Disability theorists have spent much time discussing how disability is defined. The theoretical roots for these debates reside in the medical, structural, and minority models of disability. The medical model views disability as equivalent to a functional impairment; the minority model sees a lack of equal rights as a primary impediment to social equality between able and disabled populations; and the structural model looks to environmental factors as the cause of disability. While debates over how to define disability are informative, there is currently an insufficient amount of empirical research looking at how people come to identify themselves as having a disability. Rather than focus on how disability is (or should be) defined, herein we look at how disability identities are constructed as people search for work. We show that people's interactions with employers and employment agencies have important influences on how disability identities are constructed. We borrow from the "doing gender" and "racial formations" paradigms to introduce an interactive approach to looking at how disability identities are constructed. We introduce the concept of disability formation to highlight how disability identities are continually negotiated through interactions with employment agencies and employers. Our findings are based on focus groups with 58 people who self-identified as having a disability and were working or searching for work. Disability theorists have spent much time discussing how disability is defined . These debates, coupled with disability-based social movements, advance our understanding of disability and help push forward new ways of conceptualizing what disability means. While these debates are informative, there is currently an insufficient amount of empirical research looking at how people come to identify themselves as having a disability (Putnam 2005). Rather than focus on how disability is (or should be) defined, we turn our attention to how disability identities are actually constructed in the search for work. We show that

PurposeThis paper seeks to highlight the systemic conditions that facilitate the emergence, longevity, and effectiveness of bridge‐builders across organizations.Design/methodology/approachResearchers conducted longitudinal case studies in six One‐Stop Career Centers across the USA over four years. Interviews were conducted with approximately 20 people in various positions at each of the sites visited. The data analyzed spanned the four years of the study.FindingsResearchers uncovered particular characteristics present in individual bridge‐builders that enabled them to accomplish their goals. This research indicates that, when the right conditions intersected with the right type of person, champions emerged who helped move the organization in new and innovative directions.Originality/valueThis paper provides an outline of the organizational change that can happen in the disability field. By delineating bridge‐builders and the context in which they operate, others can identify the conditions within organizations to help them move forward.

This article discusses the methodological issues and pragmatic dilemmas confronted by a group of researchers conducting focus groups composed of people with disabilities. As an initial component of a mixed-method, longitudinal research project, the intention was to gather perceptions of the ways in which recent policy initiatives shape the lives and employment experiences of people with disabilities. We present the methodological design issues we encountered in planning and conducting the focus groups with the hope that our reflections inform future qualitative research designs involving people with disabilities.

The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) brought together federal job training and employment programs to create one comprehensive service system. Among WIA’s core tenets are streamlined services to be developed, designed, and implemented by a variety of mandated and nonmandated partners. The public Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) agency is a mandated partner, and the only one that focuses on disability. Although the intention of WIA was mutual benefit and interaction, the exact nature of the VR partnership with the One-Stop varies. Using a longitudinal research design and case study method, collaborative relationships between other partners in the One-Stop and VR in six U.S. locations was explored. The findings uncovered four models of collaboration: full-time colocation of a few VR staff members, colocation in the same building complex, itinerant staffing, and limited itinerant staffing. There were a number of barriers to collaboration and strategies used in and among the various models to facilitate involvement of VR.