评论“对具有挑战性的行为的统一方法”:反对共识——为什么我们需要一个具有挑战性的行为研究的新领域

IF 0.5 Q4 EDUCATION, SPECIAL Tizard Learning Disability Review Pub Date : 2020-11-30 DOI:10.1108/tldr-08-2020-0021
S. C. Simplican
{"title":"评论“对具有挑战性的行为的统一方法”:反对共识——为什么我们需要一个具有挑战性的行为研究的新领域","authors":"S. C. Simplican","doi":"10.1108/tldr-08-2020-0021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThis paper challenges the value of consensus within the field of learning disability. In this commentary, the author argues that consensus threatens to silence multiple viewpoints, hides how power operates and stifles creativity.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThe author focuses on two articles within this special issue to suggest that the consensus celebrated is more about a set of shared values, rather than a set of shared practices. This should make us question the depth of the field’s consensus.\n\n\nFindings\nThe presumption that multiple paradigms can be “unified” actually hides how power operates to resolve disagreements among positive behaviour support, active support and human rights approaches. A similar erasure occurs in the language of “capable environments,” which the author argues obscures the role of individuals, relationships and organizational cultures in impacting quality of life.\n\n\nResearch limitations/implications\nWe need to create and build a new interdisciplinary field of challenging behaviour studies that is willing to embrace conflict and disagreement in research, policy and practice.\n\n\nPractical implications\nThe author believes that this approach is more likely to empower people, including people with learning disabilities whose behaviour challenges, family members, and direct support workers because it is more likely to recognize their experiences and expertise.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nA new multidisciplinary field of challenging behaviour studies may encourage more theoretical diversity that makes us challenge the value of consensus and embrace creativity.\n","PeriodicalId":54179,"journal":{"name":"Tizard Learning Disability Review","volume":"25 1","pages":"169-172"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Commentary on a “unified approach to behaviours that challenge”: against consensus – why we need a new field of challenging behaviour studies\",\"authors\":\"S. C. Simplican\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/tldr-08-2020-0021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nPurpose\\nThis paper challenges the value of consensus within the field of learning disability. In this commentary, the author argues that consensus threatens to silence multiple viewpoints, hides how power operates and stifles creativity.\\n\\n\\nDesign/methodology/approach\\nThe author focuses on two articles within this special issue to suggest that the consensus celebrated is more about a set of shared values, rather than a set of shared practices. This should make us question the depth of the field’s consensus.\\n\\n\\nFindings\\nThe presumption that multiple paradigms can be “unified” actually hides how power operates to resolve disagreements among positive behaviour support, active support and human rights approaches. A similar erasure occurs in the language of “capable environments,” which the author argues obscures the role of individuals, relationships and organizational cultures in impacting quality of life.\\n\\n\\nResearch limitations/implications\\nWe need to create and build a new interdisciplinary field of challenging behaviour studies that is willing to embrace conflict and disagreement in research, policy and practice.\\n\\n\\nPractical implications\\nThe author believes that this approach is more likely to empower people, including people with learning disabilities whose behaviour challenges, family members, and direct support workers because it is more likely to recognize their experiences and expertise.\\n\\n\\nOriginality/value\\nA new multidisciplinary field of challenging behaviour studies may encourage more theoretical diversity that makes us challenge the value of consensus and embrace creativity.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":54179,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Tizard Learning Disability Review\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"169-172\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Tizard Learning Disability Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/tldr-08-2020-0021\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SPECIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tizard Learning Disability Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/tldr-08-2020-0021","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: 0

摘要

目的本文对学习障碍领域内共识的价值提出质疑。在这篇评论中,作者认为,共识可能会压制多种观点,隐藏权力的运作方式,扼杀创造力。设计/方法论/方法作者重点关注本期特刊中的两篇文章,认为所庆祝的共识更多的是一套共同的价值观,而不是一套共同实践。这应该使我们对该领域共识的深度产生疑问。发现多种范式可以“统一”的假设实际上掩盖了权力如何运作,以解决积极行为支持、积极支持和人权方法之间的分歧。类似的擦除发生在“有能力的环境”的语言中,作者认为这掩盖了个人、关系和组织文化在影响生活质量方面的作用。研究局限性/含义我们需要创建和建立一个新的跨学科的具有挑战性的行为研究领域,愿意接受研究、政策和实践中的冲突和分歧。实际含义作者认为,这种方法更有可能赋予人们权力,包括行为有挑战的学习障碍者、家庭成员和直接支持工作者,因为它更有可能认可他们的经验和专业知识。独创性/价值挑战行为研究的一个新的多学科领域可能会鼓励更多的理论多样性,使我们挑战共识的价值并拥抱创造力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Commentary on a “unified approach to behaviours that challenge”: against consensus – why we need a new field of challenging behaviour studies
Purpose This paper challenges the value of consensus within the field of learning disability. In this commentary, the author argues that consensus threatens to silence multiple viewpoints, hides how power operates and stifles creativity. Design/methodology/approach The author focuses on two articles within this special issue to suggest that the consensus celebrated is more about a set of shared values, rather than a set of shared practices. This should make us question the depth of the field’s consensus. Findings The presumption that multiple paradigms can be “unified” actually hides how power operates to resolve disagreements among positive behaviour support, active support and human rights approaches. A similar erasure occurs in the language of “capable environments,” which the author argues obscures the role of individuals, relationships and organizational cultures in impacting quality of life. Research limitations/implications We need to create and build a new interdisciplinary field of challenging behaviour studies that is willing to embrace conflict and disagreement in research, policy and practice. Practical implications The author believes that this approach is more likely to empower people, including people with learning disabilities whose behaviour challenges, family members, and direct support workers because it is more likely to recognize their experiences and expertise. Originality/value A new multidisciplinary field of challenging behaviour studies may encourage more theoretical diversity that makes us challenge the value of consensus and embrace creativity.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Tizard Learning Disability Review
Tizard Learning Disability Review EDUCATION, SPECIAL-
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
16.70%
发文量
20
期刊最新文献
The effects of changing the classroom play environment on the peer interactions of autistic children with an intellectual disability Using the children’s accelerated trauma technique with adults with intellectual disabilities Commentary on “The effects of changing the classroom play environment on the peer interactions of autistic children with an intellectual disability” Frontline managers’ experiences of practice leadership for when supporting autistic adults with complex support needs residing in community housing Commentary on “Stakeholder experiences of deprescribing psychotropic medicines for challenging behaviour in people with intellectual disabilities”
×
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