
Goodley & Lawthom discussed the role of a community psychology approach in conducting emancipatory disability research. While their aims are entirely laudable, they portrayed mainstream psychology as ‘pathologising, voyeuristic, individualising, [and] impairment‐obsessed’. This paper presents a reply to Goodley and Lawthom’s somewhat outdated arguments for the dismissal of mainstream psychology and argues that the focus on a single ‘best’ method of researching disability does not serve the best interests of disabled people within society. It is argued that to create a ‘new’ psychology distinct from the ‘mainstream’ is unnecessary, undesirable and counter‐productive. Mainstream psychology has much to offer disabled people and to dismiss it is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
| citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 5 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
