177 General Discussion 7 for victimization”. Moreover, I wonder whether these generalizing claims about a highly heterogeneous group implicitly diminish the ability of some practitioners or scientists to see each individual as unique, thereby unintentionally posing a barrier to the personalization of care and research. This is probably more the case for scientists, as the practitioners’ job entails navigating the unique characteristics of each person on a daily basis. I therefore suspect that practitioners recognize the high degree of variability and change over time more than scientists. Even if the scientific foundations of a mild intellectual disability as an explanation for the problems could be perceived as shaky, its colloquial use may still have a broader societal use. The classification facilitates communication among professionals and enables research on groups with somewhat similar (dis)abilities. Furthermore, we have organized society in such a way that the diagnosis gives people access to education or care that is specialized to their (dis)abilities. Access to care leads to help for problems, but does the diagnosis itself have a similar effect? Receiving a diagnosis will likely impact someone's self-image. In practice, some people embrace their mild intellectual disability diagnosis, but I do think that many others carry it with shame, frustration, or denial. There is no research, however, that systematically mapped out (heterogeneity in) how people are influenced by their mild intellectual disability label. Hacking (1999) reasoned that any psychological classification will interact with someone's personal identity over time. A diagnosis may lead to changes in behavior due to self-fulfilling prophecies or societal expectations. People with a mild intellectual disability may avoid challenging tasks, believing they are beyond their capabilities. Family, friends, educators, and employers may lower expectations of the individual based on the diagnosis. This may improve social participation in the short term, but could also hinder their intellectual development in the long term. Over time, the individual’s identity is shaped by the ongoing interaction between the label and their personal experiences. I consider it crucial that the intellectual disability field maps this out. Qualitative, idiographic methods are optimally suited to explore questions like: do people with a mild intellectual disability diagnosis perceive this as a root cause for their problems or as a mere classifying description of their problems? Do they feel that the diagnosis explains, alleviates, and destigmatizes their problems? Such research would align with the past decade’s trend in the intellectual disability field to place greater value on their experiential expertise. In a similar vein, it would also be relevant to ascertain how care professionals perceive the meaning of having a mild intellectual disability.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw