“IT’S THE PEOPLE’S RADIO” - PEOPLE WITH
DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY RADIO
Kim Stewart MSW, BSc (Hons), BA Philosophy
Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctorate of Creative Industries
Creative Industries Faculty Queensland University of Technology 2019
KEYWORDS
Community media, community radio, community broadcasting, listening, communicative rights, people with disability, ecological systems theory
ii
ABSTRACT
Attitudes of others affect the participation of people with disability in community radio in Australia. However, policy changes combined with awareness raising and training can change attitudes and enhance participation. Listening to the views and experiences of people with disability is a key process in realising increased participation of people with disability and anti-oppressive practice that recognises the value of the experiences and views of marginalised people. Accordingly, the stories of community radio producers with disability provide the foundation for this research. The research reported here was conducted as two related projects. Project One (Pr1; n=19) used practice-led research and purposeful listening to answer the question: “What factors empower or are barriers to participation by people with disability in community radio?” The experiences of research participants with disability and their allies who have volunteered in Australian community radio were recorded in semi-structured interviews and referred back to them for accuracy and comment as a draft edit of a radio documentary, It’s The People’s Radio. Pr1 findings were also compared to research findings reported in the larger body of Australian and international literature. The attitudes and cooperation of other volunteers in the sector were found to be fundamental to enabling participation of people with disability in community radio in Australia. The findings of Pr1 informed the research question of Project Two (Pr2; n=9) which used an Ecological Systems Theory analysis to identify potential areas for change in the sector informed by the experience of participants. Project Two asked: “How can policy change empower stations and volunteers to better include people with disability?” The primary output of Pr2 is a Disability Access and Inclusion policy that addresses impediments to participation identified in Pr1. The policy was adapted from organisational policies in use in the sector, further developed in interviews with participants in Pr2, and delivered to the sector for use by community radio stations in conjunction with ongoing development of training resources and programs into the future. The research provides the first examination of the participation of people with disability in Australian community radio and adds to the body of work of other researchers in this area. This exegesis should be viewed in conjunction with the creative output from Pr1 and a policy output from Pr2 that give voice to the participants in this study. Ethics approval was granted by the QUT HREC No. 1600000781.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Keywords ...... ii
Abstract ...... iii
Table of Contents ...... iv
List of Figures ...... vii
List of Tables ...... viii
List of Abbreviations ...... ix
Statement of Original Authorship ...... x
Acknowledgements ...... xi
Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 2
1.1 Listening to people with disabilities ...... 4
1.2 Why was this research needed? ...... 6
1.3 Overview of the research ...... 8
Chapter 2: Listening to people with disabilities to increase participation . 12
2.1 The social construction and deconstruction of disability ...... 13
2.2 Why participation is important ...... 22
2.3 Community radio and participation ...... 44
2.4 Increasing participation of people with disabilities ...... 52
2.5 Summary and implications ...... 74
Chapter 3: Research projects ...... 75
3.1 Overview...... 75
3.2 Methodology ...... 76
3.3 Research design ...... 87
iv
3.4 Research design of Project One: listening and analysis within an Ecological Systems Theory framework ...... 89
3.5 Research design Project Two: action research to develop policy ...... 91
3.6 Methods...... 91
3.7 Participants ...... 93
3.8 Instruments ...... 97
3.9 Procedure and timeline ...... 97
3.10 Analysis...... 100
3.11 Ethics and limitations ...... 101
3.12 Conclusion ...... 103
Chapter 4: Results ...... 105
4.1 Project One – Surveying the experiences of people with disabilities in community radio in Australia ...... 106
4.2 Project Two - A policy for increasing the participation of people with disabilities in the sector 122
Chapter 5: Discussion, conclusion, and future directions ...... 143
5.1 Visibility and participation ...... 144
5.2 Print disability as the primary locus of disability action in the sector ...... 147
5.3 Technological accessibility needs work ...... 148
5.4 Participation, listening and organisational legitimacy...... 150
5.5 Being heard: Personal stories, empowerment, voice ...... 152
5.6 Need for training in the sector ...... 155
5.7 Conclusion ...... 156
5.8 Future directions ...... 159
Chapter 6: Appendices ...... 161
Appendix A - Creative component - It’s the People’s Radio ...... 161
Appendix B – Easy English Summary of Exegesis ...... 162
v
Appendix C - Project One Information Sheets ...... 164
Appendix D - Project One Consent Form Interview ...... 166
Appendix E - Project Two Draft Policy...... 168
Appendix F – Project Two Interview Questions ...... 170
Appendix G – Additional Professional Practice During Candidature ...... 171
References ...... 173
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Ecological Systems Theory – levels
Figure 2. A typical action research cycle
Figure 3. Research design Project One and Two
Figure 4. Project One activities
Figure 5. Project Two activities
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Ecological Systems Theory as a tool for locating
potential sites of action
Table 2. Participants Project One
Table 3. Participants Project Two
Table 4. Timeline for Projects One and Two
Table 5. Modifications to policy suggested by participants in Project Two
viii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
4ZZZ Community Radio 4ZZZ 102.1FM, Brisbane, Australia
BSA Broadcasting Services Act (1992)
CBAA Community Broadcasting Association of Australia
CMTO Community Radio Training Organisation
DDA Disability Discrimination Act (1992)
EST Ecological Systems Theory
Pr1 Project One
Pr2 Project Two
RPH Radio for the Print Handicapped
RPHA RPH Australia
UNCRPD United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability
(2007)
ix
STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP
The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made.
Signature: QUT Verified Signature
Date: June 2019
x ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks to the many, many people who I’ve worked with in community radio, especially The People of The Air radio group from the Community Living Association and WWILD-SVP; Tom Smith and the Whoopee-do Crew out of the West End Neighbourhood Centre; and Benjamin Stimpson, whose enthusiasm for inclusion planted the seed for the Ability Radio Project and this research.
Thanks to the good people of 4ZZZ, 4RPH and the Community Media Training Organisation for their advice and tolerance.
Thanks also to QUT for sponsoring my research, and to my supervisors, Dr Christina Spurgeon, School of Communications and Dr Niki Edwards, School of Public Health and Social Work. Thanks also to my partner Nathan Laurent.
xi
Chapter 1: Introduction
Australian community radio provides access to the media for people in the community to have a voice in the public dialogue of the nation (CBAA; Community Broadcasting Association of Australia, 2008). In this way, the sector has helped to empower many disadvantaged groups to self-represent and advocate, including indigenous Australians, women and people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds (Forde, Meadows, & Foxwell, 2002b). However, community radio has the capacity to expand its potential for giving voice to people with disabilities. Even the Radio for the Print Handicapped (RPH) network, which provides services for audiences with a print disability, is largely run by volunteers without disabilities.
Giving recognition to the validity and importance of the experiences of people with disabilities by listening, is essential for assessing ways to improve participation while adhering to the goals and principles of the community radio sector envisioned by the Community Broadcasting Codes of Practice (CBAA, 2008). By listening, this research has found that attitudes about disability, both favourable and unfavourable, are a strong barrier to participation for people with disabilities in community radio as in the wider Australian context. This suggests ways that participation can be improved, using organisational policy combined with awareness raising, training and resource development for the sector. This exegesis describes a two-part research project designed to use listening to provide solidarity to radio producers with disabilities while documenting their experiences in Australian community radio and using that knowledge to begin a process of change (Bassel, 2017; Burnside-Lawry, 2012; Dreher, 2010, 2017).
The research was conducted as two qualitative projects. Project One (Pr1, n=19), was grounded in the professional practice of the researcher as a radio trainer and social worker, employed practice-led research to identify whether there was a need for basic knowledge about the nature of participation for community radio producers with disabilities. Using Ecological Systems Theory (EST; Bronfenbrenner,
2
1977), this research identifies areas where the sector could take action to improve access and inclusion and address the typical barriers and enablers for participation by people with disabilities (Chapter 2). Through strategic listening in semi-structured interviews, feedback and dialogue in the production process of the accompanying documentary series It’s The People’s Radio, people with disabilities who participated in this research gave insights into the barriers and enablers of their community radio work. Those experiences and the critique of participants informed Project Two (Pr2; n=9), an action-research response to Pr1 findings. Project Two listened to the views and needs of participants in the process of developing a policy model intended for use by community radio stations and other organisations in the sector to enhance participation of people with disabilities as community radio producers and volunteers.
Ecological Systems Theory was chosen for its usefulness as a tool for identifying the multiple levels of personal and environmental factors affecting a person’s life from the individual level (e.g., health, gender, income) to broad social trends and ideologies. An action research process (Kemmis, McTaggart, & Nixon, 2014) was used to apply the insights of participants in Pr1 to the development of a policy model to aid community radio stations in defining the actions needed to promote better inclusion of people with disabilities. The usefulness of action research as a collaborative research tool is discussed in section 2.5.
Project One (Pr1) asked: “What factors empower or are barriers to participation by people with disabilities in community radio?” A thematic analysis of the reflections of interview participants was used to identify common factors in the narratives indicating barriers and enablers of participation. Their experiences were compared to the evidence in the literature on social inclusion and community radio. Their voices and stories were documented in the four-part radio series intended as an awareness- raising resource. Program 1 participants identified the attitudes of other volunteers and staff as primarily enablers that impacted all other barriers and enablers to participation. Other factors the participants noted included the accessibility of buildings, documents and technology, concerns about what listeners want, and the
3 personal importance they placed on having a voice in the media. The intentions and methods used in Pr1 are described in Chapter 3.
Project Two (Pr2) used insights from Pr1 and further interviews with participants from the sector to inform an organisational policy template for use by Australian community radio stations. This Project asked: “How can policy change empower stations and volunteers to better include people with disabilities?” Both projects, including research methods for each project are detailed in Chapter 3. Policy was identified as one mechanism for achieving social change through the application of EST to the multiple layers of barriers typically experienced by people with disabilities in accessing social participation in other contexts. Those barriers are discussed further in Chapter 2.
This introductory chapter outlines the importance of listening to the voices and stories of people with disabilities when doing research informing organisational policy that affects them (Section 1.1). Section 1.2, addresses a range of issues raised by the researcher’s professional practice, the paucity of research on this issue, and how they link to the broader picture of increasing participation of people with disabilities in community radio, addressing media misrepresentation and recognising the rights of all people to take part in public dialogue.
1.1 Listening to people with disabilities
The Convention on the Rights of Persons with disability (United Nations, 2007), an internationally agreed upon standard for the human rights of people with disabilities refers to the right to communicate on “an equal basis” with others:
persons with disabilities can exercise the right to freedom of expression and opinion, including the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas on an equal basis with others and through all forms of communication (Article 21, UNCRPD).
4
Communicative rights, according to Cammaerts and Carpentier (2006) imply individuals are active in their communication, leading to a diversity of messages, social representations, and levels of participation (p. xiv). However, the corollary to voice and representation, listening, is often neglected in such definitions that place all the onus of acting on individuals. In this research, efforts to redress the balance of responsibility for change from the disadvantaged to those with privilege is attempted through listening, with what is heard to be then used to inform change.
The views and experiences of people with disabilities were integral to this research and have informed the research outputs and directions for future work. Including and listening to the views and experience of people with disabilities has been identified as a fundamental requirement of any research that may affect them, and as a precondition for the recognition of human rights (Charlton, 1998). The theme of Charlton’s book, Nothing About Us Without Us, notes a historical absence of the voices and views of people with disabilities in all areas of life, and a link between lack of voice and oppression. It highlights the social construction of disability as an attitude unrelated to the capacities of the individual (Oliver, 1986). Accordingly, this research seeks to foreground the voices of the participants with disabilities and to advocate an agenda of increasing that voice in community radio.
Involving people with disabilities in research can include recruiting them as research participants, through various levels of collaboration, or in partnerships or co-production. It can also include providing research results in accessible formats (Cooperative Research Centre for Living with Autism, 2016). Research practices intended to encourage the participation of people with a wide range of capacities in this project included: using multiple means of recruitment, using easy English to communicate, using images to support understanding, providing a flexible interview schedule and location to suit the participants’ needs, making clear the outcomes and their contributions to participants, and checking for accuracy of interpretation and mutual understanding during and after the process.
Participants in this research included people with a wide range of capacities including physical and cognitive disabilities. Efforts to confirm the validity of the
5 researcher’s interpretations were made during the interview process, in the development of the creative output and of this research exegesis. In addition, the collaboration with people with disabilities offered continued dialogue outside the interview situation with a view to reaching a mutual understanding of the issues people faced and their views on how improving inclusion in community radio for themselves and others could be achieved. Confirmation of the accuracy of the researcher’s interpretations in the interview situation was achieved by providing opportunities for participants to hear their own contributions to the radio documentary to confirm the audio represented what they intended, and by providing an early copy of the thematic analysis (discussed in Chapter 4) for participants to confirm that interpretations did not misrepresent them. The voices and views of the participants are foregrounded in the radio documentary series, with minimal scripted interpretations by the researcher/radio producer who acts as a collaborative curator of the themes therein. Listening and collaborative meaning-making with people with disabilities and their supporters interviewed in this research is fundamental to the social justice agenda herein. The impetus for this research, and the wider problems of participation and representation are examined in the next section.
1.2 Why was this research needed?
The impetus for this practice-led research arose from problems in the professional practice of the researcher as a radio trainer, social worker and facilitator of the Ability Radio Project groups (discussed in further detail in Chapter 2). This practice focussed on how to recognise and engage with the desire of people with disabilities to be heard in the media and the difficulties they faced in doing so, and what it could mean for people to develop their personal agency to have a voice to participate more fully in society. Research provided the opportunity to look for solutions to the practical problems of inclusion faced by Ability Radio Project participants, and people with disabilities more generally, by taking account of the systemic obstacles to media and social participation at community radio stations. This
6 includes the use of listening to address: broader issues of misrepresentation, low levels of media participation, the importance and benefits of communication to human rights, and a scarcity of research on participation in community radio by people with disabilities.
Misrepresentation and lack of participation in the media are issues of global significance for disability advocates (Ellis, Kent, Hollier, Burns, & Goggin. 2018), and broadly reflect the experiences of exclusion people with disabilities have faced in other sectors of society. Media representation (either including or excluding portrayals of disability), affect perceptions and attitudes of the public (Burns & Haller, 2015; Haller, 2010). There is also a long history of social exclusion of people with disabilities from community life, and misrepresentation of the lives and capacities of people with disabilities in the media (Burns, 2016; Goggin & Newell, 2005; Meekosha & Douse, 1997; Nelson, 2000; Thill & Dreher, 2017). This history has not been radically altered by increased understanding of the responsibility of societies to recognise the human rights of people with disabilities, or policy and legislative changes to improve their living conditions. People who work in the media continue to fail to represent accurately the lives of people with disabilities, and to provide avenues for people to self-represent and change perceptions. This is further discussed in Section 2.4.
Low levels of media participation by people with disabilities is an issue in all forms of media. People with disabilities appear infrequently as subjects for media content, but even less so as producers of media, a situation that has not changed much for decades (Barnes, 1992; Burns, 2016; Ellis & Goggin, 2018; Ellis et al, 2018; Haller, 2010; Mallett, 2011; Meekosha & Douse, 1997; Nelson, 2000). Community radio was established in the formal structure of the Australian media system for the express purpose of opening up Australian media and society to the influences of previously unheard voices, including disadvantaged and marginalised groups in society (CBAA, 2018b; Forde et al., 2002b). The proposition explored in this work is that this sector of broadcasting has played, and can continue to play, an important part in addressing the absence of the voices of people with disabilities in the media. Community radio is one path to media participation that should represent an easy
7 access point for participation with its ethos of inclusion. Why this is not occurring, and how to improve participation are important questions for the sector.
Participation in public communication through the media is a key way disadvantaged groups can act for change, raising awareness of their issues, rallying others to their cause, and developing their skills in advocacy (Carpentier, 2016b; Tacchi, Watkins, & Keerthirathne, 2009). Research looking at the participation of people with disabilities in community radio, community media, or commercial media is scarce. No research has attempted to count the number of people with disabilities participating in community radio in Australia. By comparison, research that has examined participation in other forms of creative practice, such as 2017 Arts Council report that found that more than 50% of people with disabilities participated in other forms of the arts including music, dance, theatre, writing and visual art production (Commonwealth of Australia, 2018b). This research attempts to begin forming a basis for informed and collaborative decision-making for greater inclusion of people with disabilities in the community radio sector, discussed further in the next section.
1.3 Overview of the research
This research fills an important gap in the academic literature around community broadcasting in Australia, which has hitherto not examined the participation of people with disabilities in the sector. It was designed to gather information about the state of participation of people with disabilities in community radio from a range of sources and was conducted as two projects. Project One, which gathered information about the features of successful participation for community radio volunteers with disabilities was carried out with a strategic listening goal. Listening well was paramount because, even though some of the participants were known to the researcher as long-term self-representing radio producers, nothing had been published about aspects of their participation. People with disabilities had not been listened to by the community radio sector in a systematic way. However,
8 discussion of participation of other disadvantaged groups in community radio has been the subject of study and is discussed in section 2.2.4.
The stories of the radio producers with disabilities who were interviewed in Pr1, many of them producing radio for decades, inevitably raised the question as to why there are not more people with disabilities creating community radio. In turn this question developed, in dialogue with participants, into ideas as to how this could be changed. The insights of participants were used to identify sites for change, in conjunction with an EST analysis that identified and classified barriers to participation from the individual-level to the meta-level (ideological). Policy development was thus formulated as a goal, and forms part of Pr2. Policy has the capacity to initiate change at a higher level – beyond improving the access of one or two individuals at the discretion of other volunteers. It is hoped that policy change may encourage a station-based, even sector-wide cultural shift that might increase accessibility for any persons with disabilities who choose to apply as a matter of course.
The community radio sector is based on being accessible to the community, a goal which is set out in the legislation and Codes of Practice it operates under. Acceptance of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability (UNCRPD; United Nations, 2007), the national Disability Discrimination Act (Commonwealth of Australia, 1992b) and state-based policy and legislation (eg. Queensland’s Anti-Discrimination Act 1991) also indicates the Australian public, governments and organisations recognise the need for change in relation to people with disabilities. Accessibility for people with disabilities within organisations, because it hinges on attitudes of inclusion within those organisations, requires cultural change at an organisational level (Fisher & Purcal, 2017). A culture of providing accessibility to all can be aided by organisational policy that supports operational changes in the workplace: listening, partnerships and consultation, education, training and advocacy by people already in the system as allies to people with disabilities (Bassel, 2017; Dreher, 2010; Fisher & Purcal, 2017; Goggin, 2009; Thill & Dreher,2017).
9
The policy response of Pr2 also aims to shift the onus of responsibility for change from individuals (like the researcher and others who have helped to create isolated access opportunities) to the community radio sector as a whole. It aims to ease a difficult burden of responsibility structurally imposed on those who may be unaware of the opportunities existing in community radio, unused to self-advocacy, or who are fatigued by having experienced many situations of exclusion in their lives in other parts of the community. Listening to the voices of people with disabilities provides valuable information for reconfiguration of responsibility from the excluded, affirming that not only are people telling community organisations what they need, but that organisations are listening and acting on what they hear (Dreher, 2010).
10
Chapter 2: Listening to people with disabilities to increase participation
This chapter describes the literature that frames the two research projects. The first part of the chapter develops the research context introduced in the previous chapter by establishing the need to improve media access and participation for people with disabilities as one aspect of social attitude change. It discusses the vital role that participation in the media plays in democratic societies, and how increased opportunities for self-representation has occurred in fields other than broadcasting (Australia Council for the Arts, 2017; Cammaerts, 2006; Carpentier, Dahlgren & Pasquali, 2013; Lister, 2007; Saeed, 2009). It also looks at listening practices as a key process for realising the full inclusion of people with disabilities, by recognising their needs, opinions and experiences as valid sources of knowledge, and by acknowledging the role that the non-disabled must play in creating accessible social, physical and technical solutions. Listening to the stories of marginalised people enables recognition of the validity of their experiences, and of our joint responsibility to recreate the world in ways that make us all full ‘citizens’ (Bassel, 2017, p. 71). Competent listening is the corollary of having voice, and in competent and purposeful listening, the receptiveness of the listener to other ways of seeing the world is brought into an analysis of issues (Dreher, 2017). Listening provides the opportunity to challenge assumptions in the listener, and to recreate shared meaning that more accurately represents the experiences of the marginalised.
A longstanding situation of misrepresentation and exclusion of people with disabilities and other disadvantaged groups in the media and in society often compound their disadvantage by creating social attitudes that continue to justify exclusion, such as underestimating capacity. Ways that organisations can improve the inclusion of marginalised groups and the value of doing so to organisations and
12 wider society, are also suggested in the literature. Literature that looked at the role of decision-making structures in reinforcing or challenging exclusion and enabling social change was also reviewed (Bryant & Pozdeev, 2014; Burnside-Lawry, 2012; Dreher & Mondal, 2018; Ellis, 2016; Macnamara, 2018; Marquez, 2016; Mosley, 2013; Thill, 2015). There is also evidence in the literature for the progress of diversity work within community radio laws, codes, policies and practice, work that positions the sector at the forefront of rights-based social change for people with disabilities and other disadvantaged groups (CBAA, 2016; RPHA, 2017; Tacchi et al., 2009; Thill & Dreher, 2017).
The following sections of this chapter look at the literature examining participation, and how listening can improve participation by people with disabilities and other marginalised groups in the media. These sections also consider the role community radio practice plays and provide some background on the role that social attitudes play in defining accessibility in society.
2.1 The social construction and deconstruction of disability
Media makers have opportunities to influence the attitudes of their audiences, and affect the views they take on disadvantaged or minority groups (Chomsky, 1997; Haller, Dorries & Rahn, 2006; Hickey-Moody & Crowley, 2010). To the extent that human meanings are socially constructed between people, there are implications for disadvantaged groups, who can experience exclusion and prejudice based on biased interpretations of reality. The effect of socially mediated meanings on the lives of people with disabilities, and the potential to change those mediated meanings through listening and empowering voices is examined in this section.
Nowhere is this mediated making of meaning more evident than in the changing definitions of what it means to be disabled. Definitions of disability have been contentious and complex, and differed greatly on the extent to which physical factors or social factors have been considered relevant (Oliver, 2013; Watson & Shakespeare, 2001). The Australian Bureau of Statistics (2012) describes a disability
13 as a bodily impairment, a limitation in activities, or a restriction in participation, or any combination of these three factors. The World Health Organisation (2018) notes that disability is “not just a health problem” but includes a person’s interactions with the environment and other people. The UNCRPD (United Nations, 2007) states that disability includes, “those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis”, although definitions are evolving (United Nations, 2007, Article 1.). To complicate matters further, some people who the above definitions may describe as having a disability, do not identify themselves as disabled.
Many people with physical, mental or cognitive differences find their lives constrained by their differences from the able-bodied or non-disabled. Disability can lead to restriction in participation, or social exclusion, for physical or practical reasons, but also for economic and social ones. Meaningful social inclusion of people with disability in the community has been an important goal for community groups, government and educators in recent decades. However, social acceptance of people with disabilities is still problematic, with many people in the mainstream of society having little exposure to, or contact with, people with disabilities, despite evidence that contact increases awareness and reduces exclusion in various settings (Amado, Stancliffe, McCarron, & McCallion, 2013; Cummins & Lau, 2003; Farnall & Smith, 1999; Galli, Lenggenhager, Scivoletto, Molinari, & Pazzaglia, 2015; Lloyd, Smith, Dempsey, Fischetti, & Amos, 2017; Wolfensberger, 2011). In the social realm, the meaning of disability influences how people act towards each other, particularly through assumptions others make about capacity. It influences decision-making at all levels from government to within families.
Much evidence exists to support the claim that the needs and wishes of people with disabilities are less relevant to decision makers. The Shut Out report (Commonwealth of Australia, 2009) and the Productivity Commission’s Disability and Care report (Commonwealth of Australia, 2011a) are prominent amongst many reports that identified systemic disadvantage amongst people with disabilities in
14
Australia, and that set the stage for a national disability strategy (Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, 1993; E-Qual and Donovan Research, 2000). In those reports, people with disabilities described lives marked by discrimination, poverty, unemployment, lack of accessibility, educational failures, and social isolation – all factors which contribute to social exclusion. With the rollout of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) in Australia since 2011, some positive interventions and increased social acceptance of the equal participation of people with disabilities has occurred (Carey & Dickinson, 2017; Stancliffe, 2014; Thill, 2015). However, longstanding social attitudes and social stigma associated with disability make inclusion difficult and slow to achieve, and still require work on cultural, policy and advocacy fronts to realise equality for people with disabilities.
Disability activists have long recognised the socially constructed aspects of disability. The “social model” (Oliver, 1986, 2013) is the notion that the difficulties faced by people with disabilities are part of an ideological world view that preferences the needs of the able-bodied (ableism), and thus the social (and consequently physical environment) is wittingly or unwittingly constructed to exclude people who veer from the norm. Ableism often manifests as prejudice against the needs of people with disabilities in favour of those without disability, and is perceived to affect everything from the design of buildings to the attitudes the non-disabled have towards people with different bodily needs and abilities (Anastasiou & Kauffman, 2013; Oliver, 2013; Watson & Shakespeare, 2001). Ableism can be seen as one element in the bio-power conception of human society postulated by Foucault, or the idea that biology determines power-relations in human society (Tremain, 2005).
Social constructionism has great explanatory value, and has been widely discussed, and in turn critiqued, since its formulation in the 1980s when the concept arose in opposition to the medical model of physical deficit (Oliver, 2013). The theory has allowed disability rights activists to elucidate problems of exclusion, and to lobby for recognition of their human rights through frameworks such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Person with a Disability (UNCRPD; United Nations, 2007).
15
The UNCRPD outlines the basic rights of all humans, including freedom from discrimination, as well as the special needs of people with specific disabilities, such as the accessibility of buildings (A9, s1a.), communications (A9, s1b.), the provision of public signage in Braille and easy to read forms (A9, s2d.), and appropriate “training for stakeholders on accessibility issues” (A9, s2c). The UNCRPD further calls for the purposeful reconstruction of social institutions, both in words and deeds, to permit, “full and effective participation and inclusion in society” (A3, s3.).
Despite the success of social constructionism as an explanatory theory, it has been criticised for the restrictiveness of its dualistic opposition of “impairment” (physical) and “disability” (social), which attributes the problems of people with disabilities to the structures of an unjust society, without paying sufficient attention to the difficulties of the body and, for example, bodily pain, which can also be very real barriers (Anastasiou & Kauffman, 2013; Watson & Shakespeare, 2001). Some critics of social construction theory also say it gives the impression that people with disabilities are uniform in their needs and conditions of their lives, generating generic and sometimes inappropriate solutions.
The instigator of the social model, Oliver (2013), wrote 30 years after its rise to popularity, that many socially constructed barriers to full inclusion remained, such as low levels of employment and high levels of poverty for people with disabilities, and that laws protecting people with disabilities in the majority world were still lacking. Oliver argued that, so long as governments used nuanced differences between people with disabilities to deny services to some, the social model was still the best tool to explain the broad denial of rights, particularly in the absence of a more compelling explanation to empower people with disabilities to oppose conditions that denied them their human rights.
If some of the oppressive conditions that affect the lives of people with disabilities can be explained by social attitudes towards them, those attitudes can be changed. The important part played by media in influencing the formulation of attitudes and public perceptions of disability is discussed below.
16
2.1.1 Media constructions of disability Historically, in media content, fictional or otherwise, people with disabilities have been largely defined by their disability first, and as people second. People with disability rarely appear in media news or current affairs reports unless the story is about their disability, and when portrayed fictionally, are rarely played by actors with disability (Davis, 2017). The ways in which the media frame stories about people with disabilities have effects on the way audiences perceive people with disabilities and how they perceive themselves (Goffman, 1990; Haller, Dorries & Rahn, 2006; Zhang & Haller, 2013; Zola, 1993).
Framing is an important concept in media analysis that describes the way human beings make sense of the world (Goffman, 1986). Frames, schema, and stereotypes are all shortcuts to help people assess new situations swiftly, and they serve a survival purpose. However in media, frames can be a source of injustice, and stigma, to the group or individual they portray (Goffman, 1990). Harm can be done when frames are strategically used to deceive; or are based on misguided good intentions which Goffman calls “paternal constructions” (1986, p. 99); or based on negative personal experience or ignorance of relevant facts; or deliberately exploitative. Framing that reinforces stigma can result in identity issues for the targets and can permit “fateful errors” in judgement (Goffman, 1986. p. 446), bad will, or even violence against those framed as other. They can also inspire acts of resistance or “breaking frame” (Goffman 1986, p. 397) as demonstrated by an example described by Goffman, in which a 35-year-old man who was institutionalised as intellectually disabled for 30 years on the basis of an erroneous assessment, was on reassessment found to be deaf and intellectually capable of calculus (p. 446).
When reporting or describing people with disabilities, media stories in news, current affairs or fictional programming tend to use one of three common frames (McRuer, 2006), although Barnes (1992) describes eleven typical frames, and Nelson (1994) describes seven. McRuer’s typology of media framing of disability is outlined here as it encompasses most of the other frames. The use of these stereotypical
17 tropes not only affects attitudes towards people with disabilities, but also affects the well-being of people they ostensibly depict.
In McRuer’s (2006) model, the first frame is disability as tragedy, such as when new parents discover their child has a disability and reacts badly to the news, or someone with disability is portrayed as a victim to be pitied. The character of William in Me Before You (2016) played by actor Sam Claflin, exemplifies this frame. William becomes paralysed and must use a wheelchair, a condition of life he finds so intolerable that he kills himself despite the efforts of his girlfriend to show him that life is meaningful. Disability activist Penny Pepper, herself a wheelchair user, described the film in a review as, “another wearing example of clichéd representation” depicting the view that one is “better off dead than living” as a person with disability (Pepper, 2016). Pepper observes that the frame portrayed by the film was so reviled by people with disabilities and their supporters that they took to the streets in protest and to online social media platform Twitter to criticise the film with the #mebeforeeuthanasia hashtag.
The second frame, triumph over disability depicts an individual’s triumph over their disability, depicted as “overcoming” their disability as if it is possible for everyone if they only try hard enough or have the right attitude. However, as the late Stella Young once quipped, “no amount of smiling at a flight of stairs has ever made it turn into a ramp” (Young, undated). This frame celebrates people with disabilities doing normal things, like Stella Young being a successful writer as if it was surprising and inspirational for her to have done something many other people do (Dahl, 2014). It also implies that people with disabilities are severely underestimated by the non- disabled, which of course they often are, as high rates of unemployment and poverty indicate.
Also contained in this frame is the idea that all people with disabilities want to be cured, and therefore view themselves as defective, an idea reflecting a medical model of disability as a disease in search of a cure. Resistance to the pervasive idea that all people want to be cured and “normal” has been the driving force behind both the Deaf Movement, which has a language and culture of its own that enables
18 celebration of difference (Deaf Australia, 2010; Eleweke, 2011), and the Neurodiversity Movement in which autism is regarded as just another manifestation of human diversity (Runswick-Cole, 2014). Davis (2017, p. 40) notes that even in reality TV programs, where people with disabilities play themselves, they are still not in control of how they are represented. Instead, reality TV largely reinforces the medical model of disability associated with the triumph over disability frame. For example, people with disabilities are frequently characterised as little more than the sum of their symptoms, “symptoms in need of a cure”. The triumph over disability frame is also a popular topic for articles in women’s magazines and newspapers, still placing the disability ahead of the person in the story (Quinlan & Bates, 2009).
Third in McRuer’s typology is the super-crip frame, which represents people with disabilities as super-human, such as Dustin Hoffman in the movie Rain Man; Patrick Stewart as Dr Xavier in the X-Men movies (Davis, 2017; McRuer, 2006). Paralympians are often depicted as super-crips, when in fact all Olympians are exceptional sports-persons. Fictional narratives of film and television drama often use a kind of negative super-crip frame. For example, violent acts are explained by mental illness (such as Michael C. Hall in Dexter, 2006-2013), or villainy is explained by disability, deformity, or short stature (such as David Gooderson as Davros in Doctor Who, 2015; Andrew Tiernan as Ephialtes in 300, 2006). In its negative incarnation the super-crip frame perpetuates the idea that people with disabilities are corrupted by their disability, becoming evil (Dahl, 1993).
News reporting frequently perpetuates this idea by focusing on a person’s mental health issues when they are alleged to have committed a violent crime, particularly when the violent crime is linked to gun-related deaths in the U.S.A., where the existing bias towards gun ownership amongst some groups may affect newswriting (McGinty, Webster, Jarlenski, & Barry, 2014). Peter Dinklage, an actor of short stature who appeared in Game of Thrones, and who is the only actor with disability in real life amongst the examples listed here, shows that this frame can sometimes been done well. Dinklage plays a well-rounded character, popular with
19 audiences and disability activists alike. The series won a Media Access Award in 2013 (Bastow, 2011; Ellis, 2014).
In its negative incarnation the super-crip frame perpetuates the idea that people with disabilities are corrupted by their disability, becoming evil. In news and current affairs content, this idea is frequently perpetuated by reports focusing on a person’s mental health issues when they are alleged to have committed a violent crime. However, it is worth noting that a statistical reality belies the negative super- crip frame: namely, that people with mental health issues and disabilities are much more likely to be the victims, not the perpetrators, of crime (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2013; Fuller-Thomson, 2012).
Some research has examined what people with disabilities think about the way they are depicted in the media. For instance, Johnson (1994) asked people with disabilities what they thought of a range of words common used by news media to describe them. The words included “handicapped”, “disabled”, “wheelchair bound”, “victim”, “crippled”, “differently abled”, “handi-capable”, “physically challenged” and “person with a disability” (p. 27). Few liked the term “handicapped” for its perceived reference to begging “cap in hand”, and that some had it imposed upon them by service agencies; but neither did they like “handi-capable”. The former was recognised as a word commonly used in legislation at the time Johnson was writing. According to Johnson’s analysis, the term “disabled” was preferred for its lack of connotations of inability to function and the fact that it was embraced widely by the disability rights movement at that time, in the way that social movements often reclaim stigmatising nomenclature (p. 28). “Person with a disability” was perceived as putting the person first, although it was perceived an “awkward” expression, with one respondent suggesting that “journalists [would] never use it consistently due to length” (p. 29). The claiming of terminology had a “liberating” function for one participant, who felt he was, “reclaiming [his] personhood from a society that had treated [him] as ‘less than’ solely on how [he] walked”; and ten years later the participant was also comfortable with “disabled”, saying he was proud now to be “a disabled person …to have persevered” (p. 29).
20
Johnson notes that “physically challenged” (1994, p. 31) gained ascendancy in the early 1990s amongst news writers, but that people with disabilities did not like the term, calling it “condescending”. It was perceived as perpetuating the idea that disabilities are too confronting to deal with directly and need to be described euphemistically, when in reality the so-called challenges are social rather than individual problems. As a matter of interest, a Google News search in September 2018 returned 67,000 results containing the term “physically challenged” in article titles to describe a person with a disability, indicating it is still widely used by journalists.
Johnson notes that the phrase “wheelchair bound” was subject to media activism by people with disabilities in the mid-1980s. Appeals were made to publishers of style guides to stop using the term, including by directly ridiculing newspapers who did use it by sending them pictures of people chained to wheelchairs. But it remains persistent in the journalist lexicon, for example being used on September 22, 2018 in the Sydney Morning Herald (O'Mallon, 2018), with a Google News search turning up 40 other occurrences globally on that day alone.
