Abstract
The article provides an overview and integration of work examining the multiple applications of context to enhancing personal outcomes, with a focus on how a clearer understanding of context can be leveraged in disability policy development, implementation, and evaluation. Specifically, a clear operational definition of context and an empirically based conceptual model of context are presented, followed by an approach to the analysis or measurement of context, and guidelines for applying an understanding of context to enhance personal outcomes through policy development, implementation, and evaluation. The article concludes with a discussion of five specific actions that can be taken to leverage the power of context.
Keywords
Despite the widespread use of the term context in the disability field, there is limited specificity regarding its definition, understanding, and utility (Shogren et al., 2014). To address the need for clearer communication about context, several articles have been published by the authors over the last 5 years explicating how context can be defined operationally and understood through contextual analysis and a multidimensional model. Based on this understanding, implications for how an understanding of context can be used within organizations that support people with disabilities to unfreeze the status quo, drive change, and build contexts that enhance human functioning and personal outcomes have been offered (Shogren et al., 2015, 2020; Shogren, Luckasson, & Schalock, 2018; Shogren, Schalock, & Luckasson, 2018).
The purpose of the present article is to describe how a deeper understanding of context can also facilitate disability policy development, implementation, and evaluation. First, however, it is necessary to discuss the relevance of context to the disability field and provide an understanding of context based on our recently published work. Based on this relevance and understanding, the article describes how policy makers, service/support providers, and individuals with disabilities and their families can leverage the power of context to enhance personal outcomes through disability policy development, implementation, and evaluation.
Relevance of Context to the Disability Field
Shogren et al. (2014) identified, in a systematic literature search, more than 117,000 articles published over the past 25 years that referenced context and disability, with 85,000 of these articles published in the past 10 years. The importance of context and its role in human functioning has been referenced in the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities’ (AAIDD) Terminology and Classification Manuals since 2002 (Luckasson et al., 2002; Schalock et al., 2010), and in the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF; World Health Organization, 2001, 2007). The role that context plays in disability policy development, implementation, and evaluation has also been discussed by Buntinx (2006), Schalock (2017), Turnbull and Stowe (2017), and Verdugo et al. (2017).
Despite the thousands of references in the literature to the term “context” and its relevance to disability policy development, implementation, and evaluation, only a few researchers have acknowledged the challenges in defining context. For example, in an edited text on “rethinking context” in the field of linguistics (Duranti & Goodwin, 1992), the authors suggested the term context is often used too narrowly to refer to the investigation of a specific aspect of context, rather than context holistically. This is consistent with the findings from the Shogren et al. (2014) literature review in the field of disability where context was typically used to refer to a specific element of context that the authors were studying, such as family structure or public policy. However, Duranti and Goodwin (1992) noted that a
focal event cannot be properly understood, interpreted appropriately or described in a relevant fashion unless one looks beyond the event itself to other phenomena (for example, cultural setting, speech situation, or shared background assumptions) within which the event is embedded. Thus, context is a frame (Goffman, 1974) that surrounds the event being examined and provides resources for its appropriate interpretation. (p. 3, italics added)
When context is not used as a frame, but instead used only to refer to a specific factor being studied by a researcher, it is likely that critical elements of context are overlooked (Becher & Orland-Barak, 2018; Schegloff, 1992). Specifically, researchers and practitioners may fail to recognize and evaluate the existence of the multiple factors, levels, and interactions that define context (Shogren et al., 2020). Furthermore, they may fail to recognize and integrate the perspective of people with disabilities of their context. When one fails to consider the multidimensional nature of context, and the perspectives of people with disabilities of what works and does not work in their context, there is a danger of research on context becoming a “club” where someone can “relativize what you have to say by reference to what I have noticed or know about or care about, potentially diminish or obliterate what you have offered and put what I have offered center stage” (Schegloff, 1992, p. 215). Thus, it is necessary to define and integrate a multidimensional understanding of context into disability policy development, implementation, and evaluation, both to avoid these risks and to more holistically address the multidimensional contextual factors that, if meaningfully understood, can be leveraged to enhance personal outcomes.
An Understanding of Context
Given the complexity of context and the important role it plays in human functioning and personal outcomes, there is a compelling need to develop an investigatory framework (i.e., “frame”) based on an operational definition of context that incorporates holistically the critical elements of context. Over the last 5 years, we have engaged in a line of work to address this need. Our framework provides both an understanding of the multidimensionality of context and guidance on the multiple applications of a multidimensional model of context in disability policy development, implementation, and evaluation. Although the goal of our work is to enhance the personal outcomes of people with disabilities, we emphasize that to achieve this end, change is needed at multiple levels. Therefore, an understanding of context needs to be used not only to inform disability policy development, implementation, and evaluation, but also to plan individualized supports. This supports planning should occur across macro, meso, and micro systems (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 2005), and be responsive to the contextual factors involved in the successful building of systems of supports.
