DRAFT DISSERTATION FINAL VERSION

Dissertation

Did the London 2012 Paralympic Games change attitudes and perceptions towards physically disabled people?

Sociology

Dissertation submitted by Andrew Smith in accordance with the requirements of the University of Huddersfield for the degree of

BSc Sociology

Final Year Project – HHB2002

Andrew Robert Lewis Smith

U1158740018

Tuesday, 10 May 2016

Word Count – 9,802

Abstract

The aim of this dissertation is to evaluate the long term legacy of the London 2012

Paralympics and ascertain if they had the desired effect of changing the attitudes

and perceptions of able-bodied people towards physically disabled people.

This is important because events such as the Paralympic games can be used as a

vehicle for social change but they need to effectively communicate a message that

resonates with wider society in order for to change attitudes and perceptions and

have a lasting legacy.

Much of the contemporary research has used qualitative research methods. For my

research I have chosen to use quantitative research methods. The findings have

been analysed using statistical methods and compared to previous research to

establish any similarities or differences in patterns of behaviour towards physically

disabled people.

The findings show that there has been a change in attitudes and perceptions

towards physically disabled people post London 2012 Paralympic Games and the

games were a contributing factor towards this.

The research will conclude how effective the London 2012 Paralympic games were

in communicating a message of social change for physically disabled people across

society.

Contents page

Acknowledgements

Introduction

Literature review

Methodology

Findings and analysis

Conclusion

References

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my supervisors Chris Cameron and Surya Monro for their

support, assistance and guidance with my dissertation, without which I could not

have completed it.

Also all the lecturers that have held lectures and seminars which have proved

invaluable providing the base knowledge required to complete the dissertation.

Finally I would like to thank Disability Support and Student Support for helping me

through some very difficult times and ensuring that I had right support at the right

time so I could finish my dissertation to the best of my ability.

Chapter 1 – introduction

The aim of this dissertation is to evaluate the long term legacy of the London 2012

Paralympic games and ascertain as to what extent it changed the attitudes and

perceptions of able bodied people towards physically disabled people (Department

for Culture, Media & Sport 2015; Deviren 2014; International Paralympic Committee

2014; Penning 2014; Owens 2013). My research uses the term physically disabled

people because the term ‘disabled’ covers a wide range of disabilities (Barnes,

Mercer & Shakespeare 1999; Thomas 2007), and it is not possible to explore the

impact the games had on people with other disabilities in a short dissertation. It

should be noted that the term disabled people will be used in this dissertation as well

as the term physically disabled people and the definition of the term disability will be

explored in more depth further on in the dissertation. This use of terminology is to

distinguish my research from the research of others. Contemporary research will be

evaluated to determine what effect the legacy has had on the lives of disabled

people and compared to the findings from my own research.

This topic has been chosen because large scale worldwide events such as the

London 2012 Paralympic games have the potential to change the attitudes and

perceptions of society in a short timeframe and make society aware of the barriers

that many people face in their daily lives (Deviren 2014; International Paralympic

Committee 2014; Penning 2014; Owens 2013). What is of interest is whether the

legacy of the games has a long term impact on society with a change in attitudes

and perceptions towards physically disabled people from able bodied people, or if

the effect is short term and able bodied people revert back to their previous attitudes

and perceptions of physically disabled people once the aftermath of the games has

gone (Aiden & McCarthy 2014; Fitzgerald 2012).

Much of the existing literature has focused on the impact the London 2012

Paralympic games had on the lives of physically disabled and other disabled people

(Department for Culture, Media & Sport 2015; Deviren 2014; International

Paralympic Committee 2014; Penning 2014; Owens 2013). There has been a mixed

response with some individuals stating that their lives have got worse since the

games due to cuts to benefits and services. Others have noticed a deterioration in

attitudes towards them (Aiden & McCarthy 2014; Fitzgerald 2012).

Able bodied people have also had research conducted into their attitudes and

perceptions towards disabled people since the games and again there has been a

mixed response from the research. Some research reports a positive shift in

attitudes and perceptions (Deviren 2014; Penning 2014), whilst other research

reports that more needs to be done to bridge the gap in knowledge and

understanding of the abilities and requirements of disabled people by able bodied

people and achieve increased acceptance and equality for disabled people (Aiden &

McCarthy 2014; Fitzgerald 2012).

The objectives of the research are to establish how effective the Paralympic games

are in changing the attitudes and perceptions of society. One of the main aims of the

International Paralympic Committee (IPC) is to promote greater understanding and

acceptance of disabled people through the use of sport as a vehicle to highlight what

disabled people are capable of (Blauwet & Willick 2012; International Paralympic

Committee, About Us No date). If the aims of the IPC have been achieved, then my

research will show a positive change in the attitudes and perceptions of able bodied

people towards physically disabled people.

The dissertation will use the medical and social models of disability (Barnes, Mercer

& Shakespeare 1999; Thomas 2007), as a basis to establish how attitudes and

perceptions towards physically disabled people have changed since the London

2012 Paralympic games. If there has been a positive shift in attitudes and

perceptions the social model of disability will be used as this acknowledges the role

society plays in breaking down barriers for disabled people and creating a more

equal society for the benefit of everybody.

If there has been a negative shift in attitudes the medical model of disability will be

applied as this promotes the viewpoint that it is the fault of the disabled person that

they do not fit into society and not the fault of society. The disabled person must do

more to fit into society and it is not up to society to assist them.

The dissertation is structured in a logical way with an introduction to the dissertation,

an analysis of contemporary literature, analysis of charts detailing my findings,

analysis and discussion of the findings, methods used to conduct my research and a

conclusion discussing my findings and what impact they have on physically disabled

people and society.

The purpose of each chapter is to bring into focus any research and analysis that

has been conducted into attitudes and perceptions towards disabled people that

impacts on my own research, and compare it with my own research to understand

where it fits into the broader research spectrum.

Each of the chapters will explain what has been found and how the findings fit in with

each other to arrive at a better understanding of the impact the London 2012

Paralympic games had on the attitudes and perceptions of the able bodied public

towards physically disabled people in society.

Chapter 2 – literature review

Introduction

In this chapter I will go through a brief history of the Paralympic games and critically

analyse contemporary research and surveys regarding the legacy of the

Paralympics.

What are the Paralympic Games?

The Paralympic Games are a sporting event organised by the IPC and held every

four years at the same time as the Olympic Games (IPC History No date). The

primary function of the IPC is to allow disabled athletes to compete on equal terms in

order to the sporting ability of disabled people (IPC Sports 2012; Jobling 2012).

Athletes compete in a series sporting events based on the format of the Olympic

Games (IPC No date).

History of the Paralympic Games

The modern day Paralympic Games have their origins in the Stoke Mandeville

Games (SMG) which were organised by Dr Ludwig Guttmann (Blauwet & Willick

2012; IPC History of the movement No date) a world renowned neurologist who

believed in using sport as a means of rehabilitating injured soldiers with spinal cord

injuries and integrating them back into society (IPC History of the movement No

date; Jobling 2012).

The first SMG games were held in July 1948 (IPC History of the movement No date).