Zhang and Haller (2013) asked 359 people with intellectual disability from 31 organisations what they thought about how the media portrayed them. Respondents agreed that media portrayals devalued them, but that the super-crip frame was to some extent empowering and a boost to their self-esteem. However, Zhang & Haller (2013, p. 329) concluded that the predominance of negative media representations created a “disabling environment” that was a valid target for disability activists seeking to change public attitudes.
The media activism of disability organisations and individuals also works to make the voices of people with disabilities heard, often in response to misrepresentation in the mainstream media (Ellis & Goggin, 2015, 2018). Many attempt the dual tasks of representing the concerns of people with disabilities in the media, as they attempt to change the media. In Australia, People With a Disability Australia, the Attitude Foundation, Arts Access Australia and Media Diversity Australia, as well as individual activists including the late Stella Young, Carly Findlay,
21
Dylan Alcott, Graeme Innes and Senator Jordon Steel-John and others have been outspoken advocates for inclusion and accessibility and have often commented on everyday ableism and exclusion they have experienced. For instance, in June 2018 Carly Findlay, writer and appearance activist, drew national attention to the ableist attitudes she encountered while being interviewed by Radio National host Jon Faine, who made a joke of her appearance on the public broadcaster, ironically during an interview talking about microaggressions faced by people with disabilities (Findlay, 2018). Similarly, in August of 2018 Dylan Alcott, Paralympian tennis player and wheelchair user, drew attention to the lack of public awareness of the needs of people with disabilities when he was trapped on a plane at the end of a flight when staff forgot to bring him his wheelchair to exit (Alcott, 2018). Such public figures are able to campaign for the rights of people with disabilities by capitalising on the attention the mainstream media may give them. However, having such a high-profile voice is not the experience of most people with disabilities.
Researchers and activists pursuing social change note that participation (being there) and representation (having a voice) are keys to social inclusion and means of changing biases in social attitudes. The role of participation is addressed in the next section, as participation in community is a pathway to developing skills for self- representation and political voice.
2.2 Why participation is important
Participation for people with disabilities is the central point of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability (2007) and important for two main reasons. Firstly, participation in the community allows people with disabilities an opportunity to counter negative social attitudes that have led to the marginalisation of people who are different from a socially-constructed norm and the history of misrepresentation in the media that plays a part in reinforcing stereotypes (Ellis & Goggin, 2015; Ellis et al, 2018). Secondly, participation in media provides opportunities for people with disabilities to be actors in the political dialogue of
22 democratic societies (Cammaerts, 2006; Clifford, 2012). Those two outcomes create conditions for other advances in the human rights of people with disabilities, allowing them to advocate on justice issues that affect them, and to garner support from others on those issues.
The significance of people with disabilities participating in media lies in the propensity of the media to generate norms and stereotypes that affect audience attitudes towards various groups. The way that the media portray people with disabilities can affect the attitudes of the public to people with and without a disability. It can also affect the self-concept and identity of people with disabilities (Burns & Haller, 2015; Ellis & Goggin, 2015; Ewart & Snowden, 2014; Haller, 2010; Mallett, 2011; Nelson, 1994; Splichal, 2002; Zhang & Haller, 2013). Participation in citizen’s media, Atton writes, is an act of asserting the self, as “self- representation…allowing public voice to those effectively excluded from mainstream media” (2015, p. 23). Atton’s view on participation (2015, p. 22) impacts at two levels, subjective and public:
(1) subjective individual and immediate group-level impacts for participants in production; (2) broad social and political impacts related to public-formation, group representation, political deliberation, contestation and social movement formation/mobilisation.
Contesting the power of the media to dictate how a group is represented, through self-representation, is an essential act of democratic struggle (Couldry, 2003) and an important tool against ableism. Participation, as discussed below, is one way that disadvantaged groups can dissemble stereotypes about them that create stigma and exclusion.
2.2.1 Participation deconstructs stereotypes Important to ableist attitudes common in the media is the social construct of what a normal body is, and what it is not, as discussed in section 2.1.1. Foucault’s
23 conception of bio-power as the fundamental building block of human modernist societies has helped bring discussion of the importance of human bodies into public dialogue around disability since the ascendancy of social constructionism (Oliver, 1986). However bio-power as a concept applies to everyone, and can assist people to identify their common struggle with other disadvantaged groups. Foucault, and Tremain (2005) posit that a concept of the “normal” human body is central to (and a constraint upon) social, economic and political practices and institutions. The institutional and social practices that come from the quantification of human beings (laws, medicine, insurance, public hygiene, public education, sexuality, charities of care) have enabled the ”government” of human bodies in modern mass societies. Assumptions about what is normal and what is not are based in this paradigm of power that now transcends political or national boundaries.
Tremain cites disability as one of the categories of difference that arise out of this governing of our bodies. The reiteration of what is normal and what is not normal is carried out in practices that we accept and consider as choices, like gender identity, or dis/ability identities, and through the many institutions that constitute our societies, including the media. This conceptualisation of power, according to Foucault, is unlike the repressive and conflictual power of force, violence or war. Instead, power is in our everyday actions and choices, and often seems to be the product of our rational choice, although our choices are already constrained by the bio-power governing system. For instance, people are required to be measured by medicine as fitting the disability category in order to access financial assistance.
Understanding the role of embodied discrimination that is pervasive in our behaviours, attitudes and hence organisational structures can help us envision how to counter that discrimination in everyday actions like listening to people who are different to us, but also in everyday organisational practices and policies (Mosley, 2013). How participation can affect the correction of stereotypical expectations of disadvantaged groups is multi-faceted. Changes can be perceived at an individual level: where the language and topics of conversations workplace colleagues engage in changes (Mik-Meyer, 2016), perceptions of what an accessible workplace means;
24 where the physical presence of different bodies evoke dialogues (Butler, 2014; Clifford, 2012; Couldry, 2015; Mik-Meyer, 2016; Rollo, 2017). Individual level changes can lead to recognition or organisational failure and organisational policy and operational changes are instigated, including a groundswell of workplace colleagues demanding changes to management practices. Organisational changes can lead to sector-wide or even governmental policy changes.
Demonstrating effects at an individual level, Mik-Meyer (2016) analysed workplace conversations in the presence of co-workers with disability, and found that able-bodied workers were more likely to talk about other kinds of difference such as homosexuality or immigrants, in workplaces with people with disabilities, indicating increased tolerance brought about by the visible presence of difference. These writers note that the physical presence of bodies in the public sphere introduces the notion of vulnerability that threatens traditional notions of rationally contested deliberative democracy – people’s bodies and personal stories are present and told not without risk, as these exhibitions of difference and agency challenge norms about disability.
The physical presence of bodies in the public sphere introduces the notion of vulnerability that threatens traditional notions of rationally contested deliberative democracy – people’s bodies and personal stories are present and told not without risk, as these exhibitions of difference and agency challenge norms about disability (Butler, 2014; Clifford, 2012; Couldry, 2015; Mik-Meyer, 2016; Rollo, 2017). At a micro level, social psychological research has analysed workplace conversations in the presence of co-workers with disability, and found that able-bodied workers were more likely to talk about other kinds of difference such as homosexuality or immigrants, in workplaces with people with disabilities, indicating increased tolerance brought about by the visible presence of difference (Mik-Meyer, 2016). However, the opening up of discourse about other kinds of difference occurred alongside othering of disability as taboo topic of conversation, indicating a possible mechanism of underlying ableist discrimination.
25
An understanding of diversity and difference as generative of creative and varied outcomes helps people visualise the value of diversity. Conceptualising disability as human difference, such as the neurodiversity and “mad pride” social movements do (Rowland, 2014) can lead to structural changes that can benefit a large section of the public and has political ramifications (Simplican, Leader, Kosciulek, & Leahy, 2015). Simplican et al. apply the concept of radical democracy to the problem of lack of inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities, and conclude that “belonging” rather than a hegemonic view of “community” is a more useful concept, as we negotiate the many different kinds of abilities a diverse body politic contains. Clifford (2012) extends the idea that difference generates creativity in her discussion of the challenge to the norms of democratic dialogue presented by persons who have little or no speech, noting that Habermas himself faced such challenges as a child with a cleft-palate, suggesting that disability encourages reflexivity. Clifford writes that participation in the public sphere, the physical presence of disabled bodies, forces others to learn to communicate collaboratively, using their resourcefulness to do so. Alper (2018), a self-described neurodivergent ethnographic researcher, recognises a growing awareness of the diverse range of human sensory capacities affecting developments in new media and multimedia access to information, herself examining the range of ways children with autism engage with print, screen and interactive media. The diversity of human bodily differences inspired the Universal Design movement, a creative approach to change in public institutions with design solutions that provide variety and accessibility to all the variations of human bodies and minds, but particularly making headway in education, product design and the built environment (International Conference on Universal Design, 2016; Lid, 2014; Zola, 1993). Ideally, participation in public life, while always filled with the contentions of differences of opinion, could free up dialogue for issues of public policy, instead of a preoccupation with mobility and being heard. Instead people with disabilities have the added burden of frequently needing to make demands, and of experiencing conflict with those in power over issues of basic access to public life that the able-bodied take for granted.
26
Ellis (2016) in an examination of the employment of people with disabilities in the media in Australia, during which she interviewed journalists with disabilities, reports that the experience of workplace empathy towards the differing needs of people with disabilities was an effect of exposure, “especially personal experience of disability” (p. 49). However, she notes that “disabling attitudes” prevail in limiting the employment of people with disabilities in the media. Those attitudes affect securing employment, as well as representation, and were linked also to fears around “job performance, costs and the reactions of others” (p. 4). Those attitudes were also found in education, where educators were perceived as discouraging students with disabilities to pursue media careers. However, Ellis found that many of her interviewees had a positive experience of community media, where many had been trained and given opportunities not available in commercial media.
Listening to people with disabilities already participating in organisations provides opportunities of collaborative governance that can recognise and challenge structural impediments to change. Scotch and Schriner’s (1997) examination of the employment of people with disabilities, note that large scale institutions have structural barriers to accepting diversity of bodies and minds, owing to the economies of scale that demand standardisation and efficiency. This coheres with other research into how organisational structure affects capacity for flexibility and change (Lavill et al., 2015; Marquez, 2016; Meyer & Maier, 2015). By contrast, smaller scale community organisations can be more flexible and inclusive. The inclusion of disability provides an opportunity for organisations to discuss their values and examine how their practice conforms to those values.
Mosely’s (2013), examining the role of social work advocacy in organisations, notes that everyday actions play an important role in the full democratic participation of users of community service groups. Insofar that workplaces, service organisations and leisure and entertainment activity spaces are the physical spaces in which discrimination largely occurs, they are also the first places where change can make a difference to the individuals participating in them. Individuals without disabilities speaking up to make sure a space is accessible (for instance at meetings) can help
27 normalise access concerns. Changing the way organisations do things through policy changes, so that they better align with the UNCRPD and legislation including the Disability Discrimination Act (Commonwealth of Australia, 1992b) is another step. The public presence of people with disabilities as media actors is part of that change. This is where the power invested in institutions and powerful elite individuals can enable or delay policy change and implementation, and where ethical listening is vital.
Representative diversity in the media is a key element of a functioning democratic public sphere. When diverse community groups participate in the media they, and issues that affect them, can become more visible and part of the public dialogue, providing opportunities to enhance their human rights on a wide public stage. However, the degree to which they are permitted to participate varies within institutions, and amongst the individuals in them. This affects not only participants’ day-to-day ability to self-represent, but also their power to affect change both within those institutions and in the wider public sphere. In the next section, discussion concentrates on how structure affects participation in organisations, and how that in turn affects the ability of organisations to listen to the needs of their members.
2.2.2 Participation creates citizens Representative diversity in the media is a key element of a functioning democratic public sphere and creating access to participation is one way that goal can be achieved (Carpentier, 2016b; Jacklin, 1978). When diverse community groups participate in the media they, and their issues, can become more visible and part of the public dialogue, providing opportunities to enhance their human rights on a wide public stage. However, the degree to which they are free to participate depends on the institutions and individuals involved. Such freedom affects not only participants’ day-to-day ability to self-represent, but also their power to effect change both within those institutions and in the wider public sphere.
28
The recognition of the voices of people with disabilities not only acknowledges their fundamental human rights, but also their status as citizens who are able to contribute to democracy. Within this context, advocacy and self-advocacy (which includes assisting people to be able to advocate for what they want in their own voices), is part of a social change movement. While self-advocacy as a term generally is applied to people with intellectual or learning disabilities, being empowered to have a voice and speak up is a skill necessary for everyone who wishes to participate in deliberative democratic dialogue. The deinstitutionalisation of people with disabilities, and an increased recognition that society disables the voice and agency of people with disabilities (particularly those with speech and cognitive difficulties), has generated increasing calls for recognition of the voices of people with disabilities in public debate (Goodley, 1998, 2005; Goodley & Armstrong, 2001).
Literature relevant to this discussion includes Oliver’s landmark writings on social policy and disability, that take apart the “disability as tragedy” frame, which he calls a form of “victim blaming” (Oliver, 1986. p. 12). Oliver noted that the tragedy frame permitted people with disabilities to be perceived as “helpless”, when in fact this is a social construct which permits social relations to continue to disable people. Writing during the Thatcher era in the UK, Oliver posited that legislation ostensibly intended to protect people with disabilities, effectively protected capitalism by defining who was worthy of help and who remained part of the pool of workers. In effect, it set up an underclass by defining who was unable to work, and by extension unable to participate in public life.
Disability activists point out that often participation is not prevented by personal limitations, but by disabling structures and processes and can be seen as forms of oppression. For Oliver the National Disability Income, an early UK initiative similar in intentions to the Australian National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), had elements of such a disabling structure because it left all other structures of oppression intact. However, other research into effective policy interventions, discussed below, suggests that in conjunction with education and training, such policy can be effective at changing attitudes.
29
Participation and visibility are key factors in successful policy aimed at reducing social exclusion or people with disabilities. Hirschmann, Linker, Smith and Dudziak (2015) examine the challenges that people with disabilities have faced in public participation, including accessibility and dominant social attitudes and power. In particular, they demonstrate how easily people with disabilities can be denied their legal rights as full citizens. Claims to citizenship and belonging, humanity, moral imperatives and legal rights, are intertwined, the authors claim. Thus conceived, the denial or obstruction of the legal rights of people with disabilities to participate in public life is a denial of their humanity.
Just as buildings present barriers to people with disabilities who are wheelchair users, deliberative democracy has a requirement of capacity for engagement as equals in rational discourse, and this presents a barrier to some people with disabilities. People with intellectual disability, learning disability, dementia and severe mental illness are often thought to be lacking capacity for the kind of application of informed and logical thinking expected in deliberative debate (Goodley, 1998). Similarly, community health organisations that service people with disabilities often apply a rubric of “eligibility” that includes assessment of their capacity to make decisions in their own lives, despite the social model of disability conceptualising functioning in terms of a disabling environment (Evans, Bellon, & Matthews, 2017).
Evans, et al. examined the capacity for policy and practice of Australian community organisations to include the voices of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. In more than half of the 42 policies they examined, they found that participation in decision-making was limited by lack of policy that operationalised inclusion of the voices of people with disabilities or even their families and carers. The focus on eligibility often assumed a homogenous conception of what is and is not disability which invested power in policy makers, rather than in people with disabilities, effectively reinforcing the highly contestable medical model of disability. While many policies examined in Evans et al. study used the language of
30 inclusion, in practice people with disabilities were likely not adequately supported, even where the policy development process had attempted to include them.
Barriers to participation for marginalised groups mean that targeted efforts to include them in participatory democratic processes are necessary if there is to be progress beyond dependency approaches to disability, such as the medical model. Disadvantaged individuals may face unique combinations and intersections of difficulties that complicate their possibilities of social participation, including participation in policy-making processes. These difficulties exist and vary between individuals and groups (Smooth, 2013; Couldry, 2015). Race, class, ability, sexual identity and other differences present different barriers to participation in different contexts.
Accountability within an organisation, based on an understanding of these power relations, is key to an inclusive participation and deliberative policy making process (Lister, 2007). Even where inclusiveness is supported, larger structural imbalances can result in failure. For instance, Lister describes a European test case where policy makers trialled an inclusive, participatory approach using human rights as their guide. The Get Heard initiative in the UK attempted to empower women living in poverty to participate in policy debate by recognising their “expert” knowledge of the subject based on their lived experience (p. 440). Care was taken to avoid “othering” the participants by choosing inclusive language that was not stigmatising. This strategy succeeded in attracting strong engagement with the target group. However, according to Lister, the final report did not contain any recommendations that could contribute to the kind of changes needed to materially improve the lives of the women involved.
Participation is a driving concept behind the UNCRPD and has been seen by many as a panacea to social exclusion, however the degree to which being physically present in a place confers inclusion varies greatly. Participation is not a simple matter of being in a location. Clearly, it is a social issue impacted by power relations. Genuine participation relies upon both agency and a culture of access, and it is impacted by
31 power both structural and attitudinal. Some of the structural impediments to effective participation that ought to be addressed are discussed in the next section.
2.2.3 Degrees of participation Even in democratic societies, power accrues to those often born into positions of privilege, for instance, the economically wealthy, well-educated, able-bodied and those of white European heritage. In government, the media and in organisations, the voices of people who hold positions of power often obscure the powerless. Powerful individuals and groups tend to attempt to retain conditions of power that are favourable to themselves and their in-groups and resist change. Those with formal or informal power may use it to manipulate or subvert processes in institutions and elsewhere to achieve their own ends, or to limit the ends that others desire.
Miller (1958) put forward the theory that decisions in organisations are primarily made by key influential individuals acting as a “clique”. In Miller’s study of two cities, power resided in banks and companies, where a combination of class, inherited wealth and institutional position dictated the players. Since then, a more nuanced understanding of power and policy change has developed. For instance, influential amongst understandings of power is Bourdieu’s concept of “social capital” which includes the inherited conditions of an individual’s life such as the economic circumstances they are born into, the school they attend, whom they know, etc. and which affects the ability of individuals or groups to influence public life (Bourdieu, 1986). Accumulation of social capital then puts some people ahead in terms of social influence and is an enduring notion in modern understandings of entrenched social inequality. Putnam (2001) identified social capital, or relations of trust, as the key phenomenon that unites civil society. Fukuyama (2001) noted that social capital is not something that can be manufactured by market or governments, but represents the trust and power shared by collective actors working in solidarity. Social capital affords groups of people power, and this applies also to community organising.
32
When applied to Australian community radio, the concept of social capital helps to explain why some stations are more successful than others (van Vuuren, 2002). In her study of three rural community radio stations, Van Vuuren found that the democratic character and diversity within community radio stations were key generators of social capital. Stations that prioritised community development (developing connection to and the empowerment of the local community) were more successful in terms of attracting and keeping volunteers and in sponsorship revenue than stations that aimed to mimic the practices and power relations of mainstream media. Van Vuuren looked at three community radio stations in rural Australia. The station that had the lowest rates of public participation was the one with the lowest gender equity and a preponderance of men with managerial experience who were not motivated by personal musical interests rather than by community connections. Van Vuuren attributed this to the lack of broader community connections and social capital that characterise a non-diverse volunteer group. In van Vuuren’s study, this also impacted station income from sponsorships and subscriptions, an important bottom line for the continued existence of community radio stations. Van Vuuren concluded that empowering volunteers from a broad range of community backgrounds fostered the connections necessary to keep a station viable and was more important to station success than programming alone.
More recent research concerned with empowerment of people with disabilities, locates empowerment in the social environment as well as the person. Goodley (2005) in an overview of research, found that the resilience of people with an intellectual disability was particularly influenced by the independence of their support group from prescriptive authority. This included groups that were not part of a disability service organisation, especially if that organisation had an ideological culture that did not support independent actions. The findings suggest that people become more flexible and resilient in the face of change when they have been part of a supportive group that enables and values their agency, and that is trusting and “optimistic” about their own capacity to achieve their goals or be part of larger group goals (Goodley, 2005. p. 334). By contrast, disabling environments and groups that assume lack of ability or capacity, use disabling language, and impose arbitrary top-
33 down rules that become self-fulfilling prophecies. For instance, Goodley notes that “businesslike structures” that are policed by staff and require conformity can lead to the stifling of autonomous behaviour. This finding might apply in any group situation with group members of any ability but may be more likely when group members are expected to be compliant, as can occur in disability service organisations. Helping people to develop a narrative about themselves as powerful actors in their own lives (rather than non-capable and dependant) is a key goal of self-advocacy groups (Anderson & Bigby, 2017).
Community groups, united by an alignment of the values of the community they serve, often make decisions collaboratively using consensus as an ideal, where each person’s view on a problem is heard, and where attempts are made for those views to be included in solutions. Consensus is notoriously hard to achieve in large groups, but it can be more achievable within representative bodies such a boards or committees of civil society organisations (Leach, 2016). Social and cultural capital, commitment to collaboration, and an openness to others who are different to the majority can affect the success of attempts to set policy agendas. This is especially relevant in community cultural and media organisations who may have more credibility amongst the community than politicians or corporations (Forde, 2011; Lewis, 2006; Saeed, 2009; Wasserman, 2011). The collaborative co-creation of media is a strong motivation for high levels of volunteer participation in the community radio sector and an effective means of including diverse groups (Grimes & Stevenson, 2011; Günnel, 2008; Order, 2017; Spurgeon, 2015).
While decision-making power is still concentrated within the executive and legislative arms of government in many situations, communities and the groups that they form are recognised as a third base of power in society (Anheier, Carlson, & Kendall, 2012). Relations of power are not always clear-cut, and collaborations between government and industry, or government and community groups, and associated funding arrangements may influence decision-making. For instance, a community organisation largely funded by federal funds may find itself economically penalised if it publicly criticises the policies of government. The influence of
34 community organisations on public policy can also be undermined if those public interest groups do not actually represent the views or values of the community, but are front groups, seeking to distort public policy for their own personal or political ends (Fukuyama, 2001, p. 17).
Power relations affect the difficulties of bringing policy and legislation to reality. Policy change and implementation often faces “status quo bias” where the inertia of usual practice solidifies (Samuelson & Zeckhauser, 1988). There is often a gap between the intentions of a policy and its implementation, as individuals and interest groups affect policy operation. The gap between policy and implementation is fraught with difficulties where those tasked with implementation may address only some of the goals of the initial policy, and implementation is constrained by economic, social, technological or other limitations in context.
The implementation of a policy may rely on action plans or other documents that outline how the policy is to be acted on in a practical sense. Action plans, like policies, can be voluntary or have some mandatory requirements in law. In government, industry and the community sector, the use of an “action plan” has become common for enacting social justice changes regarding the recognition of the rights of indigenous people, women or people with disabilities. Examples include the National Framework for Human Rights, and the Reconciliation Action Plan (Stolper, Wyatt, & McKenna, 2012) to improve the inclusion of indigenous people in government, professional, private enterprise and community groups (Daly, 2013; Kuek, 2012; Tedeschi, 2009). The development of Disability Action Plans (DAPs) is a recent development in promoting the human rights agenda within organisations. DAPs are internal policy documents that set out the extent and ways in which an organisation intends to enact better accessibility at their organisation. For instance the World Health Organisation’s DAP (WHO; World Health Organisation, 2014) outlines their commitment to improve the health of people with disabilities by removing barriers, enhancing enabling factors including training and education, and collecting global data on disability health services based on their commitment to the UNCPDR.
35
While some literature around action plans is positive about this approach to achieving outcomes (Daly, 2013; Fowler et al., 2018), other authors are more critical of the capacity for engagement and consultation with the people impacted. For instance, Hogarth highlighted problems in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Action Plan 2014 for a tendency to treat indigenous people as a homogenous group, ignorant of past policies affecting present participation and a reproduction of power imbalances (Hogarth, 2015). Heard, Love, Sing, & Goerke (2017) noted the importance of cultural awareness training as a means of attitude change to enhance policy and action plan success in the construction industry.
While participating in community organisations can increase participants’ understanding of their power in democratic processes, the structure of institutions also constrains the degree to which their participation leads to genuine influence. Institutions can be open and flat in their decision-making structure, or they can tend towards different degrees of relegation of power to authority, making it more or less difficult for participants to affect change. Listening is not a requirement of strictly hierarchical organisations but is more likely in those with flat organisational structures where members agree to collaborate.
Arnstein’s (1969) description of a ”ladder” (or hierarchy) of public participation has been widely utilised in the context of local government town planning. Essentially, this model linked participation with citizen power. The ladder has also been used in research looking at disability and advocacy work, such as Green’s (2016) examination of public health research, and McKeown (2014) and colleagues’ examination of service-user informed education. According to Green’s model, at the bottom is non-participation, paternalistic “manipulation” or “therapy” by powerful others. Higher up are degrees of tokenism including “informing” and “consultation”, with to the greatest participation (and hence citizen power) typified by “partnerships”, “delegated power” and “citizen control”. Consultation is commonly used by governments to legitimise their goals, however it often conveys no power over the end result to those who are consulted, unless, as Arnstein (1969) argued, consultation is part of a process towards partnership, or higher forms of citizen
36 control. With this in mind, some of the pros and cons of participation in the policy process may be considered.
Carpentier (2016a) notes that the many forms of interactions between human beings in the public sphere exhibit varying degrees of unequal power relations. In his refinement of the “ladder”, he sees participation as an “equalisation of power relations”. For Carpentier, this is not a static reallocation of processes but a site of struggle for recognition. Carpentier suggests a ladder-like model for analysis of media participation that further dissects each dimension of a media product including the field, actors, decision and power dynamics to evaluate the balance or not of the actors in a public dialogue (Carpentier, 2016a, p. 83).
Similarly Simplican, Leader, Kosciulek, & Leahy (2015) in the context of the social inclusion of people with an intellectual disability, identified a hierarchy of participation in the community using an ecological model that locates the degrees of power conferred by the types of participation. For instance, a person attending a day service may be ”participating” in the most basic sense of being present physically. However, exclusionary factors such as the accessibility of parts of the building or activities, the openness of other participants to engaging with someone new, and the capacity of all actors in the scenario to communicate their needs and ideas and exercise agency delimits the depth of genuine participation. These models note that participation, in political or community life, can be superficial or deep, and that the goal for all individuals ought to be self-agency, self-determination and control of their own participation (in a word, freedom).
Participation can also enhance the legitimacy of organisations pursing social change. Participation increases a sense of responsibility among members of organisations for the decisions that affect them and their communities (Callahan, 2007; Innes & Booher, 2004; Michels & De Graaf, 2010; Schneider & Ingram, 2007). Michels and De Graaf (2010) examined this claim in the context of decision-making in two Netherlands municipalities. They found that legitimacy was enhanced by participation because people were more engaged, a diversity of opinions was heard, and people felt personally responsible for the success of the decisions made. Features
37 of participation that enabled a sense of citizenship and increased overall legitimacy for decisions made, included, openness to diverse opinions; development of engagement, responsibility, feeling of belonging and reciprocity; and development of deliberative skills. Michels and De Graaf also noted that a pre-existing vertical power structure remained intact because highly educated older men dominated dialogue and ultimately public servants were entrusted with the delivery of outcomes from policy decisions. They found that support for disempowered members to participate in community organisations increased the legitimacy of organisations in addition to the self-efficacy of those participating.
Only a willingness to listen “enacts political equality, by seeing and listening to others as interdependent equals” (Bassel, 2017. p. 86). According to Thill (2018), in her examination of using listening for social justice, voice alone is ineffective at delivering recognition for disadvantaged groups, because voice requires listening to have an effect on decision-making power. Relations of oppression succeed “partly by subjugating the voices and knowledge claims of particular people and groups”, and by employing a “deficit discourse” about marginalised groups that is maintained by their purposeful absence in dialogue about them (Thill, 2018, P. 63).
Participatory and deliberative democracy requires types of agency and voice that may exclude some potential interest groups, such as people with disabilities, women, ethnic minorities and people with low educational attainment. The possibilities of participation, it turns out, are explicitly linked to struggles for liberation from oppressive power relations, including their circulation in and through media. Recognising the need for advocacy for disadvantaged groups arises from this inequity in the possibilities of participation.
2.2.4 Listening for participation Increased participation in the public sphere is a goal that can enhance the human rights of people with disabilities as they become more a visible and audible part of public dialogue. However, participation alone may not provide social change
38 if the voices of disadvantaged groups are not heard by people with privilege, and relations of privilege are unlikely to change without challenge to the status quo through action. A commitment to understanding and representing accurately what we are told by people with disabilities about their lived experiences is both a social and political act of recognition, something many theorists agree upon (Bassel, 2017; Dreher, 2010, 2017; Dutta, 2014; Goggin, 2009; Lacey, 2013; McLaughlin, 1996; Pasupathi & Billitteri, 2015; Thill, 2018). Critical, mindful listening demonstrates respect for and solidarity with the teller’s experience (Bassel, 2017), and can form the basis of action for social justice (Thill, 2018). Listening assists disadvantaged groups find their political power (Dutta, 2014). Listening to people impacted by decisions can help organisations make good policy and increase their legitimacy (Burnside-Lawry, 2012; Macnamara, 2018). Given these benefits, attending to the features of competent listening is also examined here.
Insofar as the beliefs and practices of society are constructed by communication, the absence of recognition of the communication efforts of marginalised groups demonstrates the extent to which their rights go ignored. People who are experiencing disadvantage are often disempowered by the political process. This can occur at the national political level, where the voices that are heard are so often those with wealth and privilege already, but also at an organisational level, where the privilege of wider society is reproduced. Hence the voices of women, people from ethnic minorities, the poor, and people with disabilities are under-represented. Dutta (2014) argues that top-down communication that denies the communicative rights of oppressed and marginalised groups not only reproduces relations of inequality, but is exploitative. By denying the voices of marginalised groups, they are effectively erased from the record and can be exploited and oppressed with impunity. The effect of a history of such invisibility of the voices of people with disabilities in the public discourse connects to the too regular emergence of instances of violence and abuse towards them in home, care and public settings. By listening to the knowledge contained in the experiences of the disenfranchised and abused, we can begin to address that
39 oppression. Listening, Dutta writes, addresses the (often exploitative) relations between decision-makers, the media and the people impacted by decisions.
Listening at an organisational level increases the legitimacy of organisations. Macnamara (2018) notes that a prevailing mistrust of politicians extends to non- government organisations and is explicitly linked to lack of listening to the concerns of people impacted by decisions. Lack of organisation listening can be linked to economic loss, low productivity and high turnover of staff. Burnside-Lawry (2012) posits that effective organisational listening involves the co-creation of meaning by organisations and stakeholders that features active listening, a practice she says is often talked about, but not often taught. Burnside-Lawry examined the listening practices of two organisations to assess their “listening competency” characterised by: knowledge about listening; behaviours (respectful, makes eye contact, shows appropriate body-language, focused attention); and motivational commitment to engage in collaborative meaning-making (caring about the experiences of the teller), including checking that the message has been received accurately (patience and sincere attempts at comprehension) (Burnside-Lawry, 2012, p. 104-105).
Burnside-Lawry found that this model of “participatory communication” (p. 106) owes much to the communication-for-empowerment model of Paulo Friere, that encourages the communicator to challenge the listeners’ perceptions and pays attention to the power differentials in a given context. A model that defines the features of effective listening (Coakley, Halone and Wolvin, (1996) is also relevant. Participatory communication differs from typical organisational communication that may seek to increase the organisation’s influence without attention to the needs of those within it or impacted by its decisions. Using Coakley et al.’s model, Burnside- Lawry was able to identify through a wide range of documents (including media texts, meeting minutes and other organisation outputs of the two organisations studied), that the legitimacy of organisational decisions was enhanced by participatory communication, and that the condition of “mutual equality” (p. 112) was a key characteristic.
40
This coheres with the evidence of counselling practice, where Rogers’ notion of “unconditional positive regard” is a key to good listening and client-centred therapy (Rogers, 1951). Burnside-Lawry identified organisational practices that impeded effective communication, including disrespectful or deceptive communication and practices that intended to manipulate stakeholders into a position favoured by the organisation and to minimise their concerns. Organisations that are competent at listening to the needs of the people involved in them tend also be inclusive, willing to change, and receptive to new ideas, all characteristics that build their legitimacy with stakeholders (Burnside-Lawry, 2012, p. 114).
Listening with genuine interest and concern to the reality of the communicator is also a feature of effective participatory communication that has proved important in government policy development. Thill (2015) examined the valuing of the voices of people with disabilities in the development of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), arguably the largest attempt to enact the human rights of people with disabilities in Australian history. The NDIS was the result of a combination of reports on the low standard of living of people with disabilities in Australia and activism by disability organisations through the “Every Australian Counts” campaign (Burns & Haller, 2015; Commonwealth of Australia, 2009; Frisch, 2014; Productivity Commission, 2011; Stancliffe, 2014; Thill, 2015; Townsend et al., 2017). The voices of people with disabilities brought about the NDIS, first through the consultative processes of the Productivity Commission Inquiry (2011) and in the development of the NDIS policy itself. People with lived experiences of disability shaped that policy by telling the stories of their own lives, many different stories with many different needs.
Thill (2015) notes that that people who participated in the “open listening” process of the NDIS scheme were listened to and their input incorporated into the final product. Open listening entails listening without judgement or need to compete or challenge the speaker in argument, essential to the process of challenging one’s own privilege, during which speaker and listener make meaning collaboratively. This is quite different to the usual understanding of political dialogue as competing and
41 strident voices, such as those of the highly educated older white men as found in a 2007 study by Lister.
Yet, despite this promising process, Thill argues, the NDIS process held limited scope for ongoing dialogue. Thill (2015), Burns and Haller (2015), and Bigby (2014) also note the difficulties accommodating the voices and views of people with an intellectual disability in the policy development and implementation processes of the NDIS. A long history of exclusion or under-representation (based on underestimation of capacity for consent and intelligibility) was not challenged. There are also similar ongoing problems with people with mental health issues being excluded from the NDIS.
The continued debate around the need for advocacy for people entering into the complicated application and assessment process, confirms Thill’s analysis that the NDIS process lacks a place for continued input from the voices of people with disabilities in the implementation of the policy. Thill also notes that the NDIS in implementation reproduces the stereotype of incapacity and has difficulty dealing with the complex intersectionality of oppressions faced by most people with disabilities: for example, women with disabilities children are assessed as dependant (although they are also care-givers), and mothers from non-English speaking backgrounds are even less likely to experience real open listening to their needs. It is telling of the implementation failures that one individual used to promote the scheme, a person with Parkinson’s and chronic pain, was subsequently rejected for NDIS funding despite eleven years of medical records and a story compelling enough to feature in the NDIS launch campaign (Sapwell & Marciniak, 2018). Thill concludes from her NDIS analysis that ongoing opportunities for voice and listening are essential to the successful participation of people with disabilities in policy discussions, as well as “cultural competence” training for staff mediating assessment and delivery (Thill, 2015, p. 26).
The importance of listening has implications for citizenship and democratic practice (Thill & Dreher, Bickford & Catt-Oliason, 2005; Dreher, 2010; Goggin, 2009; 2017). Oppressions are maintained by the silencing of voices of those who disagree
42 with the way in which they are treated, represented, and/or the way society is run. Lack of media representation and participation is another powerful way that the voices of people with disabilities have been silenced.
