Towards Defining the ’Special’ in Special Education

Author(s):

Rune Sarromaa Hausstätter

Conference:

ECER 2008

Network:

4. Inclusive Education

Format:

Paper

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 debates in journals and book worldwide on the role of special education in schools and the situation for the disabled people in general are extensive and highly charged (e.g. Skirtic, 1991;, Krikebekk, 1993, Hausstätter, 2006, 2007; Kaffmann & Sasso, 2006a,b; Gallagher, 2006; Hegarty, 2001; Wilson, 2000; Barton & Slee, 1999, Oliver, 1996, Wolfensberger, 1989). Dannforth (2004) has described this debate as a ‘post-modern heresy’ in special education in which the debate is centred on the self-understanding of this profession, a debate that has consequences for the common knowledge-base and research for the special-education profession (Gallagher, 1998; Hausstätter & Takala, in press; Odom et al. 2005). One noteworthy dispute within this field is how the area of special-education defines whom it helps and with what means (Hausstätter, 2004; Hausstätter & Connolley, 2007). Haug (2003) has defined two directions in the self-understanding of the special education profession: the narrow and the wide. The narrow refers to a categorical understanding of disabilities and to the development of individual systems of support. In contrast, the wide understanding of special education points to a relational perspective in which there is an emphasis on the social system and cultural traditions. In this presentation I shall argue that it is necessary for the wide understanding of special education to encompass the narrow. Following this argument further towards the ‘special’ in special education, I shall claim that this process is best described by using two axes: the normal – un-normal and the good – evil. The normal – un-normal axis is a well-known and highly debated area in special education, and this distinction has played a central part in the Nordic and American discussions on normalisation (Askheim, 2003; Holst, 1978; Osburn, 2006). This division is also fundamental in the debate about inclusion in schools and society, which has sought to challenge our understanding of what we think of and understand as normal and right. The axis of good and evil is not, however, much debated in today’s literature. And yet there is clear evidence that this type of division has played a central function in the history of this field and is still active (Foucault, 1999; Østrem, 1983; Kirkebæk, 1993; Thuen, 2002). Drawing on the two axes of normal – un-normal and good – evil, I believe it is possible to present a model that points out the ‘special’ as the prime interest for the special-education profession – both from a narrow and wide understanding. It is also tempting to bring forward thoughts how this model can be used as a starting point for a renewed discussion of the role of special-education in today’s society. In spite of the ongoing discussion and political manifestos on creating an inclusive school system and society, where the distinction of normal and un-normal is problematic, it looks like society in general is placing ever greater emphasis on distinguishing the normal form the un-normal and making the normal un-normal (Hallersted, 2006; Habermas, 2003; Rose 2007). This development challenges the profession’s self-understanding in its quest to help people – to whom and with what?

Method

Theoretical paper

Expected Outcomes

To present a model that points out the ‘special’ as the prime interest for the special-education profession

References

Askheim. O. P. (2003). Fra normalisering til empowerment: ideologier og praksis i arbeid med funksjonshemmede. Oslo: Gyldendal Barton, L. and Slee, R. (1999). Competition, Selection and Inclusive Education. International Journal of Inclusive Education. 3, 3-12. Danforth, S. (2004). Postmodern heresy in Special Education: a Sociological analysis. Mental Retardation. Vol. 42, nr. 6, s. 445-458. Foucault, M. (1999). Galskapens historie. Oslo, Gyldendal. Gallagher, D. J. (1998). The Scientific Knowledge Base of Special Education: Do We Know What We Think We Know. Exceptional Childeren. Vol. 64, nr. 4 s. 493-502. Gallagher, D. J. (2006). If Not Absolute Objectivity, Then What? A reply to Kauffman and Sasso. Exceptionality. Vol 14, nr. 2, s. 91-107. Habermas, J. (2003). Den menneskelige naturs fremtid : bidrag til den etiske debatten om genteknologi. Oslo: Damm. Hallerstedt, G. (2006). Diagnosens makt. Om kunskap, pengar och Lidande. Gøteborg: Daidalos. Haug, P. (2003). Regimer i forskning om spesialundervisning i Norge. Psykologisk Pædagogisk Rådgivning. 2. 181-204. Hausstatter, R. S. & Takala, M. (accepted). The core of special teacher education: a comparison of Finland and Norway. European Journal of Special Needs Education. Hausstätter R. S. & Connolley, S. (2007). Towards an Ethics of Research Programmes in Special Education. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education. 54, 4. 369-380 Hausstätter R. S. (2007). Spesialpedagogiske grunnlagsproblemer. Mellom ideologi og virkelighet. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget. Hausstätter, R. S. (2004). An alternative framework for conceptualising and analysing special education research. European Journal of Special Needs Education. 19, 3, 367-374. Hausstätter, R. S. (2004). An alternative framework for conceptualizing and analysing special education research. European Journal of Special Needs Education. 19, 3, 367-374.. Hausstätter, R. S. (2006). Vilje til likhet: om norsk spesialpedagogikks legitimitet. Spesialpedagogikk. 7, s. 4-11. Hegarty, S. (2001). Inclusive education – a case to answer. Journal of Moral Education. 30, 3, 243-249. Holst, J. (1978). Normalitet. København:Eijler Kauffman, J. M. og Sasso, G. M (2006a). Toward Ending Cultural and Cognitive Relativism in Special Education. Exceptionality. Vol 14, nr. 2, s. 65-90. Kauffman, J. M. og Sasso, G. M (2006b). Certainty, Doubt, and the Reduction of Uncertainty. Exceptionality. Vol 14, nr. 2, s. 109-120. Kirkebæk, B. (1993). Da de åndssvage blev farlige. Holte, Socpol. Odom, S. L., Brantlinger, E., Gersten, R., Horner, R. H., Thompson, B. og Harris, K. R. (2005). Research in Special Education: Scientific Methods and Evidence-Based Practices. Exceptional Children. 71, 2, 137-148. Oliver, M. (1996). Understanding disability. London, MACMILLAN PESS LTD. Osburn, J. (2006). An overview of Social Role Valorization theory. The SRV Journal 1, 1, 4-13. Rose, N. (2007). The Politics of Life Itself. Oxford: Princeton University Press. Skrtic, T. (1991). Behind Special Education. A Critical Analysis of Professional Culture andSchool Organization. Denver: Love Publishing Company. Thuen, H. (2002). I foreldrenes sted. Barneredningens oppdragelsesdirskurs 1820-1900. Oslo: Pax. Wilson, J. (2000). Doing justice to inclusion. European Journal of Special Needs Education. 15, 3. 297- 304 Wolfensberger W. (1989). Human Service Policies: The Retoric Versus the Reality. In L. Barton (Ed.) Disability and Dependency. The Falmer press, London, 23-42. Østrem, K. (1983). Av træls ætt: historia om ideologi og praksis overfor psykisk utviklingshemma. Hovedfagsoppgave til embetseksamen i spesialpedagogikk. Statens spesiallærerhøgskole.

Author Information

Rune Sarromaa Hausstätter

Hedmark University College

Teacher education

Hamar

158

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER.

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, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.