Content deleted Content added
m Cleaned up using AutoEd |
|||
Line 2:
"The '''normalization''' principle means making available to all [[people with disabilities]] patterns of life and conditions of everyday living which are as close as possible to the regular circumstances and ways of life or society."<ref>''The basis and logic of the normalisatioprinciple'', Bengt Nirje, Sixth International Congress of IASSMD, Toronto, 1982</ref> Normalization is a rigorous theory of human services that can be applied to disability services.<ref>Wolfensberger, W. & Glenn, L. (1973). "Program Analysis of Service Systems (PASS): A Method for the Quantitative Evaluation of Human Services". Vol. 1. Handbook. Volume II. Field Manual. Downsview, Toronto, Canada: National Institute on Mental Retardation.</ref> Normalization theory arose in the early 1970s, towards the end of the institutionalisation period in the US; it is one of the strongest and long lasting integration theories for people with severe disabilities.
==
Normalization involves the acceptance of some people with disabilities, with their disabilities, offering them the same conditions as are offered to other citizens. It involves an awareness of the normal rhythm of life – including the normal rhythm of a day, a week, a year, and the life-cycle itself (e.g., celebration of holidays; workday and weekends). It involves the normal conditions of life – housing, schooling, employment, exercise, recreation and freedom of choice previously denied to individuals with severe, profound, or significant disabilities.<ref>Nirje, Bengt as cited in S. Cohen & C. Gothelf. (1988). A Preservice Trining Curriculum for Administrators for Community-Based Residential Programs Service People with Developmental Disabilities. NY, NY: City University of New York, Hunter College.</ref>
Line 58:
== Misconceptions ==
Normalization is so common in the fields of disability, especially intellectual and developmental disabilities, that articles will critique normalization without ever referencing one of three international leaders: Wolfensberger, Nirje, and Bank Mikkelson or any of the women educators (e.g., Wolfensberger's Susan Thomas; Syracuse University colleagues Taylor, Biklen or Bogdan; established women academics (e.g., Sari Biklen); or emerging women academics, Traustadottir, Shoultz or Racino in national research and education centers (e.g., Hillyer, 1993).<ref>Hillyer, B. (1993). ''Feminism and Disability''. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma.</ref> Thus it is important to discuss common misconceptions about the principle of normalization and its implications among the provider-academic sectors:
* a) '''Normalization does not mean making people normal – forcing them to conform to societal norms'''.▼
▲*a) '''Normalization does not mean making people normal – forcing them to conform to societal norms'''.
Wolfensberger himself, in 1980, suggested "Normalizing measures can be offered in some circumstances, and imposed in others."<ref>''The definition of normalisation: update, problems, disagreements and misunderstandings'', Wolfensberger, W. (1980) In R.J. Flynn & K.E. Nitsch (Eds). Normalization, social integration and human services. Baltimore: University Park Press</ref> This view is not accepted by most people in the field, including Nirje. Advocates emphasize that the ''environment'', not the ''person'', is what is normalized, or as known for decades a person-environment interaction.
Normalization is very complex theoretically, and Wolf Wolfensberger's educators explain his positions such as the conservatism corollary, deviancy unmaking, the developmental model (see below) and social competency, and relevance of social imagery, among others.<ref>Wolfensberger, W. & Tullman, S. (1982). A brief outline of the principle of normalization. "Rehabilitation Psychology", 27(3): 131-145.</ref>
* b) '''Normalization does not support "dumping" people into the community or into schools without support'''.▼
▲*b) '''Normalization does not support "dumping" people into the community or into schools without support'''.
Normalization has been blamed for the closure of services (such as institutions) leading to a lack of support for children and adults with disabilities. Indeed, normalization personnel are often affiliated with human rights groups. Normalization is not deinstitutionalization, though institutions have been found to not "pass" in service evaluations and to be the subject of exposes. Normalization was described early as alternative special education by leaders of the deinstitutionalization movement.<ref>Wolfensberger, W. (1977). The principle of normalization. In: B. Blatt, D. Biklen, & R. Bogdan, "An Alternative Textbook in Special Education: People, Schools and Other Institutions". Denver, CO: Love Publishing Co.</ref>
However support services which facilitate normal life opportunities for people with disabilities – such as special education services, housing support, employment support and advocacy – are not incompatible with normalization, although some particular services (such as special schools) may actually detract from rather than enhance normal living bearing in mind the concept of normal 'rhythms' of life.{{Citation needed|date=June 2010}}
* c) '''Normalization supports [[community integration]], but the principles vary significantly on matters such as gender and disability with community integration directly tackling services in the context of race, ethnicity, class, income and gender'''.
