Advertisement

Building an Inclusive National Strategy for Disabled Children in Kyrgyzstan Through an Application of the BIAS FREE Framework

  • Mary Anne Burke
  • Andrea Pupulin
Chapter

Abstract

The BIAS FREE Framework (Burke & Eichler, 2006) is an innovative, rights-based tool for identifying and eliminating biases deriving from social hierarchies in research, legislation, policies, programs, service delivery and practices. BIAS FREE stands for Building an Integrative Analytical Framework for Recognizing and Eliminating InEquities. The BIAS FREE Framework addresses the intersection of biases deriving from hierarchies based on gender, disability, age, class, caste, socio-economic status, religion, sexual orientation, geographical location and immigrant/refugee status, among others, and how these play out in the overall health and well-being of people. The Framework is a tool for building equitable, more inclusive societies based on respect, equality, human rights and the full participation and benefit of all people.

This chapter gives further details about the BIAS FREE Framework and how it can be used. Specifically, it reports on one application of the Framework and how it was used to assess the situation of disabled children in Kyrgyzstan and to build momentum for the development of a National Strategy to build a fully inclusive Kyrgyzstan.

Keywords

Disable People Disable Child National Strategy Social Hierarchy Double Standard 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Amiot, CE, & Bouris, RY (2005). ‘Discrimination between dominant and subordinate groups: The positive-negative asymmetry effect and normative process’, British Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 289–308PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Burke, MA, & Eichler, M (2006). The BIAS FREE Framework: A Practical Tool for Identifying and Eliminating Social Biases in Health Research, Geneva, Switzerland: The Global Forum for Health Research. http://www.globalforumhealth.org/filesupld/Bias%20free/BIASFree_References.pdf Google Scholar
  3. Burke, MA, & Pegg S (2003). Analysis of Special Needs Education Policies in Canada Using an Inclusion Lens, North York, ON: The Roeher Institute. http://www.globalforumhealth.org/filesupld/Bias%20free/BIASFree_References.pdf Google Scholar
  4. Burke, MA, Bach, M, Coleman, R, McKie, C, & Stewart, G (2000) Dynamic Model of Health, http://www.cwhn.ca/resources/health_model/Dmodel.pdf [accessed 14th February 2007]
  5. Burke, MA, Bach, M, & Crawford, C (2001). Striking a New Balance: Proposal for a Joint Federal-Provincial/Territorial Disability Supports Investment Strategy, North York, ON: The Roeher InstituteGoogle Scholar
  6. Burke, MA, Bach, M, & Crawford, C (2002a). Moving in Unison Into Action: Towards a Policy Strategy for Improving Access to Disability Supports, North York, ON: The Roeher InstituteGoogle Scholar
  7. Burke, MA, Crawford, C, & Pegg, S (2002b). A Tool for Assessing Child Care/ECD Programs, http://www.cacl.ca/english/priorityresouces/childyouth/resources.html North York, ON: The Roeher InstituteGoogle Scholar
  8. Burke, MA, Crawford, C, & Pegg, S (2002c). Community Profile Tool: Measuring Inclusivity of Early Childhood Resources, http://www.cacl.ca/english/priorityresouces/childyouth/resources.html North York, ON: The Roeher InstituteGoogle Scholar
  9. Burke, MA, Crawford, C, & Pegg, S (2002d). Early Childhood Development Policy Analysis Tool, http://www.cacl.ca/english/priorityresouces/childyouth/resources.html North York, ON: The Roeher InstituteGoogle Scholar
  10. Burke, MA, Pegg, S & Stewart, C (2003) Inclusivity of the Child Care Policy Environment in Canada: Much Work to Be Done, North York, ON: The Roeher Institute. http://www.cacl.ca/english/priorityresouces/childyouth/Docs/Much%20Work%20rev_sed%20Sep1_041.pdf Google Scholar
  11. Eichler, M, & Burke, MA (2006) The BIAS FREE Framework. A new analytical tool for global health research. Canadian Journal of Public Health:63–68, Ottawa, Global Health Issue, Jan –Feb 2006.Google Scholar
  12. Rossides, DW (1996). Social stratification: The interplay of class, race, and gender (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice HallGoogle Scholar
  13. Schriner, K and Scotch RK (2001) Disability and Institutional Change: A Human Variation Perspective on Overcoming Oppression. Journal of Disability Policy Studies VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2, Fall 2001Google Scholar
  14. UNCRPWD (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) (2007), New York: United NationsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mary Anne Burke
    • 1
  • Andrea Pupulin
    • 1
  1. 1.BIAS FREE Inc. and OISEUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations