Resources search

Background: Cross-border entrepreneurship is one source of livelihood that is transforming people’s lives, especially those with limited resources and educational qualifications and those in need of supplementary earnings to complement meagre formal earnings. However, despite strides made to make this avenue worthwhile, this Zimbabwean study shows that hidden hindrances still persist from procedural and structural barriers from road entry point management systems. To people with disabilities (PWDs), the impact of these hidden barriers is severe to the extent of obstructing their optimum progression into cross-border entrepreneurship.

Objectives: This article sought to interrogate some veiled challenges in border management systems affecting PWDs’ quest to venture into cross-border entrepreneurship. This angle has, to this end, been timidly addressed as most organisations and legislation have concentrated on making things work for the majority of the populace.

Method: Qualitative phenomenological method in which researchers’ lived experiences, review of literature, ideas and opinions is complemented by secondary survey data from a road entry point management system study in the Zimbabwean setting.

Results: Cross-border entrepreneurship has potential to transform people’s lives: 1) road and border management systems’ procedural and structural complications present hidden challenges impeding PWDs’ entry and optimum participation in cross border entrepreneurship, 2) people with disabilities are not automatically dependents; in fact, most have dependents looking up to the, 30 social construction of disability persists and must be curbed and 4) there is a need to institute a ‘stakeholders triad approach’.

Conclusion: The existing road entry points’ management systems are not informed by considerations from PWDs, hence the existence of hidden challenges. Cross-border entrepreneurship can open significant livelihood avenues to PWDs. A stakeholders ‘triad-approach’, proposed herein, can solve some of the policy discrepancies as it recommends utilising inputs from PWDs, research and policy-makers.

African Journal of Disability, Vol 9, 2020 

The Disability Inclusive Development (DID) consortium is working together on the Pre-Primary and Primary Inclusive Education in Tanzania (PPPIET) programme whose ultimate goal is to foster quality sustainable inclusive education for all children with disabilities (CWD) at scale across Tanzania in mainstream pre-primary and primary government schools.  To achieve this, it aims to support collective, coordinated systems change by establishing an agreed common model of basic inclusive pre-primary and primary education in mainstream government schools, and galvanising significant progress in spreading its systematic implementation for all CWD across Tanzania over six years.

This task requires the cooperation of government, civil society and DPOs to achieve real change.  No single organisation or government department can achieve inclusive education on its own.  Cooperation between all government ministries, including education, health, finance and social welfare are key to providing individual support to learners with disabilities.  Pooling the skills and resources, and exchanging learnings to achieve quality inclusive education of children can help all involved.  Working together will build collective commitment and action, not just amongst DID consortium members but also across government, donors, education actors and the private sector. 

The first part in this process was for the Task Team to conduct a desk review to establish an overview of the current educational context with regards to children with disabilities, including legislative, policies and practice, inclusive education strategies, disability contexts, cultural perspective, interventions, existing assessment and quality assurance processes, and opportunities and challenges. 

Background: Human movement, rehabilitation, and allied sciences have embraced their ambitions within the cycle of “RehabMove” congresses over the past 30 years. This combination of disciplines and collabo- rations in the Netherlands has tried to provide answers to questions in the fields of rehabilitation and adapted sports, while simultaneously generating new questions and challenges. These research questions help us to further deepen our understanding of (impaired) human movement and functioning, with and without supportive technologies, and stress the importance of continued multidisciplinary (inter)national collaboration.

Methods: This position stand provides answers that were conceived by the authors in a creative process underlining the preparation of the 6th RehabMove Congress.

Results: The take-home message of the RehabMove2018 Congress is a plea for continued multidisciplin- ary research in the fields of rehabilitation and adapted sports. This should be aimed at more individual- ized notions of human functioning, practice, and training, but also of performance, improved supportive technology, and appropriate “human and technology asset management” at both individual and organ- ization levels and over the lifespan.