Listening legitimates the experiences of others and allows diversity to be imagined. Bickford and Catt-Oliason (2005) suggest imagining oneself, the listener, as having different interests to other unique, self-interested individuals that one encounters. Describing the politics of listening to people with disabilities (as conceived by Newell), Goggin (2009), explicitly recognises the power relations in political dialogues and the significance of being listened to as an expert in one’s own life, instead of being expected to listen to “experts” tell one what one wants or needs. Newell saw everyday interactions of listening as political-democratic practice in everyday life that challenged dominant narratives of disability.
Similarly, Dreher (2010) and Wasserman (2013) advocate listening to voices of marginalised people as a means of analysing privilege in mainstream media institutions as those institutions often reflect the values of those in power. For instance, Dreher notes the use of “racialised” news reporting as a means of continued dehumanisation of Palestinians, Muslims, refugees, indigenous people and other powerless groups in Western media.
Community media “interventions” (Dreher, 2010, p. 88), produced by people who are part of the communities they report on, seek to redress media misrepresentation and dehumanisation. Dreher notes that media activism that listens to and empowers diverse voices has a stated goal of social change that goes beyond traditional conceptions of journalism as “un-biased”. Dreher differentiates community media from “alternative” media: the former seeks to provide public spaces for diverse voices, while the latter is media that reacts to media oppression (a kind of reactive media activism). However, both kinds of media production empower other voices and can be said to seek social change (Couldry, 2015).
Perhaps the most important feature of effective listening is the potential for listening practice to redirect “the focus and responsibility for change from marginalized voices and on to the conventions, institutions and privileges which
43 shape who and what can be heard in media” (Dreher, 2010, p. 85). Indeed, as Dreher and Mondal (2018) point out, power imbalances cannot be changed until the powerful not only decide to address their own privilege, but learn effective listening and can dialogue with the powerless “on their own terms rather than on the terms dictated to them by established elites” (p. 10). The powerful need to learn the language of the powerless as part of a process of change.
This change in perspective implies an imperative to enact change: rather than putting the onus for participation and inclusion on the disadvantaged, it is shifted to those who have privilege to provide access pathways for them.
2.3 Community radio and participation
Community broadcasting, radio and television, is a global phenomenon. The World Association of Community Radio Broadcasters (AMARC) president in 2008, Steve Buckley, wrote that beyond Latin America where community radio provided a means of public communication of the rights of workers in the late 1940s, there was almost no community radio movement in the majority world before 1991. Since then, community radio on a global level has become truly diverse, with over 100 countries establishing stations by 2008 (Buckley, 2008). Community radio is participatory, run for and by the community, providing a conduit for community solidarity and development. The representativeness of community radio often gives it relevance in democratic dialogue of nations as an alternative to commercially controlled media (Gaynor & O’Brien, 2017; Milan, 2009; Saeed, 2009; Siemering, 2000). It exists in most countries in the world, excepting those with authoritarian regimes where it is banned, such as Bolivia, or severely limited in practice, such as Brazil where in the latter a thriving pirate radio movement exists but faces constant threat (Hintz, 2011). Around the world, community stations are supported to varying degrees by sponsorship from listeners and staffed by unpaid citizen journalists and media makers from the communities they represent.
44
Buckley noted in his World Press Freedom Day speech in 2008 that there is “a close correlation between the emergence of community radio and political change towards greater democracy” (Buckley, 2008, p. 2). Researchers have found community radio performs an important role in democracies as a training ground for civic participation and a mouthpiece for alternative views and debate. Siemering (2000), looking at development in South Africa, noted that for many majority world nations radio was often the only means of mass communication and “a catalyst for building community, for improving health and education, and for fostering a civil society” (p. 374). Sussman and Estes (2005) found that involvement by local grass roots activists expanded the role of the KBOO in Portland, Oregon as a source of local news and gave voice to the marginalised, while politically empowering participants and the local community. Hintz (2011) in an overview of the development of community radio in Latin America found that in several countries community radio was a “leading force in social communication”, providing a democratic training ground for local communities, which policy had trouble keeping pace with, and in some cases governments and regulators actively resisted or banned allocation of frequencies to community stations. For instance, tens of thousands of unlicensed community radio stations exist in Brazil, where a slow and inefficient licencing system and a need for “training on how to address human rights issues” seems to be driving force (Ortiz, 2012). An Australian study by Van Vuuren (2002), found that community radio built social capital in communities when they focused on increasing community participation, making them a trusted and influential source of local information.
One of the notable features of community radio is the extent to which communities will support it with their own labour and funds, without a profit imperative. The free labour and financial support of the public provides more freedom in content production, and diversity of participation, than that of public media institutions or commercially controlled media Community. Public media organisations in Australia are dependent on the public purse- they receive government funding for some activities, their continuing existence is ultimately enabled by favourable media legislation, regulation and national policy settings. However, community radio stations in Australia also receive sponsorship and
45 subscriptions from supportive organisations and listeners that supplement their funding. In particular the public broadcasters are dependent on government favour for their continued existence, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) are established by their own Acts of Parliament with charters that also specify the types of services they provide. While these public service media organisations are substantially government-funded, they are also structured as corporations that are meant to operate at arm’s length of both political and commercial influences. Commercial media (like community and public service media) are subject to the general laws of competition and trade that apply to all businesses. Commercial media organisations that have interests in broadcast media are also subject to industry specific requirements set out in broadcasting legislation. They are not directly funded by taxpayers but do benefit from exclusive access to broadcast spectrum and various local content support schemes.
The community broadcasting sector in Australia was set up to provide access for diverse voices to self-represent from its very inception, and this role has not lessened despite the rise of the internet and social media. The degree to community participation has been achieved can be seen in the wide range of community voices that do participate in the sector, not only using their voice, but sharing power in the maintenance of the sector. This is what Carpentier (2016b) calls “maximalist” participation: actors participate in social-democratic spaces of relatively decentralised organisations as opposed to formal centralised institutional or statist ones where power accrues at the top. People who participate in community broadcasting, Dreher (2017) argues, have more power and real control over the means of media production and management of the sector in a way that users of commercial social media platforms do not, where solidarity between users is atomised and decisions are made by for-profit often hierarchical corporations. The values and principles that underlie community radio practice require genuine participation and access.
The Broadcasting Services Act (1992a) requires that stations represent different interest groups from the community, and invite their participation (Forde, Meadows,
46
& Foxwell, 2002a). Woven into the policies and practices of the various organisations that make up the sector is the expectation of social inclusion. For instance, the guiding principles of the Community Radio Broadcasting Codes of Practice (CBAA, 2008) include the following goals:
1. Promote harmony and diversity and contribute to an inclusive, cohesive and culturally diverse Australian community 2. Pursue the principles of democracy, access and equity, especially for people and issues not adequately represented in other media 3. Enhance the diversity of programming choices available to the public and present programs that expand the variety of viewpoints broadcast in Australia 4. Demonstrate independence in programming as well as in editorial and management decisions 5. Support and develop local arts and music 6. Increase community involvement in broadcasting.
Community radio has a commitment to diversity that makes it a good focus for increasing media presence of people with disabilities. Diversity in the sector refers to initiatives to encourage participation by a broad range of people from the community who may represent different “ethnicity, race, language, gender, sexuality, age, physical or mental ability, occupation, religious, cultural or political beliefs”(Codes of Practice, s2; CBAA, 2008). In terms of the diversity of views expressed in the media, limited by the concentration of media ownership in Australia, the presence of community radio and television provides an alternative to the more homogenous views of the mainstream commercial media whose economic goals determine its news content. Providing a medium for alternative news and views not constrained by commercial imperatives was the main intention of the government that established community and public media in Australia, and continues to be an abiding goal for the sector (Saunders & Lane, 1980a). The CBAA, who represent a large proportion of generalist broadcasters
Indigenous Australians represent 3% of the population of Australia, and are the traditional owners of the nation (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2014). The Indigenous Remote Communication Association (IRCA) represent 105 Remote Indigenous Broadcasting Services, 33 retransmission sites and 28 urban and regional
47
First National radio services run by and for indigenous communities – reaching 50% of indigenous Australians and helping connect communities (CBAA, 2018a). Australia is a nation of immigrants, with 49% of the current population being born overseas, or having one or both parents being born overseas, and about 21% speaking a language other than English at home (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 201). Community broadcasting representative body the National Ethnic and Multicultural Broadcasters Council (NEMBC) represent ethic broadcasting in language on 130 community stations across the country in 100 different languages (NEMBC, 2018).
Despite this consideration for social inclusion and social change, the inclusion of people with disabilities in community broadcasting in Australia is largely under- developed. Disability as a category of diversity has primarily been accommodated in the community radio sector in the context of the Radio for the Print Handicapped (RPH) radio reading services for those with a print disability, the name of which indicates that it has been around for more than 40 years. People with vision- impairments and blindness or have low literacy can access the content of newspapers, other print media and other community information via RPH stations and reading services on other non-RPH stations. RPH has several radio producers who are blind or vision impaired nationally most of whom are at 4RPH in Brisbane, and a station manager who is blind at their Tasmanian station. These services act as an advocate for the diverse print-challenged community that includes people with disabilities who may have trouble reading, those with low or no vision, the elderly, and people who cannot read English and the 44% of Australians with low literacy. Accessibility in the RPH context extends to a broad community of listeners beyond those with disability.
In Australia, community radio is recognising the social value of the medium to disadvantaged and marginalised groups. Meadows and Foxwell in their examination of the role of local radio and television in enhancing emotional and social well-being (2011), argue that community radio in Australia “is making a significant contribution to social gain, provision of education and training, local content and local news plurality, and media literacy”. The results of their interviews with community radio
48 volunteers and listeners nationwide found that community media have created positive framing of people with mental illness as “living well’, and that such programming has been found to “have a positive impact on general audiences’ perceptions” (p. 92).
The authors also noted that mental health benefits were demonstrated for listeners of Brisbane radio station 4MBS Silver Memories, 24-hour service targeted at nursing home residents, playing music and radio shows from the 1920s-1950s. It was found the programme boosted morale and well-being of residents, especially those with dementia, as it “helped them remember their early years and appeared to be particularly helpful for residents who had few or no visitors and for those who were lonely or bored” (Meadows & Foxwell, 2011, p. 90-92). Meadows and Foxwell observe in their study that audiences expressed overwhelmingly positive feelings of “pride, self-esteem and happiness” in response to their engagement in community radio. Negative responses of “shame, depression, sadness and anger” were related to mainstream media representations, that mainstream radio is “negative” and “saddens people” (p. 97).
The authors also found that involvement in community radio creates a sense of belonging in audiences, many of whom are also volunteers. According to Meadows and Foxwell, connections between local NGOs and community radio stations, such as that between the Asylum Seekers Resource Centre in Melbourne and local ethnic stations enable the stations’ content to be more in touch with the lived experiences of their audiences.
Many volunteers in the Meadows and Foxwell study expressed a sense of pride at being associated with their local community radio station. For instance, one focus group member in the study said: “when people feel divided in the community… [BayFm, NSW] actually stays really constant and there’s a voice there for people” (p. 97). The matter of voice was highlighted in the message researchers got from people on Palm Island, where the death in custody of Cameron Doomagee had resulted in riots and the police station being burned down. Locals felt the community radio was the only place where they could speak their minds about what had happened and
49 begin to heal emotionally (Meadows and Foxwell, 2011, p. 98). A radio trainer from Yuendumu described the direct role radio production was playing in rehabilitating the lives of disadvantaged indigenous youth who had previously been sniffing petrol, but who had since made radio content and mentored others.
Order (2017) notes that social cohesion is an important role of community radio in Australia and volunteers feel a sense of belonging that is an antidote to loneliness. Order talked to volunteers at RTR in Perth, who remarked that the station community felt like “family”, with one participant saying they didn’t feel part of the community until their volunteer experience at RTR. For all these examples, being a volunteer at community radio station became an important part of their identity as a media maker and citizen, gave them purpose and a voice to express their view of the world and empower others to do the same.
The intersection between democracy and community radio is also fundamental to its ethos (discussed further in 3.4). Gaynor and O’Brien (2017), in a study of community radio in Ireland, note that community radio is a freely constituted public sphere of the kind posited by Habermas, but that stations can become insular and could do better to include the community. Their recent overview of the intersection between community development and democracy (Gaynor & O'Brien, 2012; Gaynor & O’Brien, 2017) looked at participation in four Irish community radio stations. The authors note that democratic participation could be improved in the stations they examined. They suggest the reasons for this deficit are:
a somewhat limited policy framework; a focus within training programmes on technical competencies over content; the weakness of linkages between stations and their local community groups; and the failure of the latter to understand the unique remit of community radio (Gaynor & O’Brien, 2012, p. 1).
Some projects in Australia have sought to address the deficits described in Gaynor and O’Brien’s study. In Adelaide the Radio Seeds project, supports disadvantaged women who have been released from prison to make a monthly radio program telling their personal stories to help others leaving prison (Radio Seeds,
50
2017); the Locked In program on 4ZZZ in Brisbane provides an outlet for people currently in prison in Brisbane (Anderson, 2013). The researcher’s direct involvement that led to enrolling in the DCI was The Ability Radio Project, which has facilitated radio program production with people with mainly intellectual disabilities (Stewart & Stimpson, 2015). It has required collaboration with community and working in their spaces. Another of the researchers projects with 4ZZZ, Women On The Edge ("Women On The Edge," 2018) trained women with social disadvantage from the Brisbane community, including disability, mental health problems or whom have English as a second language access to a supportive radio content development and training environment. A third project of the researcher, Taking Radio 2 Community ran radio and music groups with homeless men. In Sydney the Community Media Training Organisation runs training that includes people with vision-impairments, while the Making Airwaves project in Sydney runs cyclical eight-week training sessions for groups of people with disabilities from the Windgap Foundation, broadcasting on Eastside FM (Windgap Foundation, n.d.). In addition, there is a range of disability specific programming on generalist community stations in many capital cities and regional areas. 3CR in Melbourne has several programs for and by people with disabilities including “Raising Our Voices”, “Are you looking at me?” and a dedicated Disability Day once a year (3CR, 2017); with the Community Radio Network providing a day of disability-related programming to a national community radio audience for International day for Persons with Disability in 2018.
The promise of community radio as a medium for the empowerment and social inclusion of people with disabilities has some evidence as described in this section. Australian projects like those above, have the capacity to include people from all kinds of disadvantaged backgrounds, by going to them in the community and forming productive collaborations with existing community networks. However, as the literature shows, such projects require the support of stations well networked with community organisations, policy changes that support increased inclusion and institutional changes to make a lasting impact. It is encouraging that the community radio already has in place legislation and code within which this can occur.
51
2.4 Increasing participation of people with disabilities
How organisations successfully increase participation has been studied in a range of fields. The use of a human rights framework, such as the UNCRPD, is a commonly used tool in conceptualising participation. In this section, some insights into increasing participation and acceptance of people with disabilities in the workplace and volunteering settings are examined. Policy change in organisations in conjunction with training is a common approach that recognises that increasing participation affects both new participants and those already participating, and consideration of both groups is essential to successful participation, especially where entrenched attitudes may exist.
2.4.1 Increasing participation – international approaches
Research on successful participation in by people with disabilities has often used a human rights framework, particularly in the education and the health sector (Gooding, 2017; Spandler & Anderson, 2015; Townsend et al., 2017). The human rights framework of the UN has provided important international leadership that scaffolds inclusive, deliberative policymaking. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (UNCRPD) was adopted by the UN in 2006 and has been signed by 177 countries, including Australia. The UNCRPD provides a framework that supports the self-determination of people with disabilities that can be applied in a variety of contexts and agrees with the social model of disability (Minkowitz & Eds, 2015; Mittler, 2015; Plumb, 2015). The UNCRPD framework, described as a “catalyst for a radical reappraisal of policy and practice among governments and organizations” (Mittler, 2015. p. 79) includes providing support and advocacy in legal and decision-making contexts and has become synonymous with autonomy in the disability rights movement (Gooding, 2017). Key parts of the UNCRPD that apply to the context of policy development and media participation (United Nations, 2007) include Article 9 which is concerned with conditions of physical and informational accessibility necessary to social inclusion (also addressed in Article 19); freedom of
52 expression and opinion (Article 21); and participation in political and public life (Article 30)
Within the UN systemic changes in policy and guidelines have occurred (Mittler, 2015). Twenty-five UN agencies have issued guidelines for the inclusion of people with disabilities in their operation, including in majority world nations and incorporated in the UN Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations, 2015). Despite this exemplary demonstration of the workability of inclusion, people with disabilities continue to be routinely confronted by barriers that significantly constrain their capacity to shape the public institutions and the wider communities to which they may want to belong (Amado et al., 2013; Stancliffe, 2014). However, smaller- scale approaches to increasing participation in non-government organisations are making headway.
Genuinely inclusive and effective participation, in Lister’s (2007) view (in policy development spaces in this case) address the capacity for personal agency in participants, who may lack confidence and skills to participate and have a voice. However, organisational cultures also need to listen to the problems of participation people face and change their way of working to accommodate participation of less experienced actors. This can include internal training to build the capacity of others, and targets and performance measurement that enhance inclusion (Fisher & Purcal, 2017). Also to be considered are venue choices, style of meetings and use of formal language. Lister notes that genuine participation takes time to achieve, and this requirement can conflict with the efficiency needs of institutions and has an “undermining” effect on empowerment. Organisations that value relationships and support people to participate are more effective at increasing participation. Often support is cultural as well as policy based.
Shandra, in a 2017 study of volunteering in community organisations of people with disabilities, noted that people with disabilities infrequently volunteer, although those that do, participate for similar durations as non-disabled people. In a longitudinal study of US Census data in 2009 and 2010, Shandra calculated the rates of volunteerism amongst people with a variety of disabilities in the US to be as low
53 as five percent, but that number was increasing over time and was much higher for well supported and financially secure individuals. People with sensory or cognitive disabilities volunteered at a higher rate than those with physical or multiple disabilities. Ableism, stigma and low incomes were barriers to participation, and that organisations perceived volunteers with disability to be an expense in time or money, that outweighed benefits (Shandra, 2017). The research predicted that well supported individuals would participate at much higher rates. Where support mechanisms existed in organisations, disability became less relevant to participation. In fact, Shandra found that people with physical disabilities would participate with more “intensity” and “duration” if empowered to do so by supports (p. 205). The studies of Shandra (2017) and Meacham et al. (2017; discussed further below) indicate that organisational support can increase and enhance the participation of people with disabilities in public life.
In the media sector, public broadcasters have made efforts to better represent and have the participation of a diverse and representative array of content makers in the last few decades. People with disabilities have only recently reached their agenda. To understand changes in the inclusion of people with disabilities in Australian media, it is helpful to contrast local initiatives with overseas initiatives that share similar concerns. In Europe in particular, media initiatives in public and community media to include more journalists with disability, and to cover stories about people with disabilities more sensitively, have occurred over the last two decades.
As long ago as 1998, the UK public broadcaster the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) decided to mainstream disability through all its programming on Radio 4 (Sweeney, 2014). In 2016 the BBC committed £1m to increasing the number of journalists with disabilities (Martinson, 2016). The move to include more media producers with disability at the BBC, discussed by Martinson, raised issues about production values, messaging and audience reception.
According to Günnel (2008), who examined a European community radio training initiative, it is a goal of community radio to include groups “who hardly ever
54 get the opportunity to produce their own radio programmes”, and this includes a diverse range of possible groups. Günnel describes the Media Training Across Europe (META) project, as an inclusive, learner-centred training approach designed to facilitate the involvement of marginalised groups in community media through access to technology. The META project involved multiple universities, community media organisations and government bodies and ran courses across Europe in several countries and became officially recognised by the European Union’s Grundtvig III Mobility Programme that funded adult training initiatives. The META project used a “dual role” approach, which encouraged participants to be learners and teachers in self-directed programme production. Günnel (2008, p. 88) argues that such radio training projects “equip participants with media awareness and a critical attitude towards mainstream media”, thereby including people whose life circumstances might make it difficult for them to be involved in public life. The META project not only trained people from disadvantaged groups, but also developed and created public resources for further training by community organisers and teachers, including those derived from the author’s own projects. Students played multiple roles, for example, as both interviewers and interviewees, and planning how to teach new members. In creating their own media products, they developed self-confidence and autonomy that defied the convention of passive consumption of mainstream media, empowering producers as makers of meaning (p. 90). Although participants had a wide range of skills and skill deficits, the cooperative and experience-based agenda meant that they were able to share their own skills and insights with each other.
Grimes and Stephenson (2011) contend that community radio has a goal of social change that makes it well placed to provide an avenue for empowerment of disadvantaged individuals. Their research into rehabilitation of prisoners and the inclusion of the Roma people via community radio in the UK demonstrates ways that radio can be used for social inclusion. According to the authors, while the community radio station itself is a location for community participation, volunteering and networking, the reach of community radio extends to the listening community it serves and to a “third space”, where training and skills develop: a space where they say “popular culture meets pedagogy” (p. 180). For the radio trainees in Grimes and
55
Stevenson’s study, they found that empowerment came in the form of transferrable skills. Scriptwriting, timing, teamwork and deadlines helped them develop literacy and numeracy skills, as well as a “sense of achievement” (Grimes & Stevenson, 2011, p. 183). The students in their study also learned basic recording and digital editing skills. Once competent, the students were then encouraged to teach the skills back to the trainers, allowing them to “cascade” their knowledge and become trainers and mentors in their own communities (p. 188). Grimes and Stevenson found that the “dual role” approach helped the students achieve the two learning goals of developing media literacy and competence, and the capacity to teach others those skills. Building on the new-found skills of participants, the authors created “opportunity for this community to start developing media artefacts which could challenge and address some of the misrepresentations levelled at them” (p. 189), emphasising the importance of training to participation.
The examples above demonstrate effective outreach to accommodate diverse and hard to reach groups for participation in community radio. Outreach, training and policy change are important factors in expanding diversity in the sector.
2.4.2 Policy change and increasing participation of people with disabilities in Australian community radio This research looks at policy within community broadcasting organisations to facilitate social inclusion and accessibility for people with disabilities. Policy change is one way that participation of marginalised groups can be increased in a variety of settings, as they define the principles that guide the actions of organisations and governments (Birkland, 2011). Policies can affect people’s identities, their sense of agency in the world, their concepts of citizenship and how they are recognised by and treated by others (Schneider & Ingram, 2007). Policy advocacy with people with disabilities is about human rights as well as change in democratic institutions (Hirschmann, Linker, Smith, & Dudziak, 2015; Thill, 2015). Policies can also create resistance through the ideals and values that they convey or seek to impose and the degree to which they ignore or marginalise the needs of different groups (Schneider
56
& Ingram, 2007) and for this reason, successful policies need to listen to the needs of people who will be impacted by them. In this section the structures of community radio bodies are examined to help identify the challenges and possibilities for agenda- setting and policy development in the sector.
The Australian public broadcaster the ABC made policy changes in 2015 to embrace more people with disabilities, who in 2016 represent seven percent of their workforce (Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 2016a). The ABC has also made efforts to increase the representation of and include people with disabilities as journalists and content makers, for instance Nas Campanella on ABC Radio station Triple J, is blind and uses a combination of screen reader, two sources of sound at once (screen reader and on-air broadcast), and good planning to deliver news broadcasts (Albert, 2017). Until its funding cuts in 2014, the ABC’s “Ramp Up” website provided a resource and voice for disability rights news (Burns, 2014). Radio 612ABC Brisbane’s Community Correspondent program included a community-based volunteer spokesperson on disability issues (Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 2017). In 2016 11% of the ABCs content makers were from non-English speaking backgrounds, while their Equity and Diversity Plan 2016-2018 aimed for 15%, with no target numbers for people with disabilities (Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 2016b).
No evidence was uncovered in the course of this project of equivalent initiatives to increase the participation of people with disabilities in Australian commercial media organisations. However, Australian commercial media do address issues of problematic representation in self-regulatory and codes. For example, the commercial radio Code of Practice advises material that incites “hatred”, “contempt, or severe ridicule” of people with disabilities is “not suitable for broadcast” (Commercial Radio Australia, 2017).
The community broadcasting sector is structured in line with the legislation that created it. The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) is established by the Broadcasting Services Act (1992) as the agency with regulatory oversight of commercial and community broadcasting in Australia. The Broadcasting
57
Services Act also outlines the obligations of organisations that qualify for community broadcasters. In order to hold broadcasting licences community radio stations must be not-for-profit and are often incorporated as associations. As such, they are governed by a board structure that is accountable to a membership. The Community Broadcasting Association of Australia (CBAA) is the industry association that represents most community broadcasting stations. It provides a range of services to member stations and lobbies government on behalf of members. It is funded by membership fees but also manages a range of government-funded sector-wide projects (CBAA, 2018b). Some projects funded with government monies administered by funding via the Community Broadcasting Fund (CBF). Others are directly funded by agencies such as the Department of Health. Private organisations also contribute to sector projects, for example the Australian Performing Rights Association (APRA). The CBAA is governed by a board of eight members, with president and vice-presidents representing community radio and community television (CBAA, 2018a). Other community radio industry associations represent specialist stations including the Christian Media and Arts Alliance, Indigenous & Remote Media Association, National Ethnic and Multicultural Broadcasters Council, Radio for Print Handicapped Australia, South Australian Community Broadcasters Association Incorporated and the Southern Community Media Association (CBAA, 2018b).
The Community Broadcasting Codes of Practice represents regulatory guidelines that are largely self-regulatory (as opposed to command and control by government), where complaints of breaches of the Codes go to stations first and only progress to the ACMA if complainants are not satisfied with internal grievance processes. The ACMA itself, is a statutory authority operating independently, that reports yearly to the Australian Senate. Self-regulation of industry is often instituted to reduce regulatory burden on industry, emanating from a neo-liberal small government perspective, but also useful when the majority of workers are voluntary and with small operating budgets as they are in community radio. While self- regulation is often discounted as “symbolic” and “ineffective”, in sectors with strong allegiance to shared values and an intimate knowledge of their operation in practice,
58 it can lead to institutional normalisation of those values and result in increased individual responsibility (Gunningham & Rees, 1997, p. 364). Self-regulation can be compared favourably to Arstein’s (1969) level of citizen controlled institutions and compatible with more flat organising structures within institutions that engender self-responsibility (Marquez, 2016). Gunningham and Rees contend that self- regulatory regimes can “extend beyond the letter of the law” so may represent social change towards “higher standards of behaviour” faster than legislation can (1997, p. 366). This is evident by the widespread approval of the Codes of Practice as guidelines for operation in community radio that represent ethical behaviour that exceeds legislated imperatives when it comes to inclusion.
Industry Standards, covering technical requirements, are deemed “mandatory” under the Broadcasting Services Act (1992; s9B.d1). The Broadcasting Services Act (1992), created by act of parliament, also requires that community radio stations:
Represent the community interest… encourage members of the community that it serves to participate… [and] provide the service or services for community purposes (Part 5, s9.2).
However, Codes of Practice, though registered with the statutory body, the ACMA, are developed by the community radio sector and required to undergo a consultation period (s9B.d4.130M) to ensure that it adheres to the values and needs of the sector it affects. By this process the Codes of Practice have embraced values of inclusion of diverse groups, requiring community broadcasters to,
Pursue the principles of democracy, access and equity, especially for people and issues not adequately represented in other media (CBAA, 2008, p. 3).
The Codes of Practice and the Broadcasting Services Act provide an access point for change in that they provide regulatory support for diversity and participation (CBAA, 2008, p. 4). Those requirements are regulated and enforced by the ACMA. The longstanding use of the Codes provides a precedent that can be expanded by policy development to specify what inclusive policy for people with disabilities looks like for
59 the sector. The Codes demonstrate the values of the sector to enhance access to media as a vital part of a functioning democratic society, and is demonstrated in the prevalence of stations managed and run by the communities they seek to represent, engage, or address. This level of citizen involvement makes community broadcasting a unique institution in the Australian media system, described as an “open source organisation” by Rennie (2007). Community radio is, by legislative design, the sector or Australian media that is directly shaped by the people who participate in it. However, if the ACMA determines that self-regulation by industry codes are not working for a sector, they are empowered by law to impose standards.
Other law besides those pertaining to broadcasting affect the activities of community radio stations. The laws and regulations controlling broadcasting intersect with those affecting people with disabilities. In Australia some of the rights that people with disabilities come to expect are codified in law (and thus non- compliance can have punishment consequences), such as the Disability Discrimination Act (Commonwealth of Australia, 1992b) the Convention of the Rights of Persons with A Disability (United Nations, 2007), which Australia is a signatory to.
Rights and public participation are bound together: Access to participation in public life is a foundation of modern democratic societies with broad consequences. Societies with wide disparities in equality between citizens tend to be more unstable, threatening democracy as an organising principle (Clay & George, 2016). However, as various interest groups seek to change society in a direction favourable to them, progressive change is slow. People tend to act on the problems of inequality most relevant to them, which can also divide the power available to them in groups (Foucault, 1982; Miller & Demir, 2007). Thus, policy change can be a diffuse and slow process, fraught with setbacks, but contingent on the acceptability of policy proposals to the community it affects. Although policies that affect citizens in unfair ways are put forwards, in representative democracy those policies inevitably lead to either total opposition in parliament, undermining of those policy intentions by other political actors, or a change of government. Those same problems can confront policy makers in community organisations.
60
Insofar as community radio takes a community development role, it can also be seen as a political actor for social change that increases access to participation in democracy. Milan (2009) sets out a four-step process by which community media organisations can affect social change. The first entails recognising the role and potential of community media as a social and political empowerment tool. Second is for community media to accurately reflect and promote the needs of the local community via programming and practices. Third is to look for and learn from places where community media is considered a common good and financially and practically has bipartisan support (as it does in Australia and the UK). The fourth step is to turn the social change goals of community media into policy. Policy change at all levels of government, business and community organisations, including media organisations, can affect behavioural and attitudinal change. As already noted, this process is often incremental, thus slow. It occurs at the level of individual and small group collaborations, encounters and interactions with difference, in supportive social spaces that are themselves open to being change. Community radio stations and program-making and broadcasting activities are intended to support this type of social change. This kind of incremental, community driven change can be more accepted and embraced because the wider community has opportunities to build their stakes in change. This research works with this inclusivity and flexibility capacity of community radio to contribute to social change in respect of the human rights of people with disabilities. To see how that change may occur, the next section considers the structural determinants of decision-making in community groups, including community radio organisations, are examined in the next section.
2.4.3 Policy and democracy in civil society organisations Decision-making in organisations is determined largely by the structure of that organisation, although informal relationships also play a part (Miller & Demir, 2007). Organisations can be structured by varying degrees of centralisation on a spectrum from the strictly hierarchical; where decisions are made by one or a group of individuals at the top of the power structure, to diffuse or non-hierarchical decision-
61 making; where decisions are made collaboratively by all the individuals a decision affects (Marquez, 2016). This reflects the ladder and elite-pluralist models discussed in 3.4.2. The structural dimensions of organisations, both as formal legal entities, and informally through the collegial networks of person in them, affect their capacity to change. Organisations with a commitment to democracy, participation and inclusiveness usually have a more equitable power structure and pursue a participatory policy development model and are more amenable to change (Innes & Booher, 2004; Lister, 2007; Michels & De Graaf, 2010). In this section the structural configurations of community broadcasting organisations are examined.
Community radio stations are regulated by legislation at federal and state levels, as well as the sector-wide co-regulation by Codes and individual policies. The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) plays some part in the decisions of media institutions in Australia based on legislation and Codes of Practice, but in general it tends towards a co-regulatory (collaborative) and self-regulatory approach which allows media institutions to make most of their decision independently (Australian Communications and Media Authority, 2011). The ACMA outlines the factor they consider lead to successful co- and self-regulation including: “sound analysis” of the need for regulation; well informed decision-makers; an analysis of the impact of decisions – to which the ACMA applies the “Total Welfare Standard” public interest test; and transparency around decision-making (ACMA 2011, p. 3). ACMA will intervene when self-regulation fails, as is inevitable when the interests of for-profit media organisations and the public interest conflict. The Community Broadcasting Codes of Practice are self-regulating, developed and agreed to by the community broadcasting sector, and registered with the ACMA. They include eight rules for behaviour in the following areas: Responsibilities in broadcasting to meet community interest; Principles of diversity and independence; General programming; Indigenous programming; Australian music; Sponsorship; and Complaint; and when and how the Codes of practice are reviewed. However, complaints about decisions made under the Codes of Practice are acted upon by the ACMA, the ACMA policy poor decisions and breaches of the Codes. While in practice the Codes are mutually agreed rules of conduct for community radio and are non-
62 hierarchical in their development, breaching them can incur censure, advice to change, or even loss of license, a very hierarchal approach to decision-making done ostensibly to protect the public interest. The ACMA remain at the top of the ladder, but it is a ladder that is relatively democratic.
In Australia, many civil society organisations, including community radio stations, are legal entities registered as companies, incorporated associations or cooperatives. Although this requires a hierarchical legal structure with boards and managers at the top, in reality the governance of smaller organisations may lean towards a more participatory and democratic model of decision-making (Meyer & Maier, 2015; Papadopouous & Warin, 2007). Both governments and organisations are seeking more participatory input as a source of legitimacy for their decisions.
The CBAA and community radio stations are civil society organisations comprised of people from the community who come together to act on “common interests” (Anheier, 2005, p. 54). Many theorists, and civil society organisations themselves, have posited the idea that such organisations are a vital part of democracy and encourage political action by members (Talpin, 2012), particularly those that are based on shared values, or are activist organisations (van der Meer & van Ingen, 2009). Certainly, this democratic role has been at the forefront of community radio since its inception. Often conceptualised as “schools of democracy”, civil society organisations can be sites where participants learn how democracy works and how they can affect political change (Meyer & Maier, 2015). The embeddedness of community radio in their diverse communities means they are often social change agents, and often make decisions to further an agenda of community improvement in some way, even though not all of them pursue advocacy. Regardless of the individual activities or campaigns of stations, by permitting public participation, community radio stations are enacting democratic processes. Milan (2009) identifies community media as having a strong role in democratic and participatory change. By giving citizens an opportunity to express their interests and find common ground with others, they are empowered to talk (and act) politically without the constraints of owners, advertisers or sponsors who may be more concerned about their bottom line
63 than giving citizens a voice (Carlsson & Nilsson, 2016; Stein, 1998). Indeed, the role of community access is taken very seriously by the sector, and complaints about lack of access and transparency made by community members has resulted in the ACMA withdrawing broadcast licences.
Before looking at the way in which CSOs contribute to wider social change and policy change, it is important to consider how the structure of those organisations can affect their ability to pursue social change agendas. Indeed, Lavill, Young and Eynaud (2015) suggest that as CSOs become larger they also tend to become more managerial and sometimes less democratic, as they tend to mimic the structure of corporations with “authority…residing in the board, hierarchical control and top-to- bottom accountability” (Lavill et al., 2015, p. 26). However, many CSOs are a complex array of competing values and interests, funding sources and volunteer base that all have legitimate claim to affecting governance. This often prevents to strictly managerial structure because the simple application of a metric of profit to the organisation’s success is simply not applicable (Meyer & Maier, 2015).