An understanding of context based on a synthesis of our recently published work (Shogren et al., 2015, 2020; Shogren, Luckasson, & Schalock, 2018; Shogren, Schalock, & Luckasson, 2018) is described in subsequent sections. These sections present (a) an operational definition of context, (b) how context can be understood through contextual analysis, (c) the properties of context as evidenced in a multidimensional model of context, (d) how a context-based change model can be applied, and (e) how an understanding of context can be used to build contexts for the benefit of individuals and society. Based on this understanding, the article then discusses how an understanding of context can be used to facilitate policy development, implementation, and evaluation. Throughout the article, the term disability policy is used to refer to policies that are developed, implemented, and evaluated at multiple levels, including organizations, service delivery systems, and state, regional, national, and/or international levels.
Operational Definition of Context
In our early work (Shogren et al., 2014), we conducted a comprehensive review of the literature, concluding that there was no consensus definition of context despite the widespread use of the term in lay, technical, and research publications. To address this need, we synthesized the literature to create the following consensus definition of context: Context is a concept that integrates the totality of circumstances that comprise the milieu of human life and human functioning. Context can be viewed as an independent and intervening variable. As an independent variable, context includes personal and environmental characteristics that are not usually manipulated such as age, language, culture and ethnicity, gender and family. As an intervening variable, context includes organizations, systems, and societal policies and practices that can be manipulated to enhance functioning. As an integrative concept, context provides a framework for: (a) describing and analyzing aspects of human functioning such as personal and environmental factors, supports planning, and policy development; and (b) delineating the factors that affect, both positively and negatively, human functioning. (Shogren et al., 2014, p. 110)
Based on the above definition of context, the synthesis of the literature regarding context, and our ongoing work on context, we assert that the following six assumptions are essential to the application of the definition.
Human functioning is influenced by context.
Context is multifactorial, multidimensional, and interactive.
Context is best understood from the perspective of the individual and his or her values, personal goals, and personal desires.
Context influences human functioning by acting as an independent variable or an intervening variable.
Context is observable and measurable.
Responsive contexts can be built that enhance personal outcomes.
Understanding Context Through Contextual Analysis
To further operationalize the use of context as an integrative concept in the disability field, we explored how an understanding of context could assist in aligning disability policies, systems of supports, and personal outcomes (Shogren et al., 2015). To facilitate this alignment, we built on earlier work (e.g., Manchester et al., 2014), and introduced contextual analysis as an analytic or measurement method to (a) understand context-related facilitators and barriers to change and (b) delineate the role that context plays in supporting disability policy goals and unfreezing the status quo to enhance personal outcomes and facilitate organizational or system-level change.
We initially focused on identifying and defining five steps involved in conducting a contextual analysis: (a) the contextual factors that hinder change, (b) the discrepancies between where one is and where one wants to be, (c) the forces for change that will increase momentum and receptivity, (d) ways to promote adoption and application, and (e) ways to increase stakeholder participation in making change. Over time, we have broadened our application of contextual analysis, demonstrating its power not only at the individual or micro level to enhance personal outcomes, but also at the meso and macro levels to bring about change through unfreezing the status quo and enhancing personal outcomes through systemic change (Shogren, Schalock, & Luckasson, 2018). We have specifically described how contextual analysis can be used by systems to address their responsibility to build contexts that increase responsiveness to contextual factors and leverage the power of contextual analysis to enhance personal outcomes through community, organization, and system practices (Shogren, Luckasson, & Schalock, 2018).
Table 1 provides an overview of these multiple applications across ecological systems and the potential results that can be obtained from the applications of contextual analysis. We also provide sources (i.e., previously published articles) that the reader can consult for further details on each of these applications. We encourage readers to use Table 1 to consider the application of contextual analysis that is best aligned with their interests, needs, and roles (e.g., enhancing personal outcomes, building systems of supports, driving valued organization- and systems-level change, building responsive contexts). Such considerations are necessary to appreciate fully how an understanding of context can be used to enhance personal outcomes through changing organization and systems-level practices.
Potential Applications of Contextual Analysis.
