The Challenges of Bringing Disability Scholarship Beyond Disability Studies Journals

One of the best pieces of advice I ever received from a senior scholar in the sociology of disability was this: it is important to bring our work to places where it is less expected.

It is, of course, valuable to publish in the journals that are central to our fields. I continue to publish in venues such as Sexuality and Disability, Disability Studies Quarterly, and the Canadian Journal of Disability Studies. These spaces remain crucial for pushing forward debates within disability studies and ensuring that scholarship reaches the communities most invested in it.

But this advice has stayed with me because it points to something bigger. If we only ever talk to each other, our conversations stay contained. To disrupt, to transform, to make disability scholarship visible in new places, we have to bring our work everywhere. That is why, if you look at my CV, you will see my papers on disability and sexuality published in journals of gender studies (e.g., Women’s Studies, Journal of Gender Studies), sexuality studies (e.g., Archives of Sexual Behavior, Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, Sexualities), and even technology studies (e.g., Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace). This has been a deliberate strategy.

The Challenges

Taking this route, however, is not easy. There are specific challenges that come with publishing disability scholarship in journals that do not explicitly identify with the field.

1. The “out of scope” rejection: Far too often, papers are rejected at the desk review stage because editors do not see disability as fitting within the scope of their journal. Oh, the many times I have been told I should just submit my paper to Disability & Society instead. At times, these were not rejections based on the quality of the work (according to editors themselves), but on the assumption that disability scholarship belongs somewhere else. At times, I have disagreed strongly with those assessments. To me, disability is not marginal to other fields; it is central. Yet the boundary-making of disciplines often renders it invisible.

2. Introducing critical disability studies to unfamiliar reviewers: Submitting to journals outside the field also means that reviewers may be unfamiliar with the concepts, frameworks, and traditions of critical disability studies. This requires extra work on the author’s part to carefully explain the perspective being brought forward, sometimes at the expense of space for more substantive analysis. It also means shouldering the burden of “teaching” reviewers about a body of scholarship they have not yet engaged with.

   At the same time, this challenge is also an opportunity. Each review process becomes a chance to expand disability studies’ readership, to introduce new concepts to scholars in adjacent fields, and even to spark collaborations that might not otherwise have been possible. What feels like extra labor can also serve as a form of intellectual bridge-building, slowly widening the circle of those who see disability as essential to their own work.

3. Reviews shaped by outdated assumptions: Some of the most difficult moments come when reviews reflect outdated or paternalistic assumptions about disability. For example, I have been told more than once that I should never use the term “disabled people” and that only person-first language is appropriate. These comments are not simply suggestions about writing style; they reflect a lack of awareness of how disabled communities themselves debate and negotiate language. The reviewer’s insistence on one “correct” form of terminology erases those discussions and undermines disabled scholars’ authority in defining ourselves.

Why It Still Matters

Despite these challenges, I continue to believe in the importance of bringing disability scholarship to new audiences. Each time a paper is published in a non-disability journal, it opens a small door. It creates space for disability to be seen as integral, not peripheral, to broader conversations. It introduces readers who may never pick up Disability Studies Quarterly to ideas that can shift their thinking in profound ways.

This strategy is not about leaving behind disability studies journals. It is about ensuring that disability does not remain siloed. It is about insisting that our work belongs everywhere, that it has something vital to say in conversations about gender, sexuality, technology, health, policy, education, and beyond.

Bringing disability scholarship to unexpected places is hard, and sometimes discouraging. But it is also one of the most powerful ways we can ensure that disability is not treated as an afterthought, but as a central and transformative lens for understanding the world.