Introducing political disability identity as a framework for studying disability in physics

physics identity,


I. INTRODUCTION
The poet Sonya Renee Taylor said: "the invocation of simply being seen in the body we have today is the chant, is the march, is the picket sign" [2]. Simply existing in a body deemed different from the "norm" is an act of resistance. That is to say, the act of being disabled is inherently a political one [3]. A disabled person experiences a world in which dayto-day objects, tools, rules, and even the ground they walk on is not necessarily designed for their use and participation. Scholars have noted that "disability identity can be considered on its own terms as a unique phenomenon that shapes a person's way of seeing themselves, their bodies, and their way of interacting with the world" [4]. In fact, even without conscious political activism and participation, disabled people still cite politics having a role in the problems they face [5]. Thus, a disabled person has a unique relationship with the fabric of society itself. By experiencing the world in a way markedly different from able-bodied people due to disability, disabled people form their identities differently, oftentimes focused on disability and its relation to marginalization. It is due to this marked difference and marginalization that disability identity formation warrants studying and understanding [6]. Accompanying this, the classroom is a remarkably political space, which warrants close attention to social justice issues faced by students from marginalized backgrounds [7]. It is because of this politicality of both disability and the classroom, that there exists an innate political relationship between disability and the classroom [8]. It is through understanding disability identity formation that scholars can further understand why certain disabled students struggle and why others succeed, and understand how disabled students develop their identity as scientists with respect to their disability [1].
Disabled people are a woefully understudied minoritized group in physics [9]. It is known that students who identify with minority groups experience the physics classroom differently than their peers who identify with majority groups, and thus develop their physics identity differently from their peers [10] [11]. Physics identity research is a critical subset of Physics Education Research (PER), and it is important to understand the doing of physics with respect to the doing of social identity [12]. It has been found that there exist hidden barriers which are experienced by disabled students in STEM classes [13], so it stands to reason that identity formation would be affected as such. Yet, there remains a dearth of research describing how, specifically, disability identity interacts with physics identity formation. In fact, research on marginalized groups often benefits from more critical, appreciative frameworks and inquiry [38].
In recent decades, disability rights and inclusion in the United States have improved significantly. Though American relations with disability are beyond the scope of this article, ableism is incredibly prevalent in academia. The post-ADA disability rights movement has created an increased need for understanding disability identity formation [15], especially with frameworks which reject current or out-dated models [14]. Many studies have been performed examining the ways students develop their physics identity with respect to their social identity [10][11] [16][17] [18] evidencing the effectiveness and importance of this research. It is because of this that I introduce the Political Disability Identity (PDI) framework as an important tool which, upon understanding, will help physicists engaged in diversity and equity research.

II. POLITICAL DISABILITY IDENTITY
PDI [1], is an identity framework which aims to provide a coherent and precise way of understanding how disabled people form their identity socially and politically. It draws from Hahn's [19] minority model of disability, which aims to describe disability as a social and political construct. Hahn, approaches disability identity from a feminist standpoint. The three main assertions of Hahn's model [19] are: a) that the source of the major problems confronting disabled people can be attributed primarily to social attitudes; b) that almost every facet of the environment has been shaped or molded by public policy; and c) that, at least in a democratic society, policies are a reflection of pervasive attitudes and values. [19] These assertions separate the minority model of disability, and thus PDI, from what is known as the functional limitations paradigm [19]. This functional limitations paradigm conflates disability with impairment, and asserts that disability is the direct effect of impairment. For example, under the functional limitations paradigm, if a person with muscular dystrophy can't reach their office on the second floor of an office building, it is because they do not have the required muscle mass to get up the stairs. Thus if their muscular dystrophy was cured, they could get to the second floor. The minority model instead takes a more progressive approach to disability, indicating that disability is a direct result of social and political forces, which may be caused by assumptions or neglecting the needs of those with impairment. In the same example, it is because the office building does not have an elevator or other accessible means of reaching the second floor that the person cannot get to their office. Thus if the owners of the building added an elevator, the person could reach the second floor. Where the functional limitations paradigm asserts that something is wrong with the person, and thus the person needs to change, the minority model asserts that the something is wrong with society, and thus the person need not change.
PDI expands on Hahn's model, drawing from empirical data on disability identity to propose domains and subdomains of disability identity. The six PDI domains are: selfworth, discrimination, pride, common cause, policy alternatives, and political engagement. Accompanying this, there are four PDI themes to guide research: social model, multidimensionality, variance in outcomes, and fluidity and inevitability.

A. Domains
The six domains can be divided into two groups: internal domains and external domains. I here classify the internal domains as those which are internalized beliefs about oneself and about disability, which are influenced by external factors, such as societal treatment of disabled people and personal experience with the disability community. I classify the external domains as those which are externalized and actionable, which are influenced by internal personal beliefs about disability.
In qualitative research, I see these domains being used to guide coding of narratives, interviews, etc., with researchers potentially assigning positive and negative subcodes to each domain. In quantitative research, I see these domains being used to define aspects of disability, with researchers potentially creating a Likert scale or quantitative survey based around PDI domains. In short, domains should guide the "what" that researchers are studying. Below, I provide definitions of each domain, and an example of what each domain would look like in a physics classroom.

