Upload
skyla-westrope
View
222
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
FREDERIC FOVET, DIRECTOR, OFFICE FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES (OSD) , MCGILL
Being ‘UD’ before you preach ‘UD’
Introduction
• Universal Design is gaining in popularity on North American campuses
• Seen as the most comprehensive, sustainable and socially equitable model to manage Disabilities issues
• One of the pressing objectives of DS providers is to now advocate for change and to promote UD on campuses
Introduction (contd)
Are DS units taking the time to examine their own practices before lobbying senior administration, faculty and students?
This presentation describes one institution’s progress through this paradoxical journey (qualitative data collected through a one year pilot study following a campus wide UD implementation initiative)
Context
Rapid increase in the volume of users has led to rapid changes in practices
Resource management imperatives have led to a sustainable look at the work of DS providers, and have weighed more heavily than notions of social equity and social inclusion. This has accelerates administrative buy-in for UD.
Context (contd.)
DS providers have witnessed a shift in paradigm within which their traditionally ‘minority voice’ has been adopted and integrated by a neo-liberal perspective and agenda on diversity and retention.
The contextual shift has been so sudden that many units have developed elaborate PR campus wide campaigns and UD implementation initiatives but not taken the time to re-examine their own practices.
Context – Demographics and current trends at McGill OSD
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
2011-2012
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Number of students registered at McGill OSD
Objectives of the presentation
Highlight this contradiction in processesEvaluate its impactExamine the causes of this phenomenonSeek pragmatic solutions that are
transferable from institution to institution
Contradiction in processes
DS units appear open to the implementation of UD but are simultaneously resistant
Historically DS units have increased barriers rather than decreased them
The onerous administrative burden is firmly established and anchored in the medical model of Disability (even when the social model of Disability is advocated)
When asked to review their procedures, most UD providers push back and insist on the status quo (CADSPPE conference 2012)
Implementation of the UD model
Five distinct stages
- Seeding of information- Structured increase of
awareness (workshops and awareness initiatives)
- On-the-ground procedural changes
- Resistance- UD audits and sustainable
implementationNB: resistance is both internal and external to the DS units and the audit phases usually coincide, internally and externally
Five stages of UD implementation
What stage has your institution reached?
Take a few minutes to discuss this with your colleagues.
- Seeding of information- Structured increase of awareness (workshops)- On-the-ground procedural changes - Resistance- UD audits and sustainable implementation
- NOT OVERT
- COMPLEX AND SUBTLE
- DISCUSSED LITTLE IN LITERATURE
- POWERFUL PHENOMENON
- RESISTANT TO MOTIVATIONAL LEADERSHIP TECHNIQUES
Internal Resistance
Team exercise Take a few minutes to discuss this question with your colleagues
What are according to you the strongest areas of resistance encountered when attempting UD audits within DS providers?
Particular examples of resistance
Qualitative data collected through a one year pilot on UD implementation
Possible areas of resistance can include:
- Advocating for a status quo on documentation requirements
- Insisting on high volume of form filling
- Insisting on face-to-face advising
- IT abandonment or even initial resistance
- Insisting on interventions even when UD mechanism yield tangible results for a student
Possible Impact
Serious issues that go to the root of UD promotion: credibility with other campus partners and stakeholders
Confusion: the benefit of implementing the UD model is to share a common language and framework
UD promotion requires a redeployment of staff resources. Adherence to previous roles and procedures can threaten viability of service provision.
Confusion for users: mixed messages/ credibility with user base
HR management of staff burnout and attrition rates if phenomenon is not addressed
Causes
Resistance from DS providers is already well documented (Embry, Parker, McGuire & Scott, 2003). Observations include:
Feeling of powerlessness vis-à-vis facultyAmbivalence with regards to change processDesire to remain focused on frontline serviceLack of familiarity with the social model of
Disability and with UD
Causes (contd.)
Self-perceptions of competence and appeal of ‘specialist’ status
Phenomenon of counter-transference re student expectations
Issues of IT competence and creativityJustification of existing tasks and job
descriptionInaccurate perceptions of the needs of
emerging clienteles
Transferable solutions
Solutions include:
Internal training and workshops
Strategic planning, linking procedural changes to larger theoretical framework
Developing appeal of the redeployment of resources
Transferable solutions (contd.)
Building awareness of social model of Disability within the unit
Relating notions of access and UD to unit practices and office procedures
IT Training and development of bridging competencies
Development of consistent and concise internal UD audit tools
Desired outcomes
Hybrid service provisionProgressive erosion of documentation
requirements and gatekeeping rolesActive audit of procedures and requirementsStreamlining of proceduresConsistent holistic message to the userOpenness to change and integration of change
managementSeamless integration of technology (not solely
adaptive technology but mainstream tools) Investigative approach to user needs
Contact details
Frederic FovetDirector, Office for Students with DisabilitiesMcGill [email protected]