6 ways we frame disability (and why it matters)

This week I’ve been reflecting on how society frames disability. The recent buzz from BBC Children in Need provided a striking example: the dominant narrative of disabled children as vulnerable, to be rescued. That framing reflects what’s known as the “charity model” of disability. But there are other models too - some older, some newer - and each carries different implications for how we think about inclusion, support and rights.

Today I’m talking about:

Here are six key frameworks. None is perfect on its own, but together they help us understand how ideas about disability have shifted - and how we might shift settings too.

1. Medical model
The medical model views disability as a problem that resides in the individual person. Under this model the focus is diagnosis, treatment, cure, or rehabilitation.
For example: a child with a learning difficulty is seen as having a “deficit” to be fixed or managed, rather than focusing on how the classroom or task might adapt.
In practice this model can have some value (medical supports and therapies are important). But the risk is it positions the person as “the problem” rather than the environment or system being disabling.

2. Social model
The social model flips the focus. It says: disability is created by society’s failure to accommodate difference - by attitudinal, physical, organisational barriers.
For example: a person uses a wheelchair but the building has only stairs; the barrier is structural not inherent.
This model has been very influential in disability rights, inclusion work and policy. It helps shift from “What’s wrong with you?” to “What’s wrong with the world’s design?”
Potential limitation: It can under‑play the ongoing embodied or medical needs of a person (for example pain, fatigue, co‑occurring needs) if used rigidly.

3. Charity model
The charity model casts people with disabilities as vulnerable, passive recipients of pity or goodwill. This is the narrative we often see in fundraising campaigns: children in need, heroic carers, “help them” stories.
From the BBC’s Children-in-Need framing: young person with disability is shown needing our donations to “fix” things. It may raise money, but it can reinforce an “us and them” narrative, emphasise dependency, and strip agency.
We therefore need to ask: are we presenting people with disabilities as whole, agentic individuals - or only as victims to be helped?

4. Identity model
The identity model (sometimes called affirmation/identity‑first lens) views disability as part of identity - not just a medical condition or a problem. It emphasises that people with disabilities have their own culture, experience and identity.
For instance: someone might say “I’m autistic” rather than “I have autism” because that identity is meaningful and positive.
In schools and workplaces this model can help shift from deficits to strengths, from “overcoming” to “belonging”. It centres self‑understanding and community.

5. Disability justice framework
This is a more recent and rich model, rooted in social justice, intersectionality and collective liberation. It says: disability can’t be separated from race, gender, poverty, migration status, colonialism, mental health and other systems of oppression.
Key principles include intersectionality, leadership of those most impacted, interdependence, collective liberation.
In practical terms: an organisation that uses this framework will not only make ramps and quieter rooms (barrier removal) but will ask: whose voices have we excluded? How are issues of race, language, culture, neurodiversity, mental health being addressed together?
This model invites a deeper cultural shift - from inclusion in one moment to transformation of systems.

6. Bio‑social (or biopsychosocial) model
This integrates the individual/medical and the social/environmental. It understands disability as arising from a complex interplay of biological/impairment factors and psychological/social/environmental factors.
In other words: a child with a sensory difference may need medical/therapeutic support, but also they are affected by classroom design, social attitudes, family stress, mental health – and all those factors interact.
This model is especially useful in neuro‑diversity/education/training contexts because it allows nuance: people have real embodied differences AND they are disabled by environments.

When organisations or settings implicitly adopt one of these models, it shapes everything: how they talk about disability, how they design support, how they resource things, who is expected to do the “fixing”.

Take the charity model example of Children in Need. The framing says: “these children are in need, please help them”. That increases donations, but it can also reinforce a view that children with disabilities are passive recipients rather than participants, and it may limit how we talk about rights, agency, inclusion.

If instead the messaging and practice leaned more on the social or identity or justice models, the narrative would shift: “this child is part of our community; what barriers do we need to remove so they fully participate? What strengths do they bring? What systems must we change?”

For your neuro‑inclusion work with schools, HR or teams, this means paying attention to language, underlying assumptions, the range of supports and whether we elevate voice and agency.

Here are a few strategies you can use in your setting this week:

As we continue to advocate for neuro‑inclusion, it’s helpful to pause and ask: Which model am I operating from? Changing the model we use may not be dramatic in one instant, but over time it shifts culture, shifts relationships, shifts expectation.
Let’s keep moving from pity and passive support, towards participation, rights and justice.

Are these models new to you? Hit reply and let me know!

And if you need any support in understanding them, bringing them to life or figuring out which to use in your organisation, you know where I am!

Speak soon,

Jess

PS Whenever you’re ready, here are some ways I can help: