This section invites you to track disability in the database from the highest-level subject-concepts through their branching sub-categories. For example, the 'parent' subject-concept, under which all others relating to disability are categorised, is Health and the human body. Under this falls the category Disabilities, which in turn includes the sub-categories Physical disabilities and Intellectual disabilities. Each of these has their own sub-categories, and so the results become narrower and narrower.
The concepts are presented in tables, for ease of reading. If you prefer a more visual model, you can also see the structure as a flowchart (click to enlarge image).
Not every work tagged with one of these subject-concepts forms part of the Writing Disability in Australia dataset. The concept 'skin' is a key example here: while works tagged with this concept include Carly Findlay's autobiography, for example, this is also the parent term for works about tattoos, sunburn, and itches.
One aspect of database organisation that this section reveals is our occasional need for generic descriptors. In the tables below, you will see terms such as 'crippled' as well as 'cerebral palsy' or 'madness' as well as 'schizophrenia'. Here are the legacy worlds of decades of shifting representation and bibliographical imperatives, in 'crippled' Lady Anne in a story from 1873 and the self-sacrificial but unclassified madness of the widow in a story from 1866.
The intent of this section is neither to argue for taxonomy as a means of exploring disability, nor to reinforce medicalised terminology, but simply to expose what is often unspoken (even within the database itself) and draw to the surface the networks that drive our discovery of Australian writing about disability.