题名

一句話惹惱障礙者：以污名溝通模型探究障礙微歧視話語之詮釋與回應

并列篇名

The best defense is a good response: Using the model of stigma communication to explore perspectives toward disability microaggressions during daily conversation

DOI

10.6172/BSE.202207_47(2).0001

作者

董怡寧(Yi-Ning Tung)；邱春瑜(Chun-Yu Chiu)；游鯉綺(Li-Chi Yu)；許朝富(Jacky Hsu)；周倩如(Chien-Ju Chou)

关键词

污名 ； 污名溝通模型 ； 特教宣導 ； 健全主義 ； 微歧視 ； ableism ； disability awareness ； discrimination ； microaggression ； stigma

期刊名称

特殊教育研究學刊

卷期/出版年月

47卷2期（2022 / 07 / 30）

页次

1 - 32

内容语文

繁體中文
中文摘要

融合已成全球趨勢，障礙者權益受到重視，頻繁的互動機會也帶來挑戰；而挑戰包含日常生活的短暫互動中，障礙族群感受到針對其障礙特質或身份偏見的「微歧視」。本研究奠基於污名溝通模型，由包含障礙者、障礙者家人、專業人員所組成之研究團隊，自「一句話惹惱障礙者」活動投稿中挑選出十句符合微歧視定義之話語，透過立意取樣訪談十一位異質受訪者，探討受訪者對障礙微歧視的訊息展現、反應、結果及循環。本研究發現交談雙方背景、話語語氣及用字遣詞、當下的情境脈絡都會影響對話語的觀感；障礙者並不一定會認定自己是受標記族群。其次，受訪者認為說話者意圖表達善意以及關心，受標記者卻可能認為這些善意受限於認定障礙者劣勢的框架。接著，當受標記者對於文本感到不舒服，面對語句時卻表達無奈及接受，可能顯示出內化健全主義。再來，受標記族群在微歧視事件中多半採取忽視或者離開現場的反應；反之受訪者則建議透過溝通傳達不舒服的事實或原因，同時傳遞正確的資訊。然而，微歧視的高頻率且快速的特徵時常讓人無法及時回應；因此在個人層面的溝通之外，尚可在教育中落實反健全主義的宣導與倡議。建議未來研究可檢視不同障礙特質的微歧視樣貌、非口語微歧視，以及標記形成的背景脈絡。實務上則建議編寫反健全主義的教材，以實際的例證引導受標記與非標記族群思考及討論。實務支持與研究過程中，皆應將障礙者及其相關人士視為夥伴。
英文摘要

