Talk:Social role valorization

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Psychology

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Disability

Social role valorization is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability

Untitled

I have spent time putting criticisms on this page only to see that they have disappeared. Let me say simply that I have experienced a great deal of orthodoxy in this movement and it's proponents. Any orthodoxy will, by it's nature, exclude individuals and groups. Questioners are silenced. Detractors are erased. I have experienced and witnessed the oppression of Social Role Valorization and, unless there can be transparent and open discussion, SRV is doomed to remain an orthodoxy, irrelevant and potentially harmful to those it purports to support.

General comments

Entire majority members of research professions in the US and worldwide dispute the concept of neutrality when it comes to "values-based" as essential for health and human services (who wants neutrality on whether people live or die or are healthy or unhealthy); this position is considered to be revolutionary in the 1970s. It is disputed throughout the journals, research worlds, and professions, and generally comes in as "qualitative" versus "quantitative" research (later only is "empirical" to those who believe in "neutrality"). Positivism is associated also usually as a perjorative with a movement to enhance versus denigrate as scientistis often do (e.g., will not do both sociology of acceptance and sociology of deviance; "neutrality" is deviance)those who are different.

24.59.153.150 (talk) 14:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)JARacino24.59.153.150 (talk)[reply]

I have made a few alterations to the original. I had thought of writing such an article but it had drifted down my 'to-do' list. Hope my suggestions are OK. (Lyonnessite 11:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Having made some more substantial edits I feel some justification is required: This entry is written in the same tone as the texts initially describing SRV. SRV has become so little understood - with many who argue about it having clearly not understood it, or simply arguing about damaging actions that have been said (unreasonably) to be based on SRV. Some (only some) of the causes of this are related to the history and personalities of those involved with SRV. Therefore I suggest that a Wikipedia entry is a good opportunity to increase understanding on all sides. As an initial step I have tried to put in some simpler language in the initial section (if only to change its tone so that it appears less like a standard text), and to begin a section about misconceptions. I hope that those who understand and support SRV do not incorrectly interpret this as a criticism of the language initially used. I'd also like to see a constructive section about the limitations of SRV. Such a section would best be written initially by people who support it, not those who have an anti-SRV agenda, as it might open up a route for more constructive discussion. Rowmn (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Criticisms" section is lifted directly from the Kendrick article. Some references are probably a good idea. The jcs (talk) 19:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Kendrick and Elks are generally good, and generally congruent with Wolf Wolfensberger, at least when he was alive; however, he is not required by mutual male faculty agreement not to reference each other, but I have no agreement as such at Presidential research centers (Racino, 1999; Racino, 2014). I tried gender discrimination once with Taylor and Bogdan for their career benefit as Taylor, Bogdan & Racino, 1991, and of course immediately then had women students equal to me again (Taylor, Bogdan & Lutfiyya, 1995) in my book series.[reply]

Dear SRV personnel: I do not acknowledge any of the workers or intellectuals in that field as other than separate from Dr. Wolf Wolfensberger or Dr. Bengt Nirje, the former of whom was a professor of mine in 1979 and later an associated faculty member in my Division at the School of Education in the 1990s. I am very sorry he just passed in 2011. SRV personnel in the US (often very committed, and part of volunteerism) are generally also either student-employees of my national center (in which they know no members from 10 years research; director just passed in 2014), master's or doctoral students including internationally seeking degrees from my institution, service providers (legal technical recipients of national centers) who "misunderstand" impersonation!! of faculty members versus academic citations (called criminal Medicaid fraud at my work gates!), and SRV trainers of Wolf Wolfensberger, generally males, who will not usualy bring in his lead woman, Susan Thomas, and also do not women faculty members at Syracuse University in citations. And, yes, I am then to still start likely, on where I will find the first African American on social role valorization.

24.59.153.150 (talk) 14:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)JARacino24.59.153.150 (talk) 14:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]