04 SES 15 C, Comparative Inclusive Education Research: Global, National and Local Perspectives (Part II)
Symposium Part II, continued from 04 SES 14 C
The paper draws upon inclusive adult education and puts up for debate a double scope: it compares, firstly, the systems of inclusive adult education in Germany and South Africa, and, secondly, argues for shifting lenses to a participatory ethos in research. To this end, we use in a first step disability as the meta-criterion in adopting a comparative education approach to inclusive adult education, which is a still heavily under researched field in the overall inclusive education body of scholarship. This conceptual framework is guided by a relational approach to disability, as well as the notion of intersectionality, together with features of inclusive adult education. We conclude that in both Germany and South Africa two policy discourses tend to predominate: rights and ethics; and the political – with the pragmatic emerging to some extent. Moreover, the paper contends that the efficacy discourse needs to be further developed and applied. The efficacy discourse advocates for an inclusive educational system as “more cost-efficient, socially beneficial and educationally effective” (Sayed/Soudien 2003: 16), in bearing witness to the price of inclusive education, but also to the much higher one of sustaining exclusion and persistent segregation. Against this backdrop, we argue for shifting lenses to a participatory ethos in research with regard to adults with disabilities, drawing on work by Chappell (2000) and von Unger (2014). By presenting methodological approaches and findings of our research undertaken in Germany and South Africa, we aim to showcase the value of qualitative, small-scale, and participatory-oriented research in the broad field of adult education and skills development, including a focus on issues of literacy and numeracy (Schreiber-Barsch/Curdt/Gundlach 2020; Chappell/Rule/Dlamini/Nkala 2014; Rule/Modipa 2012). We would argue that considering the epistemological, methodological, ethical, and political importance of a participatory ethos in research with regard to persons with disabilities can shed new light on the phenomenon of disability, and on voices and data that are still missing to a substantial degree in the global knowledge production machinery.
Chappell, Anne Louise (2000): Emergence of participatory methodology in learning difficulty research: Understanding the context. In: British Institute of Learning Disabilities. British Journal of Learning Disabilities 28, pp. 38-43. doi.org/10.1046/j.1468-3156.2000.00004 .x. Chappell, Paul/Rule, Peter/Dlamini, Mfana/Nkala, Nompilo (2014): Troubling power dynamics. Youth with disabilities as co-researchers in sexuality research in South Africa. In: Childhood. 21, 3, S. 385-399. Rule, Peter/Modipa, Taadi Ruth (2012): “We must believe in ourselves”. Attitudes and experiences of adult learners with disabilities in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. In: Adult Education Quarterly 62, 2, pp.138-158. Sayed, Yusuf/Soudien, Crain (2003): (Re)Framing Education Exclusion and Inclusion Discourses. Limits and Possibilities. In: IDS Bulletin 34,1, pp. 9-19 Schreiber-Barsch, Silke/Curdt, Wiebke/Gundlach, Hanna (2020): Whose voices matter? Adults with learning difficulties and the emancipatory potential of numeracy practices. ZDM Mathematics Education, 52(3), 581-592. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01133-1. von Unger, Hella (2014): Partizipative Forschung. Einführung in die Forschungspraxis. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
The programme is updated regularly (each day in the morning)
- 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.