In Meyer and Maier’s (2011) study of 16 Austrian CSOs in arts, social services, sport, environment and politics they reported participants observed a cultural shift toward managerialism in their growing organisations that diluted their democratic functions. Participants perceived that volunteers and funding institutions were the main critics of governance and the drivers of change in their organisation. However, many organisations in this study resisted the drive to managerialism with either formal or informal mechanisms for members or volunteers to provide checks on the actions of boards and managers, particularly those that style themselves as civic organisations founded on democracy (Meyer & Maier, 2015, p. 48). The most democratic CSO structure, according to Meyer and Maier’s conception is grassroots governance where decision-making is by consensus; is open and transparent; members, decisions and leaders in the organisation are expected to hold aligned egalitarian values. Absolute non-hierarchical structure with consensus decision-
64 making (such as Indymedia1, the Occupy movement2 or Wikimedia3 employed) has been seen by some critics to have difficulties in function, such as agreement on the direction of the organisation, and limited by size (Jemielniak, 2016). The authors concluded that a structure that permits grassroots input without overt power from above can mitigate those problems, although informal power between individuals based on friendship networks and perceived authoritativeness will always remain (Land & King, 2014).
Bryant and Pozdeev (2014) studied a sub-metropolitan community radio station that was in dire need of more volunteers to fill their on-air time. They conducted a five-year participatory action research study and policy implementation process to increase participation at that station. A review three years later found that the informal power dynamics and vesting of programming power in an unaccountable board led to the dismantling of their attempts at progressive policy change. That station was found to have “continued (to) shift towards hierarchical decision-making and the observable impact of skills shortages within a volunteer board” (p. 141). The researchers concluded that the board’s control of decision- making, without appropriate training in the process and goals of community radio as a social good, was damaging to the interests of the station to “better align the mission of the station” (p. 157) and its obligation to engage its community of interest, as required by the Broadcasting Services Act (1992).
1 A global open-publishing grassroots media digital network arising out of the 1999 Seattle anti-globalisation protests of the World Trade Organisation.
2 A grassroots movement against banks and capitalism that sought to ‘occupy’ public space.
3 A website dedicated to disseminating news and documents obtained by hackers and whistle-blowers in public institutions and corporations.
65
Meyer and Maier note that, “organizations that practice grassroots democracy often aspire to radical societal change”, (p. 49) such as the Occupy Wall Street movement did, a radical democratic movement opposing the power of banks and government over people’s lives (Savio, 2015). Observed social change is not necessarily a metric of success in such organisations, as it takes time for protest to generate alternatives, and as it is generally recognised to be a slow process and movements towards it were considered sufficient in Meyer and Maier’s sample. Land and King (2014) note that many voluntary community organisations are adopting varieties of non-hierarchical structure in response to the failure of “capitalist business enterprise” or managerialist forms of organisation, as those forms are deemed inappropriate for organisations driven by gains for the community as a whole rather than gains for shareholders (p. 923). As community organisations mature, they tend to become more formalised and rule-based, seeking legitimacy and longevity through compliance with government regulations and funding bodies. Some researchers see increasing institutionalisation, and the more formalised decision-making process that accompany it, as a step that decreases the collaborative nature of decision-making in the sector, potentially threatening the open nature of community radio as a genuinely freely constituted public sphere (van Vuuren, 2002, 2006). Anderson in an examination of the changing nature of decision-making at 4ZZZ in Brisbane notes that despite a decrease in collective decision-making, the station remains an open and influential social movement organisation aimed at including marginalised voices (Anderson, 2017).
The representative body of the community radio sector, the CBAA, lies somewhere between civic and grassroots organisations in structure. The goals of the organisation are often decided by voting at Annual General Meetings and board meetings and are meant to be accountable to the members, but more radical egalitarian social change agendas are often welcome. For instance, in 2018 the CBAA held professional development for station managers and volunteers on preventing and dealing with sexual harassment; have women’s, LGBTI and indigenous representatives; and have been open to suggestions by this author regarding a move towards better inclusion of people with disabilities, all elements of an egalitarian
66 agenda progressing human rights. In promoting a social change agenda, community media organisations act also as community development agents, where they can raise awareness of social justice issues in their programming and practices (Milan, 2009). Community media organisations can provide very influential leadership with respect to framing an issue in the minds of the public, and with rising listenership and the perception amongst audiences that community media listens to their concerns, community radio is well placed to influence social change trajectories (Rennie, Spurgeon, & Barraket, 2017; Saeed, 2009).
The decision-making context within the organisation is also important for their wider social change agenda, with some authors identifying “decentralised” (more democratic, less hierarchical) decision-making structures in those organisations that are more successful in their agenda-setting (Klüver, 2012). This may be because of the role that genuine community participation plays in giving the organisation the social license to represent community interests (Couldry, 2015; Pajnik, 2015). Van Vuuren (2005) notes that the more hierarchical and managerial a community media organisation becomes, the less able it is to enact the social change goals of its members.
Supportive institutional culture for listening and power-sharing has been found to be a successful strategy for developing diversity. An Australian study of Human Resources Management practices (Meacham, Cavanagh, Shaw, & Bartram, 2017) found that that “altruistic” values of the organisation particularly that of managers, was key to successful adaptations in the workplace to people with different needs. Studying three hotel workplaces with policy commitment to employing workers with intellectual disability, Meacham et al. found that lived experience of interacting with people with intellectual disability created a culture of acceptance and tolerance of difference. Workplace commitment was high amongst people with intellectual disabilities who had formed strong connections with supervisors who they could turn to for support. Enthusiastic participation was enhanced by the reliable support and “flexible work practices” (p. 1482).
67
The ability of management to listen to the concerns of volunteers can enhance participation in community radio as it does elsewhere. Numerous Australian arts organisations are providing avenues for people with disabilities to participate in creative endeavours by asking them about their needs and adapting policies and procedures accordingly. The 2018 National Arts and Disability Strategy was an Australia-wide inquiry into the experiences of people with disabilities working or volunteering in a variety of arts practices. Although still underway at the time of writing, the inquiry noted that 61% of people with disabilities in Australia participated in arts and cultural activities, but an unrepresentative percentage of 9% of people working in creative industries were people with disabilities, compared to about 20% of the Australian total having a disability (Commonwealth of Australia, 2018a). Although “radio and podcasts” were part of the terms of reference for the inquiry, they found no research supporting the participation of people with disabilities in those areas (Commonwealth of Australia, 2018b). The Australia Council for the Arts (2017) report Making Art Work found that the main barriers to people with disabilities working in the arts sector was the lack of opportunities, financial return and the effect of their health on practice (Throsby & Petetskaya, 2017). The extent to which the current consultation will affect policy or listen to the needs of artists with disability is yet to be revealed.
However, other attempts to listen to the needs of people with disabilities have met with some success in policy changes, the NDIS inquiry being notable. Elsewhere inclusive approaches to disability policy have been tried. In Albania people were enthusiastic about a similar policy process and changes needed, but the actual participation of people with disabilities was adversely impacted by perceptions that government was not responsive to their concerns (Drenofci & Flager, 2014). Drenofci and Flager also found, like Thill (2015), that many people were disempowered by lack of training, family or advocacy support to participate, factors that Fisher and Purcal identified as key to successful policy change (2017).
Studies into the role and structure of NGOs in the policy formulation process give valuable insight into the effectiveness of an NGO such as the Community
68
Broadcasting Association of Australia (CBAA) might have in influencing bigger institutions in the media sector, or government policies. The CBAA has characteristics of both hierarchical and decentralised organisations. In the next section some short case studies of policies existent in the community broadcasting sector indicate the degree to which the sector may already be capable of embracing a comprehensive listening to the voices of people with disabilities for better access.
2.4.4 Policy for inclusion/access/participation in the sector There exists some mechanism for developing the diversity potential of community radio via existing policies and guidelines. Diversity policy general refers to a range of categories of disadvantaged persons, including indigenous, ethnic, disability and other groups. This section looks at the efforts of three organisations of varying size and influence in the sector, who have developed policy to support diversity.
The policies examined here include the Diversity Policy of the peak sector body, the CBAA. The CBAA represents 88% of radio stations nationally (CBAA, 2018a). The Diversity Policy of the RHPA peak body representing several stations and distributing content nationally, is dedicated to delivering reading services to people with vision- impairment and other barriers to print news and cultural content. The third case study is Harvey Community Radio and their Access and Inclusion Policy in Western Australia, a small rural and remote station, who have a record of social inclusion of people with different abilities.
The Community Broadcasting Association of Australia The community television and radio representative body the CBAA clearly set out how they make policy decisions with regard to working with government, prioritising “evidence before undertaking priority setting” and consultation with people with expertise in the sector (CBAA, 2018a, p. 10). The CBAA have supported researchers, for example the 2015 Australian Research Council grant Digital
69 storytelling and co-creative media: the role of community arts and media in propagating and coordinating population-wide creative practice national research project and the publication of a research journal, 3C Media (Woodrow et al., 2015). While the Community Broadcasting Codes of Practice (CBAA, 2008) sets guidelines for the values and actions of the sector, how those codes are operationalised on the ground is dependent on the priorities of individual stations and other sector organisations. The Codes includes a set of principles that can apply to disability as a diversity criterion: vowing to be “inclusive, cohesive and cultural-diverse”, and the enhancement of,
Principles of democracy, access and equity, especially for people and issues not adequately represented in other media. (Section B. ‘Guiding Principles’, Community Broadcasting Codes of Practice, 2008).
Some community broadcasting organisations have augmented and extended the scope of the Community Broadcasting Code and have developed their own individual policies that seek to enhance the diversity of programming and volunteer base. The process by which those policies were developed is not indicated in the grey literature emanating from the sector, but is likely a function of boards, and informed by the direct needs and experiences of their staff and volunteers. Some of these initiatives are discussed in detail below. Project 2 built upon this work at the level of individual organisations by generating a template for an Access and Inclusion Policy to be made available through the CBAA for use by all community broadcasting organisations as template for policy action. Project 2 also addressed the CBAA’s commitment to evidence-based policy because this Template Policy is informed by Pr1 findings and the wider body of scholarship relevant to social inclusion of PWD, Pr2 does not extend to considering how community broadcasting organisations respond to, use, and implement this policy template. As already noted, change at this level can have involve timeframes that are likely to extend well beyond the period of this research.
The CBAA’s Diversity Policy (2016) and other documents demonstrate the primary sector body’s commitment to including diverse and disadvantage groups.
70
While not specific to the inclusion of people with disabilities, the policy mentions “physical abilities” under the banner “diversity” (Section 1, CBAA Diversity Policy, 2016). The CBAA link diversity to “broader perspectives” in decision-making (s2.) and recognise diversity as a “source of competitive advantage” (s2.). They attempt to operationalise the policy through “measureable objectives” (s3.) that could be applied to people with disabilities including “diversity of experience”, “supportive and flexible work practices” and “respect and substantive equality” (s3.). The CBAA also factor into their policy entities that are accountable for the practice of the policy, “The Board”, “The CEO” and the use of “Key Performance Indicators” which could arguably be applied to measures of accessibility within the organisation, and are to be included in the Annual Report with regards to gender equity specifically (s4). Section 5 refers to compliance with state and federal laws, which ostensibly would include the Disability Discrimination Act (1992) and explicitly mentions “discrimination”, which can be inferred to mean gender-based discrimination particularly, as Section 8. Goes on to define “gender equality”. The policy applies to the employees and board of the CBAA (CBAA, 2016). Some of the values enunciated in this policy are operationalised by the CBAAs “Strategy Priorities” described in their Strategic Plan 2015-2018 which includes a review of the Codes of Practice (being undertaken at the time of writing) and providing resources and advice to stations. “Helping stations and their communities find, learn and support each other” (Strategic Priority 2e could ostensibly be applied to connecting to people with disabilities in the community (CBAA, 2014).
Radio Reading network – RPH Australia The Radio for the Print Handicapped (RPH) Australia network have two policies that cover the area of inclusion of people with disabilities in their organisation: RPHA Equal Opportunity Policy (RPHA, 2016) and RPHA Diversity Policy (RPHA, 2017). The first lists broad principles of equality and rights that apply to all employees, lists “disability” as a category of unlawful discrimination and describes sexual harassment and victimisation as a form of discrimination in more detail. The policy indicates ways
71 that staff and volunteers can make complaints but does not operationalise inclusion. RPHAs Diversity Policy is a statement of the commitment of the organisation to respecting and “fostering” diversity, with disability included amongst a list of diversity categories. RPHAs diversity policy is operationalised through the expectation of “respectful communication and cooperation”, “Representation of all groups”, “flexible work schedules” and “employee contributions to the communities we serve to promote a greater understanding and respect”. How these goals are to be acted on in practice is not indicated.
Harvey Community Radio, Western Australia Harvey community radio in Western Australia have an Access and Inclusion Statement and Policy, a brief document that emphasises the stations commitment to “ensure that all citizens have the same opportunities” and a list of diversity categories that include “physical or mental ability”, rather than disability (Harvey Community Radio, n.d). This policy refers particularly to their obligations under five pieces of legislation that provide safeguard against discrimination and recourse for complaint including the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, the Australia Human Rights Commission Act 1986, the Age Discrimination Act 2004, and the Disability Discrimination Act 1992. One of the participants in Pr1 supported a person with disability at Harvey Community Radio.
These three policies represent a hierarchy of influence in the sector, with the CBAA having authority, and accountability, to most of the sector and all of the stations who are members in Australia. The CBAA have influence at a meta- level. It can be expected that the CBAA has accountability built into their policy in the form of identifiable person with responsibility, annual reporting and key performance indicators on diversity. It can be inferred from this document that gender diversity is the key area on which they declare accountability. RPHA and Harvey Community Radio do not specify who is accountable for their policies, but do identify a complaints mechanism that according to the ACMA goes through station managers and boards.
72
All three policies have a something to offer a policy on the inclusion or people with disabilities in the sector. All speak to the spirit of the sector to inclusiveness of diversity and refer to legislation. However, none of these policy documents refer to action plans or similar that operationalise the principles stated in the policies for people with disabilities, or any other diversity category (with the exception of gender in the CBAA policy).
The Community Broadcasting Codes of Practice, from which all diversity and other station policies flow, is subject to regular reviews under the Broadcasting Services Act and is a contested space (van Vuuren, 2008). The notion of diversity, linked as it is with “communities of interest” in the Codes, may make achieving that which represents the diversity of the local community difficult for some stations, particularly those where the dominant group may be relatively culturally homogenous, such as in rural areas. In 2000 indigenous media makers contested the Codes over their need to advocate exclusively for indigenous broadcasters (van Vuuren, 2008). Forde, Meadows and Foxwell (2002a, 2002b) noted that in the early 2000s the majority of people working in the sector were not culturally diverse being primarily of UK heritage, over 30 and with most station managers taking a conservative position on the political spectrum. The majority of stations, in 2002 (when Forde et al. conducted their survey) as today, are in rural areas, many run entirely by volunteers on very small budgets (Forde et al., 2002a).
Lack of diversity in perceptions of the community of interest may go some way to explaining the lack of clear direction in operationalising diversity policies in community radio. Perceptions are limited by awareness, and raising awareness about silent potential communities with latent interests in having a voice in community media can provide opportunities to expand participation and listenership of community radio, while helping bring the sector into phase with the valuing of diversity stated in policy. Policy that includes accountability on measures of inclusion and links to action can be a way to make idealistic policies material. Developing a policy that is explicit in its intentions to better include people with disabilities is the work of Pr2 described in the next section.
73
The application of EST to potential sites of the practice of the researcher is attempted in Chapter Three (see Table 1). Chapter Three considers the methodological implications of the issues canvassed in this chapter for practice-led research. This includes consideration of relevant insights that have emerged from the efforts of frontline practitioners and organisations driving important social and cultural change, but working outside of academic theory.
2.5 Summary and implications
The literature relevant to this research covers a wide field and as such can only be given a brief analysis in the context of this study. However, threads of connection link together trajectories in community media and disability rights in the same direction – towards that of increased listening, respect for difference and the human rights of all. For this research, the existing knowledge indicates that although policy change for better representation of people with disabilities in the media can be a slow process, and can expect to be met with resistance, the outcomes reinforce the democratic values of the sector while empowering those facing disadvantage. The re- enfranchisement of the marginalised has a positive history in community media, and this study adds to that respectable history. How this research went about gathering the data to achieve its goals, is the subject to Chapter Three.
74
Chapter 3: Research projects
3.1 Overview
The research was carried out in two parts. Both projects examined and responded to the community radio experiences of people with disabilities, and their supporters, in Australia. Factors that constrain and enable participation were identified and analysed using a framework developed from Ecological Systems Theory.
Project 1 asked:
What factors empower or are barriers to participation by people with disabilities in community radio?
A thematic analysis of the reflections of interview participants in Pr1 was used to identify what has worked for them. Their experiences were compared to the evidence in the literature on social inclusion and community radio and examined as manifestations of different levels of enabling or constraining structures in the social, political and physical environment in which they worked as community radio volunteers. Their stories were also further examined and documented in the four- part radio series, It’s the Peoples Radio which was submitted as the creative output from this research.
Project 2 used insights from Pr1 to inform a policy template for use by Australian community radio stations. This Project asked:
What are the features of a policy that can empower stations and volunteers to better include people with disabilities?
Both projects, including research methods for each project are detailed in this chapter. This section outlines the particularities of practice-led methodology chosen
75 for this research. Project 2 in particular emanated from specific requests from individuals within the sector for a policy from which to delineate meaningful inclusion.
This chapter describes the methodology (section 3.2) and research design (section 3.3) adopted by this research to understand and accurately convey the experiences of people with disability in the community radio sector and how that experience can inform practice. It looks at the features of the participants of Pr1 and Pr2 (section 4.2), the instruments used in this research (section 4.3), the research procedure (section 4.4), how the data was analysed (section 4.5) and the ethical implications and limitation of this study (section 4.6).
3.2 Methodology
This research aims to answer some questions raised in the practice of the researcher as a community radio producer in a sector dedicated to social action. Project One performed an evidence gathering function and used traditional qualitative survey methods framed in an Ecological Systems Theory analysis. Project Two employed action research features, using the insights of participants from Pr1 to inform its goals and their realisation.
The mixture of methods used in this research requires an explanation of the utility and application of Practice-led research, Ecological Systems Theory and action research in this study. The next three sections discuss features of these research methodologies as tools for research.
3.2.1 Practice as a source of knowledge Practice-led research uses the insights of professional experience to assist in identifying problems and their solutions in practice. It can be described as a kind of reflective action research method used by creative practitioners to explore elements of their practice in a systematic way to help develop that field of practice, just as
76 action research does (Smith & Dean, 2009). Practice itself is a form of research production because, as McIntyre (2012) notes, it seeks to find a solution to a creative problem. As Haseman argues, the creative work (or “performance”) of practice-led research embodies the research findings (Haseman, 2006). The research sought solutions to the problem of inclusion of people with disabilities in community radio, and used a creative work as one element of the embodiment of the research goal of expanding the involvement of people with disabilities in community radio by making the findings accessible to a wide listening audience using the (consensually curated) voices of the research participants.
Community media practice, including the practice of making community radio, often enacts listening to empower marginalised voices in a way that commercial media cannot and individualistic social media often does not (Dreher, 2017). The primary way the community radio sector does this is by inviting people from the community to participate in all aspects of running a community radio station including decision making, representation on boards and in peak bodies, as well supporting production of radio content and seeking out ways of discovering those needs. The principles of open access are embedded in the Community Broadcasting Codes of Practice (CBAA, 2008). The researcher’s professional practice as a radio trainer seeks to further those goals of access by addressing barriers that have arisen during a number of professional practice projects in the local community that have raised issues further afield.
This entire research undertaking stems from the researcher’s practice. For over three years, the researcher worked alongside people with disabilities as a volunteer community radio trainer and co-producer, as well as working as a social worker and counsellor in the disability sector. The researcher worked at community radio 4ZZZ for eighteen years, and with other community groups supporting people with disabilities, mental health and other disadvantage, in Brisbane, Australia. These practice experiences, both as community media maker and trainer, as in an individual and group counselling setting, have encouraged an inclusive mindset that recognises the strengths and relevance of each person’s contribution. These combined
77 experiences require listening with compassion and an attempt at understanding the situation of the speaker, or what Phipps calls listening “with your heart” (1993, p. 8), especially where a persons’ communication style may not be what the listener is used to. As Phipps notes, it requires the listener to move past focusing on a person’s disability, although that is helpful for listeners to know what adjustments to make in their expectations, and then move past their assumptions about capacity they may have learnt, to attend to what the person is attempting to communicate and to check that they have understood correctly. As in all respectful communication, listener adjustments to the content of the speaker are essential to understanding.
These challenges arose in radio training groups sessions held by the Ability Radio Project, where group participants with disabilities indicated a desire to tell their stories because they had not had an opportunity to do so in a non-judgemental setting previously. During these training sessions, people were assisted to create radio content sensitive to their individual needs and interests, resulting in a radio series Voiceability, broadcast on the national Community Radio Network in 2015. The pilot group were particularly influential on the researchers thinking as they raised the issue of access and inclusion for people with disabilities, and their own experiences, during the production of their series. The researcher continues to hold radio production groups with various community organisations in 2019, including people with disabilities and many others including people who are homeless, have mental health issues, are refugees or are otherwise disadvantaged. The productions are made available to participants via CD and the internet, as well as being regularly broadcast on 4ZZZ and Zed Digital, both stations run by Creative Broadcasters in Brisbane where group participants are encouraged to participate at the station if they are able to.
The Ability Radio Project pilot groups brought to the fore problems in the creative practice of local storytelling in community radio that had national implications: namely the low levels of representation and participation of people with disabilities and the need to build capacity in the sector to increase participation by people with disabilities. The research process has therefore been practice-led
78 action, where the researchers’ knowledge of collaborative radio production with people with disabilities has contributed reflective insight into the process. The outputs will contribute to a social change agenda: this exegesis as a theoretical document, a radio production made in consultation with the participants interviewed for this research, and a policy template for use by community radio stations. Practice additional to this research has included facilitation of community-based radio groups, conference presentations, written articles for journals and non-academic publications and compiling resources to assist community radio stations in their inclusion efforts (See Appendix G).
One output of this study is the creation of a radio documentary, a creative practice that uses the voices of the participants to illustrate their community radio stories. The process has some co-creation elements, but also involves considerable curation by the researcher/producer. Co-creation includes a range of more or less participatory and collaborative interactions between an expert practitioner or platform, and someone with less experience or skill who uses that opportunity to create something that may not have arisen without the skills or platform of the other. Co-creation is often used in product development, but also used to describe creative collaborations (Rose, 2017; Spurgeon, 2015). Co-creation differs from other kinds of documentary making because it provides avenues for input and correction of representation, in situations where some participants do not necessarily want to undertake the technical production. It represents a kind of facilitated anti-oppressive practice. For Project One, the participants have first created the content by their interviews, and then been consulted on the use of their recordings and sought for feedback on the documentary to ensure that it accurately represents their community radio stories. Co-creation can represent a more equal power dynamic in creative community media practice than that in the consumer-producer interaction, and provide a critical perspective on the creative work or “story” not necessarily present in commercial platforms (Spurgeon, 2015).
Making radio, like writing, is a form of creative practice that creates new knowledge, listening closely, documenting the experiences, attitudes and opinions of
79 people in an audio format. Gandolfo (2012) describes writing as a form of knowledge creation, rather than a mysterious process that cannot be analysed. She argues that the processes employed by creative practitioners can be rigorously described and evaluated. She argues that, in her own writing, these processes are vital to challenging “dominant narratives of what it means to be” (in her case, a woman), adding a political dimension to the work (Gandolfo, 2012, p. 63).
The realisation of a political intention in the radio production element of this research arises out of the practice of the radio producer and the intentions of the participants: through the traditional qualitative research paradigm, but also the accompanying radio documentary which articulates the problems of participation in the voices of those that are interviewed. The radio documentary thus compliments the exegesis via its power to affect the listener at a more visceral level than the formal exegesis. Using voice also conveys to listeners information about the meaning that media participation has for the participants (which goes beyond their words). For instance, including emotional intonation, emphasis, pause and voice qualities may illustrate their aspects of their lives, in addition to requiring the reader to concentrate on their voices in a different manner to text or video. The radio documentary complements other accessibility measures (plain English summaries, image descriptions) providing multiple possible means for people of varying abilities to access the material, particularly participants in the study with intellectual disability, vision impairment and blindness.
3.2.2 Ecological Systems Theory as a tool for identifying sites for change The voices of people with disabilities in community radio, although not absent, need to be listened to with the intention of improving inclusion. How we can go about creating change for better inclusion demands a thorough analysis of the places where this might effectively occur in the sector. In this research, Ecological Systems Theory (EST; Bronfenbrenner, 1977) was adapted to apply what was learnt through listening and in the literature about factors affecting exclusion and inclusion, to encourage
80 participation at different levels of community radio. EST is well-matched to practice- led research with a social component, because it helps to clarify the multiple levels of a complex social system such as community broadcasting in which practice is located. For this practitioner-researcher it also informed the selection and application of types of skills at different levels of this system: for example, listening through interviews and radio production practice to identify barriers; and the use of an action research response for policy advocacy to translate the insights of listening into a guide to organisational learning and change.
Ecological Systems Theory gained prominence in health and social sciences as a human development model that assists in turning theory into practical interventions by considering a wide range of interacting factors affecting people’s lives, it provides a broad overview of the features of a system but it does not provide specific actions or interventions. EST has its origins during a period in human history where the natural environment was increasingly becoming an object of ethical discussion through realisation of the impact of human actions in causing pollution and impinging on the well-being of humans and other species (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). The framework, initially consisting of four levels (the microsystem, the mesosystem, the exosystem, and the macrosystem) provide an easily understood set of hierarchical categories for identifying possible stressors in an individual’s environment (Onwuegbuzie, Collins, & Frels, 2013). As the level progress from specific (individual) to global (ideologies), the actions of individuals have less influence, requiring broader interventions for changes, such as policy change at organisational, institutional, governmental or global institutional levels to affect change. Onwuegbuzie et al. (2013) assert that research may be mapped onto EST levels as follows:
(a) microresearch studies (i.e., Level 1) as involving research whereby one or more persons, groups, or other living organisms that are studied within his/her/their/its immediate environment[s]; (b) meso-research studies (i.e., Level 2) as involving research whereby one or more persons, groups, or other living organisms are investigated within other systems in which the he/she/they/it spends time; (c) exo-research studies (i.e., Level 3) as involving research whereby one or more persons, groups, or other living organisms are examined within systems by which he/ she/they/it might be
81
influenced but of which he/ she/they/it does not play an active role; and (d) macro-research studies (i.e., Level 4), as involving research whereby one or more persons, groups, or other living organisms are studied within the larger cultural world or society surrounding him/ her/them/it.
The present research is located between meso- and macro-levels, examining the experiences of a group of people within a system that they “spend time” in, but also play a role that may be characterised as more or less active (macro- and exo-). It sits within a wider context of a cultural world that is ableist, but also shows signs of change towards accessibility. Policy interventions, within the description of applied EST provided by Onwuegbuzie et al. are derived by generalisation or “case-to-case transfer” (p. 6) applied at a more general and higher level that attempts to define some common experiences from the participants as thematic coding does. This also locates policy interventions as those that attempt to influence the system at an exo- or macro-level beyond that any individual is able to influence acting alone.
Ecological Systems Theory has been used to identify the factors leading to civic engagement of young people (Warren & Wicks, 2011), marginalised youth (Hope & Spencer, 2017) and poor communities (Ohmer, 2010), to facilitate better civic participation of groups where challenges to participation exist. Interventions to improve educational engagement through culture have been developed using an EST analysis (Lee, Spencer, & Harpalani, 2003), to enhance resilience (Stokols, Lejano, & Hipp, 2013) and pertinent to this research, to affect attitude changes towards people with disabilities in the workplace in conjunction with policy (Fisher & Purcal, 2017).
Ecological Systems Theory attempts to put human development into a social and ideological context by categorising the types of environmental factors that act on a person’s life, from individual factors like age and sex to macro level factors of the social and political system in which that individual lives (See Figure 1; Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Darling, 2007). Its explanatory power lies in the relative stability of the systemic categories, compared to the ever-changing ideological fields explored by critical theory. An analysis using EST incorporates the fields of human thought, attitudes and ideologies in the all-encompassing macrosystem, in
82 recognition of the pervasive influence they have on every other system of human influence. The theory is thus able to combine both scientific and materialistic explanations of the physical world (such as medical and scientific research as part of the exo-, meso- and microsystems, but not more pervasive than that of ideologies), with more philosophical and ethical concepts in the macrosystem.
Macrosystem factors (ideologies and attitudes)
Exosystem factors (industry, social services, medical establishment, mass media)
Mesosystem (neighbours,personal health services, local infrastructure)
Microsystem (family, school, peers, co-workers)
Individual factors (sex, age, health)
Figure 1. Ecological Systems Theory – levels (after Bronfenbrenner 1972)4
Simplican, Leader, Kosciulek and Leahy (2015), using an ecological model, identified factors in the community that enable social inclusion. These included community attitudes and culture as formative of positive attitudes towards people
4 Accessible image description for Figure 1. Levels emanate out from the person in centre: Individual level including, sex, age, health; Microsystem levels including family, school, peers, co-workers; Mesosystem level including neighbours, personal health services, local infrastructure; Exosystem level including industry, social services, medical establishment, politics, mass media; and Macrosystem including ideologies and attitudes of society.
83 with disability. According to Simplican and colleagues, work by advocacy and self- advocacy organisations that assist people with disabilities can lead to change that embraces more diverse notions of ability within organisations. By using the ecological model, shown in Figure 1, the social change practitioner can explore possible sites of action. This model is used as a structuring device for this practice-led research into community radio and disability.
Of particular relevance to this study is work by Fisher and Purcal (2017) that sought to change attitudes towards people with disabilities in the workplace using an EST analysis, policy and education. The authors conducted a meta-analysis of research and policy attempts to address discriminatory attitudes towards people with disabilities globally, much of which was derived from grey literature owing to the non-academic focus of policy. The authors found that policy that mandates behaviour change, in conjunction with increased participation, awareness raising and education were effective attitude change mechanisms. Fisher and Purcal used a three level analysis, in a modified system theory approach. The first intrapersonal level included high level policies that affect behaviour between persons and institutions, such as awareness campaigns, training and “supported opportunities for contact between people with and without disabilities”, using insights from social psychology (p. 163). The second interpersonal level included organisational-level policies, often using rights-based language to empower people with disabilities to self-advocate and make complaints, and including training and awareness raising that uses the language of human diversity and potential akin to that advocated by Scotch and Schriner and others (Scotch & Schriner, 1997). The third level of analysis in Fisher and Purcal study included structural, and attempts to address, in EST terminology, an exo- level of discrimination from influential government agencies that also mandated implementation and evaluation processes. The 2018 Australian government policy requirement that all government agencies create digital accessibility in all their electronic documentation and communication, in line with the Disability Discrimination Act (1992) is an example of such policy.
84
In the setting of the EST model, media content may be seen to affect and influence attitudes towards people with disabilities at the macro-level. Those macro- factors may then impact on people’s lives at every level. For example, impacts may include how individuals are treated when they come into contact with social services (exo-); how they are represented in politics (exo-); how well public transport infrastructure caters to their needs (meso-); and public perception of exclusionary practices and whether to address or ignore them. The model describes relations at the micro- and individual levels where treatment by family and peers interacts with mental health under the weight of all these levels of potentially oppressive forces. Just as there are multiple levels at which media portrayal and representation can affect the lives of people with disabilities, there are many locations in the system that can provide a possible locations for advocacy and self-advocacy to ameliorate those oppressive tendencies.
3.2.3 Action research Project Two of this research employs an action research process related to its claim of competent listening at every stage of the collection of data.
Action research involves a recursive process whereby the researcher plans, tests an assumption or change to practice, reflects upon and then modifies practice based on the findings of the trial in repeated cycles such as that described in Figure 2, although Kemmis et al. (2013) mention that it is “rarely as neat” as diagrams suggest, with steps overlapping.
This conceptual framework, engaging with participants as equals at every step of the process of developing meaning and action, is respectful of the human rights of the participants, and less likely to misrepresent them, providing an emancipatory experience (Kidd & Kral, 2005). It is also appropriate to practice development as it enables practitioners to be flexible about practice by modifying it for the circumstances practice occurs in Kemmis et al. (2013) agree that the engagement of people facing a problem in discussing the features of their problem is “one of the
85 most important things that happens in critical participatory action research” as it begins the journey towards action and change to improve the situation in collaboration (p. 33).
Reflect Plan
Observe Act
Figure 2. A typical action research cycle. After Kemmis, McTaggart & Nixon (2014)5
The features of competent listening as described by Burnside-Lawry (2012) were included in Section 2.2.3. Commitment to collaborative meaning making is crucial to competent listening and requires dialogue between listener and speaker to confirm accuracy. This is also a key practice of action research, whereby the assumptions of the researcher are tested against the insight of participants and modified to reach agreement.
This research project meets the goals of practice-led action research, where a solution is needed to a social justice and creative problem, identified by the
5 Accessible image description for Figure 2: A typical action research cycle includes four steps (represented by arrows in this diagram) labelled “Plan”, “Act”, “Observe” and “Reflect” coming full circle back to planning again.
86 practitioner who works in the field with people with disabilities in a community radio setting. This work, or practice, has given the practitioner insight into the publicly constituted sphere in which the participants already deeply involved. The radio production practice of the researcher is an evolving process for the researcher and participants, as both parties jointly identify a set of goals and negotiate and reflect on what does and does not work. It embraces action research goals of organising that includes flexibility, human connection and authenticity, collaboration and going- with-the-flow that defies a strict agenda, but is creative and generative of new knowledge (Dick, 1999; Kemmis et al., 2014). Co-production is a similar process used in disability research that describes a model of collaborative knowledge creation that respects the human rights of the participants , while co-creation is also a consultative and collaborative creative model described in arts research (Spurgeon, 2015).
3.3 Research design
The design of Pr1 forms the basis for that of Pr2. The first project provides the data that shapes the goals and process of Pr2. Hence the first project listens to and gathers information about the experiences of people with disabilities in community radio, identifying features of participation. While listening is also a part of Pr2, its primary goal is to create and assess the acceptability of a policy framework for change at an organisational level to the people who will be most impacted by that policy change.
87
Problem indentification (planning stage) Problems and opportunites in practice and from the literature
Project 1: Explorative research (action stage) Semi-structured interviews of practioners
Data analysis (observe & reflect stage) Development of audio and exegesis refining data by deep listening and
Making referring back to participants
adjustments to Project 2: (plan stage) outputs based on Development of one avenue of feedback, reflection action commensurate with the timeframe (Policy development)
Data analysis 2 (act & reflect) participants for feedback on draft Pr1 audio documentary; rewriting and clarification of policy Pr2 policy consultation;
Figure 3. Research design Project One and Two
88
3.4 Research design of Project One: listening and analysis within an Ecological Systems Theory framework
Project 1 aimed to lay foundations for increasing participation and self- representation of people with disabilities in Australian community broadcasting. Its starting point was to gather information about the experiences of people with disabilities in community radio in Australia. This was done by obtaining recorded semi-structured interviews (see Appendix C). The interviews were transcribed verbatim and manually coded for themes and analysed to uncover the similarities and differences in the experiences of participants. The overall design of the combined projects is illustrated in Figure 3. Figures 4 and 5 outline the steps of each project.