Some misconceptions and confusions about normalization are removed by understanding a context for this principle. There has been a general belief that 'special' people are best served if society keeps them apart, puts them together with 'their own kind, and keep them occupied. The principle of normalization is intended to refute this idea, rather than to deal with subtlety around the question of 'what is normal?' The principle of normalization is congruent in many of its features with "[[community integration]]" and has been described by educators as supporting early mainstreaming in community life.<ref>Yates, J. (1979). The Principle of Normalization, Guidelines for Tours, and Guidelines for Administrative Inquiries". Syracuse, NY: Training Institute on Human Services Planning and Change Agentry.</ref>
* d) '''Normalization supports adult services by age range, not "mental age", and appropriate services across the lifespan'''.
Arguments about choice and individuality, in connection with normalization, should also take into account whether society, perhaps through paid support staff, has encouraged them into certain behaviours. For example, in referring to normalization, a discussion about an adult's choice to carry a doll with them must be influenced by a recognition that they have previously been encouraged in childish behaviours, and that society currently expects them to behave childishly. Most people who find normalization to be a useful principle would hope to find a middle way - in this case, an adult's interest in dolls being valued, but with them being actively encouraged to express it in an age-appropriate way (e.g., viewing museums and doll collections), with awareness of gender in toy selection (e.g., see cars and motorsports), and discouraged from behaving childishly and thus accorded the rights and routines only of a "perpetual child". However, the principle of normalization is intended also to refer to the means by which a person is supported, so that (in this example) any encouragement or discouragement offered in a patronising or directive manner is itself seen to be inappropriate.{{Citation needed|date=June 2010}}
* e) '''Normalization is a set of values, and early on (1970s) was validated through quantitative measures (PASS, PASSING)'''.▼
▲*e) '''Normalization is a set of values, and early on (1970s) was validated through quantitative measures (PASS, PASSING)'''.
Normalization principles were designed to be measured and ranked on all aspects through the development of measures related to homes, facilities, programs, ___location (i.e. community development), service activities, and life routines, among others. These service evaluations have been used for training community services personnel, both in institutions and in the community.<ref>Wolfensberger, W. & Glenn, L. (1975). ""PASS 3: A Method for Quantitative Evaluation of the Human Services Field. Toronto, Canada: National Institute on Mental Retardation"".</ref><ref>Wolfensberger, W. & Thomas, S. (1983). ""PASSING: Program Analysis of Service Systems Implementation of Normalization Goals"". Toronto, Canada: National Institute on Mental Retardation.</ref><ref>Flynn, R.J. & Heal, L.W. (1981). A short form of PASS 3: A study of its structure, interrater reliability, and validity for assessing normalization. ""Evaluation Review"", 5(3): 357-376.</ref><ref>Demaine, G.C., Silverstein, A.B. & Mayeda, T. (1980, June). Validation of PASS 3: A first step in service evaluation through environmental assessments. ''Mental Retardation'', 18: 131-134.</ref>
Line 84 ⟶ 79:
==Further reading==
* "The Principle of Normalization: History and Experiences in Scandinavian Countries," Kent Ericsson. Presentation ILSMH Congress, Hamburg 1985.
* "Setting the record straight: a critique of some frequent misconceptions of the normalization principle", Perrin, B. & Nirje, B., ''Australia and New Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities'', 1985, Vol 11, No. 2, 69-72.
* A comprehensive review of research conducted with the program evaluation instruments PASS and PASSING. (1999). In: R. Flynn & R. LeMay, "A Quarter Century of Normalization and Social Role Valorization: Evolution and Impact". (pp. 317–349). Ottawa, Canada: University of Ottawa Press.
* The social origins of normalisation by Simon Whitehead in the reader Normalisation from Europe by Hillary Brown and Helen Smith (1992, Routledge). Foreword by Linda Ward. Reader includes references to Wolfensberger, John O'Brien (Citizen advocacy, Frameworks for accomplishment), Syracuse University Training Institute (European PASS workshops), Australian Training and Evaluation for Change Association, and Great Britain's Community and Mental Handicap Educational and Research Associates, among others.
===Presentations===
* New York State Office of Mental Health. (1980). Normalisation Excerpt from 1973 Orientation Manual on Mental Retardation. ''Goals of Community Residence Workshop''. Albany, NY: Author.
* Nirge, B. (1990, April 23). Lecture: ''Recent Developments in Community Services in Sweden''. Syracuse, NY: Sponsored by Syracuse University, Division of Special Education and Rehabilitation, and the Center on Human Policy.
* Wolfensberger, W. & Associates. (2001). ''The "Signs of the Times" and their Implications to Human Services and Devalued People''. Syracuse, NY: Training Institute for Human Service Planning and Change Agentry, Syracuse University. [Held at the site of the former Syracuse Developmental Center].
* Wolfensberger, W. (2000). ''Half Day Presentation on Social Role Valorization''. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University, Training Institute on Human Services Planning, Leadership and Change Agentry.
| |||