A Field Divided - Mapping and Analysis of Inclusion Research with High Impact in North America and Europe

Author(s):

Claes Nilholm(presenting / submitting)

Conference:

ECER 2016

Network:

04. Inclusive Education

Format:

Paper

Session Information

04 SES 06 A, Text and Inclusive Education: Policies, Textbooks and Journal

Paper Session

Time:

2016-08-24

15:30-17:00

Room:

OB-H2.20

Chair:

Melanie Nind

Contribution

The purpose of the present review is to increase our knowledge about research on inclusion and analyze strengths and weaknesses in this research field. In order to reach these aims, I will map, analyze, and discuss the field, taking six research questions as our point of departure. One additional research question has to do with the evaluation of the format, SMART (Systematic Mapping and Analysis of Research Topographies) , that we are using in the review. Our research questions are:

Which topics are addressed?
Within which theoretical traditions can the articles be located?
What methods are used?
What are the most notable outcomes/conclusions?
What is meant by inclusion? (This is the main analysis.)
What are the strengths and weaknesses within this research?
What strengths and weakness can be identified in the SMART format?

Two research arenas, a Northamerican and a European are analyzed. The 30 most cited papers from each arena are mapped and analyzed.

Theoretical points of departure:

A basic assumption of SMART is that research within social science and education is multi-paradigmatic. This means that there exist different, legitimate knowledge traditions building on different ontologies and epistemologies. Habermas (1987) makes a distinction between technical, interpretative, and emancipatory (critical) knowledge interests which lie at the basis of different research traditions. Burrel and Morgan (1985) suggest similar analytical distinctions with regard to research paradigms in the social sciences. Their model is based on two dimensions, one having to do with the view of science (subjectivism-objectivism) and the other with the view of society (conflict-consensus). Combining these two dimensions yields four paradigms: (a) subjectivism/consensus (the interpretative perspective), (b) subjectivism/conflict (radical humanist), (c) objectivism/consensus (functionalism), and (d) objectivism/conflict (radical structuralism). (See Skrtic, 1991, for an application of this scheme to special educational research.) Thus, in contrast to Habermas (1987), Burrel and Morgan (1985) discern not one but two critical paradigms. In our review, we will not differentiate between the two different critical paradigms but only between interpretative, functionalist, and critical approaches.

If one accepts the assumption that there are different legitimate knowledge traditions within social and educational research, it follows that there is no neutral point from which a review is accomplished. Several systematic reviews are accomplished, for example, within a functionalist research tradition with a technical knowledge interest (what works) in mind. Such reviews silence other research traditions. On the other hand, an assumption of the prevalence and potential fruitfulness of research from different traditions is fundamental in SMART. Moreover, not only the mapping and analysis of research but also the interpretation of a SMART review is naturally dependent upon beliefs held by the reviewer. A research review should always be viewed as one of several possible constructions of a research area. Our theoretical points of departure could be characterized as pragmatic (Danforth, 2006) in the sense that we believe that: (a) there are different legitimate research traditions with their own criteria for what counts as knowledge (Burrel & Morgan, 1985; Habermas, 1987), and (b) social and educational research practices as well as findings should be related to both the development of knowledge as well as the development of democracy (cf. Garrison, 1994).

Method

Inclusion is a phenomenon that is studied all over the world. I have chosen to focus on North American and European research, however, because that is where the concept emerged and where one can find the leading research in the field. The reason for separating the two arenas is that prior research has concluded that North American researchers do not publish a lot in European journals, and vice versa. To identify the most influential research within each arena, I have chosen to analyze journal articles because they are a form of publication with acknowledged importance and for which a fairly objective measure of impact can be obtained. Journals were identified as belonging to a particular arena depending upon the composition of editors and editorial boards/associated editors, The inclusion criterion was topical relevance: the journal articles were to be about inclusion in educational environments (preschool/school/adult education) and were to concern children/students/adults in school difficulties. Articles form the North American arena were searched for in Web of Science and articles from the European arena in Scopus. As a first step, background data (number of authors, sex, country, and year of publication) were extracted and the genres of the articles were determined. • After background data was extracted and the genres were decided, the articles were analyzed in relation to the research questions (see above). They were thus coded and analyzed with regard to the following aspects: (a) topic, (b) theoretical tradition, (c) method, (d) inclusion concept used, and (e) results/conclusions. At the centre of attention in the analysis was the inclusion concept used in the articles. Inclusion concept was categorized according to which of four definitions dominated in the particular article: (a) placement definition – inclusion as the placement of pupils with disabilities/in need of special support in general education classrooms; (b) specified individualized definition – inclusion as meeting the social/academic needs of pupils with disabilities/pupils in need of special support; (c) general individualised definition – inclusion as meeting the social/academic needs of all pupils; and (d) community definition – inclusion as the creation of communities with specific characteristics (which could vary between proposals).

