The value of a critical realist perspective of learning disability

32 The three earlier sections in this chapter sought to demonstrate that it would be

illogical to assume that just one approach would provide sufficient conceptual tools to fully comprehend learning disability. In adopting just one approach, learning

disability has been conceptually vilified and pathologized (the individual model), neglected and devalued (the social model), or reduced and negated (strong constructionism). By moving beyond the medical versus social versus cultural determinism debate (Watson, 2012; Shakespeare 2006, 2014a), a critical realist perspective accepts that there is an external reality whether or not we have any knowledge of it. In terms of researching with people with learning disabilities, this premise moves beyond debates about what constitutes a cognitive impairment, how people with learning disabilities come to be labelled as such, their inclusion within the Disabled People’s Movement, and who can and should carry out research with people with learning disabilities. Watson (2012: 101) warns that if research sets out with a commitment to one particular understanding, for example to work towards the socio-economic emancipation of people with learning disabilities, it will ‘prevent reflexivity and an exploration of who defines and controls the research questions.’

Stalker (2012: 132) proposes that disability studies can avoid the respective

limitations of each of the three traditional models of understanding learning disability - as described above through discussion of the individual model, the social model, and social constructionism - by adopting critical realism as a ‘grand theory’ which utilises Thomas’ (1999, 2007) ‘sociology of impairment’ as a driving force. Stalker argues that a critical realist paradigm offers a nuanced understanding of learning disability, but in order to do so effectively, it must centralise Thomas’ (ibid.) work, which is equally concerned with the physiological and psycho-emotional lived experience of impairment and its effects as well as socio-structural domains where interactions can produce oppression. Adopting a single theoretical position can limit our understanding of learning disability:

To weak constructionism, which involves the idea that there is a necessarily interpreted element in the constitution of any theoretical understanding and any social object, a critical realist has no objection. However, if this is taken to imply that the phenomenon investigated is just a theoretical interpretation

33 or cognitive construction, or that a social phenomenon such as some specific form of disability exists only as an idea or belief, then it is clearly false.

Bhaskar and Danermark (2006: 283-284)

Critical realism offers a framework for understanding learning disability across multiple domains, through various social settings, and within differential levels of social reality in order to explore a more fully social understanding of such a complex phenomenon. The ‘laminated’ system that critical realism offers can more fully incorporate an exploration of learning disability into a disability studies perspective.

Below, Table 1 demonstrates the various levels at which learning disability can be explored.

‘Laminated’ scheme of disability (Bhaskar and Danermark, 2006)

Example of ‘laminated’ scheme of learning disability

Physical Impairment effects of learning disabilities (ie:

communication difficulties; requirement of additional support in daily living; difficulty with memory or learning new skills) (see chapter 6)

Biological Levels of impaired cognitive functioning based on IQ score (ie: mild, moderate, severe, profound) (see chapter 5)

Psychological Feeling devalued and left out (see chapter 7)

Psycho-social and emotional Barriers to the things a person with learning disability can do or who they feel they can become (see chapters 8 and 9)

Socio-economic Difficulty gaining employment or

categorically proving to be ‘learning disabled enough’ to receive statutory financial support (see chapter 5)

34 Cultural Differences in historical and cultural

representation of people with learning disabilities

Normative Neurotypical expectation/presumption due to

‘hidden impairment’ (see chapters 6, 8, and 9) Table 1: ‘Laminated’ scheme of learning disability

This model is by no means exhaustive, but provides a means to explore such a complex phenomenon in a stratified manner that demonstrates the ways in which experience of disablism, for example, can be ‘laminated’, or cemented further, at each level of social reality. Through a layered analysis, critical realism offers a lens

through which to observe the interaction of the various combinations of social reality where the lived experience of disablement and impairment occur, while avoiding

‘biological reductionism’ and ‘contextual essentialism’ (Watson, 2012: 102;

Shakespeare and Watson, 2010).

Furthermore, Watson (2012) explains that critical realism provides a route through which to move beyond the dualisms of structure and agency. Rather, it encourages a more fruitful discussion of their interrelation and interaction in order to better comprehend a fully situated production and interpretation of social phenomena (see Archer, 1995). Through the concept of disability identity, wider social relationships between the individual and society emerge; Shakespeare (1994) contends that the relationship between ‘disabled/non-disabled’ need not be quite so dyadic as distinctly either biological or social (see also Connell, 1987). Thomas’ (1999, 2007) ‘sociology of impairment’ with ‘impairment effects’, which foregrounds the social

contextualisation and material reality of biological impairment, supports Stalker’s claim that with regards to learning disabilities ‘neither an impairment nor its effects can be seen as purely biological; rather, they are ‘complex bio-social phenomena’’

(Stalker, 2012: 132). In their material construction, clinically-prescribed labels of impaired intellectual and cognitive ability, along with their associated social barriers, become static and socially exclusive badges (see Shakespeare, 2014a); learning disability can therefore be understood as both biological and social from this

perspective (Stalker, 2012). The critical realist paradigm allows for this plurality and

35 serves to avoid the epistemic fallacy of making the assumption that reality is as we so label it; for example, that all ‘learning disability’ is the same and is experienced in the same way.