About a month ago, I came across a piece by Alan Herbert that has stayed with me since. It raised a question that continues to surface within the disability movement: how do we professionalize disability inclusion? Not long after, I read another thoughtful article by Noeline R. Ondoru on the need to distinguish between lived experience and expertise. That added another layer for me.
Somewhere between those two reflections, a set of questions began to form. Can persons with disabilities truly be recognized as professionals, especially in matters that concern disability? Do stakeholders working in this space genuinely value that expertise? And beyond individuals, what does this mean for Organizations of Persons with Disabilities (OPDs)? Are they engaged as professional entities… or something else?
Beyond Individuals: The Question of OPDs
We cannot meaningfully talk about disability without talking about OPDs. They are not on the sidelines; they are central to the work. And yet, the way they are engaged does not always reflect that. There is a narrative that quietly circulates in many spaces. It is rarely said directly, but it shows up in side conversations, often under tables and in whispers; and as cautionary remarks: OPDs are political, they gatekeep, they are difficult to work with, they lack professionalism.
I am not certain how much of this is grounded on facts and how much is shaped by perception. But I have lived experience with disability since early childhood, and I have spent enough time within the movement to notice patterns. One question keeps coming back to me: are we interrogating these assumptions, or simply operating on them?
The Reality on the Ground — The Engagement Contradiction
When you look closely, especially across many African contexts, the reality of grassroots OPDs is quite clear. Many operate with limited financial resources. Some are largely volunteer-driven. Others rely on individuals who are balancing organizational responsibilities with personal livelihoods. These are not ideal conditions for building strong, consistent systems. And yet, expectations remain high. We want professionalism. Efficiency. Accountability.
One of the clearest tensions shows up in how engagement actually happens. On one hand, development work is structured. Workplans are developed. Concept notes are approved well in advance. Budgets are allocated. Timelines are clear. On the other hand, OPD engagement often feels unstructured. It is not uncommon for OPDs to be contacted less than 24 hours before an activity. A quick call. A text message. A request to mobilize participants. And when turnout is low, or coordination falls short, the conclusion is often immediate: a lack of professionalism. But what exactly are we measuring?
Participation Without Preparation
In many instances, OPDs are invited to review meetings, validation workshops, and consultations on important documents. Their presence is there — which is important. But the materials under discussion are often shared on the same day. And mostly, these are not 2-pagers — but rather huge documents with annexes. And sometimes, this is done within the session itself, participants seeing it for the first time, yet needed to provide meaningful reviews. So participation happens. But preparation does not. And without preparation, meaningful contribution becomes difficult.
The Sustainability Gap and the Need to Rethink Professionalization
When development projects come to an end, OPDs remain. They continue engaging with communities. They follow up with participants. They respond to emerging challenges. In many ways, they carry the work forward long after projects have phased out. This makes them more than just participants or mobilization channels. They are part of the long-term structure that sustains impact. And yet, their engagement does not always reflect this role.
If we are serious about professionalizing disability inclusion, then we may need to shift how we think about it. Professionalism is not something that appears on demand. It is built — through consistent engagement, intentional investment, and trust. That means planning engagements early. Budgeting for OPD participation meaningfully. Sharing materials in advance. Creating space for preparation and contribution.
“We cannot expect preparedness where there is no preparation. We cannot expect ownership where engagement feels transactional. We cannot expect consistency where engagement is inconsistent.”
Closing Reflection
Rather than questioning OPDs from a distance or reducing them to assumptions, perhaps the more important task is this: to actively build the kind of engagement that leads to the outcomes we want to see. Because professionalism does not develop in isolation. It develops in environments that support it. And maybe that leaves us with a final question worth sitting with: are we building the professionalism we want to see… or are we, in subtle ways, holding it back?
Leave a comment