Should I Say "Disabled People" or "People with Disabilities"? Language Preferences of Disabled People Between Identity- and Person-First Language
Ather Sharif, Aedan Liam McCall, Kianna Roces Bolante · 2022 · Proceedings of the 24th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS '22) · doi:10.1145/3517428.3544813
Summary
This paper presents the largest empirical study to date on the language preferences of disabled people regarding identity-first language (IFL, e.g., "disabled people") versus person-first language (PFL, e.g., "people with disabilities"). The researchers surveyed 519 disabled people from 23 countries, representing nine disability categories: mobility, visual, cognitive, learning, neurological, auditory, chronic illness, mental health related, and other. After excluding countries with fewer than 10 responses, 491 participants from the United States (N=365), United Kingdom (N=112), and Canada (N=14) were analyzed. The study used a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative multinomial logistic regression analysis with qualitative thematic analysis of free-text responses explaining participants' preferences. Participants could select multiple disability categories and gender identities. As a secondary investigation, the researchers analyzed 11,536 publication abstracts from ACM ASSETS (N=1,564) and ACM CHI (N=9,972) from 2000 to 2021, using part-of-speech tagging with SpaCy to automatically identify and count identity-first and person-first terminology usage over time. The team also built an accessible interactive web platform displaying live survey results with intersectional filtering capabilities.
Key findings
Overall, 49% of disabled people preferred identity-first language, 33% preferred person-first language, and 18% had no preference. However, preferences varied significantly across disability categories, gender identities, age groups, and countries. People with visual (39.9% IFL), cognitive (71.4% IFL), learning (61.1% IFL), and auditory (58.0% IFL) disabilities strongly preferred identity-first language, while people with mobility disabilities (46.2% PFL), neurological conditions (47.2% PFL), and chronic illness (46.3% PFL) leaned toward person-first language. Non-binary participants overwhelmingly preferred IFL (81.6%), and men preferred IFL (39.4%) over PFL (32.8%), while women showed more mixed preferences (44.6% IFL vs. 37.4% PFL). In the UK, 54% preferred IFL versus 40% in the US. Younger participants (under 35) favored IFL more strongly, while those 35 and older leaned toward PFL. Qualitative analysis revealed three themes: "one size does not fit all" — preferences vary by disability community; "not everyone has a preference" — 18% found the debate irrelevant; and "people can have multiple preferences" — individuals with multiple disabilities sometimes preferred different language for each condition, or switched based on context (professional vs. informal). The publication analysis found that academic papers at ASSETS and CHI used person-first language 54.4% of the time versus identity-first 45.6%, despite the community overall preferring identity-first — a 16.1% gap between community preference and academic practice.
Relevance
This paper provides essential data-driven guidance for anyone writing about disability — researchers, journalists, practitioners, developers, and organizations. The key takeaway is that there is no single correct answer: language preferences vary by disability category, gender, age, country, and individual context. The practical recommendation is to ask individuals their preference whenever possible, use the preferred language of specific disability communities when referring to groups, and default to identity-first language when referring to disabled people broadly (as the plurality preference). For accessibility professionals, the finding that academic publications disproportionately use person-first language despite the community preferring identity-first language reveals a disconnect worth correcting. The intersectional analysis is particularly valuable — knowing that non-binary disabled people strongly prefer identity-first language, or that UK and US preferences differ, helps writers make more informed choices. The accessible web platform the researchers created serves as an ongoing resource for tracking evolving preferences over time.
Tags: disability language · identity-first language · person-first language · disability identity · survey research · intersectionality · disability studies · academic publishing
Standards referenced: ADA