MENTAL HANDICAP VOL. 16 SEPTEMBER 1988

As part of their first year course in education (Part 1) a group of under- graduates comdeted a auestionnaire

to focus their minds on special educational needs by asking

counties are moving ahead with computerised systems. These offer the potential for supporting teams and management directly, whilst also facilitating more delegation of responsibility to teams. They also enable effective monitoring of teams’ activities.

Two issues stand out concerning professional roles. The first is the changing role of professionals. Both an increasing overlap of work and more indirect work has implications for professional line management, agency accountability, and training. The second is that insufficient is known about the balance between traditional professional boundaries and the most appropriate ways of responding flexibly to need.

disabled;

who is disabled; 0 personal knowledge of someone

The survey described presents an overview of CMHT in Wales at one specific time. Hopefully, it will be a useful contribution to further debate about their future development, which will also have implications beyond the Principality. Acknowledgements

The researchers (Morag McGrath and Stuart Humphreys) are indebted to the CMHTs and senior officers who provided information and shared their thoughts with them so willingly. Gordon Grant’s many helpful comments were much appreciated. They also thank the Welsh Office and the DHSS for funding the research.

REFERENCES Blunden, R. Individual plans for mentally handicapped people:

a draft procedural guide. Cardiffi Mental Handicap in Wales

McGrath, M., Humphreys, S. Clwyd Community Mental Handicap Core Teams: a Review Bangor: UCNW Centre for Social Policy Research and Development, 1986.

McGrath, M., Humphreys, S . The Ail Wales CMHT Survey. Bangor: UCNW Centre for Social Policy Research and

- Applied R e a r c h Unit, 1980.

Development, 1988. Stevenson, 0. Social Services Teams in the United Kingdom. In

Lonsdale, S. , Webb, A,, Briggs, T. L. (eds.). Teamwork in rhe Personal Social Services and Health Care. London: Croom Helm, 1980.

Welsh Office. All Wales Strategy for the Development of Services for Mentally Handicapped People. Cardiff: Welsh Office, 1983.

Students’ attitudes to disability Andrea Freeman

A survey of undergraduate students’ attitudes was carried out as part of a general The content of the questionnaire was course in education studies, using a questionnaire and a semantic differential very loosely based on surveys carried out scale. in 1981, the Year of the Disabled, and

Attitudes were found to be positive in general but showed an element of addressed five main areas. paternalism which implied feelings of superiority. The concept which now

“disadvantaged”. appears to be acceptable when considering people with disabilities is that of

0 feelings experienced when meeting someone who is

(Figure 1). In &e previous year a group of students had been asked to complete a social distance scale, but it was decided to expand the area within which the information was collected since a semantic different ia l had been developed by a postgraduate student for use with sNdents in further education which addressed wider issues (Figure 2). Three different reasons were given to the students for the request that they should complete this questionnaire at the beginning of four one-hour lectures on special educational needs.

them to consider seriously some of the issues, which the lecture programme would sub se- quently address;

0 to gather information from t h e m , which would be interesting in its own right, and which they would have fed back to them in the context of other surveys of attitudes;

0 to demonstrate the way that much of the information about attitudes is collected.

ANDREA FREEMAN is a Principal Lecturer in In-service Training and Head of Special Needs at Edge Hill College of Higher Education, St. Helens Road, Ormskirk, Lancashire L39 4QP.

0 social distance scale, that is, how closely they were prepared to associate with people with disabilities;

0 defining the difference between disability and handicap.

The semantic differential had been developed for use with students in further education and was based upon historical perspectives suggested by Kurtz (1981) including those of the menace, the eternal child, and the burden of charity.

Results In all, 72 completed questionnaires

were returned and used in the analysis.

1 04 @ 1988 British Institute of Mental Handicap

MENTAL HANDICAP VOL. 16 SEPTEMBER 1988

with someone who is disabled. The fourth question concerned social

distance. Six indicators were used, each with a yes/no choice. The results are given in Table 4.

The final question asked students to differentiate between handicap and disability, since the two terms are often interchanged without any clear idea of their meanings. Ten forms of definitions were found, most of these having few subscribers. The two most common replies were “Don’t know” which was the most popular reply (23 students), followed by the definition that disability refers more to physical problems, and

I n some of these the data was incomplete, but only one form was not used as the semantic differential was completed incorrectly. No statistical tests were used, but the information was collated and totalled.

Question 1 asked students to define the term “disabled person”. Their comments fell into four types of definition, plus one very general categorisa tion.

The second question asked the students to describe their feelings. Many different feelings were described with some students making more than one comment.

Question 3 asked students to indicate their relationship with anyone with a disability. They were given three categories from which to choose. Again, some answered more than once. The results are shown in Table 3.

