HomeRethinking Institutions and Deinstitutionalisation from a Disability Perspective

HomeRethinking Institutions and Deinstitutionalisation from a Disability Perspective

Rethinking Institutions and Deinstitutionalisation from a Disability Perspective

Repenser l’institution et la désinstitutionalisation à partir du handicap

10th Alter - European Society for Disability Research Conference

Xe conférence Alter - Société européenne de recherche sur le handicap

*  *  *

Published on Wednesday, October 13, 2021 by Lucie Choupaut

Summary

The issue of institutionalisation and deinstitutionalisation in relation to disability is much debated by academics, practitioners, field workers and stakeholders. These debates intensified in the context of the Covid crisis. Yet clarification is still needed on what is meant by the notion of institution and its counterpart, deinstitutionalisation, as well as on the contours of related concepts – such as the pursuit of equality, autonomy, inclusion and emancipation, care, and vulnerability.

Announcement

Presentation

The issue of institutionalisation and deinstitutionalisation in relation to disability is much debated by academics, practitioners, field workers and stakeholders. These debates intensified in the context of the Covid crisis: both residential and home care services have experienced serious difficulties, leading all parties to reposition themselves on the issue of deinstitutionalisation.

Yet clarification is still needed on what is meant by the notion of institution and its counterpart, deinstitutionalisation, as well as on the contours of related concepts – such as the pursuit of equality, autonomy, inclusion and emancipation, care, and vulnerability.

For what exactly is deinstitutionalisation, as promoted on the basis of Article 19 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, aiming at? Does deinstitutionalisation mean “detotalizing” institutions? Or does it mean “desegregating” them, or even abolishing them?

Framework

Call for Papers for the annual meeting of Alter – European Society for Disability Research/Société Européenne de Recherche sur le Handicap (http://alter-asso.org). The conference will be held on Thursday 7 and Friday 8 July 2022 at University Saint-Louis, Brussels, and will be hosted by the team of the interdisciplinary research project AutonomiCap, which focuses on the intertwined notions of autonomy and disability. The conference will result in the publication of a selection of contributions, notably in a peer-reviewed collection of essays.

Public

Is invited to submit an abstract any junior or senior researcher working on disability or related issues, such as mental health or loss of autonomy, in the humanities and social sciences. The main disciplines to be covered are, but are not limited to, sociology, anthropology, history, philosophy, psychology, law, and political science. Participants are invited to contribute either in English, French, or sign language (International Sign, LSFB or VGT).

Confirmed Keynote Speakers

  • Olivier Giraud (CNRS, Lise-Cnam, France);
  • Eva Feder Kittay (Stony Brook University, United States);
  • Paul Lemmens (KU Leuven, European Court of Human Rights, Belgium).

Argument

 Click here to watch the video in International Signs 

1. Background

The issue of institutionalisation and deinstitutionalisation in relation to disability is much debated by academics, practitioners, field workers and stakeholders. These debates intensified in the context of the Covid crisis: both residential and home care services have experienced serious difficulties, leading all parties to reposition themselves on the issue of deinstitutionalisation.

Yet clarification is still needed on what is meant by the notion of institution and its counterpart, deinstitutionalisation, as well as on the contours of related concepts – such as the pursuit of equality, autonomy, inclusion and emancipation, care, and vulnerability.

For what exactly is deinstitutionalisation, as promoted on the basis of Article 19 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, aiming at? Does deinstitutionalisation mean “detotalizing” institutions? Or does it mean “desegregating” them, or even abolishing them?

2. Polysemy of the concept of institution

A lot depends eventually on what is understood by “institution”. Institutions are not necessarily boarding houses or day-care facilities, walls and buildings potentially segregated. Typically thought of from their potential for constraint, institutions can take on various forms and even persist through attempts at deinstitutionalisation.

At the crossroads of sociology and philosophy, one might consider any norm that frames life in society to be a form of institution. The value we place on autonomy and individual choice, the language we use to argue about the merits of institutions (in the material sense) are themselves institutions in the moral and grammatical sense of the word, i.e. shared values and meanings that hold onto us as much as we hold onto them.

Institutions can also be understood in a political sense, as designating a set of apparatuses and procedures intended to ensure the regulation of social relations, or even in a legal sense to designate the entities competent to settle conflicts using the rules of law in force.

Bearing in mind the many faces of the notion of institution, the diversity of its manifestations and the context affecting the positions taken, the tensions and grey areas of the scenes where the question of deinstitutionalisation is at stake come to view: housing, education, work, internment, prisons, parliament, jurisdictions, etc.

In inviting us to rethink institutions and the new modalities of institutionalisation from the perspective of disability, this conference aims to unfold the notion of institution under all its aspects and in various contexts, from the perspective of different fields and from occasionally distinct positions depending on the country or the disability considered. It also aims to examine the history, the stakes, and the experiences of the various forms of deinstitutionalisation, to trace the possible contours of an inclusive society respectful of the choices of people with disabilities.

