Parmenter TR

Language: English
References: 38
Page: 124-131
PDF size: 172.10 Kb.

ABSTRACT

There is strong evidence that socio-cultural factors largely determine what is seen as competent behaviour. Within western high income countries, driven by the values of utilitarian individualism, the construct of intellectual disability has been largely determined to meet the needs of urban, industrialised societies. In contrast, competence in non-industrialised societies may be more reflected in collaborative, interpersonal problem solving skills such as those found among Nigerian students labelled as intellectually disabled. However, people who are judged to be incompetent or “obtrusive” in countries deficient in support services, are often neglected and consigned to a life in poorly managed segregated institutions, as is the case in China, Russia and some countries in Eastern Europe. Non western countries that have a long history of a globalised economy, such as Taiwan and Japan also remain committed to segregated institutional provisions for people with an intellectual disability, despite a notional acceptance of inclusionary policies enunciated by the United Nations’ Declarations and Conventions. In this paper is concluded that it must be recognised that the population of people with an intellectual disability, regardless of how the condition is defined and classified, is quite heterogeneous. Their needs are also varied and not at all dissimilar to those of the general population. As developing countries adopt western style consumer-driven economies, there is an extreme danger that they, too, will follow the same trajectory of exclusion and impose the culture of “otherness” for a group whose contribution to that society will be devalued. Good science is futile unless it benefits all peoples.

REFERENCES

1. Parmenter TR. Intellectual disabilities – quo vadis? In: Albrecht GL, Selman KD, Bury M, eds. Handbook of disability studies. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, 2001; 267-296.

2. Ingstad B. Disability in the developing world. In: Albrecht GL, Selman KD, Bury M, eds. Handbook of disability studies. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, 2001; 772-779.

3. Edgerton RB. Mental retardation in non-Western societies: Towards a cross-cultural perspective on incompetence. In: Haywood HC, ed. Social cultural aspects of mental retardation. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1970; 227-237.

4. Emerson E. Poverty and children with intellectual disabilities in the world’s richer countries. J Intellect Dev Disabil 2004;29:319-338.

5. Edwards SD. The moral status of intellectually disabled individuals. J Med Philos 1997;22:29-42.

6. Edwards SD. The body as object services the body as subject: The case of disability. Med Health Care Philos 1998;1:47-56.

7. Clarke A, Clarke A. Human resilience. A fifty year quest. London: Jessica Kingsley; 2003.

8. Baumeister AA. The American residential institution: Its history and character. In: Baumeister AA, Butterfield E, eds. Residential facilities for the mentally retarded. Chicago: Aldene, 1970; 1-28.

9. Cianciolo AT, Sternberg RJ. Intelligence. A brief history. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing; 2004.

10. Heber R. ed. A manual on the terminology and classification in mental retardation. Monograph supplement. Am J Ment Defic 1958: 64(2).

11. Sternberg RJ, Grigorenko EL. Are cognitive styles still in style? Am Psychol 1997;2:700-712.

12. Schalock RL. Adaptive behaviour: Its conceptualisation and measurement. In: Emerson E, Hatton C, Thomson T, Parmenter TR, editors. The International handbook of applied research in intellectual disabilities. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2004;369-384.

13. Berry JW. An ecological perspective on the development of competence. In: Sternberg RJ, Grigorenko EL, eds. Culture and competence. Washington, D.C: American Psychological Association, 2004.

14. Sternberg RJ. The theory of successful intelligence. Rev Gen Psychol 1999; 3:292-316.

15. Emerson E, Fujiura G, Hatton C. International perspectives. In: Odom SL, Horner RH, Snell M, Blacher J, eds. Handbook of developmental disabilities. New York: Guildford Press; 2007.

16. Edeh OM, Hickson L. Cross cultural comparison of interpersonal problem-solving in students with mental retardation. Am J Ment Retard 2002;107:60-15.

17. Chou YC, Schalock RL. Trends in residential policies and services for people with intellectual disabilities in Taiwan. J Intellect Disabil Res 2007;51:135-141.

18. Goddard HH. The Kallikak family: A Study of heredity of feeblemindedness. New York: Macmillan; 1912.

19. Nirje B. The normalisation principle papers. Uppsala, Sweden: Centre for Handicapped Research, Uppsala University; 1992.

20. Alexander D. The impact of national policies on research in mental retardation – a United States perspective. ANZ J Dev Disabil 1988;14:183-188.

21. Wolfenberger W. The principle of normalization in human services. Toronto: National Institute on Mental Retardation; 1972.

22. Goffman E. Stigma: Notes on the management of a spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs NS: Preston Hall; 1963.

23. Wolfenberger W. Social role valorization: A proposed new term for the principle of normalization. Ment Retard 1988;21:234-239.

24. Wolfenberger W. A brief overview of social role valorization. Ment Retard 2000;38:105-123.

25. United Nations. Declaration of general and specific rights of the mentally retarded. New York; 1971.

26. United Nations. Declaration of rights of disabled people. New York; 1975.

27. Braddock DL, Parish SL. An institutional history of disability. In: Albrecht GL, Seelman D, Berry M, eds. Handbook of disability studies. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, 2001;11-68.

28. United Nations. Standard rules on the equalization of opportunities for persons with disabilities. New York; 1993.

29. United Nations. Convention on rights of people with disability. New York; 2007.

30. Reinders HS. The future of the disabled in liberal society: An ethical analysis. Notre Dame IN: University of Notre Dame Press; 2000.

31. Nirje B. The basis and logic of the normalization principle. ANZ J Dev Disabil 1985;11:65-68.

32. Parmenter TR. Are we engineering ourselves out of existence? J Intellect Dev Disabil 2005;30:53-56.

33. Penrose LS. A clinical and genetic study of 1,280 cases of mental defect (Colchester Survey). Special Report Series, Medical Research Council, No 229, London: HMSO;1938.

34. Penrose LS. The biology of mental defect. New York: Greene & Statton;1948.

35. Parmenter TR. The contribution of science in facilitating the inclusion of people with intellectual disability into the community. J Intellect Disabil Res 2001; 45:183-193.

36. Penrose LS. The biology of mental deficit. 2nd ed. New York: Grune & Strattie; 1963.

37. Parmenter TR. Historical overview of applied research in intellectual disabilities: The foundation years. In: Emerson E, Hatton C, Thompson T, Parmenter TR, eds. The international handbook of applied research in intellectual disabilities. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2004; 3-39.

38. Albrecht GL, ed. Encyclopedia of disability. Volume 1. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2006.