Normalization principle: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 14:17, 25 July 2017

Revision as of 11:56, 26 September 2017

Line 1:

{{Disability}}

"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> NormalisationNormalization 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.

== Definition==

Line 50:

== Misconceptions ==

Normalization is so common in the fields of disability, especially intellectual and developmental disabilities, that articles will critique normalisationnormalization 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'''.

Line 63:

* 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 normalisationnormalization 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 as 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 normalisationnormalization 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 normalisationnormalization 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)'''.

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>

Normalization as the basis for education of community personnel in Great Britain is reflected in a 1990s reader, highlighting Wolf Wolfensberger's moral concerns as a Christian, right activist, side-by-side ("How to Function with Personal Model Coherency in a Dysfunctional (Human Service) World") with the common form of normalisationnormalization training for evaluations of programs.<ref>Lindley, P. & Wainwright, T. (1992). Normalisation training: Conversion or commitment? In: H. Brown & H. Smith (Eds), "Normalisation: A Reader for the Nineties". London: Tavistock/Routledge.</ref> Community educators and leaders in Great Britain and the US of different political persuasions include John O'Brien and Connie Lyle O'Brien, Paul Williams and Alan Tyne, Guy Caruso and Joe Osborn, Jim Mansell and Linda Ward, among many others.<ref>Williams, P. & Tyne, A. (1988). Exploring values as the base for service development. In: D. Towell (Ed.), "An Ordinary Life in Practice: Developing Comprehensive Community-Based Services for People with Learning Disabilities". (pp. 23–31). London: King Edward's Hospital Fund.</ref>

==References==