融合已成全球趨勢，障礙者權益受到重視，頻繁的互動機會也帶來挑戰；而挑戰包含日常生活的短暫互動中，障礙族群感受到針對其障礙特質或身份偏見的「微歧視」。本研究奠基於污名溝通模型，由包含障礙者、障礙者家人、專業人員所組成之研究團隊，自「一句話惹惱障礙者」活動投稿中挑選出十句符合微歧視定義之話語，透過立意取樣訪談十一位異質受訪者，探討受訪者對障礙微歧視的訊息展現、反應、結果及循環。本研究發現交談雙方背景、話語語氣及用字遣詞、當下的情境脈絡都會影響對話語的觀感；障礙者並不一定會認定自己是受標記族群。其次，受訪者認為說話者意圖表達善意以及關心，受標記者卻可能認為這些善意受限於認定障礙者劣勢的框架。接著，當受標記者對於文本感到不舒服，面對語句時卻表達無奈及接受，可能顯示出內化健全主義。再來，受標記族群在微歧視事件中多半採取忽視或者離開現場的反應；反之受訪者則建議透過溝通傳達不舒服的事實或原因，同時傳遞正確的資訊。然而，微歧視的高頻率且快速的特徵時常讓人無法及時回應；因此在個人層面的溝通之外，尚可在教育中落實反健全主義的宣導與倡議。建議未來研究可檢視不同障礙特質的微歧視樣貌、非口語微歧視，以及標記形成的背景脈絡。實務上則建議編寫反健全主義的教材，以實際的例證引導受標記與非標記族群思考及討論。實務支持與研究過程中，皆應將障礙者及其相關人士視為夥伴。

Purpose: The global trend of inclusion presents both opportunities and challenges. Inclusion has recently been threatened by disability microaggressions in the form of words or actions that demean and humiliate individuals with disabilities and their families. Historically, the general public could reach some consensus on cases related to discrimination in employment and housing. The legal provisions were clear and consistent, enabling victims to file official lawsuits against offenders. However, discrimination incidents were not well-documented, thereby making it difficult for labeled groups to respond to frequent but trivial disability microaggression incidents in daily life. Although empirical evidence of disability microaggression has been found in Western society, whether it is present in the Asian context has yet to be determined. Therefore, this study investigated perspectives toward disability microaggressions by analyzing the interpretations and responses of Taiwanese people who were exposed to varying degrees of disability microaggressions. Methods: The research team, which consisted of five individuals with disabilities and members of their families, qualitatively analyzed the perspectives of 11 participants toward microaggressive statements on the basis of the model of stigma communication. The team selected ten statements from a set of statements submitted to an online campaign called “One Sentence to Offend People with Disabilities.” The statements were then categorized under five disability microaggression themes on the basis of previous studies: spread effect, denial of disability, patronizing or inappropriate praise/ encouragement, fear or shame, and secondary gain/ second-class-citizen treatment. The team then recruited 11 participants with diverse backgrounds (in terms of gender, age group, educational level, extent of exposure to disability) via personal contacts of the members of the research team. In the interviews, the selected statements were presented to the participants in the manner most comfortable to them. In one of the statements, a bus driver said to an individual with disability, “Why are you out by yourself? You need someone to accompany you.” In another case, “Keep up that hard work, and one day you’ll be able to walk” to a wheelchair user. Through in-depth interviews, we documented the responses of the participants toward such statements. The transcript of the first interview was analyzed to identify patterns and themes described in the model of stigma communication. The themes were continually re-examined and refined according to additional data through emergent and inductive analyses, and thorough discussions were held to ensure consistency of the results. Through this approach, the research team was able to identify patterns in the attitudes and reactions of participants toward the message choices, reactions, effects, and feedback to the message choices in the communication cycle. Results: The research team identified three common themes between constructs of message choices and reactions: nuances and intonations, relationship between the dialogue partners, and the context of conversations. Furthermore, the team identified two common themes between message reactions and effects: diverse interpretation and varied emotional reactions. Finally, the team also identified the impact on public stigma and selfstigma. The findings of this study can be summarized as follows: (a) The participants’ perspectives were impacted by their demographic backgrounds and relationships with their dialogue partners, by the nuances or intonation of the selected statements, and by the context of the conversations; additionally, people with disabilities did not always self-identify as members of labeled groups. (b) Although many participants assumed that the speakers were well-intended and interpreted their statements as kind, those who felt labeled thought that the statements were ableist, insinuating that individuals with disabilities were inferior to able-bodied people. (c) Several labeled participants were uncomfortable with the microaggressive statements but felt as if they had to accept that those statements represented either a misconception or a lack of information. Individuals may not feel entitled to respond to such statements because of self-stigmatization or internalized ableism. (d) Several participants who self-identified as members of labeled groups ignored or walked away in response to microaggressive statements. Other participants requested clarification and accurate disability-related information during communication so they could avoid upsetting labeled groups and participate in mitigating the negative effects of labeling individuals with disabilities. Conclusions/Implications: The research team concluded that responding to disability microaggressions is crucial; however, the frequency of microaggression incidents during daily conversations hinders timely responses, thereby aggravating stigma and ableism in the communication cycle. To combat discrimination and ableism, initiatives must be established to empower disability insiders (e.g., people with disabilities and siblings and parents of people with disabilities) to become stronger advocates against disability microaggressions. Furthermore, public awareness regarding disabilities must be improved by encouraging media (i.e., the press and book publishers) to disseminate stories showcasing the dismantling of physical and societal barriers against individuals with disabilities and ensuring equitable access to digital information. At school, teachers should creatively engage students in discussions on oppression and social justice. In fact, the sample statements in this study can be used for discussion. Future studies may attempt to understand the patterns of disability microaggression and the contexts of selfidentified labeling. Furthermore, microaggressions should be openly discussed, an antiableism pedagogy must be developed, and individuals with disabilities must be included in research. Finally, this study contributes to the literature in two respects: To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to adopt the model of stigma communication to explore disability microaggressions in the context of Taiwan. Second, it is one of a few studies to discuss the perspectives of individuals with disabilities based not only on data sources but also on analytical results. Furthermore, the study essentially captures the motto of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: “Nothing about us without us.” The authors do not intend to discourage the general population to act kindly toward individuals with disabilities but rather urge all stakeholders to be open to honestly communicating feelings and emotions.