Multidimensional Conceptual Model of Context
Based on our most recent work, we have developed a multidimensional conceptual model of context (see Figure 1). This multidimensional model conceptualizes context as being multilevel, multifactorial, and interactive, and it operationalizes the complexity of context that is not widely done in contemporary uses of the term (Becher & Orland-Barak, 2018; Duranti & Goodwin, 1992; Shogren et al., 2014). These three properties of context, which can be understood through contextual analysis, are shown graphically in Figure 1 and described more fully in Table 2. They also inform the multiple applications of context described in Table 1, highlighting the interactive impact of context-based change strategies across the multiple levels that define context. It is important to note that any contextual analysis should consider the multilevels, multifactors, and interaction of these factors and levels, and that the implementation of change strategies identified through contextual analysis can be implemented across multiple levels simultaneously.
A multidimensional conceptual model of context.
Components and Key Features of a Multidimensional Conceptual Model of Context.
Source. Adapted from Shogren et al. (2017). Copyright 2017 by the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. Adapted with permission.
Conceptualizing context as a multidimensional phenomenon and understanding its multilevel, multifactorial, and interactive properties provide a comprehensive framework within which contextual analysis can be used to inform the multiple applications described in Table 1, with the ultimate goal being to enhance personal outcomes. This comprehensive framework ensures that interactions across factors and systems are fully considered, which reduces the risk of privileging one aspect or one perspective of context above others. This also pushes the field beyond simplistic understanding of person–environment interactions by acknowledging the complexity of the interactions that occur across levels and factors as reflected in the multidimensional model of context. Policy makers, service/support providers, and researchers need to recognize the complex interaction of the multiple levels and factors that shape a person’s life and outcomes over time to truly leverage an understanding of context to enhance personal and societal outcomes. Only by understanding and targeting these complex interactions can the potential of context and contextual analysis be used to make change at the individual, family, organization, community, and system levels.
The conceptual model depicted in Figure 1 also allows support teams and researchers to work with people with disabilities, their families, and support providers to identify the interactions that have the highest potential to influence personal goals and outcomes. This identification actualizes the potential of contextual analysis to increase stakeholder participation and the engagement of people with disabilities and their families in identifying and augmenting the aspects of one’s context and systems of supports that will have the highest impact on targeted outcomes. In addition, the model allows policy makers, service/support providers, support teams, and advocates to identify the multilevel and/or multifactorial conditions, policies, and/or practices that either facilitate or hinder personal outcomes. This identification facilitates the prioritization of support strategies across ecological systems.
Applying a Context-Based Change Model
A context-based change model is used to unfreeze the status quo and drive valued outcomes at the individual, family, community, organization, and societal levels (Shogren, Schalock, & Luckasson, 2018). The components of a context-based change model are shown in Figure 2. These components involve conducting a contextual analysis; planning for change across the multilevels, multifactors, and interactions that are part of one’s context; implementing or “doing” the plan; and evaluating whether intended changes in personal outcomes result.
A context-based change model.
Table 3 provides further details on the analysis, plan, do, and evaluate components of the context-based change model shown in Figure 2. In reference to each model component, the reader will find a description of the component; examples of information obtained from the contextual analysis or action steps related to planning, doing, and evaluating; and sources for further explanation of the model and its use. As noted, the model can be applied at the individual level to enhance personal outcomes or at the organization or system level to promote responsiveness to contextual factors to ultimately enhance personal outcomes.
Context-Based Change Model Components, Examples, and Sources for More Information.
Using an Understanding of Context to Build Beneficial Contexts
Organization or systems that support individuals with a disability have the responsibility to build contexts for the benefit of individuals and society. This responsibility entails both being responsive to how people with a disability and their families perceive the contextual factors that affect their lives and implementing change strategies based on contextual analysis and a context-based change model such as that shown in Figure 2 and described in Table 3 (Shogren, Schalock, & Luckasson, 2018). In doing so, organizations and systems are more effective in leveraging the power of context.
The guidelines presented in Table 4 have been developed to provide guidance for the multiple ways that context can be leveraged to actively build contexts that benefit individuals and society. The guidelines are organized around the four parameters associated with the context-based change model (contextual analysis, planning, doing, evaluating; see Figure 2), and should be read in conjunction with Tables 2 and 3. The application of each of these steps can occur at the individual, family, community, organization, system, or societal level—depending on the focus of the context analysis—and can be used to promote quality improvement through contextual evaluation (Schalock, Verdugo, & van Loon, 2018).
Guidelines for Building Contexts That Benefit Individuals and Society.
