Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-fwgfc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T21:51:35.930Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - Models of disability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 August 2009

Michael P. Barnes
Affiliation:
University of Newcastle upon Tyne
Harriet Radermacher
Affiliation:
University of Newcastle upon Tyne
Get access

Summary

Introduction

In the context of community rehabilitation it is particularly important to define the underlying philosophy of service delivery. The predominant model underlying most healthcare provision across the world is the so-called ‘medical model’. However, in recent years disabled people themselves and their lobbyists have been promoting an alternative view of disability – the ‘social model’. This chapter will describe the principles of each model to ensure that the reader can take on board the purpose and implications of the different approaches to disability. However, it is important to emphasize that these two models of disability are not entirely incompatible. A comprehensive health service probably needs to draw on some aspects of both models so that health professionals and disabled people can work together to ensure that high-quality rehabilitation is delivered to all those that need it in an equitable and participative fashion.

The purpose of models

Models attempt to provide a framework through which the understanding of a concept can be easily grasped. The challenge is to make sense of often complex and multifaceted concepts in simple ways. Creating models offer ways in which to make sense of the world. Ultimately, however, they are artificial constructions of ideas that are not created so as to fit neatly into rigid frameworks. Thus, probably there are no models that adequately reflect the entirety of a concept. Different models propose explanations for the same concept in different ways, but really they may only represent different components of the same concept.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bricher, G. (2000). Disabled people, health professionals and the social model of disability: can there be a research relationship?Disability and Society 15, 781–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brisenden, S. (1986). Independent living and the medical model. Disability, Handicap and Society 1, 173–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bury, M. (2000). A comment on the ICIDH 2. Disability and Society 15, 1073–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halbertsma, J., Heerkens, Y. F., Hirs, W. M. et al. (2000). Towards a new ICIDH. International classification of impairments, disabilities and handicaps. Disability and Rehabilitation 22, 144–56CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harwood, R. H., Rogers, A., Dickinson, E. and Ebrahim, S. (1994). Measuring handicap: the London Handicap Scale. A new outcome measure for chronic disease. Quality in Health Care 3, 11–16CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Imrie, R. (1997). Rethinking the relationships between disability, rehabilitation and society. Disability and Rehabilitation 19, 263–71CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, J., Meltzer, H. and Elliot, D. (1988). The Prevalence of Disability among Adults. OPCS Report 1. London: HMSO.
Lang, R. (1998). A critique of the Disability Movement. Asia Pacific Disability Rehabilitation Journal 9, 4–8Google Scholar
Pfeiffer, D. (2000). The devils are in the details: the ICIDH2 and the disability movement. Disability and Society 15, 1079–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shakespeare, T. and Erickson, M. (2000). Different strokes: beyond biological essentialism and social constructionism. In Coming to Life, ed. M. Rose and S. Rose. New York: Little Brown
Shakespeare, T. and Watson, N. (2002). The social model of disability: an outdated ideology?Research in Social Science and Disability 2Google Scholar
UPIAS (1976). Fundamental Principles of Disability. London: Union of Physically Impaired Against Segregation
World Health Organization (1980). International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps. Albany, NY: WHO.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×