Purpose: The global trend of inclusion presents both opportunities and challenges. Inclusion has recently been threatened by disability microaggressions in the form of words or actions that demean and humiliate individuals with disabilities and their families. Historically, the general public could reach some consensus on cases related to discrimination in employment and housing. The legal provisions were clear and consistent, enabling victims to file official lawsuits against offenders. However, discrimination incidents were not well-documented, thereby making it difficult for labeled groups to respond to frequent but trivial disability microaggression incidents in daily life. Although empirical evidence of disability microaggression has been found in Western society, whether it is present in the Asian context has yet to be determined. Therefore, this study investigated perspectives toward disability microaggressions by analyzing the interpretations and responses of Taiwanese people who were exposed to varying degrees of disability microaggressions. Methods: The research team, which consisted of five individuals with disabilities and members of their families, qualitatively analyzed the perspectives of 11 participants toward microaggressive statements on the basis of the model of stigma communication. The team selected ten statements from a set of statements submitted to an online campaign called ＂One Sentence to Offend People with Disabilities.＂ The statements were then categorized under five disability microaggression themes on the basis of previous studies: spread effect, denial of disability, patronizing or inappropriate praise/ encouragement, fear or shame, and secondary gain/ second-class-citizen treatment. The team then recruited 11 participants with diverse backgrounds (in terms of gender, age group, educational level, extent of exposure to disability) via personal contacts of the members of the research team. In the interviews, the selected statements were presented to the participants in the manner most comfortable to them. In one of the statements, a bus driver said to an individual with disability, ＂Why are you out by yourself? You need someone to accompany you.＂ In another case, ＂Keep up that hard work, and one day you'll be able to walk＂ to a wheelchair user. Through in-depth interviews, we documented the responses of the participants toward such statements. The transcript of the first interview was analyzed to identify patterns and themes described in the model of stigma communication. The themes were continually re-examined and refined according to additional data through emergent and inductive analyses, and thorough discussions were held to ensure consistency of the results. Through this approach, the research team was able to identify patterns in the attitudes and reactions of participants toward the message choices, reactions, effects, and feedback to the message choices in the communication cycle. Results: The research team identified three common themes between constructs of message choices and reactions: nuances and intonations, relationship between the dialogue partners, and the context of conversations. Furthermore, the team identified two common themes between message reactions and effects: diverse interpretation and varied emotional reactions. Finally, the team also identified the impact on public stigma and self-stigma. The findings of this study can be summarized as follows: (a) The participants' perspectives were impacted by their demographic backgrounds and relationships with their dialogue partners, by the nuances or intonation of the selected statements, and by the context of the conversations; additionally, people with disabilities did not always self-identify as members of labeled groups. (b) Although many participants assumed that the speakers were well-intended and interpreted their statements as kind, those who felt labeled thought that the statements were