Hi everyone
I have found statistical data quite helpful in developing rationale for
investigation into access issues as I am sure many of us have. What the
difficulty seems to be, if my scant reading of this argument is correct, is
the framing of such data collection questions in census type surveys.
I believe, given proper thought, there must be a way of avoiding the
traditional defecit > normal dichotomies and continua (spelling?). One of
the problems with finding suitable ways of framing survey questions with
non-deficit focussed signifiers is that the meaning of the question
becomes convoluted and difficult for the average Joanne to understand.
If we look at how the wording for questions regarding people's cultural
background have skirted around the real meaning, we see a good
example of the painful contortions of word gymnastics (which I think I just
did a good job of myself). I now see questions on application forms etc
asking "are you from a culturally diverse background?" - what the hell is
that asking? We need to be sensitive to the diversity of cultural and
linguistic backgrounds I agree, but translating that into a question about
cultural identity is a clumsy business. It seems that what we are really
asking is "if you are not from a British background or a background that
has English as its primary language (which we see as the cultural norm in
Australia) then tell us where you or your family come from". Its easy to
see we are just covering up what we see as the dominant Anglo-Australian
norm. A bit like asking "are you disabled or average/normal?"
If we don't use a disability > average/normal dichotomy can anyone
suggest a good one that makes sense?
> Good morning David,
>
> ... like the proverbial dog with a bone, you are still giving me
> negatives.
>
> You may feel that asking the questions at all is discrimminating, and I
> will
> not argue the toss on that. However from a purely pragmatic positions -
> engineers like me are like that at times - from a public policy
> perspective
> it can be useful, in the same way that by surveying traffic flow or
> population densities better roads or services may result. For example:
>
> My state of Queensland is the worst state in Oz when it comes to
> supporting
> people with disabilities and their families (I am happy to argue why I
> ALWAYS include families; later) It funds at about 56% of the national
> average which is pretty sus too. The reason is that it has carefully
> hidden
> behind its ignorance. It only acknowledged those it fell over by
> accident,
> and then only reluctantly. At no time did it have a clue of the full
> extend
> of the problem (again, if the terminology offends you, tough, it is a
> problem to us) It never had a data collection system in place, and hence
> department advice to its minister and treasury have been total nonsense
> driven by ignorance. Two years ago a new minister took charge and
> introduced
> a 'needs registration process', flawed may be, but a first step to
> collecting useful data systematically. Government now has some realistic
> data to drive public policy. Asking relevant questions in the census
> would
> remove much of the 'iceberg factor' and hence provide better
> information. In
> itself this information may be neutral, but the mere fact that the
> questions
> are asked, the answers considered, implies some emotional equity or
> ownership, and may well be the key to reducing rather than enshrining
> discrimmination.
>
> Your turn again, rgds John
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: David Pfeiffer <[log in to unmask]>
> To: John Homan <[log in to unmask]>
> Cc: Disability Studies Research List
> <[log in to unmask]>;
> Webber, Caroline <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 5:53 AM
> Subject: Re: percentages of pwd in the US population
>
>
> > On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, John Homan wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > What are the questions you believe should be asked in the census?
> > As you mention below, about five questions should do it, but if we are
> > to insist that people with disabilities are the same as people without
> > disabilities why ask the question? I argue about the percentage because I
> > want people to know that we are not a small group, but rather have
> > considerable political power (in a limited way). The disability community
> > in the US is credited with being one of three groups who enabled former
> > president George Bush to defeat Michael Dukakis in 1988 and it played a
> > role in subsequent presidential elections, though not everyone knows it.
> >
> > [snip]
> > > The World Health Organization's definition may be a good starting
> > > point: "Disability is a loss or reduction of functional ability which
> > > results from an impairment. An impairment is defined as an anatomical or
> > > functional abnormality or loss which may or may not result in a
> disability.
> > > Disabilities can derive from impairments which can be physical, sensory,
> > > intellectual or psychiatric."
> > NO WAY! I guess my reputation as the ICIDH slayer has not reached
> > Oz. You are suggesting a medical model which allows physicians to make
> > non-medical decisions, which assigns pwd to a low status, which then sets
> > us up for eugenics and mercy killing, and which has problems of logic and
> > is replete with handicapist language. I know (all too well) that there is
> > a new version of the ICIDH even with new initials, but it is the old, 1980
> > version which is being used and cited.
> > [snip]
> >
> > David
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > David Pfeiffer, Ph.D.
> > Resident Scholar
> > Center on Disability Studies
> > University of Hawai`i at Manoa
> > [log in to unmask]
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > Center on Disability Studies....maximizing individual
> > potential by encouraging independence, self-determination,
> > and full participation in the community.
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >
> >
> >
Best regards
Laurence Bathurst
School of Occupation and Leisure Sciences
Faculty of Health Sciences
University of Sydney
P.O. Box 170
Lidcombe NSW 2141
Australia
Phone: (62 1) 9351 9509
Fax: (62 1) 9351 9166
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
Please visit the School's web site at
http://www.ot.cchs.usyd.edu.au
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Not one shred of evidence supports the notion that life is serious
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|