Blaming the victim, all over again: Waddell and Aylward’s biopsychosocial (BPS) model of disability

an article by Tom Shakespeare and Ola Abu Alghaib (University of East Anglia, Norwich, England) and Nicholas Watson (University of Glasgow, Scotland) published in Critical Social Policy Volume 37 Issue 1 (February 2017)

Abstract

The biopsychosocial model (BPS) of mental distress, originally conceived by American psychiatrist George Engel in the 1970s and commonly used in psychiatry and psychology, has been adapted by Gordon Waddell and Mansel Aylward to form the theoretical basis for current UK government thinking on disability.

Most importantly, the Waddell and Aylward version of the BPS has played a key role as the government has sought to reform spending on out-of-work disability benefits.

This article critiques Waddell and Aylward’s model, examining its origins, its claims and the evidence it employs. We argue that its potential for genuine interdisciplinary cooperation and the holistic and humanistic benefits for disabled people as envisaged by Engel are not now, if they ever have been, fully realised.

Any potential benefit it may have offered has been eclipsed by its role in Coalition/Conservative government social welfare policies that have blamed the victim and justified restriction of entitlements.

---

The study of mental distress and the (re)construction of identities in men and women with experience of long-term mental distress

an article by Ann-Charlott Timander, Anne Grinyer (Faculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster University, UK) and Anders Möller (Ersta Sköndal College University, Gothenburg, Sweden) published in Disability & Society Volume 30 Issue 3 (2015)

Abstract

This article explores the possibility of using a theoretical framework drawn from disability studies in the field of mental health, and the study of identity (re)construction in the recovery process.

In this PhD project, 33 narratives were analysed using framework analysis. The analysis showed that disablism was present and powerful in the participants’ lives, and also showed how disablism shaped how the participants thought and felt about themselves.

As Carol Thomas argues, when analysing disablism one should also focus on who we are and are prevented from being, as disabled people. The conclusion is that processes of oppression were central when it comes to understanding the (re)construction of identities.

A disability studies perspective is thus relevant in the field of mental distress, and can be used to enhance the understanding of the process of identity (re)construction.

---