females
(100%) agreed with this question equally.
The difference was tested for statistical significance (see appendix y) using the
independent measures ‘t’ test and the results are not significant at the 0.05 level (see
appendix z).
---------------------
Chart a: To show the distribution of responses to the question ‘I believe that more should be done by public services and private companies to help physically disabled people in their daily lives’.
Overall more respondents agreed (21) with the question than disagreed (3) with it.
This indicates a potential difference within the distribution that may be accounted for
by another variable.
A crosstabulation for age (see appendix a) shows more 26-75 (100.0%) agreed with
this question.
A crosstabulation for ethnicity (see appendix e) shows more BAME (100.0%) agreed
with this question.
A crosstabulation for occupation (see appendix o) shows more Staff (100.0%)
agreed with this question.
A crosstabulation for sex (see appendix s) shows more males (88.9%) agreed with
this question.
The difference was tested for statistical significance (see appendix y) using the
independent measures ‘t’ test and the results are not significant at the 0.05 level (see
appendix z).
---------------------
Chart a: To show the distribution of responses to the question ‘I believe that all wheelchair users are paralysed and have no feeling in their legs’.
Overall more respondents disagreed (18) with the question than agreed (6) with it.
This indicates a potential difference within the distribution that may be accounted for
by another variable.
A crosstabulation for age (see appendix a) shows more 26-75 (36.4%) agreed with
this question.
A crosstabulation for ethnicity (see appendix e) shows more BAME (33.3%) agreed
with this question.
A crosstabulation for occupation (see appendix o) shows more Staff (40.0%) agreed
with this question.
A crosstabulation for sex (see appendix s) shows more females (26.7%) agreed with
this question.
The difference was tested for statistical significance (see appendix y) using the
independent measures ‘t’ test and the results are not significant at the 0.05 level (see
appendix z).
---------------------
Chart a: To show the distribution of responses to the question ‘I believe that more should be done to enable interactions between physically disabled people and non-disabled people’.
Overall more respondents agreed (21) with the question than disagreed (3) with it.
This indicates a potential difference within the distribution that may be accounted for
by another variable.
A crosstabulation for age (see appendix a) shows more 26-75 (91.0%) agreed with
this question.
A crosstabulation for ethnicity (see appendix e) shows more BAME (100.0%) agreed
with this question.
A crosstabulation for occupation (see appendix o) shows more Staff (90.0%) agreed
with this question.
A crosstabulation for sex (see appendix s) shows more females (93.4%) agreed with
this question.
The difference was tested for statistical significance (see appendix y) using the
independent measures ‘t’ test and the results are not significant at the 0.05 level (see
appendix z).
---------------------
Chart a: To show the distribution of responses to the question ‘I believe that discrimination and victimisation of physically disabled people is increasing’.
Overall more respondents disagreed (14) with the question than agreed (10) with it.
This indicates a potential difference within the distribution that may be accounted for
by another variable.
A crosstabulation for age (see appendix a) shows more 26-75 (45.5%) agree with
this question.
A crosstabulation for ethnicity (see appendix e) shows more White (46.6%) agree
with this question.
A crosstabulation for occupation (see appendix o) shows more Staff (50.0%) agree
with this question.
A crosstabulation for sex (see appendix s) shows more females (46.7%) agree with
this question.
The difference was tested for statistical significance (see appendix y) using the
independent measures ‘t’ test and the results are not significant at the 0.05 level (see
appendix z).
---------------------
Chart a: To show the distribution of responses to the question ‘I believe that if you have met one physically disabled person you have an understanding and knowledge of all physically disabled people’.
Overall more respondents disagreed (18) with the question than agreed (6) with it.
This indicates a potential difference within the distribution that may be accounted for
by another variable.
A crosstabulation for age (see appendix a) shows more 26-75 (45.5%) agreed with
this question.
A crosstabulation for ethnicity (see appendix e) shows more BAME (33.3%) agreed
with this question.
A crosstabulation for occupation (see appendix o) shows more Staff (50.0%) agreed
with this question.
A crosstabulation for sex (see appendix s) shows more females (26.7%) agreed with
this question.