3. Scope

Proposals are expected to address the topic either from a conceptual and general point of view, or from a pragmatic and case-based approach with an empirical dimension. Papers may take a macroscopic and/or comparative approach, as well as a microscopic and/or locally situated perspective.

They may be grounded in thematic “scenes”, connected to a fundamental right and/or considered from the point of view of a particular category of people. The overlap between disability, age and mental disorder, the notion of intersectional discrimination, etc. may be addressed in relation to the issue of institutions and deinstitutionalisation. The analysis can also focus on the variations of the notion of institution, possibly in relation with other concepts, or focus on its counterpart, deinstitutionalisation as such or in combination with related devices.

The subject can also be approached from the perspective of the Covid crisis, from a broader contemporary perspective or from a historical approach.

4. Topic Proposals

A few – non-exhaustive – possible themes:

a. Institution(alisation): Concepts, History and Experiences

  • What is an institution? What does it mean to be an institution today?
  • What does it mean to live in an institution? What norms govern life in an institution?
  • Why can one, and who can, in what circumstances, need or not need certain institutions? What are the modalities, the conditions (historical, sociological, political, ideological, ...) for the creation of an institution focused on specific types of disabilities or characteristics?
  • On what presupposition(s) is institutionalisation based and what purpose(s) does it serve?
  • Should all collective institutions be banned for all types of disabilities and in all areas, or is it possible to reform some of them from within – if so, how and under what conditions?

b. Deinstitutionalisation: Issues, Dynamics and Nuances

  • What does the ideal of deinstitutionalisation entail?
  • Is the call for deinstitutionalisation based on a single understanding of the notion of institution or does it accord with a plural understanding of it?
  • Assuming that deinstitutionalisation can be achieved gradually, what criteria should be used to assess its degree of achievement?
  • What are the relationships between deinstitutionalisation and the notions of autonomy and responsibility?
  • Can we envisage different forms of deinstitutionalisation depending on the areas (accommodation, education, work, etc.) or even the disability considered?
  • What are the possible relationships between diverse forms of deinstitutionalisation and social marginalisation?
  • What specific problems may arise in in-home care or various forms of community support? How can these potential problems be addressed?

c. What are the Political, Financial and Moral Costs of Institutionalisation and De-Institutionalisation?

  • What are the costs of institutionalisation and of deinstitutionalisation, literally in terms of public policy and implementation of institutionalisation and deinstitutionalisation, but also in the moral sense of its implications in the lives of individuals and their relatives? Who will support institutionalisation and deinstitutionalisation?
  • Does deinstitutionalisation mean funding people rather than structures and, if so, under what conditions and in what forms? What can we learn from pilot experiments?
  • How can the debate on institutionalisation and deinstitutionalisation accommodate a protection based on the category of disability, the plurality of particular situations and the singularity of cases that are always already beyond the reach of general and abstract standards?
  • To what extent do institutions call into question the individuality of subjects who have been confined to sometimes stigmatising categories (psychiatric diagnoses, disabilities, age, etc.)?

d. Institution and Deinstitutionalisation Through the Lens of Care

  • Are institutions nothing but constraint and power, or can they also generate potentialities and capabilities? To what extent are institutions alienating or emancipating? How can they promote a form of autonomy or of agency?
  • Who carries out the work of care in and out of institutions? Which are the underlying issues from a gender or from an intersectional perspective?
  • What place should be given to third-party caregivers and families in a supportive care system, and how can it be combined with a person with disability’s freedom of choice and agency?
  • What is still lacking in choice and constraint in the forms of care at home, or at home “institutionalisation”?
  • What contribution can a public ethics of care make to rethinking institutions and deinstitutionalisation?
  • How should autonomy be conceived in relation to the notions of dependence and independence, in and out of institutions? What place could be given to an anthropology of vulnerability in the reflection on deinstitutionalisation? 
  • How to respond attentively to both people with disabilities’ needs and expectations and their relatives’, in different contexts of care, in institutions or at home? How can the expression of these expectations and needs be facilitated in such diverse contexts?

e. Any other topic, approach or issue related to the conference main theme

Submission

Proposals must be submitted no later than December 6, 2021 on the Alter conference website. To submit, it is required to create an account on the Sciencesconf platform if you do not already have one: https://alterconf2022.sciencesconf.org/user/createaccount    

Proposals can be introduced individually (20 min. per presentation), or as a group in the form of a joint session with three to four presentations (accordingly 15 to 20 min. per presentation). In the latter case, a presentation of the session is required in addition to the abstracts of the papers themselves. Proposals can be written in English, or French, or in sign language (International Sign, LSFB or VGT), according to the following guidelines:

  • Title of the paper or session;
    • For an individual submission:an abstract of maximum 3000 characters (spaces not included) stating the originality, the problematic, the methods and results (depending on the practices of the discipline) and an indicative bibliography.
    • For a joint session proposal: an argument in support of the session proposal of maximum 3000 characters (spaces not included), specifying the names and institutional affiliations of the authors of the session, and the titles of their papers. A file with abstracts for each paper of the session, following the same guideline as proposals for individual submissions, must be attached.
  • The theme of the paper (a, b, c, d, e – supra § 4)
  • The language chosen for the paper or session (English, French, International Sign, LSFB or VGT).
  • For a submission in one of the sign languages of the conference, a written abstract is not required. A video of up to 7 minutes should be submitted instead. Technically a file or video link can be submitted after the abstract page. 

