Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-kwt9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T08:44:26.519Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Normalization and Applied Behaviour Analysis: Rapprochement or Intellectual Imperialism?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 June 2009

Eric Emerson and
Peter McGill
Eric Emerson
Affiliation:
Hester Adrian Research Centre, University of Manchester
Peter McGill
Affiliation:
Centre for the Applied Psychology of Social Care, University of Kent at Canterbury
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Our recent attempt (Emerson and McGill, 1989) to suggest a rapprochement between normalization and applied behaviour analysis has proven to be a contentious venture. Baldwin (1989) has made a case for dismissing our argument on the grounds that it is an attempt by “normalization advocates” to take over applied behaviour analysis. He suggests that, as we have made no case for this other than “simplistic de facto moralizing” (p. 307), our paper will be transparent to behavioural practitioners whose moral integrity, it is implied, we have assaulted. In contrast, Baldwin suggests that there is a case for applied behaviour analysis subsuming normalization, although this is considered problematic because of the weakness of the latter position and the “excessive zealotry, proselytizing and evangelizing” (p. 306) of its proponents (ourselves presumably included).

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , October 1989, pp. 309 - 313
Copyright
Copyright © British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Baldwin, S. (1989). Applied behaviour analysis and normalization: New carts for old horses? A commentary. Behavioural Psychotherapy 17, 305–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bank-Mikkelsen, N. (1980). Denmark. In Normalisation, Social Integration and Community Services Flynn, R. J. and Nitsch, K. E. (Eds) Austin, Texas: Pro-Ed.Google Scholar
Cullen, C. (1988). Applied behaviour analysis: Contemporary and prospective agenda. In Human Operant Conditioning and Behaviour Modification Davey, G. and Cullen, C. (Eds) Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Emerson, E. B. and McGill, P. (1989). Normalization and applied behaviour analysis: Values and technology in services for people with learning difficulties. Behavioural Psychotherapy 17, 101–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hersen, M. (1979). Limitations and problems in the clinical application of behavioral techniques in psychiatric settings. Behavior Therapy 10, 65–80.Google Scholar
Holland, J. G. (1978). Behaviorism: Part of the problem or part of the solution? Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 11, 163–174.Google Scholar
Marlett, N. J., Gall, R., and Wight-Felske, A. (1984). Dialogue on Disability: A Canadian Perspective. Calgary: University of Calgary Press.Google Scholar
Mulick, J. A. (in press). The ideology and science of punishment in mental retardation. American Journal of Mental Retardation.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.