It was not until the Rome Olympics of 1960 that the games were renamed the

Paralympic Games a term that has become familiar to millions around the world (IPC

History of the movement No date; Jobling 2012). Since then the games have

developed with the summer games taking place in the same city and venue as the

Olympics after 1988 and the IPC formed in 1989 (IPC History of the movement No

date).

At the first SMG in 1948 sixteen men and women took part competing in archery

(IPC History of the movement No date). Four years later the games became

international when Dutch ex-servicemen took part. When the games were held in

Rome in 1960 (IPC Rome 1960 No date) four hundred athletes from twenty three

countries competed in eight different sports with the primary focus still on athletes

with a spinal cord injury (Jobling 2012).

It was not until Toronto 1976 (IPC Toronto 1976 No date) that blind and amputee

athletes where allowed to compete. In 1980 (IPC Arnhem 1980 No date) the

classification of disabled athletes was expanded to include cerebral palsy (IPC

History of the movement No date).

At the London 2012 Games (IPC London 2012 No date) four thousand, two hundred

and thirty seven athletes competed in twenty different sports. The head of the IPC,

Sir Philip Craven proclaimed the London games to be the greatest Paralympics ever

with records broken for competitors taking part, spectators and worldwide television

audiences.

Key themes of the International Paralympic Committee

One of the primary functions of the IPC is to promote equality, empowerment and

inclusion for all disabled people through sport (Blauwet & Willick 2012; International

Paralympic Committee, About Us No date). This is accomplished through a series of

‘visions’ the IPC has issued (IPC About us No date). These ‘visions’ talk about

challenging stereotypes of disabled people in society in order to change attitudes

and create a more equal society for all (IPC About us No date). In this respect it

could be argued that the IPC vision follows the social model of disability in that it

recognises the need for society to change its attitudes and perceptions of disabled

people in order to achieve greater equality through inclusion.

The games have been accused of being unnecessarily confusing due to the

classification system (IPC Classification No date) used to promote fairness in

competition amongst disabled athletes (Jobling 2012). This system has proved

troublesome in its complexity due to the problems in ensuring athletes compete with

the same level of disability (Jobling 2012).

One of the controversies surrounding the games is the range of disabilities that are

allowed to compete. Only certain disabilities compete in the games and this has led

the IPC to be accused of selective discrimination (Jobling 2012) against the

disabilities that are excluded. This raises the issue of the representation of disability

in society. If the games only showcase athletes with certain disabilities then these

are the disabilities the public will recognise and empathise with in wider society and

other disabilities will be ignored or viewed as a false representation of disability.

Individuals with disabilities not represented at the games may suffer ignorance and

discrimination from a lack of knowledge and understanding in wider society, due to

not being observed and identified by the general population. In this way the games

have the ability to empower certain disabilities whilst disempowering others (Purdue

& Howe 2012).

Empowerment

The IPC envisions that empowering disabled athletes on the world sporting stage

and enabling them to perform in front of millions of spectators and television viewers,

attitudes and perceptions towards all disabled people irrespective of societal and

cultural background will change (Blauwet & Willick 2012; International Paralympic

Committee, About Us No date). Similarly the British Government policy as published

in a report by E Deviren (2014) is to:

‘promote positive attitudes and behaviours towards disabled people to enable

participation in work, community life and wider society, tackling discrimination and

harassment wherever it occurs’

This suggests that the IPC and the British Government have a similar vision and are

working together towards a world where disabled people are living in a society that

empowers and enables disabled people to achieve more as a result of greater

understanding of their needs and abilities. By including people in community

activities such as sport, disabled people can learn new skills, share experiences with

able bodied people and become a valued member of society recognised for what

they can do not what they cannot (Thomas & Smith 2009). This can lead to a greater

level of understanding and co-operation between groups that previously may have

avoided each other due to stereotyping and misconceptions.

However this could lead to greater levels of expectation from able-bodied people of

disabled people they come across in their daily lives. If the expectation is that every

disabled person can perform to the ability level of a Paralympic athlete this could put

too much pressure on the disabled person and the IPC vision then becomes

disempowering to the everyday disabled person because of this.

The build up to the 2012 games

The build up to the 2012 games was marked by several events aimed at raising the

profile of the athletes and Paralympic sports. The Evening Standard (Evening

Standard 2012), reported that the Olympic torch would be carried through London

passing some of the capitals best known landmarks before the lighting of a

ceremonial cauldron.

Channel 4 (British Athletics 2010) were chosen as the London 2012 Paralympic

official broadcaster and used this opportunity to commission two special television

programmes, one showcasing potential Paralympic team members with the aim to

reveal the athletes personalities, educate the general public about disability sports

and raise the profile of the Paralympics in order to boost ticket sales and viewing

figures for the games themselves.

The other programme was for the launch of Channel 4’s involvement with the

Paralympic games and was aimed at profiling five Paralympic athletes away from

their usual track and field environment and presenting them in locations more

familiar to viewers.

The aim of the Paralympic games is to bring disabled sport closer to a wider, more

varied audience and Gunti (2012) brought attention to this is in an article for My

Handicap, My Chance declaring hope that the games would become a milestone for

disabled sports by showcasing all Paralympic athletes as winners, impressive idols

and highlighting the great achievements they have made in overcoming their

disabilities to perform at the highest level.

Sarah Storey (Storey 2012) said that the games were going to be big, massive and

inspirational, as big an experience as the Olympics and the crowds would be

amazed by the athleticism of the athletes.

Gallagher (2012) mentioned the historic role Great Britain has played in developing

and promoting disabled sport and that expectations were sky high for the team.

The build-up focused on the athleticism and sporting achievements of the athletes

rather than their disabilities (Hodges, Jackson, Scullion, Thompson & Molesworth

2014). This showcased them as athletes first and disabled individuals second. It

could be argued that this had the effect of raising the general public’s expectations of

what physically disabled people can do. The focus is on sporting achievement and

not on disability and the limitations this can place on an individual in society. In doing

this the able bodied general public could wrongly assume that all disabled people are

capable of amazing sporting achievements and pressure them to perform beyond

their capabilities.

Has it changed wider societal attitudes?

Much has been written about the games and the impact the legacy of the games had

on the lives of disabled people in Britain. Whether the legacy had a positive or

negative, impact it can be assumed that this would be reflected in research and

journals issued after the games. Care must be taken when analysing results from

surveys as the figures reported can be misrepresented so as to purposefully put

forward the agenda of the organisation reporting the results (Bryman 2012).

According to statistics from the IPC collated after the London games (IPC London

2012 No date),

1 in 3 UK adults changed their attitude towards people with an impairment; 65%

agree the Paralympics delivered a breakthrough in the way people with an

impairment are viewed in the country – up from a 40% expectation in June 2010;

eight out of ten (81%) British adults thought the Paralympics had a positive impact

on the way people with an impairment are viewed by the public;

These figures would suggest that the games have had a positive impact on changing

societal attitudes and people are more understanding and knowledgeable of disabled

people after the games. Disabled people are viewed as an asset to society rather

than a drain on welfare benefits and a hindrance in everyday life (Department of

Culture, Media and Sport 2015; IPC London 2012 inspiring a generation 2014; and

Channel 4 2012; BBC 2014).

