{"title":"正常化与社会角色增值:相似还是不同?","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":"{\"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}","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}
Normalization vs. Social Role Valorization: Similar or Different?.
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.
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.