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