Download Findings and Initial Conclusions Confidential

The DEEPS Project, Centre for
Disability Studies, School of
Sociology and Social Policy.
Findings and Initial Conclusions
Working Paper 1: Non-disabled children’s
understanding of disability
© Angharad Beckett*, Sam Barrett & Nick Ellison. (University of
Leeds).
*Author for correspondence.
Email: [email protected]
The DEEPS Project, Centre for
Disability Studies, School of
Sociology and Social Policy.
We are most grateful to the ESRC for their financial support for this
study (ESRC Ref. RES-062-23-0461).
Should you wish to quote from this presentation, please cite as
follows:
Beckett, A.E., Barrett, S. and Ellison, N. (2009) ‘Non-disabled children’s
understanding of disability’, DEEPS Project Working Paper 1, School of Sociology
& Social Policy, University of Leeds.
http://www.sociology.leeds.ac.uk/research/projects/deeps/ (date viewed).
Research questions for
this stage of the
research
1)
What are primary-age children’s understandings of
disability and the lives/life chances of disabled
people?
2)
Where, when and from whom are non-disabled
children currently gaining their knowledge about
disability/lives of disabled people?
3)
Is there any evidence of ‘disabling’ (perhaps even
‘disablist’?), or potentially disabling, ideas within
primary-age children’s understanding of, and
attitudes towards, disabled people?
Focus Groups with
Children
• Focus groups were undertaken with non-disabled
children in 6 case study primary schools in England
• 2 focus groups/school: one with year 2 (ages 6-7) and
one with year 6 (ages 10-11) children
• Between 5-9 children per focus group
• 35 year 6 children
• 39 year 2 children
Selection of children: schools were asked to select children
who they felt represented their student population (i.e. an
appropriate ‘mix’ of children).
No child was interviewed without the prior consent of their
Headteacher and/or parents/guardian.
Focus Groups with
Children
Questioning was semi-structured and similar between age groups – we just re-phrased
questions as appropriate for the year 2 children. Lines of questioning included:
•
How do you know if someone is a disabled person? Is it always possible to know if
someone is disabled?
Why are some people disabled (i.e. what causes disability)?
Do you think that disabled people are the same as, or different from people who are not
disabled? In what ways are they similar or different?
We also asked a series of questions about disabled ‘grown-ups’:
•
Do you think that some disabled people can do well at school? Can they go to
college/university?
•
Do you think that disabled people can have jobs? If ‘yes’ - what kind of jobs? If ‘no’, why
might they not be able to have a job?
•
Do you think that when disabled people are grown-up they can have girlfriends and
boyfriends, perhaps get married?
•
Do you think that disabled people can have children/families?
•
How do you think non-disabled people treat disabled people?
•
What do you think it would be like to be a disabled person?
We also asked questions to establish where children had ‘learnt’ about disability – At school?
At home? From TV?
Focus Groups with
Children
• Year 6 method: focus group began with an
activity – mind mapping ‘disability’, followed by a
semi-structured focus group discussion
• Year 2 method: focus group began by sharing a
story – ‘Harry, Willy & Carrothead’ (story about a
child who has a prosthetic arm, joining a
‘mainstream’ school), followed by a semistructured focus group discussion
Structure of
presentation:
Begins by outlining findings of mindmapping with year 6 and associated
thematic analysis
Followed by a summary of key themes
emerging from focus group discussions
with year 2 and 6 children
Conclusions
MIND-MAPPING
DISABILITY
 We begin this presentation by outlining the results of a ‘concept mapping’ or
‘mind mapping’ exercise carried out with year 6 children as an ‘activity’ at
the start of each focus group.
 Children were asked to close their eyes and then the researcher said: ‘now,
I’m going to say the word disability and I want you to think about that word
for a minute and then when you open your eyes again, I would like you to
draw me a mind-map of all the thoughts that came into your head about
disability and disabled people’.
 The following slides are examples of mind maps drawn by children.
 Mind-maps provided the starting point for discussion – what children said
about their mind-maps and subsequent discussion was analysed as part of
the qualitative data. But the content of the mind-maps was also analysed
using a blend of qualitative and quantitative content analysis. Themes were
identified using qualitative analysis and then the occurrence of key terms
associated with each theme was quantified.
