The role that social attitudes play in the marginalization and oppression of people with disability has been exposed by the work of disability advocates and researchers. The persistence of discriminatory attitudes is evident in the slow process of change for inclusion. Thus, in the UN (2006) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, disability is defined as resulting “from the interaction between persons with impairments and attitudinal and environmental barriers that hinders their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others” (p. 1, emphasis added).

In education there is a very prolific body of research on attitudes towards disability and inclusion. The attitudes of pre-service and in-service teachers, of principals, of parents of children with and without a disability, of children with a disability and of their peers are increasingly researched. The most established area of this research field is that of research on the attitudes of pre-service and in-service teachers. The research on attitudes is linked to programs to change attitudes that are supported and promoted by international and national organisations (e.g., UNESCO, 2009). Although research in this area can be traced back in the 1950s, the proliferation of research in this area in the last ten years or so is impressive. Scruggs and Mastropieri (1996) conducted a research synthesis of 29 research studies conducted between 1958 and 1995. Amongst the different conclusions reached, it was found that there was no relation between teacher attitude and the year of publication of studies, especially in terms of teacher concerns in terms of the implementation of inclusion. Avramidis and Norwich (2002) covered the period 1980-2000 in their literature review and concluded that attitudes towards inclusion are “based largely upon the nature of students’ disability” (p. 142). de Boer , Pijl and Minnaert (2010) reviewed the literature from 1998-2008 on primary school teachers’ attitudes and concluded that teachers in general tend to have neutral or negative attitudes.

While there is some acknowledgement of the methodological limitations of this research, there is limited critical analysis of its conceptual limitations. Slee (2011) argues that “most of this work is of questionable value and much of it is very predictable in design, creation and findings” (p. 49). Slee’s argument is twofold. On the one hand such research defines disability as the problem and the person with a disability as the object of attitudes. This is pathologising is accentuated in research that focuses on the category and severity of impairment. The second part of the argument relates to the ways that such research decouple attitudes conceptually from the actual contexts where they occur.

This paper doesn’t attempt to provide a comprehensive literature review of the recent research in this area. What it tries to do is to examine what exactly is researched in this type of research and especially in research utilising questionnaires for data collection. The following research questions are explored:

• How is inclusive education defined in this research?
• What are the main constructs explored in this research (e.g., disability, impairment, supports) and how are they conceptualised?

Avramidis, E., & Norwich, B. (2002). Teachers’ attitudes towards integration/inclusion: A review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17(2), 129-147. de Boer, A., Pijl, S. J., & Minnaert, A. (2010). Regular primary schoolteachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education: a review of the literature, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15(3), 331-353. Scruggs, T.E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1996) Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion, 1958-1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63(1), 59-74. Slee, R. (2011). The Irregular School: Exclusion, Schooling and Inclusive Education. Oxon: Routledge. UNESCO. (2009). Policy guidelines on inclusion in education. Paris, Fr: Author. United Nations. (2006). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and optional protocol. New York: United Nations.