However, some students later stated that they had ticked the box for “know no-one” and then realised that they did know someone but did not think of the person in those terms. Thus, only 18 per cent of students or less are unfamiliar

Per cent Type of d e f ~ t i o n Number (figures rounded)

’

Mentally andor physically handicapped, disabled or 28 37 disadvantaged

Someone different from the norm or average; who cannot do thing sohers for granted 22 29 Physically disabled, bedridden, in wheelchair, physically

Cannot perform tasks because of misfunction of parts of the body; person without (complete) use of senses or limbs

abormal, dependent 15 20

Physical disability and wide range of problems 1 1

TOTAL 76 100

10 13

SURVEY OF ATTITUDES

latter probably arises from the frequent juxtaposition of the words to physical disability and mental handicap. Eight students thought that disability was more serious, whilst six put the opposite point of view. Seven students said the terms mean the same. Only three students were to Offer the definition that a disability is some form of impairment (another problematic term) and that handicap can result from a disability or not; many handicaps being so cia1 , relating to att i tudes and prejudices.The full details are shown in Table 5.

A stereotype was formulated from the semantic differential. This was done

1. What do you understand by the term ‘disabled person’?

Feeling Number - Embarrassed, uneasy, self-conscious, ignorant, not sure how to behave, need for tact, nefvous in cax upset them pity, sympahy, guilty, thankful itYs not me Nodifferent tomee~gothers, OK once used to it, must not be patronising, must be objective, act naturally Admiration, impressed

29 14 13 12 6 6 1

13 2

TOTAL %

S O W , would like to hope are being cared for Glad h e y are able to do what h e y Can do

It depends on their personality It depend son the disability

Z. How do you feel when you meet someone who is disabled?

3. Tick the box which applies to you: A member of my family is disabled 0 I know someone who is disabled

I know no-one who is disabled 0 #. Tick the boxes which apdy to you.

a I would be prepared to live near disabled people

b I would be prepared to work with disabled people c I would be prepared to work alongside disabled people d I would be prepared to spend my leisure time with disabled people e I think more mQney should be spent on disabled people f I would be prepared for a friend or close relative to marry a disabled

person

5. What is the difference between a disability and a handicap?

FIGURE 1. Questionnaire used to ascertain students’ attitudes to disability

@ 1988 British Institute of Mental Handicap 105

MENTAL HANDICAP VOL. 16 SEPTEMBER 1988

SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL

Please place only one cross on each line in the space provided, NOTabove a distance mark, to indicate how you would describe someone who is disabled. Example: L I I I I X l I I

3 0 0 D HEALTH‘ 2LEAR SPEECH UNEMOTIONAL SELF SUFFICIENT NAIVE WEAK RESPECTED DISABLED DEMENTED PRIVILEGED AGGRESSIVE SLOW SOCIABLE UNLUCKY RELAXED TIDY SIMPLE (SPEECH) BRIGHT ACCEPTED CHILDLIKE VULNERABLE NORMAL PASSIVE PHYSICALLY DEFORMED INDEPENDENT IGNORANT CAREFREE FRIENDLY CLUMSY CONSISTENT DAFT SAD PLEASANT HELPLESS UGLY COORDINATED

POORHEALTH UNCLEAR SPEECH RESPONSIVE NEEDY EXPERIENCED STRONG PITIFUL ABLE BODIED STABLE DISADVANTAGED CONTROLLED QUICK WITHDRAWN FORTUNATE TENSE UNTIDY COMPLEX (SPEECH) STUPID MISFIT MATURE SELF ASSURED ABNORMAL ACTIVE ORDINARY LOOKING DEPENDENT WELL MANNERED RESPONSIBLE UNFRIENDLY GRACEFUL ERRATIC SENSIBLE HAPPY FRIGHTENING COMPETENT HANDSOME UNCONTROLLED

Thanks very much for your help

FIGURE 2. Semantic differential used in the surve showing profile of the stereotype produced using weightedscores

dimensions where the students had responded in the middle box were excluded as this indicated that the dimension was no t p a r t of t he stereotype, for example:

slowj I I 1x1 I I lquick

The responses found to be neutral in t h i s way were: coord ina ted - uncontrolled, slow-quick, good health-poor health, relaxed-tense, simple-complex ( s p e e c h ) , vulnerable-self-assured, a n d independent-dependent .

Some words received a clear adverse reaction, and received very few or no

subscribers. These were: stupid, ignorant, unfriendly, daft, demented, childlike, sad, and ugly.

