Visualising Inclusion

Author(s):

Fiona Hallett(presenting / submitting)Virginia Kay(presenting)Clare Woolhouse Linda Dunne

Conference:

ECER 2015

Network:

04. Inclusive Education

Format:

Paper

Session Information

04 SES 04 B, Teachers' Perspectives on Inclusive Education

Paper Session

Time:

2015-09-09

09:00-10:30

Room:

206.Oktatóterem [C]

Chair:

Susanne Schwab

Contribution

The purpose of this study was to analyse the responses of: teachers (student and serving); teaching assistants; and academics to a range of images of inclusion and exclusion that had been created by children.

Conceptually, inclusion may be associated with ‘belonging’ (Prince and Hadwin, 2013); participation (Booth and Ainscow, 2011) equity and rights (Barton and Tomlinson, 2012); exclusion (Hodkinson, 2012) and has been critiqued as a process of assimilation and of normalisation (Graham and Slee, 2008). As a practice, inclusion has become naturalised, partly via schooling policies throughout the world, inviting pragmatic approaches towards policy implementation. Inclusion may be identified as a verb: schools ‘do’ inclusion and educators speak of ‘the included child’; in this paper we adopt multi-faceted understandings of inclusion that incorporate “community, social capital, equality and respect” (Thomas & Loxley 2014: 474).

Three intersecting concepts of place, positioning and perspective are used in the analysis of this study in order to encapsulate our framing of space and spatiality. When we use the term place we are referring to physical place – the architecture, the environment, the room and so on. An individual’s positioning within a place, we would argue, refers to their personal (or assigned) identity, their role, their relationships with, and proximity to, others. Our third concept is that of perspectives, which we use to denote the ways in which people articulate their understanding of place and positioning; their philosophy, pedagogy and experiences.

Lefebvre (1972, 1976) considered the production of social spaces and the ways in which these influence social relations and how justice and injustice become visible via the use of space. Spatial justice has become an area of critical theory and pedagogy in which the use of space and the positioning of individuals are explored and interrogated. This perspective addresses the ways in which power and equity are embedded in the use of physical space and the operationalisation of inclusion/ exclusion. The notion of spatial justice is dually relevant to this study; part of the struggle for inclusion has been based upon exposing and challenging spatial justice issues around marginalisation, pupil segregation and the ways in which educational spaces and practices can be exclusionary (e.g. Slee 2012).

Prosser and Loxley (2007) suggest that there is no a-spatial or a-political space. Discourses around the use of space conjure territories with desirable or undesirable spaces designated for ‘them’ and ‘the others’. In addition, they highlight the use of space and analyse how it is subject to encultured and normalised understandings of school practice that create injustices. In an exploration of this broader notion of space, Veck (2009:53) argues that “all persons are equal within an educational institution because within it each has a responsibility to create spaces that are worthy of everyone’s belonging”. We question whether this act of creation is more an inter-personal ethic rather than a responsibility, dependent upon the positioning of the persons involved. A teaching assistant, for example, may perceive themselves as having a different role in creating an inclusive classroom than would a classroom teacher.

In a further example of research around the use of space, Kaplan et al. (2007:25) sought to understand children’s conceptualisation of safe spaces, by looking at physical space independent of those who move within it, suggesting that “once spaces have been defined as places, the meanings attributed to them are not necessarily fixed”. In contrast, the photographs taken by the children in our project provoked interpretations that often framed inclusion and exclusion as fixed physical place and social position.

Method

The visual methodology deployed in this research was a broad adaptation of photo-elicitation; an established vein of visual methodology research (Boxall and Ralph, 2009; Prosser and Loxley, 2007). This approach involved sharing photographic images and using them as a starting point for discussion around a particular topic or theme. It has been argued by Allen (2011), that this method can be a means of documenting official and unofficial discourse around a topic, but can also raise concerns that may not be on the researchers’ radar; thus adopting this method can make the taken for granted, and invisible, visible. Following this line of enquiry, Sensoy (2011) points out that photographs and photo essays are frequently used in research in which people want to tell a story with pictures as it is a way to access life experiences, particularly ones that might be difficult to express. It was felt that photo elicitation would be a good fit in this instance, precisely because the research project sought to investigate the diverse views and ideas prompted by images taken by children and young people (Nind, et al 2012). In our research, this gave rise to complex and, at times, difficult feelings and experiences. Furthermore, Boxall and Ralph (2009) argue that the use of creative visual methods can be helpful in engaging those who may be underrepresented in research as it can be a more accessible and inclusive approach. However, we wanted to take this approach one stage further by inviting children and young people to produce the photographs that were used for the subsequent photo-elicitation. These images and the accompanying explanations then became the data which was anonymised (via a ‘cartoonise’ software package). The second stage of data collection involved gathering viewpoints of adults working in different educational fields including student teachers, teachers, teaching assistants and university academics In order to incorporate responses gathered in both stages of the research process, we utilised Barthes’ (1980) exploration of image - studium (the element that creates interest in a photographic image) and punctum (the element that jumps out at the viewer from within a photograph). Four images have been selected for analysis in this presentation whereby we intend to critique the responses of the viewers - the spectator (Barthes, 1980) - who inevitably engaged with each image from their own culturally constructed world-view.

