Executive Summary

Content Analysis

Five researchers ("coders") watched and listened to the programme sample. That programming was then categorised in terms of both extent and nature of the representation of people with disabilities. For the most part the data results inputted by the coders were based on observation of clearly observable content such as the presence or absence of individuals with disabilities in radio or television programmes.

In this context "clearly observable" presents an obvious difficulty on radio since physical disabilities are inaudible: in examining radio material then, the coders could only count spoken references to disability or comments which identified an individual as having a disability. However, the coders also categorised less overt content such as whether the representation of individuals with disabilities in a given programme was stereotypical, prejudicial or discriminatory.

Agreement between coders about how the various representations examined should be categorised was facilitated by disability awareness training led by the Head of the DCU Disability Services, Pat Hoey.

Working for eight weeks, the coders produced a set of data capturing information such as the number of people with disabilities in the programmes watched, and the number of references to disability. Information on the roles played by people with disabilities, and the nature of their representation was also captured by the coders. The analysis of this data by Dr. Roddy Flynn forms the basis of the main body of this report.

Discourse Analysis

In addition to the content analysis, programming identified as featuring a person with a disability or referring to disability was examined by Dr. Debbie Ging to establish if there were recurring themes in the language used to talk about disability. Her findings form the basis for Section 5 of this document.

Extent i.e. the number of times people with a disability appeared or were referred to:

• 20% of all radio and television programmes coded made some reference to disability either by featuring a person with a disability or including a spoken reference to disability
• 67 of the 804 programmes examined (8% of the total) featured the appearance of a person with a disability. 39 (or 58%) of these 67 programmes were television programmes and 28 (or 42%) were radio programmes. In other words, 10% of all television programmes featured a person with a disability compared with 6.5% of all radio programmes
• A further 95 programmes (12% of the total) included a spoken reference to disability only i.e. these programmes did not feature any individual with a disability. 13% of all television programmes featured a spoken reference compared to 11% of all radio programming
• 88 (1.1%) of the total number of individuals appearing in the programme sample (7,723) were coded as in some way as having a disability. 51 of these appeared on television and 37 on radio. Since a total of 5,011 individuals appeared on television and a total of 2,212 on radio, people with disabilities coded accounted for 1% of all individuals on television and 1.8% of all individuals on radio
• Only 5, of a total of 804 programmes examined, (i.e. less than 1%) were coded as disability-focused i.e. programmes which were entirely and explicitly on and about the subject of disability. 3 of these programmes were broadcast on television and 2 on radio
• People with disabilities are more likely to be obviously present in Drama, Comedy and Lifestyle programming and are less evident in News, Sports and Music programming
• Two-thirds of the people with disabilities in the programme sample were regarded as playing "minor/incidental" roles in the programmes in which they featured. People with disabilities were more likely to play minor/incidental roles on radio: on television, 30 people (59% of the total represented on television) with disabilities were regarded as playing "minor/incidental" roles. On radio, 31 people (84% of the total represented on radio) with disabilities were regarded as playing "minor/incidental" roles
• Of all disabilities represented in the programme sample through appearances and references, depression is the most commonly represented form of disability, followed by representations of autism and addiction
• In occupational terms, people with disabilities appearing in programming are most likely to be represented either as students or as experiencing unemployment as a direct result of their disability. However in one third of cases, insufficient information is offered about individuals to allow the audience to determine the occupational role played by the individuals with a disability
• Programming acquired from outside Ireland is significantly more likely to feature both people with disabilities and references to disability than domestically-produced programming. Although domestically-produced shows accounted for more than 80% of the total number of programmes looked at during the research, they accounted for less than 60% of programming featuring a person with a disability and just under 70% of those programmes referring to disability but not featuring a person with a disability. This is accounted for by the fact that drama and comedy, which appear to feature a relatively high proportion of people with disabilities and references to disabilities, dominate imported programming broadcast on Irish television.

