If we look deeply enough, we should be able to see the developing story of inclusion unfolding across our academies in educational research, research processes, and identify how we as researchers connect with developing practice.  But is the story unfolding as we think it is?

The literature shares a story of past and present thinking, experiences, and outcomes, while also sharing views, emotion, and concerns.  Expressions, terminologies, style, and tone build a story and inform learners and future practitioners – but is the story of “inclusion in education”  connected with the contemporary world of learning and participation in our academies?  

How much attention are we paying to the growing depth and breadth of the conversation that is “inclusion” and how it relates to the topic of “inclusive education” as we know it?  The story of disability in education is evolving and while this is resulting in a change across the literature in terms of language, concepts, approaches and moreover tone,  it is acknowledged that defining  “inclusion” in education is complex (Griffin & Shevlin 2011; Shevlin & Flynn 2011) .  

This paper presents the story of inclusion in an educational research journey.  In the first instance, a zero result in a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) that the first author carried out as part of her doctoral research flagged the difference in terminology, language, tone, and approach across the different texts.  The development of an “Inclusion as Process”  (Quirke, Mc Guckin, & McCarthy, 2022)  reflexive method allowed an exploration regarding what we perceive to be a disjointed and disconnected literacy within this area. 

The apparent shift in language as Special Education shifted to Inclusive Education approaches and a further shift again as Universal Design for Learning (UDL) theories (Rose & Meyer, 2006) and thinking emerged was observed.   Moreover, much of the literature on “inclusion” in education remains focused on disability and while there has been a move away from the “disabling” approach of the medical model (McCarthy & Shevlin, 2017 ) it raised the question as to whether a legacy of this thinking still lingers in the field of education and poses the interesting question –  “is this a risk for the “inclusion” we seek today?”  

While the language and terminology continue to evolve with new words and expressions continuing to develop, this presented another consideration – are the inclusive approaches as framed by the UDL approach being adopted on our own campuses, aligned with our approaches in inclusion in education?   

UDL is shifting the focus to “designing” and is an approach that results in a significant change from previous approaches to disability.  But as we engage with UDL,  do we also need a more balanced and nuanced approach to “inclusion” if we are to teach, research and practice it.  As we engage with more contemporary theories and relate them to our own academic practice how do we authentically place a diversity of learners, including learners with a disability, at the center of our own academic work?

Is it time to perhaps reconsider our own contributions to the body of literature and facilitate a shared understanding of terms, language and embrace an awareness of the reader, while appreciating the effect on “professional practice”.  While this asks for change – if we fully appreciate and develop inclusion across education, we need to recognised the inbuilt legacy from previous practice and theoretical foundations that may in fact be hindering future development, even in our midst. Is it time to acknowledge the wider discourse that is happening across higher education in relation to the concept of “inclusion” itself?

Our challenge originated from a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) that the first author was completing as part of her doctoral research. The program of research set out to explore (i) the utility of a Universal Design for Learning approach to (ii) Career Guidance theory and practice, within (iii) a philosophy of educational and social inclusion. Despite well developed and nuanced inclusion/ exclusion criteria and search strings, the SLR realised a result of zero! Whilst initially the results of the SLR were viewed as a negative result, the development of the “inclusion as process” approach enabled a reframing and re-understanding of the central issue. “Inclusion as Process” is a method that acknowledges the relationship between “inclusion” and “educational research” and “inclusive methods” - it is about constantly designing for inclusion, in an ethical and authentic manner, when engaging in contemporary educational research (where “inclusion” remains a central focus). “Inclusion as process” identified that the issue was related to the definition and understanding of the term “inclusion” in research. This is of fundamental importance, because all empirical work is determined and constrained by the operational definition of inclusion applied by the researcher(s). In common methodological terminology, we often refer to this as the problem of comparing apples and oranges – i.e., whilst both share so much commonality, they are also quite different. On a parallel – we explored practices of inclusion evolving across higher education where colleagues adopted a UDL approach. We engaged in a wider discourse asking “how broad is the concept of inclusion?” (Lindner 2020, P. 17). Engaging with colleagues across the academy while simultaneously exploring the literature allowed a picture of a UDL attitude to emerge for academia. There is a resistance to accept any “new way” of thinking. If we as researchers and academics are to promote “inclusion in education”, we need to value and accept individual and cultural difference and “avoid segregation and discrimination as we meet specialized educational needs. A start in this direction is to change the language and the lens through which we view inclusion.” (Sliwka 2010, P. 1).

The challenge for researchers that explore “inclusion in education” is that theory often inherits from the past and can be based in traditional learning and experience. As Freer (2021) states “Negative attitudes toward disability threaten the very nature of inclusive education”. How much you are vested in your own message of “inclusion” and “special education” matter? Can you be “held back” by the thinking behind more traditional approaches to inclusion and disability and have a “blind spot” to some literature? New approaches including UDL can find themselves at risk of being disregarded, or framed by disability and special education theory and practice and as such not realise the aspirations espoused in the original Universal Design approach for product and architecture? In essence - is the current approach to “Inclusion” at risk of being framed by a literature and approach that needs to change? Literature and approaches that we use in our classrooms to inform educational practice across the system. Engaging in such a reflection will enable a reach on the UN Sustainable Goals and particularly the goal of developing “quality education” to ensure accessible education and training at all levels (UN 2018).

Freer, J. R. (2021). Students’ attitudes toward disability: A systematic literature review (2012–2019). International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1-19. Griffin, S., Ed, M., & Shevlin, M. (2011). Responding to special educational needs: An Irish perspective. Gill & Macmillan. Lindner, K. T., & Schwab, S. (2020). Differentiation and individualisation in inclusive education: a systematic review and narrative synthesis. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1-21. McCarthy, P., & Shevlin, M. (2017). Opportunities and challenges in secondary education for blind/vision-impaired people in the Republic of Ireland. Disability & society, 32(7), 1007-1026. Quirke, M., Mc Guckin, C., & McCarthy, P. (2022). How to Adopt an “Inclusion as Process” Approach and Navigate Ethical Challenges in Research. Sage Publishers. 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. Shevlin, M., & Flynn, P. (2011). School leadership for special educational needs. Leading and Managing Schools, 126-40. Sliwka, A. (2010). From homogeneity to diversity in German education. United Nations, The 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals: An opportunity for