Thinking and Researching Inclusive Education Without a Banister

Author(s):

Morten Timmermann Korsgaard(presenting / submitting)Merete Wiberg(presenting)Vibe Larsen

Conference:

ECER 2017

Network:

13. Philosophy of Education (Standard submissions & Long Papers)

Format:

Paper (Copy for Joint Session)

Session Information

13 SES 10 B JS, Theorising in Inclusive Education

Joint Paper Session NW 04 and NW 13

Time:

2017-08-24

15:30-17:00

Room:

W6.13

Chair:

Fabio Dovigo

Contribution

This paper presents some initial findings of a double sided study on research in inclusive education. The first part of the study concerns the development of a framework for establishing communities of collective thinking and inquiry with a specific emphasis on bringing researchers and practitioners of inclusive education closer together. The second part concerned the findings and new ideas that where brought to light in the collective framework. The idea then was to develop dialogical research in order to help researchers and practitioners to mediate between conceptions of inclusion on the one hand and inclusion in practice on the other hand. In order to discuss the relationship between concepts of inclusion and inclusion in practice we focused on ‘thinking’ and ‘judgment’ as theoretical as well as practical activities. In this sense the resulting paper offers a theoretical and methodological approach to dialogical research and cooperation between researchers and practitioners with respect to development of the concept and practice of inclusive education. The idea of this paper is thus to discuss how thinking on inclusive education may be produced and evolved in dialogue and cooperation with representatives from a field of practice. The theoretical point of departure is Hannah Arendt’s concept of ‘thinking without a banister’ which, if expressed shortly, means to be able to think without a fixed methodology. Arendt’s “anti-“methodology was developed in light of the break in tradition which saw the traditional sources of certainty displaced by enlightenment thinking and the events of the 20^th century. Arendt’s conclusion was that we could no longer rely on the religious, ideological and theoretical tradition to bring meaning in the modern world. This perspective seems more relevant than ever in light of the challenges of our time, and we are forced into new ways of trying to find and give meaning to our (inclusive education) endeavors as researchers and practitioners. This also means that what we can hope to achieve through the process of thinking, is not fixed and final conclusions, but understanding. We can reach limited and temporary understandings of the events of the world, and this is no small feat in the face of the modern world, and more significantly it allows us to act upon that world in order to improve it. This of course stands in stark contrast to certain influential discourses on education that highlight evidence and standardisation, as the way forward. With our framework we do not aim for best practices and evidence of what works, but subtle changes of the way we work with and think about how to become more inclusive in education and in academia.

Method

The idea of the project was – in contrast to for example grounded theory – to disclose and use collective thinking and inquiry to bring about a reflection on the subject ‘inclusion in Danish schools’. The framework for a collective thinking without a banister is as mentioned derived from the work of Hannah Arendt (1995; 1998; 2006), which was to an extent anti-methodological in that it did not accept a certain theoretical starting point or a predetermined way of conducting research. The aim instead is to bring the activity of thinking in to public, and create a community of inquiry on the basis of this. Arendt used the example of Socrates to show how thinking can be brought into public and how through judging it is possible to bring the perspectives of others into the process as a form of enlarged thinking, which in essence is an inclusive endeavor (Korsgaard, 2016). The developed framework is thus characterized by four aspects: Firstly it is dialogical, secondly it is collective, thirdly it is anti-methodological and fourthly is intent upon mediation between conceptual and practical knowledge. In our framework for a community of thinking and inquiry - without a banister - into inclusive education we draw also upon the framework of communities of philosophical inquiry as developed by Nadia Kennedy and David Kennedy (Kennedy & Kennedy, 2011). In the community of inquiry we (researchers, practitioners and students) began by identifying and engaging the central concepts with regard to inclusive education in Danish schools. The paper addresses ethical issues attached to practices of (and research into) inclusion, such as integrity, respect and interest in the perspective of others. An overall characterization of the methodological approach is ‘listening’ inspired by the work of Andrea English (2013). Through analytical and philosophical engagement with the concepts, we were able to encircle how inclusion is translated form theory to policy and in turn into pedagogical and didactical practices. This enabled a narrative of how these concepts reveal themselves to and influences practice, in turn allowing for a collective exploration of how to change practice, which is highly sensitive to the specific context of the practitioners and to the subtlety of how political, ideological, marketised and reproductive forces influence (inclusive) educational practices.

Expected Outcomes

The tentative framework for communities of thinking and inquiry without a banister was explored through the course of a series of workshops with practitioners, researchers and students involved in inclusive education. A part from being an inspirational and thoroughly enjoyable process for all involved, it led to concrete development of the practices of all parties involved. However there were difficulties in ‘extracting empirical’ data since the process was very much dialogical and unstructured, in the sense that it followed the streams of thought that emerged during the process. Also since the conversation throughout ebbed and flowed sometimes with several people speaking at once, it was difficult to transcribe the recordings of the workshops. However these difficulties point for us rather to the excitement and the passion that the process brought about than to any failing in the framework. In this way it speaks to and underlines the idea of preferring subtle changes and understanding to universal ideas of best practice and what works, which seem only to bring more and more standardisation and exclusion to our schools. The aim of the paper is thus to open a perspective and a framework for continued development in collaboration with inclusive education researchers and practitioners with the aim of thinking anew – and without a banister – in order to meet the challenges of standardization and alignment which is undermining the efforts of the inclusive education movement.

References

Arendt, H. (1995) Men in Dark Times. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace & Company. Arendt, H. (1998) The Human Condition. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Arendt, H. (2006) Between Past and Future. London: Penguin Books. English, A.R. (2014[2013]) Discontinuity in Learning. Dewey, Herbart and Education as Transformation. New York: Cambridge University Press Kennedy, N. and Kennedy, D. (2011) ‘Community of Philosophical Inquiry as a Discursive Structure, and its role in School Curriculum Design’ Journal of Philosophy of Education, 45: 265–283. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9752.2011.00793.x Korsgaard, M. T. (2016) ‘An Arendtian perspective on inclusive education: towards a reimagined vocabulary’ International Journal of Inclusive Education, 20(9): 934-945, doi: 10.1080/13603116.2015.1130180 Peters, R. S. (1972) Ethics and Education (London, George Allen & Unwin Ltd.)

Author Information

Morten Timmermann Korsgaard (presenting / submitting)

University College UCC, Denmark

Merete Wiberg (presenting)

Aarhus University

Vibe Larsen