This is backed up by an ONS Survey (Deviren 2014) that reveals people have either

a more positive view of disabled people or their view has not changed 94.6%. It does

not reveal if those whose view has not changed had a positive or negative view of

disabled people prior to the survey which will impact on how people view physically

disabled people. This view is further reinforced with the survey revealing that 88.7%

of the general public either think that the attitudes towards disabled people has either

improved or remained the same, although as with the previous figures caution must

be taken where the view has remained the same as it is not possible to ascertain if

these people had a positive or negative view of disabled people before the survey

was taken.

Research from the London 2012 media centre post games (IPC London 2012

inspiring a generation 2014; Channel 4 2012; BBC 2014) reiterate that changes in

perceptions towards disabled people has occurred post games and that there is a

now a more positive attitude towards disabled people.

These research results reflect a social model of disability in that there has been a

change in society towards greater knowledge and understanding of the issues and

barriers disabled people face in their daily lives and society recognises the need for it

to break down these barriers for disabled people and include them more in society.

As has been previously mentioned some of the survey results need to be

approached with caution as an individual may have had a negative perception of

disabled people prior to the survey but answered no change when asked the

question (Bryman 2012). Some of the findings from the research on attitudes and

perceptions post 2012 games focuses on disabled athletes and not disabled people

you would encounter in daily life. The question here is does the positive attitudes and

perceptions towards disabled athletes translate into the general public’s perception

of disabled people in everyday life or do the general public have differing attitudes

and perceptions towards disabled people in everyday life?

If the general public have a positive attitude and perception towards disabled

athletes and disabled people in general it can be argued that the games have had a

positive effect. If however attitudes and perceptions have only changed towards

disabled athletes and the general public view disabled people in everyday life as a

separate entity, than questions remain as to why attitudes and perceptions have not

changed, why disabled athletes and the disabled general public are viewed

differently and separately and what can be done to change these attitudes and

perceptions for the better so we have a more equal society.

One of the ways to gauge how effective the games have been in changing societal

attitudes is participation in disabled sports post games (Department of Culture,

Media and Sport 2015; House of Lords 2013). It can be argued that if the games

have been successful in changing societal attitudes more disabled people will take

up sport, more people will volunteer at their local sports clubs and children (Jobling

2012) will embrace disability sports on an equal level as sport played by able bodied

people. This education of children (Jobling 2012) about the values of disability sport

is essential in creating a society where all sport is seen as equal whether it is

disabled or able bodied sport.

In contrast to (Deviren 2014; IPC London 2012 inspiring a generation 2014; Channel

4 2012; BBC 2014) research from Aiden and McCarthy (2014) for the charity Scope

found that attitudes towards disabled people had worsened post 2012 games. This

was backed up by an article by Walker and Topping (2013) for the guardian

newspaper. The survey found that 67% of people felt uncomfortable talking to

disabled people, 36% thought disabled people were not as productive as everyone

else, 85% believed that disabled people face prejudice in society, 24% of disabled

people have experienced poor attitudes and behaviours and 21% of 18 – 34 year

olds admitted avoiding talking to a disabled person because there were not sure how

to communicate with them.

This would indicate that public attitudes towards disabled people have not changed

or indeed may have hardened post 2012 Paralympics (Aiden and McCarthy 2014;

Walker and Topping 2013). The positive effect the games were purported to have

had on the attitudes and perceptions of non-disabled people has not materialised

and all the rhetoric and discourses pre and post the 2012 Paralympics has not had

an effect on how the general public view disabled people? In this scenario the legacy

from the 2012 Paralympics not entered into the culture of wider society and improved

the lives of disabled people. These results would fit with the medical model of

disability saying that it is up to the disabled person to break down the barriers they

perceive as stopping them feeling included in society and not society to do it for

them.

Figures can be looked at from different angles (Bryman 2012), and it could be

argued that if 36% of people think that disabled people are not as productive as

everyone else then do 64% believe that they are? Looking at the results this way it

could be argued that the message from the games has entered society and they has

been a positive effect on the lives of disabled people.

The survey goes on to reveal that 43% of the British public do not know anyone who

is disabled. This is a worrying statistics because if non-disabled people are not in

contact with disabled people how can their preconceptions and stereotyped views

about disabled people be challenged and broken down so that disabled and non-

disabled people have a better knowledge and understanding of each other and can

live in a more equal society?

Without breaking down these barriers disabled people will continue to face

discrimination in the workplace and education and able-bodied people will continue

to believe that disabled people are not productive, cannot do the same work as they

do and are a burden on the state and society due to ignorance. A statistic that came

out of the research by Aiden and McCarthy (2014) that gives some hope for the

future is 33% of people stated that getting to know a disabled person would make

them feel more confident around disabled people. Here the challenge is in organising

suitable meetings where disabled and able-bodied people can come together and

discuss any preconceptions they may of each other with a view to achieving a more

tolerant and equal society.

An article by Ahmed (2014) details the problems still being faced by disabled people

post 2012 games. Ahmed, a physically disabled student discusses the problems she

has experienced in finding accessible housing post 2012. Pre 2012 the rhetoric

around the games was of providing accessible housing for disabled people to live in.

However post 2012 these accessible homes have not materialised and disabled

people like Ahmed are having problems finding suitable accommodation.

Ahmed goes on to discuss the problems she has experienced getting around London

on public transport with many of the buses not wheelchair accessible and problems

this causes when travelling around London. In contrast a report from the Department

for Culture, Media and Sport (2015) details improvements in accessible transport

around London although it must be noted that this report is some three years after

Ahmed’s article, and some of these improvements may have taken time to

implement.

Before the games the Mayor of London Boris Johnson (Ahmed 2012) publicly

declared that after the games London would have one of the most accessible

transport infrastructure of anywhere in the world:

London has used the 2012 Games not only to set new standards in the design of sporting venues to help deliver the best Paralympic Games ever but also as a springboard for transforming the UK capital into one of the most accessible cities on earth. (London.Gov.UK 2012)

And Andrew Gibson (Ahmed 2012) stated that:

The legacy of the Paralympics must be accessible housing that will improve theopportunities available to all disabled people. (Andrew Gibson, Vice Chair of Habinteg Housing Association Limited, August 2012)

If those in positions of authority with the power to turn the words of the legacy into

something that disabled people can use and that makes a positive difference to their

lives cannot follow through with their promises how can the general public be

expected to change their attitudes and perspectives and help disabled people lead

more fulfilling lives where they can make a positive contribution to society?

Making housing more accessible for disabled people would go towards normalising

the problems they face with access in society and show that with some adaptations

disabled people can live on equal terms to non-disabled people. This would fit in with

the social model of disability in that the disabled person is not the problem but the

problem lies with wider society in not adopting to accessible systems in order to

better integrate disabled people into society. In not providing accessible housing the

authorities are saying that the problem lies with disabled people not doing enough to

help themselves and this links in with the medical model of disability.

