Normalization principle: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 00:14, 21 January 2022

Revision as of 02:30, 15 April 2022

Line 50:

{{POV section|date=May 2018}}

During the mid to late 20th century, people with disabilities were met with fear, stigma, and pity. Their opportunities for a full productive life were minimal at best and often emphasis was placed more on personal characterizes that could be enhanced so the attention was taken from their disability <ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last=Groomes & Linkowski|first=D. A. G., & D. C.|date=2007|title=Examining the structure of the revised acceptance disability scale|journal=Journal of Rehabilitation|volume=73|pages=3–9|id={{ProQuest|236273029}}}}</ref> Linkowski developed the Acceptance of Disability Scale (ADS) during this time to help measure a person’sperson's struggle to accept disability.<ref name=":0" /> He developed the ADS to reflect the value change process associated with the acceptance of loss theory.<ref name=":0" /> In contrast to later trends, the current trend shows great improvement in the quality of life for those with disabilities.<ref name=":0" /> Sociopolitical definitions of disability, the independent living movement, improved media and social messages, observation and consideration of situational and environmental barriers, passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 have all come together to help a person with disability define their acceptance of what living with a disability means.<ref name=":0" />

Bogdan and Taylor's (1993)<ref name=":0" /> acceptance of sociology, which states that a person need not be defined by personal characterizes alone, has become influential in helping persons with disabilities to refuse to accept exclusion from mainstream society.<ref name=":0" /> According to some disability scholar’sscholars, disabilities are created by oppressive relations with society, this has been called the social creationist view of disability.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last=Vehmas|first=Simo|date=2004|title=Dimensions of Disability|journal=Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics|volume=13 |issue=1|pages=34–40|doi=10.1017/S0963180104131071|pmid=15045913}}</ref> In this view, it is important to grasp the difference between physical impairment and disability. In the article The Mountain written by Eli Clare, Michael Oliver defines impairment as lacking part of or all of a limb, or having a defective limb, organism or mechanism of the body and the societal construct of disability; Oliver defines disability as the disadvantage or restriction of activity caused by a contemporary social organization which takes no or little account of people who have physical (and/or cognitive/developmental/mental) impairments and thus excludes them from the mainstream of society.<ref>Eli Clare: The Mountain</ref> In society, language helps to construct reality, for instance, societies way of defining disability which implies that a disabled person lacks a certain ability, or possibility, that could contribute to her personal well-being and enable her to be a contributing member of society versus abilities and possibilities that are considered to be good and useful .<ref name=":1" /> Society needs to destruct the language that is used and build a new one that does not place those with disabilities in the “other” category.<ref name=":0" />

===Personal wounds, quality of life and social role valorization===

Line 61:

== 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, wikipediaWikipedia), 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.

Line 84:

==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, 69-7269–72.

* 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.&nbsp;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.

Line 108:

* Nirje, B. (1969). Chapter 7: The normalisation principle and its human management implications. Kugel, R. & Wolfensberger, W. (Eds.), ''Changing Patterns in Residential Services for the Mentally Retarded''. Washington, DC: President's Committee on Mental Retardation.

* Nirje, B. (1970). The Normalization Principle: Implications and comments. Symposium on "Normalization. ''Midland Society for the Study of Abnormality'', 16(62-70).

* Wolfensberger, W. (1970). The principle of normalization and its implications to psychiatric services. ''American Journal of Psychiatry'', 127:3, 291-297291–297.

* Wolfesnberger, W. (1973). The future of residential services for the mentally retarded. ''Journal of Clinical Child Psychology'', 2(1): 19-2019–20.

* Wolfensberger, W. (1975). ''The Origin and Nature of Our Institutional Models''. Syracuse, NY: Human Policy Press.

* Wolfensberger, W. (1976). Will there always be an institution? The impact of epidemiological trends. (pp.&nbsp;399–414). In: M. Rosen, G.R. Clark, & M.S. Hivitz, ''The History of Mental Retardation: Collected Papers: Volume 2''. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.