Expected Outcomes

The possibility that interpretations of inclusion depend upon personal situated-ness was given credence when responses to the photographs were analysed; a posteriori knowledge is key to Barthes’ (1984) connoted meaning and this would appear to have influenced responses in this instance. The differing views offered by photographer, school staff and by academics highlighted the fact that determining what constitutes inclusive practice is a difficult if not impossible task; individuals bring to a situation their own experiences and views and will interpret the same practice, or in this case the same representation of practice, in a range of contradictory ways. The diverse responses to the images indicated the difficulty inherent in framing inclusion and exclusion as dichotomous or even on a continuum. Rather, we would suggest that whether particular spaces or practices are inclusive or not very much depends on who is experiencing them, who is witnessing them, the experiential lens they use and the cultural understandings they have. Therefore it is difficult to say with any certainty which types of space and practices should be encouraged to enhance inclusion. Rather, it is more helpful to suggest that inclusion is about listening to the individual and exploring with them what they experience as inclusive or not. The responses we gained are also, in part, influenced by the way we sent up the image analysis as a form of group work. Croghan et al (2008:348) note that researchers need to think about the fact that: ‘the images produced need to be understood not simply as authentic representations of self but as a product of the task that was set and how this was framed’. Utilising group analysis provides space for discussion and shared understandings to be negotiated, but might also ‘silence’ dissenting voices.

References

Allen, L. (2011) Picture this: using photo-methods in reach on sexuality and schooling, Qualitative Research Journal, 11(5), 487-504. Barthes, R (1980) Camera Lucida: Reflections on photography. trans. Richard Howard (New York: Hill and Wang, 1981 Barthes R. (1984) Camera Lucida, London, Harper Collins. Boxall, K. & S. Ralph (2009) Research ethics and the use of visual images in research with people with intellectual disability, Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 2009, 34(1), 45-54. Croghan, R., C. Griffin, J. Hunter and A. Phoenix (2008) Young people's constructions of self: Notes on the use and analysis of the photo‐elicitation methods, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11(4), 345-356. Graham, L.J. and Slee, R. (2008) An illusory interiority: interrogating the discourse/s of inclusion. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40(2), 277–93. Hodkinson A. (2012) ‘All present and correct?’ Exclusionary inclusion within the English educational system. Disability & Society 27(5): 675-688. Kaplan, I., Lewis, I & Mumba, P (2007) Picturing Global Educational Inclusion? Looking and thinkngi across students’ photographs from the UK, Zambia and Indonesia. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs. 7 (1), 23-25 Lefebvre, H. (1972) Espace et politique, Paris, Anthropos. Lefebvre, H. (1976). Reflection on the politics of space (M. Enders, Trans.). Antipode: A Radical Journal of Geography, 8(2), 30-37. Nind, M, Boorman, G & Clark G (2012) Creating Spaces to belong: listening to the voice of girls with behavioural, emotional and social difficulties through digital visual and narrative methods. International Journal of Inclusive Education 16(7), 643-656 Prince, E., & Hadwin, J. (2013). The Role of a Sense of School Belonging in Understanding the Effectiveness of Inclusion of Children with Special Educational Needs. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17(3), 238-262. Prosser, J. & A. Loxley (2007) Enhancing the contribution of visual methods to inclusive education, Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 7(1), 55-68. Sensoy, O. (2011) Picturing oppression: seventh graders’ photo essays on racism, classism, and sexism, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 24(3), 323-342. Slee, R (2012) How do we make inclusive education happened when inclusion is a political predisposition? International Journal of Inclusive Education 17(8), 895-907 Thomas, G. & Loxley, A (2014) Deconstructing Special Education and Constructing Inclusion. 2nd Edition, Berkshire: Open University Press Veck (2009) From and exclusionary to an inclusive understanding of educational difficulties and educational space: implications for the Learning Support Assistant’s Role. Oxford Review of Education. 35(1), 41-56

Author Information

Fiona Hallett (presenting / submitting)

Edge Hill University

Faculty of Education

Ormskirk

Virginia Kay (presenting)

Edge Hill University

Education

Ormskirk, Lancashire

Clare Woolhouse

Edge Hill University

Education

Ormskirk

Linda Dunne

Edge Hill University, United Kingdom

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.

Session Information

Contribution

Method

Expected Outcomes

References

Author Information

Search the ECER Programme

Navigation

Info for