SRV theme of model coherency, mindsets … and robot caregivers
A 19 July 2014 NY Times op-ed piece entitled ‘The Future of Robot Caregivers’ is worth carefully examining from a Social Role Valorization (SRV) perspective, especially in light of the SRV themes of roles, of mindsets, of the developmental model, and of model coherency. This article would be worth reading and discussing from an SRV perspective as part of a workshop or in a university course.
Wolfensberger points out the key role which assumptions play in service models (Wolfensberger, A Brief Introduction to Social Role Valorization, 2004 reprint, 108-109, 116). What are the conscious and unconscious assumptions behind the service model proposed in this editorial? What is the problem from the perspective of the writer? What does the author propose is needed to address the problem? What assumptions about human nature is such a model built upon–in terms of the human nature of those who receive help from others, and the human nature of those who provide care? Are these assumptions consistent with the developmental model approach of SRV? If not, try to come up with assumptions that would be more relevant.
What does this article communicate about the mindset of the author in regard to children and adults with significant physical and/or intellectual impairments? (Wolfensberger, A Brief Introduction to Social Role Valorization, 2004 reprint, 105-106) Is this mindset more likely or less likely to help people to gain access to the good things of life via societally valued roles?
In terms of the writer’s proposed service model, what are the non-programmatic factors raised in the article? What do you see as the more important programmatic factors, even if they are not mentioned in the article?
Drawing on SRV theory and PASSING, try to identify some potentially role-valorizing options that would be more relevant and more potent than what this editorial proposes.
In: Uncategorized · Tagged with: developmental model, good things of life, mind-sets, model coherency