Mind-Maps
Mind Maps
Heather Mills had lost half her
leg in an accident. This
happened when a police
motorbike came face to face
with her. This didn’t stop her
dancing though! She went on
“Strictly come dancing”
Some people are
temporarily disabled which
means they have been in an
accident and hurt
themselves
5 out of 100 people have a
disability wheelchair.
Steven Hawkins is
a Genius.
Disabilities
Paralympics
Tiger Woods
Mikey off Big
Brother
Penny Pocket from
Balamory
All spellings as in the originals!
Some people may sound a bit odd when
they talk but it’s because it sounds right in
their head but it comes out a bit odd.
It doesn’t matter if you have an
impairment, you can still achieve
your dream.
Mind Maps
They always need
someone with them
Make sure no-one takes there
place. Careing.
warmth
Hospital Careing
Wheel Chairs
Disability
neck
Look out for
them
Bandages
frames
legs
casts
shopping
Arms
Helping disabled
people
Walking Sticks
Helping
across the
road
Looking
after
Without legs
Mind Maps
cancer
blinde
Sorry for them
Heart problems
braindamidge
Disability
Weel chare
chuma
Down
stindome
Can’ts work
dowfisam
difficulties
Learn disabilies
Mind Maps (MM)
Wheil Chair
They suffer
The can’t do the same
thing as us
ADHD
Learning
Disability
Downsindrome
Behavior problems
Feel sorry
Astma
OCD
Dislexia
MM Thematic Analysis
• Most frequently occurring theme was a
tendency towards ‘medical model’
understanding – this was demonstrated
by reference to:
- particular types of impairment (112 refs)
- aids – wheelchairs no.1, closely followed
by zimmer-frames (38 refs)
- hospitals/medication/treatment (27 refs)
The Open University provides a really helpful summary of the medical model
for anyone less familiar with the medical model and its ‘problems’ – please
follow this link: http://www.open.ac.uk/inclusiveteaching/pages/understanding-andawareness/medical-model.php
MM Thematic Analysis
•
Next theme (related): disabled people are
people who have ‘different’ bodies
-
‘bodies don’t work properly’ (3 refs)
references to ‘Body Shock’ type TV
programmes – e.g.
‘more legs & more arms’ (this is a
reference to Channel 4’s Body Shock
episode: ‘The Girl with Eight Limbs’);
‘tree man/half man half tree’ (this is a
reference to Discovery Channel’s My
Shocking Story episode: ‘Half Man, Half
Tree’, also shown as part of Channel 5’s
Extraordinary People series) (5 refs)
http://www2.five.tv/program
mes/extraordinarypeople/
http://www.channel4.com/pr
ogrammes/bodyshock
MM Thematic Analysis
• Next theme: disabled people as ‘incapable’ or
‘unable’
- can’t…walk/talk/do the same things as
us/control themselves/work (38 refs of this
type)
MM Thematic Analysis
• Next theme: ‘tragedy model’ thinking
- Non-disabled children felt that it would
be sad/horrible/lonely/hard to be a
disabled person (17 refs)
- They associated disability with pain and
suffering (6 refs)
- ‘Feeling sorry for disabled people’ –
was the general theme here
Whilst this may not, at first glance, appear to be the most ‘sinister’ of themes – there is a wealth of literature devoted to two
topics:
1.
The important difference between ‘sympathy’ and ‘empathy’ and why empathy is the more powerful of the two. In brief,
sympathy is usually associated with sentiments of ‘pity’ – this is often rejected by disabled people as disempowering.
Empathy occurs when non-disabled people try to imagine how a disabled person is feeling. It involves understanding
and ACTION, not just pity.
2.