The analysis in Table 1 attempts to identify which levels at which potential barriers to participation exist and posit some likely actions to provide opportunities. Concepts included under each level are derived from the literature on social inclusion and participation, and informed by practice. The barriers identified from literature and contained in this table also informed the subsequent thematic analysis of interviews from both projects herein.
89
Table 1. Ecological Systems Theory as a tool for locating potential sites of action
EST Levels Actions`
• Macro factors: social attitudes • Challenging –isms to facilitate towards people with disabilities, attitude change; ableism, racism, sexism, • Demonstrating acceptance of homophobia. Individualism vs diversity in actions collectivism • Exo factors: Low levels of • Diversity policy for employment; employment, media • Diversity training for journalists, representation and accuracy of employers, volunteers; media representation of people • Advocacy & mentoring within with disabilities, political will to organisations; assist people with disabilities • Potential government funding • Meso factors: Healthcare • Material assistance through targeted demand, difficulty accessing funding for retro-fitting, support public transport, buildings persons and transport • Micro factors: Unsupportive • Advocacy within organisations; family, parenting, peers with low • Encouraging self-advocacy activities; expectations, lack of educational • Prioritising community media opportunities training for people with disabilities • Individual factors: Gender identity, skin colour, ethnicity, • Flexibility around timetabling; indigeneity, day to day functional • Intersectional understanding of difficulties, mental and physical individuals needs case-by-case; health factors (which can also be • Recognition of structural impacts on experienced as prejudicial individuals stereotypes at the Macro-level)
90
3.5 Research design Project Two: action research to develop policy
Project 2 used the insights provided by participants in Pr1, and those from relevant literature, to provide an action-oriented template for station policy. The hypothesis that policy was an appropriate mechanism for creating social and cultural change within the sector arose from the EST analysis in
Action research was an appropriate method for Pr2 because the hypothesis that arose out of Pr1 required being verified and modified to meet the needs of participants who were people most likely to be impacted by that policy in operation: people with disabilities and people working at and organising level in CR stations.
3.6 Methods
Project One asked PWDs about barriers and enablers to participation in community radio; coded transcripts of interviews for themes; also used recorded interviews to create 4 part radio documentary It’s the People’s Radio.
Project Two arose from the sites of intervention identified with EST in Project One; Case studies and EST analysis informed the draft Disability Access and Inclusion Policy; asked people to comment on the policy; used those insights to improve template policy for the sector
3.6.1 Project One methods Project One used a semi-structured interview to help discuss the participants experiences as a person with disability working in the sector.
Interviews were transcribed and processed with NVivo (QSR International, 2012) qualitative research software to assist in the identification of themes. During
91 the same time period, the audio from interviews were edited to identify statements that best represented the experience of the participant. Participants were sent both the audio excerpts and the written thematic analysis for comment and to confirm that the selected parts did indeed represent their experience. Listening to the interviews repeatedly, editing them and searching them in NVivo provided reinforcement of the topics discussed and provided opportunities for deep listening by the researcher. Responses from participants confirmed the validity of the interpretations. The final radio production was distributed to participants in mid- 2018, and formally distributed via the Community Radio Network on Dec 3, 2018 to coincide with the United Nations International Day for People with a Disability.
Figure 4 shows the step taken in the collection and processing of data in Pr1.
Development of Sent draft findings and literature, research Refinement of coded audio excerpts to themes during radio questions, participants for production development instruments, ethics comment application
Advertisment for Writing first draft of Feedback received from participants (65 findings, editig audio for participants - radio approached) radio production production changed
Second coding of data Second round of Draft exegesis further and selection of advertising (19 developed and elements for radio submitted to QUT respondents) production
Final exegesis and Interviews conducted: by Transcribing of data, production to be phone (Sa, VIC, WA, coding of data by close released to participants Regional QLD & WA) and in person (QLD & NSW reading and NVivo11 and CR sector upon release from QUT
Figure 4. Project One activities
92
3.6.2 Project Two methods Project Two used semi-structured interviews to talk about a draft policy that was circulated to the participants a week prior to the interview.
The draft policy used in Pr2 was compiled from the three policies used as case studies in the literature review in section 2.2.8 to best describe the sentiments of the sector in a form commonly used. Participants from Pr1 were approached to participate, as well as others from the sector that may be impacted by the use and application of policy.
Figure 5 shows the step taken in the collection and processing of data in Pr2.
Research questions, Transcribing of data, Writing first draft of instruments, ethics coding of data by close findings (September reading and NVivo11 application developed 2018) (May-July 2018) (September 2018)
Literature from Project 1 further Interviews conducted: Draft exegesis further by phone (VIC & NSW) developed and developed (May- and in person (QLD) submitted to QUT Sept 2018)
Recruitment by direct targeting of Second round of stakeholder recruitment (August individuals and orgs 2018) (May 2018)
Figure 5. Project Two activities
3.7 Participants
A total of 19 people were interviewed by the researcher for Pr1, nine of which were invited to participate in Pr2. People with disability numbered 15 in Pr1, four in Pr2. This small sample size may represent the relative lack of people with disabilities
93 in the sector or the possibility that people with disabilities are not identified as such by their organisation. Details of participants in Pr1 and Pr2 are laid out in the tables 2 and 3 below.
Project 1 intended to interview people with disabilities, and those with experience facilitating participation of people with disabilities. No support workers or staff were present during any interviews. However two mothers of young men on the autism spectrum were interviewed, instead of their children. One of these young people was underage, and the other was deemed less able to participate in a phone interview by his parent. Both of these parents supported their children’s participation in community radio, were trained producers, and one of these parents was also a person with disability. Three participants in Pr1 were not directly interviewed. Instead, they agreed that their contributions would be a public talk (at the CBAA conference in 2016) about their experience of the inclusion of people with disabilities at their station being recorded and included in the interview material gathered for Pr1. Demographic information for participants in Pr1 are available in table 2.
In order to allow the discussions in Pr1 to inform Pr2, all the participants from Pr1 were asked to participate in Pr2. Two participants in Pr2 had participated in Pr1 interviews. Other participants in Pr2 were targeted because of their experience in policy, management or participation in the community radio sector. Four identified as people with disabilities, three of whom had vision-impairment or blindness, one with cerebral palsy. Four participants in Pr2 identified as people with disabilities. Seven worked in positions of authority in the sector, namely as representative so the CMTO, CBF and CBAA, as well as a station manager and two board members. Thirty- three possible participants were identified and contacted by email and telephone. A second round of recruitment occurred due to a low response rate to the first. One participant chose to be anonymous. See Table 3 for Pr2 participants.
94
3.7.1 Study setting Interviews were conducted by phone or in person. As most participants were not located in the same city as the researcher this meant that most of the interviews were conducted by telephone, where the participants were either at home or in the radio station at which their worked, this was their decision. The research was national in scope, with participants from Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia, and Western Australia.
It was possible to interview in person, nine participants in Pr1, and three participants in Pr2. These participants were met by the researcher at a location of their choice, with the researcher travelling to the locations of some participants to lighten the burden of participation on interviewees. These interviews took place is a variety of locations including a training room at a disability service organisation, in a community radio studio, and at a café.
95
Table 2. Demographic Statistics for Participants in Project One
Note. One participant from Project 1 wished to remain anonymous
Experience (in Participants M/F Location Age Disability disclosed years)
P1 M QLD 40s 4 Vision impairment
P2 F QLD 30s 15 Mobility related
P3 F QLD 30s 4 Not disclosed
P4 F QLD 30s 2 Intellectual disability
P5 F QLD 40s 20 Parkinson’s
P6 M SA 30s 15 Cerebral palsy/vision impairment
P7 F NSW 40s 0.5 Autism spectrum
P8 F NSW > 20 0.5 Autism spectrum
P9 F NSW 20s 1 Not disclosed
P10 M QLD 40s 2 Mobility/Intellectual disability
P11 F VIC 40s 15 Not disclosed
P12 M QLD 30s 2 Intellectual disability
P13 M QLD 20s 2 Intellectual disability
P14 M QLD 40s 19 Vision impairment
P15 M SA 40s 20 Cerebral palsy
P16 F NSW 20s 4 No disability
P17 F NSW 20s 4 No disability
P18 F QLD 50s 20 No disability
P19 F NSW 30s 4 No disability
96
Table 3. Demographic Statistics for Participants in Project Two
Note. One participant from Project 2 wished to remain anonymous, all others gave consent to be named.
Participant M/F Location Experience Disability disclosed
Producer, board member, IT Paul Price M QLD Vision-impairment consultant, 4RPH
Producer, board member 4RPH, Vision-impairment, Steve Richardson M QLD Former board member RPHA mobility issues
Community radio producer, Elizabeth Ralph F QLD Cerebral palsy 4ZZZ
Station manager, 4ZZZ Grace Pashley F QLD Former producer & social media Not disclosed manager, 4ZZZ
Holly Friedlander- Member services, marketing F VIC Not disclosed Liddicoat and engagement, CBAA
Former program facilitator, Catherine Maitland F NSW Not disclosed Making Airwaves
Jo Curtin F VIC Executive officer, CBF Not disclosed
Giordana Caputo F NSW Chief executive officer, CMTO Not disclosed
P9 M N/A Not disclosed Vision-impairment
3.8 Instruments
Both projects employed a semi-structured interview questionnaire (See Appendix F). Using policy examples existing within the sector (those described in section 3.5.3), a draft policy was developed for discussion in Pr2 (see Appendix E).
3.9 Procedure and timeline
3.9.1 Recruitment All but one of the participants in Pr1 and Pr2 responded to an invitation to participate distributed through community radio stations and disability support
97 networks throughout Australia by email in late 2016 to early 2017 for Pr1 and early 2018 for Pr2. The invitation included a plain English hand out, information sheets and consent forms (see Appendices C-F). The sample in both Projects was self-selecting or referred on by community radio organisations. Table 4 outlines the timeline of the research.
3.9.2 Timeline Table 4. Timeline for Projects One and Two
Project 1 dates Activities
Feb - Aug 2016 Initial literature review, ethics applications, and research plan developed
Nov 2016 Recording of CBAA panel Aug 2016 – Feb 2017 Recruitment period Feb – June 2017 Interviewing and transcribing Jun – Oct 2017 Data analysis & development of radio documentary Jun - Oct 2017 Write up Aug – Nov 2018 Feedback on radio documentary and changes made
Aug – Nov 2017 Editing Pr1 exegesis and radio documentary
Nov 2017 Submission of Pr1
Project 2 dates Feb 2018 – May 2018 Research plan dev, ethics update, add to literature May – Jun 2018 Interviews and transcribing Jun – Sept 2018 Data analysis & adjustments to policy document Sept-Nov 2018 Synthesis of Pr1 and Pr2 into final exegesis 30 Nov 2018 Submission
98
3.9.3 Data collection Data collection in Pr1 occurred at a forum on disability and community radio on November 15, 2016 (at the Community Broadcasting Association conference Melbourne, 2016) as well as during separate interviews. A semi-structured interview with seven questions was distributed to participants prior to interviews (See Appendix F). Interviews were conducted over a seven month period to June 2017. Interviews took between 20 minutes and 1.5 hours. Participants were invited to contact the researcher for a second interview if there was more they wanted to say.
Audio recordings of interviews and presentations were made available to the participants so that they could review of their own contributions to the documentary that is part of Pr1. While the researcher attempted fair and judicious editing to accurately represent the views of the participants in the audio production, feedback was also sought. Participants were offered the recordings via email, or CD. Overall feedback was positive, with one participant reporting she was “moved to tears” (Elisha) by listening to the stories of other participants. Only one participant required changes to their contributions for accuracy. Feedback was used to modify the documentary element to the satisfaction of participants. In this research in-person co-production was not possible due to time and distance constraints. However, for those participants with high digital literacy, collaboration by email was possible and effective.
In two cases the researcher called the participants to set up meeting time to listen to their contributions together, where low digital and textual literacy may have been an issue. Within the timeframe and the available studio time, neither participant was available for an extended period to co-edit. Those participants were well known to the researcher and had participated in radio recording groups for up to a year previously, building up a relationship of trust. On reflection, a more hands- on approach to production with those participants, such as co-listening and editing would be a preferred approach. In using co-listening and facilitated editing on other occasions outside the research, the practitioner-researcher has quickly achieved unanimity with the co-producer.
99
Data collection in Pr2 occurred solely during interviews and was audio recorded. Duration varied between 20 minutes and 1.5 hours. Interviews for Pr2 were conducted and questionnaires collected between May-August 2018. Flexibility in modes of response was offered to make participation more accessible. Participants were offered to be interviewed in person or by telephone, or by emailing written responses to question.
3.10 Analysis
Transcripts were made of recordings in both projects. Transcripts were entered into NVivo for easy of searching and coding. However, NVivo auto-coding function was not used, and all transcripts were hand coded by the researcher.
In Pr1 themes were derived from a first listening of the recorded data, then refined in two further readings of the transcripts. Transcripts were open coded line- by-line and findings stored in NVivo. Further refinement of themes in Pr1 occurred through close listening to audio recordings during the making of the documentary. Input from participants as described above, also informed the analysis. NVivo enabled quick counting of the number of occurrences of topics and words, and examination of the section of text relevant to themes across all the data, although the selection of those themes and the constructed codes derived from data and literature were taken from the data directly, literally, and deductively. NVivo, however, was useful for searching the data and in finding direct quotes for the subsequent documentary production.
Project 2 also used transcripts to examine themes in the Q1, collating this information in NVivo, however, most of the interview content related to changes suggested to the draft policy document and these were coded as such. Changes to the draft policy document were collated into nodes separately from the personal anecdote portion of the interview and outlined in the Results chapter.
100
3.11 Ethics and limitations
This research falls under a designated chapter of the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (hereafter referred to as the National Statement), as some of the participants were people with an intellectual disability or a mental illness, although most do not (S4.5; NHRMC, 2007).
Respectful informed consent was the goal for all participants. However specific problems may arise when working with people with a cognitive impairment regarding assuring consent, informed decision-making, power imbalance and mitigating risk. In addition, the researcher had an ongoing relationship with many of the research participants as members of a radio production group and colleagues from the sector. While this familiarity led to some candid comments, it also introduced a possible power imbalance, which the researcher needed to be aware of and mitigate as much as possible by checking of understanding and giving multiple opportunities to withdraw or rethink comments.
The International Association for the Scientific Study of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (IASSID) takes the view that people with intellectual can give consent in many cases (Dalton & McVilly, 2004). A 2003 survey of 150 people with intellectual disability (Iacono & Murray, 2003, as cited in Iacono, 2006) found that judgments about a person’s capacity to make informed consent for research could be made by talking to support staff who knew the individuals well. However, most of the individuals with cognitive difference interviewed were well known to the researcher, who had worked with them on radio projects for up to two years. The two parents who contributed to Pr2 did so on behalf of their children, as guardians. One of those children was underage.
Informed consent was achieved from participants with consideration of their varying abilities. The process included include reiteration of consent issues and checking for understanding. For example, reminders of who will listen to audio recordings were made when necessary, and the feedback process for the audio production allowed participants to check that the content did not misrepresent their meaning.
101
In addition, the recording of audio for research data collection or radio broadcast presents different problems. The confidentiality issues for the wider project were addressed using an illustrated consent form that is explained by and with support persons and/or participants and reiterated frequently (see Appendix C) [Pr1] and Appendix D [Pr2]). This is commensurate with the requirement in S2, 2.2.3 of the National Statement that: “information must be presented in ways suitable to each participant”. This applied to all participants, regardless of their capacity.
Informed consent was achieved with every participant, in the way most accessible to them: using verbal explanation, pictures and text to explain the research goals. This is commensurate with S2, 2.2.4 of the National Statement, as it aims to reach a “mutual understanding” and engage in dialogue with the participants. An information sheet for participants and consent form appears in Appendices C and D.
The contributions of people with disabilities to the development of the policy discussion in this research has been critical to both projects and could not have occurred without their contributions. Ethical issues particular to Pr2 related to the low number or participants surveyed for this research and the need for long lead times and facilitation to allow more participants to have a say in policy development. Due to the short timeframe available, more contributions from people who would be impacted by this policy was not possible. However, the ongoing practice of the researcher, and the open-ended nature of a policy template means that the outcome is not definitive or reduced to the participants available in this study. It is expected that further opportunities for people with disabilities to contribute to policy work in the community radio sector will be pursued by the researcher in future studies.
One of the limitations of the research process was the co-creation of the audio documentary in Pr1, which ideally would have been more participatory. Participants were sent the edited audio by email and CD, for their feedback, and this worked well for those with high digital literacy. The researchers preferred manner of co-creation, which has worked well in other situations, is co-editing and joint decision-making about the content. This was not possible given the distances and timeframes available.
102
Efforts to make research documents and processes accessible is vital to research involving people with disabilities. Documents were adjusted from Pr1 using the guidelines of The Roundtable on Information Access (Round Table on Information Access for People with Print Disabilites Inc., 2011). The Roundtable sets out the requirements for documents that maximises ease of navigation, consistent and logical readability, spacing requirements, and image requirements to increase legibility for a range of capacities including people with low-vision, blindness, colour blindness, learning and intellectual disability and low literacy.
This exegesis has also been written with the assistance of the Vision Australia Document Accessibility Toolbar (Vision Australia, 2018) add-on for Microsoft Word that facilitates the production of a screen reader-accessible document. A plain English version of some documents have been created, in addition to the radio production element, proving a number of ways people can access the content.
3.12 Conclusion
This research has used interviewing and radio production practice, an ecological systems analysis and action research methods to explore the experiences of participants with the intention of increasing participation of people with disabilities in the sector. The tripartite nature of the research methods used in this research allowed the full utilisation of the insights of the community radio producers to be represented in their preferred medium, while attempting to be academically rigorous and planning a course of action for social change. The insights of the practitioners of community radio, both participants and researcher, are particularly appropriate for their knowledge of the sector under analysis and their passion for its development in alignment of the sectors own values and goals.
103
104
Chapter 4: Results
This research used listening, an EST analysis and action research process to develop the data described here. Project One, describing the experience of community radio producers with disability and their allies, is important background that informed the work of Pr2, a policy draft to facilitate organisational accessibility changes.
Section 4.1 describes how the data was derived from transcripts of interviews and repeated listening to the audio during radio production. The themes derived indicate the participant’s insights about what has worked well to facilitate their participation, and difficulties they have experienced (sections 4.1.1 to 4.1.6). It also describes some of the insights of non-disabled allies in the sector, many of whom were in positions to facilitate access (Pr1). Participants had both positive and negative experiences of their participation, insights into accessibility, attitudinal concerns, concerns about the quality of their on-air sound, and insights into factors that facilitated their participation or hindered it.
Section 4.1 also describes how the insights of participants in Pr2 informed a draft policy template, and the role that listening played in making and modifying that policy in alignment with the input of people with disabilities and others who participated in the Pr2. The discussion with participants was wide ranging and incorporated personal stories of inclusion and exclusion, discussion of the legal obligations of organisations to create the conditions for participation, their perceptions of social change in the sector, and their comments on the policy template. Themes that emerged from the data in Pr2 are discussed in sections 4.2.1 to 4.2.5. The template policy in its modified form appears in section 4.2.5. 4.1 Project One – Surveying the experiences of people with disabilities in community radio in Australia
Nineteen participant recordings were transcribed verbatim for thematic analysis. Sixteen were people with disabilities, three were other radio producers who facilitated radio training groups in the community. The features of participants in Pr1 appears in Table 2 below. Eighteen Pr2 participants gave consent to be named. One participant from Pr1 wished to remain anonymous.
4.1.1 Themes in the experiences of radio producers with disabilities Themes are identified in qualitative research by examining data (inductive) and interpreting data (deductive) means (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006). Themes should come from the data, however they are prefaced in the researchers mind by the relevant literature. The “vernacular” or common-sense interpretation of the meaning of someone’s experiences can be considered valid sources of knowledge, particularly when attempting to understand the experiences of others who may not have academic training (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006; McLaughlin, 1996).
In this research themes were identified in the data by noting similarities of the reported experiences and impressions of the participants. During the transcribing and coding of the interview data this meant looking for similar word use, phrases, or concepts between participants that are salient to the topic of research (Saldana, 2016). Further analysis of the accuracy of the themes occurred during the feedback stage, where participants were offered the opportunity to modify or comment on their input.
The themes themselves are not all taken directly from the data verbatim, but concepts that participants talked about in common during the interviews, without necessarily naming them. For instance, the theme “Attitude”: the word itself was mentioned 23 times, but the concept of people’s attitudes included other phrases and words including assumptions, attitudes, attitudinal, care, encourage, expectation, inclusive, supportive, problem and helpful (more than 300 mentions in
106 total) which increases the likelihood that the concept of “attitudes” was a theme. Although there were many mentions referring to the concept of attitudes, many of those words occurred together, repeatedly by single participants, or not at all, so that mentions of individual words does not exactly reflect numbers of mentions of the concept. Identifying codes thus relies on the interpretation of the coder (Saldana, 2016, p. 4). For instance “The station girls and Janine, the manager, were just amazing. They were very, very supportive right from the very beginning” (Carol). This excerpt speaks about the attitudes of the volunteers mentioned, although the speaker does not use that word.
Five themes were thus identified from the data for concepts: accessibility concerns, attitudinal concerns, audience/listener concerns, factors that helped or hindered their involvement, and the importance of having a voice. Importantly, the frequency of a theme’s mention was an ambiguous indication of the salience of that theme to participants. By way of explanation, three participants retold stories of bad experiences, where they felt powerless or blocked by the power of others to decide if and how they could participate in community radio, insights that became part of the theme of attitudes. The stories also related very diverse experiences in understanding their difficulties in working (or no longer working) in a community radio environment. Telling their bad experience story comprised most of the interview for one of those participants and was about an incident that resulted in ceasing participation in community radio. For the other two, the bad experience stories were starting points. They went on to talk about how they persevered. One participant went on to recount how they continued to be involved in community radio for twenty years, and used the opportunity to speak about how he used this experience to build his resilience for dealing with attitudinal barriers. These examples illustrate the complexity of coding that necessarily relies on inference and interpretation, and while on the surface may appear subjective, can be verified by listening carefully to the message participants are sending, and confirming that validity of that interpretation by checking back with participants referring to specific statements by the participants. This was achieved by giving excerpts of audio recorded interviews to them, in conjunction with an early draft of this thematic
107 analysis. The choice of themes and specific quotes used herein have not been changed in future edits of this document, they represent the understanding reached between researcher and participants in affirming the meaning of those statements.
4.1.2 Accessibility concerns Accessibility is an ongoing issue for people with disabilities in this sample attempting to participate in public life, including community radio. Accessibility is also multi-dimensional. Physical access to buildings was an ongoing problem for those participants with mobility issues. Finding accessible technology was another issue, particularly for those with vision-impairments. The attitudes of other volunteers towards participants, and the impact of these attitudes on participants’ self- confidence, emerged as a ubiquitous constraint on the accessibility of community broadcasting to almost all participants and was also treated as another theme to emerge from the research.
For people who had mobility issues, many community radio stations may be physically difficult to access. Certainly this was the case for some of the participants, with eight participants citing difficulties accessing buildings, for themselves or people they supported. Stairs were the most often cited obstacles to access. Other physical building issues included width of doors, lack of ramps, lack of disability parking and slippery tiles. Scott was a long-term volunteer at an Adelaide radio station, who has cerebral palsy, he took issue with the quality of surfaces in buildings he accesses, with good humour; “Don’t make the entrance like It’s a Knockout where there’s uneven ground, potential trip hazards, or whatever…” (Scott).
Bernadette, a young woman without a disability who assisted people with disabilities to participate in the ABCs Community Correspondent program, but who had volunteered at a station in Brisbane station before getting a job at the ABC said:
You need to make it accessible before they join... I remember when I started at [station X], I don’t know if it was the whole studio, but at least the toilets weren’t accessible via wheelchair. Of course you’re not going
108
to get any volunteers of people who use wheelchairs, because they can’t use the toilet in the station! (Bernadette).
Helen, a long-term volunteer who organises an annual Disability Day broadcast at a Melbourne station and is a person with disability, said that the station had made adaptations to improve physical accessibility. She said they found a solution to accessibility by having some meetings off site and noted the station had made many small changes to enhance accessibility, including adapting technology, arranging an assisted entry doorbell system and modifying bannisters to assist people with disabilities to access- what she describes as “a 19th century house in Fitzroy”. Helen said the station was able to find funding for an accessibility audit that helped them identify changes they needed to make to the building.
Helen also cited ways that her station had adapted existing technology for volunteers with vision-impairment:
…we have programmers with no sight, or low vision, who do their own panelling … we’ve got technology that suits them in place and they’ve become familiar with it. I think we’re able to make most adjustments (Helen).
Accessibility was also impacted by the helpfulness of people at the station. Good communication was identified as important by four participants, who referred to the need for stations to make all volunteers aware of the processes for making adjustments for including a volunteer with disability. One participant cited communication failure as the cause of escalating conflict with a less accommodating volunteer and that resulted in the research participant’s eventual retirement from volunteering.
The issue of attitudes and accessibility was discussed further in theme two, as there was overlap between physical and social inclusion at the station and the attitudes of others.
…we found quite a lot of it was around the communication stuff, just simple things like putting the doorbell and a sign at the doors where
109
there wasn’t access so people knew that the doorbell rings, go and open it and give that person assistance (Helen).
Technology access was an issue for those with vision impairments in particular, but as Paul noted, one that is easily overcome. Paul, who has an Information Technology degree and is a long-term volunteer, who is also blind, advised that studios avoid touchscreens and digital readouts when making new technology purchase decisions, and that software is available that is purpose-built to be accessible:
We have a special program called Studio Recorder which was produced by the American Printing House for the Blind, specifically designed for voice recording, and designed … But that’s the main thing: just all the equipment, and having the support around from other producers as well to assist when we had issues or wanted to know things (Paul).
For some participants the accessibility of technology and volunteer opportunities came down to the presence or absence of someone willing to help regularly. Alex, a radio group participant who is blind, had done work experience at many stations, but not be able to enter a volunteering role or do training at any stations he had approached:
And I didn’t do a lot of, I didn’t do much, I didn’t do any panelling. They just got me to sit and listen to what’s happening. ‘Cause apparently you have to do a radio course to be able to do other things at the station (Alex).
Caroline, non-disabled social worker and facilitator of a Sydney based radio group recognised the problem participants of her group had in gaining a volunteering role at a station:
A lot of the people that do our program then try to go on and volunteer at community radio stations. And they are often met with a lot of resistance, because when they are with us, they have support workers and they can help (Caroline).
110
Participants generally attributed attitudinal problems of access to a lack of understanding about the challenges of access for people with disabilities. Danny volunteers in multiple roles in the disability sector, and is a wheelchair user, but experiences misunderstanding from the public “…people don’t know how hard it is until they actually sit in a [wheel] chair and find out for themselves. It’s very hard.” (Danny).
Two participants with disability noted the part played by the sound qualities of the voices of some people with disabilities in gaining access to the airwaves. Helen advocated for more variety of voices:
I think often for people with disability there’s just that barrier that’s there of saying, I’m interesting, I’ve got something to talk about. It might take me a little bit longer to talk to you about it. Sometimes it’s not always snappy, ready for radio conversation (Helen).
Scott spoke of some concerns about the reception of his own voice, the clarity of which is sometimes impacted by his cerebral palsy: Not everyone with a disability has the confidence and mystique because it’s always in the back of their mind - and it’s always in the back of my mind for about 22 years - are they going to understand what I’ve said? Do I speak clearly enough to be understood? (Scott).
4.1.3 Attitudinal concerns Every participant raised the issue of the attitudes of others, both positive and inclusive, or negative and not helpful, to their full participation in community radio. Some praised the inclusive and helpful attitudes of station volunteers. Carol spoke about the experience of her son, who is on the autism spectrum:
The station girls and Janine, the manager, were just amazing. They were very, very supportive right from the very beginning.…very engaging, very positive …I mean Jesse’s journey from beginning to training him alone was 18 months, that’s a big ask of someone to rock up every week and volunteer two hours of their time and commit to that. …we couldn’t have done it without them (Carol).
111
Elisha, a young woman who had volunteered in both community radio and the ABC, and an intermittent wheelchair user who suffers a neurological condition that can affect her mobility, mood and cognition, appreciated the consideration given for her different needs and idiosyncrasies:
Changing attitudes is the first step and [my radio station] have certainly embraced that especially with me and others like me. Understanding that my needs are different. …they are quite comfortable with the fact that I may turn up in my pyjamas (laughs) (Elisha).
Some participants initially met difficulties but persevered to find a place where they were more open to the challenges of accommodating different needs. Catherine and Caroline are both educators (and non-disabled persons) who facilitated radio production groups with people with disabilities said:
I looked around and I found a couple of radio stations in Sydney that did offer training courses. The first one I investigated they said, “Oh no, no, no, it’s pretty mainstream, he’d have to be able to keep up.” So I discounted that one. The second one was 2SER…and they invited us to come in and have a chat (Catherine).
The attitude can sort of be that a person with a disability might be a bit of a burden because it can take up a volunteer’s time or a staff member’s time and there just isn’t enough of that as it is …If it wasn’t for [my radio station] we wouldn’t have a program (Caroline).
Some participants experienced difficulties with other people at their station whose attitudes impacted their participation. Darren, a long-term volunteer at an Adelaide station and a person with disability including blindness, says he waited three years to access training:
This manager I’d ask, “when are you going to start training me so I can do a program of some sort?” She’d say “when I get time”. In some way it seems she's holding me back (Darren).
112
Scott, who has cerebral palsy that sometimes effects his speech, experienced teasing from an interviewee because of his speech difficulties:
You do get people who, um, pick up on the fact, yeah , that you’re trying to speak slower or clearer, I mean. [A well-known musician] 6 and his wife …They actually took the mickey out of the way I was talking…they kind of like mimicked a couple of things I said and you could just tell what was going over so, …it ails me to this day. I wish I’d said “you know what, who do you think you’re talking to?” (Scott).
Despite such experiences, Scott has been volunteering at his station for two decades.
The two young men who experienced sensory issues as a result of autism had divergent experiences of the attitudes of other volunteers towards their need for adjustments to cater for their particular needs. Jesse’s mother Carol reported that the other volunteers were very accommodating to adapting their training for Jesse who had begun learning radio as a teenager. The volunteers spent many months helping Jesse to learn the technology and produce his own show independently.
Jodie, a volunteer at a regional station and a young mother with anxiety, said her twelve-year-old son experienced difficulties in loud environments and anxiety attributed to his autism. After six months of volunteering, they felt they had to stop attending the station after another volunteer refused to change their behaviour to accommodate her son’s needs. Jodie stated, “Unfortunately towards the end of it I had to pull [son’s name] out of the radio, which was bad because [he] loved it and he was doing so well.”
6 My [brackets] added for anonymity
113
However, Jodie’s experience of other volunteers at the same station was good. Despite problems with one volunteer who expressed prejudicial attitudes, Jodie felt the station was very accommodating, and had been inclusive from the start, especially on the part of the station manager:
I got a phone call from the radio station… and he said “now look, I’ve been talking with another staff member, and we were wanting to know if you would consider … letting him be trained as a radio presenter?” (Jodie).
Helen, was able to initiate an International Disability Day at her progressive metropolitan station, which has continued annually for over a decade. She noted how learning about disability and positive attitude changes impacted the other volunteers, and that the ways people had learned to consider and talk about disability were constantly evolving. She noted that disability had conceptually shifted from a medical condition to a group identity, and with that language had to change:
There were people who, I think because of the politics of [the station] who had kind of schooled themselves to treat people with disability as no different from absolutely everybody else, and so to some extent were a bit taken aback when suddenly it became an identity that we were talking about. Um, and so I think some people weren’t really sure whether they had permission to talk about disability and how to talk about disability at all and what words were ok to use (Helen).
I think in terms of social issues it’s still a learning curve and the learning can only occur with both sides, the blind and the sighted, talking about what’s separating them (Anonymous).
The attitudes of others were important determinants of the quality of their community radio experience for people in this study. This was taken up further in the consideration of factors that facilitated involvement, in section 4.1.5.
114
4.1.4 Audience/Listener concerns Participants were aware of the need to make their radio presence engaging to listeners, but at the same time some sought to “push the boundaries” of what they broadcast, especially where it concerns people whose disability affects the clarity or speed of their voice:
I get quite passionate about … pushing the boundaries of the kind of voices that you can have on radio …some people will draw a line because somebody has a voice that might be difficult to listen to on air and a voice that they are not used to listening to … but I’ve found that that’s probably where we get into debate about whether somebody can be on air and how and I feel quite passionately that people should not be disenfranchised if there is a way to enable them to be heard (Helen).
And there are times where your mind is quicker than your mouth, your mouth has to catch up Sometimes you end up having to catch yourself or sort it out, just be more articulate in your communications. …On radio, if I build up a listenership, people get used to you, your style of humour (Scott). The importance of balancing clarity of voice and expression with providing an authentic experience of a person’s voice for the listener was a concern for Caroline, a facilitator of the Making Airwaves group that included people with disabilities:
I can’t let slide that it’s also a radio program and we have listeners and what they might find interesting might vary from what the participants might want to talk about! … it would be really great to focus on both, to be able to fulfil the listeners wants and fill a gap in the community radio sector, which is people living with a disability sharing their stories, and I think that’s what people want to hear, so I think it’s a mixture of both now (Caroline).
4.1.5 Factors that facilitated involvement Most participants experienced one or more helpful person who listened to their needs and facilitated their involvement in the station. These key persons were often trainers, managers or long-term volunteers.
115
The station girls and Janine [the station manager] 7 …He started with 2 trainers from Harvey Community Radio, who were both very active within the station themselves (Carol).
Luckily Eastside FM has been there from the beginning for us. And so we’ve never had a problem with where to air our program (Caroline).
One of the guys who works here, Steve [another volunteer with blindness] …invited me in to start learning how to do production in the studio (Paul).
It was actually one of the staff, …she gave me an awful lot of support … She was a really good mentor, not just with the technical skills, but …also some of the interpersonal things that go on in the station when you know you introduce a whole new idea, and people perhaps don’t understand it (Helen).
The reason it worked for so long, for that 8 months, was Ken and Barry’s very clear support of [my son] 8 and myself. And you know they were always there and made themselves available. They didn’t have to do any of that, but they did (Jodie).
The prevalence of anecdotes about supportive colleagues indicates that the social and practical support provided by other volunteers was an important driver of inclusion for the participants in this study.
An important goal for this research was to hear the ideas people with disabilities had to improve the inclusivity of community radio stations. Many had
7 My [brackets] added for clarity
8 My [brackets] added for anonymity
116 cited the importance of a mentor to their participation, and Darren stated he would have liked to have a mentor when he began his radio career. Many others were confident that exposure to the skills and abilities of people with disabilities would help, if only that first chance was given:
… I think it would be easier to have a mentoring program. Say if someone wants to be involved … They can be teamed up with someone who knows what they’re doing. They can start off by announcing their favourite songs and then have their mentor press the buttons. Gradually they can learn how to work the control panel. (Darren).
Being given the opportunity to prove their capacity, rather than being viewed as a problem or difficult to accommodate, was a concern of some participants. Paul- 2 and Michael, radio group participants in Brisbane, who have a mild intellectual disability, felt that people with disabilities were often underestimated:
People just don’t want to give us a go, um, and that could be anything you know. It could be how we look, to how we talk, to how we go about doing things, I think. (Paul-2)
I think they think that people with disabilities can’t do things, so they’re not gonna give them that time to try (Michael).
