Session Information
04 SES 02B, Conceptualising Special and Inclusive Education
Paper Session
Time:
2008-09-10
11:15-12:45
Room:
AK2 135
Chair:
Solveig Magnus Reindal
Contribution
The aim of this paper is to examine the trends and state of special education in Finland. During the past 30-40 years, it has not been possible to hold a scientific discussion without referring to the terms paradigm, paradigm shift and scientific revolution.(Skrtic 1991). Kuhn introduced the concept of paradigms to the discussion of the advancement of science in the early 1960s. Despite the fact that there are various meanings attached to the concept, as its creator later admitted (Kuhn 1994), it has become well established in scientific discourse (Husen 1988; Bourdieu & Wacquant 1995) and also in the field of special education (Brown 2001).
The field of special education was dominated for a considerable time, at least until the 1960s, by the traditional natural science-based "psycho-medical" paradigm. Although this positivist manner of perceiving special education and the deviance behind it has had to yield the increasing emphasis on a sociologically based paradigm in the literature of the field since the 1960s, it has succeeded in rooting itself deply in the practices of the discipline during its long history. There is still an ongoing battle between the psycho-medical and social paradigm for the right to diagnose deviance (Hedlund 2000; Skritic 1991; Stangvik 1998).
The academic world is often compared to a playing-field, on which there is a continual struggle to attain academic capital - i.e. the right to define the limits of science (Bourdieu 1988). No paradigm receives the status of science as a gift, but always as the result of a more or less fierce battle. Discussion at the level of paradigms began in Finland in the late 1980s. In this discussion two interpretations of the paradigm concept were presented. According to the narrower view, a paradigm was the same as a theory or model which explained the realtionship between pheneomena. According to the broader view a paradigm is much more; it is the "way of seeing" behind the theory, which also defines the limits of the field of vision, or a "way of not seeing" (Poplin 1988; Heshius 1989). In this study, I use the broader interpretation.
On the basis of the analyses of theses during years 1951-99 (N=50), a fairly clear picture and bipartie picture of Finnish special education research can be drawn. The quantitative paradigm based on the natural science model domintaed the field for almost the entire period under investigation up until the 1990s. After this, the qualitative paradigm arose as a parallel paradigm and the overtook the earlier one within few years. The situation appears to be very similar at least in Sweden and Norway, where the "individualistuc diagnostic perspective" or the "categrical perspective" have as altrenatives the "relational perspective" (Persson 2003; Haug 2003).In this study I will continue these analysis and collect all doctoral thesis during 2000-07 for the research.
Method
Doctoral thesis 2000-07
Qualitative and quantitative analysis of methodolgy, material, samples, gender, university, language etc.
Expected Outcomes
The quantitive revolution has continued or not ?
References
Kivirauma, Joel (2004) Scientific revolutions in special education in Finland. European Journal of Special Needs Education 19; 2, 123-144.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.