Should I Say "Disabled People" or "People with Disabilities"? Language Preferences of Disabled People Between Identity- and Person-First Language

100%

8zg6-2026-03-14_00_37_50-3517428-3544813.pdf

RESEARCH-ARTICLE Should I Say "Disabled People" or "People with Disabilities"? Language Preferences of Disabled People Between Identity- and Person-First Language

ABSTRACT

The usage of identity- (e.g., "disabled people") versus person-first language (e.g., "people with disabilities") to refer to disabled people has been an active and ongoing discussion. However, it remains unclear which semantic language should be used, especially for different disability categories within the overall demographics of disabled people. To gather and examine the language preferences of disabled people, we surveyed five hundred nineteen disabled people from twenty-three countries. Our results show that forty-nine percent of disabled people preferred identity-first language whereas thirty-three percent preferred person-first language and eighteen percent had no preference. Additionally, we explore the intra-sectionality and intersectionality of disability categories, gender identifications, age groups, and countries on language preferences, finding that language preferences vary within and across each of these factors. Our qualitative assessment of the survey responses shows that disabled people may have multiple or no preferences. To make our survey data publicly available, we created an interactive and accessible live web platform, enabling users to perform intersectional exploration of language preferences. In a secondary investigation, using part-of-speech (POS) tagging, we analyzed the abstracts of eleven thousand five hundred thirty-six publications at ACM ASSETS and ACM CHI, assessing their adoption of identity- and person-first language. We present the results from our analysis and offer recommendations for authors and researchers in choosing the appropriate language to refer to disabled people.

CCS CONCEPTS

One INTRODUCTION

Two. BACKGROUND AND RELATED WORK

Two point one. Identity- Versus Person-First Language in Disability Studies

Two point two. Disability Language Preference Surveys

Two point three. Analyzing Accessibility-Related Academic Publications

Three PREFERENCES SURVEY

Three point one. Method

Three point two. Quantitative Evaluation

Three point three Qualitative Evaluation

Four ACCESSIBLE WEB PLATFORM

Four point one Design Considerations

Four point two Intersectional and Intra-sectional Exploration

Four point three Accessibility

Four point four. Implementation Details

Five. Language Used in Publications at ASSETS and CHI

Five point one. Method

Adoption of IFL Terms vs. PFL Terms at ASSETS and CHI Since Two Thousand

Five point two Results

Six DISCUSSION

Six point one Diversity Within Disability

Six point two Intersectionality Matters

Six point three Language Adoption in Academia

Six point four Recommendations

Seven. Limitations and Future Work

Eight. Conclusion

A. Language Preferences by Disability

C. Language Preferences by Gender Identity

Overview

This research paper examines how disabled individuals prefer to be identified, comparing the use of identity-first language versus person-first language. It reports on a global survey and analyzes language usage in academic texts, recommending more inclusive language practices.

Key Points

1A survey of 519 disabled individuals reveals that 49% prefer identity-first language
2The study explores how preferences vary by disability category, age, and gender
3An interactive web platform is created to make survey data publicly accessible
4Analysis of 11,536 publications shows a higher frequency of person-first language usage despite preferences for identity-first language
5Recommendations for authors emphasize the importance of considering language preferences in discourse about disabilities.

Details

Authors: Ather Sharif, Aedan L. McCall, Kianna R. Bolante
Category: Social Sciences

PDF
(Dis)ability: The Relational Dynamics of Disability and Social Structures
This document explores dominant narratives surrounding disability, analyzing how language and societal structures perpetuate ableist attitudes and devalue disabled bodies within the context of colonialism, capitalism, and social norms.
PDF
Depathologization from the Left
This document critiques mainstream psychiatric practices and argues for a leftist perspective on mental health, emphasizing the need to reject the medical model of distress in favor of alternative approaches that address social and economic factors.
PDF
Psychosocial Support and the Oriental Other: A Postcolonial (His)Story
This document critiques the role of psychology and psychosocial support within the frameworks of colonial histories, exploring how these systems function as mechanisms of governance while obscuring the violence of displacement and forced migration.
PDF
Collective rumination: When "problem talk" impairs organizational resilience
This conceptual article explores how collective rumination—repetitive discussions focused on negative aspects of adverse events—can negatively affect organizational resilience by fostering a shared negative situational assessment among members.
PDF
Resolving and Transforming Conflicts
This document explores the nature of conflict, its causes, and methods for constructive resolution. It discusses interpersonal conflicts, the emotions such as anger involved, and offers practical strategies for managing and expressing anger effectively.