This was a common sentiment amongst Pr1 participants that if community radio stations would “Just say Yes” (Alex), people with disabilities could prove their capacity and attitudes would change. An anonymous participant said of obstacles to participation, “I think the biggest one is being given the chance to have a go at it.”
4.1.6 The importance of having a voice Every participant spoke of their enjoyment of some, if not all of their community radio experience, many of whom linked it to the empowerment of their voices. Participant recognised the value to themselves and others of being listened to and having a voice, or being able to give others a voice.
117
It’s really about our voice, and our concerns and our interests (Helen).
With me, I like asking questions ….‘cause I wanted to put my point of view across and yeah let other people know in the community (Danny).
…it didn’t just cater to people specifically with disabilities and giving them the voice, but it catered to giving the voice to people from all communities whose voices aren’t heard on mainstream media, and that’s the whole ethos of the program (Bernadette).
Most participants spoke of an understanding of the community radio sector as a conduit for people voicing their own issues and interests as an alternative to the mainstream media, though not always in a political sense. Some participants found the collegial atmosphere of community radio participation was a motivator. Friendships, social skills growth, and the joy of the music they played, were important facets of participation:
I just love watching his face when it [his show] comes on and he goes, “oh yes, this was a good show!”… To see the look on his face it’s quite amazing, quite lovely …What that radio has done for his life, given him a bit of purpose (Carol).
I like to meet more friends (Melissa).
Some were able to speak of the attitude change they observed at their station, or that they hoped for from audiences. Many saw their participation in community radio as a political act, one aimed at social change. This was clear in the objectives of the support workers who had intentionally set out to include people with disabilities, particularly (but not exclusively) people with an intellectual disability in their radio productions.
The best part of having a voice is being listened to! So the more people that are listening, the more people that are interested the bigger reach we have, the more people are getting informed and apart from the participants having a good time, it’s really about educating the community as well (Caroline).
118
I wanted it to be, you know, “by the people for the people” rather than something which is, you know, delivered out by a service provider, “Oh yes, you can have a place in that program.” It was about connecting people with their passion (Catherine).
Elisha saw herself as a facilitator of the voices of others, as well as her own, and identified with the attitudinal change possibilities of her participation and inclusion of others with disability.
To be able to tell stories, to give people that voice and to share more about the lives of people with disabilities. That purpose just gives me great fulfilment. The message I’m trying to get across to the community is to help them learn more about people with disabilities, what we can do and understanding what our needs are, because we have a lot of abilities but we can’t ignore those disabilities that are there and that we need assistance, we need assisted access, we might do things in different ways (Elisha).
Many of the participants recognised the value of their voices being on the radio, that it was not a common occurrence. Michael, a radio group participant in Brisbane with a mild intellectual disability wanted to hear more people with disabilities on the radio:
I think it would be easier if there were other people with disabilities who want to be on the radio as well. So we are not the only ones who’ve got a disability on the radio. There should be more people with disabilities on the radio, so they’ve got a voice on the radio as well. Than just us (Michael).
While Scott got satisfaction from contributing, he also thought it was important for community radio to give more people with disabilities “a go”:
Without getting all hippy and stuff, it’s a sense of satisfaction that I’m contributing to something worthwhile. …Community radio is like the people’s radio… and people with disabilities are part of people, there
119
should be more of them. If they are out there and they want to have a go (Scott).
4.1.7 Project One conclusions The findings of Project One reflect many of the concepts arising from the literature regarding the limitations of the attitudes of others affecting participation. Given that community radio is representative of the communities it originates from, it is no surprise that it reflects the same values, conflicts and opportunities that are found further afield.
People with disabilities, likewise, find many of the same reasons for wanting to participate that other people do: having a voice, being part of a social group and learning new skills were all part of the experiences reported here (Forde et al., 2002b; Meadows & Foxwell, 2011). Both participants with disabilities and those without voiced an openness to cultural change towards more inclusivity, and some ideas as to how this may occur that imply consideration of the issue prior to participation in this research.
The themes suggest a range of barriers and enablers that can be aligned with some of the possible sites of action outlined in Table 1.
Some of the barriers identified by participants and deducted from the data include:
• Attitudes of other volunteers and members of the public that saw disability as a problem or deficit; • Aging and inaccessible buildings, and perceived lack of funding to retrofit them to be accessible; • Lack of knowledge by decision makers as to the accessibility of technology and digital information; • Lack of understanding of the rights and responsibilities of community radio as a service and place of volunteering; • Lack of understanding of the experiences of people with disabilities; • Problems accessing appropriate training;
120
Some of the enablers included:
• Supportive colleagues who were willing to provide assistance when needed; • Supportive station culture; • Flexible timeframes that accounted for slower learning of new skills; • The resilience, sense of humour, and perseverance of people with disabilities who volunteer; • Capacity for creative solutions to problems in the sector; • Support for variety of voices, both in terms of sound quality and empowerment of marginalised voices.
The barriers and enablers that emerged from the data indicate the important role of supportive relationships, such as those of co-creative practice, in the empowerment of people facing disadvantage. The prevalence of a mentoring or friendship relationships amongst the participants here raises further questions about how such relationships can be encouraged and supported in community radio. The need to address the stereotypical assumptions about capacity faced by people with disabilities, and other barriers to training, raises questions for practice. Some of those questions include the role and need for accessible community education as an empowerment strategy, including training trainers to facilitate and train people with disabilities.
Further discussion of the implications for practice that arise from the data in Pr1 appear in Chapter Five.
121
4.2 Project Two - A policy for increasing the participation of people with disabilities in the sector
Policy advocacy is a legitimate tool for social change within organisations. “Insider tactics” are processes used by participants within an organisation to lobby, provide testimony for and enhance change within organisations (Mosley, 2013). Project 2 makes use of the pre-existing social participation objectives of the community radio sector to advocate for change, identify the kinds of changes required at station-level and help to facilitate and scale the modes of participation that may lead to meaningful change. Listening to the insights of participants in Pr1, informed also by the literature, helped to formulate a draft policy that was taken to a second group of participants in Pr2. All participants in both projects are people potentially impacted by the policy in questions, hence all participants from Pr1 were invited to participate in Pr2.
Project Two participants included people with a range of community radio experience, including program production, board membership, station management and training, people who were most likely to be impacted by policy implementation. Nine people were interviewed for Pr2, four of whom were people with disabilities. Eight Pr2 participants gave consent to be named. One participant from Pr2 wished to remain anonymous. See Table 3 for more detail.
Through a thorough and repeated listening of recorded interviews, and documentary-making, it was possible to identify recurrent themes about constraints and obstacles to participation in community radio. Using that information, and an Ecological Systems Analysis, Pr2 looks at on way this insight can be operationalised by community radio stations to encourage increased participation by people with disabilities through policy.
The alignment of inclusion and participation of people with disabilities to the goals and purpose of the community radio sector, was also identified and discussed in Pr1, embodying the goals of the Community Radio Codes of Practice (CBAA, 2008). Similarly, it was observed in the conclusion to the previous chapter that there is a
122 good alignment between co-creative media methods and practice-led research in the community radio sector. Because of its participatory design and intent, the community broadcasting sector is also theoretically very open to “change from below” influences of the type that have been applied in Pr1 and Pr2. Project 1 also introduced Ecological Systems Theory (EST) to identify a number of avenues for action to include more people with disabilities in community radio (see Table 1).
The EST analysis indicates that developing diversity policy specific to the employment and volunteering requirements of people with disabilities in community radio as an action that can be taken to address low levels of participation, lack of media representation and lack of political will to address the disadvantages faced by people with disabilities. Policy change can be a successful precursor to social change, as broad policy changes do not put the onus for action only on individuals, but may induce cultural change with the support of awareness and training initiatives, as the study by Fisher and Purcal (2017) shows. Project 2 acted upon the insights of Pr1 by working with people with disabilities and the community broadcasting sector to develop an Access and Inclusion Policy (Final draft appears in Appendix G) that stations could use as a guide to improve the conditions of participation for people with disabilities. The development of training and resource development initiatives to support the participation of people with disabilities is another important ongoing outcome of this research.
Qualitative research that listens well can give people with disabilities a voice instead of treating them as an object of study. However, the interpretive process may still lead to misrepresentation, and the promotion of the researchers’ career through the appropriated experiences of people with disabilities is problematic (Thill, 2015). Therefore, the use and dissemination of research towards the improvement of the lives of people with disabilities is important and is integral to the aims of this research, which intends to contribute to cultural and policy change in the sector in which the researcher is embedded. Mmatli (2009) discusses ways in which disability- related research might be translated in evidence-based advocacy. Advocacy starts with the research itself, in the inclusion of people with disabilities in the research
123 process, and in their collaboration with researchers and allies to determine how that research is used to further the goals of human rights. In this spirit Pr1 with people undertook to understand the experiences of people with disabilities on their experiences of inclusion and accessibility in the community radio sector.
Project 2 was practice-led as the idea for a co-creative media policy template arose from individuals in the sector who had informally approached the researcher to develop a policy template for access and inclusion. The template, derived from insights from Pr1 and the literature, sought the input of the people it will affect, people with disabilities and key stakeholders in the community radio sector who seek to facilitate change. The scope of the Access and Inclusion policy was consequently much wider than the scope of Pr1 findings. It has already been established that, policy is one area where change can happen quickly in a receptive community radio sector. Even though implementation of policy will take much more time it is argued here that change at this level of the community radio system is likely to be productive for reasons considered in the first part of this chapter. The detailed exposition of Pr2 follows in the next section of this chapter.
4.2.1 Themes in policy discussion The themes that arose from the data included personal experiences of inclusion and exclusion told by both non-disabled and disabled participants; awareness of the rights of people with disabilities and the legal obligations of organisations; observations of social change; suggestions for modifying the draft policy; and other ideas participants had arising out of reading and thinking about the template policy.
4.2.2 Personal experiences of inclusion and exclusion As in Pr1, all participants had anecdotes regarding their experiences of inclusion or exclusion in community radio that they wanted to tell.
All four participants who were people with disabilities told stories of exclusionary experiences, including exclusion from decision-making, lack of access to
124 board documents for board members who used screen readers, avoidant or prejudiced behaviour from station staff or volunteers. Steve has been producing radio for 20 years and makes a regular show Access All Areas for the RPH network. Paul has an Information Technology degree and does production and scheduling at 4RPH. Both have been on the board of 4RPH and RPHA.
Steve and Paul talked about not being consulted on matters that impacted them directly at the station:
People in management deciding what they think should be their idea of having inclusion … and if you question that it’s always been the case of “look, you’re lucky to be getting this” …one of the best ones that I’ve found is one of our board members asked “why do we need RPH Australia?” (laughs) (Steve).
Steve and Paul both knew of the experiences of another volunteer with disability they had worked with, an experienced radio and music producer with his own home studio, who had faced what they considered blatant discrimination some years before:
He trained someone because he had more experience than they did, once they were trained up they go, “you can go now, we don’t employ blind panel operators” (Paul). It was Bay FM [Brisbane].... If they are happy to discriminate, I’m happy to name and shame… they have discriminated against that person and they ought to be held accountable (Steve).
In another instance, Steve talked about his own personal experience trying to gain a volunteer position at a Queensland station in the suburb of Logan, closer to his home than the RPH station he works at, answering an on-air call for six new producers. After many attempts to contact the station manager without success, he concluded the station was avoiding him, as he had been upfront about being blind. Eventually the station acknowledged his expertise but told him there were no longer any positions available. He said he offered to work from home so as not to inconvenience the obviously reluctant manager, but it was not his preferred way of
125 working because it felt exclusionary. “The idea of participating is that you get involved in the community, you’re not sitting in an isolated booth at home and sending your stuff off, that’s not my idea of community radio.”
Paul attributed the discrimination himself and his colleagues who are blind experienced was due to, “lack of understanding”.
Paul also noted that even though procedures to complain about discrimination exist, mentioning the Human Rights Commission and the ACMA, he felt that it was a burden to have to repeatedly complain and appear “like the bad guy” and that his previous attempts to address discrimination through statutory bodies had amounted to a pay out, but not real change.
Jo, executive officer of the CBF notes that complaints were often a way that things changed in the sector:
A lot of the time we are reliant on someone making a complaint in order for something to improve. … that’s a legitimate way of things improving for people because the people who are in positions of influence or powerful roles or governance roles don’t necessarily know until someone says “hey I can’t participate, help me out” (Jo).
The participants without a disability also had exclusion experiences relating to people with disabilities:
I don’t remember seeing or engaging with anyone with a disability (Holly). I see broadcasters, people under 26, female and indigenous and rural, regional and remote. So, they are targets we have to meet. Nowhere in their targets does it say anything about people with disabilities (Giordana).
Catherine initiated the first community-based radio group that included people with intellectual disabilities, Making Airwaves. Catherine said she was not aware of the Codes of Practice and open access at the time, and this meant that her group
126 ended up paying for studio time and access to the airwaves, and Making Airwaves continued to pay for studio time when the researcher of this present study met the group in 2017. Catherine said that she considered control of editing by a station manager restrictive to the voices of her group participants:
I actually take issue with those things so yeah, I guess when I started I was completely, you know, not really knowing, ah rights and the possibilities…. I don’t feel that that really was inclusion. … I don’t think [the Station] 9 understood that people with an intellectual disability were actually making a contribution to the radio station (Catherine).
According to Catherine, lack of ongoing station support led to the demise of the program after four years, after she had left the program. Attempts to continue to include people with disabilities in radio production at the disability service organisation continued for another year solely at the disability service provider, but the participant said, “that’s really marginalising and segregating…instead of all those benefits the groups had from actually being in the radio station environment” (Catherine). In addition, Catherine said the program no longer had a connection to a station on which to air the productions.
Not all experiences the experiences of participants were negative, however:
I have had a very positive experience of volunteering in radio, I was made to feel welcome and valued (Elizabeth). There’s a lot more consultation … there’s always been some emphasis or attempt to include people with disabilities because of the nature of the station (Steve). I see many stations across the country who are actively working to upgrade their facilities to make them more accessible, starts projects
9 My [brackets] added for anonymity
127
and programs that work to train and mentor people with disabilities (Holly).
Catherine’s insights suggest a need to improve the understanding of both community radio stations and disability organisations as to the importance of communicative rights of people with disabilities.
Jo, executive officer of the CBF at the time of this research, had been station manager at youth broadcaster SYN Media and assistant manager at ethnic broadcaster 3ZZZ. She said both those stations embraced an ethos of including everyone, particularly creating a “culture” of inclusion and that was “one of the most important parts” of her job at those stations. Jo gave an example of her experience of the benefits of inclusion to one individual she knew, who went on to work in commercial radio, “He had been on a disability support pension, had been depressed and then discovered [he] could be … given real stuff to put on air … and was just absolutely loving it and blossomed.”
Catherine, who experienced the exclusion of her group of people with disabilities, still found the experience was beneficial to the group:
the people … that participated in our radio courses and in the broadcast, yeah they got a lot out of it, they really did and they felt included in the group and they felt a really solidarity within the group (Catherine).
Giordana, formerly a News Coordinator at 4ZZZ and currently manager of the CMTO, noted that over two decades of participation, she had observed the change happening in the sector. She observed that providing funding to encourage outreach to new groups of volunteers greatly helped stations to include diverse groups:
The content funding made a big shift but also the indigenous program funding. As weird as it is to say, being able to say to a station oh if you include these people you get some money, actually makes a huge difference and is a huge motivating source for a station because they are running on nothing (Giordana).
128
Of particular note in that listening process were the experiences of exclusion participants had experienced, and what they think could have been done better to avoid those unpleasant experiences. For instance, participants noted an absence of or difficulty accessing training, with one suggesting the delay was intentional. For others, overt experiences of discrimination were experienced by themselves or other people with disabilities they knew. Others spoke of attitudes being a barrier to volunteering even when proficiency was evident, and they had experienced outspoken dismissive attitudes to their different needs.
4.2.3 Disability rights and legal obligations The question of whether or not participants saw their’s or others’ participation in community radio as a right was not part of the questioning. However, one participant voiced participation in community radio in terms of rights, and most implied an understanding of their rights and the rights of others’ rights obliquely through discussion of legal obligations stations must comply with.
Catherine understood the experience of inclusion and exclusion of her radio group with people with disabilities, in retrospect, as a denial of the rights of herself and the people who were in the group: “it does get back to the rights of everybody to have, you know, a part in a public enterprise” (Catherine). She was not aware of the obligations of community radio stations to open access or the complaints process with the ACMA or the Human Rights Commission.
However, most participants were aware that they had rights to access under legislation. The formal recognition of legislation and international obligations was viewed positively by eight participants. The importance of accessibility to buildings, and compliance with building codes, was mentioned by three participants with disability, and one without a disability. Those participants were able to list ways that their premises were not compliant or could do better. One participant, Paul, had participated in a university accessibility committee and understood the ability of
129 organisations to be able to cynically use the “hardship” clause in accessibility legislation to avoid improving access to save costs. Steve and Paul, from an RPH station, were aware of existing policies on diversity and equal opportunity in their organisations.
Holly, from the CBAA, said, “The biggest challenge for stations will be resources”, a sentiment reflected by the majority of participants. The difficulties of stations being able to comply with legal obligations under disability legislation because of the costs of improvements or the nature of the building stations are located in was mentioned by six participants. However, five of those six had suggestions for stations regarding changes that could lead to accessibility, such as changing the locations of meetings or training, moving studios to the ground floor, free accessibility software for computers, or the existence of local council grants that might assist in achieving accessibility aims.
Jo noted that volunteer efforts and financial investment in accessibility was largely contingent on salience to the station, particularly if volunteers are “impacted personally” or a complaint was made:
It’s usually because there is someone in the community with a particular need and they are seeing the possibilities of their involvement in the station and then it’s about making adjustments so that person can participate (Jo).
4.2.4 Social change in the community radio sector All participants had a lived experience of social change either in the context of personally experiencing attitudinal change towards themselves as persons with disability, or in the context of working in the sector. Many of the participants had extensive histories of volunteering in the community radio sector. Those that had comments to make about change within the community radio sector perceived it as “slow” (Steve) “difficult, uphill” (Grace), but that it was changing:
Boards are slow to change. Full stop. It depends on the manager. He just says I’m changing this anyway and it gets done (Steve).
130
I think generally overall I think the mood has changed (P9). It’s a microcosm of Australian society, and the pace of social change can reflect this (Holly).
Catherine conceptualised social change for the inclusion of people with disabilities in the context of other movements:
The long, long history of women, and for example, having a different voice to men and it wasn’t recognised for a long time and I think that much in the same way, people with intellectual disabilities have a different voice (Catherine).
Grace, and Jo both noted that a personal connection to someone with disability was often motivation for increasing accessibility measures. Grace said that in her experience existing relationships between a person with disability and other volunteers at the station provided motivation for change:
People kind of know them and they want them to be the part of the community and we are making these changes and telling people that we are making them for people like X and Y to be a part of the community (Grace).
Steve, with over 20 years of volunteering at RPH, said his experience was that a groundswell or “momentum” was needed to change and that some places were moving faster than others with regards to accessibility:
It does take momentum to make change. In Queensland we have probably the most accessible trains in Australia, but don’t get on the NGR and try to go the toilets on the NGR! (Steve).
Giordana, who’s long experience in the sector has included production, coordinator of various projects, training and was the current CEO of the CMTO, noted that the change they wanted to see in the community radio sector was already happening in the wider Australian society:
131
We’ve got politicians who have disabilities in parliament and I think the whole thing around NDIS … has bought it more in to the public’s consciousness (Giordana).
Giordana said one important indicator of social change for her organisation was an increase in the number of people with disabilities applying to participate in training at the CMTO:
We have people with different abilities coming to us saying I want to learn, I want to do a course, I’d like to learn these skills, I’m interested in radio...more people are coming to us asking what are the activities that they would like to do and of course they would like to be involved in community radio (Giordana). When we are making decisions about the future [we], need to have a conversation about accessibility (P9). Jo’s experience at two stations and in her role at the CBF exposed her to people from many stations. She observed:
… an intense level of good will in the community and a lot of it is individual people who have got really big hearts and they work really hard to involve people (Jo).
4.2.5 Changes to the policy A draft policy, consent forms and invitation to participate was sent out to all participants of Pr1 and other key stakeholders in the training, management and funding of community radio. The participants listed in Table 3 suggested modifications outlined in Table 4.
All participants had opinions on which parts of the draft policy would be difficult to implement or present a challenge. The suggestions for changes, arrived at through coding for themes, are summarised in Table 5 below. The feedback received by participants was used to clarify segments of the policy draft.
The modifications fell into three groups: definitions of terms, additions to the policy draft and additional resourcing needed. The first two have been incorporated into the modified draft, while the third has been added in footnotes and references
132 found in Appendix G. The third group, resources, is the subject of external ongoing projects as part of the additional practice of the researcher (Appendix H).
Policy additions Improvement of Resources definitions
• Build consultation with people • Define • Accessibility/inclus with disabilities into policy accessibility audit ion/cultural development (2)10 • Plain English awareness • version training/webinars/ • Emphasise regulatory obligations • Define who is (2) (both DDA and COP) (4) responsible for • Financial support • Give examples of accessibility administering (3) features (2) policy • Footnotes with • Building codes (4) • Define meaningful resources • Representation on boards (2) inclusion • Awareness raising • Mentorships • Scope of of compliance • Quotas for people with accessibility (3) issues (2) disabilities • Define open • Case studies • Accessibility into station access planning & processes (2)
Table 5. Modifications to policy suggested by participants in Project Two
In terms of the overall aims of the policy, all participants were supportive:
You can clearly see where it has come from the CBAA codes of practice guiding principles … I think it is definitely a better way to get it buy-in from a large number of people because everyone is modelling the behaviour at the same time (Giordana).
10 Indicates number of participants who made this suggestion
133
I think that spirit of inclusion is really important that it is there (Jo).
The participation in decision-making is fabulous (Catherine).
It’s a really important thing that you are doing (Steve).
All the wording and concept changes suggested by participants in Pr2 were incorporated in the second draft of the policy document. These included shortening and simplifying the preamble, emphasising the relevance of the Codes of Practice and all those suggested in the first and second columns of Table 5. The operationalisation of the policy is suggested as a task for a Disability Action Plan, the content of which will be particular to the needs of individual stations. One participant suggested the instigation of quotas for participation of people with disabilities at stations. Quotas require mandatory or voluntary ratios of participation of the target group, an operational method that the researcher discussed with the participant and collaboratively came to an agreement that it was something stations could consider in a subsequent Disability Action Plan if they chose to.
Suggestions that involved further information affirmed the researcher’s practice experience that resources specific to community radio to assist stations to include people with disabilities were non-existent at the time of writing, except for those already developed or in development by the researcher. However, disability advocacy organisations including PWDA and Arts Access Australia had developed more general training materials including language guides, disability competency training and policy advice that could be applied to the case of community radio and should be recognised here (Arts Access Australia, 2017; People With Disability Australia, 2019). Diverse resources already available in the community are the subject of the ongoing web blog CRISPonair.org, where the researcher continues to collate them as a clearing house resource for the sector. Also, in development as a
134 result of the Pr1 research is a set of guides the researcher is developing for RPH Australia’s regional development project. The guides, produced in consultation with staff and volunteers in the RPH sector, will be for community radio stations and for prospective volunteers who wish to participate, to assist both groups to increase accessibility and participation respectively, and launched in early 2019 (Appendix G).
While terms and policy statements of value are relatively static, the availability of resources to operationalise the Template Access and Inclusion policy has been taken up as a separate public project for the Australian sector. This is also being pursued by the researcher in another initiative beyond the scope of the research reported here, called the Community Radio Inclusion Support Project (see website at crisponair.org). This initiative aggregates many of the resources uncovered in this research in an online resource catalogue for use in training and complements the policy research reported here. It is an important outcome of this research, a detailed account of this work in project is beyond the scope of this exegesis.
135
Modified Disability Access and Inclusion Policy 1) Aim of this policy The Australian community broadcasting sector is dedicated to: “Access and equity, especially for people and issues not adequately represented in other media” (CBAA Codes of Practice 2008, Guiding Principles). This includes people with disabilities. Participation in, and proper representation of, people with disabilities in the media has clear social benefits but these benefits cannot be realised without social change. The need for change is recognised at international and national levels. For example, the United Nations Convention of the Rights of Persons with a Disability (2006) and the Disability Discrimination Act (1992) outline the obligations of governments, institutions and individuals to recognise the civil rights of people with disabilities. Community broadcasters provide open access to resources for self- representation and social inclusion. Through their policies, processes and actions community broadcasters enable diversity in social participation. They can signal to their communities their commitment to helping people with disabilities to be meaningfully included in all aspects of their operations. This policy aims to articulate the key features of meaningful participation for people with disabilities in the community broadcasting sector and should complement any existing diversity, employment, volunteering, representation or other station policies. This policy is a statement of the intention of the station to make an effort to consider the particular needs of people with disabilities in planning and operations to the best of our abilities. Relevant framing documents and resources are listed at the end of this policy. 2) Areas this policy covers a) Access our buildings and other facilities for all volunteers: 3) Our station will make an effort to be accessible to all volunteers. We will consider the particular needs for accessibility to the building and facilities for people with disabilities wanting to participate (eg. Accessible signage, toilets , that accommodate wheelchairs, document accessibility for screen readers, documents offered in preferred format); a) Our station will regularly audit the accessibility of buildings and make changes where possible (in addition to WHS requirements); b) Accessibility will include the physical structure of the station, but also: literature produced by the station in paper or electronic form, newsletters, forms, training materials and other resources etc (eg. is a document accessible to screen readers for the vision-impaired, or written in plain English for those with learning impairments?); c) Accessibility will also include respectful treatment by staff and volunteers for people with disabilities: i) In making complaints and resolving disputes;
136
ii) In providing opportunities to receive suggestions about how our station can better facilitate inclusion of a person or group; iii) And nominate an assistant volunteer, station advocate, mentor or other helper to help facilitate inclusion of people with disabilities in these processes if necessary; 4) people with disabilities will have the same right to participate in station decision-making processes by participating as volunteers, subscribers, staff, or members of the board of management; and 5) Our station will take offer professional development opportunities to educate staff and volunteers about these obligations; 6) Our station will implement an Accessibility or Disability Action Plan to make concrete our commitment to the principles in this policy; 7) Our station will endeavour to make people with disabilities and all volunteers feel welcome, wanted, accepted, respected and supported.
This policy reflects the spirit of our legal obligations under: United Nations. (2007). Convention of the Rights of Persons with a Disability https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights- of-persons-with-disabilities.html Disability Discrimination Act (Australian Government, 1992) https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2017C00339 Community Broadcasting Association of Australia. (2008). Community Radio Broadcasting Codes of Practice https://www.cbaa.org.au/resource/codes-practice-introduction References and further reading: Community Broadcasting Association of Australian (2016) Diversity Policy RPH Australia (2017) Diversity Policy RPH Australia (2016) Equal Opportunity Policy Harvey Community Radio (undated) Access and Inclusion Policy Attitude Foundation (2018) http://www.attitude.org.au/changing-attitudes/disability-in-the-media/
For resources, templates for action plans and more information on how to implement this policy contact: The Community Radio Inclusion Support Project http://CRISPonair.org
137
Plain English version – Disability Access and Inclusion Policy Or
Your Rights while at our community radio station
People with disability have a right to be part of community radio.
This radio station tries to be easy for people with disabilities to join by:
• Asking you what you need to participate; • Giving you support to make decisions if you need it; • Making a plan to help you do the usual things we do at a community radio station, if you choose to; • Encouraging you to bring a support worker with you if you choose; • Letting you know who you can talk to if you have a problem; • Giving you information you need to join in a way you can understand; • Making you feel welcome to be here!
There are laws that support your right to participate including United Nations Convention of the Rights of Persons with a Disability (2007), the Disability Discrimination Act (1992), and the Community Radio Codes of Practice (2008).
If you need to talk to someone about your participation, you can call:
Our station manager
Name______
Phone number______
Your support person or station advocate
Name______
Phone number______
Welcome to community radio!
138
4.2.6 New developments arising from consultation During interviews and subsequent communications with participants in both projects, the desire to be able to discuss and contribute to improving accessibility, and the desire to share their insights into that project, were evident. Especially for many of the participants with disabilities, this had been the first time they had shared those ideas with the sector, or had been listened to in a systematic way.
Participants provided valuable additional insights that were incorporated into the final policy. Some participants found the policy inspired new ideas around how they could do things at their station. These included providing mentors to accompany people in their training, upskilling as a professional development opportunity that stations could offer volunteers, improvements to training that would make it more accessible, and the importance of stations having someone to go to when they didn’t know how to adapt to the needs of new volunteers, reducing the workload of managers:
It is almost a professional developmental opportunity for unpaid coordinators! (Grace).
If more and more stations have a policy around inclusion of people with disabilities or making the station accessible, then we are going to have to include in the training how you do those things (Giordana).
Nominating an assistant volunteer station advocate mentor help to facilitate people with disabilities in these process… having that person takes the burden off, you know whether it is a station manager or department head who might not have had any interaction with a person with disabilities in a professional context or otherwise. You know that’s where people put their hands up and say too hard can’t do it (Grace).
Catherine took from the policy discussion a new realisation of her groups’ right to access to community radio. She voiced enthusiasm to try again to have her group gain access to a local community radio station, armed with the knowledge that right to access, funding and institutional support could be mobilised. Catherine’s new
139 understanding highlights one of the benefits of developing an access and inclusion policy specific to people with disabilities. Policy, as a statement of the values and principles of the sector, also has an educational purpose that can elicit new understandings of the purpose and opportunities available to citizens participating in community radio.
Other outcomes A number of activities outside the gamut of this research have been either direct or tangential outcomes of the research. They include some of the activities listed in Appendix H. Invitations to co-present with other volunteers with disabilities and their allies at the CBAA annual conference occurred in 2016, 2017 and twice in 2018. The audio documentary has been promoted for airplay on the Community Radio Network as part of an International Day for People With Disabilities 2018 event, which the researcher helped coordinate content for. The policy document developed will go the board of the CBAA for ratification as a template. The researcher has begun a six month resource development project with RPH Australia to help them train more producers who are vision-impaired or blind. The Community Media Training Organisation has also engaged the researcher to improve the accessibility of their training materials, and pilot a collaborative approach to formal industry training with producers who are blind. This will see these trainees gain formal vocational educational training qualifications at the same time testing the accessibility of training materials and exercises.
4.2.7 Project Two conclusions The process of policy formulation should and can always involve the contributions of people who that policy will affect. In this project people with disabilities and people who make decisions about how stations are run, trained and funded have contributed to this policy discussion. While this sample has been small, and it would be disingenuous to make a broad generalisation about the sector based
140 on the 9 participants in Pr2, the results indicate that there are people in the sector who see the need to increase accessibility.
The goals of the policy are convergent with those of the sector with regards to accessibility and participation by a diverse range of community members, as outlined in the Community Broadcasting Codes of Practice (CBAA, 2008). The output of Pr2, a policy template for the sector, has been well received by the industry body, the Community Broadcasting Association of Australia. It was publicised in their newsletter of December 2019 and published on their website.
While more work needs to be done to include people with disabilities at all levels of decision making in the sector, and to listen to their experiential knowledge on issues that affect them, how that can happen is a matter for future work. Activities to enhance the uptake of the policy by stations, the development of Disability Action Plans specific to the needs of individual stations, and the development of training, including the development of institutional listening skills, which help stations to embrace accessibility are also needed. The policy is a first statement of that intention that stations can use to help them start thinking about the process of change for accessibility.
141
142
Chapter 5: Discussion, conclusion, and future directions
The slow progress of the realisation of human rights for people with disabilities, and the role that media plays in supporting stereotypical and prejudicial attitudes towards people with differing abilities creates a moral imperative that backgrounds this research. While this humanist venture should be promoted in every area of media, participatory media are particularly low-hanging fruit for successful change. Community radio invites inclusion and respects diversity, making it the natural home for egalitarian change. People with disabilities know what approaches are effective for them, listening to that experience and knowledge can make effective policy and change. Through an Ecological Systems Theory Analysis (EST), places where this change may occur were identified from the macro level of larger cultural context and including social attitudes, through to more specific sites of action in the community radio sector that need to be addressed in future research and action . This research has identified some of the problems and opportunities for change towards great accessibility in the community broadcasting sector and proposes some ways to move this change forwards.
Foremost, the process of listening compassionately to the stories of people with disabilities who have experience in the sector has been paramount to the candid stories recounted here. Individuals experiencing discrimination are best placed to identify the same, and this research found significant barriers to participation, reflecting the barriers experienced by people with disabilities in the wider community context. The community broadcasting sector is not more or less accessible or impacted by overt or unrecognised ableism than other parts of the community. Listening to people with disabilities in the sector reveals that while discrimination and inaccessibility issues exist, there are also many instances of successful collaborations and testimony to the good will of people in the sector to forward the values of participation.
Owing to the scarcity of other research in this area, the first project took a scoping view of the experiences of people with disabilities who had worked and volunteered in community radio, while the second project used the information from Pr1 to formulate one avenue for action, while identifying many more actions possible (see Table 1). However, given the small number of respondents to both projects, and the self-selection process, it is likely that only those with the capacity, experience or passion to improve inclusion participated. It is not possible to generalise about the views or experiences of the sector overall and awareness raising is still a task to be undertaken.
One of the assumptions of this research was that there were low levels of participation of people with disabilities in the community radio sector and that factors at all levels of the EST analysis (individual, micro-, meso-, exo- and macrosystem), possibly multiple and intersecting, presented potential barriers to participation. The EST levels can be considered as levels at which changes in those factors affect increasing numbers of people: for example ‘attitudes’, is a macrosystem factor that has effects on all people in a society. In the discussion below, the relevance of EST levels of influence, and the multiple levels at which disadvantage occurs, will be considered in the light of the findings.
5.1 Visibility and participation
Lack of presence of people with disabilities in the community radio sector was borne out by the low numbers of participants in the study, the scoping of disability related programming available at Australian community radio stations (both exo- factors, discussed in 3.4) and the individual experiences of participants. While most non-disabled participants in this research could recall individuals with whom they had come into contact during their careers in the sector, it was uncommon enough to be notable to them.
There were 18 participants with disabilities in total over both projects. A survey of the presence of disability related programming across the sector conducted as part of an external project of the Community Radio Inclusion Support Project (2018) blog of the researcher identified approximately 20 programs
144 nationally over 450+ stations that were addressing disability-related issues as their core topic. This represents about 4% of stations, not representative of the almost 20% of Australians with disabilities in the community. Some of this number were short term series and not ongoing. RPH programming, although providing a service for people with vision impairment, was generally not topical on disability issues as its core work was radio reading of news publications. Notable exceptions were long term programs, Talking Tech and Access All Areas on RPH stations, the latter produced by a participant of both research projects described here.
