This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Burton, M. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Understanding mental health services : theory and practice

Two approaches (Wolfensberger and Scull) to understanding services for people with mental disabilities are compared and seen to make complementary errors based upon the reduction of phenomena to ideology or economics respectively. Approaches combining both areas of analysis are seen as necessary in order to state what good services would look like and to understand the contexts in which services form and develop. It is argued that Wolfensberg's principle of normalisation allows a plausible statement of ideal criteria for service evaluation and design. A discussion follows of some possible constraints on its implementation under the present social order. A notion of 'prefigurative action research'is discussed as one way of pioneering more ideal services, while documenting the limits imposed on them at the present time.

Critical Social Policy, Vol. 3, No. 7, 54-74 (1983)
DOI: 10.1177/026101838300300706


CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				G. Midgley Evaluating Services for People with Disabilities: A Critical Systems Perspective Evaluation, January 1, 1996; 2(1): 67 - 84. [Abstract] [PDF]

				B. Hudson The rising use of imprisonment: the impact of 'decarceration' policies Critical Social Policy, September 1, 1984; 4(11): 46 - 59. [PDF]