ableist, insinuating that individuals with disabilities were inferior to able-bodied people. (c) Several labeled participants were uncomfortable with the microaggressive statements but felt as if they had to accept that those statements represented either a misconception or a lack of information. Individuals may not feel entitled to respond to such statements because of self-stigmatization or internalized ableism. (d) Several participants who self-identified as members of labeled groups ignored or walked away in response to microaggressive statements. Other participants requested clarification and accurate disability-related information during communication so they could avoid upsetting labeled groups and participate in mitigating the negative effects of labeling individuals with disabilities. Conclusions/Implications: The research team concluded that responding to disability microaggressions is crucial; however, the frequency of microaggression incidents during daily conversations hinders timely responses, thereby aggravating stigma and ableism in the communication cycle. To combat discrimination and ableism, initiatives must be established to empower disability insiders (e.g., people with disabilities and siblings and parents of people with disabilities) to become stronger advocates against disability microaggressions. Furthermore, public awareness regarding disabilities must be improved by encouraging media (i.e., the press and book publishers) to disseminate stories showcasing the dismantling of physical and societal barriers against individuals with disabilities and ensuring equitable access to digital information. At school, teachers should creatively engage students in discussions on oppression and social justice. In fact, the sample statements in this study can be used for discussion. Future studies may attempt to understand the patterns of disability microaggression and the contexts of self-identified labeling. Furthermore, microaggressions should be openly discussed, an anti-ableism pedagogy must be developed, and individuals with disabilities must be included in research. Finally, this study contributes to the literature in two respects: To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to adopt the model of stigma communication to explore disability microaggressions in the context of Taiwan. Second, it is one of a few studies to discuss the perspectives of individuals with disabilities based not only on data sources but also on analytical results. Furthermore, the study essentially captures the motto of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: ＂Nothing about us without us.＂ The authors do not intend to discourage the general population to act kindly toward individuals with disabilities but rather urge all stakeholders to be open to honestly communicating feelings and emotions.
主题分类 社會科學 > 教育學
参考文献
  1. Han, D. Y.,Chen, C. H.,Li, S. M.(2016).Effects of a natural contact program on decreasing self-stigma among individuals with schizophrenia in Taiwan.Archives of Clinical Psychology,10(1),33-38.
    連結：
  2. 王瑞賢, J.-H.(2015)。終結癲癇的污名？癲癇團體面臨的挑戰。思與言，53(2)，137-175。
    連結：
  3. 王增勇, T.-Y.(2005)。社區照顧的再省思：小型化？規格化？產業化？。台灣社會研究季刊，59，91-141。
    連結：
  4. 李翠玲, T.-L.(2011)。國小語文領域教科書中身心障礙人物之內容分析研究。教科書研究，4(1)，31-54。
    連結：
  5. 周筱真, H.-C.,連盈如, Y.-J.,高譽誠, Y.-C.(2015)。精神疾病患者之自我污名、家庭功能與心理福祉之關係。中華心理衛生學刊，28(1)，135-165。
    連結：
  6. 林文蘭, W.-L.(2006)。優惠或污名？台灣教育補助政策的社會分類效應。教育與社會研究，11，107-152。
    連結：
  7. 林昭吟, C.-Y.,孫健忠, C.-C.(2014)。我國公部門身心障礙者定額進用實施之多面向檢視。東吳社會工作學報，26，47-75。
    連結：
  8. 林駿杰, J.-J.,張恒豪, H.-H.(2020)。什麼是「障礙研究」？英美的理論發展，建制化與臺灣本土化歷程。人文及社會科學集刊，32(4)，645-691。
    連結：
  9. 邱滿艷, M.-Y.,張千惠,C.-H.,韓福榮, F.-J.,許芳瑜,鍾聖音, S.-Y.,貝仁貴, J.-K.,簡宏生, H.-S.,陳月霞, Y.-H.,徐文豪, W.-H.,林婉媛, W.-L.(2010)。從傑出身心障礙者就業歷程，探討就業影響因素—伴隨著 「障礙」的就業路。特殊教育研究學刊，35(3)，1-25。
    連結：
  10. 洪惠芬, H.-F.(2012)。「分配正義」還是「形式正義」？身心障礙作為福利身分與歧視的雙重意涵。臺灣社會福利學刊，10(2)，93-160。
    連結：
  11. 紀大偉, T.-W.(2013)。污名身體—現代主義，身心障礙，鄭清文小說。台灣文學研究學報，16，47-83。
