Showing 1 – 6 of 6 results.
Self-published
A systematic discourse analysis of how U.S. political leaders frame disability: Implications for students with disabilities (ICPSR 307656)
Released/updated on: 2026-07-06
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2025-01-01--2025-12-31
This study examined how U.S. political leaders publicly framed disability during calendar year 2025, using a systematic discourse analysis of public statements and federal legislation. It also examined how this discourse was reflected in federal education policy, including statements by the Secretary of Education and education-related bills.
The study analyzed 121 public statements about people with disabilities made by White House and Cabinet officials, and 32 federal bills introduced in 2025 that could affect the rights, services, or educational opportunities of individuals with disabilities. Statements were identified through a two-stage process that combined a custom Python-based web-scraping tool, which extracted verbatim, attributed quotations from news articles, press releases, interview transcripts, official speeches, and social media posts using the OpenAI GPT-4 API, with manual verification searches conducted in ChatGPT Plus and Perplexity AI Pro. Federal bills were identified through Congress.gov. All statements were reviewed by the authors to confirm accuracy, attribution, and date. Each statement and bill was independently scored by two human coders and by GPT-4 using an author-developed four-point rubric grounded in the social and human rights models of disability, ranging from 1 (dehumanizing) to 4 (affirming).
The data contain one record per statement, including the speaker's name and title, date, verbatim quotation, source, context, an analysis of the framing, a score from 1 (dehumanizing) to 4 (affirming), and the rationale for the score. The bills data are available on the project website and are not included in this deposit.
The study was approved by the university Institutional Review Board (March 2025) and was preregistered on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/hbfe5/).
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Afrobarometer Round 5: The Quality of Democracy and Governance in Malawi, 2012 (ICPSR 35554)
Released/updated on: 2015-08-04
Geographic coverage: Malawi, Africa, Global
Time period: 2012-06-04--2012-07-01
The Afrobarometer project was designed to collect and disseminate information regarding Africans' views on democracy, governance, economic reform, civil society, and quality of life. This particular survey was concerned with the attitudes and opinions of the citizens of Malawi. Respondents in a face-to-face interview were asked to rate their president and the president's administration in overall performance, to state the most important issues facing their nation, and to evaluate the effectiveness of certain continental and international institutions. Opinions were gathered concerning government performance, trust, corruption, protesting, and public opinion in Malawi. Respondents were also asked their attitudes toward and evaluations of democracy, governance and economic conditions, political participation, national identity, and social capital. Additionally, respondents were polled on taxation, gender issues, crime, conflict and insecurity, globalization, and social service delivery. Background variables include age, gender, ethnicity, education, religious affiliation and participation, political party affiliation, language spoken most at home, current and past employment status, and language used in the interview.
Curated
Eurobarometer 71.2: European Employment and Social Policy, Discrimination, Development Aid, and Air Transport Services, May-June 2009 (ICPSR 28183)
Released/updated on: 2012-01-31
Geographic coverage: Cyprus, Portugal, Global, Malta, Greece, Netherlands, Sweden, Austria, Latvia, Luxembourg, Ireland, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia, France, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Croatia, Romania, Hungary, Europe, United Kingdom, Spain, Czech Republic, Turkey, Belgium, Finland, Denmark, Italy, Macedonia, Germany, Estonia
Time period: 2009-05-25--2009-06-17
This round of Eurobarometer surveys queried respondents on standard Eurobarometer measures such as how satisfied they were with their present life. Additional questions focused on the respondents' current living conditions as compared to five years ago, and expectations for the future, including jobs, unemployment, their financial situation, inequality, affordable energy and housing, and the economic situation in their country. Further questions centered on four major areas: (1) European employment and social policy, (2) discrimination, (3) development aid, and (4) air transport services. For the first major area, European employment and social policy, the survey focused on respondents' familiarity with the European Social Fund (ESF), past and present employers, the most valuable assets in finding a job, job training, the likelihood of finding a job if laid off, and whether the European Union (EU) has a positive or negative impact on employment and social policies. For the second major area, discrimination, respondents were asked about discrimination based on ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, age, religion, and disability. The survey queried respondents about the extent of discrimination in their countries, whether discrimination is more or less common compared with five years ago, their personal experiences of discrimination in the past 12 months, their level of comfort with politicians of minority backgrounds, diversity in the media and workplace, how the economic crisis may affect discrimination, and respondents' identification with minority groups. For the third major area, development aid, respondents were queried about the importance of helping people in developing countries, the Millennium Development Goals, motives for rich countries to provide aid to developing nations, the countries best positioned to help develop countries, the largest challenges facing developing nations, and the European Union's contribution to development. The final major focus of the survey concluded with questions about respondents' use of air transportation, knowledge of air passengers rights, and satisfaction and positive and negative experiences with air transport services. Demographic and other background information includes age, gender, nationality, origin of birth (personal and parental), marital status and parental relations, left-right political placement, occupation, age when stopped full-time education, household composition, religious affiliation, ownership of a fixed or a mobile telephone and other durable goods, difficulty paying bills, level in society, Internet use, minority group affiliation, type and size of locality, region of residence, and language of interview (in select countries).
