Commentary on 'Legitimacy and ambiguity: Institutional logics and their outcome for people with intellectual disabilities' (Ineland, 2020)

摘要

Ineland's (2020) article centres on the concept of "institutional logics," describing these as: "socially constructed values and beliefs, which provide meaning to organisational actors (in these cases professionals) about what is rational and appropriate in their daily work with people with intellectual disabilities" (p. 56). Ineland proposes that the concept can be used as an analytical frame to understand the behaviour of professionals and organisations providing disability services and suggests that "the analytical potential of social disability research may be broadened through the application of institutional perspectives and concepts" (p. 59). Ineland's article considers the analytical potential of these institutional perspectives and concepts as they apply to two disability and welfare organisations for people with intellectual disabilities: inclusive education, and disability arts. These specific organisations were selected because both are "highly institutionalised, characterised by cultural diversity, and operate at the intersection of different institutional contexts" (p. 54). Ultimately, Ineland's article invites us to further consider: "the extent to which conflicting logics e.g., a logic of quality and a logic of measurement in inclusive education, and the pivotal role of external legitimacy i.e., the broader social context and widespread understanding of social reality, influence what is considered rational and appropriate among professionals in their daily encounters with people with intellectual disabilities" (p. 61) in the two examples of disability and welfare organisations for people with intellectual disabilities. In this commentary, we seek to extend Ineland's approach to ask what these "institutional logics" might look like beyond the somewhat "ideal" settings of inclusive education and disability arts, which seek to "include people who might be viewed as "unusual" or "different" (those with intellectual disabilities) within ordinary, mainstream practices (schools and theatres) outside of special arrangements" (p. 54). Specifically, in this commentary, we consider what these institutional logics might look like in two examples of "closed settings" within the community: group homes, and community forensic disability services.