    連結：
  12. 唐宜楨, I.-C.,吳慧菁, H.-C.(2008)。精神疾患污名化與去污名化之初探。身心障礙研究季刊，6(3)，175-196。
    連結：
  13. 唐宜楨, I.-C.,陳心怡, H.-Y.,吳慧菁, H.-C.,鄭詩蓉, S.-R.,高藝洳, Y.-R.(2009)。身心障礙污名認知與污名主觀經驗—以精神疾病患者及脊髓損傷者為例。身心障礙研究季刊，7(4)，230-244。
    連結：
  14. 張恒豪, H.-H.(2015)。障礙者的公民運動：權利論述和社會模式的在地實踐。思與言，53(2)，89-136。
    連結：
  15. 張恒豪, H.-H.(2007)。特殊教育與障礙社會學：一個理論的反省。教育與社會研究，13，71-93。
    連結：
  16. 張恒豪, H.-H.,王靜儀, J.-Y.(2016)。從「殘障」到「身心障礙」：障礙標籤與論述的新聞內容分析。台灣社會學，31，1-41。
    連結：
  17. 陳志軒, C.-H.(2018)。一般學校集中式特教班與特教學校智能障礙中學生污名困擾之比較研究。身心障礙研究季刊，16(2)，78-93。
    連結：
  18. 陳志軒, C.-H.,彭彥嘉, Y.-C.(2018)。比較人際接觸法與教育宣導法在國小特教生社會距離及接納行為之效果。身心障礙研究季刊，16(1)，1-15。
    連結：
  19. 陳依煜, Y.-Y.,連盈如, Y.-J.(2015)。大學生精神病去污名教育介入成效初探。中華心理衛生學刊，28(3)，421-447。
    連結：
  20. 黃文慧, W.-H.,林幸台, H.-T.(2011)。生涯概念在特殊教育場域之論述～以臺灣特殊教育導論教科書為例。特殊教育研究學刊，36(3)，1-26。
    連結：
  21. 劉益蓉, Y.-J.,邱春瑜, C.-U.,張恒豪, H.-H.,柯秋雪, C.-S.(2020)。家成、業就？擔任特教老師的非障礙手足之邊界跨越經驗探究。特殊教育研究學刊，45(3)，29-51。
    連結：
  22. 臺北市身心障礙學生就讀高級中等以下學校普通班教學原則及輔導辦法（2011）：中華民國 100 年 8 月 10 日臺北市政府（100）府法三字第 10032619700 號令修正發布名稱及全文八條。[Pedagogical and counseling principles and guidance for students with disabilities in general education class in Taipei City. (2011).]
  23. 身心障礙者權益保障法（2021）：中華民國一百一十年一月二十日總統華總一義字第 11000004211 號令修正公布。[People with Disabilities Rights Protection Act]
  24. 特殊教育法（2019）：中華民國 108 年 4 月24 日總統華總一義字第 10800039361 號。[Special Education Act. (2019).]
  25. 高級中等以下學校特殊教育推行委員會設置辦法（2013）：中華民國 102 年 12 月 04 日教育部臺教授國部字第 1020107715B 號令修正發布第 1 條、第 2 條條文。[Guidelines for the Establishment of Special Education Promotion Committees in Primary and Secondary Schools. (2013).]
  26. Anderson, J.,Bresnahan, M.(2013).Communicating stigma about body size.Health Communication,28(6),603-615.
  27. Aydemir-Döke, D.,Herbert, J. T.(2021).Development and validation of the ableist microaggression impact questionnaire.Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin
  28. Beckett, A. E.(2015).Anti-oppressive pedagogy and disability: Possibilities and challenges.Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research,17(1),76-94.
  29. Broderick, A.,Lalvani, P.(2017).Dysconscious ableism: Toward a liberatory praxis in teacher education.International Journal of Inclusive Education,21(9),894-905.
  30. Campbell, F. K.(2020).The violence of technicism: Ableism as humiliation anddegrading treatment.Ableism in academia: Theorising experiences of disabilities and chronic illnesses in higher education
  31. Charlesworth, T. E.,Banaji, M. R.(2019).Patterns of implicit and explicit attitudes: I. Long-term change and stability from 2007 to 2016.Psychological Science,30(2),174-192.
  32. Creswell, J. W.(2009).Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches.Sage.
  33. Delenardo, S.,Terrion, J. L.(2014).Suck it up: Opinions and attitudes about mental illness stigma and help-seeking behaviour of male varsity football players.Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health,33(3),43-56.
  34. Dwyer, S. C.,Buckle, J. L.(2009).The space between: On being an insider-outsider in qualitative research.International Journal of Qualitative Methods,8(1),54-63.
  35. Eisenman, L. T.,Rolón-Dow, R.,Freedman, B.,Davison, A.,Yates, N.(2020).“Disabled or not, people just want to feel welcome”: Stories of microaggressions and microaffimations from college students with intellectual disability.Critical Education,11(17),1-21.
  36. French, S.(1992).Simulation exercises in disability awareness training: A critique.Disability, Handicap & Society,7(3),257-266.
  37. Goffman, E.(1963).Stigma and social identity.Understanding deviance: Connecting classical and contemporary perspectives
  38. Gonzales, L.,Davidoff, K. C.,Nadal, K. L.,Yanos, P. T.(2015).Microaggressions experienced by persons with mental illnesses: An exploratory study.Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal,38(3),234-241.
  39. Harder, J. A.,Keller, V. N.,Chopik, W. J.(2019).Demographic, experiential, and temporal variation in ableism.Journal of Social Issues,75(3),683-706.
