1. An uneasy blending of Theory and Practice: dynamic tension in Higher Ed Disability service provision NNDR 2013, Naantali, Finland Frederic Fovet Office for Students with Disabilities, McGilll

2. The context The field discussed is Disability service provision in Higher Education in Canada. There seems to be a large dichotomy in Higher Ed between the Disabilities Studies discourse showcased by institutions and their model of service provision. Anecdote Objective of the presentation: to explore this dichotomy

3. Personal presentation My career path is relevant to the subject matter. Educator with 15 years experience in the field of inclusion. Masters in Social, Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties (SEBD) & PhD candidate Hired by McGill to oversee their Disability unit in July 2011

5. Context of the data collection Arrived to the Disability field with a researcher profile working within an ecological model. The Social Model of Disability seemed congenial. Triggered the speedy implementation of the model through the adoption of Universal Design for Learning as the framework for interventions. UD applied to the class environment but also service provision and user interface

6. What is UDL? The unit did not adhere to a rigid and narrow definition of the model: A sustainable, environment focused framework to manage Disabilities issues Central notion: Practices can disable or enable learners Focuses on the conception of delivery and evaluation methods rather than on retrofitting. Paradigm shift away from the medical model to the social model of Disability. Is a progressive exploration and transformation

7. UDL implementation drive Planned: - 18 months of strategic lobbying with campus partners and senior administration Successful: Joint Senate Board meeting in November 2012. - 18 months of collaborative networking with faculties (production of resources, consultancy on curriculum redevelopment, workshops): in progress

8. Unexpected offshoot of the UDL drive: study of DS unit resistance Data was collected for 18 months Performance Dialogue, workshops, retreats, project reports and semi-directive questionnaires. Qualitative data analysis Triangulation: both for data collection and human resources purposes Data was also collected from students, instructors & administrators but DS staff raises separate issues. Corroboration of these results through partnership projects with other unit managers across Canada (CADSPPE and AQICESH)

9. Results Variables at play in the resistance observed: - Resistance to change - Redefinition of tasks - Ambivalence with regards to new role: reluctance to consult with instructors - Sustainability of practices = not a professional criteria - Investment in the role of ‘helper’ - Personal belief in medical model or welfare model - Counter-transference with regards to client needs - Power dynamics that need to be eroded

10. Suggested tools to navigate this dichotomy between Theory and Practice Ensuring staff acquire adequate opportunities to explore the social model Emphasize the importance of the conceptual framework systematically in all decision making Create a link between the social model of disability and the notion of user satisfaction Allow for ownership of the model Introduce ethnographic practices when recording user expectations Embrace sustainability as a work objective and emphasize the impact the social model has on productivity and ability to face demand in service request

12. Example of unit reflective work on the social model

13. Discussion This is an immediately tangible contradiction as Higher Ed institutions both embrace the social model conceptually and ignore it in the user interface, within the same physical entity. Such contradictions are frequent in service provision in all areas of Disability: secondary education, social work, medical and paramedical professions. Takes a concerted effort to ensure research in Disabilities studies translates to changes in practices.

14. Questions? frederic.fovet@mcgill.ca