Thank you Laurence,
A bit of pragmatism and political incorrectness may at imes be helpful to
those it offends it seems?
rgds John
----- Original Message -----
From: Laurence Bathurst <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2000 12:09 PM
Subject: Re: percentages of pwd in the US population
> 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
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|