In an article by Fitzgerald (2012) published before the Paralympic Games were held

Fitzgerald describes how all the talk prior to the games was of the Olympic Games

and not the Paralympic Games. It would appear that the Olympic Games are viewed

as more important and carry more social capital than the Paralympic Games in

society. According to Fitzgerald (2012) the Paralympics were seen as second rate in

comparison to the Olympics (Fitzgerald 2012; Thomas & Smith 2003; Gilbert &

Schantz; Ellis 2008, Howe 2008a cited Hodges, Jackson, Scullion, Thompson &

Molesworth 2014), and this will influence the attitudes and perceptions of able-

bodied people towards physically disabled people (Hodges et al 2014). Physically

disabled people will be seen as second rate in society (Hughes 2009:400 cited

Hodges et al), because of the extra value and status put on the Olympic Games by

society over the Paralympic Games. Olympic sports stars such as Usain Bolt are

given more cultural capital than Paralympic sports stars like David Weir and this

transfers into the culture of society with disabled people given less cultural capital

that able-bodied people (Fitzgerald 2012; Thomas & Smith 2003; Gilbert & Schantz;

Ellis 2008 cited Hodges et al 2014).

As Slee (2004) citied Fitzgerald (2012) questions “How do we come to know about

disability?” and “What do we know about disability?” Goodley (2011) citied Fitzgerald

(2012) argues that it is through the powerful discourses and ideological frameworks

of others (Hodges et al 2014). If the non-disabled general public are only exposed to

negative discourses through the media and government that portray disabled people

as weak, vulnerable and freaks who take from the state without contributing to

society this will translate into negative stereotypical views on disabled athletes in

comparison to able-bodied athletes (Berger 2008; Ellis 2008; Black & Pretes 2007;

Sancho 2003; Barnes 1992; Cumberbatch & Negrine 1992 cited Hodges 2014).

Able-bodied people believe that Olympians are trying as hard as possible to win a

race and going above and beyond what a member of the general public could

achieve. This is due to the media portrayals and representations of Olympians in

society who are viewed as super humans capable of feats the ordinary person

cannot achieve (Fitzgerald 2012; Thomas & Smith 2003; Gilbert & Schantz; Ellis

2008 cited Hodges et al 2014). A Paralympian is seen as closer to what a member

of the disabled general public can achieve and not performing superhuman feats.

This translates into a negative perception of disabled people who rather than being

viewed as ordinary people doing their best in daily life are viewed as a burden on

society and not doing enough to help themselves and contribute to society (Berger

2008; Ellis 2008; Black & Pretes 2007; Sancho 2003; Barnes 1992; Cumberbatch &

Negrine 1992 cited Hodges 2014; Fitzgerald 2012).

The power the media has in shaping the public’s perception of disabled people is

immense and unchallenged by mainstream society Shakespeare 1999 cited Hodges

et al 2014). The general public are all too ready to stereotype and label others

without having the in-depth knowledge and understanding of what a disabled person

goes through in their daily lives, and the differences between a disabled person and

a Paralympian (Fitzgerald 2012; Wardle; Boyce & Baron 2009; Wilde 2010:41 all

cited Hodges 2014).

The cultural capital apportioned to Olympians and members of the general public is

vastly different to that apportioned to disabled people and Paralympians (Fitzgerald

2012; Thomas & Smith 2003; Gilbert & Schantz; Ellis 2008 cited Hodges et al 2014).

This results in a disproportionately negative view of disabled people in general

society due to the perception that they are not doing enough to contribute and are

having an easy time living on state benefits.

Models of disability

To understand why the able-bodied public have this view of disabled people it is

necessary to understand the two models of disability that currently have the most

social capital in society.

The first model, the medical model purports that disabled people are victims of their

impairment and it is their impairment that causes them problems in society (Barnes,

Mercer & Shakespeare 1999; Thomas 2007). These problems prejudice,

discrimination, inaccessible buildings and unusable transport systems. This means

that disabled people are at a disadvantage in society compared to able-bodied

people and can only function at the same level with the aid of medical intervention.

In contrast the social model says that it is the barriers in society that are the cause of

the disabled person’s inability to fully participate in society on equal terms with an

able-bodied person (Barnes, Mercer & Shakespeare 1999; Thomas 2007), not the

limitations of an individual’s disability. By removing the barriers in society that

prevent a disabled person from leading a fulfilling life such as prejudice,

discrimination, inaccessible buildings and unusable transport systems, the disabled

person can become a more valued member of society and feel more included.

The social model looks to remove the barriers in society that disabled people

encounter and put systems in place that enable them to fully participate in society

and contribute to the best of their abilities (Barnes, Mercer & Shakespeare 1999;

Thomas 2007).

Unfortunately it is the medical model that has influenced such acts as the Equality

Act 2010, (PCS 2015) and these correspondingly has an influence on the negative

attitudes and perceptions of the general public towards disabled people.

Conclusion

From the literature reviewed it can be ascertained that there are two separate views

on the legacy of the London 2012 Paralympic Games. One view is that it was

successful in changing the attitudes and perceptions of able-bodied people towards

physically disabled people. The other reflects the lived experiences of disabled

people and this view says that the legacy did not have the desired effect of changing

the lives of disabled people and that in some cases their lives have got worse.

Taking this into account it could be argued that whilst the attitudes and perceptions

of able-bodied people have changed this has not filtered down into changing the

lived experiences of disabled people.

Chapter 3 – methodology

Introduction

In this chapter I will discuss the methodological approach I took to my research and

how I conducted my research.

Methodological approach

The methodological approach I took with my research was based on the social and

medical models of disability. My reasons for this are that they are used as indicators

of social attitudes with regards to how disabled people are perceived in society by

able-bodied people (Barnes, Mercer & Shakespeare 1997; Finklestein (1980) citied

in Thomas 2007).

The social model is an ideological stance that says that society is the problem for

disabled people by putting up barriers and restrictions that make disabled people’s

lives more difficult and reduces their ability to integrate into society and make a

valued contribution. The social model says that by removing these barriers and

restrictions disabled people can integrate into society, make a valued contribution

and lead a full life in the same way as an able-bodied person (Barnes, Mercer &

Shakespeare 1997; Thomas 2007).

The medical model follows a functionalist approach and says it is the fault of the

disabled person and not society that they unable to integrate and contribute the

same as an able-bodied person. It is up to the disabled person to fix their own

problems and become a more effective member of society, not society to do it for

them (Barnes, Mercer & Shakespeare 1997; Thomas 2007).

Research approach

I chose to use the quantitative method of research for my dissertation as much of the

previous research had used the qualitative method and I was interested to find out if

the results would be different when the respondents were presented with a series of

questions rather than having the chance to explore the issues in-depth.

The quantitative research method is based on the notion that all social situations can

be quantified, measured and expressed numerically (Bryman 2016; Creswell 2014;

Gray 2014; Robson & McCartan 2014). Once the responses have been gathered

they can be analysed and interpreted by statistical methods to establish any patterns

of social behaviour.

The ontological standpoint is realism as opposed to idealism. Reality is independent

of the observer and has an existence outside the individual members of society. This

is opposed to idealism which purports that reality is within the mental state of the

observer and it is human ideas, beliefs and values that shape society not numbers

(Bryman 2016; Gray 2014; Robson & McCartan 2014).

