Davis
Article
Davis is a recurring person in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 2 times across 2 issues between December 09, 2021 and July 25, 2023. The archive places it in contexts such as “Larson (2019), on the other hand, was co-written with Davis, Oliner, and Shui”; “The Disability Studies Reader (Ed. Davis)“. It most often appears alongside Australia, Scott Alexander, 1992 Presidential debate.
Metadata
- Category: People
- Mention count: 2
- Issue count: 2
- First seen: December 09, 2021
- Last seen: July 25, 2023
Appears In
- Does Georgism Work? Part 1: Is Land Really A Big Deal?
- Highlights From The Comments On Social Model Of Disability
Related Pages
-
- Australia (2 shared issues)
-
- Scott Alexander (2 shared issues)
-
- 1992 Presidential debate (1 shared issues)
-
- 2017 PTAPP survey (1 shared issues)
-
- ABA (1 shared issues)
-
- Adesh Thapliyal (1 shared issues)
-
- AEI (1 shared issues)
-
- agglomeration effect (1 shared issues)
-
- Alan Smith (1 shared issues)
-
- Albouy (1 shared issues)
-
- Alexander Graham Bell (1 shared issues)
-
- Alexandra Elbakyan (1 shared issues)
External Links
Source Context
Recovered passages from the original issue text. When the raw archive preserved outbound links inside the source passage, they are listed directly under the quote.
Larson (2019), on the other hand, was co-written with Davis, Oliner, and Shui and uses the cost approach exclusively. Crucially, Larson (2019) explicitly and intentionally excludes all vacant land sales from the dataset. This estimate thus has the least direct contact with ground truth data from the market concerning land.
From my own observations of the subject in academia, I believe the Social Model is currently something of a bête noire among disability researchers, and has been for quite some time. I have not seen a recent disability studies paper for cite it without immediately disclaiming, qualifying, or justifying it. Entire branches of contemporary Disability Studies, like Critical Disability Theory or Disability Justice, define themselves in opposition to it. Its chapter in the introductory text The Disability Studies Reader (Ed. Davis) is mostly a long criticism of it, ending on this damning claim that “the Social Model has now become a barrier to further progress.” These are not signs of a popular, dominant paradigm, to say the least.