The Sight Impaired Refugee - Challenges and Possible Solutions - Literature review Example

Concept paper 9 March 2015 The Sight Impaired Refugee: Challenges and Possible Solutions Contents Concept paper 1 The Sight Impaired Refugee: Challenges and Possible Solutions 1 Executive Summary This concept paper considers the challenges that a visually impaired refugee would encounter trying to navigate the public space in Australia. The paper has a background section, which indicates what refugees and sight impaired individuals in Australia have to grapple with. Using the ‘what is’ analogy, the paper creates a clear picture of the current social infrastructure in Australia both for a refugee and for a person living with sight impairment. Based on the ‘what is’ questions, the paper idealises a ‘what if’ scenario that creates possible solutions that could be used to create a better environment in Australia, which would accommodate sight impaired refugees in a better way. In the ‘next steps and timeline’ section, the paper proposes a systematic way in which the proposals contained in the ‘what if’ section can be implemented. The proposals include: getting the stakeholders together and identifying the main things they are advocating; working with government officials who handle refugee community placement; working with interest groups that advocate for the rights of the refugees and the rights of sight impaired people; creating awareness among intended beneficiaries; and sensitising the public about the need to be more self-aware when in public places. The paper ends by suggesting a multi-stakeholder approach in implementing the proposals. This is suggested in recognition of the fact that issues highlighted herein cannot be decided upon by a single stakeholder group in exclusion of others. Introduction Visual impairment makes it hard to navigate even the places one is used to, but the challenge could even be harder if a refugee with a visual impairment was to move to Australia. First, he would be required to navigate some unknown territory, and assuming that he would be allowed to integrate into the Australian society upon arrival, it is possible that he would encounter several cultural-related challenges. This paper conceptualises the writer as a refugee whose sight is impaired. The paper looks at some of the main challenges that such a person may go through. It further uses the ‘what is’ and ‘what if’ elements as theorised by Liedtka, King and Bennett (2013) to conceptualise some of the possible solutions that different stakeholders in the Australian society can adopt in order to make life easier for a cohort of people who are refugees and sight impaired. The paper has a background section that looks into challenges that visually impaired people have to grapple with. The background section also identifies some of the challenges that refugees have to deal as they seek to be integrated into the Australian society. The paper has a ‘what is’ section which is based on the hypothetical arrival of a visually impaired man in Australia. The ‘what if’ section looks at some of the possible solutions that stakeholders in the Australian society can adopt in order to make the lives of visually impaired refugees easier. The paper ends with recommendations, which if adopted, would make navigation and integration for the hypothetical cohort less challenging. Background Visual impairment does not stop one from leading a normal life, but it makes living more complicated (Devenish-Meares 2011). In Australia, visually impaired people encounter challenges especially when navigating public places, because as Devenish-Meares (2011) notes, the sighted people are not as careful or considerate as they should be. In his own experience, Devenish-Meares (2011) who uses the Redfern railway station in Sydney to commute daily, has been hit and his cane broken on numerous occasions. While Devenish-Meares (2011) knows the Redfern station only too well, he still encounters challenges. The problems are often occasioned by other sighted commuters who do not pay enough attention and who keep bumping him, making him lose track of his whereabouts and in worst case scenarios, breaking his cane. Once the cane is broken, Devenish-Meares (2011) admits that he cannot navigate the public space without being attended to (possibly by a well-wisher). If navigating public places is as challenging as Devenish-Meares (2011) indicates for a visually impaired Australian national, it can only be worse for a refugee. He puts it aptly by stating that “vision is the shortcut to almost everything we do” (Devenish-Meares 2011, para. 6). With impaired vision therefore, life is more complicated. This is even worse for a refugee who is encountering new social and cultural factors. Australia has a system that puts some refugees and asylum seekers into community placement (Triggs 2013). Community placement is done either through bridging visas or community detention. However, it does not guarantee the refugee an easy life in Australia. In reality, the refugee has to grapple with a lack of familiarity, which may complicate daily life, especially if they have physical challenges such as sight impairment. Current issue [What is] According to Liedtka et al. (2013), the ‘what is’ question enables a person (or an entity) to develop an accurate assessment or understanding of the present. In other words, the answer to the ‘what is’ question enables a person to deal with the current situation and perhaps even understand what caused it. In the hypothetical situation of a visually impaired refugee having challenges navigating the public spaces in Australia, it is important to understand that different factors have contributed to such challenges. First, the social arrangement in Australia does not seem to recognise that everybody does not have optimal physical capacity. As such, no limits have been provided for what can be done in public places. In his account, Devenish-Meares (2011) indicates that most of the people who bump into him or break his white cane are those who text while walking, talk on the phone while walking, or have headphones blaring loud music. In other words, such people are completely out of touch with their immediate surroundings. Understandably, the government cannot regulate behaviour in social public places. However, there is a possibility that the management of such places could erect notices that encourage users to be more considerate of other people’s needs. The next reality for a refugee – regardless of the physical capacities, is that they have to encounter unfamiliar environments and cultures. With no help from either communities or government representatives, the experience of adjusting to