Addressing the Responsibility of Organizations to Recognize Multiple Perspectives
In applying a context-based change model to leverage the power of context, both organizations and systems must recognize the possible existence of multiple perspectives (e.g., the person with a disability, individuals who support them, policy makers) regarding context, and the potential conflicts that may arise among these different perspectives of context. For example, Becher and Orland-Barak (2018) found that some mentors of student teachers experienced significant tension between contextual factors related to their discipline’s subject matter context (i.e., art education) and the school in which they were attempting to provide mentorship, which limited their effectiveness and personal outcomes. Recognizing and addressing these multiple perspectives ensures that one aspect of context that happens to be included in research or policy initiates is not privileged over others (Schegloff, 1992).
Summary
Having a framework for context is essential to move beyond simply using the term to having a meaningful understanding of contextual factors, levels, and interactions that affect outcomes for people with disabilities and their families. In the previous section, we operationally defined context and listed the assumptions that are essential to the definition’s application, described how context can be assessed through the analytic method of contextual analysis, outlined the components of a multidimensional conceptual model of context, discussed the application of a context-based change model, and provided guidelines to assist organizations and systems in building responsive contexts for the benefit of individuals and society. Each of these steps has broad applicability to how an understanding of context can be applied to disability policy development, implementation, and evaluation. We discuss next how the power of context can be leveraged to the maximum benefit of disability policy development, implementation, and evaluation.
Context in Disability Policy Development, Implementation, and Evaluation
Policy Development
Developing, implementing, and evaluating disability policy is a dynamic process, particularly given the rapid changes that are occurring in the disability field. Disability policy requires a focus on advancing personal outcomes using strategies and approaches that are person centered, incorporate the holistic nature of each person’s life, are context sensitive and supports based, and reflect the emerging consensus on desired policy goals and outcomes. Therefore, there is a need to develop an integrated approach to disability policy development, implementation, and evaluation that provides a framework that aligns the context-responsive inputs (disability policy goals), throughputs (individualized support strategies), and personal outcomes (Shogren et al., 2017).
Table 5 identifies the parameters of such an aligned framework. As summarized in Table 5, disability policy development is based on three broad disability policy goals and associated personal outcome domains. The goals and domains listed in columns 1 and 2 of Table 5 are based on the disability policy framework discussed by Turnbull and Stowe (2001, 2017), the extensive international literature reviewed by Shogren et al. (2015), and the published work of Bradley and Moseley (2007), Gómez and Verdugo (2016), Schalock and Verdugo (2012), and the Council on Quality and Leadership (2010). Exemplary contextual factors that can potentially be leveraged to influence the outcome domains listed in column 3 are identified through contextual analysis (see Table 1) and need to be addressed as part of policy implementation. As further described in the following section “Policy Implementation,” the exemplary support strategies listed in column 4 are based on the extensive literature regarding the essential role that systems of supports play in implementing an integrated approach to disability policy (Stancliffe et al., 2016; Thompson et al., 2014). The personal outcome domain indicators listed in column 5 used to guide disability policy evaluation are based on the recent work of Claes et al. (2017), Gómez and Verdugo, and Verdugo et al. (2017).
Disability Policy Development, Implementation, and Evaluation Framework.
Policy Implementation
As shown in columns 3 and 4 of Table 5, an aligned approach to policy implementation involves information based on the multidimensional model of context (see Figure 1 and Table 2), contextual analysis, and a context-based change process (Figure 2 and Table 3).
Multidimensional model of context
Figure 1 and Table 2 can be used to understand (a) the ecological systems (micro, meso, macro) within which people live, are educated, work, and recreate; (b) the potential influential factors within these ecological systems that can be manipulated or changed to enhance personal outcomes; and (c) the interactions that occur between multilevel/multifactorial contextual variables.
Contextual analysis
As an essential step in policy implementation, contextual analysis provides information to develop implementation strategies. Specifically, and as described in Table 1, a contextual analysis allows policy implementers to identify (a) contextual factors that hinder change, and forces that facilitate change at the individual or organization/system level; (b) personal outcome indicators that can be aligned with personal goals, support needs, and support strategies; (c) contextual factors that influence valued outcomes across ecological systems; and (d) interactions between ecological systems and contextual factors.
Context-based change process
Grounded in contextual analysis, a context-based change process incorporates planning, doing, and evaluating (see Figure 2). As described in Table 3, planning involves targeting influencing factors and implementing specific change strategies that are incorporated into a personal support plan. Further details regarding such as plan can be found in Schalock and Luckasson (2014) and Schalock, Thompson, and Tasse (2018).
Policy Evaluation
Policy evaluation should be multidimensional and focus on valued personal outcomes and/or organization/system responsiveness indicators listed in Table 3, or more broadly on the achievement of policy goals related to the promotion of human dignity and autonomy, personally satisfying human endeavor, and/or human engagement. For this second focus, personal outcome domains associated with each of these policy goals should be used to guide the evaluation process (see Table 5, column 5). Regardless of the evaluation’s focus, five context-relevant guidelines should be employed.