  40. Hehir, T.(2002).Eliminating ableism in education.Harvard Educational Review,72(1),1-33.
  41. Kattari, S. K.,Olzman, M.,Hanna, M. D.(2018).“You look fine!” Ableist experiences by people with invisible disabilities.Affilia,33(4),477-492.
  42. Keller, R. M.,Galgay, C. E.(2010).Microaggressive experiences of people with disabilities.Microaggressions and marginality: Manifestation, dynamics, and impact
  43. Kiger, G.(1992).Disability simulations: Logical, methodological and ethical issues.Disability, Handicap & Society,7(1),71-78.
  44. Lalvani, P.,Bacon, J. K.(2019).Rethinking “We are all special”: Anti-ableism curricula in early childhood classrooms.Young Exceptional Children,22(2),87-100.
  45. Lalvani, P.,Broderick, A. A.(2013).Institutionalized ableism and the misguided “Disability Awareness Day”: Transformative pedagogies for teacher education.Equity & Excellence in Education,46(4),468-483.
  46. Link, B. G.,Phelan, J. C.(2001).Conceptualizing stigma.Annual review of Sociology,27(1),363-385.
  47. Maxwell, J. A.(2012).Qualitative research design: An interactive approach.Sage.
  48. Meisenbach, R. J.(2010).Stigma management communication: A theory and agenda for applied research on how individuals manage moments of stigmatized identity.Journal of Applied Communication Research,38(3),268-292.
  49. Nadal, K. L.,Wong, Y.,Griffin, K. E.,Davidoff, K.,Sriken, J.(2014).The adverse impact of racial microaggressions on college students' self-esteem.Journal of College Student Development,55(5),461-474.
  50. Noltensmeyer, C. J.,Meisenbach, R. J.(2016).Emerging patterns of stigma management communication strategies among burn survivors and relational partners.American Behavioral Scientist,60(11),1378-1397.
  51. Nosek, B. A.,Smyth, F. L.,Hansen, J. J.,Devos, T.,Lindner, N. M.,Ranganath, K. A.,Smith, C. T.,Olson, K. R.,Chugh, D.,Greenwald, A. G.,Banaji, M. R.(2007).Pervasiveness and correlates of implicit attitudes and stereotypes.European Review of Social Psychology,18(1),36-88.
  52. Oliver, M.,Barnes, C.(2012).The new politics of disablement.Macmillan International Higher Education.
  53. Olkin, R.,Hayward, H. S.,Abbene, M. S.,VanHeel, G.(2019).The experiences of microaggressions against women with visible and invisible disabilities.Journal of Social Issues,75(3),757-785.
  54. Ong, A. D.,Burrow, A. L.,Fuller-Rowell, T. E.,Ja, N. M.,Sue, D. W.(2013).Racial microaggressions and daily well-being among Asian Americans.Journal of Counseling Psychology,60(2),188-199.
  55. Owen, J.,Tao, K.,Rodolfa, E.(2010).Microaggressions and women in short-term psychotherapy: Initial evidence.The Counseling Psychologist,38(7),923-946.
  56. Palombi, B. J.(2012).Women with disabilities: The cultural context of disability, feminism, able-bodied privilege, and microaggressions.The Oxfordbook of feminist multicultural counseling psychology
  57. Peterson, J. M.,Hittie, M. M.(2003).Inclusive teaching: Creating effective schools for all learners.Allyn & Bacon.
  58. Phelan, J. C.,Link, B. G.,Dovidio, J. F.(2008).Stigma and prejudice: One animal or two?.Social Science & Medicine,67(3),358-367.
  59. Sandelowski, M.(1995).Sample size in qualitative research.Research in Nursing & Health,18(2),179-183.
  60. Seelman, K. L.,Woodford, M. R.,Nicolazzo, Z.(2017).Victimization and microaggressions targeting LGBTQ college students: Gender identity as a moderator of psychological distress.Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work,26(1-2),112-125.
  61. Smith, R. A.(2007).Language of the lost: An explication of stigma communication.Communication Theory,17(4),462-485.
  62. Smith, R. A.(2012).An experimental test of stigma communication content with a hypothetical infectious disease alert.Communication Monographs,79(4),522-538.
  63. Smith, R. A.(2014).Testing the model of stigma communication with a factorial experiment in an interpersonal context.Communication Studies,65(2),154-173.
