Chapter 9 Exercises

Comprehension Exercises

Exercise 9.1 — Framework Application In 250–300 words, explain the difference between the medical model and the social model of disability. Using the social model, identify three specific features of a fan convention that disable certain fans. For each feature you identify, propose one concrete design change that would reduce that disabling effect.

Exercise 9.2 — Crip Theory Crip theory challenges not just access barriers but the normative assumptions that make those barriers seem natural. Identify one normative assumption about "proper" fan engagement — something that most people in fan communities take for granted as the natural way things are done. Using crip theory, analyze how that assumption privileges certain bodies or neurologies over others. Your response should be 200–250 words.

Exercise 9.3 — Neurodiversity and Fan Structure This chapter proposes three hypotheses to explain the overrepresentation of neurodivergent people in certain fan communities: the special interest hypothesis, the sensory/social access hypothesis, and the explicit interest structure hypothesis. In 400 words, evaluate which hypothesis you find most persuasive and why, using specific evidence from the chapter and, where possible, from your own observations of fan communities.

Analysis Exercises

Exercise 9.4 — Disability AU Analysis Find or recall a fan fiction story, film, or TV episode that depicts a character with a disability. Answer the following questions in 350–400 words: a) Does this work operate within a medical model or social model framework, or does it complicate both? b) If disability is used as a narrative device (to generate drama, create pathos, etc.), how does this affect the representation? c) If the creator is themselves disabled, does knowing this change your analysis? Should it?

Exercise 9.5 — Convention Design Audit Using the chapter's framework for convention accessibility, conduct a hypothetical "access audit" of a fan convention you have attended, watched coverage of, or can research online. Identify at least four specific accessibility barriers. For each barrier, identify: (a) which populations it affects, (b) which normative assumption about fan sociality it encodes, and (c) a specific, implementable design remedy. Present your audit as a structured written report of 500–600 words.

Exercise 9.6 — The Legitimacy Question and Disability Chapter 2 introduced the Legitimacy Question — who counts as a "real" fan? Using the framework developed in this chapter, analyze how ableist assumptions embed themselves in common fan legitimacy criteria. Write a 300-word analysis identifying at least two specific legitimacy criteria (explicit or implicit) that disadvantage disabled fans, and explain the normative assumptions underlying each.

Research and Creative Exercises

Exercise 9.7 — Community Observation Spend one hour observing the accessibility features (or lack thereof) in an online fan community you have access to — a Discord server, a subreddit, a fan forum. Take notes on: text-only vs. voice channels; image accessibility (alt text, image descriptions); thread structure and navigation; moderation communication style. Write a 400-word accessibility assessment of the community, using the chapter's frameworks.

Exercise 9.8 — Disability Representation Mapping Choose a media object with a significant fan community. Research how fans have engaged with disability (or its absence) in that text: disability fan fiction, fan art depicting characters as disabled, fan criticism of disability representation, etc. Write a 500-word analysis of what you find. Consider: what disability representation exists in canon? How does fan creative work respond to, extend, or critique it?

Exercise 9.9 — Reflection on Access This is a personal reflection exercise (not to be turned in unless your instructor requests). Think about your own social life and community participation. Are there contexts where you feel your participation is limited — by sensory demands, by communication format, by physical requirements, by energy? Are there contexts where you feel freer to participate fully? What features of those contexts produce that difference? How does this reflection inform your understanding of the chapter's arguments about fandom as access technology?

Group Discussion Questions

  1. The chapter argues that online fandom is not a "consolation prize" for disabled fans who cannot attend in-person events, but rather a full and legitimate form of fan community participation. Do you agree? What assumptions about "real" sociality are you relying on in your answer?

  2. When does the neurodiversity concept helpfully challenge pathologizing assumptions about cognitive difference, and when does it risk understating the genuine challenges of significant disability? Use specific examples.

  3. The chapter argues that crip theory requires questioning normative assumptions about proper sociality, not just adding accessibility features to existing structures. What would a convention designed from the ground up with disability justice principles look like? How would it differ from current conventions with accessibility add-ons?

  4. If you were building a fan community from scratch with disability access as a design principle rather than an afterthought, what would be the three most important features you would implement? What tradeoffs would you accept to achieve them?