Decisions of the Organising and Scientific Committees will be notified at the end of January 2022, on the understanding that by submitting a proposal for a paper or a session, the author or the person in charge commits to attend the conference if their proposal is accepted.

A separate call will be issued for participation in the DisABILITY MUNDUS Doctoral School which will be held, prior to the conference, from Sunday 3rd to Wednesday 6th of July 2022 - also at the Université Saint-Louis – Brussels (details to come on the Conference website).

The winner of the Alter journal Young author award will be invited to present their work at the conference.

Contact : alterconf2022@sciencesconf.org

Conference fees

Participants can choose to become a member of ALTER - which includes a subscription to the peer-reviewed journal of the same name (ALTER, European Journal of Disability Research) - or to register for the conference only.

Please find on the following page a table of membership and registration fees. All sessions, coffee breaks and meals specified in the program (to be found on the conference website) are included in the price. Exceptional exemptions from registration fees may be considered on a case-to-case basis.

Organizing Team

  • Valérie Aucouturier, USLB, AutonomiCap
  • Louis Bertrand, EHESS, USL-B, AutonomiCap
  • Miranda Boldrini, USL-B, AutonomiCap
  • Chloé Daelman, USL-B, AutonomiCap
  • Lison Demichelis, USL-B, AutonomiCap
  • Isabelle Hachez, USL-B, AutonomiCap
  • Nicolas Hanquet, USL-B, TIMH
  • Nicolas Marquis, USL-B, AutonomiCap
  • Isabelle Ville, EHESS, Inserm, France

Scientific Board

  • Valérie Aucouturier, USL-B, Belgique
  • Andrea Benvenuto, EHESS, France
  • Louis Bertrand, EHESS, USL-B, Belgique
  • Miranda Boldrini, USL-B, Belgique
  • Paula Campos Pinto, Université de Lisbonne, Portugal
  • Yves Cartuyvels, USL-B, Belgique
  • Jean-Phillipe Cobbaut, Université Catholique de Lille, France
  • Sophie Dalle-Nazébi, Telecom Paris, France
  • David Doat, Université Catholique de Lille, France
  • Alain Ehrenberg, CNRS/Paris-Descartes, France
  • Benoît Eyraud, Université Lyon II Louis Lumière, France
  • Abraham Franssen, USL-B, Belgique
  • Véronique Ghesquière, UNIA (Service handicap/Convention ONU), Belgique 
  • Isabelle Hachez, USL-B, Belgique
  • Marlène Jouan, Université Grenoble Alpes, France
  • Aude Lejeune, CNRS/Université de Lille, France
  • Nicolas Marquis, USL-B, Belgique
  • Delphine Moreau, EHESP, France
  • Isabelle Probst, Haute Ecole de santé de Vaud (HESAV), Suisse
  • Noémie Rapegno, EHESP, France
  • Julie Ringelheim, UCLouvain, Belgique
  • Megan Strickfaden, Université d’Alberta, Canada
  • Jean-Pierre Tabin, Haute école de travail social et de la santé de Lausanne (HES-SO), Suisse
  • Jan Tossebro, Norwegian university of science and technology, Norvège
  • Yannick Vanderborght, USL-B, Belgique
  • Sebastien Van Drooghenbroeck, USL-B, Belgique
  • Soline Vennetier, EHESS, France
  • Isabelle Ville, EHESS, Inserm, France
  • Jogchum Vrielink, USL-B, Belgique
  • Angela Wegscheider, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Autriche
  • Myriam Winance, Inserm, France

Places

  • Université Saint-Louis Bruxelles - Boulevard du Jardin botanique, 43
    Brussels, Belgium (1000)

Event format

Full on-site event


Date(s)

  • Monday, December 06, 2021

Keywords

  • handicap, institution, désinstitutionalisation

Information source

  • Boldrini Miranda
    courriel : alterconf2022 [at] sciencesconf [dot] org

To cite this announcement

« Rethinking Institutions and Deinstitutionalisation from a Disability Perspective », Call for papers, Calenda, Published on Wednesday, October 13, 2021, https://calenda.org/920233

Archive this announcement

  • Google Agenda
  • iCal
Search OpenEdition Search

You will be redirected to OpenEdition Search