Virtual reality hope machines in a curative imaginary: recommendations for neurorehabilitation research from a critical disability studies perspective

References

• Gibson BE. Rehabilitation: a post-critical approach. Toronto (ON): CRC Press; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson BE, Terry G, Setchell J, et al. The micro-politics of caring: tinkering with person-centered rehabilitation. Disabil Rehabil. 2020;42(11):1529–1538.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fadyl JK, Teachman G, Hamdani Y. Problematizing 'productive citizenship' within rehabilitation services: insights from three studies. Disabil Rehabil. 2020;42(20):2959–2966.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerlach AJ, Teachman G, Laliberte-Rudman D, et al. Expanding beyond individualism: engaging critical perspectives on occupation. Scand J Occup Ther. 2018;25(1):35–43.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Struhkamp R. Wordless pain: dealing with suffering in physical rehabilitation. Cult Stud. 2005;19(6):701–718.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bermúdez i Badia S, Fluet GG, Llorens R, et al. Virtual reality for sensorimotor rehabilitation post stroke: design principles and evidence. In: Reinkensmeyer D, Dietz V, editors. Neurorehabilitation technology Zürich: Springer; 2016. p. 573–603.
   Google Scholar
• Jayaratne TE, Stewart AJ. Quantitative and qualitative methods in the social sciences: current feminist issues and practical strategies. In Jaggar AM, editor. Just methods: an interdisciplinary feminist reader. Bloomington (IN): Indiana University Press; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Harding S. Rethinking standpoint epistemology: what is “Strong Objectivity? In: Alcoff L, Potter E, editors. Feminist epistemologies. New York: Routledge; 1993. p. 49–82.
   Google Scholar
• Haraway DJ. Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Femin Stud. 1988;14(3):575–599.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roulstone A, Watson N, Thomas C. The changing terrain of disability studies. In: Roulstone A, Watson N, Thomas C, editors. Routledge handbook of disability studies. New York (NY): Routledge; 2012. p. 3–11.
   Google Scholar
• Barnes C. Understanding the social model of disability: past, present, and future. In: Roulstone A, Watson N, Thomas C, editors. Routledge handbook of disability studies. New York: Routledge; 2012. p. 12–29.
   Google Scholar
• Oliver M. The politics of disablement: a sociological approach. Basingstoke (UK): Palgrave Macmillan; 1990.
   Google Scholar
• Oliver M. Social work with disabled people. Basingstoke (UK): Palgrave Macmillan; 1983.
   Google Scholar
• Finkelstein V. Attitudes and disabled people. New York (NY): World Rehabilitation Fund; 1980.
   Google Scholar
• Kent M, Ellis K, Garland-Thomson R, et al. Introduction: why manifestos, why now? In: Ellis K, Garland-Thomson R, Kent M, et al. editors. Manifestos for the future of critical disability studies. New York (NY): Routledge; 2018. p. 1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Frank AW. The wounded storyteller: body, illness, and ethics. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Hamraie A, Fritsch K. Crip technoscience manifesto. Catalyst. 2019;5(1):1–33.
   Google Scholar
• Linton S. Claiming disability: knowledge and identity. New York (NY): NYU Press; 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Mairs N. Waist-high in the world: a life among the nondisabled. Boston (MA): Beacon Press; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Wendell S. The rejected body: feminist philosophical reflections on disability. New York (NY): Routledge; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell DT, Snyder SL. The body and physical difference: discourses of disability. Ann Arbor (MI): University of Michigan Press; 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Samuels E. Critical divides: Judith Butler’s body theory and the question of disability. NWSA J. 2002;14(3):58–76.
   Google Scholar
• Garland-Thomson R. Integrating disability, transforming feminist theory. NWSA J. 2002;14(3):1–32.
   Google Scholar
• Terry J, Urla JL, editors. Deviant bodies: critical perspectives on difference in science and popular culture. Bloomington (IN): Indiana University Press; 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Shildrick M. Critical disability studies: rethinking the conventions for the age of postmodernity. In: Roulstone A, Watson N, Thomas C, editors. Routledge handbook of disability studies. New York (NY): Routledge; 2012. p. 35–41.
   Google Scholar
• Goodley D. Dis/entangling critical disability studies. Disabil Soc. 2013;28(5):631–644.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis LJ. Enforcing normalcy: disability, deafness, and the body. London & New York: Verso Books; 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Ng SL, Mylopoulos M, Kangasjarvi E, et al. Critically reflective practice and its sources: a qualitative exploration. Med Educ. 2020;54(4):312–319.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahmed S. Cultural politics of emotion. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Jaggar AM. Love and knowledge: emotion in feminist epistemology. Inquiry. 1989;32(2):151–176.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laferton JAC, Kube T, Salzmann S, et al. Patients' expectations regarding medical treatment: a critical review of concepts and their assessment. Front Psychol. 2017;8:233.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goggin G. Technology and social futures. In: Ellis K, Garland-Thomson R, Kent M, et al. editors. Manifestos for the future of critical disability studies. New York: Routledge, 2018. p. 79–91.
   Google Scholar
• Kafer A. Feminist, queer, crip. Bloomington (IN): Indiana University Press; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Altermark N. The ideology of neuroscience and intellectual disability: reconstituting the ‘disordered’ brain. Disabil Soc. 2014;29(9):1460–1472.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Billington T. Educational inclusion and critical neuroscience: friends or foes? Int J Inclus Educ. 2017;21(8):866–880.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garland-Thomson R. A cross-cultural neuroethics view on the language of disability. AJOB Neurosci. 2019;10(2):91–92.
   Google Scholar
• Zola IK. Medicine as an institution of social control. Sociol Rev. 1972;20(4):487–504.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibson MF. The helpful brain? Translations of neuroscience into social work. Br J Soc Work. 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson BE. Worlding disability: categorizations, labels, and the making of people. AJOB Neurosci. 2019;10(2):85–87.
   Google Scholar
• Fritsch K. Accessible. In: Fritsch K, O’Connor C, Thompson AK, editors. Keywords for radicals: the contested vocabulary of late-capitalist struggle. Chico (CA): AK Press; 2016. p. 23–28.
   Google Scholar
• Bunch M. Julia Kristeva, disability and the singularity of vulnerability. J Literary Cult Disabil Stud. 2017;11(2):133–150.
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell DT, Snyder SL. The eugenic Atlantic: race, disability, and the making of an international eugenic science, 1800–1945. Disabil Soc. 2003;18(7):843–864.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garland-Thomson R. The case for conserving disability. J Bioeth Inq. 2012;9(3):339–355.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clare E. Brilliant imperfection: grappling with cure. Durham (NC): Duke University Press; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Beauchamp‐Pryor K. Impairment, cure and identity: ‘where do I fit in?’ Disabil Soc. 2011;26(1):5–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hahn HD, Belt TL. Disability identity and attitudes toward cure in a sample of disabled activists. J Health Soc Behav. 2004;45(4):453–464.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blair K, Johnson M. “I am invictus”: parasport, the invictus games, and disability performance in Canada. Theatre Res Canada. 2022;43(1); forthcoming.
   Google Scholar