Disability, inability and vulnerability: on ableism or the pre-eminence of ableist and biomedical approaches of the Human Subjects Ethics Committee of UFSC
Anthropology has increasingly questioned the hegemony of biomedical knowledge in ethical review processes of social research projects prevailing in Brazil, which was governed until 2012 by the Human Research Ethics Committee of each institution under the auspices of the National Research Ethics Commission (CONEP). This was mandated through Resolution No. 196/1996 prevailing in 2012 when this field research was conducted. The scope of this study is to recount and reflect upon the barriers to obtaining approval in 2012 for my master's research project from the Human Research Ethics Committee of the Federal University of Santa Catarina (CEP/UFSC) in Florianopolis. In this ethnographic experience, in the light of Crip theory, I observed how the "disability," "vulnerability" and "inability" categories are articulated to reveal the ableism and the primacy of the biomedical model in the case of an ethics review at UFSC regarding the participation and legal capacity of persons with disabilities as subjects of research.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 July 2026.
All research outputs
#3,921,083
of 33,158,374 outputs
Outputs from Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
#135
of 2,299 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,004
of 329,902 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
#2
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,158,374 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,299 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,902 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
