Advertisement

Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 379–390 | Cite as

Normalization and its relevance today

  • Gary B. Mesibov
Special Issue: Residential Services

Abstract

Historically, the normalization principle has been influential in promoting a comprehensive community-based service delivery system for people with developmental handicaps. However, its effects were more positive a decade ago when the issues were simply inhumane institutions or more individualized community-based alternatives. Issues in community-based programs for developmentally handicapped people have become more diverse and the choices more complex. In the current climate, the effects of the normalization principle have polarized issues for several reasons: The theory works better than current practice, the criteria are vague and the goals unattainable, normalization takes the focus away from individual client needs, the theory discourages diversity, normalization has become a rallying point for inappropriate practices, overzealousness of normalization advocates has polarized issues, normalization promotes an undesirable value system, and normalization ignores handicapped clients' deficits. What is needed to replace the normalization principle today are guiding concepts that are clearer, more responsive to client needs, and more reflective of value systems that are in the best interests of handicapped people.

Keywords

Delivery System Service Delivery Current Practice School Psychology Developmental Handicap 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Beke, A. J. (1986). Normalization and hysterectomies.Autism Society Canada, 5, 1–3.Google Scholar
  2. Greenspan, S., & Cerreto, M. (1989). Normalization, deinstitutionalization, and the limits of research: Comment on Landesman and Butterfield.American Psychologist, 44, 448–449.Google Scholar
  3. Hansen, D. G. (1976). Slogans vs. realities — More data needed.Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia, 6, 366–367.Google Scholar
  4. Landesman, S., & Butterfield, E. C. (1987). Normalization and deinstitutionalization of mentally retarded individuals: Controversy and facts.American Psychologist, 42, 809–816.Google Scholar
  5. Mesibov, G. B. (1976). Implications of the normalization principle for psychotic children.Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia, 6, 360–377.Google Scholar
  6. Nirje, B. (1969). The normalization principle and its human management implications. In R. Kugel & W. Wolfensberger (Eds.),Changing patterns in residential services for the mentally retarded (pp. 181–195). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  7. Rhoades, C., & Browning, P. (1977). Normalization at what price?Mental Retardation, 15, 24.Google Scholar
  8. Throne, J. M. (1975). Normalization through the normalization principle: Right ends, wrong means.Mental Retardation, 13, 23–25.Google Scholar
  9. Warren, S. A. (1975). Tolerance for ambiguity.Mental Retardation, 13, 2.Google Scholar
  10. Wolfensberger, W. (1972).The principle of normalization in human services. Toronto: National Institute on Mental Retardation.Google Scholar
  11. Wolfensberger, W., & Glenn, L. (1973).PASS: A method of the quantitative evaluation of human services. Toronto: National Institute on Mental Retardation.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gary B. Mesibov
    • 1
  1. 1.Division TEACCHUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations