1 / 14

NNDR 2013, Naantali , Finland Frederic Fovet Office for Students with Disabilities, McGilll

An uneasy blending of Theory and Practice: dynamic tension in Higher Ed Disability service provision . NNDR 2013, Naantali , Finland Frederic Fovet Office for Students with Disabilities, McGilll. The context.

nathan
Télécharger la présentation

NNDR 2013, Naantali , Finland Frederic Fovet Office for Students with Disabilities, McGilll

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. An uneasy blending of Theory and Practice: dynamic tension in Higher Ed Disability service provision NNDR 2013, Naantali, Finland Frederic Fovet Office for Students with Disabilities, McGilll

  2. The context • The field discussed is Disability service provision in Higher Education in Canada. • There seems to be a large dichotomy in Higher Ed between the Disabilities Studies discourse showcased by institutions and their model of service provision. • Anecdote • Objective of the presentation: to explore this dichotomy

  3. Personal presentation • My career path is relevant to the subject matter. • Educator with 15 years experience in the field of inclusion. • Masters in Social, Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties (SEBD) & PhD candidate • Hired by McGill to oversee their Disability unit in July 2011

  4. Context of the data collection • Arrived to the Disability field with a researcher profile working within an ecological model. • The Social Model of Disability seemed congenial. • Triggered the speedy implementation of the model through the adoption of Universal Design for Learning as the framework for interventions. • UD applied to the class environment but also service provision and user interface

  5. What is UDL? • The unit did not adhere to a rigid and narrow definition of the model: • A sustainable, environmentfocusedframeworkto manage Disabilities issues • Central notion: Practices candisable or enablelearners • Focuses on the conception of delivery and evaluationmethodsratherthan on retrofitting. • Paradigm shift away from the medical model to the social model of Disability. • Is a progressive exploration and transformation

  6. UDL implementation drive • Planned: • 18 months of strategic lobbying with campus partners and senior administration Successful: Joint Senate Board meeting in November 2012. • 18 months of collaborative networking with faculties (production of resources, consultancy on curriculum redevelopment, workshops): in progress

  7. Unexpected offshoot of the UDL drive: study of DS unit resistance • Data was collected for 18 months • Performance Dialogue, workshops, retreats, project reports and semi-directive questionnaires. • Qualitative data analysis • Triangulation: both for data collection and human resources purposes • Data was also collected from students, instructors & administrators but DS staff raises separate issues. • Corroboration of these results through partnership projects with other unit managers across Canada (CADSPPE and AQICESH)

  8. Results • Variables at play in the resistance observed: • Resistance to change • Redefinition of tasks • Ambivalence with regards to new role: reluctance to consult with instructors • Sustainability of practices = not a professional criteria • Investment in the role of ‘helper’ • Personal belief in medical model or welfare model • Counter-transference with regards to client needs • Power dynamics that need to be eroded

  9. Suggested tools to navigate this dichotomy between Theory and Practice • Ensuring staff acquire adequate opportunities to explore the social model • Emphasize the importance of the conceptual framework systematically in all decision making • Create a link between the social model of disability and the notion of user satisfaction • Allow for ownership of the model • Introduce ethnographic practices when recording user expectations • Embrace sustainability as a work objective and emphasize the impact the social model has on productivity and ability to face demand in service request

  10. Example of unit reflective work on the social model

  11. Discussion • This is an immediately tangible contradiction as Higher Ed institutions both embrace the social model conceptually and ignore it in the user interface, within the same physical entity. • Such contradictions are frequent in service provision in all areas of Disability: secondary education, social work, medical and paramedical professions. • Takes a concerted effort to ensure research in Disabilities studies translates to changes in practices.

  12. Questions?frederic.fovet@mcgill.ca

More Related