Disability and Creativity in Zimbabwe Redefining Artistic Potential through Inclusive Arts Practices

Authors

Sibanda Sithokozile

Lecturer, Faculty of Arts, Culture and Heritage Studies, Zimbabwe Open University; Arts Journalist, Arts Researcher, Artist Manager, Creatives Magazine Founder (Zimbabwe)

Article Information

DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS.2026.100601155

Subject Category: Education

Volume/Issue: 10/6 | Page No: 16501-16512

Publication Timeline

Submitted: 2026-06-24

Accepted: 2026-06-29

Published: 2026-07-14

Abstract

This study explores the intersection of disability and creativity in Zimbabwe, examining how inclusive arts practices and structural policy environments jointly shape artistic potential, creative agency, and participation among artists with disabilities. Situated within broader debates on disability rights, cultural participation and the creative economy, the research investigates how artists with disabilities negotiate structural barriers and exercise creative agency within Zimbabwe's evolving cultural landscape. Guided by an interpretivist qualitative research paradigm and critical policy analysis framework, the study employed purposive maximum variation sampling to recruit thirty (30) artists with disabilities representing diverse disability types, artistic disciplines, genders and geographical locations across Zimbabwe. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews, participant observation and digital portfolio analysis and analysed thematically using Braun and Clarke's six-phase framework. Data collection continued until thematic saturation was achieved, ensuring that the findings reflected recurring patterns across participants' lived experiences.
The findings demonstrate that disability does not inherently constrain creativity rather, it is socially and structurally mediated through access, policy and institutional frameworks rather it frequently serves as a catalyst for artistic innovation, resilience and adaptive expression. Participants relied on inclusive arts practices, peer support networks, mentorship opportunities, adaptive technologies and digital platforms to overcome barriers associated with inaccessible infrastructure, limited financial resources and persistent social stigma. However, the study further identifies that weak implementation of disability-inclusive cultural policies, unequal funding systems, and infrastructural exclusion significantly limit equitable participation in Zimbabwe’s creative economy, inadequate funding mechanisms and unequal access to adaptive technologies continue to constrain equitable participation within Zimbabwe's creative economy.
The study argues that sustainable inclusion requires more than individual resilience. It calls for stronger implementation of disability rights frameworks, disability-responsive cultural policies, institutional accountability, accessible creative infrastructure and targeted funding for artists with disabilities. By integrating lived experiences with broader policy analysis, the study contributes empirical evidence to scholarship on disability and creativity while offering practical recommendations for policymakers, cultural institutions, development partners and researchers committed to promoting inclusive cultural development in Zimbabwe. Future research should incorporate larger and more geographically diverse samples and undertake deeper analysis of policy implementation and institutional support systems affecting disabled creatives.

Keywords

Disability and creativity; Inclusive arts practices; Disability rights; Cultural policy; Digital inclusion; Creative economy; Zimbabwe

Downloads

References

1. Angrosino, M. V. (2007). Doing ethnographic and observational research. Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Banks, S. (2012). Ethics and values in social research (2nd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bunt, L. (2019). Disability, creativity, and music education: Perspectives from inclusive practices. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Cameron, D., & Murphy, K. (2017). Creative expression and disability: Challenges and opportunities in contemporary arts. Journal of Arts and Communities, 9(1), 45–62. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Chigudu, H. (2018). Cultural participation and social inclusion of disabled artists in Southern Africa. African Arts Review, 11(2), 88–105. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Chigudu, H. (2018). Disability and creativity in African arts contexts: Opportunities and barriers. African Journal of Disability, 7(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.4102/ajod.v7i1.438 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Dawson, C., Hamilton, A., & Smith, R. (2020). Arts-based interventions for individuals with disabilities: Impacts on well-being and social inclusion. Disability & Society, 35(7), 1130–1150. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2020.1761034 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Flew, T. (2020). Global creative industries. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Goodley, D. (2014). Disability studies: An interdisciplinary introduction. Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Kuppers, P. (2016). Disability and contemporary performance: Bodies on edge. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (2nd ed.). Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Mare, A. (2020). Platform inequality and digital marginalisation: Rural creatives in Southern Africa. Journal of African Media Studies, 12(2), 145–163. https://doi.org/10.1386/jams_00047_1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Maseko, A. (2020). Art and disability in sub-Saharan Africa: Structural constraints and creative agency. African Arts Research Journal, 13(2), 34–52. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Maseko, T. (2020). Adaptive technologies and disabled artists in Zimbabwe: A case study of inclusive performance. Journal of African Cultural Studies, 32(4), 400–418. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Oliver, M. (1990). The politics of disablement. Macmillan. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Orb, A., Eisenhauer, L., & Wynaden, D. (2001). Ethics in qualitative research. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 33(1), 93–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-5069.2001.00093.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4th ed.). Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Shakespeare, T. (2013). Disability rights and wrongs revisited (2nd ed.). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Sibanda, S. (2025). Disability and creativity in Zimbabwe: Insights from emerging artists. Creatives Magazine. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. (Note: If unpublished, label as “Unpublished manuscript” instead of a magazine article.) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Smith, R. (2020). Disability and artistic innovation: Reframing ability through creative practices. International Journal of Arts and Disability, 5(1), 22–37. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Throsby, D. (2010). The economics of cultural policy. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Townsend, J. (2021). Community-based inclusive arts programs: Impacts on creative confidence and social participation. Arts Education Policy Review, 122(3), 145–160. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Townsend, E. (2021). Inclusive arts education: Fostering creativity among artists with disabilities. Disability and Society, 36(4), 567–586. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

Metrics

Views & Downloads

Similar Articles