The epistemology is positivism. This states that an objective truth can be established

with some certainty through rational methods such as statistics. Positivist see society

as shaping the individual and how they think and behave in society. The opposite is

interpretivism which states that an individual is a complex being capable of rational

and logical thought based on their own experiences independent of society (Bryman

2016; Gray 2014; Robson & McCartan 2014).

The aim of the quantitative method is to establish facts and this is achieved through

correlation, association and difference between numbers. This process is deductive

and aims to identify a problem, review related literature and identify a theoretical

framework to base questions around (Bryman 2016; Gray 2014; Robson & McCartan

2014).

When conducting quantitative research you collect information relevant to the

question, analyse and interpret the information and form conclusions from the

analysis and interpretation of any statistics (Bryman 2016; Creswell 2014; Gray

2014; Robson & McCartan 2014).

Quantitative research can be in the form of questionnaires, surveys, experiments,

observation and content analysis (Bryman 2016; Creswell 2014; Gray 2014; Robson

& McCartan 2014).

My research

My hypotheses was that the London 2012 Paralympic Games did change the

attitudes and perceptions of able-bodied people towards physically disabled people.

For my research I chose to devise a questionnaire based on research from my

literature review that I believed would give me the answers as to what effect the

legacy of the London 2012 Paralympics was.

These questions were structured using a six-point multiple-indicator (Kelly and De

Graff 1997 cited in Bryman 2016) or continuum scale (Gray 2014), ranging from

strongly agree, agree, slightly agree to slightly disagree, disagree and strongly

disagree. I wanted to give the respondent no option of an ‘I don’t know’ answer

deliberately as I wanted to avoid such answers which can skew responses and make

research findings inconclusive. Questions included but were not limited to:

‘The 2012 Paralympics changed how I viewed physically disabled people’, ‘I feel

more comfortable talking to physically disabled people after the 2012 Paralympics’

and ‘I believe that Paralympic sports are easier to compete in than Olympic sports’

The questions were constructed to reflect the association between the Paralympic

Games and physical disability (Hodges et al 2014) but intended to get participants

thinking about physically disabled people they may come across in their daily lives

and the effect the games had on their attitudes and perceptions towards them.

Categories for the responses were coded under the following demographics:

Age: 16-24 and 25-75

Ethnicity: White and Any Other

Occupation: Student and Staff

Sex: Male and Female

These categories were chosen as are easy to analyse and interpret in a short space

of time.

Using Bristol Online Survey (BOS 2016) a questionnaire was constructed online and

sent out electronically to students and members of staff at the University of

Huddersfield. Participants were selected at random using the universities register.

Invitations to take part in the research were sent out by email.

When I had reached a level of responses which I had agreed with my supervisor I

began to input the results into a database using IBM Statistical Package for the

Social Sciences (SPSS).

Once the responses had been inputted into SPSS the results were available for

analysis. Using SPSS I used the crosstabulation function to analyse them for volume

of responses in each category, to establish if there were any patterns due to age,

ethnicity, occupation and sex (Bryman 2016).

These results were further analysed using the independent measures ‘t’ test to

establish if any of the results were significant at the 0.05 level. This level is the

standard used to investigate significance in results from SPSS (Bryman 2016).

The results were then put into graph form to enable easier interpretation of the

results in a visual format. The graphs can be found in Chapter 4 – findings and

analysis. The findings were then written up below the graphs in order to provide a

written interpretation of the results to go with the graph.

The strengths of my survey are that I can reach a large volume of possible

participants in a short space of time. One of the weaknesses is that you may only get

a small number of responses which may mean sending the survey out several times

in order to achieve the required number of responses (Bryman 2016; Creswell 2014;

Gray 2014; Robson & McCartan 2014).

Ethically, because the questionnaires were only being sent to staff and students at

the university there was not expected to be a problem with the age of the

respondents. All questions were devised and sent before the ethics committee who

approved them and again because of the structured nature of the questions and

because no sensitive issues were asked there was no problems with the questions

(Bryman 2016; Creswell 2014; Gray 2014; Robson & McCartan 2014).

Conclusion

In conclusion using a quantitative method of research can produce a large volume of

results which can be analysed and interpreted quickly in comparison to a qualitative

study. This produces a large volume of responses which can be used to make

assumptions about the larger population. However the responses do not go into the

in-depth detail that a qualitative study does.

Chapter 4 – findings and analysis

Chart a: To show the distribution of responses to the question ‘The 2012 Paralympics changed how I viewed physically disabled people’

Overall more respondents agreed (8) with the question than disagreed (6). This

indicates a potential difference within the distribution that may be accounted for by

another variable.

A crosstabulation for age (see appendix a) shows more 26-75 (66.7%) agreed with

this question.

A crosstabulation for ethnicity (see appendix e) shows more White (60.0%) agreed

with this question.

A crosstabulation for occupation (see appendix o) shows more Staff (66.7%) agreed

with this question.

A crosstabulation for sex (see appendix s) shows more females (71.5%) agreed with

the question.

The difference was tested for statistical significance (see appendix y) using the

independent measures ‘t’ test and the results are not significant at the 0.05 level (see

appendix z).

---------------------

Chart a: To show the distribution of responses to the question ‘I feel more comfortable around physically disabled people after the 2012 Paralympics’.

Overall more respondents agreed (8) with the question than disagreed (6) with it.

This indicates a potential difference within the distribution that may be accounted for

by another variable.


this question.

A crosstabulation for ethnicity (see appendix e) shows more BAME (75.0%) agreed

with this question.

A crosstabulation for occupation (see appendix o) shows more Student (62.5%)

agreed with this question.


this question



appendix z).

---------------------

Chart a: To show the distribution of responses to the question ‘I feel more comfortable talking to physically disabled people after the 2012 Paralympics’.





this question.


with this question.




this question.



appendix z).

---------------------

Chart a: To show the distribution of responses to the question ‘Seeing a Paralympic athlete perform increases my expectations of what physically disabled people can do in everyday life’.





this question.


with this question.


with this question.


this question.



appendix z).

---------------------

Chart a: To show the distribution of responses to the question ‘I feel that watching a Paralympic athlete in competition accurately reflects a physically disabled person’s abilities in everyday life’.

Overall respondents agreed (7) and disagreed (7) equally. This indicates no potential

difference within the distribution that may be accounted for by another variable.


this question.


with this question.


with this question.


this question.



appendix z).

---------------------

Chart a: To show the distribution of responses to the question ‘The 2012 Paralympics increased my knowledge and awareness of physically disabled people’.





this question.


with this question.

A crosstabulation for occupation (see appendix o) shows more Staff (100.0%)


A crosstabulation for sex (see appendix s) shows more males (100%) agreed with

this question.



appendix z).

---------------------

Chart a: To show the distribution of responses to the question ‘I believe that Paralympic sports are easier to compete in than Olympic sports’.

Overall more respondents disagreed (12) with the question than agreed (2) with it.




this question.


with this question.


with this question.


this question.



appendix z).

---------------------

Chart a: To show the distribution of responses to the question ‘I would be willing to try a wheelchair Paralympic sport to get a feeling of what it is like’.