Tragedy model thinking is considered to be very problematic when it occurs within the adult population. For interesting
critiques of Tragedy Model thinking please see the following links: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disabilitystudies/archiveuk/swain/affirmative%20chapter.pdf (you may need to cut and paste previous link into your browser for it
to open) or http://blobolobolob.blogspot.com/2007/03/tragedy-model-of-disability.html
MM Thematic Analysis
• Next theme: children were aware of bullying/negative
attitudes towards disabled people (10 refs) and
stated that this was a ‘bad thing’
• They stated that they knew that disabled people are
sometimes ‘laughed at’ and called names, and one
child thought that disabled people might not be
‘loved as much’
MM Thematic Analysis
•
Next theme: how ‘we’ (non-disabled people) should
treat disabled people (12 refs). Very varied set of
responses. Children said:
-
We should ‘care for them’ and ‘look out for them’
-
Disabled people should have friends (implied – they
don’t always)
-
With help they can do everything (a few comments of
this type were a little bit ‘overly optimistic’, suggesting
a lack of full awareness of impact of a disabling
society)
-
There should be more things in the playground for
disabled children
-
‘We should not treat them as different’ and ‘We should
talk to them fairly’
Qualitative Responses
• Discussions in focus groups with both year
groups largely echoed the themes from the
mind-mapping exercise
• But in addition, further questioning elicited
the following types of response:
Qualitative Responses
 First thing to note: many children in year 2 found it
difficult to distinguish between injury ‘broken legs’ and
permanent impairment, but not all, so there is no general
‘trend’ here
 By year 6 most children understood this distinction…they explained
the causes of disability either in terms of genetics ‘Would it be something
to do with the mother, like? Would she have something and she’s passed
it down onto the kids?’ (quote) OR accident ‘Could you, like, become
disabled in a car accident?’ (quote)
 BUT, year 6 children were not always entirely clear on this point and
they found the illness/disability distinction more problematic e.g. asking
‘is cancer a disability’? (quote)
Qualitative Responses
• ‘Can’t do things’ theme: at year 2, children focused upon
disabled people being ‘unable’ to do things that are familiar to
them
Angharad, picking up on
discussion re. wheelchair
users not being able to ‘do
stuff’: ‘So, what might
someone who uses a
wheelchair not be able to do?’
Child year 2: ‘A roly-poly’
However, after sharing a story
about a disabled child who
attends a ‘mainstream’ school, a
non-disabled child made the
following observation:
“It’s interesting because it’s
amazing how people can do
things even if they don’t have
a proper arm.”
Child Year 2.
Suggestion: stories can play an important
role in changing attitudes…
Disabled people &
education
There was not a
great deal of
discussion of this,
except at School C,
during the year 6
focus group:
During wider discussion it was clear
that the children felt that in a small
context like their school, a disabled
person could feel welcomed and
respected. But ‘out there’ in the
wider world, in a ‘big place’ like a
University, they felt that a disabled
person might be more at risk of
experiencing ‘nastiness’.
Angharad: do you think that disabled people
can do well at school, maybe go onto college
or university?
Many children: yes!
Angharad: is that all disabled people?
(…)
Child 1: some people don’t choose to
because university is quite a big place and
they could get mocked quite a lot.
Angharad: so you think that they might be
quite nervous about going to somewhere like
a university?
Child 1: yeah – very.
Disabled people &
relationships
Yr 2 children – focused
upon ‘practicalities’ as
they saw them…
“If two people are disabled they
wouldn’t be able to get married
because the disabled person
wouldn’t be able to get a ring that
fits.”
Child Year 2.
One child carefully explained that disabled people cannot get married because
they would be unable to ‘consummate’ their relationship. This child also
‘demonstrated’ how the disabled person might be unable to perform the sex act
– he was very serious throughout:
In answer to question, would a disabled ‘grown-up’ be able to have a
girlfriend/boyfriend, perhaps get married, he stated?
“No, because you have to have two hands, because you have to put the
arms around the body of one people.”
Child Year 2.
Disabled people &
relationships
In answer to questioning about
whether disabled people (grownups) can have
girlfriends/boyfriends, perhaps
get married?
“Child 1: Most of them can’t.
Child 2: Because they’re in a
wheelchair.
Child 3: And people probably
think that they’re ugly.”
Same question, different
response:
“It’s like the same with
dwarves miss. They get
married to normal people but
sometimes the normal people
just don’t want to. They say ‘I
don’t want to know you
because you’re weird and I
don’t want you to be my
friend.’”
