Uppeldi og menntun - 01.07.2015, Qupperneq 103

UPPELDI OG MENNTUN/ICELANDIC JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 24(2) 2015 103
KRISTÍN BJÖRNSDÓTTIR & STEINDÓR JÓNSSON
example, the impairment (e.g., intellectual disabilities) may affect the person’s capa-
bilities to achieve educational functions which, in turn, could limit future capabilities
like accessing the labor market. This is what Mitra (2006) calls a potential disability
because it is likely to restrict the person’s freedom to choose. She refers to disability
on the functioning level as an actual disability and the person is disabled ‘if he or she
cannot do or be the things he or she values doing or being’ (Mitra, 2006, p. 241).
The capability approach views disability as relational to the environment and we
believe it fits well with the Nordic relational understanding of disability on which our
research is based. In the Nordic context, disability is viewed in relational terms and
understood as the result of the discrepancy between the disabled person’s abilities
and the functional demands made by society which does not assume the full range of
human diversity. Disability is viewed as situational rather than an absolute essence
of the person and relative to the environment. The Nordic relational approach rejects
interpretations which focus merely on bio-medical and individualistic explanations of
disability and tend to ignore societal and environmental barriers in disabling people’s
lives (Tøssebro, 2002).
The capability approach supports the idea of social inclusion of disabled people and
regards disability as a normative component of human diversity and relational to the
environment. Similar to the Nordic understanding, the focus is not on the impairment
as an individualistic misfortune but rather on how, for example, educational envi-
ronments could improve students’ opportunities to achieve educational functionings
when appropriately designed to address different educational needs. The capability
approach is, therefore, focused on the interactions between the individual with intel-
lectual disabilities and the environment (Sen, 1992). Also, as previously mentioned,
the capability approach places the person’s interests and freedom to choose from prac-
tical opportunities in the foreground which further draws the attention away from the
impairment as the main source of obstacles.
According to the capability approach, the limitation in functionings related to dis-
ability has to be addressed as ‘a matter of justice on the capability approach, because
these contribute to the equalization of the capability to pursue and achieve well-being’
(Terzi, 2005, p. 209). When people are faced with deprivation of these relevant func-
tionings they experience social exclusion and inequalities which affect individuals
and the well-being of society as a whole (Sen, 1992, 2000).
INDICATORS OF SOCIAL EXCLUSION
Social exclusion results from deprivation of functionings and therefore involves a com-
bination of dimensions such as resources, participation, and quality of life (Sen, 2000).
It is a process or compound of linked problems which ultimately affect the quality
of life of individuals or social groups. Social exclusion is commonly measured by us-
ing a range of quantitative indicators but for the purpose of this reflective article we
will focus on three common indicators for social exclusion measurements: education,
employment, and housing.