Conclusions: With this, we anticipate to support the development of rehabilitation sciences and technol- ogy and to stimulate the use of rehabilitation notions in general health care. We also hope to help ensure a stronger embodiment of preventive and lifestyle medicine in rehabilitation practice. Indeed, general health care and rehabilitation practice require a healthy and active lifestyle management and research agenda in the context of primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention.

This article aims to reorient thinking about the relationship between the long-standing social model of disability and the rapidly emerging human rights model. In particular, it contests the influential view that the latter develops and improves upon the former (the improvement thesis) and argues instead that the two models are complementary (the complementarity thesis). The article begins with a discursive analysis of relevant documents to investigate how each of the two models has been used in the crafting and monitoring of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This highlights the increasing importance of the human rights model in this policy context. It also provides examples of the operation of the two models which inform the remainder of the discussion. We then critique the comparisons between the models which underpin the improvement thesis; and, drawing on Foucault’s technologies of power and Beckett and Campbell’s ‘oppositional device’ methodology, deepen and develop this comparative analysis. The result, we argue, is that the two models have different subjects and different functions. In the human rights context, their roles are complementary and supportive.

This situational analysis (SITAN) addresses the question: “what is the current situation in relation to formal sector employment for persons with disabilities in Kenya?”. It has been prepared for the Inclusion Works programme (which works on disability inclusive formal employment in Bangladesh, Kenya, Nigeria and Uganda), to better understand the current context and available evidence in Kenya, and will be helpful for anyone interested in disability inclusion, especially in relation to employment, in Kenya. It focuses on persons with disabilities, employers, policy, the disability movement, and partnerships. This SITAN has been briefly updated from the June 2019 SITAN.

The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the UK government or members of the Inclusion Works consortium.

This situational analysis (SITAN) addresses the question: “what is the current situation in relation to formal sector employment for persons with disabilities in Nigeria?”. It has been prepared for the Inclusion Works programme (which works on disability inclusive formal employment in Bangladesh, Kenya, Nigeria and Uganda), to better understand the current context and available evidence in Nigeria, and will be helpful for anyone interested in disability inclusion, especially in relation to employment. It focuses on persons with disabilities, employers, policy, the disability movement, and partnerships.

The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the UK government or members of the Inclusion Works consortium.

This situational analysis (SITAN) addresses the question: “what is the current situation for persons with disabilities in Nepal?”. It has been prepared for the Disability Inclusive Development programme (which works on access to education, jobs, healthcare, and reduced stigma and discrimination for persons with disabilities in Bangladesh, Jordan, Kenya, Nepal, Nigeria, and Tanzania), to better understand the current context, including COVID-19, and available evidence in Nepal. It will be helpful for anyone interested in disability inclusion in Nepal, especially in relation to stigma, employment, education, health, and humanitarian issues. This SITAN has been briefly updated from the April 2019 SITAN.

This situational analysis (SITAN) addresses the question: “what is the current situation for persons with disabilities in Bangladesh?”. It has been prepared for the Disability Inclusive Development programme (which works on access to education, jobs, healthcare, and reduced stigma and discrimination for persons with disabilities in Bangladesh, Jordan, Kenya, Nepal, Nigeria, and Tanzania), to better understand the current context, including COVID-19, and available evidence in Bangladesh. It will be helpful for anyone interested in disability inclusion in Bangladesh, especially in relation to stigma, employment, education, health, and humanitarian issues.

This Campbell systematic review and meta-analysis examines the impact of multifaceted interventions on community participation outcomes for adults with disabilities, and aims to find effective components of the interventions. The review summarizes the findings from 15 reports of multifaceted interventions in five countries.

Included studies employ at least two interventions designed to address two or more participant characteristics (e.g., skill enhancement, behavior/attitude change) and/or environmental characteristics (e.g., participant interactions with people, places, or things) resulting in outcomes that provide direct access to the community (e.g., competitive employment, adult learning, housing) or are a dimension of community participation (e.g., self-determination, quality of life, social networking).

Campbell Systematic Reviews. 2020; 16:e1092.

https://doi. org/10.1002/cl2.1092.