Opinion Piece: Are We Using All Abilities to Avoid Saying the Word Disability?
Over the past couple of years, we’ve seen the usage of the phrase “all-abilities” skyrocket in the sporting sector across Australia and, specifically, in Western Australia. What does it mean, why did we start using it and is it working?
Initially, it seems like a great phrase for an entry-level sports program. One that is designed for people who are new to a particular sport or sport in general. A space to learn skills in an environment that is welcoming and safe for people of all abilities. It sounds like something any club or sport should think about running.
A quick Google search will give you varying definitions of what all-abilities means. Some examples mention “involving people regardless of what they can or can’t do” and others are more blunt – “a program designed for kids with a disability.” Having worked in sport inclusion for the past 5 years, I’ve seen one common thread through every program and initiative tilted all-abilities, they all focus on disability. If theoretically, we stayed true to the original meaning of all abilities, sports should be able to run an all-abilities program and for none of the participants to identify as having a disability. I’ve never seen that be the case.
“… I’ve seen one common thread through every program and initiative tilted all-abilities, they all focus on disability”.
Recently, Governments and institutions have been increasing their funding to support disability participation in sport. This has been driven by the Paralympic movement, disability advocates and a greater body of research that says people with disability want to participate in sport but feel unable to do so. Most of the current funding across Australia targeting disability participation has been project/program based, meaning sport administrators must deliver a new program that has the primary goal of increasing disability participation. This turns “all abilities” programs into being extremely disability focused, as the other participants without disability, who might be interested in an all-abilities program are no longer the target market.
I asked my two siblings, who both have disabilities, the following question – “if you were new to a sport, how would you rank the following options from most likely to join to least likely to join?”. I think it’s important to note that they don’t know any of my thoughts or opinions on the phrase.
- A program that is called all-abilities and you can tell (through messaging and photos) that it’s a mix of people with and without disability participating.
- A program that is called all-abilities, but you can tell it’s only for people with disability.
- A program that says it’s for people with disability.
- A program with a separate name like Starkick, but it is designed for people with disability.
Here’s how they answered.
Ben – Ben has Cerebral Palsy, a physical disability and is a Paralympic Gold Medallist. He loves his sport and values disability specific environments, so he can improve under coaches who have a good understanding or awareness that things might need to change. You could say that Ben has a performance mindset or relationship with sport.
Ben picked option 3 (a program explicitly for people with disability) as the most likely program he would join, option 4 (a uniquely named disability program) second, option 1 (a mixed all-abilities program) third and option 2 (an all-abilities program just for people with disability) last.
Ella – Ella has autism and ADHD and has participated in many sports. She plays sport for the exercise, friendships and a sense of community. She connects with people based on similar interests, not whether they have a disability or not. She has a more typical participation-based relationship with sport.
Ella placed option 1 (a mixed all-abilities program) first, option 4 (a uniquely named disability program) second, option 3 (a program explicitly for people with disability) third and option 2 (an all-abilities program just for people with disability) last.
Both of my siblings placed option 2, the one that ‘hides’ the fact that it’s for people with disability comfortably last, despite their different relationships with sport and yet option 2 is commonly seen to be used throughout community sport.
Disability isn’t a dirty word. It’s not offensive and it’s something that some people are extremely proud of identifying as and within that community. I question why there’s a trend running through sport, where all-abilities is being substituted for disability. Not only does it diminish the meaning of all-abilities but it implies that disability is something that we shouldn’t talk about. Something we should ‘soften the blow’ of.
As my sister Ella showed, there’s a difference between a good all-abilities program and a bad all-abilities program and that matters. How true is it to the first definition that all people are welcome regardless of their ability?
Sometimes, trying to tread lightly around a stigmatised topic or group unfortunately contributes to that stigma. The ability to respectfully but accurately describe a program, particularly if it is targeted for disability participation, IS inclusivity. If a program is for people with disability, that’s okay! Let’s say so – clearly, confidently, and with pride. It’s something to celebrate that sport is becoming more inclusive and these programs are an important step!
Terminology isn’t a straight-forward topic, and opinions, feelings and experiences will always vary, so it’s okay to disagree!
This is an opinion piece by Inclusion Consultant Adam Popham.