Holly, working in the peak body the CBAA, said she didn’t “remember seeing or engaging with anyone with a disability” during her time working in community radio. Even in the RPH sector, created to provide media information for people with a print disability, inclusion of people with disabilities as volunteers was low, according to the experiences of participants in this research. There was some perception that individual level barriers impaired participation amongst interviewees in both projects. Discrimination or lack of awareness by others were frequently raised by many participants in Pr1 and Pr2. Mobility issues that made travel and access to buildings difficult were noted (Steve, Danny, Helen and Scott). So too were technological barriers that prevent individuals from using equipment or accessing information (Paul, Steve), and lack of personal supports to attend and participate (Danny, Darren, Alex, Paul, Michael). Those barriers were understood to exist by some of the participants who were non-disabled, but solutions were not always apparent. For instance Grace (4ZZZ) expressed concern at the ad hoc manner her station had in the past employed to facilitate inclusion and Catherine (Making Airwaves) expressed frustration at the limited access to facilities her group experienced that resulted in her group paying to access studios to record their programs. Jo (CBF) and Grace perceived that station volunteers needed a personal connection to a person with disability to make the need for accessibility salient for action to be taken.
Participants had examples of individual-level solutions to barriers that were assisting individuals to participate, as they did at Helen’s station; and the work of
145
Catherine’s radio group with people with disabilities represents individual-level benefits for her participants. The work of Catherine’s group attained meso-level recognition when she could access grant funds to carry out the groups, when the value of her efforts being appreciated by grants institutions. However, efforts at the broader levels of exosystem and macrosystem change have the potential to affect more people and create widespread change, one of the reasons for choice of a policy template in Pr2. Whether it does is beyond the scope of this research, but it will inform the future professional practice of the researcher.
Given the relative invisibility of people with disabilities in the sector, it follows that the problem of lack of participation is not yet salient for the sector at an exo- system, or industry-wide level. It has not reached that “critical mass” (Steve) that would see it become an agenda item for boards and institutions to act on. Agenda setting, according to the literature (Cinalli & Flynn, 2014; Saeed, 2009) requires addressing the power dynamics and structural barriers to change, of which this research is a small first step. Agitation from people with disabilities and their allies and support from stakeholders within influential institutions in the sector are vital elements for change. In this study, Grace (4ZZZ), Holly (CBAA), Giordana (CMTO) and Jo (CBF) represented individuals within the power structures of the sector demonstrating support for better inclusion of people with disabilities. These individuals and others in similar positions in the sector, can affect change within their roles as employers and managers (exo- level), as decision-makers allocating applications for funding (micro- and meso- levels), and training needs (exo- level) and through volunteer recruitment policies (exo- level). As representatives of organisations, their statements in support of more accessible participatory strategies represent macro-level actions have the potential to challenge ableism and encourage attitudinal change by demonstrating their support for more concrete action on the stated values of the sector established in the Codes of Practice. In addition, the three policy case-studies from the CBAA, RPHA and Harvey Community radio indicate that better inclusion of people with disabilities is achievable for the sector. While not representative of the whole sector, these observations indicate change is happening. As this change happens, the sector needs to listen to the
146 voices of people with disabilities from the outset and in an ongoing way, as Thill (2015) and others recognise as a feature of successful and just policy and practice development. Consideration of the barriers to participation identified in this and other research can help the sector identify groups with a latent interest in the voice and participation opportunities the sector offers.
5.2 Print disability as the primary locus of disability action in the sector
Disability is addressed in the sector in the form of the RPH network, but this has also limited the scope of concern to people with a print disability. RPH stations have their own line of government funding which is distributed by the CBF (Community Broadcasting Foundation, 2017), and a separate set of Protocols for operation of RPH stations, (RPHA, 2016)which are not derived either from the Broadcasting Services Act (1992) or the Community Radio Codes of Practice. While a genuine need for reading services exists in the community, no funding is specifically directed for disability support at other stations outside of reading services outside of periodic funding for training needs of individuals who enrol with the CMTO, and their recent work to make their course materials accessible.
In 2017 training funding to the CMTO prioritised “the training needs of RPH, Indigenous and Ethnic community broadcasting”, once again not specifically expanding disability beyond the RPH sector (CBAA, 2017, p. 14). The limitations of the reading services Protocols (RPHA, 2016) mean that there is little in the way of formal recognition of the needs of people with disabilities whose interests in radio go beyond reading or the interests of those with a print disability. People with disabilities also have diverse interests in music, youth culture, current affairs and reporting and niche interests. People with disabilities are found in all contexts in community radio as in Australia society, with ten out of fifteen participants of Pr1 in this research volunteering at stations outside the RPH network (see section 3.7).
147
However, they remain under-represented in the ranks of community broadcasting volunteers, paid staff and management.
The segregation of people with disabilities into a smaller RPH sector mirrors the wider segregation of people with disabilities in Australian society, segregation that has led to widespread lack of understanding, and stereotyping of people with disabilities. Conversely, social inclusion literature indicates that inclusion in the mainstream population effective at breaking down barriers of misunderstanding and the stigma associated with disability (Amado et al., 2013; Clifford, 2012; Dunbar-Hester & Deibert, 2014; Salend & Garrick Duhaney, 1999; Shandra, 2017).
The Australian Bureau of Statistics recognise physical impairments as the largest group of people reporting having a disability, with those with mental health issues being the second largest group (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2016). Vision Australia predicts that the number of people with vision impairments and blindness is increasing in Australia, and expected to reach around 500,000 by 2030, (Vision Australia). While people with a print disability are in need of information access that community radio provides, there is a larger group of underrepresented community members in people with other kinds of disability that could potentially benefit from both representation and participation in community radio.
5.3 Technological accessibility needs work
The issue of technological accessibility was raised by research participants Paul and Steve, both of whom are users of screen readers that assist people with vision impairments and blindness to access electronic print. Digital technology and web-based applications are revolutionising all media and community radio is diversifying options for participation it offers to audiences, highlighting the importance of investing in accessible technologies. Digital change has been an important source of solidarity and activism for disability rights (Ellis & Goggin, 2015; Goggin, Hollier, & Hawkins, 2017; Nelson, 2000).
148
In the radio studio, participants noted that 4RPH had held onto aging technology because of difficulties of accessibility of digital readouts, LED-only displays and touchscreens. However, at the time of writing was overhauling its technology and demonstrates that fully accessible studio technology is achievable. As Universal Design principles gain popularity amongst technology producers and the #A11y (an abbreviation for accessibility) movement within digital development grows in popularity, the availability to accessible technology should increase (A11y project, 2018).
Projects already being funded by the CBF and the CBAA could benefit by the application of an accessibility rubric to enhance the inclusiveness of those projects and how they embrace the values of the Codes of Practice. One of these is the Radio Website Services (RWS) project which helps radio stations manage their internet interface with the public, one of the first points of contact between the public and the station. The RWS promotes its work as generative of membership and an easy interface for users to create online content and listenership. However many of the services it provides do not conform to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG; World Wide Web Consortium, 2008), excluding those potential members who might use a screen reader or have other impairments. WCAG standards, using the principles of Universal Design, prescribe colour contrasts, layout options and image usage that creates widely useable website for all users, including those that use screen readers, are colour blind, have a cognitive impairment, limited mobility or hand functionality, or reading issues. Application of the WAVE web accessibility evaluation tool (WebAIM, 2001) to the FBi Radio program guide (a RWS app used by many stations) and recommended by the RWS website, in October 2018, indicates that it is not accessible, rendering most of the content invisible to those using screen readers. However, another RWS example, the Koori Radio program guide was accessible when tested on October 6, 2018. The websites provided by RWS use Weebly Content Management Systems (CMS) not one of the four popular CMS recommended by accessibility organisation Media Access Australia (Jenkinson, 2016). In 2017 the researcher attended a presentation by the Australian Music Radio Airplay Project, a project of the CBAA to develop
149 streaming apps and playlists for station websites. At that time the researcher was told by the manager of the AMRAP project that accessibility had not been considered in the development of the apps they were promoting to the sector. Despite the widespread use of the internet by people with disabilities and the benefits to all users, this research indicates accessibility is an issue for community broadcasting content, as it is for the wider internet (Goggin et al., 2017).
Website accessibility is a global issue and should be a concern for the community radio sector that aims to be inclusive. Accessibility of digital information and websites is being embraced by governments, who are increasing offering their services online. Australian government websites have been required to comply with accessibility under WCAG since a landmark Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission case (Maguire v SOCOG, 2000) that found the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games had discriminated against a complainant who required braille literature and an accessible website to attend the games (Goggin et al., 2017). In October 2018 the European Union reached agreement on the Accessibility Act (European Commission, 2017). In January 2018 the United States governments’ updated their 1998 accessibility legislation, to include the accessibility of internal and external documents and websites, including policies and training materials.
5.4 Participation, listening and organisational legitimacy
The literature shows that the legitimacy of institutions is enhanced when members and users of that institution feel their needs are listened to and they are able to participate in decisions that are of concern for them (Callahan, 2007; Innes & Booher, 2004; Michels & De Graaf, 2010; Schneider & Ingram, 2007). This is an important consideration for the CBAA, CBF and CMTO as they negotiate digital disruption to the sector and social change pressures. While the CBAA’s documentation says they defer to “evidence-based” policy making, a path for participation by interest groups in the sector in policy making outside of annual
150 conferences, themselves exclusive by cost, is not clear. Attention to further transparency and clear ways for member stations and individuals to participate in decision making by institutions can help them to avoid the more tokenistic levels of Arstein’s (1969) typology of participation, and lean further towards democratic forms of governance, which engender a greater level of responsibly in those who participate (Michels & De Graaf, 2010).
That community radio is a “microcosm of society”, as participant Holly says, was demonstrated by the similarity between barriers identified in the literature and those of people with disabilities in the sector. Notably the Shut Out report (Commonwealth of Australia, 2009) that points to exclusion from many arenas of community life (poverty, transport issues, education, work), and the physical and technological barriers addressed by the Universal Design movement (Lid, 2014) reflect the experiences of participants in this research. Participants noted that many community radio stations were in buildings that were physically difficult to access for people with mobility issues (Scott, Helen, Danny), and that much of the new technology in radio stations is constructed and chosen without thought of accessibility (Paul, Steve). Paul (4RPH) discussed the access problems of digital interfaces that use touch screens, and digital readouts that are not able to be used by people with low vision or blindness, as discussed in the above section. Attitudinal barriers prevented some participants from getting the training and support they needed (Jodie, Darren, Alex), even from volunteering at stations in some cases (Alex, Caroline, Catherine).
The themes disclosed by stories in Pr1 also represent some of the categories of barriers and enablers described by the EST analysis, inaccessible buildings are barriers at an individual level, but also a result of attitudes, lack of knowledge or concern, and ideology at the macro-level. Insofar as social practices reflect ideology, ableism can be held accountable for some of the barriers met by people with disabilities in attempting to participate in community radio, and some of the participants recognised those barriers as “discrimination” (Steve).
151
An assumption of Pr2 was that policy is a valid site for action to increase inclusion. The literature supports this to some extent, while noting that policy without a plan for implementation is null (Lister, 2007; Scotch & Schriner, 1997). While all participants in Pr2 were supportive of the idea, many mentioned the need to support policy as a statement of values and intentions with resources and action, such as quotas, funding and support persons at stations.
5.5 Being heard: Personal stories, empowerment, voice
The research also revealed a need for stories of inclusion and exclusion to be told, and to be listened to for social change. Participants had anecdotes about what they or others had experienced in the sector that hitherto had no outlet apart from the complaints process, which was underutilised by people in this study. Personal stories emerged in both Pr1 and Pr2, even though the latter was ostensibly a policy exploration, and a question about experiences was included in both questionnaires to fulfil this purpose of listening. Personal storytelling forms an important role in empowerment, (Anderson & Bigby, 2017; Bennett, Freelon, & Wells, 2010; Zhang & Haller, 2013; Zola, 1993). Participatory media provides opportunities for disadvantaged groups and individuals to reconceptualise themselves as having agency and capacity to shape society, especially so when participation occurs in the context of community organisations where relationships and shared goals enhance empowerment and belonging. This has certainly been the case for indigenous media makers who employ community radio as a cultural cohesion medium (Meadows). For ethnic groups community radio provides a close link to the diaspora communities as well as news from countries of origin (Lawe Davies, 2005). People who are physically separated from their communities by imprisonment are able to use prison radio as a means of maintaining connections between prisoners and loved ones outside (Anderson 2013). There is great potential for community radio to provide this connection for people with disabilities to build solidarity beyond that already provided by RPH stations.
152
The expectation that people with disabilities would present a problem or need to change current station functioning, was an expectation perceived by participants as discrimination. Participants perceived goodwill in the assistance they received from other volunteers that had assisted them to begin their community radio careers. However but it was unclear if the help they received differed from that given to other volunteers, except in the case of Jesse and his mother, who experienced prolonged assistance at a station with an explicit policy of increasing access and inclusion.
Accessibility was often mediated by other people at community radio stations and helped to break down segregation. Simplican et al. (2015) note that many activities for people with disabilities occur in segregated settings because of the ableism and risk averseness of many community institutions, and Pr2 participant Catherine employed explicit practices to avoid segregation. Catherine was founder of the Making Airwaves radio groups, whose goal it was to educate people with disabilities to be in control of their media products, instead of being mediated by an organisational authority. This was less the case with Caroline, who subsequently took over the Making Airwaves project, who expressed the view that participation and product need to be equally important. However, the act of creating knowledge about themselves became a liberatory action for participants, rather than a respite activity so common in disability service organisations, a perception reinforced by the literature that recognises the identity creating potential of media-making (Bennett et al., 2010; Sen, 2003; Tacchi et al., 2009; Zhang & Haller, 2013). Catherine purposefully used empowerment drama, collaborating with trainers in a Theatre of the Oppressed (TOTO) model to develop the democratic self-advocacy goals of her radio groups, a form of collaboration for empowerment that has been used successfully in many social change contexts. Theatre of the Oppressed techniques enable people to act out their life stories, particularly “social positions of privilege and disprivilege and relations of power” and in the process retell them as ones of empowerment (Kina & Fernandes, 2017, p. 241).
153
Advocacy and self-advocacy, combined with need for organisational change were solutions suggested by the ecological analysis of social inclusion by Simplican, et al. (2015), and by Goodley’s work on empowerment for people with an intellectual disability (Goodley, 1998, 2005; Goodley & Armstrong, 2001). Two of the participants in Pr1, from the Ability Radio Project at 4ZZZ, also voiced the importance of claiming media production as a source of self-advocacy and empowerment, asking “why shouldn’t we be on…radio?” They recognised that representation of people like them were largely absent from the media, and that they had important concerns and issues that they wanted to talk about. In saying so, Michael was visualising an identity for himself as a capable media agent of social change.
The anger that accompanies oppression, noted by theorists (Godrej, 2008; Goodley, 2005) was evident in some of the stories of participants and indicated a desire for justice in the face of discrimination. Having to wait for three years to be trained, being teased by an interviewee for one’s voice (Scott); being told one’s child with autism should “suck it up” (Jodie); obfuscating and avoidant behaviour by some staff (Steve and Paul) and a willingness to expose the identity of stations where discrimination had been perceived. There was a perception that these incidents represented examples of ableist attitudes being used to justify lack of consideration for another’s rights and failure to treat the needs or differences of another human being as valid ways of being. One participant noted that this demand to have one’s abilities recognised is “not a pity party, it’s a fact of life… everyone is different and it doesn’t have to be because of a disability, everyone’s different full-stop” (Scott). Lack of awareness and understanding of the experiences of people with different lives and bodily presence was identified by both groups of project participants as a problem and a site for activism. Participants speculated that many able-bodied volunteers did not understand the challenges or needs of people with disabilities, and that exposure to them may present a remedy. This reflects an understanding of the role of both inclusion and media representation play in changing attitudes (Goggin & Newell, 2005; Mallett, 2011; Scior, 2011). It is
154 also the foundation of the Australian National Disability Strategy (2011) and as noted previously a driving goal of the UNCPRD.
Some of the participants in this study had been involved in community radio for many years and were aware of the tension between professionalism and authenticity in the sector. The focus on professionalism, as noted by van Vuuren (2005) can lead to the purposeful exclusion of certain groups, particularly those who sound different to received notions of radio voices. Exclusion to maintain professionalism is contrary to the stated goals of the sector in representing diversity. Scott, Helen and Catherine all noted the contentiousness of including people with different voices or speech mannerisms that are possible with some kinds of disability. Yet all were adamant that those people are part of our community and should not be “disenfranchised” because of their speech difficulties. Giordana, manager of the CMTO, noted that accepting different sounds was integral to inclusion.
Finally, the importance of having a voice in the media, and helping others to have a voice, was a source of joy and continued enthusiasm for community radio for most of the participants. Project 1 participants said the gaining of new skills, new friends and social participation were important reasons to be involved in community radio. This is consistent with the research of Günnel (2008), Meadows and Foxwell (2011) and Grimes & Stevenson (2011). Participants, even those that had conflict, felt empowered and wanted to extend that feeling of empowerment to other people. This urge to help others experience what they have is best expressed by Michael who said: “There should be more people with disabilities on the radio, so they’ve got a voice on the radio as well.”
5.6 Need for training in the sector
Training people to work in the media is one of the things the community radio sector does well, with participants in Ellis’ (2016) study noting the community broadcasting sector is where many who moved into employment got their start in
155 media. There is potential for training in the sector to have pervasive influence more widely in the media in that case, and an opportunity for the sector to demonstrate its values vis accessibility. Developing training to be accessible and to increase the competency of people in the sector to listen well to the needs of diverse groups are two areas for action in the sector and further study.
It is clear from the responses of this sample, that their experiences do reflect some of the findings in the literature around inclusion in other settings, particularly the influence of bodily presence and visibility to change attitudes. This is encouraging for planning future interventions to increase participation, and provides a basis for some of the possible interventions outlined by the EST analysis of Fisher and Purcal (2017) and described in Table 1. For instance Helen’s description of the efforts made by her station to make the building more accessible recognise the intersectional and contextual nature of the needs of individuals with disability to purpose build access solutions (such as, in Helens example, a door bell system to facilitate the entry of people unable to open a door independently; and the station-wide acceptance of people with disabilities in all roles).
The experiences of the participants also point to higher order solutions to some problems of access. These include, more advocacy within organisations to facilitate inclusion and uptake of the policy and subsequent actions; adjusted training to be accessible and accommodate different learning needs; diversity training for other volunteers and staff to affect acceptance or provide solutions to perceived barriers; and sector-wide change to embrace diversity in practice through policy changes that mandate actions. The stories of the participants in this study hint at the benefits of inclusion to people with disabilities, but also to other stations and the sector through the social change this can precipitate.
5.7 Conclusion
This research examined a hitherto under-studied nexus in media and communication studies, bringing together disability and community radio in a first exploration specific to Australian community broadcasting. This research situates
156 itself alongside other research into the community development potential of community radio to include disenfranchised groups in Australia and elsewhere (Anderson, 2013; Gaynor & O'Brien, 2012; Meadows & Foxwell, 2011; Milan, 2009; Order, 2017; Ellie Rennie, Spurgeon, & Barraket, 2017; Woodrow et al., 2015). The significance of this research is also simply that it is the first to examine disability in the community radio sector in Australia.
While listening and empowering the voices of disadvantaged groups is something the sector has been good at, there is room to expand the skills of listening as this research shows. People with disabilities are a substantial under- represented group in the sector, and this defies the conventional wisdom of inclusion already being encompassed by the activities of the RPH sector. Reflecting on the values of the sector and how well they have been operationalised, is useful for the continued relevance of the sector in the face of digital disruption.
An assumption of this research was that current and past volunteers in community radio were aware of the values and legal imperatives of the sector embodied in the Community Broadcasting Codes of Practice and the corrective mechanisms therein. This was on the whole true; most participants knew and were supportive of the stated values of the Codes. However, there were notable exceptions, and some participants were reticent to use those complaint mechanisms. Catherine’s experience where her radio group was required to pay for studio services to participate and where their work was mediated by a third party were grounds for complaint to the ACMA under the Codes, or even the Human Rights Commission. Her lack of awareness of either the principle of open access to community members under the Codes of Practice or the complaints process every station must make volunteers aware of, indicate a lack of proper induction process on the part of the station involved. For those that did know of the process, the reticence to complain about treatment received by Steve and Paul and their unnamed colleague show that even awareness may not be sufficient to encourage volunteers to defend their rights to open access. In any case, relying on complaints as a means of organisational change puts the onus of change on those who are
157 already less powerful, experiencing disadvantage and exclusion. Responsible organisational change needs to be proactive about the changing needs of its participants and members, which can be begun by asking the right questions and listening to the needs of members. For some parts of the sector, it may be that culture change is needed for the full realisation of the intentions of the Codes of Practice to include people with disabilities. How cultural change may occur was only touch upon in this research, but should include increasing participation, training, policy change and action.
The power of listening was evident in this research: Participants, as colleagues in the practice of community radio in which the researcher is also deeply involved, often had a common understanding that this research starts a conversation about change that would continue beyond the telling of their stories. Participants desired action to increase inclusiveness, they were frank about how their experiences might be improved upon for the next generation of producers with disabilities and had ideas how this might occur.
This research has demonstrated that listening to the experiences and needs of people with disabilities who have participated in community radio can yield knowledge that will assist the sector to realise the values of the Community Broadcasting Codes of Practice. Combining that listening with the insights of allies with significant professional practice to the sector and using Ecological Systems Theory as a way of categorising elements of practice can produce workable plans for change. The process of social change towards greater inclusion of a hitherto under- represented group can benefit from their experiences to inform sector-wide social change. Empowering the voices of people with disabilities and their allies through community radio is a step towards social justice that the sector can and is embracing within sector organisation, strengthening the sectors reputation for access and egalitarianism. The integration of people with disabilities here, and in all aspects of public life is an achievable goal and one commensurate with the human rights of all people. This research is another contribution to that endeavour.
158
5.8 Future directions
There is a need for more research on the use of community radio as an empowerment tool for people with disabilities, developing the listening power of the sector and diversifying ways to increase participation. Basic data on the participation of people with disabilities in the sector is not available and a direction for future research. More comprehensive data on participation, and research that recognises the role of community radio as a connection between creative arts and media practice can help raise its profile as an empowerment vehicle.
Parallel to research, advocacy and training can complement the movement of accessibility in the sector. Some of the future work in the sector may include: helping to change attitudes includes awareness raising about disabilities for volunteers and staff, what accessibility looks like, and how the sector’s commitment to diversity in the Codes of Practice complements better inclusion. Disability awareness training for station volunteers and staff can help change attitudes and prepare stations for change. Better awareness of the complaints processes for volunteers, complemented by systematic listening to the needs of grass root participants and latent communities of interest could contribute to change. Advocacy by those with power and privilege, allies, is a necessary part of affirmative action to include more people with disabilities in the sector. As is the development of accessible training and training materials across the sector. In conjunction with making training accessible, training volunteers and/or staff to be aware of and create accessible documents, website and other electronic materials is essential.
Reaching potential new communities of interest will require outreach. Collaborations with disability organisations can be used as a method of directed recruitment and awareness raising about the benefits of being involved in community radio. Directly working with disability organisations will also assist stations to learn what works best for different people, however care will be needed to avoid adopting a service-industry approach that may disempower the genuine listening and could affect decision-making power of volunteers with disabilities.
159
Building the listening capacity of sector staff and throughout organisations could have broad benefits to the effectiveness of training, volunteer retention, and on organisational legitimacy.
When conducting disability-related research, there is an onus on the researcher to find ways that research can be utilised to improve the lives of people with disabilities. Dissemination of research through publications in journals and through sector bodies, research as an evidence-base for practice, and the continuation of the goals of the research in the profession practice of the researcher and collaborators are some ways this can happen. The policy discussion herein intends to have real- world consequences as a piece of advocacy for social change in the community radio sector. This is happening through the publication of this exegesis, the accompanying radio series aired on the Community Radio Network for International Day for People with a Disability 2018, and the promotion of the policy produced here to radio stations throughout the sector.
Some of the activities that will flow from this research are already underway. The researcher, in collaboration with the peak training body, the Community Media Training Organisation and others is developing accessible training materials for people with disabilities who wish to create radio, and resources for allies who are looking for advice on how to assist people do this. Attitude change is a slow process and not easily measurable, but the development of awareness training, in collaboration with disability organisations is a future goal for research and development. Encouraging self-representation in community media is a key goal of all these initiatives. The development of training and resource development initiatives to support the participation of people with disabilities is another important ongoing outcome of this research, which is vital to empower people with disabilities in the sector, but also to prepare the sector itself for the changes that are needed to be fully accessible.
160
Chapter 6: Appendices
Appendix A - Creative component - It’s the People’s Radio
Project One has two components, this exegesis and a radio documentary series.
A four part radio documentary, It’s The People’s Radio, available on podcasting platform Soundcloud
Listen at https://eprints.qut.edu.au/127227/
It’s The People’s Radio was broadcast on 4ZZZ 102.1fm in September 2018, and on the Community Radio Network for International Day for People With Disability, December 3 2018.
[Accessible image description: “People’s Radio” spray-painted on a brick wall. Photo taken by the researcher at the premises of 4ZZZ in Brisbane, Australia.]
161
Appendix B – Easy English Summary of Exegesis
Easy English Summary of Kim Stewart’s research into
People with disability in community radio
Community Radio is a kind of radio run by people who live in the community. On community radio you can hear stories from everyday people who live where you do. You can also hear music from bands that live in your town. There are more than 450 community radio stations in Australia. A lot of people with disabilities listen to community radio, but not many are on the radio. In this research, Kim Stewart interviewed people with disabilities (and their helpers) who had been on community radio. She asked them: • What did you do on the radio? • What made it hard for you to be on the radio? • What made it easier for you to be on the radio? • What do you think would make it easier for other people with disabilities who want to be on community radio? They said: • Many of them had their own radio show; • Some of them had tried to volunteer at the radio, but had trouble; • Most of them thought other people who don’t have a disability didn’t know how to include them, or didn’t want to include them; • Some of them had friends or relatives who helped them be on the radio; • Some of the radio stations were hard to get into with a wheelchair, or used equipment that was hard for them to us because of their disability;
• All of them enjoyed their radio experience.
162
These are some of the things they said in their own words:
• It would be a good thing, it would give station managers or whoever…well, this person can do this. Rather than no, he or she can’t. – Paul O;
• This manager I’d ask “when are you going to start training me so I can do a program of some sort?” She’d say, “When I get time”. In some way it seems she’s holding me back. – Darren;
• It is exciting to be inside of a radio station and doing it there, and people watching us do it! – Michael;
• I think it would be easier to have a mentoring program. Say if someone wants to be involved they can contact their local community radio. They can be teamed up with someone who know what they’re doing. They can start off by announcing their favourite songs and then have their mentor press the buttons. Gradually they can learn how to work the control panel. – Darren;
• As programmers or as a station you have to recognize there is a gap, if you don’t have the voices of people with disabilities on air, then … you have to get out there and make it happen. – Helen;
• I’ve had like several people come up to me and say, “Mate, you are really good, I’ve listened to you nearly every week and we just love your hour, your music, you songs, we love everything.” – Jodie;
• I love it…love being on air… and it’s basically: Yes there’s some set-up, but once we get set up properly, we’re just as good as anyone else, basically. It’s all audio! You don’t need sight to do audio. – Paul P;
• You have a voice that needs to be heard. – Elisha;
• Community radio is like the people’s radio… and people with disabilities are part of people, there should be more of them. – Scott;
• (Interviewer) but in the real world, what would make it easier? (Alex) – if people just said “Yes!”– Alex.
[Accessible image descriptions: Cartoon radio; Two seated people talking]
163
Appendix C- Project One Information Sheets
PARTICIPANT INFORMATION FOR QUT RESEARCH PROJECT – Interview – Page 1 of 2 – What are the barriers and opportunities for the self-advocacy of people with intellectual disabilities in community radio? QUT Ethics Approval Number 1600000781 RESEARCH TEAM Principal Researcher: Kim Stewart, MSW Candidate Doctorate of Creative Industries Principal Supervisor: Dr Christina Spurgeon Creative Industries Faculty Associate Supervisor: Dr Niki Edwards Faculty of Health Queensland University of Technology (QUT) Description I’m Kim Stewart and I’m a student doing a Doctorate in Creative Industries at QUT. I’m researching how community radio can include people with an intellectual disability Participation & CONFIDENTIALITY I’d like you to help me by being a part of my study by:
• Participating in an interview about your experiences in community radio. • The interview should take about 30 minutes.
• Allowing me to record what you say during the interview.
• Allowing me to use the recording for: 1. A radio documentary for public airplay. 2. A research report that will be made public. These things will be also submitted by me to the university for assessment AND stored online for public access. • I will not use your name if you don’t want me to. • Only the research team will be able to access your information. • Unless you give consent for me to use your recording for my radio documentary, your recording won’t be used for anything else.
• The documentary will become a public resource and be played on the radio. • You do not have to participate. • You can change your mind at any time before the documentary is completed, and I will not use your recording.
• If you say no to my using your recording, I will delete you from the recording afterwards. YOU CAN SAY NO AT ANY TIME.
164
PARTICIPANT INFORMATION FOR QUT RESEARCH PROJECT – Interview – Page 2 of 2 – What are the barriers and opportunities for the self-advocacy of people with intellectual disabilities in community radio? QUT Ethics Approval Number 1600000781
Expected benefits It is expected that this project benefit people with disabilities who would like to be involved in community radio in the future.
Consent to Participate Please fill out the attached Consent Form if you wish to participate.
Questions / further information about the project If you have any questions or require further information please contact one of the researchers listed below.
If you have any questions call me: Kim Stewart 0478 741 940 [email protected]
You can also call my supervisors: Christina Spurgeon 07 3138 8184 [email protected] Niki Edwards 07 3138 4656 [email protected]
Concerns / complaints regarding the conduct of the project QUT is committed to research integrity and the ethical conduct of research projects. However, if you do have any concerns or complaints about the ethical conduct of the project you may contact the QUT Research Ethics Advisory Team on 07 3138 5123 or email [email protected]. The QUT Research Ethics Advisory Team is not connected with the research project and can facilitate a resolution to your concern in an impartial manner.
YOU CAN SAY NO AT ANY TIME It is your choice to participate, or not.
Thank you for helping with this research project. Please keep this sheet for your information.
165
Appendix D - Project One Consent Form Interview
CONSENT FORM FOR QUT RESEARCH PROJECT – Interview – Page 1 of 2
What are the barriers and opportunities for the self-advocacy of people with intellectual disabilities in community radio? QUT Ethics Approval Number 1600000781
STATEMENT OF CONSENT
Please tick the boxes if you agree:
No, I DO NOT want to participate.
I have read the Information letter and/or Kim has explained the research
to me, and I would like to help Kim with this research.
I understand I can leave the study at any time. This will not have any
bad effects for me.
I give permission to be AUDIO RECORDED.
Kim IS ALLOWED to use my recording to write a report.
Kim can use my NAME in the report.
Kim can use my RECORDING in her documentary, including my
NAME. Kim can use my RECORDING in her documentary, BUT LEAVE MY
NAME OUT.
Kim is NOT ALLOWED use my recording in her documentary.
YOU CAN SAY NO AT ANY TIME It is your choice to participate, or not. Please return this sheet to Kim.
166
CONSENT FORM FOR QUT RESEARCH PROJECT – Interview – Page 2 of 2
What are the barriers and opportunities for the self-advocacy of people with intellectual disabilities in community radio? QUT Ethics Approval Number 1600000781
Name
Date
Signature of participant / guardian / informal decision maker
Address
Phone number If you would like to hear your audio contribution to the radio documentary before it is released to the public, provide contact details here (phone, address or email)
If you wish to receive a copy of the final report please provide your email address here. RESEARCH TEAM CONTACTS If you have any questions or require further information please contact one of the researchers listed below.
If you have any questions call me: Kim Stewart 0478 741 940 [email protected]
You can also call my supervisors: Dr Christina Spurgeon 07 3138 8184 [email protected] Dr Niki Edwards 07 3138 4656 [email protected]
YOU CAN SAY NO AT ANY TIME It is your choice to participate, or not. Please return this sheet to Kim.
167
Appendix E - Project Two Draft Policy
DRAFT POLICY – ACCESS AND INCLUSION POLICY
What are the barriers and opportunities for the self-advocacy of people with disabilities in community radio? QUT Ethics Approval Number 1600000781
1. Aim of this policy The Australian community radio sector is dedicated to “access and equity, especially for people and issues not adequately represented in other media” (CBAA Codes of Practice 2008, Guiding Principles). This includes people with disabilities.
Participation in, and proper representation of, people with disabilities in the media has clear social benefits (Attitude Foundation, 2018) but these benefits cannot be realised without social change. The need for change is recognised at international and national levels. For example, the United Nations Convention of the Rights of Persons with disability (2006) and the Disability Discrimination Act (1992) outline the obligations of governments, institutions and individuals to recognise the civil rights of people with disabilities.
Community broadcasters provide open access to resources for self- representation and social inclusion. Through their policies, processes and actions community broadcasters enable diversity in social participation. They can signal to their communities their commitment to helping people with disabilities to be meaningfully included in all aspects of their operations. This policy aims to articulate the key features of meaningful participation for people with disabilities in the community broadcasting sector and should complement any existing diversity, employment, volunteering, representation or other station policies.
This policy is a statement of the intention of the station to make an effort to consider the particular needs of people with disabilities in planning and operations to the best of our abilities. Relevant framing documents and resources are listed at the end of this policy.
2. Areas this policy covers 2.1. Access our buildings and other facilities: 2.1.1. Our station will make an effort to consider the particular needs for accessibility to the building and facilities for people with disabilities wanting to participate; 2.1.2. Our station will regularly audit the accessibility of buildings and make changes where possible; 2.1.3. Accessibility will include the physical structure of the station, but also: literature produced by the station in paper or electronic form, newsletters, forms, training materials and other resources etc (eg. is a document accessible to screen
168 readers for the vision-impaired, or written in plain English for those with learning impairments?); 2.1.4. Accessibility will also include respectful treatment by staff and volunteers for people with disabilities: 2.1.4.1. In making complaints and resolving disputes; 2.1.4.2. In providing opportunities to receive suggestions about how our station can better facilitate inclusion of a person or group; 2.1.4.3. And nominate an assistant volunteer, station advocate, mentor or other helper to help facilitate inclusion of people with disabilities in these processes if necessary; 2.2. people with disabilities will have the same right to participate in station decision-making processes as other volunteers, subscribers, staff, or members of the board of management; and 2.3. Our station will take positive action to educate staff and volunteers about these obligations; 2.4. Our station will endeavour to make people with disabilities and all volunteers feel welcome, wanted, accepted, respected and supported.
This policy has been written in the spirit of, and to be compliant with the following:
United Nations. (2007). Convention of the Rights of Persons with disability https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of- persons-with-disabilities.html Disability Discrimination Act (Australian Government, 1992) https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2017C00339 Community Broadcasting Association of Australia. (2008). Community Radio Broadcasting Codes of Practice https://www.cbaa.org.au/resource/codes-practice-introduction
References and further reading: Community Broadcasting Association of Australian (2016) Diversity Policy RPH Australia (2017) Diversity Policy RPH Australia (2016) Equal Opportunity Policy Harvey Community Radio (undated) Access and Inclusion Policy Attitude Foundation (2018) http://www.attitude.org.au/changing-attitudes/disability-in-the-media/ For an example of a document written in plain English see: Attitude Foundation (2018) Guide for Accessible and Inclusive Content http://www.attitude.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Attitude-Foundation- guidelines-for-content-writers.docx
169
Appendix F – Project Two Interview Questions
PARTICIPANT INFORMATION FOR QUT RESEARCH PROJECT
–Interview Questions –
What are the barriers and opportunities for the self-advocacy of people with disabilities in community radio?
