Normalization vs. Social Role Valorization: Similar or Different?.

IF 0.7 Q4 EDUCATION, SPECIAL International Journal of Special Education Pub Date : 2015-01-01 DOI:10.2139/ssrn.3565830
Akhilesh Kumar, Rajani Singh, A. Thressiakutty
{"title":"Normalization vs. Social Role Valorization: Similar or Different?.","authors":"Akhilesh Kumar, Rajani Singh, A. Thressiakutty","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3565830","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The radical changes towards services for persons with disabilities were brought by Principle of Normalization, originated in 1969. As a consequence of Normalization, disability as a whole, and intellectual disability in particular, received the attention of the mass and the intelligentsia begun advocating normalization ideologies which became very popular across the globe as ‘the right based ideology, which in turn, initiated integration, inclusion, community based rehabilitation and other nonsegregating practices. But ‘Normalization’ came under criticism because of its simplicity resulted in an evolution in thinking which shifted the term ‘Normalization’ to ‘Social Role Valorization’ (SRV). Although, Normalization and SRV uplifted the lives of persons with disabilities, a disagreement appeared about their similarity. The present study critically examines the guidelines of these two human services for similarities and differences upon several criteria using cluster analysis and critical analysis. The Jaccard’s Similarity Index has been computed to see similarity between documents explaining the concepts. The result revealed poor similarity index between documents explaining the concepts. It was also observed that Normalization and SRV differ from each other in their totality, but are the ways to achieve Social Inclusion.","PeriodicalId":46284,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Special Education","volume":"30 1","pages":"71-78"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Special Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3565830","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

The radical changes towards services for persons with disabilities were brought by Principle of Normalization, originated in 1969. As a consequence of Normalization, disability as a whole, and intellectual disability in particular, received the attention of the mass and the intelligentsia begun advocating normalization ideologies which became very popular across the globe as ‘the right based ideology, which in turn, initiated integration, inclusion, community based rehabilitation and other nonsegregating practices. But ‘Normalization’ came under criticism because of its simplicity resulted in an evolution in thinking which shifted the term ‘Normalization’ to ‘Social Role Valorization’ (SRV). Although, Normalization and SRV uplifted the lives of persons with disabilities, a disagreement appeared about their similarity. The present study critically examines the guidelines of these two human services for similarities and differences upon several criteria using cluster analysis and critical analysis. The Jaccard’s Similarity Index has been computed to see similarity between documents explaining the concepts. The result revealed poor similarity index between documents explaining the concepts. It was also observed that Normalization and SRV differ from each other in their totality, but are the ways to achieve Social Inclusion.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
正常化与社会角色增值:相似还是不同?
1969年提出的《正常化原则》为残疾人服务带来了根本性的变化。作为正常化的结果,残疾作为一个整体,尤其是智力残疾,受到了大众的关注,知识分子开始倡导正常化的意识形态,这种意识形态作为“基于权利的意识形态”在全球范围内非常流行,反过来,它发起了融合、包容、基于社区的康复和其他非隔离的做法。但“正常化”一词因其简单性而受到批评,导致思想的演变,将“正常化”一词转变为“社会角色增值”(SRV)。虽然正常化和SRV改善了残疾人的生活,但对它们的相似性出现了分歧。本研究使用聚类分析和批判性分析对这两种人类服务的指导方针进行了严格的审查,以确定其在若干标准上的相似性和差异性。通过计算Jaccard的相似度指数来查看解释概念的文档之间的相似度。结果表明,解释概念的文档之间的相似指数很低。报告还指出,正常化和性别平等在总体上有所不同,但都是实现社会包容的途径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
33.30%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Special Education publishes original articles concerning special education. Experimental, as well as, theoretical articles are sought from all over the world. Authors are encouraged to submit reviews of research, historical and philosophical reviews in addition to evidence based data of the effectiveness of innovative approaches.
期刊最新文献
The Mental Stress of Immigrant Parents of Children with ASD in the United States During the COVID-19 Pandemics: A Study from Ecological System Perspective Spatial visualization as the strongest spatial reasoning autistic student Social intelligence of students with and without hearing impairment in mainstream schools Preparation, instructional systems, barriers and teachers' efforts in inclusive classrooms: Implementation of limited face-to-face learning during the Covid-19 pandemic An insight into the attitudes held by four- to six-year-olds toward people with disabilities: ideas, feelings, and behaviors.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1