Difference between revisions of "Antaki2006a"
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) m |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
|Author(s)=Charles Antaki; W. M. L. Finlay; Emma Sheridan; Trina Jingree; Chris Walton | |Author(s)=Charles Antaki; W. M. L. Finlay; Emma Sheridan; Trina Jingree; Chris Walton | ||
| − | |Title=Producing | + | |Title=Producing decisions in service-user groups for people with an intellectual disability: two contrasting facilitator styles |
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Intellectual disability; | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Intellectual disability; | ||
|Key=Antaki2006a | |Key=Antaki2006a | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
|Number=5 | |Number=5 | ||
|Pages=322–343 | |Pages=322–343 | ||
| − | |URL= | + | |URL=https://www.aaiddjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1352/0047-6765%282006%2944%5B322%3APDISGF%5D2.0.CO%3B2 |
|DOI=10.1352/0047-6765(2006)44[322:PDISGF]2.0.CO;2 | |DOI=10.1352/0047-6765(2006)44[322:PDISGF]2.0.CO;2 | ||
|Abstract=Service-user groups whose goals include the promotion of self-advocacy for people with an intellectual disability aim, among other things, to encourage service users to identify problems and find solutions. However, service users' contributions to group sessions may not always be full and spontaneous. This presents a dilemma to the facilitator. In two case studies, we identify two ways in which the dilemma is managed. In one case, the facilitator takes an initiating role in each stage of a decision-making cycle. In the other, the facilitator short-circuits the decision-making cycle. The former seems to be closer to the philosophy of self-advocacy, but both nevertheless result in clients not taking the initiative and arguably disempowers them. | |Abstract=Service-user groups whose goals include the promotion of self-advocacy for people with an intellectual disability aim, among other things, to encourage service users to identify problems and find solutions. However, service users' contributions to group sessions may not always be full and spontaneous. This presents a dilemma to the facilitator. In two case studies, we identify two ways in which the dilemma is managed. In one case, the facilitator takes an initiating role in each stage of a decision-making cycle. In the other, the facilitator short-circuits the decision-making cycle. The former seems to be closer to the philosophy of self-advocacy, but both nevertheless result in clients not taking the initiative and arguably disempowers them. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 11:38, 13 November 2019
| Antaki2006a | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Antaki2006a |
| Author(s) | Charles Antaki, W. M. L. Finlay, Emma Sheridan, Trina Jingree, Chris Walton |
| Title | Producing decisions in service-user groups for people with an intellectual disability: two contrasting facilitator styles |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Intellectual disability |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2006 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Mental Retardation |
| Volume | 44 |
| Number | 5 |
| Pages | 322–343 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1352/0047-6765(2006)44[322:PDISGF]2.0.CO;2 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Service-user groups whose goals include the promotion of self-advocacy for people with an intellectual disability aim, among other things, to encourage service users to identify problems and find solutions. However, service users' contributions to group sessions may not always be full and spontaneous. This presents a dilemma to the facilitator. In two case studies, we identify two ways in which the dilemma is managed. In one case, the facilitator takes an initiating role in each stage of a decision-making cycle. In the other, the facilitator short-circuits the decision-making cycle. The former seems to be closer to the philosophy of self-advocacy, but both nevertheless result in clients not taking the initiative and arguably disempowers them.
Notes