the unfamiliar can be daunting. Arguably, nothing much can be done to help refugees adjust to the unfamiliar environment in Australia because oftentimes, it is expected that their resilience will eventually enable them to fit into the Australian society. In other words, once a refugee is in community placement, no follow-up is done either by government representatives or social workers to ensure that the refugee fits in. The other reality in Australia is that while kerb ramps are provided for wheel chair users, not many other provisions are made for people with other types of disabilities. The foregoing lack of provisions occurs despite the fact that people living with disabilities have different challenges navigating the same public places as the able-bodied people. Finally, it would appear that interest groups do not consider navigating public places a major challenge for people with impaired sight. In Australia, people with impaired sight seem to use different aids to aid their navigation. Some use white canes, while others use canine guides. Still, the technology savvy use guide devices. Arguably, a person who uses a guide canine may not be able to empathise with the one who uses a white cane and has to replace the same every so often. Arguably, therefore, the usage of different navigation aids has contributed to the absence of a common ‘voice’ through which people living with impaired sight can advocate for easy to navigate public places. Proposal [What if] What if the public spaces had reminders encouraging people to be more aware of their surroundings? There is little doubt that if there were such reminders, either as notices or through megaphones, people like Devenish-Meares (2011) would have experienced fewer incidents in public spaces that leave them incapacitated. What if instead of assuming that a refugee will be resilient enough to find ways of fitting into the society, the social services or stakeholders in the government or non-government organisations chose to help out? Such stakeholders could help by providing support services to the refugee until such a time when they would be independent and able to manoeuvre their way in Australia. Another possibility is that the government could recognise the challenges that refugees living with physical disabilities go through and as such, provide further support to enable them fit into the Australian society more easily. Another possible solution which stakeholders dealing with issues that affect the visually impaired people should consider is providing them with electronic aids, canines or canes, which would enhance their mobility. Just like canes, electronic aids can be knocked off by other public place users, and as such, there would always be the need to have a backup plan whenever a cane is broken or an electronic device is lost. Concerned stakeholders could for example provide extra foldable canes to visually impaired refugees. Alternatively, visually impaired refugees can be provided with electronic devices to aid their movements in public places. They could also be encouraged to fold and carry their white cane as a backup for use whenever the electronic device fails to work for whatever season. Another alternative would be the setting up of a call service which refugees with physical difficulties can call and get assistance. Naturally, a refugee’s social connections are limited. If Devenish-Meares were a refugee, he would have had a difficult time getting help because possibly, his social circles would have been limited. As an Australian though, he was in a position to call his family members, colleagues at work, or even friends to help him out. The same cannot be said about refugees who have little or no social connections. In such cases, the government and other stakeholders who are concerned with the welfare of refugees or with the welfare of physically challenged people should develop help centres where stranded people can call, request and promptly receive help. Next steps and timelines To ensure that the interests of refugees who have different physical disabilities (including those who are visually impaired) are taken into consideration, there is a need for different stakeholders who have an interest in upholding the rights of minority groups to start advocating for the same. The first step, therefore, is for stakeholders to get together (for example in a forum), and highlight the issues they want to advocate. The second step is to work with government and non-governmental organisations to ensure that help centres dedicated to refugees and people living with different disabilities are set up. The third step is to create awareness about the help centre and ensure that everyone who may need the centre’s assistance knows of its existence and how to contact it should the need to do so arise. The fourth step is to create awareness among the intended beneficiaries about the need to arm oneself with a backup plan. For example, carry an extra white cane just in case what you are using (i.e. cane or electronic device) does not work anymore. The final stage involves sensitising the general public to remain more aware of their immediate environment. Arguably, self-awareness is a virtue that will not only work to enhance the ease of movement of disabled people in public places, but could also be used to avert disasters such as terrorist attacks that target busy public spaces. Approach The concept suggested in this paper requires a multi-stakeholder approach. Ideally, different stakeholders should be brought together in a stakeholder forum. The main stakeholders to consider for inclusion include government officials who handle refugee community placement. The other important stakeholder group includes non-governmental bodies that advocate for the rights of refugees and those who advocate for the rights of people living with physical disabilities. Of special interest to this concept paper will be groups advocating for the rights of people living with sight impairment. Individuals or groups of refugees are also an important stakeholder group for inclusion in actualising the proposed concept. Finally, several members of the public should be considered for inclusion in the stakeholder forum since they would provide an independent (and possibly objective) perspective of the entire concept. References Devenish-Meares, A 2011, ‘Are you blind people?’ ABC- The Angry Cripple Column, viewed 9 March 2015, . Liedtka, J, King, A & Bennett, K 2013, Solving problems with design thinking: ten stories of what works, Columbia University Press, Columbia. Triggs, G 2013, Asylum seekers, refugees and human rights- snapshot report’, Australian Human Rights Commission, viewed 9 March 2015, . Read More