The difference mean was tested for statistical significance (see appendix y) using the
independent measures ‘t’ test and the results are not significant at the 0.05 level (see
appendix z)
---------------------
Chart a: To show the distribution of responses to the question ‘I believe that having a physical disability is a barrier to education, leisure and work’.
Overall more respondents agreed (12) with the question than disagreed (11) with it,
indicating a potential difference within the distribution that may be accounted for by
another variable.
A crosstabulation for age (see appendix a) shows more 26-75 (60.0%) agreed with
this question.
A crosstabulation for ethnicity (see appendix e) shows more BAME (55.5%) agreed
with this question.
A crosstabulation for occupation (see appendix o) shows more Staff (55.5%) agreed
with this question.
A crosstabulation for sex (see appendix s) shows more females (53.4%) agreed with
this question.
The difference was tested for statistical significance (see appendix y) using the
independent measures ‘t’ test and the results are not significant at the 0.05 level (see
appendix z).
---------------------
Chart a: To show the distribution of responses to the question ‘I believe that physically disabled people do not face prejudice in society’.
Overall more respondents disagreed (20) with the question than agreed (3) with it.
This indicates a potential difference within the distribution that may be accounted for
by another variable.
A crosstabulation for age (see appendix a) shows more 26-75 (18.2%) agreed with
this question.
A crosstabulation for ethnicity (see appendix e) shows more White (26.7%) agreed
with this question.
A crosstabulation for occupation (see appendix o) shows more Staff (20.0%) agreed
with this question.
A crosstabulation for sex (see appendix s) shows more males (33.3%) agreed with
this question.
The difference was tested for statistical significance (see appendix y) using the
independent measures ‘t’ test and the results are significant at the 0.05 level (see
appendix z).
---------------------
Chart a: To show the distribution of responses to the question ‘I believe that physically disabled people get in the way of non-disabled people in day to day life’.
Overall more respondents disagreed (21) with the question than agreed (3) with it.
This indicates a potential difference within the distribution that may be accounted for
by another variable.
A crosstabulation for age (see appendix a) shows more 26-75 (27.3%) agreed with
this question.
A crosstabulation for ethnicity (see appendix e) shows more White (20.0%) agreed
with this question.
A crosstabulation for occupation (see appendix o) shows more Staff (30.0%) agreed
with this question.
A crosstabulation for sex (see appendix s) shows more males (22.2%) agreed with
this question.
The difference was tested for statistical significance (see appendix y) using the
independent measures ‘t’ test and the results are not significant at the 0.05 level (see
appendix z).
---------------------
Chapter 5 – Discussion
The results from my research would indicate that the London 2012 Paralympic
Games did achieve their legacy aims and change the attitudes and perceptions of
able-bodied people towards physically disabled people (Hodges et al 2014). The
responses indicate that they have more positive views on physically disabled people,
have an increased knowledge and awareness of physically disabled people, feel
more comfortable around and talking to physically disabled people and are willing to
engage in greater interaction with disabled people to increase their knowledge and
awareness of them (Hodges et al 2014). This is backed up by research from the
Department of Culture, Media and Sport (2015), Deviren (2014), Hodges et al
(2014), and Channel 4 2012; BBC (2014).
Other responses including understanding that because you have met one physically
disabled person you do not have an understanding and knowledge of all physically
disabled people, knowing that physically disabled people do not have an easier life
after the 2012 games, knowing that physically disabled people still face barriers in
society and indicating that they do not get in the way are indicators of a more tolerant
and accepting society since the games. From the literature I reviewed this is a new
finding.
A cautionary note must be added to the responses that indicated seeing a
Paralympic athlete perform increases the expectations of what a physically disabled
person can do in everyday life and watching a Paralympic athlete in competition
accurately reflects a physically disabled person’s abilities in everyday life and
normalises expectations of ability (Hodges et al 2014) as it could be argued that the
respondents are not distinguishing between the training an elite Paralympic athlete is
required to put in, in order to achieve a high level of performance at the Paralympic
Games compared to the everyday activities a physically disabled person will
encounter such as crossing the road or travelling on public transport. This is backed
up by research from Hodges et al (2014).
