Abstract
This paper looks at evaluation research regarding the outcomes of deinstitutionalization on persons with intellectual disabilities in welfare states and Japan, and seeks to clarify the perspective of evaluation research. The conclusions that this paper draws are as follows. First, it is found that in research evaluating welfare states and Japan both behavioral and QOL indicators are strongly emphasized. While overall QOL indicators improve after deinstitutionalization, some indicators regarding behavioral areas remained the same or in some cases got worse. This leads to the conclusion that the way in which one defines or understands the principle of normalization affects the interpretation of research results. Second, in research evaluating welfare states and Japan, a high value is placed on the subjective interpretations of the persons with intellectual disabilities themselves. Such research is important to the extent that it challenges society's category of "normal", which is limited by an over-reliance on assimilation into mainstream culture. However, it is also necessary to examine from the perspective of social constructionism the various interacting factors that underpin the subjective views of the persons with intellectual disabilities.
