Abstract
This article aims to stimulate new thinking about learning disabilities than is customary in local literature. Previous educational and psychological studies concerning learning disabilities regarded them as if they were objective categories with formal definitions and criteria accepted in scholarly literature. Contrary to that, this article explores the various conceptions, constructions, and meanings of learning disabilities that comprise the narrative descriptions and explanations of didactic diagnosticians. For this purpose, 50 in-depth interviews were conducted. There are four sections. Part One lays out the theoretical and methodological background of the sociological and discursive debate about learning disabilities. Part Two explores the various main thematic aspects and narrative strategies that were used by the diagnosticians in their construction of their purportedly ‘objective’, ‘a-historical’, ‘a-political’ experts’ narrative. The third part reveals the polyphonic multifaceted nature of the learning disabilities construct. The experts’ narrative undermines the objective and homogeneous definitions in the literature by uncovering learning disabilities’ heterogeneous meaning repertoire. This repertoire consists, among others, of conceptualizing disability as a ‘disease’, a ‘symptom’, a ‘genetic defect’, a ‘disorder’, an ‘educational difficulty’, a ‘variance’, and even a ‘gift’. This part also reveals the experts’ narrative reaction strategies to the aforementioned polyphonic spectacle. It is revealed that the interviewees’ narrative deconstructs the ‘scientific factual nature’ of the clinical categories. The fourth part highlights a central paradox in the expert narrative: The tension between the narrative stigmatic—labeling aspects and the destigmatic—‘liberating’ aspects. The claim is made that this tension can partly explain the current popularity of the LD diagnosis. This article is the third in a series of papers that seeks to contribute to the creation of a more nuanced disability discourse by exposing its shaky scientific foundations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For a conservative (intra-paradigmatic) general discussion of this profession in the Israeli field see: Gumpel and Sharoni 2007.
The majority of the didactic-diagnosticians in the learning disabilities field in Israel are women. This genderized aspect of the didactic-diagnosis profession will be dealt with in my forthcoming article.
The Israeli educational history discourse is replete with moments of educational failures purportedly caused by educational authorities negligence. These failures lurk in the background of didactic-diagnosticians accounts making their claims for educational remediation via the use of learning disabilities labels seem justified.
Contextual factors (such as class, ethnicity and culture) had an important role in the historical formation of the learning disabilities field in Israel since its inception in the nineteen-sixties. The special educational track of learning disabilities in Israel was directed at a particular audience: children of culturally enriched, well-off , westernized and educated parents. This track served these children in a supportive, inclusive and integrative educational and social route. Other children, who were ‘less fortunate’, such as children who came from the poor echelons of society or from families from a Levantine cultural background, were served by a different special educational route (the ‘cultural deprivation’ route) which relegated them to the margins of Israeli society. For a detailed historical description and analysis of these two contrasting special educational routes in Israel see: Katchergin 2009 (in Hebrew), Katchergin 2012.
In this regard it should be noted that the author of the current paper is not himself a clinician nor diagnostician . I do have an academic background in psychology, education and learning disabilities as well as a few years of working experience with learning disabled children (as a remedial-teaching teacher). Yet, my general theoretical orientation to learning disabilities is informed by the disciplines of sociology, discourse-analysis, history and disability-studies. It may be that my ‘mixed’ position (that of a learning disabilities scholar and lecturer which nevertheless reframes learning disabilities within the still locally marginal cultural and social paradigms in that regard) was hard for the interviewees to digest. This was further reflected in comments I received from a few of the interviewees who said (after the ‘formal interview’ ended) that they had not expected an educator and learning disabilities scholar to ask the ‘disturbing’ questions I had asked. These comments might indicate the interesting phenomenon of institutional, paradigmatic and ideological-political interlinks within the established learning disabilities academic departments in Israel, as well as the power of liminal academic position (in this case a sociologist based in educational academic departments) to reveal ‘unthought-of’ lacunas.
Indeed extra-professional or extra-paradigmatic investigations of the learning disabilities field in Israel are virtually non-existent. The scarce researches of learning disabilities that are conducted from a sociological, anthropological or cultural perspectives (in contrast to the educational and psychological perspectives) are posited on the fringe of the Israeli academic or public discourses. See: Katchergin 2009.
The scarce data that reveal the fact that there is an overrepresentation of learning disabled students in well-off cities, neighborhoods and schools in Israel attests to the fact that the learning disabilities field immersion in socioeconomic class issues is not only an historical fact but also a current social problem.
