Language matters! The long-standing debate between identity-first language and person first language

There has been a long-standing debate about person-first versus identify-first language in the study of disability. In other words, whether it is more acceptable to describe someone as a “disabled person” or “a person with a disability.” As language, culture and society evolve, it is becoming increasingly difficult for authors of scientific papers to select appropriate language when communicating scientific findings.

Historically, identify-first language was used because disability was considered an attribute of the individual. This language was reflected in the International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps (ICIDH, 1980), which defined disability as “any restriction or lack (resulting from an impairment) of ability to perform an activity in the manner or within the range considered normal for a human being.” Beginning in 1970, the “People First” movement sought to promote person-first language to empower individuals with disability by placing emphasis on their humanity rather than their impairments (Wehmeyer et al., 2000) In North America, people-first language was endorsed by the American Psychological Association and is currently the recommended approach in many North American scholarly journals (Dunn & Andrews, 2015)

Outside the United States, there has been an increased demand to use identity-first language especially among the disability rights community (i.e., advocates of disability culture). This is congruent with the social model of disability, which indicates that disability is not an innate characteristic of the individual, but rather it is societal attitudes and structures that make people disabled (i.e., the term disabled people is justified to emphasize how these individuals are disabled by society; Oliver, 2013). There are also those who prefer identify-first language because they take pride in this aspect of their identities. Thus, although person-first language is taught in many North American health professions programs and mandated by many medical journals, identity-first language may be preferred by those with lived experience. Although person-first language is meant to promote respect to an individual, the concept is based on the notion that disability is something negative.

Identify-first language recognizes disability as a culture, promoting autonomy, agency, and choice over one’s destiny. Grounded in the diversity model, identity-first language recognizes that disability is part of the person and is not a derogatory term. Disability is portrayed as a neutral (or even positive) human attribute, and not a medical problem that requires a cure (Olkin & Pledger, 2003).

Reclaiming the word disability (and related terms) cultivates reappropriation for the disabled community, such that the word disability, at one time pejorative, has been reclaimed by disabled people and reinforced as acceptable language within society (Groom et al., 2003). In this way disabled people have claimed an agency that was not granted to them with person-first language. Disability language can be taken one step further with Crip theory, wherein the use of disability slang words traditionally used to shame disabled people have been reclaimed and used as “insider” terms (Dolmage, 2007). Through its evolution, Crip theory has become a political move for self-determination and self-valuation representing a disabled present.

Dunn and Andrews have suggested several approaches that could be considered when writing about disability (Dunn & Andrews, 2015). For example, authors may choose to use terms flexibly throughout their work, alternating between person-first and identity-first terms. In addition, authors are encouraged to discuss the use of preferred language with participants in their research, or those with lived experience who are associated with their work through participatory approaches. This approach advocates for self-determination for assistive technology users, through meaningful engagement. Assistive Technology promotes and encourages the use of participatory approaches to research which meaningfully engage assistive technology users in research teams, and in the research process.

Given that word choices will undoubtedly influence how readers receive information published in Assistive Technology, we encourage authors to carefully consider the nature of their work, and the impact of their use of particular styles of language. We further encourage authors to justify their choice of language, as a reflexive research practice, to provide the reader with an understanding of the choices made by the authors in the research and within the preparation of their manuscript.