Content deleted Content added
m →Significance in structuring service systems: fix typo |
|||
Line 59:
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
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.
| |||