All: I'm not sure I can or will say anything new here (at least that I
haven't said on this topic before). But it seems to me that there's a
larger question here, and that's what happens even in these targeted
examples, or any other exercise in the minds of folks. To use the example
below, how does one know that X audience member didn't go home thinking
"Gee, God, that was an awful experience. I'm sure glad I don't have to see
like that/process info like that." which smacks of the pity/limits of the
simulation exercise that others have written about. How do we guard against
this? Can we?
I guess I'm becoming more and more cynical in my old age. I simply don't
buy the line that "you've got to experience something, to know or be
sympathetic to it" I certainly don't feel the need to simulate every
impairment my students have had over the years in order to give them
accommodations-- and even if I could approximate X processing difficulty or
sight simulation (and it would be a poor approximation, at best) -- what
would be the point? Any person, (ok, most people) who bothers to read or
takes some time to think about the world knows that any "ism" exists in the
world, if you want to believe it's there. I simply fail to see how
someone, disabled or not, trying to approximate my particular gait, helps
to combat, say, the 79% unemployment rate that exists among "employable
disabled" people in the U.S. Or the stat that something like 13% of PWD go
on to higher education.
There are large, deep-rooted systemic issues with race and racism that no
amount of dolling up in Blackface ever solved. There are large, systemic
issues with disability that people "gimping up" don't solve either. Yes,
you naysayers, it's a start perhaps, but for my money, pity (and for that
matter being handed "Christ Jesus" medallions on the street, because well,
that was two days ago, and it's on my brain) isn't the right start. Not by
any stretch of the imagination.
Johnson
At 04:25 PM 4/23/02 +0100, Freewood, Madeleine J wrote:
>I think you raise an interesting point here Simi.
>
>At the University where I work, we would never advocate the use of
>goggles, blindfolds etc. mainly because as someone mentioned in an
>earlier posting this reinforces a medical model of disability. However at
>a recent presentation to staff about good practice in presenting
>on-line material, a member of our team used OHTs and a projector to
>replicate what visual instability can be like for dyslexic students.
>The purpose of this was to demonstrate the need to employ inclusive design
>principles when presenting on-line material ie. presentation and
>length of text, size of font, use of colour etc.
>
>Afterwards I reflected that this was indeed a form of disability
>simulation exercise, however the focus of the session was all about raising
>awareness about the hidden barriers that can disadvantage students when
>on-line material is presented poorly, so was more in the social
>model mode.
>
>I feel really unsure about whether any attempt at 'simulating' people's
>experience is bad per se or whether it can be useful if part of a
>targeted exercise as described by Simi below or my example above.
>
>Madeleine Freewood
________________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.
|