1. What’s In A Name? Theory Between Wider Outreach and Critical Theory Legacy – How Much is at Stake in a Name Change? Tanja Beck & Jessica Giles McGill University AHEAD 2014 Sacramento Concurrent Block 3

2.  Presentation Style  The Beginning…  Context  Areas Identified  Student Feedback  Consistency – Promotion & Practice  Outreach Imperative Outline  Critical Theory  Contact Details

3. The Beginning…  2011 a change in Director  Coincided with large scale changes in the user population  Embarked on student-centered approach to student needs  Took on the task of campus-wide implementation of the social model in service provision, (starting with a Universal Design Audit of our own practices) by promoting Universal Design for Learning

4. Context  Large scale transformation of the user base  Demographics were and are changing  Nature of diagnoses are more complex and involving rapidly  “There has been an increase in both the volume and intensity of mental health concerns in the general population, and students in post-secondary are no exception” (Cooper, 2013). Reflection on whether these students identify with the term ‘disability’?  Students have expectations with regards to ‘mainstreaming’ and inclusion

5. Demographics and Current Trends

6. Disability Categories 2012-13

7. Social Model & UD Approach  User Interface (general)  Exam Processes  Advising: Documentation guidelines and Initial Interview  Reaching a new fluid and emerging user base  Faculty Resources  If we are to implement a social model approach to service delivery, we need to move away from individual impairments to look at practices

8. Areas Identified  Student feedback  Consistency in practices with regards to UDL and the social model  Outreach imperative: how to best reach the unit`s user base

9. Student Feedback  Few DS units explore student centered work, yet it speaks volumes  Annual Student Satisfaction Survey, ongoing discussions with Student Advisory Committee, hiring of summer interns, etc.  Students have specific expectations of inclusion  Students have no particular attachment to the word ‘Disability’ – some even report a dissociation

10. Student Feedback  Some students internalise the social model construction and feel they do not have a disability but that the environment is constraining (ADHD)  Fear of stigma, reticence to disclose  The name of the office suggests an inherent and permanent state of affairs and a need to be registered at all times – many students, on the contrary, describe their difficulties as in a state of flux

11. Discussion  What are the current trends with registered students?  Are students on your campus internalizing the social model?

12. Consistency – Promotion & Practice  The unit has embarked on a wide scale implementation of UDL  18 months of strategic lobbying with campus partners and senior administration Successful: Joint Senate Board meeting in November 2012. (Completed)  18 months of collaborative networking with faculties (production of resources, consultancy on curriculum redevelopment, workshops). (In progress)

13. Consistency – Promotion & Practice  If UDL and the social model are being promoted on campus as a construct of disability, then surely the focus switches to the environment and classroom practices, rather than on individual impairments  The need to become consistent in the unit`s messaging was pressing

14. Discussion  Does your DS unit align with what is widely practiced on your campus?  Are you relaying a mixed message with what you promote on campus and what you actually practice?

15. Outreach Imperative  If a DS unit`s function and mandate is to serve the students who experience needs, then there is a need to function within a ‘business model’ and to carry out effective branding.  This sort of neoliberal process is not congenial to units who are grounded in critical theory.  We need to advocate for our students, but we also need to build a user body. Can we achieve this without effective advertising?  The branding efforts indicate clearly that using the word ‘disability’ creates reticence in the clientele the units try to attract.

16. The Process  A marketing intern was hired and carried out the branding as part of a 6 credit project  The student surveyed practices across North- America  Focus groups were carried out

17. The Product

18. The Process  Proposed logo and new name reflects two identified imperatives: personalization of the service experience & acknowledgement of the fact that the campus practices create disabling situations  Triangulation occurred: student bodies and Student Advisory Committee very supportive of the name change.  Administratively a smooth and well received process

19. Discussion  A critical tension remains between an imperative to mainstream the outreach of the office and its vital, core mandate – solidly grounded in critical theory. Does this exist on your campus?  This tension is lived daily by the staff but can it perhaps be reconciled?

20. Critical Tension

21.  Once the user body is reached and motivated, the office can revisit the issue of advocacy and campus awareness  Hybrid solutions can be implemented to keep critical theory advocacy alive and kicking (example: law faculty proposed initiative)  Make staff at ease with the juggling of these two theoretical frameworks (neoliberalism vs. Critical Theory)

22. Contact Details Tanja.Beck@mcgill.ca Jessica.Giles@mcgill.ca