Internal Domains
Self-worth -A person's understanding that disabled individuals hold an equal, positive value in society. Self-worth can manifest in self-esteem development of disabled persons through internal and external factors of acceptance. Example: A disabled student indicating that they belong in physics.
Discrimination -A person's belief that disabled persons are viewed and treated negatively by society; and this negativity leads to discrimination against disabled persons. This negative feeling against disabled individuals could come from a range of different places; from the idea that disabled people unfairly use resources, which could be better allocated to abled people, without contributing to society, to a lack of interaction with disabled individuals. Example: A student in a wheelchair citing where community resources are located as the reason they haven't accessed them.
Pride -A person's sense of belonging to the disabled community, or the claiming of a disabled identity, or a euphoria found in identifying as disabled. Pride also involves the belief that "the socially devalued characteristics" (p. 191) of disability are important characteristics worth claiming as a disabled person. Example: An autistic student explaining their sensitivity to light and desire to be in solitude makes them a better astronomer.

External Domains
Common Cause -A person's understanding that disabled persons share common positive and negative experiences, coupled with a person's desire to change the negative experiences. Example: A student with PTSD explaining to a professor with anxiety that they experience the same issues with noisy work environments.
Policy Alternatives -A person's understanding that disability comes from a social construction rather than a natural result of impairment, that there exist better alternatives to the current state of public policy for disabled people, and that these alternatives are wanted and achievable. Example: A student indicating that they could do as well as their peers on homework if they had extra time.
Political Engagement -A person's understanding of how policy alternatives can be actualized by political action, and how they engage with political action. Example: A student asking their professor for accommodations.

B. Themes
During my examination of the seminal work of PDI [1], I isolated four main themes which form the philosophical foundation of PDI. These themes are useful for designing methodology for studies using PDI as a framework. Additionally, these themes are useful for providing a philosophical backbone for designing curricula and classroom structures using PDI. Similar to how PDI domains are used to guide the "what" of disability research, PDI themes should be used to guide the "how" of research, and the "what comes next?" aspect of concluding research.
Social Model -PDI situates itself in opposition to the functional limitations paradigm and the medical model of disability, two models which view disability as being a direct effect of impairment, and thus something to be cured. Instead, PDI (and research using PDI) uses the social model of disability. This model views disability as a direct result of public opinion, public policy, and other socio-political forces. Disability is not an inherently negative thing, nor is it something to be pitied. Importantly, disability is contextual. For instance, in the 19th century, being deaf in the town of Chilmark, MA (on Martha's Vineyard) was not a disability due to the integration of Martha's Vineyard Sign Language to everyday life in the town [20].
Multidimensionality -In addition to disability being one aspect of identity (which itself is multidimensional), disability is multidimensional within itself. This means a person can be disabled in multiple different ways (paraplegic, deaf, autistic etc). Each of these disabilities may have its own disabling barriers and culture. Similar to other theories such as Critical Race Theory, Queer Theory, or Crip Theory, any research done utilizing PDI in its framework must therefore be cognizant of the diversity within this identity, and acknowledge the varying privileges and marginalizations connected to that diversity. To do this a researcher must not make generalizing claims about disability, nor search for a one-size-fits-all conclusion.
Variance in Outcomes -Because disability is internally multidimensional, it should be expected that the policy alternatives to help disabled persons would be multifaceted as well. An autistic person and a dyslexic person may have completely different perspectives on the disabling barriers present in society, and may have completely different perspectives on their disabled identities (Walker, 2021). Therefore any research using PDI should be cognizant of the fact desired outcomes will likely differ from disabled person to disabled person. To do this, it is important to center the voices of disabled people in research through listening and highlighting evidence and truths stated by disabled persons or prioritizing disabled author/co-authors of studies using PDI.
Fluidity and inevitability -In her seminal work, Putnam specifies that disability can "be thought of as substantively different than gender, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation" (p. 8) due to its loose definitions, contextuality (see above reference to Martha's Vineyard), and the fact that abled people can become disabled randomly and without cause, and can become abled randomly and without cause. Moreover, disability is a unique identity considering how quite literally everyone will become disabled at some point in their lives due to aging, illness, or context shifts.

