ABSTRACT
The previous chapters have evidenced how in recent years the use of new media technologies supported important changes in British disability rights advocacy, transforming existing organisations and enabling the formation of new networks. At the same time, however, such digital dynamism was tied indissolubly to the U.K. welfare reform crisis, which acted as a fundamental catalyst for the renewal of grassroots advocacy. In order to gauge the influence of the local context on contemporary forms of digital disability rights advocacy, this chapter compares the British experience to that ofAmerican disability organisations. As a country that tends to be regarded as a trendsetter in e-advocacy and online campaigns, the United States makes for a particularly useful comparative case study. Are there any specific differences in theways inwhich establisheddisability organisations in the U.K. and the U.S. use online media to pursue their policy objectives? Under what circumstances, if any, do such groups embrace more participatory forms of e-advocacy in each country? And, finally, what are the factors at the root of these patterns? These questions are tackled here through a comparative inventory
of online media use (see Appendix B) and 26 interviews with senior advocates, communication specialists and campaign managers from some of the most prominent groups involved in The Hardest Hit coalition in Britain and their counterparts in America. Furthermore, Web link analysis with IssueCrawler provides additional comparative elements. Given that the main aim of this part of the study is to identify and analyse systemwide differences and similarities, the comparison embraces two heterogeneous sets of established organisations – both professionalised and member-led – that advocate on behalf of disabled people to influence key national policy measures. Each set of organisations includes both groups that focus on specific impairments and organisations that campaign across a pan-disability spectrum (see Table 6.1 for a list of U.S. organisations; see Table 3.2 in Chapter 3 for a list of U.K. organisations). Focusing on established organisations that are fairly similar in scope and structure ensured ideal conditions for uncovering patterns of contextual influence and related differences.
