Advertisement

Disability - The National Benefit Authority

Newsletter 59

Why Should I Care About Reframing Disability?

Author: Gladys Loewen

As a student, imagine…

• Starting a semester without having to make sure that you can access the class or lecture hall;
• Getting the course syllabus, reading materials and textbooks in a usable format before the class begins;
• Getting access to lecture notes without having to ask for support from a classmate or the Disability Services Office;
• Having the instructor offer options for writing the exam in class (print or electronic).

After years of frustrations, asking for accommodations, and struggling to equalize the opportunity for an education, there appears to be a new way of viewing disability and the interaction a person with a disability has with the environment. This shift in thinking stems from two important constructs developed by disability scholars – the Socio-political Model of Disability and Universal Design. These two constructs provide the opportunity to change the way disability is framed in higher education and offer a new approach that leads to sustainability and usability of environments.

The Social Model of Disability (Oliver, 1990) and the Socio-political Model of Disability (Gill, 1994) define disability as a difference, part of the diverse characteristics of humanity; the disability, in and of itself, is not disabling or a problem as it is a neutral factor. The conflict arises in the interaction between the individual and society when the environment does not account for a variety of differences of the users of that environment. This concept takes the focus away from a person’s impairments and shifts it toward the removal of barriers in the environment that people with disabilities face in everyday life. In other words, the aim is to change the environment to be usable, not change the person or provide an accommodation.

The following chart compares the differences in the way the Medical Model and the Socio-political Model view disability. The new model provides an opportunity to reframe disability in a way that promotes usable environments, greater independence for persons with a disability, and allows for the development of disability pride as the model leads one to see that that disability reflects diverse characteristics and experiences that are integral to society.

Conceptual Models of Disability

Medical Model (OLD)	Interactional/Socio-Political Model (NEW)
Disability is a deficiency or abnormality.	Disability is a difference.
Being disabled is negative.	Being disabled, in itself, is neutral.
Disability resides in the individual.	Disability derives from the interaction between the individual and society.
The remedy for disability-related problems is cure or normalization of the individual.	The remedy for disability-related problems is a change in the interaction between the individual and society.
The agent of remedy is the professional.	The agent of remedy is the individual, an advocate, or anyone who affects the arrangements between the individual and society.

Source: Carol J. Gill, Chicago Institute of Disability Research

In the past, most disability service providers have partially built their service on the tenets of the medical or rehabilitation model with the emphasis on accommodation to remove barriers (retrofitting). While this approach has been somewhat effective in providing programmatic access and accommodations for individuals – one person at a time – it reinforces a “separate but equal” system rather than full inclusion within a community of peers. This model relies on helpers (disability services staff and volunteers), which tends to hinder the development of self-determination or disability pride for the person receiving services. The accommodation or helping model allows the environment and the curriculum design to limit the full participation of disabled individuals and creates dependency, not independence for persons with disabilities.

Over the past ten years, the principles of universal design and the associated principles for learning (McGuire, Scott, Shaw, JPED) and instruction (Rose, Meyer, 2002) have been integrated into a new set of constructs that shift old assumptions about teaching and learning in four fundamental ways:

• Students with disabilities fall along a continuum of learner differences rather than constituting a separate category of learners;
• Teacher adjustments for learner differences should occur for all students, not just those with disabilities;
• Curriculum materials should be varied and diverse including digital and online resources. Instead of accommodating students so that they can learn from a set curriculum, curriculum should be made flexible to accommodate learner differences;
• The person designing and creating the environment is responsible for making it sustainable, equitable, inclusive and usable.

While the socio-political model of disability provides the philosophical framework for a different way of responding to society’s approach to disability, the principles of universal design, and the related principles in the context of instruction and learning offer a method for implementation of the philosophy. The key of Universal Design principles established by a consortium at the University of North Carolina are as follows:

1. Equitable Use
2. Flexibility in Use
3. Simple and Intuitive Use
4. Perceptible Information
5. Tolerance for Error
6. Low Physical Effort
7. Size and Space for Approach and Use

The aim of universal design is to design environments (including learning) to be usable by a variety of people to the greatest extent possible without the need for modifications and accommodations. Universal Design presents a framework that incorporates usability (accessibility) at the earliest stages of design and curriculum development, and encourages constant attention to ensure diversity, sustainability, and inclusiveness.

These two constructs focus on the creation of inclusive, sustainable, and useable environments that work better for more people. Changing our response to the problems in the design of environments is easier said than done, as the medical approach to disability is so pervasive and entrenched in our society; we automatically act and think within this framework everyday, often unknowingly. The language we use and the culture that anchors our philosophy guide the words, actions, and strategies we implement. Students with disabilities and disability service providers need to challenge the actions and language used daily that keep us in the medical (rehabilitation and accommodation) model of behavior rather than a model that promotes diversity and usability.

Our challenge is to explore and identify ways that students with disabilities and the Disability Service Offices continue to promote the medical model of disability and focuses on activities that are consumable. We need to find ways to infuse universal design into campus design through changes in language, behavior, and attitude in order to make the transformation occur. We are grappling with the task of creating a bottom-up paradigm shift in attitude and action so that we can transform our current institutions into environments steeped in sustainability, diversity, social justice, and equality (Scott, Loewen, Funckes, JPED).

Our primary task is to shift the focus of activities to demand usable environments that minimize the need for individual accommodation in order to create usable and sustainable campus environments that allow for ease and flexibility of use, and maximum participation by all persons interested in using that environment. If students and disability service providers recognize the importance of this new paradigm shift, and start making changes in language and approach to disability, the ripple effect would be enormous and significant enough to ensure that post-secondary environments will be focused on the importance of learning for all members in the environment, and not just those who fit the traditional learner mold.

Let’s actively work to turn the imagined statements into reality.

Bibliography

Center for Universal Design, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 1997

Gill, Carol. Two Models of Disability. Chicago Institute of Disability. University of Chicago, 1994.

Rose, David H.; Anne Meyer. Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age: Universal Design for Learning. Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2002.

Scott, Sally S.; Loewen, Gladys; Funckes, Carol. Implementing universal design in higher education: Moving beyond the built environment. Journal of Post-Secondary Education and Disability. 16, (2), 78 – 89.

Oliver, Mike. The Politics of Disablement. Macmillan: London (1990).

McGuire, J.M., Scott, S.S. & Shaw, S.F. Universal design for instruction: the paradigm, its principles, and products for enhancing instructional access. Journal of Post-Secondary Education and Disability, 17 (1), 10-20.

Top