Who's the Expert? Rethinking authority in the face of intellectual disability

Abstract

This article poses the question, 'Who is the expert?' in relation to people with intellectual disabilities. It begins with an exploration of what it means to assert moral authority in relation to people with IDs, and makes the argument that 'experts' who draw moral boundaries, define conceptions of the 'good' and quality of life for people must consider how to occupy this position responsibly. It then considers a second form of authority -epistemic authority -and explores the moral responsibility that accompanies the practice of putting forth knowledge claims about ID. This involves acknowledging three potential problems: distancing, oppression and dehumanization. The article concludes with questions that point towards greater interdisciplinary dialogue regarding authority, responsibility and the role of the expert.

The human degree of care. Professional loving care for people with a mild intellectual disability: an explorative study

“…Professional loving care must be embedded in a compassionate context that includes a caring and accepting social network and safety net. Social inclusion also helps the client integrate into society (Perese & Wolf ; Jenkins ; Carlson ; Hall ). And in fact, recent research shows a supportive social network to be a critical factor for the successful integration of people with IDs into society (A. E. van Asselt‐Goverts et al ., unpublished data).…”

Myth, Legend and Dust: Cormac McCarthy and the loss of the vernacular

“…The few survivors were 'radically deprived of the things and persons in relation which and with whom one normally exists, those who travel the road find themselves and their existence thrown into absolute question.' 19 In a poignant and powerful sequence in both the book and the film, the father discards first his credit card, then his picture of his dead wife and then his wedding ring, thus totally expunging the last 'things' he had to link himself with the life that has gone. There is nothing to break the monotony of daily survival of father and son.…”

Working on Well‐Being: Researchers’ Experiences of a Participative Approach to Understanding the Subjective Well‐Being of Disabled Young People

“…Cummins, ; Preece and Jordan, ). Recent discussions on the methodological and ethical issues in taking such an approach highlight the need to guard against the imposition of the values and priorities of proxies and/or researchers in the interpretation and reporting of evidence, and to be acutely aware of the responsibilities and dangers associated with being perceived as an authority on the lives of others (Carlson, ).…”