The amusing response of one of the interviewees is indicative in this context as an illustration of ‘de-politicization’. While testifying on behalf of the didactic-diagnosticians’ expertise she remarked:
Interestingly American literature was found as the professional point of reference for the Israeli didactic-diagnosticians. Many of them claimed to base their knowledge of learning disabilities on the American DSM. Moreover, the Israeli professional canon in this regard that was mentioned by them was also found to be heavily influenced by American texts and definitions ( Among the most prominent of the researchers that comprise the Israeli professional canon in this regard are Rivka Kidron, Shimeon Simpson, Shlomo Sharan, Yael Sharan, Ali Darin and Rafael Belgor).
On the definitions of learning disabilities which are accepted in the current Israeli professional literature see note number 17.
The American DSM has a great influence on the current Israeli learning disabilities field. Thus, Many of the interviewees affirmed that this text was the most important textual authority regarding learning disabilities. They especially mentioned its medical base as the reason for its elevated status. This is another manifestation of the medicalization processes that permeate the learning disabilities field in Israel.
This ambivalent attitude regarding psychiatrists and psychiatric imagery was apparent among many of the interviewees and in different phases of the interviews. On the on hand, they relied on the DSM. On the other hand, they made an effort to stress the special character of ‘the disorder’, their educational training, and their professional autonomy regarding its diagnosis and treatment, as vital conditions for understanding this disorder and treating it.
Prior to the spread of the term ‘learning disabilities’ since the mid-sixties Israeli educational specialists used a variety of pathologiziing terms which are considered nowadays as ‘derogatory’ and ‘stigmatic’. Some of these terms were rapidly discarded (such as, abnormal children or a-normal children). Others changed from time to time (the terms “children with battered brains” turned into concepts like “children with brain defects” and “children with brain damage”. From these developed the terms “children with brain disturbances” and “children with minimal brain damage” respectively; and yet others have remained ingrained up to the present time, although their meanings and their related cognitive associations have altered. The latter include, for example, the term “dyslexic children” (which is considered today as a sub-category of learning disabilities). Extensive reference to the developments and changes in the historical definitions of learning disabilities in Israel can be found in Katchergin 2009.
On the utilization by experts of varied interpretative strategies that mediate in practice between the quantitative results of clinical tests and the conclusions which are derived from these tests see Peyrot 1995.
In the last decade various academic professions vie with didactic-diagnosticians for the learning disabled clientele. At the heart of the inter-professional conflict lies the claim of each profession that its body of knowledge is the most suitable in relation to an adequate diagnosis of learning disabilities. A few years ago it was mandated by the Israeli ministry of education that each learning disabilities diagnosis must get the approval of a certified educational psychologist. This decision was a hard blow to the didactic-diagnosticians that previously had an autonomy in administering the learning disabilities diagnosis. More on that inter-professional conflict and its implications se in a forthcoming article of mine.
And not only ‘every difficulty’ can indicate on a disability but also a lack of difficulty or even ‘a better than average’ ability can be indicators of such a disability: “every deviation is bad…even an upward deviation..something is not proper…even the in case when a child reads and writes excellently, this fact alone doesn’t exclude the possibility that he has a certain defect in one of his cognitive mechanisms…” claimed a senior diagnostician.
Thus there were interviewees that their descriptions of learning disabilities included a seemingly contradictory mixture of disease-like, symptoms, genetic defect and even genetic variability motives. Near the end of the interview these interviewees were asked to choose to the best of their efforts the most essential characteristic of these disabilities in their opinion. They were also asked to consider the meaning and implications of the concurrent existence of different descriptive motives in their accounts. Their choices made it possible to outline the graph of the seemingly mutually exclusive multiple conceptualizations of learning disabilities.
The two formal definitions of ‘learning disabilities’ which are the most popular in the Israeli professional discourse are both of American origin: the National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (NJCLD) definition of 1994 and the American Psychiatric Association definition of the same year. “Learning disabilities is a general term that refers to a heterogeneous group of disorders manifested by significant difficulties in the acquisition and use of listening, speaking, reading, writing, reasoning, or mathematical abilities. These disorders are intrinsic to the individual, presumed to be due to central nervous system dysfunction, and may occur across the life span. Problems in self-regulatory behaviors, social perception, and social interaction may exist with learning disabilities but do not by themselves constitute a learning disability. Although learning disabilities may occur concomitantly with other handicapping conditions (for example, sensory impairment, mental retardation, serious emotional disturbance), or with extrinsic influences (such as cultural differences, insufficient or inappropriate instruction), they are not the result of those conditions or influences”(in Forness and Kavale 2000). Learning Disorders are diagnosed when the individual’s achievement on individually administered, standardized tests in reading, mathematics, or written expression is substantially below that expected for age, schooling, and level of intelligence. The learning problems significantly interfere with academic achievement or activities of daily living that require reading, mathematical, or writing skills (DSM-IV 1994).