III. APPLYING PDI TO RESEARCH
Combining both its themes and domains, PDI is an incredibly unique disability identity framework. A review of each of the 7 frameworks laid out by Forber-Pratt et al. [6] reveals some key differences between PDI and other disability identity models. To begin with, PDI is atemporal. In PER, this is very similar to Hyater-Adams's [11] use of an atemporal social identity framework as a scaffold for her Critical Physics Identity [37]. Unlike other models, PDI does not insinuate that disability identity must form in sequential phases such as a "coming out" phase, or an "acceptance" phase. Instead, the PDI domains are independent of time and can theoretically manifest in any order. Additionally, not all disability identity frameworks adopt a critical lens to disability. PDI emphasizes "variations in the identity of a person with disabilities that can be related to race, ethnicity, age, and other demographic characteristics; employment; social supports; religiosity; characteristics of the disability; and life experiences as a person with disabilities" [21]. This is especially useful considering what we know about how disability can intersect with other identity groups to affect a person's relationship both with disability identity and with the society they inhabit [1][22] [23].
A review of 151 articles which cited Putnam [1] returned 9 studies which used elements of PDI in the creation of their conceptual framework. An overview of these studies and their use of PDI is contained in Table 1. Synthesizing how theses studies used PDI reveals that PDI is an incredibly flexible framework. Most studies did not use all 6 PDI constructs, and instead opted to focus on one specific domain, or focus on a class of domains (ie. internal domains or external domains). The use of domains and subdomains is critical to the use of PDI. Additionally, the use of the social model of disability and specific attention to the multidimensionality of disability is critical to the use of PDI.
No framework is above critique, and PDI is no exception. Critics of PDI cite a necessity of political engagement in the development of disability identity as reason to avoid using PDI as a conceptual framework [24]. However, as previously mentioned, disability and existence as a disabled person, is inherently political due to the marginalization that disabled people face due to perceived or real internal or external stigma.
Other critics [25][26] claim that PDI focuses too heavily on visible disabilities to be warranted for use with invisible disabilities. It follows then, that PDI would not be useful for studying a large percentage of the disabled population in physics [13]. However, other scholars who have examined PDI as a framework have stated that PDI is generalizable, and can be used for both visible and invisible disabilities [27]. Others suggest that a PDI could provide support to those identifying with invisible disabilities [25]. Moreover, other scholars have proposed using a multidimensional approach to the social model used by Putnam [1] as a solution to including invisible disabilities in research [28] Further, other critics [29] state that PDI could potentially be too western for universal use. Disability research outside western academia is lacking in some respects, and remains focused on "functional" aspects of disability culture [29]. We simply do not know which or what identity constructs are valid in non-western society. This is an incredibly valid claim and certainly warrants more research. However, Unal [30] answers this critique in their use of PDI in a nonwestern context.

IV. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PHYSICS EDUCATION RESEARCH
In terms of PER, PDI is a particularly pertinent framework because it is an analytic tool to study inequity and ableism in education, both systemic and individual, as well as both internal and external. PDI is also a useful tool for developing teaching strategies focusing on fertilizing identity development and self-advocacy in students [31]. Teaching through a lens of PDI can help students better develop and feel included in their community, better helping students "navigate ableism, stigma, and discrimination that [they] face daily" [31]. Identity formation correlates highly with success in physics and eventual career choice [10], and physics identity intersects with and is affected by social identity [11]. Research using PDI can support educators in helping students grow and thrive in their classes and learning communities, isolating how students feel about themselves in relation to their environment, as well as their environment in relation to themselves.
PDI is an incredibly useful framework for use in PER. 10% of undergrads in the United States are disabled in some way, and 25% of those students choose some STEM field as their major [32]. Despite this noninsignificant population and legal protections afforded to disabled people by the federal government, academia often lacks in affording equal access to disabled students [32]. Ableism, often, is ordinary in academia; and a discrimination framework, one which focuses primarily on the idea that if discrimination is isolated then it can be eliminated and the -ism at hand can be cured, is one of many frameworks [33] by which to study and mitigate ableism. PDI expands upon a discrimination framework and provides an alternative way to viewing ableism and its effects on students and the classroom. Ableism is, at its core, political, but it is not purely about discrimination. It is a collection of unfounded yet epidemic philosophies about what it means to be normal, what it means to be correct, and what it means to belong. The culmination of these philosophies govern what it means to be human; and relevant to PER,what it means to be a physicist. Yes, discrimination is a key tenet of PDI, but PDI also focuses on internal belonging, on change, and on euphoria when it comes to disability.
A framework for understanding identity in physics is critical for helping students become physicists [10]. Understanding social identity allows us to examine the doing of physics culture, but as of right now there does not exist a framework which answers the need for a nonbinary examination of disability identity in physics [34]. There is a demonstrated need in PER for frameworks which can be used for social justice and to better create a system of equity in physics [35]. PDI is one such framework. Not only is PDI useful for responding to the need for methodological approaches to understand the experiences of disabled physicists and an "interrogation of existing structures" in physics [36], it responds to the need for an identity framework which can be used to critique the culture of physics and how it can affect disabled physicists [11].
Ableism is real, pervasive, ordinary, and can be done and perpetuated by good people. Oftentimes this doing and perpetuation is caused by a failing to understand experiences of disabled people, and a lack of questioning of how the environment created by and for abled people can affect their disabled peers [36]. With this paper, I aim to give the PER community a new, useful tool to examine ableist structures and the experiences of disabled people in physics: PDI. With this paper, I have not only shown that PDI has utility in PER, but that future research and education practices should use PDI. My hope is that educators can use PDI to design and implement more inclusive classroom practices, as well as use PDI to interrogate their own classroom practices and relationships with disability as an identity through PDI's domains and themes [39]. My hope, too, is that education researchers can use PDI to guide future research to examine the intersection between disability and physics identity, and examine how to better include disabled students in physics.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Special thanks to my advisor, Geraldine L. Cochran for her editing and structuring work on this paper. Without her, none of my work would be possible.