As professionals engaged in learning environments continue to adopt inclusive approaches, it is important that we recognise how theories frame “inclusion” and our approaches to “inclusive practice”.  In this paper we will share the learning from a doctoral research that identified “the power to include” when exploring i) Universal Design for Learning (UDL) in relation to (ii) Career Guidance, within (iii) the philosophy of inclusive education.  This innovative research paradigm enabled a deeper and meaningful consideration as to what   “Inclusion” means for career guidance practice; as once again we seek to identify the interlinked factors that might necessitate careful attention if guidance is to take its place in the broader inclusion agenda and adopt a more sustainable inclusive approach as defined by the UN SDG’s (United Nations Department of Global Communications, 2015). 

Career guidance theory originated at a time when work was predominantly male and industrialised (Arthur & McMahon, 2018) – a time when the medical model of disability was prevalent.  Frank Parsons, a lawyer, and social activist identified the significance of a more scientific approach for decision making around learning and career choices; he observed the many inter-linked factors that required careful attention and understanding when choosing career paths (Jones, 1994).  However, little has been considered in terms of inclusion in educational guidance; while there has been considerable change in relation to learning, learning outcomes and the workplace for learners themselves (Mann, Denis, Schleicher, Ekhtiari, Forsyth, Liu, & Chambers, 2020). 

The medical model of disability once separated learners with disabilities from their peers, seeking to “fix” the problem while the social model demanded that education change the focus from the person to the learning environment.  Universal Design (UD), based on 7 principles is primarily focused on designing for inclusion; and while “inclusion” is framed by the experience of people with disabilities, the objective is to design for the widest diversity of people possible.  Such a philosophy demands adaptability and flexibility and a consideration of all who want to engage (Storey et al, 1998).  Universal Design for Learning (UDL) – UD applied in the learning environment also demands change; responding to the diversity of learners in our classrooms (Bowe, 2000; Rose & Meyers, 2006).   Philosophies and practices based on UD and UDL approaches take a very contemporary and proactive approach, embracing notions of democracy, diversity, belonging and empathy.  

The research design also adopted such values together with an unlikely combination of a bioecological (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), UD and UDL approaches, while continuously seeking to empower (Freire, 1996).  The “inclusion as process” approach (Quirke, Mc Guckin, & McCarthy, 2022),  a reflective research method that seeks to take both an ethical and inclusive approach to educational research enabled a reframing and re-understanding of the central issue - the definition and understanding of the term “inclusion”.  This resulted in an understanding of “inclusion” in relation to guidance and an elevated view of “inclusion” itself.   As inclusive practices continue to develop, we ask, is there a bigger challenge emerging – the role and “knowing” of each professional and expert?  

It is important that the wider diversity of professionals engaged in contemporary education, each consider their approach to inclusion – particularly if there is to be a more sustainable approach for inclusion across education – an approach aligned with the UN SDG’s.  In 2001, Herr credited career guidance as a contributor to the equality agenda at the time; can guidance, perhaps  again, contribute to a renewed focus on inclusion for the ever-changing set of demands faced today as change takes hold across education. 

A first step was to explore the literature and how inclusion shapes our thinking and approaches in guidance. An initial observation was the prevailing influence of disability models and how they continue to influence our thinking and language in special and inclusive education today. All too often, inclusion in education is focused on developing tangible products or modifying curriculum by way of add-on approaches – approaches that are framed by medical diagnosis and definitive check lists. Accommodation by way of add-on support is more often the response when learners face challenges and the risk is a diminished learning experience and exclusion. An early result from a systematic literature review (SLR) that found zero results when exploring i) Universal Design for Learning (UDL) in relation to (ii) Career Guidance, within (iii) the philosophy of inclusive education, prompted a particular focus on the evolving language of special and inclusive education within the academic literature, the prevailing influence of the disability models and how such approaches continue to influence discourse and practice of “inclusion”. Data was collected from 2 sequential studies; the first, a qualitative engagement with learners with a disability followed by three rounds of a wider Delphi study. As the first study unfolded, an “Inclusion as Process” method (Quirke, Mc Guckin &, McCarthy, 2022) was adopted, to enable a deeper learning of “Inclusion” to emerge. This meant that all elements of online engagement including language, tone, timing, platform, access to IT etc. were considered and this deeper consideration as the research process unfolded meant, that the research itself was constantly challenged as to how it broadly understood “inclusion”. The objective of the Delphi study, was to seek consensus between the guidance and education experts with the input of the “voice of the learner with a disability”. It was informed by the 5 subordinate themes of the first study and the literature, and similarly involved a deep consideration at all stages of engagement as it exploited the experience from the first study, continuously working to ensure inclusion was at the core of the research engagement in and of itself.

