The Social construction of challenging behaviour: Some cautionary notes

Abstract

1994) raise important issues concerning the definition and understanding of challenging behaviour. The central message of the paper is that as challenging behaviour is rated differently in two different settings it is, therefore, a social construction and is 'an emergent property of interactions whose genesis is dependent upon an active process of meaning making'. The authors note that 'despite this conceptual shift, school staff -especially within services for the most severely disabled students -may still rely on individualistic explanations for challenging behaviour.' There can be little doubt that current conceptualisations of challenging behaviour are often socially defined. Indeed, to point out that challenging hehaviour is a social construction may be to simply state this fact using alternative terminology. Originally adopted by the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps (TASH) in the USA, the term 'challenging behaviour' first gained popularity in the UK following a King's Fund publication by Blunden and Allen (1987) entitled Facing the Challenge. The use of this term emphasised a move away from viewing inappropriate behaviour as a characteristic inherent in individuals. Rather, its use is intended to move towards a focus on services and the ways in which they might respond to the challenges presented by particular behaviours in the context of a commitment towards social role valorisation (normalisation) and deinstitutionalisation. For example, Emerson, Barrett, Bell, Cummings, McCool, Toogood and Mansell (1987) formulated probably the most frequently cited definition of the term:'Severely challenging behaviour refers to behaviour of such an intensity, frequency or duration that the physical safety of the person or others is likely to be placed in serious jeopardy, or behaviour which is likely to seriously limit or delay [deny] access to and use of ordinary community facilities. ' (p.8) This definition makes no reference to the form of the behaviour but emphasises the consequence (to the individual) of displaying the behaviour. The nature and seventy of the 'challenge' is therefore determined chiefly by the impact of the behaviour's social consequences. It is important to note, however, that it is the 'challenge' which is being socially constructed, not the behaviour.Whether or not a particular behaviour is regarded as challenging depends in large measure upon the resources, skill and experience of carers and service providers as well as the quality of local facilities. These factors will determine the nature, or indeed the existence, of any 'challenge'. The key issue here is that any attempt at a definition of challenging behaviour must recognise that the frrm (as opposed to the behaviour) is essentially socially defined. Quershi (1993) gives a particularly interesting example of passive, withdrawn behaviour which:'may not be seen as challenging by over-worked staff in an environment where it is a struggle to achieve containment and the meeting of physical needs. However, where staff are atte...