Interestingly...
I recently made the point while pursuing a MAID and dealing with Access Audits that I felt unqualified despite whatever material I could find in policy, legislation, best practice or indeed any such manufactured source. Not to say such sources were not suitably informed. I felt unqualified because I did not have DET training. But the only DET that I felt would convince me I knew what I was talking about would be to spend some days with a person of every disability and experience vicariously every intimate detail of their lives. Well, perhaps not EVERY...
That seems a bit impractical, but in the absence of it, no matter how well trained I become, I will secretly know that I do not know.
I can tell you every damn thing a power chair or manual chair user has issues with (assuming they have the same condition as me...) but I cannot tell you what anyone else's experience might be.
I believe many people, disabled or not, who have sufficient immersion in the field of disability and access/inclusion are as perfectly qualified as the next person.
My physiotherapist knows more about what I need than I thought I knew. The guy who I go to for wheelchairs is better able to determine what will likely work out best for me. Of course I have input and have the final decision. But they have up to date training and knowledge that I do not have.
Considering the rate of change in progress regarding knowledge and assistive devices, it hardly matters what any of us think we know or don't know because it will be out of date tomorrow.
I agree with the point that a person having the 'disability' being the one teaching about it might carry more weight- as long as they are properly trained and not too biased, then that sounds great in theory.
This is also an opportunity for a good debate about the 'business' of Access Auditing.
O.K. that's all a bit thrown together and naïve.
But I will finish with this- I would prefer that access audits be carried out by someone with knowledge, training, experience, a warm heart and- genuine good intention. But let it all be informed by the 'disabled' community.
Collaboration is a great yoke.
V.
-----Original Message-----
From: Accessibuilt list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Graham Robert Findlay
Sent: 16 September 2014 23:51
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Scope is setting up a list of trusted DET and access consultants
Hello again everyone.
Many thanks for all your responses so far. It wasn't my intention for my post to generate a discussion - but in some ways it is always positive to air these issues and have an informed debate.
Just to clarify, Scope's strategy Changing Society includes a commitment to engage with and support Disabled People's Organisations (DPO) and disabled people in the work that they do - which of course includes Disability Equality Training and access auditing - so this opportunity is linked to that strategic aim. So if a DPO runs an access auditing service that meets the quality criteria we are looking for, we will consider them for inclusion on the list.
I should emphasise that this approach certainly doesn't intend to devalue the fantastic work undertaken by non-disabled access consultants, but I hope you understand why we are targeting this particular group of providers on this occasion.
Best wishes,
Graham Findlay
Scop
----------End of Message----------
Run by SURFACE for more information on research, teaching and consultancy:
http://www.surface.salford.ac.uk
Archives for the Accessibuilt discussion list are located at http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/accessibuilt.html
----------End of Message----------
Run by SURFACE for more information on research, teaching and consultancy:
http://www.surface.salford.ac.uk
Archives for the Accessibuilt discussion list are located at http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/accessibuilt.html
|