Curated
Eurobarometer 69.1: Discrimination, Radioactive Waste, and Purchasing in the European Union, February-March 2008 (ICPSR 25163)
Released/updated on: 2011-03-22
Geographic coverage: Cyprus, Portugal, Global, Malta, Greece, Netherlands, Sweden, Austria, Latvia, Luxembourg, Ireland, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia, France, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Romania, Hungary, Europe, United Kingdom, Spain, Czech Republic, Belgium, Finland, Denmark, Italy, Germany, Estonia
Time period: 2008-02-18--2008-03-22
This round of Eurobarometer surveys diverged from the standard Eurobarometer measures and queried respondents on the following major areas of focus: (1) discrimination, (2) radioactive waste, and (3) purchasing in the European Union (EU). For the first major focus, discrimination, respondents were queried about how widespread various types of discrimination were, how common they were compared with five years ago, if in the past year they had personally felt discriminated against or witnessed discrimination, and the existence of multiple discrimination. Additional queries included how comfortable respondents would be with having a person from a different minority group as a neighbor, what criteria would put an employment candidate at a disadvantage, their feelings about having people from different minority groups holding the highest elected political position in their country, opinions about specific measures for equal opportunity in employment, whether enough effort was made to fight discrimination, and if they would know their rights if a victim of discrimination. For the second major focus, radioactive waste, respondents were asked how informed they felt about radioactive waste, their opinions about nuclear energy, its management and the advantages of its use, and their opinions about radioactive waste and its disposal. Further queries asked respondents whom they trusted to give them information about radioactive waste management, their reactions to a radioactive waste site being built near their home, and their opinions about the management and monitoring practices of radioactive waste between EU member states and the EU. For the third major focus, purchasing in the European Union, respondents were queried about whether they had purchased or tried to purchase goods/services in the last 12 months, in their own and in another EU country, the total value of purchases, and whether they had offers from sellers in other EU countries. Queries also asked if respondents experienced unsolicited, deceptive, or fraudulent offers, coercion, unfair contract terms, shopping at a distance, the cooling-off period, making complaints, and their interest and confidence in cross-border shopping in comparison to shopping in their own country. Finally, on the same topic, respondents were asked about their use of price comparison Web sites, the protection of consumers and the process for resolving disputes, financial services, holiday packages, and nonfood purchases. Demographic and other background information includes age, gender, nationality, origin of birth (personal and parental), marital status, left-right political self-placement, occupation, age when stopped full-time education, household composition, religious affiliation, ownership of a fixed or a mobile telephone and other durable goods, social contacts, minority group affiliation, quality of life pertaining to health, type and size of locality, region of residence, and language of interview (in select countries).
Curated
Eurobarometer 65.4: Discrimination in the EU, Organized Crime, Medical Research, Vehicle Intelligence Systems, and Humanitarian Aid, June-July 2006 (ICPSR 21442)
Released/updated on: 2010-06-30
Geographic coverage: Cyprus, Portugal, Global, Malta, Greece, Netherlands, Sweden, Austria, Latvia, Luxembourg, Ireland, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia, France, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Romania, Hungary, Europe, United Kingdom, Spain, Czech Republic, Belgium, Finland, Denmark, Italy, Germany, Estonia
Time period: 2006-06-07--2006-07-12
This round of Eurobarometer surveys diverged from the Standard Eurobarometer measures and queried respondents on (1) discrimination in the European Union (EU), (2) fighting against organized crime, (3) science and research, (4) justice, freedom, and security policies, (5) intelligent systems in vehicles, and (6) EU Humanitarian Aid (ECHO). For the first topic, discrimination in the EU, respondents were asked to identify to what extent different types of discrimination or nondiscrimination occurs, factors which may affect employment, the need for diversity in the workplace and government, and the advantages of membership to a particular social group. In addition, respondents were asked about combating discrimination through the role of organizations or as an individual, and about laws prohibiting discrimination. Secondly, the survey queried respondents about fighting organized crime. Respondents provided their opinions about the implementation of witness protection, frequency and prevention of identity and tax fraud, and the involvement of the EU in developing policy on witness protection. In regard to the third topic, science and research, respondents were asked to identify their interests, their knowledge of collaborative research projects, information sources accessed and trusted pertaining to scientific research, and personal association with individuals who have a chronic or life-threatening disease. For the fourth topic, respondents were asked questions about justice, freedom and security policies including their views in regard to EU decision-making and priorities in enacting or developing policies pertaining to social issues. For the next topic, intelligent systems in vehicles, the survey asked respondents about their driving habits and automobiles, as well as the distance they traveled per year. In addition, they provided their opinion about selecting or not selecting a particular car safety system such as an anti-lock breaking system or an electronic stability system, the development of these systems, and the implementation of systems that collect driver information. Finally, the survey collected information on respondents' views regarding the role of countries in providing aid to victims of natural disasters or conflicts outside of the EU, their knowledge of organizations that fund humanitarian aid, including the European Commission and its Humanitarian Aid Department (ECHO), and the disbursement of aid. Demographic and other background information includes age, gender, origin of birth (personal and parental), marital status, left-right political self-placement, occupation, age at completion of full-time education, household composition, religious affiliation, ownership of a fixed or a mobile telephone, social contacts, and quality of life pertaining to health. In addition, country-specific data include type and size of locality, region of residence, and language of interview select countries).