Overall more respondents strongly agreed (9) with the question than disagreed (5)

with it. This indicates a potential difference within the distribution that may be

accounted for by another variable.


this question.


with this question.



A crosstabulation for sex (see appendix s) shows more males (71.5%) agreed with

this question.



appendix z)

---------------------

Chart a: To show the distribution of responses to the question ‘I believe that physically disabled people have an easier life after the 2012 Paralympics’.

Overall more respondents strongly disagreed (12) with the question than disagreed

(2) with it. This indicates a potential difference within the distribution that may be

accounted for by another variable.


this question.


with this question.


with this question.


this question.



appendix z).

---------------------

Chart a: To show the distribution of responses to the question ‘I view physically disabled people as more able, less able or equal to non-physically disabled people when doing general everyday tasks such as housework, shopping or travelling’.

Overall more respondents viewed physically disabled people as equal (12),

compared to less able (11) and more able (1), indicating a potential difference within

the distribution that may be accounted for by another variable.

A crosstabulation for age (see appendix a) shows more 26-75 (9.1%) answered

‘More able’, more 16-25 (61.5%) answered ‘Equal’ and more 26-75 (54.5%)

answered ‘Less able’.

A crosstabulation for ethnicity (see appendix e) shows more White (6.7%) answered

‘More able’, more White (53.3%) answered ‘Equal’ and more BAME (55.6%)



answered ‘More able’, more Student (57.1%) answered ‘Equal’ and more Staff

(50.0%) answered ‘Less able’.

A crosstabulation for sex (see appendix s) shows more males (11.1%) answered

‘More able’, more males (55.6%) answered ‘Equal’ and more females (53.3%)




appendix z).

---------------------

Chart a: To show the distribution of responses to the question ‘I believe that physically disabled people do enough to help themselves with their daily lives’.


This indicates no potential difference within the distribution that may be accounted

for by another variable.

A crosstabulation for age (see appendix a) shows that 100% of 16-25 and 26-75


A crosstabulation for ethnicity (see appendix e) shows that 100.0% of White and

BAME agreed with this question.

A crosstabulation for occupation (see appendix o) shows that 100% of Student and

Staff agreed with this question.

A crosstabulation for sex (see appendix s) shows that males (100%) and females

(100%) agreed with this question equally.



appendix z).

---------------------

Chart a: To show the distribution of responses to the question ‘I believe that more should be done by public services and private companies to help physically disabled people in their daily lives’.





this question.


with this question.




this question.



appendix z).

---------------------

Chart a: To show the distribution of responses to the question ‘I believe that all wheelchair users are paralysed and have no feeling in their legs’.





this question.


with this question.


with this question.


this question.



appendix z).

---------------------

Chart a: To show the distribution of responses to the question ‘I believe that more should be done to enable interactions between physically disabled people and non-disabled people’.





this question.


with this question.


with this question.


this question.



appendix z).

---------------------

Chart a: To show the distribution of responses to the question ‘I believe that discrimination and victimisation of physically disabled people is increasing’.




A crosstabulation for age (see appendix a) shows more 26-75 (45.5%) agree with

this question.

A crosstabulation for ethnicity (see appendix e) shows more White (46.6%) agree

with this question.

A crosstabulation for occupation (see appendix o) shows more Staff (50.0%) agree

with this question.

A crosstabulation for sex (see appendix s) shows more females (46.7%) agree with

this question.



appendix z).

---------------------

Chart a: To show the distribution of responses to the question ‘I believe that if you have met one physically disabled person you have an understanding and knowledge of all physically disabled people’.





this question.


with this question.


with this question.


this question.

The difference mean was tested for statistical significance (see appendix y) using the


appendix z)

---------------------

Chart a: To show the distribution of responses to the question ‘I believe that having a physical disability is a barrier to education, leisure and work’.

Overall more respondents agreed (12) with the question than disagreed (11) with it,

indicating a potential difference within the distribution that may be accounted for by

another variable.


this question.


with this question.


with this question.


this question.



appendix z).

---------------------

Chart a: To show the distribution of responses to the question ‘I believe that physically disabled people do not face prejudice in society’.





this question.


with this question.


with this question.


this question.


independent measures ‘t’ test and the results are significant at the 0.05 level (see

appendix z).

---------------------

Chart a: To show the distribution of responses to the question ‘I believe that physically disabled people get in the way of non-disabled people in day to day life’.





this question.


with this question.


with this question.


this question.



appendix z).

---------------------

Chapter 5 – Discussion

The results from my research would indicate that the London 2012 Paralympic

Games did achieve their legacy aims and change the attitudes and perceptions of

able-bodied people towards physically disabled people (Hodges et al 2014). The

responses indicate that they have more positive views on physically disabled people,

have an increased knowledge and awareness of physically disabled people, feel

more comfortable around and talking to physically disabled people and are willing to

engage in greater interaction with disabled people to increase their knowledge and

awareness of them (Hodges et al 2014). This is backed up by research from the

Department of Culture, Media and Sport (2015), Deviren (2014), Hodges et al

(2014), and Channel 4 2012; BBC (2014).

Other responses including understanding that because you have met one physically

disabled person you do not have an understanding and knowledge of all physically

disabled people, knowing that physically disabled people do not have an easier life

after the 2012 games, knowing that physically disabled people still face barriers in

society and indicating that they do not get in the way are indicators of a more tolerant

and accepting society since the games. From the literature I reviewed this is a new

finding.

A cautionary note must be added to the responses that indicated seeing a

Paralympic athlete perform increases the expectations of what a physically disabled

person can do in everyday life and watching a Paralympic athlete in competition

accurately reflects a physically disabled person’s abilities in everyday life and

normalises expectations of ability (Hodges et al 2014) as it could be argued that the

respondents are not distinguishing between the training an elite Paralympic athlete is

required to put in, in order to achieve a high level of performance at the Paralympic

Games compared to the everyday activities a physically disabled person will

encounter such as crossing the road or travelling on public transport. This is backed

up by research from Hodges et al (2014).

If expectations to perform in everyday life are equated to the intense levels of

competition a Paralympic athlete will encounter, then these could become

disempowering when the physically disabled person fails to perform to such a high

level and the able-bodied person is equally baffled as to why the physically disabled

person before him cannot perform as well as David Weir at the Paralympic Games.

An analogy for able-bodied people to remember is would you expect someone you

know to perform at the same level as Usain Bolt? Of course not so why would you

expect a physically disabled person you meet in the street to perform at such a high

level? This is backed up by research from Hodges et al (2014).

My findings correspond with an ONS Opinions and Lifestyle Survey (Deviren 2014)

which found that people had a more positive or view remained the same since the

2012 games of disabled people and that attitudes had improved or remained the

same since the 2012 games. A cautionary note must be added for views remained

the same as these views could have been negative before the games, but it is still

very encouraging to see a positive change in attitudes and perceptions towards

disabled people since the 2012 games.

A survey by the charity Scope (Aiden & McCarthy 2014) found that attitudes and

perceptions towards disabled people had worsened since the games going against

my findings. Cuts to benefits, services and media attacks on the disabled had made

their lives harder and more difficult since the 2012 games and they felt that the

games had left them with no legacy apart from hollow, unfulfilled promises with little

or no chance of being fulfilled.

