Abstract

The question raised in the article is how user participation and similar terms have been construed in policy for disabled people since the terms were introduced. The empirical base is Norwegian policy documents dealing specifically with policies relating to disabled people from the mid-1960s to the present. The study is based on a critical discourse analytical approach. The dominant discourses are characterised as ‘varying discourses of democracy’. The discourses can be seen as illustrating mutual trust between citizens and the state in the Nordic welfare model. However, the harmony between citizens and the state is not necessarily sufficient to elicit great changes in political practices. The Nordic countries’ reputation of ‘being number one’ in deinstitutionalisation and independent living might also conceal problems such as inflexible systems and the imbalance of power, whereby the control of services lies with the system and the professionals, not the users.

• Points of interest

• The article analyses how user participation have been construed in policy documents for disabled people.

• Norwegian policy documents from the mid-1960s to present is the empirical base.

• The study is based on critical discourse analysis.

• The dominant discourses is characterised as varying discourses of democracy.

• The apparent harmony between the citizens and the state might conceal that the control lies with the system and the professionals, not the users.

摘要

文章中提出的问题是，自从引入这些条款以来，如何在针对残疾人的政策中解释用户参与和类似条款。实证基础是挪威的政策文件，专门处理从 1960 年代中期至今与残疾人有关的政策。该研究基于批判性话语分析方法。占主导地位的话语被描述为“不同的民主话语”。这些话语可以看作是北欧福利模式下公民与国家之间相互信任的例证。然而，公民与国家之间的和谐并不一定足以引发政治实践的巨大变化。

• 兴趣点

• 本文分析了残疾人政策文件中如何解释用户参与。

• 1960 年代中期至今的挪威政策文件是经验基础。

• 该研究基于批判性话语分析。

• 占主导地位的话语被描述为不同的民主话语。

• 公民与国家之间表面上的和谐可能掩盖了控制权在于系统和专业人员，而不是用户。