Child Year 6.
Child Year 6.
Year 6: focused more upon the issue of
‘attractiveness’ – interesting given their age
group and their own emerging sexuality?
Disabled people &
parenting
Having children
Excerpt from a focus group
with year 6 children – this
group were concerned with
congenital impairments:
Angharad: Do you think that
disabled people can
sometimes have a baby?
Child 1: Yeah, but it would
keep going disabled all the
way down thing.
Child 2: Yeah, they would be
able but they could be
disabled.
‘I think it would be really hard (for a
disabled person – ed.) to have a child
because it might be hard to lie down in
the bed where you have your baby pulled
out’.
(Child mimes the idea that wheelchair users
are rather like Lego-people and are
permanently shaped in the sitting position).
Year 2.
Again, at year 2, a focus on ‘practicalities’
and disabled people being ‘unable’ to do
things…
However, where a child had a family
member who is disabled, they
answered ‘of course’ to this question:
“My Uncle has got 3 kids”
Disabled people
and work
Can disabled
people have
jobs?
At year 6, children more likely to
say ‘yes’ immediately or ‘some
can’ and then discuss
‘practicalities’…but
Child who had witnessed
someone also
(withtoabe
more aware that employers
learning difficulty, perhaps?) being trained to
might
At year 2 children morework
likelywithin
to answer
‘no’,
at discriminate against
a shop:
least initially & then ‘yes’! They were rather disabled people.
unsure. In one school they said that disabled
“Well,
I saw one
(disabled
person
– they
people could possibly
be ‘dustbin
men’,
“If
they’re blind
then
ed.)…and
he was
on the
thisa job
‘postmen’ or perhaps
‘millionaires’
(!)
won’t
be tills
ableand
to get
person was showing
himsay
what
to do
andin
because,
if they
work
In another, a year 2 child
said: ‘No –(they
can’t
everything
so he
could see,
and
I think
a factory,
and
they
turn
“No
because
the
bosses
work). They have to gothat
in the
justI think
sit
hehouse
couldand
like.
he
know
how
toin
blind,
if…they
got
trapped
only
like
people
who
can do
down. And they
can watch
TV.’
work
it, it was
just
a
matter
of
learning
it.
a
machine,
their
arm
might
everything.
TheyBut
don’t
like
So some of them
can
do
stuff.
it’s
behad
cuta off orwho
theyhave
might die”
But one child did also say: ‘If someone
hard for them. Oncepeople
they’ve
learned
it
Year
6.
wheelchair, right, they could work in an office
wrong
with
then
they’re justsomething
like a normal
person.”
and type on the
computer’.
them.” Year 6.Year 6.
Fear…?
•
There was some suggestion from both year groups that non-disabled children
find the idea of disability (or more accurately, ‘impairment’) and the appearance
of ‘different bodies’ frightening…and sometimes this strays into mild aversion
e.g. when talking about a prosthetic limb several children said that they
wouldn’t want to touch it in case ‘it came off’ (this was clearly a horrifying
thought, although they were also worried that they might break it or hurt the
person)
The following
an aexcerpt
from awith
focus
group
discussion with
Excerpt is
from
focus group
year
6 children:
year 2 children:
Child 1: They sometimes look different.
Child
(Appalled/horrified
tone) At Manchester, in town, I saw
Angharad:
In1:
what
way?
someone in
a wheelchair
with no legs.
Child 1: Because sometimes
they
have like dis-shapen
arms or they’re a
bit skinny like…and all that kind of stuff.
Angharad:
you?
Child 2: Because their feet go
lop-sidedDid
when
they’re walking they
wobble.
Child
2: (Even
more
appalled/horrified
tone)
I didn’t
hear
Child 3:
(Appalled
tone)
They
usually have stuff
down
theirwish
fronttobecause
that!
they can’t eat proper.