If expectations to perform in everyday life are equated to the intense levels of
competition a Paralympic athlete will encounter, then these could become
disempowering when the physically disabled person fails to perform to such a high
level and the able-bodied person is equally baffled as to why the physically disabled
person before him cannot perform as well as David Weir at the Paralympic Games.
An analogy for able-bodied people to remember is would you expect someone you
know to perform at the same level as Usain Bolt? Of course not so why would you
expect a physically disabled person you meet in the street to perform at such a high
level? This is backed up by research from Hodges et al (2014).
My findings correspond with an ONS Opinions and Lifestyle Survey (Deviren 2014)
which found that people had a more positive or view remained the same since the
2012 games of disabled people and that attitudes had improved or remained the
same since the 2012 games. A cautionary note must be added for views remained
the same as these views could have been negative before the games, but it is still
very encouraging to see a positive change in attitudes and perceptions towards
disabled people since the 2012 games.
A survey by the charity Scope (Aiden & McCarthy 2014) found that attitudes and
perceptions towards disabled people had worsened since the games going against
my findings. Cuts to benefits, services and media attacks on the disabled had made
their lives harder and more difficult since the 2012 games and they felt that the
games had left them with no legacy apart from hollow, unfulfilled promises with little
or no chance of being fulfilled.
One of the differences in the variation of responses could be in the respondents
asked. My respondents were all able-bodied people and it is possible that the same
situation occurred for the ONS survey. The Scope survey focuses on responses from
disabled people. Here we have the perceptions of what the legacy achieved for
disabled people from able-bodied people and the real life lived experiences of
disabled people. The perceptions and the realities are very different and this
situation could be remedied by disabled people and able-bodied people coming
together and sharing stories of lived experiences so that both groups have a better
knowledge and understanding of the lives they lead.
The findings fit in with the social model of disability (Barnes, Mercer & Shakespeare
1999; Thomas 2007), which is encouraging for society. The respondents recognise
the need to break down barriers in order to make the lives of disabled people more
manageable and remove restrictions that may limit what a disabled person can do in
their daily life. The respondents recognise that it is the responsibility of everyone in
society to help others and create a more equal and fair society and it is not the fault
of the disabled person that they have a disability that limits what they can do in
society compared to an able-bodied person but it is the fault of society for putting in
restrictions such as no wheelchair ramps that does put limits on what they can
achieve in their daily lives.
Unfortunately this is tempered by the findings which show that the difference in how
able-bodied people perceive the lived experiences of disabled people and the actual
reality for disabled people. By adopting the social model of disability and believing
they are doing enough able-bodied people could be lulled into a false sense of
security and believe that no more needs to be done to improve society for the lived
experience of disabled people, when in fact much more needs to be done as the
findings from the Scope survey reveal.
Chapter 6 – conclusion
The aim of this dissertation was to ascertain the legacy from the London 2012
Paralympic Games and if there had been a change in attitudes and perceptions
towards physically disabled people and if this change was positive or negative.
This dissertation aimed to add to the research already done on the legacy of the
games by doing a later study which would evaluate the longer term impact of the
legacy on societal attitudes and perceptions and do a quantitative study to obtain a
larger response group.
The data showed that there had been a change in societal attitudes and perceptions
since the London 2012 Paralympic Games and that this change had largely been a
positive one reflected in a better understanding of the needs of physically disabled
people and more knowledge about their daily lives and the barriers they face in
society.
From this it can be concluded that the London 2012 Paralympic Games achieved
their legacy aims and changed the attitudes and perceptions of society as they
envisaged they would.
Studies such as this are important because organisations such as the IPC need to
know that their legacy aims are being achieved through global events such as the
Paralympic Games and the valuable resources they use to stage these events are
being put to best use and getting the message across to wider society (Hodges et al
2014).