Curated
Eurobarometer 54.2: Impact of New Technologies, Employment and Social Affairs, and Disabilities, January-February 2001 (ICPSR 3211)
Released/updated on: 2008-08-14
Geographic coverage: Europe, United Kingdom, Portugal, Global, Spain, Greece, Netherlands, Sweden, Austria, Belgium, Norway, Luxembourg, Ireland, Finland, Denmark, Italy, France, Germany
Time period: 2001-01-02--2001-02-06
This round of Eurobarometer surveys diverged from a focus on standard Eurobarometer measures, and instead assessed respondents' views on the perceived impact of new technologies, employment, moving, and issues related to people with disabilities. Interviews began by asking respondents if they felt important changes in the world were impacting them personally, how they felt about these changes, and what the impact of new technologies would be over the next five to ten years in terms of their daily lives, access to information, free time, feelings of security, risk of accidents, household chores, family and social relationships, and deterrence of criminal activities. They were asked how much they agreed that new technologies would reduce income inequalities, differences in educational and cultural opportunities, and the number of people excluded from society, as well as improve people's participation in the political process, create more possibilities for expressing one's opinions, provide more access to political representatives and the civil service via the Internet, and promote on-line voting for elections and referenda. Responses were also sought regarding who respondents felt benefited most from the Internet, if they had concerns about voting on-line, and who should deal with new ethical issues brought about by new technologies. Respondents were further questioned about whether they thought that over the next five to ten years people in general would undertake more or less work-related training, experience more or less work-related stress, change jobs more or less than today, work more or less hours per week, retire earlier or later, and what impact new technologies would have on employment opportunities. They were asked to what extent they agreed that it was necessary to master new technologies to find or keep a job, that the educational system taught new technology effectively, and that all pupils should have full access to new technologies, as well as who they thought should pay for work-related training on new technologies. Respondents with a job were asked how satisfied they were with their job in terms of earnings, job security, type of work, number of working hours, start and end times, length of travel time, how many times they had changed jobs in the last five years, how similar the skills required for their current job were to their previous job, and the reason for changing jobs. Those who thought they would change jobs in the next five years were asked if they thought the required skills would be similar or different and what would encourage them to make the change. Those who hadn't changed jobs in the last five years or didn't plan to change jobs in the next five years were asked why. All respondents with a job were also asked if they thought they would need new skills to improve future job prospects, if in the last year they had participated in training to improve their skills, and why they wanted or didn't want to improve their job skills. Respondents were next asked if they had moved in the last ten years or if they intended to move in the next five years. Those who had moved or intended to move were asked where, i.e., within the same city, different city-same region, different region-same country, different European Union (EU) country, or outside of the EU, and the reason for the move. Those not having moved and not intending to move were asked why not. All respondents were asked whether they would prefer to remain in their current region of residence or move to another region if they were unemployed, to what extent moving to a different geographical location in the next five years would improve their job prospects, if they would be willing to live in another EU country with a different language, how they felt about the number of foreigners in their country, and whether better career prospects, financial circumstances, social benefits, public services, or social life would encourage them to move. On the subject of the disabled, respondents were asked if they personally knew anyone (including a family member, friend, acquaintance, neighbor, colleague, client, pupil/student, or other) with a disability or infirmity that limited their activities, how at ease they felt in the presence of people with disabilities, and how at ease people in general felt in the presence of people with disabilities. They were asked how difficult they thought it was for certain groups of people with disabilities (i.e., blind, deaf, physically and intellectually disabled people) to access public transport and services, restaurants, university or school, their work place, sports events, and cultural events, whether access to public places for people with disabilities had improved over the last ten years, who was actually responsible for making improvements in these matters (e.g., local authorities, national government, nongovernmental organizations, the EU, etc.), and who should be responsible. They were asked to indicate how aware they were of each of 21 types of disabilities (e.g., visual, hearing, neuromuscular, skeletal, arthritis, cancer, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, and others), what percent of the population in their country had a physical disability, how strongly they agreed that disabled persons should be more involved in society, that more money should be spent on removing physical barriers, and that children with disabilities should be taught in the same schools as other children, and whether they would feel at ease with a person in a wheelchair as their boss, next-door neighbor, colleague, a politician, an artist, a teacher, or a shop worker. Standard demographic information collected includes age, sex, occupation, nationality, marital status, vote intention, age at completion of full-time education, number of people in household, number of children under 15 in household, household income, size of locality, region of residence, religiousity, and language of interview (for select countries).