Hi Andy,
> This may be interpreted as if you are saying that the model may
> not be
> 'medical' because non medical evidence is needed to 'diagnose' a
> disability.
> Could you elaborate ofn this point. It is my understanding that
> a
> medicalised model do both individualise and pathologise a
> disability. it is
> hence irrelevant i f those elements are done by a gp, a medical
> consultand,
> a councelor, a nuclear physicist or a builder. The model would
> folow a
> medicalised approach because it 'profesionalise' knowldege to
> categorise and
> patologise impairements.
I can see the argument that there is a tendency to 'medicalise' disability and indeed mitigating circumstances ('concessions'). However your argument seems to go rather further and suggest that the involvement of any 'professional' does this. I wonder if that means next time we get something from you about the reasonable adjustments that should be made in a particular case we should disregard it as 'medicalising' the case rather than as providing an independent and expert opinion. Should we (the academic department) use our own judgments as professionals as to what should be reasonable or just make whatever arrangements the student claims to be reasonable to avoid contaminating the process with the medical model?
Yes, this may be reductio ad absurdam but not by much.
I thought a more problematic part of Amanda's explication, opening up a different can of worms was:
"With regard to disabled students, the positioning of the student as customer has the potential for moving forward the equality agenda through advocacy for consumer rights."
Notwithstanding the changes in HE student funding, it seems to me that the notion of 'student as customer' remains fundamentally misconceived and to be resisted. In this context I wouldn't want to make too much of it, and as it has some purchase as an ideology it is appropriate to analyse it, but it is in my view an obstacle to understanding the social relations at play and we should not propound it.
Best wishes,
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: A Velarde <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 9:48 am
Subject: Re: Social Model versus Medical Model in Higher Education
To: [log in to unmask]
> Hi Amanda. Just to butt in in your very clear perspective. I
> slightly
> disagree with you regarding this point. Amanda wrote: "On the
> DSA: yes, this
> is predicated on medical model because the student is
> asked for evidence from a ‘suitably qualified professional’.
> However, the
> existing DSA Guidance does not define disability and I suggest
> it would be
> worth taking a look in detail at what is accepted as evidence of
> eligibility
> for
> DSA (the majority of students seen for DSA assessment have SPLDs
> and the
> evidence is not produced by medical professionals)"
>
> This may be interpreted as if you are saying that the model may
> not be
> 'medical' because non medical evidence is needed to 'diagnose' a
> disability.
> Could you elaborate ofn this point. It is my understanding that
> a
> medicalised model do both individualise and pathologise a
> disability. it is
> hence irrelevant i f those elements are done by a gp, a medical
> consultand,
> a councelor, a nuclear physicist or a builder. The model would
> folow a
> medicalised approach because it 'profesionalise' knowldege to
> categorise and
> patologise impairements.
>
> best Andy
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Amanda Kent" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2009 9:08 AM
> Subject: Re: Social Model versus Medical Model in Higher Education
>
>
> Emma,
> As other people have suggested, these models are crude tools
> used to
> describe and explain actions in broad terms. People can be many
> things at
> once and within the context of work they can certainly draw on a
> range of
> experience and be influenced by various ideologies, some of
> which appear
> contradictory to the observer and none of which are fully
> ‘knowable’ by the
> subject (see: Bourdieu). I think you could reposition your argument
> for ‘conflict’ by using notions of complexity, tension and a
> sense of
> fluidity in
> every-day experience.
>
> If you want to retain the use of models, then why not use the
> administrativemodel as a third term and place your
> medical/social into a dynamic dialectic
> relationship within that?
>
> You mention ‘the individual’ and your personal experience
> – you could
> explore
> the old adage ‘the personal is political’ as a means of opening
> up arguments
> related to the sense of (large) scale assumed by these models
> (see: any
> introduction to feminism).
>
> Vic Finkelstein writes about the administrative model. Take a
> look at Swain
> and French ‘Disability on Equal Terms’ for the role of
> ‘affirmation’ and
> chapters
> 11 and 12 in particular for the interplay between individual
> values and the
> constraints of organisations. Charlton’s ‘Nothing About Us
> Without Us’ also
> worth looking at as an example of how to write about personal
> experiencefrom a theoretically informed point of view.
>
> People working in organisations are influenced by the language
> in the
> workplace (see Foucault on discourse) and their behaviour is
> determined and
> controlled to a great extent by positions within the
> organisational
> hierarchies
> (of which there are many, stated and unstated). Your terms
> medical/socialshould be seen in relation to other discourses.