One of the differences in the variation of responses could be in the respondents

asked. My respondents were all able-bodied people and it is possible that the same

situation occurred for the ONS survey. The Scope survey focuses on responses from

disabled people. Here we have the perceptions of what the legacy achieved for

disabled people from able-bodied people and the real life lived experiences of

disabled people. The perceptions and the realities are very different and this

situation could be remedied by disabled people and able-bodied people coming

together and sharing stories of lived experiences so that both groups have a better

knowledge and understanding of the lives they lead.

The findings fit in with the social model of disability (Barnes, Mercer & Shakespeare

1999; Thomas 2007), which is encouraging for society. The respondents recognise

the need to break down barriers in order to make the lives of disabled people more

manageable and remove restrictions that may limit what a disabled person can do in

their daily life. The respondents recognise that it is the responsibility of everyone in

society to help others and create a more equal and fair society and it is not the fault

of the disabled person that they have a disability that limits what they can do in

society compared to an able-bodied person but it is the fault of society for putting in

restrictions such as no wheelchair ramps that does put limits on what they can

achieve in their daily lives.

Unfortunately this is tempered by the findings which show that the difference in how

able-bodied people perceive the lived experiences of disabled people and the actual

reality for disabled people. By adopting the social model of disability and believing

they are doing enough able-bodied people could be lulled into a false sense of

security and believe that no more needs to be done to improve society for the lived

experience of disabled people, when in fact much more needs to be done as the

findings from the Scope survey reveal.

Chapter 6 – conclusion

The aim of this dissertation was to ascertain the legacy from the London 2012

Paralympic Games and if there had been a change in attitudes and perceptions

towards physically disabled people and if this change was positive or negative.

This dissertation aimed to add to the research already done on the legacy of the

games by doing a later study which would evaluate the longer term impact of the

legacy on societal attitudes and perceptions and do a quantitative study to obtain a

larger response group.

The data showed that there had been a change in societal attitudes and perceptions

since the London 2012 Paralympic Games and that this change had largely been a

positive one reflected in a better understanding of the needs of physically disabled

people and more knowledge about their daily lives and the barriers they face in

society.

From this it can be concluded that the London 2012 Paralympic Games achieved

their legacy aims and changed the attitudes and perceptions of society as they

envisaged they would.

Studies such as this are important because organisations such as the IPC need to

know that their legacy aims are being achieved through global events such as the

Paralympic Games and the valuable resources they use to stage these events are

being put to best use and getting the message across to wider society (Hodges et al

2014).

Whilst these findings are positive and encouraging as has been previously noted

caution must be taken that the changes are for the benefit of all people in society

and not just able-bodied people envisaging a more equal and inclusive society for

physically disabled people when lived experiences as reported by Scope (Aiden &

McCarthy 2014) may be very different. In order for change to be effective it must be

lived by those groups most affected by it and not just envisaged as an ideological

utopia by those not affected by it (Hodges et al 2014).

It can be said that societal norms are changing from a medical model of disability to

a social model of disability and this is encouraging in the drive for a more equal and

inclusive society for everybody (Hodges et al 2014).

The aims of the research were met and this dissertation shows that the Paralympic

Games do have the power to change attitudes and perceptions of others in society.

The study was limited in not asking deeper questions as in a qualitative study at the

expense of obtaining more respondents. It would have been interesting to conduct

the survey on a wider basis and compare the results from those working in an

academic setting to those working in a non-academic setting.

If there is any bias in the responses it is because they are from able-bodied people

and not from physically disabled people. Whilst the aim of the research was to find if

attitudes and perceptions had changed towards physically disabled people further

research needs to be conducted on the effect of the London 2012 Paralympic

Games on physically disabled people to eliminate any possible bias.

Conducting the research on physically disabled people would improve the

understanding of how one event such as the London 2012 Paralympic Games can

change not only attitudes and perceptions in society but the lived experiences of

those most directly affected by them too. This would benefit all of society and not just

those not directly affected by events such as the London 2012 Paralympic Games.

References

Ahmed, N. (2014). Paralympics 2012 legacy: accessible housing and disability

equality or inequality?. Disability and Society. 28 (1), 129-133.

Aiden, H. & McCarthy, A. (2014). Current attitudes towards disabled people.

Retrieved from www.scope.org.uk/.../current-attitudes-towards-disabled-people.pdf?

ext....

BBC. (2014). Paralympics 'transformed attitudes' towards disabled people. Retrieved

from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28175349.

Blauwet, C. & Willick, S. (2012). The Paralympic Movement: Using Sports to

Promote Health, Disability Rights and Social Integration for Athletes with Disabilities.

PM & R. 4 (11), 851-856.

Bristol Online Survey (BOS). (2016). The online survey tool designed for Academic

Research, Education and Public Sector organisations. Retrieved from

https://www.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/.

Bryman, A. (2016). Social Research Methods (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

British Athletics. (2010). Paralympic build up. Retrieved from

http://www.britishathletics.org.uk/media/news/news-archive-pre-2011/april-2010/27-

04-10-paralympics/.

Bush, A., Silk, M., Porter, J., & Howe, D. (2013). Disability [sport] and discourse:

stories within the Paralympic legacy. Reflective Practice: International and

Multidisciplinary Perspectives. 14 (5), 632-647.

Channel 4. (2012). Research: Paralympics coverage helped change attitudes to

disability. Retrieved from http://www.channel4.com/info/press/news/research-

paralympics-coverage-helped-change-attitudes-to-disability.

http://www.channel4.com/info/press/news/research-paralympics-coverage-helped-change-attitudes-to-disability

http://www.channel4.com/info/press/news/research-paralympics-coverage-helped-change-attitudes-to-disability

http://www.britishathletics.org.uk/media/news/news-archive-pre-2011/april-2010/27-04-10-paralympics/

http://www.britishathletics.org.uk/media/news/news-archive-pre-2011/april-2010/27-04-10-paralympics/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28175349

http://www.scope.org.uk/.../current-attitudes-towards-disabled-people.pdf?ext

http://www.scope.org.uk/.../current-attitudes-towards-disabled-people.pdf?ext

Cresswell, J.W. (2014). RESEARCH DESIGN INTERNATIONAL STUDENT

EDITION (4th ed.). California: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Department for Culture, Media and Sport (2015). Olympic and Paralympic legacy:

Inspired by 2012 – third annual report. Retrieved from

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/

452685/1662-B_Legacy_Report_2015_ACCESSIBLE.pdf

E Deviren. (2014). Paralympic data from the ONS Opinions and Lifestyle Survey. No

place given: Department for Work and Pensions and Office for Disability Issues.

Evening Standard. (2012). London 2012 Paralympics: Build up to Paralympic

Games. Retrieved from http://www.standard.co.uk/olympics/paralympics/london-

2012-paralympics-build-up-to-paralympic-games-8078411.html.

Fitzgerald, H. (2012). Paralympic Athletes and "Knowing Disability". International

Journal of Disability, Development and Education. 59 (3), 243-255.