QUT Ethics Approval Number 1600000781
In the first part of this research (project one) I asked people with disabilities what their experience of participation in community radio was like.
In this project (two) I am asking people what a good policy to help better include people with disabilities should include.
This part of the research is called:
Project Two - What are the features of a policy to facilitate the inclusion of people with disabilities in community radio?
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
1) What has been your experience of the inclusion of people with disabilities in community radio? 2) Thinking about the draft policy you have been given to consider, what do you think are some of the good features of this policy? 3) What do you think are some of the difficulties or things that could prove difficult to implement? 4) What changes to the policy itself would you suggest? 5) What is your experience of the process of social and/or policy change in the community radio sector? 6) Do you have anything else you would like to add, that you think is important to be included in this research?
170
Appendix G – Additional Professional Practice During Candidature11
Date Project Organisations
Ability Radio Project, Community Monthly radio groups – Nundah Activities 2016 Living Association, WWILD-SVP, 4ZZZ Centre (voluntary)
Ability Radio Project, West End Monthly radio groups – West End Community 2016 Community House, Community Plus, House & St Stephens Anglican Church Whoopee-do Crew (voluntary)
Only Human weekly radio program 2016- (coordinating five person team, including 4ZZZ (voluntary) present three volunteers with disability) https://soundcloud.com/onlyhuman4zzz
CBAA Conference 2016 (voluntary) Convened Panel: Disability in Community Media Co-presented with Helen Gwilliam 2016 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqyf- (3CR), Kate Wadey and Caroline GE7qr4 Savarnsky (Making Airwaves) and Bernadette Young (ABC Brisbane)
Established Community Radio Inclusion 2017 Support Project website at Independent (voluntary) https://crisponair.blog/
Women On the Edge 15 week radio training 4ZZZ, 4EB, The Edge (State Library of 2017 course for women with facing challenges to Queensland), Community participation https://bit.ly/2C0abPM Broadcasting Foundation (Grant)
4ZZZ magazine, other disability 2017 Magazine articles and interviews sector newsletters (voluntary)
2017 Teaching Certificate II in Film and Media CMTO
Convened panel: What works? Engaging CBAA Conference 2017 (voluntary) 2017 people with disabilities in community radio Co-presented with Steve Richardson https://bit.ly/2zW2Fnr and Paul Price (4RPH)
11 All the conference events were co-presented with radio producers and disability advocates who were also persons with disabilities
171
Date Project Organisations
One day Podcasting workshop for 2018 CMTO, 4ZZZ International Women’s Day
Taking Radio 2 Community project – weekly radio and music groups with men experiencing Brisbane City Council, 4ZZZ, OzCare 2018 homelessness, disability and mental health Men’s Hostel (Grant) issues
2018 Only Human weekly radio program 4ZZZ (voluntary)
4ZZZ, CMTO (voluntary) CBAA Conference 2018 Co-convened conference panel: Fostering your Co-presented with Alison Maclean 2018 stations accessibility for people with (disability advocate with Queensland disabilities Disability Network and radio trainee); Emma Couch, CMTO and Sancha Macdonald (2RPH)
Manuscript under review with Disability & Joint publication Kim Stewart, 2018 Society journal Christina Spurgeon, Niki Edwards
2018 Manuscript under review 3C Media Journal Journal of the CBAA
2018 Presentation at Academics Forum CBAA Conference 2018
Submission to the National Disability and Arts 2018 4ZZZ Strategy
Research documentary and other productions part of December 3 International Day for 2018 People With disability broadcast Community Radio Network & 4ZZZ https://www.cbaa.org.au/article/international -day-people-disability-2018-crn
Resource development to increase station 2018-19 capacity to include people with vision RPHA, CMTO impairments and deliver reading services
172
References
3CR. (2017). Disability Day. Retrieved from http://www.3cr.org.au/disabilityday A11y project. (2018). The A11y project: A community-driven effort to make web accessiblity easier. Retrieved from https://a11yproject.com/ Albert, J. (2017). Off-air with Nas Campanella. Retrieved from https://www.broadsheet.com.au/sydney/entertainment/article/off-air-nas- campanella Alper, M. (2018). Inclusive sensory ethnography: Studying new media and neurodiversity in everyday life. New Media & Society, 20(10), 3560-3579. doi:10.1177/1461444818755394 Amado, A. N., Stancliffe, R., McCarron, M., & McCallion, P. (2013). Social inclusion and community participation of individuals with intellectual/developmental disabilities. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 51(5), 360-375. Anastasiou, D., & Kauffman, J. M. (2013). The Social Model of disability: Dichotomy between impairment and disability. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine, 38(4), 441-459. Anderson, H. (2013). Facilitating active citizenship: Participating in prisoners' radio. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 30(4), 292-306. Anderson, S. a. B., C. (2017). Self-advocacy as a means to positive identities for people with intellectual disability: "We just help them, be them really". Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 30(1), 109-120. Anheier, H., Carlson, L., & Kendall, J. (2012). Third sector policy at the crossroads: Continuity and change in the world of nonprofit organizations Third Sector Policy at the Crossroads (pp. 13-28): Routledge. Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216-224. Arts Access Australia. (2017). Annual Report 2017. Retrieved from Perth, Australia: https://artsaccessaustralia.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/AAA-Annual- Report-2017-1305208.pdf Australia Council for the Arts. (2017). Connecting Australians: Results of the national arts participation survey. Retrieved from https://www.australiacouncil.gov.au/workspace/uploads/files/connecting- australians-natio-59520692c614a.pdf Australian Broadcasting Corporation. (2016a). ABC Equity and Diversity Annual Report 2015–16 Retrieved from http://about.abc.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/ABC_Equity- Diversity_Annual-Report-2016.pdf Australian Broadcasting Corporation. (2016b). ABC Equity and Diversity Plan 2016- 2018. Canberra.
173
Australian Broadcasting Corporation. (2017). Meet our 2017 Community Correspondents. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2017/05/17/4670659.htm Australian Bureau of Statistics. (201). 2016 Census: Multicultural. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2012). Disability, ageing and carers, Australia: Summary of findings, 2012 Retrieved from Canberra: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/lookup/3A5561E876CDAC73CA2 57C210011AB9B?opendocument Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2013). In Focus: Crime and Justice Statistics, October 2013 Retrieved from Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2014). 3238.0 - Estimates and Projections, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, 2001 to 2026. Australian Bureau of Statistics (Writer). (2016). 4430.0 - Disability, Ageing and Carers, Australia: Summary of Findings, 2015. Australian Communications and Media Authority. (2011). Optimal conditions for effective self- and co-regulatory arrangements. Retrieved from Melbourne: https://www.acma.gov.au/-/media/mediacomms/Research-library-reports- old/pdf/Optimal-conditions-for-self--and-co-regulation-Sep-2011- pdf.pdf?la=en Barnes, C. (1992). Disabling imagery and the media. Retrieved from UK: Ryburn Publishing: Bassel, L. (2017). The politics of listening possibilities and challenges for democratic life. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. Bastow, C. (2011). Disability on the small screen: what's wrong with this picture? Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/rampup/articles/2011/09/02/3308488.htm Bennett, W. L., Freelon, D., & Wells, C. (2010). Changing citizen identity and the rise of a participatory media culture Handbook of Research on Civic Engagement in Youth (pp. 393-423). Bickford, S., & Catt-Oliason, J. (2005). On the dissonance of democracy: Listening, conflict, and citizenship. International Journal of Listening, 19(1), 48-50. Birkland, T. A. (2011). An introduction to the policy process: thoeries, concepts and models of public policy making. (3Rd ed.). United States: Routledge. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32(7), 513-531. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. USA: Harvard University Press. Bryant, P., & Pozdeev, N. (2014). Build it and they will come: A case study of the impacts of governance on programming volunteer recruitment within community media organisations. Third Sector Review, 20(1), 141-162. Buckley, S. (2008). Community broadcasting: good practice in policy, law and regulation. Paper presented at the Freedom of Expression, Access to Information and Empowerment of People, Maputo, Mozambique. Burns, S. (2014). Ramp Up’s shut-down robs us of a needed voice on disability issues. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/ramp-ups-shut-down- robs-us-of-a-needed-voice-on-disability-issues-28602
174
Burns, S. (2016). Diversity and journalism pedagogy: Exploring news media representation of disability. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 71(2). Burns, S., & Haller, B. (2015). The politics of representing disability: Exploring news coverage of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Asia Pacific Media Educator, 25(2), 262-277. Burnside-Lawry, J. (2012). Listening and participatory communication: A model to assess organization listening competency. International Journal of Listening, 26(2), 102-121. doi:10.1080/10904018.2012.678092 Butler, J. (2014). Bodily vulnerability, coalitions, and street politics. Critical Studies, 37, 99-119,247. Cammaerts, B. (2006). Reclaiming the media: Communication rights and democratic media roles. Bristol: Intellect. Cammaerts, B., & Carpentier, N. (2006). Reclaiming the Media : Communication Rights and Democratic Media Roles. Bristol, UNITED KINGDOM: Intellect Books Ltd. Carpentier, N. (2016a). Beyond the Ladder of Participation: An analytical toolkit for the critical analysis of participatory media processes. Javnost - The Public, 23(1), 70-88. Carpentier, N. (2016b). Media and participation: A site of ideological-democratic struggle: Intellect. Carpentier, N., Dahlgren, P., & Pasquali, F. (2013). Waves of media democratization: A brief history of contemporary participatory practices in the media sphere. Convergence, 19(3), 287-294. Charlton, J. (1998). Nothing about us without us : disability oppression and empowerment Berkeley: University of California Press. Chomsky, N. (1997). What makes mainstream media mainstream. Retrieved from http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/noam-chomsky-what-makes- mainstream-media-mainstream Cinalli, M., & Flynn, I. (2014). Pluralism and deliberative democracy Deliberative Democracy (pp. 82-97): Edinburgh University Press. Clifford, S. (2012). Making disability public in deliberative democracy. Contemporary Political Theory, 11(2), 211-228. Coakley, C. G., Halone, K. K., & Wolvin, A. D. (1996). Perceptions of listening ability across the life-span: Implications for understanding listening competence. International Journal of Listening, 10(1), 21-48. doi:10.1207/s1932586xijl1001_2 Commercial Radio Australia. (2017). Commercial Radio Code of Practice. Retrieved from http://commercialradio.com.au/CR/media/CommercialRadio/Commercial- Radio-Code-of-Practice.pdf Commonwealth of Australia. (1992a). Broadcasting Services Act. Canberra Retrieved from https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2012C00430. Commonwealth of Australia. (1992b). Disability Discrimination Act. Commonwealth of Australia. (2009). Shut Out: The experience of people with disabilites and their families in Australia. Canberra.
175
Commonwealth of Australia. (2011). National Disability Strategy. Canberra Retrieved from https://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/disability-and- carers/program-services/government-international/national-disability- strategy. Commonwealth of Australia. (2018a). Discussion paper: National arts and disability strategy. Retrieved from http://arts.gov.au/mcm Commonwealth of Australia. (2018b). Research overview: Arts and disability In Australia. Community Broadcasting Association of Australia. (2008). Community Radio Broadcasting Codes of Practice Retrieved from https://www.cbaa.org.au/sites/default/files/media/CommunityRadioBroadc astingCodesofPractice-PrintFriendlyPDF.pdf Community Broadcasting Association of Australia. (2016). Diversity Policy. Retrieved from https://www.cbaa.org.au/sites/default/files/media/CBAA%20Diversity%20P olicy%20-%20for%20website.pdf Community Broadcasting Association of Australia. (2018a). Organisation Profile. Retrieved from Sydney: https://www.cbaa.org.au/sites/default/files/media/CBAA%20Organisation% 20Profile%20-%20updated%20March%202018.pdf Community Broadcasting Association of Australia. (2018b). Overview of the Australian community radio sector. Retrieved from https://www.cbaa.org.au/resource/your-station-and-the-sector Community Broadcasting Foundation. (2017). Annual Report. Retrieved from https://cbf.org.au/documents/2018/08/cbf-annual-report-2017.pdf/ Cooperative Research Centre for Living with Autism. (2016). Inclusive research practice guides and checklists for autism research: version 2. Retrieved from Brisbane,Queensland:: Couldry, N. (2003). Media rituals : a critical approach. London ;: Routledge. Couldry, N. (2015). Alternative media and voice. In C. Atton (Ed.), The Routledge Companion to Alternative and Community Media. UK: Routledge. Cummins, R. A., & Lau, A. (2003). Community integration or community exposure? A review and discussion in relation to people with an intellectual disability. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 16(2), 145-157. Dahl, M. (1993). The role of the media in promoting images of disability: Disability as metaphor, the evil crip. Canadian Journal of Communication, 18(1), 18(1), 75-80. Dahl, M. (2014). USA Patent No. The Cut: N. Y. Magazine. Dalton, A. J., & McVilly, K. R. (2004). Ethics guidelines for international, multicenter research involving people with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 1(2), 57-70. Darling, N. (2007). Ecological Systems Theory: The person in the center of the circles. Research in Human Development, 4(3-4), 203-217. Davis, L. J. (2017). The ghettoization of disability: Paradoxes of visibility and invisibility in cinema. In A. Waldschmidt, H. Berressem, & M. Ingwersen (Eds.), Culture - Theory - Disability. Germany: Transcript.
176
Deaf Australia. (2010). Deaf culture. Retrieved from http://www.deafau.org.au/info/dculture.php Dick, R. (1999). Rigour without numbers: the potential of dialectical processes as qualitative research tools (3rd ed.). Chapel Hill: Interchange. Dreher, T. (2010). Speaking up or being heard? Community media interventions and the politics of listening. Media, Culture & Society, 32(1), 85-103. Dreher, T. (2017). Social/Participation/Listening: keywords for the social impact of community media. Communication Research and Practice, 3(1), 14-30. doi:10.1080/22041451.2016.1273737 Dreher, T., & Griffiths, M. (2018). Shifting the terms of debate: speaking, writing and listening beyond free speech debates. Continuum, 32(4), 393-399. doi:10.1080/10304312.2018.1488528 Dreher, T., & Mondal, A. A. (2018). From voice to response: Ethical responsiveness and the politics of difference. In T. Dreher & A. A. Mondal (Eds.), Ethical Responsiveness and the Politics of Difference (pp. 1-19). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Dunbar-Hester, C. (2014). Radical inclusion? Locating accountability in technical DIY DIY Citizenship (pp. 75-88): MIT Press. Dutta, M. J. (2014). A culture-centered approach to listening: Voices of social change International Journal of Listening, 28(2), 67-81. doi:10.1080/10904018.2014.876266 Eleweke, C. J. (2011). Chapter 8 History of deafness and hearing impairments History of Special Education (pp. 181-212). Ellis, K. (2014). Cripples, bastards and broken things: Disability in Game of Thrones. MC Journal, 17(5). Ellis, K. (2016). Disability Media Work : Opportunities and Obstacles. New York: Palgrave Macmillan US. Ellis, K., & Goggin, G. (2015). Disability media participation: Opportunities, obstacles and politics. Media International Australia, Incorporating Culture & Policy(154). Ellis, K., & Goggin, G. (2018). Disability and media activism. In G. Meikle (Ed.), The Routledge companinon to media and activism. New York: Routledge. Ellis, K., Kent, M., Hollier, S., Burns, S., & Goggin, G. (2018). Reimagining Australia via disability and media: Representation, access and digital intergration. Coolabah, 24, 94-111. European Commission. (2017). Commission welcomes Member States' agreement on the European Accessibility Act, but calls for more ambition on responsibilities of public authorities. In E. Commission (Ed.). Brussels. Ewart, J., & Snowden, C. (2014). The media's role in social inclusion and exclusion. Media international Australia incorporating Culture & Policy, 142(61). Farnall, O., & Smith, K. A. (1999). Reactions to people with disabilities: Personal contact versus viewing of specific media portrayals. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 76(4), 659-672. Fisher, K. R., & Purcal, C. (2017). Policies to change attitudes to people with disabilities. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 19(2), 161-174.
177 Forde, S., Meadows, M., & Foxwell, K. (2002a). Community radio, radicalism and the grassroots: Discussing the politics of contemporary Australian community. Transformations, 4. Forde, S., Meadows, M., & Foxwell, K. (2002b). Culture, commitment, community: The Australian community radio sector. Retrieved from Fuller-Thomson, E., & Brennenstuhl, S.,. (2012). People with disabilities: The forgotten victims of violence. The Lancet, 379(9826), 1573-1574. Galli, G., Lenggenhager, B., Scivoletto, G., Molinari, M., & Pazzaglia, M. (2015). Don't look at my wheelchair! The plasticity of longlasting prejudice. Medical Education, 49(12), 1239-1247. Gandolfo, E. (2012). Constructing imaginary narratives: Practice-led research and feminist practice in creative writing. Qualitative Research Journal, 12(1), 61- 74. Gaynor, N., & O'Brien, A. (2012). Because it all begins with talk: community radio as a vital element in community development. Community Development Journal, 47(3), 436-447. Gaynor, N., & O’Brien, A. (2017). Community radio, democratic participation and the public sphere. Irish Journal of Sociology, 25(1), 29-47. Godrej, D. (2008). Stuff pity! New Internationalist, 384. Goffman, E. (1986). Frame analysis: An essay on the organisation of experience. Boston: Northeastern University Press. Goffman, E. (1990). Stigma: notes on the management of spoiled identity. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Goggin, G. (2009). Disability and the ethics of listening. Continuum, 23(4), 489-502. Goggin, G., Hollier, S., & Hawkins, W. (2017). Internet accessibility and disability policy: lessons for digital inclusion and equality from Australia. Internet Policy Review, 6(Issue 1). Goggin, G., & Newell, C. (2005). Disability in Australia: Exposing a social apartheid: UNSW Press. Goodley, D. (1998). Supporting people with learning difficulties in self-advocacy groups and models of disability. Health & Social Care in the Community, 6(6), 438-446. Goodley, D. (2005). Empowerment, self-advocacy and resilience. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 9(4), 333-343. Goodley, D., & Armstrong, D. (2001). Self-advocacy, civil rights and the social model of disability. Retrieved from Leeds: Grimes, M., & Stevenson, S. (2011). Radio as a tool for rehabilitation and social inclusion. In M. Mollgard (Ed.), Radio and Society: New thinking for an old medium (pp. 170-197). Newcastle-On-Thyne: Cambridge University Press. Günnel, T. (2008). The Dual Role approach: encouraging access to community radio. . Radio Journal: International Studies in Broadcast & Audio Media, 6(2-3), 87- 94. Gunningham, N., & Rees, J. (1997). Industry self-regulation: An institutional perspective. Law & Policy, 19(4), 363-414. Haller, B. (2010). Representing disability in an ableist world: Essays on mass media. USA: Avocado Press.
178
Haller, B., Dorries, B., Rahn, J. (2006). Media labeling versus the US disability community identity: a study of shifting cultural language. Disability & Society, 21(1), 61-75. Haseman, B. (2006). A manifesto for performative research. Media International Australia, Incorporating Culture & Policy, 118. Hickey-Moody, A., & Crowley, V. (2010). Disability matters: pedagogy, media and affect. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 31(4), 399-409. doi:10.1080/01596306.2010.504358 Hintz, A. (2011). From media niche to policy spotlight: Mapping community media policy change in Latin America. Canadian Journal of Communication, 36(1), 147-159. Hirschmann, N., Linker, B., Smith, R. M., & Dudziak, M. L. (2015). Disability, citizenship, and belonging: A critical introduction Civil Disabilities (pp. 1-21): University of Pennsylvania Press. Hope, E. C., & Spencer, M. B. (2017). Civic engagement as an adaptive coping response to conditions of inequality: An application of phenomenological variant of Ecological Systems Theory. In N. J. Cabrera & B. Leyendecker (Eds.), Handbook on Positive Development of Minority Children and Youth (pp. 421-435). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Iacono, T. (2006). Ethical challenges and complexities of including people with intellectual disability as participants in research. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 31(3), 173-179. Jacklin, P. (1978). Representative Diversity. Journal of Communication, 28(2), 85-88. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1978.tb01600.x Jemielniak, D. (2016). Wikimedia movement governance: the limits of a-hierarchical organization. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 29(3), 361- 378. Jenkinson, P. (2016). The accessiblity of content management systems. Retrieved from http://www.mediaaccess.org.au/digitalaccessibilityservices/the- accessibility-of-content-management-systems/ Johnson, M. (1994). Sticks and stones: The language of disability. In J. A. Nelson (Ed.), The disabled, the media, and the information age. Westport: Greenwood Press. Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Nixon, R. (2014). A new view of participation: Participation in public spheres are self-constituted, voluntary and autonomous. In M. N. Kemmis (Ed.), The Action Research Planner. Singapore: Springer. Kidd, S. A., & Kral, M. J. (2005). Practicing participatory action research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 187-195. Kina, V. J., & Fernandes, K. C. (2017). Augusto Boal's Theatre of the oppressed: Democratising art for social transformation. Critical and Radical Social Work, 5(2), 241-252. Lacey, K. (2013). Listening publics : The politics and experience of listening in the media age. Oxford, UNITED KINGDOM: Polity Press. Lawe Davies, C. (2005). Enacting cultural diversity through multicultural radio in Australia. Communications, 30, 409-430.
179
Leach, D. K. (2016). When Freedom Is Not an Endless Meeting: A New Look at Efficiency in Consensus-Based Decision Making. The Sociological Quarterly, 57(1), 36-70. Lee, C. D., Spencer, M. B., & Harpalani, V. (2003). “Every shut eye ain’t sleep”: Studying how people live culturally. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 6-13. Lid, I. M. (2014). Universal Design and disability: an interdisciplinary perspective. Disability and Rehabilitation, 36(16), 1344-1349. Lister, R. (2007). From object to subject: including marginalised citizens in policy making. Policy and Politics, 35(3), 437-455. Lloyd, A., Smith, M., Dempsey, I., Fischetti, J., & Amos, K. (2017). Short- and medium-term impacts of the Just Like You disability awareness program: A quasi-experimental comparison of alternative forms of program delivery in New South Wales' primary schools. Australian Journal of Education, 61(3), 288-304. Macnamara, J. (2018). Toward a theory and practice of organizational listening. International Journal of Listening, 32(1), 1-23. doi:10.1080/10904018.2017.1375076 Mallett, R. (2011). Representing disability in an ableist world: Essays on mass media. Disability & Society, 26(7), 891-893. Marquez, L. (2016). The relevance of organizational structure to NGOs’ approaches to the policy process. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27(1), 465-486. Martinson, J. (2016). BBC News launches £1m drive to recruit disabled journalists. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/may/04/bbc-news-disabled- journalists-james-harding-diversity McGinty, E. E., Webster, D. W., Jarlenski, M., & Barry, C. L. (2014). News media framing of serious mental illness and gun violence in the United States, 1997-2012. American journal of public health, 104(3), 406. McIntyre, P. (2012). Constraining and enabling creativity: The theoretical ideas surrounding creativity, agency and structure. The International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving, 22. McKeown, M., Dix, J., Jones, F., Carter, B., Malihi-Shoja, L., Mallen, E., & Harrison, N. (2014). Service user involvement in practitioner education: Movement politics and transformative change. Nurse Education Today, 34(8), 1175- 1178. McLaughlin, T. (1996). Street smarts and critical theory: Listening to the vernacular. Wisconsin: University of Wisconson Press. McRuer, R. (2006). Crip theory: Cultural signs of queerness and disability. New York: New York University Press. Meacham, H., Cavanagh, J., Shaw, A., & Bartram, T. (2017). HRM practices that support the employment and social inclusion of workers with an intellectual disability. Personnel Review, 46(8), 1475-1492. Meadows, M. (2015). Blackfella listening to blackfella: Theorising Indigenous community broadcasting. In C. Atton (Ed.), The Routledge Companion to Alternative and Communtiy media: Routledge.
180
Meadows, M., & Foxwell, K. (2011). Community broadcasting and mental health: The role of local radio and television in enhancing emotional and social well- being. The Radio Journal – International Studies in Broadcast and Audio Media, 9(2). Meekosha, H., & Douse, L. (1997). Distorting images, invisible images: Gender, disability and the media. Media International Australia(84). Michels, A., & De Graaf, L. (2010). Examining citizen participation: Local participatory policy making and democracy. Local Government Studies, 36(4), 477-491. Mik-Meyer, N. (2016). Othering, ableism and disability: A discursive analysis of co- workers’ construction of colleagues with visible impairments. Human Relations, 69(6), 1341-1363. Milan, S. (2009). Four steps to community media as a development tool. Development in Practice, 19(4/5), 598-609. Mosley, J. (2013). Recognizing New Opportunities: Reconceptualizing Policy Advocacy in Everyday Organizational Practice. Social Work, 58(3), 231-239. doi:10.1093/sw/swt020 National Ethnic and Mulitcultural Broadcasters Council. (2018). About. Retrieved from https://www.nembc.org.au/about/ Nelson, J. A. (1994). Broken images: Portrayals of those with disabilities in American media. In J. A. Nelson (Ed.), The disabled, the media, and the information age. Westport: Greenwood Press. Nelson, J. A. (2000). The Media Role in Building the Disability Community. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 15(3), 180-193. NHRMC. (2007). National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. Canberra. O'Mallon, F. (2018). Issac to push his wheelchair-bound uncle for fun run. Retrieved from https://www.canberratimes.com.au/canberra-news/isaac- to-push-his-wheelchair-bound-uncle-for-fun-run-20180921-p505b7.html Ohmer, M. L. (2010). How Theory and Research Inform Citizen Participation in Poor Communities: The Ecological Perspective and Theories on Self- and Collective Efficacy and Sense of Community. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 20(1), 1-19. Oliver, M. (1986). Social Policy and Disability: Some Theoretical Issues. Disability, Handicap & Society, 1(1), 5-17. Oliver, M. (2013). The social model of disability: thirty years on. Disability & Society, 28(7), 1024-1026. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Collins, K. M. T., & Frels, R. K. (2013). Using Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory to frame quantitative, qualitative, and mixed research. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 7(1), 2-8. doi:10.5172/mra.2013.7.1.2 Order, S. (2017). Community radio: The joy of social connection. Retrieved from Australia: https://cbf.org.au/documents/2018/08/joy-social-connection.pdf/ Ortiz, F. (2012). BRAZIL: Community Radio Flourishes Online. Retrieved from http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/01/brazil-community-radio-flourishes- online/
181
Pasupathi, M., & Billitteri, J. (2015). Being and Becoming through Being Heard: Listener Effects on Stories and Selves. International Journal of Listening, 29(2), 67-84. doi:10.1080/10904018.2015.1029363 People With Disability Australia. (2019). Training. Retrieved from https://pwd.org.au/services/training/ Pepper, P. (2016, 2 June, 2016). We long to watch disabled characters like us. Instead we get Me Before You. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/01/me-before- you-suggests-better-dead-than-disabled Phipps, T. C. (1993). Listen with your heart: Listening to people with disabilities International Listening Association. Journal, 7(sup1), 8-16. doi:10.1080/10904018.1993.10499120 QSR International Pty Ltd. (2012). NVivo qualitative data analysis Software, Version 10. Quinlan, M. M., & Bates, B. R. (2009). Bionic Woman (2007): gender, disability and cyborgs. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 9(1), 48-58. Radio Seeds. (2017). Radio Seeds : What I know now. Retrieved from https://radioseeds.wordpress.com/category/what-i-know-now/ Rennie, E. (2007). Community media in the prosumer era. 3C Media(3). Rennie, E., Spurgeon, C., & Barraket, J. (2017). Community broadcasting and social impact research. Communication Research and Practice, 3(1), 1-13. Rogers, C. R. (1951). Client-centered therapy : its current practice, implications and theory. London: Constable. Rollo, T. (2017). Everyday deeds: Enactive protest, exit, and silence in deliberative systems. Political Theory, 45(5), 587-609. Rose, M. (2017). Not media about, but media with: Co-creation for activism I-Docs (pp. 49-65): Columbia University Press. Round Table on Information Access for People with Print Disabilites Inc. (2011). Guidelines for producing clear print. Retrieved from http://printdisability.org/guidelines/guidelines-for-producing-clear-print- 2011/ Rowland, M. (2014). Angry and mad: A critical examination of identity politics, neurodiversity, and the Mad Pride movement. Journal of Ethics in Mental Health, 9, 1. RPHA. (2016). Protocol for RPH broadcasting. Retrieved from https://www.rph.org.au/rph-protocol/ RPHA. (2017). Diversity policy. Retrieved from http://www.rph.org.au/wp- content/uploads/2017/06/RPHA-010-Diversity-Policy.pdf Runswick-Cole, K. (2014). 'Us' and 'them': the limits and possibilities of a 'politics of neurodiversity' in neoliberal times. Disability & Society, 29(7), 1117-1129. Saeed, S. (2009). Negotiating power: Community media, democracy, and the public sphere. Development in Practice, 19(4/5), 466-478. Salend, S. J., & Garrick Duhaney, L. M. (1999). The impact of inclusion on students with and without disabilities and their educators. Remedial and Special Education, 20(2), 114-126.
182
Saunders, N., & Lane, M. (1980a). Parliamentary debates on the legislation of commercial broadcasting: A precis of the Hansard Debates on the introduction of the Australian Broadcasting Act, 1942. Monograph 6a. North Ryde, NSW: Australian Film & Television School. Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (2007). Public policy and democratic citizenship: What kinds of citizenship does policy Promote? In F. Fischer, Miller, G.J., Sidney, M.S. (Ed.), Handbook of Public Policy Analysis Theory, Politics, and Methods. Florida: Taylor & Francis. Scior, K. (2011). Public awareness, attitudes and beliefs regarding intellectual disability: A systematic review. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32(6), 2164-2182. Scotch, R., & Schriner, K. (1997). Disability as human variation: Implications for policy. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 549, 148-159. Sen, A. (2003). Waiting to be heard: Bringing marginalised voices to the centre. Economic and Political Weekly, 38(22), 2198-2201. Shandra, C. L. (2017). Disability and social participation: The case of formal and informal volunteering. Social Science Research, 68, 195-213. Siemering, W. (2000). Radio, democracy and development: Evolving models of community radio. Journal of Radio Studies, 7(2). Simplican, S. C., Leader, G., Kosciulek, J., & Leahy, M. (2015). Defining social inclusion of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities: An ecological model of social networks and community participation. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 38(1), 18-29. Smith, H., & Dean, R. T. (2009). Practice-led research, research-led practice in the creative arts Research methods for the arts and humanities; Research methods for the arts and humanities., Splichal, S. (2002). The principle of publicity, public use of reason and social control. Media, Culture & Society, 24(1), 5-26. Spurgeon, C. (2015). Participatory media and 'co-creative' storytelling. Making media participatory(154), 132-138. Stancliffe, R. J. (2014). Inclusion of adults with disability in Australia: outcomes, legislation and issues. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18(10), 1053-1063. Stewart, K. (2018). Community Radio Inclusion Support Project: Listen to programs on-air. Retrieved from https://crisponairblog.wordpress.com/listen-to-our- shows/ Stewart, K., & Stimpson, B. (2015). Ability Radio Project: Pilot course materials 2015. Retrieved from https://www.cbaa.org.au/sites/default/files/Ability- Radio-Project-Training-Guide-2016.pdf Stokols, D., Lejano, R. P., & Hipp, J. (2013). Enhancing the resilience of human & environment systems: A social ecological perspective. Ecology and Society, 18(1). Stolper, D., Wyatt, N., & McKenna, C. (2012). Evaluating the effectiveness of reconciliation action plans: Reconciliation Australia.
183
Sussman, G. a. E., J.R. (2005). KBOO Community Radio: Organizing Portland's Disorderly Possibilities. Journal of Radio Studies, 12(2). Sweeney, B. R., S.,. (2014). Mainstreaming disability on Radio 4. In S. W. Riddell, Nick (Ed.), Disability, culture and identity. New York: Routledge. Tacchi, J., Watkins, J., & Keerthirathne, K. (2009). Participatory content creation: Voice, communication, and development. Development in Practice, 19(4/5), 573-584. Thill, C. (2015). Listening for policy change: how the voices of disabled people shaped Australia’s National Disability Insurance Scheme. Disability & Society, 30(1), 15-28. Thill, C. (2018). Listening with Recognition for Social Justice. In T. Dreher & A. A. Mondal (Eds.), Ethical Responsiveness and the Politics of Difference (pp. 57- 73). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Thill, C., & Dreher, T. (2017). Disability, listening and media justice. Paper presented at the 2017 ANZCA Conference: Communication Worlds: Access, Voice, Diversity, Engagement University of Sydney. Throsby, D., & Petetskaya, K. (2017). Making Art Work: An economic study of professional artists in Australia Retrieved from https://www.australiacouncil.gov.au/research/making-art-work/ United Nations. (2007). Convention of the Rights of Persons with a Disability: United Nations. United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Retrieved from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld/pu blication van Vuuren, K. (2002). Beyond the Studio: A Case Study of Community Radio and Social Capital. Media International Australia, 103(1), 94-108. van Vuuren, K. (2005). Community media in transition: emerging frameworks for their regulation, practice, and theory. [online]. Australian Journal of Communication, Vol. 32, No. 2, 2005: 57-70. Australian Journal of Communication 32(2), 57-70. Vision Australia. Blindness and vision loss. Retrieved from https://www.visionaustralia.org/information/newly-diagnosed/blindness- and-vision-loss Vision Australia. (2018). Document accessibility toolbar. Retrieved from https://www.visionaustralia.org/services/digital-access/document- accessibility-toolbar Warren, R., & Wicks, R. H. (2011). Political socialization: Modeling teen political and civic engagement. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 88(1), 156- 175. Watson, N., & Shakespeare, T. (2001). The social model of disability: An outdated ideology? Exploring Theories and Expanding Methodologies: Where we are and where we need to go (pp. 9-28). WebAIM. (2001). Web accessiblity evaluation tool. Retrieved from https://wave.webaim.org/
184
Wolfensberger, W. (2011). Social role valorization: A proposed new term for the principle of normalization. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 49(6), 435-440. Women On The Edge. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/4ZZZWomenOnTheEdge/ Woodrow, N., Spurgeon, C., Rennie, E., Klaebe, H., Heck, E., Haseman, B., . . . Burgess, J. (2015). Community uses of co-creative media digital storytelling and co-creative media: The role of community arts and media in propagating and coordinating population-wide creative practice. Cultural Science, 8(2), 150-243. World Health Organisation. (2014). Disability Action Plan. Retrieved from Geneva: http://www.who.int/disabilities/actionplan/en/ World Health Organisation. (2018). Health topics: Disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/topics/disabilities/en/ World Wide Web Consortium. (2008). Web content accessibility guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. Retrieved from https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/ Young, S. (undated). Stella Young: I'm not your inspiration, thank you very much. Retrieved from https://en.tiny.ted.com/talks/stella_young_i_m_not_your_inspiration_than k_you_very_much Zhang, L., & Haller, B. (2013). Consuming image: How mass media impact the identity of people with disabilities. Communication Quarterly, 61(3), 319- 334. Zola, I. K. (1993). Special Issue: Reflections Self, identity and the naming question: Reflections on the language of disability. Social Science & Medicine, 36(2), 167-173.
185