An Overview of the Models of Disability

Pfeiffer (2002) discusses Models of disability, suggesting that models are used to analyse and measure variables in order to generate hypotheses concerning the nature of disability.

Language and terminology concepts provide an insight into the common societal perceptions of disability and therefore the views of disabled people as seen by society. Disability researchers state that the way in which disability is described has a real effect on the experience of disabled people. Finkelstein (1993, p.13) stated:

‘Regardless of personal wishes therefore, being labeled as disabled is a fact of life for all disabled people in the contemporary world. As long as there is no possibility of gaining access to services or social welfare benefits without surrendering to the label ‘disabled’ there is no

possibility of maintaining that an individual or group is not disabled.

The use of equipment such as wheelchairs, or forms of communication, such as brail signing, not used by normal people, only confirms the user as a disabled person.’

As a designer, I find this a compelling reason to discover the foundation of the relationship between disability and its representation to and in society.

Developing a greater understanding of this relationship will ensure that the process of design provides a positive and liberating experience rather than further forming shackles to the expression of an individual’s experience, regardless of how well meant or how functional.

Over the past decades there has been a distinct movement away from what came to be commonly known as the medical model of disability. The medical model (WHO 2001) was originally devised by clinical staff and was used to define a person as a condition. The model has a number of drawbacks, especially when considered against a framework of social change. Within this model the

individual is not valued and the need is to cure the disability, the consequence of which is to lead to an exclusive methodology, which oppresses disabled people through a process of assumption and stereotyping. Subsequent social models have moved away from this medical standpoint to include the effect of the environment on the experience of the individual.

The social model (Crow 1996) is based on the assumption that the individual is valued and that disability is something which is created by society. The model has supported a worldwide movement, which in the UK has led to the

development of the Disability Discrimination Act (HMSO 1995).

With the shift in societal perspectives concerning disability, I feel that there is a need to look at the conceptual framework of disability in a more functional light.

The need is not to give up the fight for equal rights and equality of opportunity, but to send out a clear message that the individual is to be valued in every way regardless of impairment, and that the key to true and meaningful social

inclusion is to send out a simple clear message, which seeks to educate, inform and provoke thought. As Finkelstein and French (1993, p.33) stated:

‘There is a dynamic relationship between impairment and disability which we believe provides the starting-point for the construction of a new approach to the psychology of disability.’

There is a growing requirement for the complex and sometimes daunting issues concerned with disability to be expanded upon in a manner which facilitates a greater level of understanding above and beyond the social model. I therefore propose that the social model is expanded upon to form a functional model of disability. According to Crow (1996, p.55):

‘Acknowledging the relevance of impairment is essential to ensuring that people are knowledgeable about their own circumstances.’

This has been recognized from a developmental standpoint by WHO (2002), which noted the importance of addressing the social and physical environment to improve function and performance.

The use of a functional model is also supported by the Disability Rights Commission (DRC 2006), which suggests that organisations develop access statements as a way of communicating their compliance with UK Disability Discrimination Legislation.

The functional model has been adopted by WHO with the generation of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF, WHO 2001). The ICF (WHO 2001) is a classification of health and health domains that describes how people live with their health condition, including body

structure, body function, activity and participation, classifying according to body, individual and societal (including environmental) perspectives.

It is the development of international perspectives and models of disability which has helped facilitate the development of national legislative structures, such as the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act (1995), in the UK. This is illustrated in the introduction to WHO’s functional classification system (WHO 2001), which states that the ICF can be used to aid the implementation of

international human rights.

In the functional model, the individual is still valued and individual

requirements are decided upon through a process of user-led consultation, thus placing the individual in the centre of the development cycle. From this positive human-centred standpoint, it is then possible to look at the functional profile of the individual in order to develop a greater level of understanding about the individual. On a collective basis, the functional model allows those involved in planning provision of opportunities or design, to build a level of understanding about the true nature of the human continuum. With a greater level of

understanding it is then possible to look for patterns of function in order to adopt a barrier-free approach to the provision of services, opportunities or equipment.

In sport, the functional model has been used to promote fair competition between people with differing disabilities (Meaden 1991). Meaden’s research considered the way in which athletes were classified into competition categories in order to provide a structure for fair and equitable performance structures. By segmenting the body, the profile system provides a model of human

performance. It creates a platform for issues to be discussed at face value and the model makes it possible to compare the movement capabilities of individuals with similar performance profiles.