Institutionalized adults with profound intellectual disabilities (ID) face significant challenges to having their choice-making cultivated and supported. Based on observational and interview data from an institutional ethnographic study, this article explores how choice-making during mealtimes is acknowledged and problematized by staff. First, we suggest that Foucauldian problematization offers a lens through which to better understand how mealtime intervention plans passed down over time become embodied restrictive practices. Second, we provide examples and analyses of mealtime negotiations between staff and residents. Analyses revealed staff infantilize and misrepresent residents’ choice-making during meals as manipulation; additionally, analyses suggest that past experiences of staff with residents and historical meal plans color how they acknowledge and interpret residents’ choices. Our argument is an attempt to move forward discussions concerning the implementation of quality habilitation services by highlighting the ways contemporary institutional systems perpetuate misrepresentations of nonverbal behaviors in adults with profound ID.
BigbyCClementTMansellJ, et al. (2009) ‘It’s pretty hard with our ones, they can’t talk, the more able bodied can participate’: staff attitudes about the applicability of disability policies to people with severe and profound intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research53(4): 363–376.
2.
BrolanCBoyleFMDeanJH, et al. (2012) Health advocacy: a vital step in attaining human rights for adults with intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research56(11): 1087–1097.
3.
BurtonSCoxSSandhamS (2009) Nutrition, hydration, and weight. In: PawlynJCarnabyS (eds) Profound Intellectual and Multiple Disabilities: Nursing Complex Needs1. Malden, USA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 259–291.
4.
CampbellMGregorF (2004) Mapping Social Relations: A Primer in Doing Institutional Ethnography. Walnut Creek, USA: AltaMira Press.
5.
CrowsonMBrandesJHurstR (2013) Who opposes rights for persons with physical and intellectual disabilities?Journal of Applied Social Psychology43: E307–E318.
6.
DeVaultM (2006) What is institutional ethnography?Social Problems53(3): 294–298.
DeviN (2013) Supported decision-making and personal autonomy for persons with intellectual disabilities: Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics41(4): 792–806.
9.
DovidioJHeblMRichesonJ, et al. (2006) Nonverbal communication, race, and intergroup interaction. In: ManusovVPattersonM (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Nonverbal Communication. Thousand Oaks, USA: SAGE Publications, pp. 481–500.
10.
FoucaultM (1972) The Archeology of Knowledge and the Discourse of Language. London, England: Tavistock Publications.
11.
FoucaultM (1984) Polemics, politics and problematizations. In: RabinowP (ed) The Foucault Reader: An Introduction to Foucault’s Thought. New York, USA: Random House, pp. 381–390.
12.
FrederiksenKLomborgaKBeedholmK (2015) Foucault’s notion of problematization: a methodological discussion of the application of Foucault’s later work to nursing research. Nursing Inquiry22(3): 202–209.
13.
FysonRCrombyJ (2013) Human rights and intellectual disabilities in an era of ‘choice’. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research57(12): 1164–1172.
14.
GrayJMuramatsuN (2013) When the job has lost its appeal: intentions to quit among direct care workers. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities38(2): 124–133.
15.
HallIYacoubE (2012) Human rights for people with intellectual disabilities. In: DudleyMSiloveDGaleF (eds) Mental Health and Human Rights: Vision, Praxis, and Courage. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 465–475.
16.
HallrupLB (2012) The meaning of lived experiences of adults with intellectual disabilities in a Swedish institutional care setting: a reflective lifeworld approach. Journal of Clinical Nursing23: 1583–1592.
17.
JohnsonKWalmsleyJWolfeM (2010) People with Intellectual Disabilities: Towards a Good Life?Bristol, UK: The Policy Press.
18.
JohnsonKBagatellN (2017) Beyond custodial care: mediating choice and participation for adults with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Occupational Science24(4): 546–560.
19.
KatzIAssorA (2007) When choice motivates and when it does not. Educational Psychology Review14: 429–442.
20.
Lohrmann-O’RourkeSBrowderD (1998) Empirically based methods to assess the preferences of individuals with severe disabilities. American Journal on Mental Retardation103(2): 146–161.
21.
MahoneyWRobertsE (2009) Co-occupation in a day program for adults with developmental disabilities. Journal of Occupational Science16(3): 170–179.
22.
MansellJBeadle-BrownJWheltonR, et al. (2008) Effect of service structure and organisation on staff care practices in small community homes for people with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities21: 398–413.
23.
MatsumotoDHwangHS (2013) Cultural influences on nonverbal behavior. In: MatsumotoDFrankMHwangHS (eds) Nonverbal Communication: Science and Application. Los Angeles, USA: SAGE Publications, pp. 97–120.
24.
MilesMHubermanASaldañaJ (2014) Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, USA: SAGE Publications.
25.
RobertsATownsendSMorrisJ, et al. (2013) Treat me right, treat me equal: using national policy and legislation to create positive changes in local health services for people with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities26: 14–25.
26.
SchalockRBorthwick-DuffySBradleyV, et al. (2010) Intellectual Disability: Definition, Classification, and Systems of Supports, 11th ed. Washington, DC, USA: American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.
27.
SmithD (1987) The Everyday World as Problematic: A Feminist Sociology. Boston, USA: Northeastern University Press.
28.
SmithD (2005) Institutional Ethnography: A Sociology for People. Toronto, Canada: AltaMira.
SrivastavaPHopwoodN (2009) A practical iterative framework for qualitative data analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods8(1): 76–84.
31.
TicháRLakinKLarsonS, et al. (2012) Correlates of everyday choice and support-related choice for 8,892 randomly sampled adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities in 19 states. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities50(6): 486–504.
32.
United Kingdom Parliament Joint Committee on Human Rights (2010) Equality and Human Rights Commission. Available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/4b9e030e2.html(accessed 24 September 2017).
33.
United Nations General Assembly (2007) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: resolution / adopted by the General Assembly. Available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/45f973632.html(accessed 24 September 2017).
34.
VerdugoMANavasPGomezLE, et al. (2012) The concept of quality of life and its role in enhancing human rights in the field of intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research56(11): 1036–1045.
35.
WardTStewartC (2008) Putting human rights into practice with people with an intellectual disability. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities20: 297–311.
36.
WehmeyerMAberyB (2013) Self-determination and choice. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities51(5): 399–411.
37.
Zoder-MartellKDufreneBTingstromD, et al. (2014) Training direct care staff to increase positive interactions with individuals with developmental disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities35: 2180–2189.
