Furthering the person-first versus identity-first language debate

ABSTRACT The use of person-first language (i.e., the person with a disability) versus identity-first language (i.e., the disabled person) is a source of ongoing debate. Proponents of person-first language argue for its use, so as not to objectify or stereotype a person by their illness or disability. Conversely, advocates of identity-first language state that it affirms pride in the person’s disability. Overall, however, there is a growing use of identity-first language. Both proponents of person-first and identity-first language are aligned in their quest to maximise respect and inclusivity of people with disabilities and health conditions. Limited research examining the language preferences of those with disabilities and/or medical issues has been mixed. The majority of the research has focused on autism, multiple sclerosis and deaf/blind populations. In some cases, studies have methodological issues, and researchers have concentrated on the perspectives of students, employees and counsellors. Factors that may influence preferences, such as disability type, severity, acceptance and identity, have not been adequately examined in the research. Future research is required to gain an evidence-based understanding of language preferences that can improve social inclusion for people with varying disabilities and health conditions. KEY POINTS What is already known about this topic: (1) There is ongoing debate about the use of person-first versus identity-first language. (2) Both proponents of person-first and identity-first language are aligned in their quest to maximise respect and inclusivity of people with disabilities and health conditions. (3) Some disability scholars have proposed that psychologists use person-first and identity first language interchangeably. What this paper adds: (1) An overview of previous research finds that much has not been conducted in people with disabilities and is inappropriate for generalisation more broadly (2) There is a deficit in knowledge about factors that may influence language preferences, such as disability type, severity, acceptance and identity which have not been adequately examined. (3) Future research is required to gain an evidence-based understanding of language preferences that can improve social inclusion and maximise respect for people with varying disabilities and health conditions.