T h e s t ronges t aspects of t he stereotype were indicated where the majority of students gave a definite response, for example:

privileged l m l disadvantaged

Put together, the characteristics which described the students’ stereotype of a person with a disability were found to be: disadvantaged; responsive; friendly; disabled; sensible; and unlucky. Other weaker contributors to the stereotype were found, but in less

extreme positions. These were bright, stable, and pleasant, which were indicated as, for example:

bright1 1 1x1 I I I /stupid

A profile was drawn up which represents the average scores of all the students on each dimension (see Figure 2).

Discussion The majority of the students defined

disability in terms of some form of physical disability. The differences between disability and handicap were clearly not understood by the students, just as they are confused by the general public. Some students had clearly been influenced by other areas of study, such as psychology, in their descriptions. Of the 71 replies, 22 students (29 per cent) described disability in terms of “deviance from norms”. Many of the definitions offered also implied some form of cognitive impairment or learning difficulty. A strong theme was that of dependence and lack of skills, preventing a person from being seen as a socially competent member of society.

These definitions were in marked contrast to the stereotype obtained from the semantic differential. In tutorial groups following the questionnaire completion, students voiced their opposition to inclusion of the semantic differential since, the argument went, individuals could not be generalised. T h i s s tereotyping exercise was recognised for what it was and, confronted by many of the terms in current everyday use when referring to people with disabilities, the students rejected it.

The items in the semantic differential which were avoided are interesting, as a direct contrast to the students’ own definitions. Physically deformed, clumsy, and uncontrolled were all minority views; as was abnormal; and yet in their definitions physical impairment was a very strong element (71 per cent) and also deviance from norms (29 per cent). There seemed to be almost a squeamishness abou t subscription to these terms. (To be fair, there are now considerable difficulties in referring to any group of people who are artificially lumped together, and when people with disabilities themselves discussed terminology they came to no conclusions either).

The results indicate that students considered one socially acceptable way of t h i n k i n g abou t people with

106 0 1988 British Institute of Mental Handicap

MENTAL HANDICAP VOL. 16 SEPTEMBER 1988

Category of relationship

disabilities is as “disadvantaged”. Otherwise, their stereotype was rather patronising; perhaps reflecting society’s stereotypes of happy, smiling people in advertising campaigns. The underlying theme is that of dependence and low status. For example, responsive is a term often used to refer to children, or to people from whom a response is not expected; thus it implies that people with disabilities are responders rather than initiators of action.

The results emanating from personal knowledge of a person with a disability and the social distance measures are clearly related. The small figure of 18 per cent of students who did not know anyone with a disability is probably an overestimate, in that two students later stated that they did know someone but “did not think of them in that way”. This general familiarity probably influenced the social distance results.

The clear area of reluctance is that of commitment of leisure time. In a previous survey of student attitudes using a social distance scale, the findings were different, and different for the three categorical groups of mentally ill, mentally handicapped, and physically handicapped. The results from the present survey were most like those obtained from the previous survey categorical group of physically handicapped, and were in line with the students’ own definitions.

Students expressed their feelings about meeting a person with a disability in much the same way as members of the general public. In addition, 15 qualified their statements by suggesting that it depended upon the person, either their personality or their disability. Some disabilities are clearly easier for others to cope with as they are less likely to give rise to feelings of alarm or inadequacy. The unease in encounters between people carrying a stigma and those unstigmatised has been described (Comer and Piliavin, 1972). Interactions are made uneasy by t h e self- consciousness of those attempting to pass as unstigmatised, and those who are uncertain about the ground rules for interactions (Goffman, 1963).

Overall, the attitudes of the students were positive in their expression. They were clearly aware of the dangers of categorisation by disability rather than in understanding and accepting the person. It is interesting that none of the

Per cent Number (f-s rounded)

Family member Know someone Know no-one

I TOTAL

I I I I I I

14 19 52 72 13 18

79 109

Social distance indicators

Live near Work with Work alongside Spend leisure time More money needed Marriage of friendrelative

I I 1 I

Yes Yes No

per cent per cent per cent 99 71 1 82 58 12 97 70 2 75 50 16 93 67 1 86 59 8

TABLE 3. Students’ relationships with people with disabilities

Defktions

Accepted definition Don’t know No difference Disability from accident handicap from birth Disability more physical handicap more mentallgeneral Disability more serious Disability less serious Disability not abnormal Handicap more general term Nature of disability

Replies

3 (2 replies opposite way) 23 7 5

11 8 6 1 3 1

~ 100 100 84 84 52

100 88 80

TABLE 5. Students defktions of the difference(s) between disability and handicap

n=

I I

23 25 14

Social distance indicators

Live in the same street Live next door Work with Share social activities Share a house Visit once a week Help financially support As spouse of close friend or relative

