Non-Affirming Linguistic Terms and Their Impact on the Lived Experiences of Students with Disabilities in Tertiary Institutions, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe

Students with disabilities in Bulawayo’s tertiary institutions face linguistic degradation due to a lack of knowledge about appropriate terminology. Terms like “victims” or “sufferers” perpetuate negative stereotypes, failing to recognize them as whole individuals who seek respect and affirmation. This study sought to investigate non-affirming linguistic terms and their impact on the lived experiences of students with disabilities in tertiary institutions, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe. This study adopted a phenomenological qualitative research design on 22 students with disabilities in tertiary institutions in Bulawayo through in-depth interviews of personal narratives and one focus group discussion with seven participants. Data analysis procedures mainly consisted of describing, summarizing, and interpreting the gathered data through thematic analysis. The study identified three main disability types: speech impediments, mobility impairment, and vision impairment. Non-affirming terms like “isilima/chirema” were frequently used against those with visible disabilities, while those with less visible conditions encountered subtler stigma. Participants reported significant psychological effects, including diminished self-worth, lost friendships, declining academic performance, and distrust in relationships and religious beliefs after acquiring disabilities. Additionally, discriminatory language restricted academic opportunities despite participants’ evident capabilities. The use of language that is devoid of positive connotations feeds negative preconceptions, diminishes the value and dignity of people with disabilities, and keeps them outside society. This study’s suggestions for adopting person-first and affirmative language align with larger initiatives to advance the inclusion and rights of people with disabilities, as seen in international agreements and domestic laws.