September 22, 2025, by aczht

The trouble with (disability) language by Professor Jillian Rickly 

About Professor Jillian Rickly 

Jillian Rickly is a Professor of Tourism and Head of Department (Marketing, Tourism and Analytics) at Nottingham University Business School. She is also the theme lead for accessibility and inclusivity for the Sustainable Travel and Tourism Advanced Research Centre (STTAR Centre). In this blog, Jillian discusses the language of disability and its importance in achieving the goals of accessible tourism.  

The problem by Professor Jillian Rickly 

Deciding to create a Handbook of Accessible Tourism was the (relatively) easy part of the journey. Our editorial team of Professor Nigel Halpern (Kristiania University of Applied Sciences, Norway), Professor Brian Garrod (Swansea University, UK) and Dr Marcus Hansen (Liverpool John Moores University, UK), and myself set out with optimism and energy to create a foundational resource for researchers, students, advocacy groups, industry practitioners and policymakers interested in improving the accessibility of the tourism and travel sector for people with disabilities. 

However, we soon found ourselves somewhat paralysed in making a decision about a paramount issue: the language of disability. In a book about accessibility, disability is THE core theme, but in the current cultural climate where inclusivity is non-negotiable, getting the language wrong (despite good intentions) can have serious repercussions. 

 Person-first or identity-first?  

The main debate in the language of disability is about which approach is more appropriate:  

• Person-first language prioritises the person, of which their disability is recognised as one part of their identity. Examples would include a person with vision impairment and a person with vision impairment, a person with autism. 
• Identity-first language emphasises that a person’s disability is embedded in their overall identity and lived experiences, and as a result, these cannot be separated. Examples would be an autistic person, a vision-impaired person.  

While both have positive intentions and have been championed by different advocacy groups to destigmatise disability, there remain stalwarts who will only accept one or the other as the ‘correct’ form. This is further complicated by differing legal preferences. For instance, person-first terminology is used by the United Nations and US law, whereas both identity-first and person-first terminology is found within UK law.  

The decision 

As a team, we debated this issue again and again but avoided making a decision that would commit us to arguing exclusively for one approach and against the other. To make matters worse, there was no clear agreement amongst the four of us, and as authors started to send in their chapter contributions, we were seeing both used.  

In the end, the one thing we could agree on is that the policing of language would more likely than not be counterproductive. Drawing lines in the sand about what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ and setting ultimatums to enforce compliance undermines the good intentions of those advancing accessible tourism. It runs counter to a core value of accessibility: inclusivity.  

Instead, we allowed authors to use the language of disability that most aligned with their (and their participants) worldview. But we also asked them to include a statement at the start of their chapter explaining that choice to readers. This allowed us to create a conversation throughout the entire book with each voice and perspective represented. Surely, one thing we can agree on is that open dialogue is a positive solution to our most vexing challenges?  

Further information: 

Learn more about the Handbook of Accessible Tourism.  

Find out more about Nottingham University Business School’s Sustainable Travel and Tourism Advanced Research Centre (STTAR Centre) and the Department of Marketing, Tourism and Analytics. 

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share on Google+
• Share on LinkedIn