Author shows importance of framing in disability policy discussions

LAWRENCE — Sean Kamperman won’t go so far as to say that framing an argument is half the battle. But a new paper by the University of Kansas researcher argues that certain key words, topic shifts and other framing maneuvers can serve to “amplify marginalized voices in public debates.”

His findings “show the importance of having a strategy when you enter these types of conversations and of being prepared to hold your ground rhetorically,” said the assistant professor of English. “You can get knocked off your framing quickly.”

That’s true for anyone, but especially for those among and/or advocating for people with intellectual disabilities — be it autism, Down syndrome or anything else.

The article, titled “Gateways and Anchor Points: The Use of Frames to Amplify Marginalized Voices in Disability Policy Deliberations,” was published in the most recent edition of the journal Written Communication.

Kamperman became interested in the self-advocacy movement some years ago, and the article focuses on interactions between members of that community and elected officials as the citizens petitioned the government in Kamperman’s former home state, Ohio, to expand education and transportation services.

Kamperman writes of attending meetings and observing interactions between disability advocates and a group of elected officials and bureaucrats in a “town hall” setting.

His observations, he writes, are guided by classical rhetorical theory of stasis.

“That holds that there are several fundamental standpoints one can take in a debate,” Kamperman said. “For instance, one stasis, or state, is the question of jurisdiction. Who is responsible for fixing the problem? Another is the question of definition. Who gets to define the existence and scope of the problem? Disagreements are often the result of two sides proceeding from different standpoints.

“I give the example in the paper of a mom who comes to a meeting with her legislators and says her daughter is not getting the services she has been promised. The legislator replies with something like, ‘These bureaucracies are terrible, but you just have to work within the system.’ He is shifting the question from who has responsibility to fix the problem to defining the problem as normal and expected. So shifting between staseis is one way of reframing issues — in this case, dodging responsibility.”

Kamperman cites as effective one self-advocate who punctured legislators’ demand for proof of the job — acquiring effectiveness of a postsecondary education program by showing why the data they sought was unavailable.

“That created a gateway, a frame shift, an opening to shift the discussion from one about employment to one about equity, education and self-actualization,” Kamperman said.

Also effective, Kamperman writes, is when advocates bring their lived experiences to the room. That’s the anchor point of the article’s title.

“By bringing that intimate knowledge to the table, if they are savvy, these advocates can swing the conversation,” Kamperman said.

Kamperman admitted his findings showing the importance of quick thinking, fluency and even oratory in public policy settings works against the self-advocacy movement’s goal of empowering those with intellectual disabilities — who may not be fluent — to speak for themselves.

 “It’s a dilemma for the self-advocacy movement,” he said. “It’s why self-advocates with both political literacy and lived experience of disability are so important to these discussions.”