16 February 2012
class on Friday 17th at 2:30 PM
This is to inform all that I will in fact take the DHR class on Friday 17th at 2:30 PM, please inform all who do not have access to this site.
15 February 2012
A change in the title and Other matters
The first slide was titled "Problems of Definition", I am changing that to "Difficulty of defining Disability" based on Altman, 2001. The four points in that slide were:
There was issue regarding point number 3, it shouldn't find place under the earlier title "Problems of Definition" and even under the revised title, it's difficult to see how this point is included. Altman speaks of this point in the context of the existing ways that disability has been defined, namely, based on (i) simple statements (e.g., PwD 1995), (ii) on theoretical models (e.g. UNCRPD 2006), (iii) on classification schemes (e.g. PwD 1995 again), and (iv) on measurements (again PwD 1995). This, according to her, has led to confusion and misuse of disability terms and definitions, "particularly when operationalized measures of disabilities are interpreted and used as definitions".
We decided today to shift this point to the slide titled "Need for Definition" -- but I think it's now not necessary given the clarification as above.
However, point no. 4 seems like a bit of repetaion, although it's subtley different from point no. 1. Variety of ideas and forms has to be understood in the context of points (i) to (iv) in the para above and not to be confused with localized defintion of disability that point 1. refers to.
- Complicated, multidimensional concept due to variety in the nature of the problem
- Problems of language
- Confusion and misuse of disability terms and definitions
- Variety of ideas and form
There was issue regarding point number 3, it shouldn't find place under the earlier title "Problems of Definition" and even under the revised title, it's difficult to see how this point is included. Altman speaks of this point in the context of the existing ways that disability has been defined, namely, based on (i) simple statements (e.g., PwD 1995), (ii) on theoretical models (e.g. UNCRPD 2006), (iii) on classification schemes (e.g. PwD 1995 again), and (iv) on measurements (again PwD 1995). This, according to her, has led to confusion and misuse of disability terms and definitions, "particularly when operationalized measures of disabilities are interpreted and used as definitions".
We decided today to shift this point to the slide titled "Need for Definition" -- but I think it's now not necessary given the clarification as above.
However, point no. 4 seems like a bit of repetaion, although it's subtley different from point no. 1. Variety of ideas and forms has to be understood in the context of points (i) to (iv) in the para above and not to be confused with localized defintion of disability that point 1. refers to.
13 February 2012
On Definitions
We have started the Unit on Definitions today -- it's going to be a long and boring unit but one which is important for us to study. Most of the stuff here will be based on Altman 2001.
One lasting metaphor that will help in the long run about the usefulness of definitions is the response to the child's query about what is colour by enumerating colours -- similarly, if we list 7 disabilities in response to what is disability? -- as in PwD 1995 -- then we haven't actually defined disability. It's useful to remember that a definition provides a framework, the disabilities themselves are only examples, examples do not define a concept, they only exemplify.
This is the same pain that research students go through as well when they are starting out, and less commonly, some popular teachers as well, when they prefer providing examples in response to a query in the class, typically, they reason, it's difficult to define a concept without examples. It's perhaps true that a longer lasting learning takes place when examples are provided but it's also equally true (and important) that we exercise our mind in thinking abstractly about concepts and structures. Examples will surely follow.
One lasting metaphor that will help in the long run about the usefulness of definitions is the response to the child's query about what is colour by enumerating colours -- similarly, if we list 7 disabilities in response to what is disability? -- as in PwD 1995 -- then we haven't actually defined disability. It's useful to remember that a definition provides a framework, the disabilities themselves are only examples, examples do not define a concept, they only exemplify.
This is the same pain that research students go through as well when they are starting out, and less commonly, some popular teachers as well, when they prefer providing examples in response to a query in the class, typically, they reason, it's difficult to define a concept without examples. It's perhaps true that a longer lasting learning takes place when examples are provided but it's also equally true (and important) that we exercise our mind in thinking abstractly about concepts and structures. Examples will surely follow.
01 February 2012
Institutionalisation
We talked about UPIAS -- "Against Segregation" -- in relation to Paul Hunt's essay. Well, here is a report of something not too far away in time: Beitiks, Emily Smith. "The Ghosts of Institutionalization at Pennhurst's Haunted Asylum," The Hastings Center Report 42(1) (Jan-Feb 2012): 22-24:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)