Whilst these findings are positive and encouraging as has been previously noted
caution must be taken that the changes are for the benefit of all people in society
and not just able-bodied people envisaging a more equal and inclusive society for
physically disabled people when lived experiences as reported by Scope (Aiden &
McCarthy 2014) may be very different. In order for change to be effective it must be
lived by those groups most affected by it and not just envisaged as an ideological
utopia by those not affected by it (Hodges et al 2014).
It can be said that societal norms are changing from a medical model of disability to
a social model of disability and this is encouraging in the drive for a more equal and
inclusive society for everybody (Hodges et al 2014).
The aims of the research were met and this dissertation shows that the Paralympic
Games do have the power to change attitudes and perceptions of others in society.
The study was limited in not asking deeper questions as in a qualitative study at the
expense of obtaining more respondents. It would have been interesting to conduct
the survey on a wider basis and compare the results from those working in an
academic setting to those working in a non-academic setting.
If there is any bias in the responses it is because they are from able-bodied people
and not from physically disabled people. Whilst the aim of the research was to find if
attitudes and perceptions had changed towards physically disabled people further
research needs to be conducted on the effect of the London 2012 Paralympic
Games on physically disabled people to eliminate any possible bias.
Conducting the research on physically disabled people would improve the
understanding of how one event such as the London 2012 Paralympic Games can
change not only attitudes and perceptions in society but the lived experiences of
those most directly affected by them too. This would benefit all of society and not just
those not directly affected by events such as the London 2012 Paralympic Games.
References
Ahmed, N. (2014). Paralympics 2012 legacy: accessible housing and disability
equality or inequality?. Disability and Society. 28 (1), 129-133.
Aiden, H. & McCarthy, A. (2014). Current attitudes towards disabled people.
Retrieved from www.scope.org.uk/.../current-attitudes-towards-disabled-people.pdf?
ext....
BBC. (2014). Paralympics 'transformed attitudes' towards disabled people. Retrieved
from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28175349.
Blauwet, C. & Willick, S. (2012). The Paralympic Movement: Using Sports to
Promote Health, Disability Rights and Social Integration for Athletes with Disabilities.
PM & R. 4 (11), 851-856.
Bristol Online Survey (BOS). (2016). The online survey tool designed for Academic
Research, Education and Public Sector organisations. Retrieved from
https://www.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/.
Bryman, A. (2016). Social Research Methods (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
British Athletics. (2010). Paralympic build up. Retrieved from
http://www.britishathletics.org.uk/media/news/news-archive-pre-2011/april-2010/27-
04-10-paralympics/.
Bush, A., Silk, M., Porter, J., & Howe, D. (2013). Disability [sport] and discourse:
stories within the Paralympic legacy. Reflective Practice: International and
Multidisciplinary Perspectives. 14 (5), 632-647.
Channel 4. (2012). Research: Paralympics coverage helped change attitudes to
disability. Retrieved from http://www.channel4.com/info/press/news/research-
paralympics-coverage-helped-change-attitudes-to-disability.
Cresswell, J.W. (2014). RESEARCH DESIGN INTERNATIONAL STUDENT
EDITION (4th ed.). California: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Department for Culture, Media and Sport (2015). Olympic and Paralympic legacy:
Inspired by 2012 – third annual report. Retrieved from
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/
452685/1662-B_Legacy_Report_2015_ACCESSIBLE.pdf
E Deviren. (2014). Paralympic data from the ONS Opinions and Lifestyle Survey. No
place given: Department for Work and Pensions and Office for Disability Issues.
Evening Standard. (2012). London 2012 Paralympics: Build up to Paralympic
Games. Retrieved from http://www.standard.co.uk/olympics/paralympics/london-
2012-paralympics-build-up-to-paralympic-games-8078411.html.
Fitzgerald, H. (2012). Paralympic Athletes and "Knowing Disability". International
Journal of Disability, Development and Education. 59 (3), 243-255.
Gallagher, B. (2012). London 2012 Paralympics: a historic homecoming for disabled
sport. Retrieved from
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/paralympic-sport/9475684/London-2012-
Paralympics-a-historic-homecoming-for-disabled-sport.html.
Gray, D.E. (2014). DOING RESEARCH in the REAL WORLD (2nd ed.). London:
SAGE Publications Ltd.