Policy evaluation inherently occurs in contexts that are shaped by multiple factors (Morre et al., 2019; Rog, 2012).
Policy evaluation should focus on valued outcomes and employ reliable and valid methods (Claes et al., 2017; Gómez & Verdugo, 2016).
Contextual factors that influence evaluation practice at the individual, organization, community, and systems levels should be identified (Verdugo et al., 2017).
Policy evaluation should be collaborative, participative, empowering, and involve people with disabilities, their families, and organization- and systems-level stakeholders (Fetterman et al., 2018).
Policy evaluation should be linked to continuous quality improvement that connects best practice evidence with disability policy development, implementation, and evaluation (Claes et al., 2017; Onnis et al., 2019; Verdugo et al., 2017).
In addition to these five guidelines, policy evaluation requires an operationalization framework to analyze the impact of contextual factors on human functioning and personal outcomes. As discussed in Schalock et al. (2020), five steps are involved in developing and implementing an operationalization framework. These five are to (a) define the practices in question, (b) select outcome areas and outcome indicators, (c) gather evidence, (d) establish the credibility of the evidence, and (d) evaluate the relation between practice(s) and outcome(s).
Conclusion: Specific Actions That Leverage the Power of Context
Preceding sections have identified and elaborated on the key factors in leveraging the power of context in disability policy development, implementation, and evaluation. As a lever to produce change, applying an understanding of context is a dynamic process that involves specific context-related actions. To operationalize and apply the definition of context, including its assumptions, the following five actions are required:
Identify the multidimensional properties of context. As discussed in reference to the multidimensional model of context presented in Figure 1, context is multilevel, multifactorial, and interactive. These properties inform the multiple applications of context and highlight the interactive impact of context-based change strategies.
Use contextual analysis as the analytic or measurement method to study and understand context. As described in Table 1, contextual analysis can be used for a number of knowledge-generating purposes. Chief among these are (a) identify contextual factors that hinder change, and forces that facilitate change at the individual or organization/systems level; (b) identify personal outcome indicators; (c) identify contextual factors that influence valued outcomes across ecological systems; (d) identify interactions between ecological systems and contextual factors; and (e) assess a system’s responsiveness to building contexts that enhance personal outcomes.
Align disability policy development, implementation, and evaluation. Table 5 provides the parameters of an aligned framework, along with specific details about its application. This alignment integrates disability policy development (disability policy goals and personal outcome domains), policy implementation (contextual factors that influence the outcome domains and support strategies that enhance personal outcome domains), and policy evaluation (personal outcome domain and systems responsiveness indicators to guide policy evaluation).
Implement a context-based change process. The model presented in Figure 2 and explained in Table 3 identifies the key process steps involved in unfreezing the status quo and driving valued outcomes. Important action steps associated with the analysis, plan, do, and evaluate components of the change process are identified in Table 3, with associated guidelines presented in Table 4 for building contexts that benefit individuals and society.
Incorporate a multilevel and multipurpose approach to evaluation. In reference to a multilevel approach, policy evaluation can focus on the status of personal outcomes and/or the organization or system’s responsiveness to build contexts that benefit individuals and society. Indicators that can be employed for each evaluation level are provided in Tables 1, 3, and 5. In reference to a multipurpose approach, reliable and valid data-based measures can be used for monitoring and reporting, quality improvement, and research. Context-relevant policy evaluation guidelines that support these purposes were presented in the previous subsection on policy evaluation. A detailed discussion, with examples, of how outcomes can be used for reporting and monitoring, quality improvement, and research can be found in Schalock, Baker, et al. (2018).
In conclusion, because of the widespread use of “context” in the disability field, there is a strong need to understand the critical aspects of context, and to use that understanding as a framework and roadmap to leverage the power of context. This article has focused on how our current understanding of context can be used to guide disability policy development, implementation, and evaluation, and to leverage the power of context to drive organization and systems change, and thereby enhance personal outcomes for people with disabilities.
The authors are aware, however, that additional work is needed to fully understand the role that context plays both in human functioning and personal outcomes, and in the behavior of organizations and systems to build contexts that benefit individuals and society. Specifically, there is still a need to distinguish better between the properties of context (see Figure 1) and the perspectives of context (e.g., cultural and multiple stakeholder values), to identify and operationalize the interactions that occur between the multilevel and multifactorial properties of context, and to determine how best to assist organizations and systems to more successfully build contexts for the benefit of individuals and society.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