Gallagher, B. (2012). London 2012 Paralympics: a historic homecoming for disabled

sport. Retrieved from

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/paralympic-sport/9475684/London-2012-

Paralympics-a-historic-homecoming-for-disabled-sport.html.

Gray, D.E. (2014). DOING RESEARCH in the REAL WORLD (2nd ed.). London:

SAGE Publications Ltd.

Gunti, P. (2012). Paralympics 2012: A milestone for disabled sports?. Retrieved from

http://www.myhandicap.com/en/information-disability-chonical-illness/sports-with-

disability/paralympics-2012-4200-athletes/.

Hodges. C, Jackson. D, Scullion. R, Thompson. S, Molesworth. M. (2014). Tracking

changes in everyday experiences of disability and disability sport within the context

of the 2012 London Paralympics. Retrieved from:

https://microsites.bournemouth.ac.uk/cmc/files/2014/10/BU-2012-London-

Paralympics.pdf

House of Lords. (2013). Keeping the flame alive: the Olympic and Paralympic

Legacy. (HL Paper 78). London:. The Stationery Office Limited

https://microsites.bournemouth.ac.uk/cmc/files/2014/10/BU-2012-London-Paralympics.pdf

https://microsites.bournemouth.ac.uk/cmc/files/2014/10/BU-2012-London-Paralympics.pdf

http://www.myhandicap.com/en/information-disability-chonical-illness/sports-with-disability/paralympics-2012-4200-athletes/

http://www.myhandicap.com/en/information-disability-chonical-illness/sports-with-disability/paralympics-2012-4200-athletes/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/paralympic-sport/9475684/London-2012-Paralympics-a-historic-homecoming-for-disabled-sport.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/paralympic-sport/9475684/London-2012-Paralympics-a-historic-homecoming-for-disabled-sport.html

http://www.standard.co.uk/olympics/paralympics/london-2012-paralympics-build-up-to-paralympic-games-8078411.html

http://www.standard.co.uk/olympics/paralympics/london-2012-paralympics-build-up-to-paralympic-games-8078411.html

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/452685/1662-B_Legacy_Report_2015_ACCESSIBLE.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/452685/1662-B_Legacy_Report_2015_ACCESSIBLE.pdf

International Paralympic Organisation. (No date). About us. Retrieved from

http://www.paralympic.org/the-ipc/about-us. The visions of the IPC.

International Paralympic Organisation. (No date). Arnhem 1980. Retrieved from

http://www.paralympic.org/arnhem-1980.

International Paralympic Committee. (No date). Introduction to IPC Classifications.

Retrieved from http://www.paralympic.org/classification.

International Paralympic Committee. (2009). IPC Style Guide. Retrieved from

www.paralympic.org/sites/.../130507184600562_ipc+style+guide.pdf. Correct

generic terminology used by the IPC for all documents, correspondence,

publications, etc.

International Paralympic Organisation. (No date). London 2012. Retrieved from

http://www.paralympic.org/london-2012-overview.

International Paralympic Committee. (No date). Paralympics - History of the

Movement. Retrieved from http://www.paralympic.org/the-ipc/history-of-the-

movement. History of the Paralympic movement.

International Paralympic Organisation. (No date). Rome 1960. Retrieved from

http://www.paralympic.org/rome-1960.

International Paralympic Committee. (No date). Sports. Retrieved from

http://www.paralympic.org/sports. List of summer and winter Paralympic sports.

International Paralympic Organisation. (No date). Toronto 1976. Retrieved from

http://www.paralympic.org/toronto-1976.

International Paralympic Committee. (2014). No. 1: London 2012: inspiring a

generation, transforming a nation. Retrieved from:

https://www.paralympic.org/feature/no-1-london-2012-inspiring-generation-

transforming-nation

https://www.paralympic.org/feature/no-1-london-2012-inspiring-generation-transforming-nation

https://www.paralympic.org/feature/no-1-london-2012-inspiring-generation-transforming-nation

http://www.paralympic.org/toronto-1976

http://www.paralympic.org/sports

http://www.paralympic.org/the-ipc/history-of-the-movement

http://www.paralympic.org/the-ipc/history-of-the-movement

http://www.paralympic.org/london-2012-overview

http://www.paralympic.org/sites/.../130507184600562_ipc+style+guide.pdf

http://www.paralympic.org/classification

http://www.paralympic.org/arnhem-1980

http://www.paralympic.org/the-ipc/about-us

Jobling, A. (2012). Editorial - The Paralympic Games. International Journal of

Disability, Development and Education. 59 (3), 225-229.

Olympic and Paralympic legacy survey, Sport and Recreation Alliance

www.sportandrecreation.org.uk/.../Olympic%20and%20 Paralympic %20l ... Survey on

attitudes and rhetoric for the London 2012 Paralympics

Owens, J. (2013). The Paralympics - what did it change?. Retrieved from

http://www.prweek.com/article/1192594/paralympics-change.

Penning, M. (2014). 'Transformation' in British attitudes towards disabled people

since Paralympics 2012. Retrieved from

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/transformation-in-british-attitudes-towards-

disabled-people-since-paralympics-2012.

Public and Commercial Services Union. (2015). Disability models/attitudes.

Retrieved from

http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/equality/guidance-and-resources/disability_equality_toolkit/

disability-models-and-attitudes.cfm.

Purdue, D.E.J. & Howe, P. David. (2012). Empower, inspire, achieve:

(dis)empowerment and the Paralympic Games. Disability and Society. 27 (7), 903-

916.

Robson, C. & McCartan, K. (2016). REAL WORLD RESEARCH (4th ed.).

Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Storey, S. (2012). Sarah Storey: thank you, Olympians. Now let's party again at the

London 2012 Paralympics. Retrieved from

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/paralympic-sport/9473788/Sarah-Storey-

thank-you-Olympians.-Now-lets-party-again-at-the-London-2012-Paralympics.html.

Thomas, N. & Smith, A. (2009). DISABILITY, SPORT AND SOCIETY An

Introduction. Oxen: Routledge.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/paralympic-sport/9473788/Sarah-Storey-thank-you-Olympians.-Now-lets-party-again-at-the-London-2012-Paralympics.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/paralympic-sport/9473788/Sarah-Storey-thank-you-Olympians.-Now-lets-party-again-at-the-London-2012-Paralympics.html

http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/equality/guidance-and-resources/disability_equality_toolkit/disability-models-and-attitudes.cfm

http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/equality/guidance-and-resources/disability_equality_toolkit/disability-models-and-attitudes.cfm

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/transformation-in-british-attitudes-towards-disabled-people-since-paralympics-2012

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/transformation-in-british-attitudes-towards-disabled-people-since-paralympics-2012

http://www.prweek.com/article/1192594/paralympics-change

http://www.sportandrecreation.org.uk/.../Olympic%20and%20Paralympic%20l

Walker, P. & Topping, A. (2013). Paralympics legacy fails to shift attitudes to

disabled people. Retrieved from

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/aug/29/paralympics-legacy-disabled-people.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/aug/29/paralympics-legacy-disabled-people

Documents

DRAFT DISSERTATION FINAL VERSION