During the last decade there was an enormous expansion of the learning disabilities academic field in Israel: M.A. degrees in ‘learning disabilities studies’ were established in all of the Israeli universities, while B.A. degrees or diploma studies were established in a great number of Israeli colleges. Many learning disabilities courses were also incorporated into the standard educational B.A. degrees.
On the medicalization of the educational sphere see Petrina 2006.
In this regard it should be noted that the author of the current paper is not himself a clinician nor diagnostician . I do have an academic background in psychology, education and learning disabilities as well as a few years of working experience with learning disabled children (as a remedial-teaching teacher). Yet, my general theoretical orientation to learning disabilities is informed by the disciplines of sociology, discourse-analysis, history and disability-studies. It may be that my ‘mixed’ position (that of a learning disabilities scholar and lecturer which nevertheless reframes learning disabilities within the still locally marginal cultural and social paradigms in that regard) was hard for the interviewees to digest. This was further reflected in comments I received from a few of the interviewees who said (after the ‘formal interview’ ended) that they had not expected an educator and learning disabilities scholar to ask the ‘disturbing’ questions I had asked. These comments might indicate the interesting phenomenon of institutional, paradigmatic and ideological-political interlinks within the established learning disabilities academic departments in Israel, as well as the power of liminal academic position (in this case a sociologist based in educational academic departments) to reveal ‘unthought-of’ lacunas.
References
American Psychiatric Association. 1994 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV). Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Association.
Artiles, Alfredo 2004 The End of Innocence: Historiography and Representation in the Discursive Practice of Learning Disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities 37: 550–555.
Artman, Lavie 2011 The Diagnoses Industry. Hed Hachinuch June: 77–79 (in Hebrew).
Bazerman, Charles 1988 Shaping Written Knowledge: the Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Berger, Peter L., and Thomas Luckmann 1967 The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Penguin Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre 1988 Homo Academicus. Cambridge: Polity.
Burke, Kenneth 1966 Language as Symbolic Action: Essays on Life, Literature and Method. Berkeley: University of California.
Colyar, Julia, and Holley, Karri 2010 Narrative Theory and the Construction of Qualitative Texts. New Approaches to Qualitative Research: Wisdom and Uncertainty. M. Savin-Baden and C. H. Major, eds., pp. 70–79. London: Routledge.
Dudley-Marling, Curt 2004 The Social Construction of Learning Disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities 37: 482–489.
Fairclough, Norman 1992 Language and Power. London: Longman.
Fishbein, Ayelet 2011 Learning Disabilities—A much Desired Label. Hed Hachinuch June: 80–83 (in Hebrew).
Forness, Steven. R., and Kenneth Kavale A. 2000 What Definitions of Learning Disability say and Don’t say: A Critical Analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities 33 (3): 239–256.
Foucault, Michel 1971 Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason. London: Routledge.
Foucault, Michel 1980 Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977. C. Gordon (ed.), New York: Random House.
Faye, Jean P. 1972 Theorie du recit: Introduction aux langages totalitaires. Paris: Herman.
Gergen, Kenneth J. 1995 Social Construction and the Education Process. In Constructivism in education. L. P. Steffe and J. Gale, (eds)., pp. 17–39. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gilbert, Nigel. G., and Michael Mulkey J. 1984 Opening Pandora’s Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists’ Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Givon, Sara 2012 Didactic-Diagnosticians and Expert-Diagnosticians in Learning Functioning—Position Paper. Mofet institute bulletin 47: 62–64 (in Hebrew).
Goodley, Dan 2013 Dis/Entangling Critical Disability Studies. Disability & Society 28 (5): 631–644.
Gross, Alan G. 1990 The Rhetoric of Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gumpel, Tom. P., and Varda Sharoni 2007 Current Best Practices in Learning Disabilities in Israel. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice 22 (3): 202–209.
Hedd, Sara 1990 Learning Disabilities—Young and Adolescent: Parents’ Expectations and Conflicts in the Family. Master thesis. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University (in Hebrew).
Heiman, Tali 2000 Learning Disabilities. Tel Aviv: The Open University (in Hebrew).
