PubMed · 14891743
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
P HUMBERT. 1951-11-01. [Certain experiences].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14891743/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
This article examines why organizations struggle with learning how to prevent discrimination against their employees with disabilities. To explore this issue, qualitative archival data were collected and analyzed from 53 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) lawsuits filed against 44 organizations. Theoretical analysis of the qualitative data suggests that several organizationally based learning theories explain the difficulty organizations have with creating a disability-friendly work environment. These barriers to learning are embedded in complex defense mechanisms and discriminatory organizational routines. Furthermore, organizations have difficulties engaging in higher-order and vicarious learning. We conclude the article with examples of successful learning practices as they relate to barriers identified in the qualitative analysis.
This article argues that disabilities are, within many of the U.S. debates, best understood as certain kinds of impairment affecting a person's capabilities to perform socially defined roles and functions within specific environments. We also argue that it is not the impairments per se that lead to claims about what we ought to do or ought not do for people with disabilities. Rather, it is only within the context of capabilities being linked to the concept of freedom--almost universally valued in the current U.S. socio-political environment--that disability issues take on an ethical tenor. Additionally, we link the notion of disability to that of social capital. In particular, we argue that any social organization that discriminates against people with disabilities by attenuating their opportunities within that environment also decreases the social cohesion that exists within that organization. Such corporate climates promote organizational structures and processes that fail to optimize facilitation of the mutual benefits of the members. Finally, we discuss three different kinds of accommodation strategy: assistive technologies, systemic personal change, and universal design. We suggest a case-based (casuistic) approach to problems caused by disabilities. Using methods from both philosophy and public policy, we then build policies for accommodations incrementally, based on an application of those methods to the cases, and resulting in a more nuanced process enabling the creation of policies that take account of the experiences of both disabled and non-disabled people.
BACKGROUND: The notion of universalism was introduced to me during my first year of PhD studies in Rehabilitation Science. During a class discussion, we debated the merits of two theoretical perspectives that offered contradicting views as to the most effective means to facilitating a shift in societal perceptions of disability. As exemplified by the World Health Organization's current model of health, the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), there has been a shift from a minority group analysis towards a universalistic perspective of disablement. PURPOSE: This paper introduces readers to the underlying concepts of both minority group analysis and universalism and, in doing so, proposes that universalism is closely aligned with the underlying constructs of occupational therapy. Universalism provides a comprehensive framework that can be utilized by occupational therapists to encourage the development of health and social-related policies that promote inclusiveness, yet still the respect the differences that exist among individuals. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS By improving their familiarity with such theories, occupational therapists may be better positioned to contribute to policy development within their respective treatment and/or community settings.