In attempting to reframe the ‘problem’ of inclusion Allan [2008] suggests putting the philosophies of Delueze and Guattari, Foucault and Derrida to work. This paper takes up this challenge through an examination of the methodological and ethical issues in a piece of research in higher education where colleagues on a teacher education course are attempting to implement curriculum reforms designed to ensure that social and educational inclusion is addressed within the core programme rather than being an elective selected by only a few student teachers. The aim of the curriculum reform is to prepare primary and secondary teachers who are equipped to teach in inclusive schools. Although key concepts associated with the development of inclusive practice have been addressed within the reform of the teacher education curriculum, little is known about the extent to which the many colleagues who teach on the course interpret these concepts in their teaching. This paper describes an exploratory study of the views/beliefs of course tutors who are delivering the new curriculum.

This study is designed to explore the discourse of teacher educators against a background of institutional change. Methodological dilemmas will be explored which reflect the ontological and epistemological concerns of the author, and of research in the field of inclusion and inclusive education. Decisions will be explained concerning the adoption of unstructured participatory interactions as the method for gathering data, and the use of ‘activatory phrases’ to stimulate discussion. The ethics of researching colleagues will be considered in respect of both data collection and analysis. A poststructural discourse analysis using ‘the philosopher’s of difference’ is being used to analyse the data. Deleuze and Guattari’s metaphor of ‘rhizomic’ wanderings though the data as opposed to a logical, ‘arborescent’ approach is influential, alongside finding ‘smooth spaces’ among striations to examine hierarchical thinking, and ‘deterritorialisation’ to undo what has been done. Foucault’s conceptual tools relating to power and knowledge, his ethical considerations and the potential of ‘transgression’ are used to examine discourses of exclusion. Finally, Derridean concepts of deconstruction, aporias and hesitations are helpful in understanding contradiction, tension and binaries.

While Allan’s approach is considered a more productive and useful way to move the field of inclusive education forward, it also identifies a number of methodological and ethical issues which are explored, and allows for a deeper analysis of messy and potentially sensitive data, that is personally and professionally acceptable.