While the initial focus of the doctoral study was to explore Career Guidance and Disability; the resultant learning journey was more about “inclusion”, “contemporary inclusive researching” and our “professional relationship” with inclusion itself (Quirke & Mc Guckin, 2018, 2019, 2021, 2022). As we explored the results of the studies together with the emerging literature; we questioned whether the “expert” in special education, in inclusive education, and in UDL is resulting in disparate and clunky uses of language, thinking and professional practice for inclusion. The initial result of zero in the SLR, which was recognized as a legitimate result highlighted the difference in terminology, language, tone, and approach across different texts. It also became apparent as the research unfolded and relationships across the microsystems were observed; that if the guidance counsellor is to be inclusive – they need to address the issue of “Power” in guidance relationships. This prompts us to ask – do we each need to reconsider roles and our approach to inclusion – both consciously and unconsciously as we continue to use “disability” to frame inclusive practice. A bigger question is also emerging – whether the story of “inclusion” that exists currently actually connects to the demands and needs of today’s learner. How much attention are we paying to the growing power of “expert” of “inclusion”? Are we aware of the depth and breadth of the challenges in our practice” and whether this even relates to the topic of “inclusive education” as we know it? Finally, as our approaches continue to develop and influence the discourse and professional practice of “inclusion” in education - do we, as researchers, need to continually reflect on who or what matters? How will we balance the power of Inclusion?

Arthur, N., & McMahon, M. (Eds.). (2018). Contemporary theories of career development: International perspectives. Routledge. Bowe, F. G. (2000). Universal design in education. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard university press. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Seabury Press. Herr, E. L (2001). Career Development and Its Practice: A Historical Perspective. The CDQ: Special Millennium Issue, 49(3), 196 -211. Retrieved from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 69742177). http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.32.3.363 Jones, L. K. (1994). Frank Parsons' contribution to career counseling. Journal of Career Development, 20(4), 287-294. Mann, A., Denis, V., Schleicher, A., Ekhtiari, H., Forsyth, T., Liu, E., & Chambers, N. (2020). Dream Jobs? Teenagers’ career aspirations and the future of work. Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development. Chicago. Quirke, M., & Mc Guckin, C. (2018). Learning from the past . . . How career guidance might learn from inclusive education. ECER: “Inclusion and Exclusion, Resources for Educational Research”, The Free University Bozen-Bolzano, Bolzano, Italy, 3rd - 4thSeptember, 2018. Quirke, M., & Mc Guckin, C. (2019). Career guidance needs to learn from ‘disability’ if it is to embrace an uncertain future . . . ECER: “Education in an. Era of Risk - The Role of Educational Research for the Future”, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany, 3rd - 6th September, 2019. Quirke, M., & Mc Guckin, C. (2021). "Time To Rethink and Reconnect: If we are to embrace the 'Inclusion' of the Future....". ECER: ““Education and Society: expectations, prescriptions, reconciliations”, Universität Hamburg, Geneva (online), 2nd- 6th September, 2019. Quirke, M., & Mc Guckin, C. (2022). Educational Research in a Changing World - Doing Research with ‘Excluded’ People. ECER: “Education in a Changing World: The impact of global realities on the prospects and experiences of educational research” At: Yerevan and ECER plus (Online), 1rst – 10th Sept 2021. Abstracts not published. Quirke, Mc Guckin & McCarthy. (2022). How to adopt an “Inclusion as Process” approach and navigate ethical challenges in research. SAGE Research Method Cases Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2006). A practical reader in universal design for learning. Harvard Education Press. 8 Story Street First Floor, Cambridge, MA 02138. Story, M. F., Mueller, J. L., & Mace, R. L. (1998). The universal design file: Designing for people of all ages and abilities. Raleigh, NC: Center for Universal Design. United Nations Department of Global Communications (2015). Sustainable Development Goals (SDG’s) http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/news/communications-material/