> For example, have a look at
> the
> idea of the education sector as marketplace and the metaphor of
> student as
> consumer. The marketization of education has been a contested
> topic on the
> academic side for a number of years and the discussions often expose
> assumptions about power and authority within institutions and
> role of higher
> education in relation to wider issues of government. With regard
> to disabled
> students, the positioning of the student as customer has the
> potential for
> moving forward the equality agenda through advocacy for consumer
> rights.The areas of contention and conflict are not
> medical/social but (very
> roughly)
> academic/service provision, teaching/ancillary services,
> organisation/department, external funding/internal expense,
> reasonable/unreasonable, need/right, individual/general.
>
> On the DSA: yes, this is predicated on medical model because the
> student is
> asked for evidence from a ‘suitably qualified professional’.
> However, the
> existing DSA Guidance does not define disability and I suggest
> it would be
> worth taking a look in detail at what is accepted as evidence of
> eligibility
> for
> DSA (the majority of students seen for DSA assessment have SPLDs
> and the
> evidence is not produced by medical professionals). More
> recently, the SLC
> way of DSA completing assessment reports has placed an emphasis
> on this
> formal evidence to be used to back up ‘student testimony’ about their
> individual experience of the effects of disability on study;
> this method of
> constructing a needs assessment focuses on the individual student,
> presumably because the funding is allocated on an individual
> basis, and
> provides no mechanism for the point that Barry makes – ie that
> adjustmentsfor all might be more effective – and hence the HEFCE
> mainstream allocations
> based on DSA numbers are used to indicate an attempt to address
> a more
> general population need.
> Amanda Kent.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:47:43 +0000, Emma Rowlett
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> >Dear all,
> >
> >I'm battling with my PhD thesis and have had a very confusing meeting
> >with my supervisors. We disagree substantially about whether or
> not it
> >is best to use the social model or medical models of disability and
> >they don't seem very happy with my interpretation of models of
> >disability in Higher Education (see below). If any of you can assist
> >me in developing my musings it would be very much appreciated.
> >
> >As I see it, SENDA is based on the DDA 1995 definition of disability
> >as "a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and
> >long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-
> to-day
> >activities" (DDA 1995, s1(1)). Since it refers to the impairment
> >having an adverse effect and not to society imposing barriers
> on a
> >person with impairments this does not adhere to the social
> model of
> >disability and seems more medical model. Similarly, since
> medical>evidence is needed for DSA applications and medical
> professionals are
> >often asked to comment on the impact on the student's studies this
> >seems to be adopting a medical model of disability. HEFCE
> mainstream>allocation funding is also based on DSA the number of
> successful>applications so relies on the medical model
> too. However, most
> >universities claim in their Disability Equality Statements that they
> >adhere to the Social Model. But if universities are trying to
> >implement the social model within a framework of medical model lead
> >funding and legislation does this not cause conflicts?
> Does this make
> >sense?
> >
> >One of my supervisors argues that just because medical professionals
> >are involved they may not be using the medical model. But it
> seems to
> >me that requiring their involvement and proof of disability is
> medical>model - perhaps I'm wrong in this. My own personal
> experience seems
> >to back this up too - the medical professionals I have dealt
> with are
> >very clinical (as you might expect) and have no idea what
> impact my
> >visual impairment or any of my other disabilities have on my studies
> >beyond saying I will have difficulty reading standard size
> text. If
> >the social model was being implemented the professional
> required would
> >be one who can identify the barriers rather than just
> identifying the
> >impairment - an this would be a disability tutor or
> similar. I know
> >that once the proof is obtained an assessment is made that fits the
> >social model better, but it focuses on individual rather than general
> >adjustments which leads to my next problem...
> >
> >I have my own difficulties with the social model as by blaming
> society>it seems to imply that society can make general
> adjustments to meet
> >the needs of all people. However, if you apply this to a person
> with a
> >visual impairment who experiences standard size text as a
> barrier how
> >do you overcome this? You can't produce every size of
> text, Braille,
> >audio etc for every piece of standard size text. The
> answer seems to
> >me to make an accessible electronic copy available generally to all
> >and then make an individual adjustment to create the exact
> format the
> >person requires. However, doesn't the need to make individual
> >adjustments focus on the individual impairment rather than the
> general>barrier? Or is the social model flexible enough to
> allow for both
> >general and individual adjustments?
> >
> >As you can probably tell I'm quite confused about all this so
> if you
> >have any suggestions or advice, or can point me in the
> direction of
> >using reading, I will be very grateful,
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Emma
> >
> >--
> >Emma Jane Rowlett (née Wright)
> >School of Sociology and Social Policy
> >University of Nottingham
> >
> >[log in to unmask]
> >
> >www.accessingmaterials.org.uk
>