Horsdal, Marianne 2012 Telling Lives: Exploring Dimensions of Narratives. London: Routledge.
Katchergin, Ofer 2009 Learning (in) Disorder: A Sociological Perspective on Learning Disabilities in Israel. Ph.D., Thesis. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University (in Hebrew).
Katchergin, Ofer 2012 Between Negative Stigma (Cultural Deprivation) and Positive Stigma (Learning Disability): The Historical Development of Two Special Education Tracks. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry 36 (4):679–711.
Kavale, Kenneth. A., and Steven Forness R. 1985 The Science of Learning Disabilities. San Diego: College-Hill.
Lamm, Oren 2005 Law Proposal Regarding Learning Disabilities Diagnosticians and Therapists—Ways to Solve the Diagnosis and Therapy Problem in Israel. Issues in Special Education and Rehabilitation 20 (1): 5–16 (in Hebrew).
Latour, Bruno, and Steve Woolgar 1986 Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Law of Students with Learning Disability Rights. 2008. Jerusalem, Israel: The Israeli Knesset (in Hebrew).
Lynch, Michael 1993 Scientific Practice and Ordinary Action: Ethnomethodological and Social Studies of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyon, Reid G. 1996 Learning Disabilities. In Child Psychopathology. E. Marsh and R. Barkley, (eds.), pp. 390–434. New York: Guilford Press.
McDermott, Ray, Shelley Goldman, and Hervé Varenne 2006 The Cultural Work of Learning Disabilities. Educational Researcher 35: 12–17.
Ministry of Education. Director General Circular—Special No. 13. 1996 (in Hebrew).
Ministry of Education. Director General Circular No. 7 (B). 2000 Studies Structure, Teaching Principles and Timetable Organization in the Primary School (in Hebrew).
Ministry of Education. Director General Circular No. 4 (B). 2003 Accomodations in Examinations for Internal and External Examinees with Learning Disabilities (in Hebrew).
Petrina, Stephen 2006 The Medicalization of Education: A Historiographic Synthesis. History of Education Quarterly 46 (4): 503–531.
Peyrot, Mark 1995 Psychological Testing and Forensic Decision Making: The Properties-in-Use of the MMPI. Social Problems 42 (4): 574–586.
Reid, Kim. D., and Jan. W. Valle 2004 The Discursive Practice of Learning Disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities 37: 466–481.
Report of the Committee for Investigation of Ability Utilization of Pupils with Learning Disabilities (the Margalit report). 1997 Jerusalem: Ministry of Education, Special Education Branch (in Hebrew).
Report of the Subcommittee for Determining the Training Required of A Licensed Diagnostician (subcommittee of Meridor committee). 2010 Jerusalem: Ministry of Education (in Hebrew).
Riessman, Catherine K. 2008 Narrative Methods for the Human Sciences. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Sismondo, Sergio 2010 An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Skrtic, Thomas M. 2005 A Political Economy of Learning Disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly 28 (2): 149–155.
Shapin, Steven 1995 Here and Everywhere: Sociology of Scientific Knowledge. Annual Review of Sociology 21: 289–321.
Sharoni, Varda., and Miriam Ben-Yehuda 2011 The Role Conception of the Teacher-Didactic-Diagnostician. Dapim 52: 72–104 (in Hebrew).
Sharoni, Varda 2013 Diagnosis of children with learning disabilities in Israel: Where do we come from and where are we going? in Inclusiveness. Sh. Reiter and G. Avissar, (eds.), pp. 305–324. Haifa: Ahva (in Hebrew).
Sleeter, Christine E. 1986 Learning Disabilities: The Social Construction of a Special Education Category. Exceptional Children 53: 46–54.
Swidler, Ann., and Jorge Arditi 1994 The New Sociology of Knowledge. Annual Review of Sociology 20: 305–329.
Thompson, John B. 1984 Studies in the Theory of Ideology. Cambridge: Polity.
Toolan, Michael J. 2001 Narrative: A Critical Linguistic Introduction. London: Routledge.
Van Dijk, Teun 1997 Discourse as Structure and Process. London: Sage Publications.
White, Hayden 1987 The Content of the Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Zuriff, Gerald E. 2007 The Myths of Learning Disabilities. In Philosophy of Education: An Anthology. R. Curren, (ed.), pp. 291–297. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Katchergin, O. ‘Learning Disabilities’ as a ‘Black Box’: On the Different Conceptions and Constructions of a Popular Clinical Entity in Israel. Cult Med Psychiatry 38, 669–699 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11013-014-9398-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11013-014-9398-3