  64. Sue, D. W.(2010).Microaggressions in everyday life: Race, gender, and sexual orientation.John Wiley & Sons.
  65. Sue, D. W.,Capodilupo, C. M.,Torino, G. C.,Bucceri, J. M.,Holder, A.,Nadal, K. L.,Esquilin, M.(2007).Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical practice.American Psychologist,62(4),271-286.
  66. Timm, R.(2002).Alliant International University.
  67. Tracy, S. J.,Scott, C.(2006).Sexuality, masculinity, and taint management among firefighters and correctional officers: Getting down and dirty with “America's heroes” and the “scum of law enforcement”.Management Communication Quarterly,20(1),6-38.
  68. UNCHR, General Comment No. 6: Article 5(Equality and non-discrimination), adopted March 9 2018, UN Doc CRPD/C/GC/6, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CRPD/C/GC/6&Lang=en
  69. United Nations. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. http://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/convention/convoptprot-e.pdf
  70. Wang, K.,Walker, K.,Pietri, E.,Ashburn Nardo, L.(2019).Consequences of confronting patronizing help for people with disabilities: Do target gender and disability type matter?.Journal of Social Issues,75(3),904-923.
  71. Wolbring, G.(2008).The politics of ableism.Development,51(2),252-258.
  72. 易君珊（2017）：健全主義下的歧視觀：世大運與身心障礙者文化參與權的反思。聯合新聞網鳴人堂。https://opinion.udn.com/opinion/story/11455/2673064 [Yi, S. (2017) . Discrimination in ableism: Reflection on the Universiade and disabled people’s right toward cultural participation. https://opinion.udn.com/opinion/story/11455/2673064]
  73. 林昭吟（2015）：台灣身心障礙者人權指標分析報告。社團法人中華人權協會。[Lin, C.-Y. (2015). The report on indicator analysis on human rights for people with disabilities in Taiwan. Chinese association for Human Rights. ]http://doi.org/10.29644/TWJXZAZRQZBDCBG
  74. 林峯全, F.-C.,簡欣瑜, H.-Y.(2018)。口吃污名化之探討與省思。溝通障礙教育，5(2)，25-37。
  75. 邱春瑜、許朝富、游鯉綺（2019）：身心障礙，「微歧視」。障礙研究五四三。[Chiu, C.-Y., Syu, C.-F., & Yu, L.-C. (2019). Disability microaggression. https://ds543.home.blog/2019/07/23/身心障礙「微歧視」/]
  76. 胡永崇, Y.-C.(2012)。如何促進家長同意其障礙子女接受特殊教育之鑑定與安置。雲嘉特教期刊，16，1-5。
  77. 胡勝翔（2016）：病態健全主義的社會—看宅神評乙武洋匡不倫戀事件。 公民行動影音紀錄資料庫。https://www.civilmedia.tw/archives/45203[Hu, S.-H. (2016). A morbid abelist society: A review of the incestuous affair's comment on the affair of Ototake Hirotada. Citizen Action Video Recording Database. https://www.civilmedia.tw/archives/45203]
  78. 張恒豪, H.-H.,顏詩耕, S.-K.(2011)。從慈善邁向權利 : 臺灣身心障礙福利的發展與挑戰。社會發展季刊，133，402-416。
  79. 張恒豪, H.-H.,蘇峰山, F.-S.(2009)。戰後台灣國小教科書中的障礙者意象分析。台灣社會學刊，42，143-188。
  80. 許素彬, S.-P.(2010)。障礙過程與身心障礙者就業經驗之探討與分析。社區發展季刊，130，235-251。
  81. 陳怡璇（2019）：社區排斥社福進駐古亭小作所進度延宕 2 個月。https://www.cna.com.tw/news/ahel/201907250157.aspx [The community rejects social welfare, and the progress of Guting Studios is delayed for 2 months. https://www.cna.com.tw/news/ahel/201907250157.aspx]
  82. 鈕文英, W.-I.(2015).研究方法與論文寫作.雙葉書廊=Yeh Yeh Book Gallery.
  83. 鈕文英, W.-I.(2014).質性研究方法與論文寫作.雙葉書廊=Yeh Yeh Book Gallery.
  84. 鈕文英, W.-I.(2013)。教科書中身心障礙者意象之分析。南屏特殊教育，4，11-22。
  85. 楊志偉, C.-W.,陳泰瑞, T.-J.,馮文偉, W.-W.,曾定強, T.-C.,張雅雯, Y.-W.(2005)。常見的疾病污名化之影響。台灣醫學，9(6)，814-818。
  86. 衛生福利部（2022）：身心障礙者人數按年齡及等級別分。https://www.mohw.gov.tw/dl-69412-2753747a-3580-4678-8eca-be1dd40b1599.html [Ministry of Health and Welfare (2022). Number of persons with disabilities by age and level. https://www.mohw.gov.tw/dl-69412-2753747a-3580-4678-8eca-be1dd40b1599.html]
  87. 鄭揚宜（2018 年 03 月 20 日）：「健全主義」還是「政治正確」：現代社會如何塑造障礙者的形象？關鍵評論。https://www.thenewslens.com/article/91966?fbclid=IwAR1N5Q7Bj214W0XP8YfYkeA3c_E6ukjykRBb1Lu2EJbHWaTDJFml66Hsb9M [Cheng, Y.-Y. (2018). "Ableism" or "political correctness": How does modern society shape the image of the disabled? The News Lens. https://www.thenewslens.com/article/91966?fbclid=IwAR1N5Q7Bj214W0XP8YfYkeA3c_E6ukjykRBb1Lu2EJbHWaTDJFml66Hsb9M]
  88. 蕭逸民, I.-M.(2019)。禁止身心障礙歧視的國家義務－臺灣高等法院高雄分院 103 年度上易字第 574 號刑事判決評析。台灣人權學刊，5(1)，59-81。
被引用次数
  1. (2024)。「你是外國人嗎？」：台灣聽障者的口音與身份誤認經驗。文化研究，38，57-91。
print cancel