I'm grateful to Mark Shrimpton for informing us of development at the DRC in
staff training and provision of helpline services. However, I want to be
clear about two points. First, the way the text came through seems to
attribute this comment to me:
>
> I share your concern about the DRC as I have had similar problems with their
> information (or lack of information) provision.
which gives a different slant on the next part of the message which I did
write:
>
> This probably won't be of much help but the DRC's way of communicating and
> informing is symptomatic of the way in which staff within government
> departments and government quangos in the UK are being trained to
> communicate with 'the public'. So I'm not sure I agree with Rob's view that
> the DRC needs more time if the staff training is of this kind. There is
> plenty of good research on this topic. Both the approach to communication
> and the training is based on the 'big business' model as anybody, disabled
> or not, who has recently tried to get to talk to 'a real' person at a bank
> or any number of other agencies in the private sector will know. In some
> cases, this whole approach is blatantly discriminatory - try phoning one of
> the helplines using a minicom (after you've tried the minicom number which
> is never answered). I think this approach to communication could and should
> be challenged under the DDA's 'Goods and Services' provisions, if not other
> sections, as it makes a whole range of assumptions about the 'ideal'
> communicator and about what people need to know.
>
I want to be clear that I have *not* attempted to phone the DRC minicom
helpline myself, just that I am not surprised at the problems that have been
referred to by others. However, I have attempted to phone *other* minicom
helplines which have obviously been linked into the main voice switchboard.
What then happens is that the minicom user sees the red light flashing,
indicating that a signal is coming through, but there is no text (which
means its a voice signal). There are also a lot of voice helplines these
days (so I'm told) where you have to go through this ridiculous system: if
you want x, then press 1... what do you want now, press 3, 6 or 9 etc etc.
Sometimes when you get to the end of the run, you get a recorded message to
'hold' accompanied by piped music, not a real person.
The point I wanted to make was that *these systems* are in themselves
discriminatory (in my view) because whereas they automate communication for
the provider (which makes it simpler and cheaper for them) they complicate
communication and make it more expensive for the user. This has particular
implications for disabled people. Secondly I am suspicious of communication
skills training packages. Like a lot of skills-based things (and the UK
government, if we are to believe the media, is very fond of the
communication skills culture - it's called 'spin') such training works to
scripts. Trainees often find it difficult or are actually told not to
diverge from the script. This is no substitute in my view for real, live
contact with a diversity of disabled people.
So there were a lot of things mixed up in this message and I apologise if it
wasn't clear. Nevertheless, I still feel that all of this is of relevance to
the concept of discrimination - though of course it refers to
institutionalised or indirect discrimination (which is not, *on the advice
of big business*, within the UK government's anti-discrimination legislation
on disability). I therefore hope that raising the issue, and clarifying it
further, may have some tiny influence on the DRC's package for change.
Best wishes
Mairian Corker
Visiting Senior Research Fellow
Language Group
School of Education
Kings College London
Waterloo Road
London SE1 8WA
U.K.
________________End of message______________________
Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
are now located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
|