Social media and disability advocacy organizations: caught between hopes and realities

Abstract

This article examines the role of advocacy organizations and their use of social media within the field of disability in Sweden. How do the organizations negotiate digital media, and what are the (intentional or unintentional) consequences related to the use of social media? With focus on the representatives of advocacy organizations, we study how they reflect and act in order to balance various motives, and what challenges and ambiguities that arise. On one hand, there is a perceived need to be online and communicate with members and the surrounding society. On the other hand, digital communication induces a divide between those who have the resources to take part in such communication, and those who do not – in terms of digital competence, economy, age, cognitive abilities, technical equipment and digital connection. The heterogeneity of resources and target groups inevitably challenges both the ideals of inclusion and intentions of advocacy organizations.Points of interestToday both individual persons and different organizations use social media (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and similar) to talk to each other, to find friends, to give and seek information about different things and possibly to gain support for their cause in public.Also advocacy organizations use social media to inform and support their members, to speak on behalf of their members and to society.This article studies how different disability advocacy organizations reflect upon the use of social media in their work – how they use it, why, and for who.This study shows how difficult it is to take the interest of different target groups into consideration – for example people with various disabilities, of different age and economic status, their families, and the wider society – and to still address and include everyone.Particularly young people, but also others, might not need advocacy organizations, they have social media.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 42 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.