Ever since special education emerged as a discipline, it has consisted of contradicting views on what constitutes good education for children with disabilities (Haustätter & Thuen, 2014). In Norway, the conflicting perspectives existing within special education culminated in the late 1980’s where a decision was made to close down all state governed special schools. Replacing the special school system was an ambition of integrating children with disabilities into their neighbourhood schools (Haug, 2014; Wendelborg & Tøssebro, 2011). However, integration gradually received criticism for becoming too focused on adapting the pupil with disabilities to fit within ordinary education rather than focusing on how the educational system itself could change in order to encompass a broader diversity within the context of an education for all (Haug, 2014). Inclusion later replaced integration as the principle to realise education for all. However, there is not one agreed upon definition of inclusion and the concept could both mean both participation in an ordinary fellowship and in a segregated setting (Haug, 2010).

Theoretical perspectives

The theoretical framework of this paper is based on critical theory (Skjervheim, 1996). Skjervheim argues that we have two alternatives when interacting with others who may have different perspectives on a certain topic from ourselves. On one hand, we can choose to take a participant position where the interaction will consist of at least three parts, the ego (the self), the alter (the other) and the topic for discussion. This position requires an equal distribution of power between the actors and is recognised by both parties (the ego and alter) being willing to engage in the topic the other puts forward. On the other hand, we can choose a spectator position. In this position the interaction is reduced to two parts, the ego and the alter. Instead of engaging in the topic that the alter puts forward, we instead direct our attention to the one stating it. A spectator position is recognised by an attempt interpret what the statement of the other can tell us about the one stating it. In the latter position we are, according to Skjervheim, Psychologising the other, similar to how a therapist  tries to analyse what a statement of a patient can tell us about their condition. 

However, the two mentioned position is not only restricted to interactions taking place between subjects, the same may also be the case between representatives of different perspectives sharing interest in the same area. The issue with a spectator position is that it inhibits dialogue and cooperation between disciplines or interests within special/inclusive education because one or more actor is reluctant to negotiate on one’s own position. Alternatively one could envision a discourse within special/inclusive education emerging from a participant position, where the focus is no longer on dominating the other perspective but instead on what kinds of original knowledge can emerge from engaging in discussion on certain topics from different positions. There are examples on how the reconciliation of two or more opposing perspectives may have beneficial outcomes, such as the relational perspective on disability. If actors within different branches of special education are able to avoid objectifying opposing perspective and engage with representatives of these perspectives as subjects holding views worthy of respect, contradicting perspective could become potential enrichments to field of special education going forward.

Research question

This paper has the following research question: What potential outcomes may emerge from taking a participant position in discussion between actors representing opposing views about the future of special education?

Methodology This paper emerged based on an ongoing effort to develop a collective identity/profile for the research group in special education at Inland Norway University. Beyond sharing an interest in marginalised group, the research group consists of researchers with a diverse field of expertise and a diverse set of perspective but with a common interest in special education. Thus, we decided to do an autethnograpic study but with the research groups as a whole as the area of interest. Individual members were invited to submit a one page written reflection based on the question; where do you see special education in the future? We received in total 7 texts from the group. The texts where analysed by the authors of this paper using a thematic analysis (Creswell, 2013) where a couple of core themes were identified that will be brought back to the group for further discussion through a focus group interview (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009). From the thematic analysis of the submitted text we identified multiple opposing perspective related to the afore mentioned question. In the submitte text we identified the following themes: social rights discourses, neo-liberal perspectives, special/segregated teaching, inclusion for all, diagnostic descriptions, , normalisation, differentiation, special schools, teacher education and special pedagogical competences The initial analysis of the submitted text will later serve as a foundation for a focus group discussion about opposing perspectives on special education for the future.

Expected outcomes We are at a point in history where multiple narratives are competing for the position to define the education of tomorrow. When facing perspectives that oppose our own views about special education we are according to Skjervheim faced with a choice; we can choose to ignore positions that does not coincide with our own views or we can engage in a discussion about the topic laid before us. Through the submitted text and the upcoming focus group interviews with the members of the research group in special education at Inland Norway University we attempt the latter. By inviting members, who are all experts in their field, to an open discussion aimed to share and debate conflicting or opposing perspectives, we wish to explore what potential fruitful outcomes this may lead to. There are many examples in history where the reconciliation of two or more opposing perspective have led to new concepts, new paradigms, new knowledge or new perspectives that have proved beneficial for future of the field in question. The future of special education depends on what we do today. In developing special education for the future we can either ignore perspectives or approaches that we disagree with or we can engage in discussion with the ambition to end up at a common ground.

Haustätter, R., & Thuen, H. (2014). Special Education Today in Norway. In A. F. Rotatori (Ed.), Special Education International Perspectives: Practices Across the Globe. Bingley: Emerald Wendelborg, C., & Tøssebro, J. (2011). Educational arrangements and social participation with peers amongst children with disabilities in regular schools. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15(5), 497-512. doi:10.1080/13603110903131739 Haug, P. (2014). Er inkludering i skulen gjennomførleg? . In S. Germeten (Ed.), De Utenfor: Forskning om Spesialpedagogikk og Spesialundervisning (pp. 15-38). Bergen Fagbokforlaget. Skjervheim, H. (1996). Deltakar og Tilskodar og andre Essays Oslo: Aschehoug. Haug, P. (2010). Approaches to empirical research on inclusive education. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 12(3), 199-209. doi:10.1080/15017410903385052 Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (3 ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publlications. Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Det kvalitative forskningsintervju (2 ed.). Oslo: Gyldendal akademisk.