Expected Outcomes

An obvious strength in the articles is the existence of a wealth of empirical findings. This empirical line of research has also produced several methodological tools, e.g. questionnaires. An additional strength is the prevalence of different research traditions. In addition to a firm foundation of empirical knowledge, leading researchers are trying to put this data into a wider context. Given the apparent consensus concerning the desirability of creating more inclusive practices, it is remarkable that there are so few interventional studies in the material, especially in the European arena. One other weakness has to do with the lack of clarity concerning the definition of inclusion. This is even more troublesome given that the concept is being used to define research and practice. Agreement within a research field concerning how basic concepts are to be understood is, of course, desirable. In light of this, it seems extraordinary that the definition of inclusion varies so much between articles and at times also within the same article. With a few exceptions, inclusion is not defined at levels B through D in the empirical research but is instead understood as indicating placement, that is, where education takes place. As stated, I propose that the two points discussed above constitute the major weaknesses of the research field as reflected in this sample of articles. Moreover, it is striking how seldom power and, even more striking, democracy are explicitly discussed within these articles. Finally, wjhile several articles focus on the educational situation of the pupil, this is done, almost without exception, with the help of structured questionnaires and interviews, which provide little room for pupils to use their own expressions or make their own distinctions. One possible way of providing more room for a pupil’s perspective is to use more ethnographic methods and less structured interviews.

References

Booth, T., Ainscow, M., Black-Hawkins, K., Vaughan, M., & Shaw, L. (2000). Index for inclusion: developing learning and participation in schools. Bristol, U.K.: Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education. Burrell, G. & Morgan, G. (1985). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. Elements of the sociology of corporate life. Aldershot, England: Gower. Clark, C., Dyson, A., Milward, A., & Robson, S. (1999). Theories of inclusion, theories of schools: deconstructing and reconstructing the ‘inclusive school’. British Educational Research Journal 25, 157–177. doi:10.1080/0141192990250203 Dyson, A., Howes, A., & Roberts, B. (2002). A systematic review of school-level actions for promoting participation by all students. In Research Evidence in Education Library. London, England: EPPI-centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education. http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=juIcqkP5Q8U%3D&tabid=278&mid=1101 Garrison, J. (1994). Realism, Deweyan pragmatism and educational research. Educational Researcher, 23(1), 5–14. doi:10.3102/0013189X023001005 Habermas, J. (1987). Knowledge and human interests. Cambridge, UK.: Pol¬ity. Harsh, S. & Clarke, D. (2009). Advancements in research synthesis methods: from a methodologically inclusive perspective. Review of Educational Research, 79, 395–430. doi:10.3102/0034654308326349 Lindsay, Geoff. (2007). Educational psychology and the effectiveness of inclusive education/mainstreaming. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 1–24. doi:10.1348/000709906X156881 McLeskey, J. (2004). Classic articles in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 79–87. doi:10.1177/07419325040250020201 Skrtic, T. (1991). Behind special education: A critical analysis of professional culture and school organization. Denver, CO.: Love Publishing Company. Suri, H. & Clarke, D. (2009). Advancements in research synthesis methods: from a methodologically inclusive perspective. Review of Educational Research, 79, 395–430. doi:10.3102/0034654308326349 UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs

Author Information

Claes Nilholm (presenting / submitting)

Uppsala University

Lund

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.