Contemporary ‘freak
show’ TV
• Outside of school, the ‘family’ did
not appear to be a major source of
information. The most frequently
referenced ‘source’ was television
and, in particular, the ‘body shock’
type documentaries, as previously
mentioned
• The ‘fear and aversion’ theme was
most apparent during discussions
of these documentaries, which
children obviously found
distressing. Although there was
also a sense in which some
children perhaps rather ‘enjoyed’
being ‘terrified’.
But it was also evident that some
children are watching horror movies
and thinking that they are real and
perceiving certain images as portrayals
of disabled people (whether or not this
was the intention of the film makers):
Child Year 6: I watched this
programme and this woman gave
birth to a baby and it was a devil.
Angharad: Was this real, or was this
a story?
Child: No, it were real.
Head-teacher later stated that this child
watches 18 rated movies with an older
sibling & that they regularly have to
deal with his distress
Celebrity disabled people
Interesting discussions took place, particularly amongst year 6 children about various famous
people who are/were disabled. In all cases, children had learnt about these individuals
within school.
It is rather difficult to draw conclusions about this issue because there were more and less
positive aspects to these discussions. Less positive was the fact that although children
clearly admired these ‘exceptional individuals’, there was a sense in which this was not
resulting in a change in their general attitude towards disabled people. Nevertheless, there
were clearly some positive outcomes of this type of teaching and our ‘reservations’ are not
major.
Excerpt from focus group with year 6 children:
+ve
Children clearly admired
people like Helen Keller,
Stephen Hawking and Franklin
Roosevelt. They were
particularly ‘struck’ by
President Roosevelt’s story.
Child 1 (re. President Roosevelt): his desk, he had this
thingy so you could never even see his wheelchair.
Angharad: why do you think he didn’t want people to know
that he used a wheelchair?
Child 1: Because everybody would think he was different
and they might not want him as president.
(…)
Child 2: If people like, don’t want him to be president and
they don’t vote for him because he’s disabled – like first
they were going to vote for him then they never because
he’s disabled – then that’s just stupid because they should
all get a fair chance.
And finally…
Children spoke about how
‘we’ (non-disabled people)
should treat disabled
people. Most children
thought that ‘being kind’
was important, but further
comments included:
We learned that, even if you don’t
like somebody on the outside, if
they are disabled, if you got to know
them you might find that they are
really nice on the inside…that was
one of our main things in our last
lesson. School C Year 6.
I don’t like it when people treat
disabled people unfairly, because I
think there should be a law about
treating them unfairly.
School C Year 6.
Disabled people are still
human beings. I don’t think
people should treat them
different just because they’ve
got a little problem with
them.
School D Year 6.
Conclusions…
No. 1: Non-disabled children, even as young as 6/7 years old,
are clearly ready to discuss the issue of disability – indeed,
they are already thinking about disability issues and
respond positively to new information. Isn’t it time that we
gave them the opportunity to critically engage with the issue
of disability?
Other conclusions:
Non-disabled children need more information to help tackle some of their
misunderstandings - some of which although innocently/naively articulated (on the
whole) are nevertheless potentially disabling and find their echoes in the disabling
attitudes that we know are expressed by many adults. We also need to work to
overcome the tendency towards ‘othering’ in the attitudes of non-disabled children.
We suggest that non-disabled children need to experience meeting disabled
people & to hear about the realities of their lives. Children who had had direct
experience of interacting with disabled people in their families or local community
had a more accurate and realistic understanding of the lives of disabled people.
Conclusions…
•
Teachers and parents need to be aware of the
impact of TV and film on children’s attitudes
towards disability. Additionally, this issue
warrants further investigation by researchers in
order to understand the manner in which children
‘engage’ with media representations of
impairment/disability.
•
TV and film makers need to be aware of who may
be watching their products, despite ‘watersheds’
and to continue to think about how they present
impairment/disability. ‘Freak Show’ TV is, we
suggest, problematic.
And finally…
•
Educators and other individuals who wish to
promote positive attitudes towards disabled
people have a good starting point – the innate
sense of justice and fairness that many nondisabled children possess and that has already
been encouraged/fostered by many schools.
•
This would be a good place to begin discussions
about disability equality – indeed, it is to such
concepts that children appear to turn when
discussing disability, given some encouragement.