Gunti, P. (2012). Paralympics 2012: A milestone for disabled sports?. Retrieved from
http://www.myhandicap.com/en/information-disability-chonical-illness/sports-with-
disability/paralympics-2012-4200-athletes/.
Hodges. C, Jackson. D, Scullion. R, Thompson. S, Molesworth. M. (2014). Tracking
changes in everyday experiences of disability and disability sport within the context
of the 2012 London Paralympics. Retrieved from:
https://microsites.bournemouth.ac.uk/cmc/files/2014/10/BU-2012-London-
Paralympics.pdf
House of Lords. (2013). Keeping the flame alive: the Olympic and Paralympic
Legacy. (HL Paper 78). London:. The Stationery Office Limited
International Paralympic Organisation. (No date). About us. Retrieved from
http://www.paralympic.org/the-ipc/about-us. The visions of the IPC.
International Paralympic Organisation. (No date). Arnhem 1980. Retrieved from
http://www.paralympic.org/arnhem-1980.
International Paralympic Committee. (No date). Introduction to IPC Classifications.
Retrieved from http://www.paralympic.org/classification.
International Paralympic Committee. (2009). IPC Style Guide. Retrieved from
www.paralympic.org/sites/.../130507184600562_ipc+style+guide.pdf. Correct
generic terminology used by the IPC for all documents, correspondence,
publications, etc.
International Paralympic Organisation. (No date). London 2012. Retrieved from
http://www.paralympic.org/london-2012-overview.
International Paralympic Committee. (No date). Paralympics - History of the
Movement. Retrieved from http://www.paralympic.org/the-ipc/history-of-the-
movement. History of the Paralympic movement.
International Paralympic Organisation. (No date). Rome 1960. Retrieved from
http://www.paralympic.org/rome-1960.
International Paralympic Committee. (No date). Sports. Retrieved from
http://www.paralympic.org/sports. List of summer and winter Paralympic sports.
International Paralympic Organisation. (No date). Toronto 1976. Retrieved from
http://www.paralympic.org/toronto-1976.
International Paralympic Committee. (2014). No. 1: London 2012: inspiring a
generation, transforming a nation. Retrieved from:
https://www.paralympic.org/feature/no-1-london-2012-inspiring-generation-
transforming-nation
Jobling, A. (2012). Editorial - The Paralympic Games. International Journal of
Disability, Development and Education. 59 (3), 225-229.
Olympic and Paralympic legacy survey, Sport and Recreation Alliance
www.sportandrecreation.org.uk/.../Olympic%20and%20 Paralympic %20l ... Survey on
attitudes and rhetoric for the London 2012 Paralympics
Owens, J. (2013). The Paralympics - what did it change?. Retrieved from
http://www.prweek.com/article/1192594/paralympics-change.
Penning, M. (2014). 'Transformation' in British attitudes towards disabled people
since Paralympics 2012. Retrieved from
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/transformation-in-british-attitudes-towards-
disabled-people-since-paralympics-2012.
Public and Commercial Services Union. (2015). Disability models/attitudes.
Retrieved from
http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/equality/guidance-and-resources/disability_equality_toolkit/
disability-models-and-attitudes.cfm.
Purdue, D.E.J. & Howe, P. David. (2012). Empower, inspire, achieve:
(dis)empowerment and the Paralympic Games. Disability and Society. 27 (7), 903-
916.
Robson, C. & McCartan, K. (2016). REAL WORLD RESEARCH (4th ed.).
Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Storey, S. (2012). Sarah Storey: thank you, Olympians. Now let's party again at the
London 2012 Paralympics. Retrieved from
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/paralympic-sport/9473788/Sarah-Storey-
thank-you-Olympians.-Now-lets-party-again-at-the-London-2012-Paralympics.html.
Thomas, N. & Smith, A. (2009). DISABILITY, SPORT AND SOCIETY An
Introduction. Oxen: Routledge.
Walker, P. & Topping, A. (2013). Paralympics legacy fails to shift attitudes to
disabled people. Retrieved from
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/aug/29/paralympics-legacy-disabled-people.