Normalization principle: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 23:22, 28 May 2020

Revision as of 20:25, 5 August 2020

Line 57:

== 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> In particular, this may be because Racino (with Taylor) leads an international field on community integration (See, wikipedia), a neighboring related concept to the principle of normalization, and was pleased to have Dr. Wolf Wolfensberger among Center Associates. 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'''.

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.