100 96 87 83 57 96 52 57

100 100 100 93 79

100 64 86

students claimed to be-disabled, though enabling people who are devalued, by some were. T h e pr inc ip les of dint of disability or stigma, to be normalisation offer ground rules for accepted positively as people in their

0 1988 British Institute of Mental Handicap

own right in society (Wolfensberger, 1972). Thestudents’positiveviewsseem to have been influenced by the

107

MENTAL HANDICAP VOL, 16 SEPTEMBER 1988

application of these principles in the university, though not as a deliberate policy. For example, in the university equality of status is seen as important for ensuring posit ive valuing, and individualised integration is considered to be necessary, so that each person can be perceived as an individual with personal attributes rather than as a disability first. The campus has been built with easy access to all areas so that students with physical disabilities can live on equal terms with the able-bodied.

These are all important lessons when considering the integration of children into mainstream schooling, and when considering the desegregation of adults from institutions into the community: all must be given equal status with their peers. Should support or help be required, this should preferably be given by someone who is older so that people are not demeaned by being helped by someone who would be of lower status

than them, all other things being equal. interactions, and the responsibilities There should be no group integration, since this allows others to argue that members of the stigmatised group need one another, are different from other people, and as a group should keep to themselves. Personal integration is vital for success. In addition there is a need for tasks to be set where the stigmatised individual will also be able to offer as much as the others , and where satisfaction can be shared for successful task completion (McConkey and McCormack, 1983).

One cautionary aspect should be taken into account from the survey results. The students, although positive, also expressed attitudes which could easily become paternalistic, with the students seeing themselves as being more in control and more powerful than people with disabilities. This indicates a possible underestimate of the part that the people with disabilities play in

that they carry for self-advocacy.

REFERENCES Comer, R., Piliavin, J. The &em of

physical deviance upon face to face interaction. I . Personaljity & Social

Goffman, E. Stigma: notes on the management of a spoiled identity, London: Penguin, 1963.

Kurtiz, P. A. A sociological approach to mental retardation. h Bmhin, A. Handicap in a Social World. London: Hadder and Stoughton, 1981.

McConkey, R., McCormack, R. Breaking Barriers: educating people about disability. London: Souvenir Press, 1983.

Watson, I . Semantic Differential Scale. Lancaster: Univ. Lancaster Dept. Educ. Res., 1986 (unpubl.).

Wolfensberger, W. The Principle of Normalization in Human Services. Toronto: NIMR, 1972.

PSyCholO~, 1982; 23, 33-39.

The role of “augmented mothering” in teacher education in special needs

Linda Miller Garry Ephraim ~~~~~~~ ~

The article describes the use of “augmented mothering”, a transactional approach to working with people who have profound and complex learning difficulties. First year students in the School of Education at Hatfield Polytechnic, following an initial teacher education course in “The Education of Children with Special Needs”, were involved in using the approach within experimental workshops in a hospital school setting. The students’ evaluation of the workshops suggests they may have a useful contribution to make in the training of staff involved in working with people with such learning difficulties.

In May 1986, the first author, one of the tutors involved in the initial teacher education course in special needs, in the School of Education, Hatfield Polytechnic, collaborated with an enthusiastic head teacher, staff, and the second author, to organise two “interactive workshops” at Springfield Hospital School in Hertfordshire. These workshops stemmed from a mutual interest in the role of transactional or

“augmented mothering” approaches when working with people who have profound and complex learning difficulties.

Research in the last decade has brought about a recon- ceptualisation of the young infant. Improved methodologies, such as video recording techniques, suggest that the human infant is far more competent and complex than was previously thought (Schaffer, 1977; Stern, 1977). It is now known, for example, that under laboratory conditions the two week old infant can differentiate its mother’s face from that of a stranger, and can take part in “conversational turns” soon after birth (Schaffer, 1977).

Bruner (1975) investigated strategies which mothers use in joint activity with their infants, which they believe lay the foundations for later social interaction and language development, for example, treating early responses and vocalisations from the infant as if they were intentional. A sensitive adult, who responds to a normal infant’s cues and interprets behaviours in a meaningful way, is thought to be a significant factor in fostering later communication and social competence. It is now believed that early communication skills are acquired through the daily interactions which take place between the young child and a familiar adult (parents or care givers), who could on these occasions be described as

LINDA MILLER is a Senior Lecturer in Special Needs at Hatfield Polytechnic - School of Education, Wall Hall Campus, Aldenham, Watford, Herts., WD2 8AT and GARRY EPHRAIM is a Senior Clinical Psychologist at Leavesden Hospital, Abbots Langley, Watford, WD5 ONU.

108 @ 1988 British Institute of Mental Handicap