Nature i.e. the manner in which people with a disability and disability issues were discussed:

• In 80% of the appearances by a person with a disability in the programme sample, disability was represented as central to the individual's identity
• In terms of the types of roles represented, when people with disabilities are physically present during a programme, they are generally presented in serious roles. By contrast, spoken references to disability as a subject (made in the absence of a person with a disability) are twice as likely to be made in a comedic or light-hearted tone
• Of the 88 people with disabilities identified as appearing in the programme sample, 73 were represented in a stereotypical fashion e.g. as "pitiable" and "pathetic" or "sweet" and "innocent" etc.
• Despite this, the majority of programming adopted a neutral attitude towards individuals with disability in that most representations adopted neither a discriminatory attitude towards individuals with a disability nor were they assessed likely to create prejudice towards people with disabilities as a group. As discussed in more detail below, it is important to understand that extensive stereotyping of individuals does not necessarily imply that they are represented in a discriminatory or prejudiced manner at least insofar as those terms were defined for the purposes of this research (see section 4.9.3 below).References to disability as a general subject (rather than to specific individuals with disabilities) are also mainly characterised by a neutral - i.e. non-discriminatory, non-prejudicial - attitude
• The words used to describe disability as a subject in non-fiction programmes, both on radio and television, complied with guidelines endorsed by the NDA and produced by People with Disabilities in Ireland (PWDI).^[1] 'People with disabilities' was the favoured term. The word 'impairment' was never used. These programmes were nearly all Irish-produced
• Words used to describe disability in fictional genres such as comedy, sitcoms, soap operas and cartoons often did not comply with the PWDI guidelines referred to above. Casual or comic references to mental illness and instability were by far the most prevalent. Most of these programmes were imported from the United States
• The treatment of mental illness differed radically in fictional (e.g. drama) and non-fictional programme genres (e.g. News):

In News programmes, mention of mental illness focussed on disruptions to mental health services caused by the nurses' strike and discussions of the mental health of figures such as the lone gunman who, in April 2007, killed 33 people at the Virginia Tech College, in the United States.

In non-fiction radio and television programme genres such as chat shows and current affairs programmes, mental illness, depression, substance abuse and suicide were dealt with in serious terms. There was strong evidence of a social-model discourse i.e. disabilities were primarily discussed as socially constructed problems and/or as personal traumas requiring holistic, therapeutic solutions rather than as conditions "suffered" by individuals who thus required medical treatment

In fictional programme genres, however, such as soaps, dramas and sitcoms, mental illness was dealt with in more individualised and medicalised terms. Negative stereotypes were more common here than in non-fiction, exemplified by references to disability in terms of "freakishness" and "evil".

• On television, representations of physical disability (i.e. both appearances of people with disabilities and references to disability) were far more common in fiction than in non-fiction. In fiction there was a preoccupation with unusual medical syndromes, particularly in hospital and crime dramas. Negative stereotypes, in particular freak imagery, were also more common in fictional programmes compared to non-fiction ones
• The disabling conditions of alcoholism and drug addiction were discussed in radically different ways in fiction and non-fiction programme genre:-
  • In non-fictional programme genres, in particular on radio chat shows and current affairs programmes, addiction to drugs and alcohol was presented as a social problem related to a variety of issues including, increased prosperity, peer pressure, lack of spirituality, glamorous media images and adults leading by bad example. These programmes were all Irish-produced
  • In fictional programme genres (or quasi-fictional such as 'Reality-TV' programmes and "Judge Judy") which dealt with alcoholism or drug addiction), these problems were framed as hereditary / genetic problems or as evidence of a weak or selfish personality. These programmes were all imported from the US
• Disability was rarely portrayed as incidental in the programme sample. There was therefore little evidence in the sample of the kind of "mainstreaming" developments which have been noted by some theorists in relation to the British media. Mainstreaming implies featuring people with disabilities in all varieties of programmes without necessarily drawing attention to their disability. In other words, in only a handful of examples in the sample where a person with a disability made an appearance was their disability irrelevant to their presence in the fiction or non-fiction programme
• There were very few apparent examples of people with disabilities, either as presenters or as makers of programmes. Only two examples of disability-focussed programming were captured in the sample, on NEAR FM and Ros FM, both community radio services