In recent decades, the field of history has witnessed a growing interest in the history of marginalised groups (Armstrong, 2003; Fendler, 2020). As part of this academic movement, historians have been increasingly interested in methods that could be more collaborative and inclusive of these groups. For example, History from Below is an umbrella term that refers to historical research methods where historians collaborate with communities and organisations to carry out historical research using tools such as oral history (Myers, 2018). The methodology has a relatively activist origin, aiming to empower working-class individuals to understand their histories, which have often been overlooked in the discipline (ibid). Consequently, numerous historiographical currents have emerged that examine the lives of those forgotten by mainstream history, including colonial history, feminist history, the history of persons with disabilities, and the experiences of LGBTQ+ communities, in collaboration with those communities (ibid). The International Standing Conference for History of Education’s recent call for submission on Public History of teachers and their practices can also illustrate the growing interest in such methodologies in the history of education (ISCHE, 2024). Indeed, similarly to History from Below, Public History is focused on researching collective memory and cultural heritage together with communities that tend to be understudied (ibid). 

In parallel to this, the field of disability studies has also been increasingly more participative, building research together with people with disabilities. This comes from a concern for the dignity of people with disabilities, as they have often been subjected to a power relationship in research (Oliver, 1992). Researchers have often acted in ways that dehumanised persons with disabilities in their studies by considering them mainly as research topics instead of living human beings with feelings and opinions (ibid). As an attempt to minimise such violence, some scholars have opted for a participatory methodology in their research to construct their research together with people with disabilities (e.g. Ferndale, 2018; Hammer, 2013; Weinstein, 2019). This is also the case in disability history, where historians attempt to include more people with disabilities in constructing and understanding their community’s history (e.g. Atkinson & Walmsley, 2010). On top of this collaboration, participatory studies in disability studies often entail a need to be honest as a researcher (Nind, 2014). This includes disclosing the practices and methods and reflecting on your positionality (ibid).

Although the co-construction of research has begun to establish itself as a methodology, this approach still appears to be limited in areas where the history of education and disability history intersect, particularly in the history of special education. Conducting research from such a methodological perspective could nonetheless contribute to avoiding knowledge-making that discriminates against persons with disabilities. This is even more the case as disability history is a field in which “history rediscovered disabled people, but also that disabled people themselves obtained a history of their own" (Verstraete, 2007, p.57). Persons with disabilities should, therefore, have a role in research concerning their history and the history of their education. Conducting this type of research would help address the tendency in disability history to overlook the voices of people with disabilities (Kudlick, 2003; Linton, 1998).

This presentation will discuss the practices that were put in place to conduct a doctoral research project on the history of special education for deaf or blind children in a participatory way, informed by participatory research in disability studies and history of education. It will also discuss the researcher’s positionality and subsequent reflections on conducting a history of special education for deaf and blind children, together with deaf or blind persons. 

The research project is situated in the field of history of education and is investigating the link between progressive education and special education for deaf and blind children in Belgium from 1880 to 1940. The researcher is able-bodied. In an attempt to avoid a language or representation that could be harmful to blind or deaf persons, the research project entails bi-annual group discussions with deaf or blind participants. The aim is also that, through discussion with the participants, the research can be written from a disability perspective (Myers, 2018; ). One discussion group has been conducted so far. A second focus group is planned for February 2025, and a third group is planned for the summer of 2025. Those groups are organised together with blind participants and deaf participants, as well as two sign-language translators. Participants were recruited through an online call (written format and video format). Mailing lists of organisations and social media groups have been used to spread the call. The consent form was created in both written format (digital) and video format for translation into sign language. An information sheet has also been created in a written digital format, a Braille paper format, a spoken video format with subtitles and a sign-language video format. The place where the discussion groups take place has been decided in consultation with participants, to choose a place that is accessible. This means that the place was ideally a place that was already known by participants and that was already designed to be accessible, or that was hosting events and activities around disabilities. The first discussion group was a pilot group that took place in July 2024. In this group, a blind participant, a deaf participant and a sign-language translator took part. The aim was that each participant introduce themselves and discuss their educational background and experiences. The discussion took 3 hours and was filmed to have traces of both the blind participant’s aural contributions and the deaf participant’s signed contributions. The second and third groups aim to present the advancement of the research, i.e. collected archives and the few analyses that were made, as well as an explanation of the research project and topics more in-depth.

The first conclusions show that such a discussion group is as relevant and pedagogical for the researcher as for the participants. The researcher can learn about the culture of blind people and their community, and deaf people and their community. This helps to create a historical narrative that is informed by disability, meaning that by listening to the autobiographical experiences and opinions, the researcher has a better idea of the realities of blind persons or deaf persons. This is difficult to grasp through mere archival research if the researcher is able-bodied. Moreover, the steps that have to be taken to organise such a discussion group also allow for a reflection on the disabling structures of the academic world and society, and what it means to live together. For the participants, it was their first time speaking with a person with another kind of disability. They were surprised that they experienced more or less similarly painful experiences through education and listened carefully to the educational experiences of the other. The discussion group offered them a space to learn from each other and to express their opinions towards special education and inclusive education. Finally, while one of the main goals of such a methodology is to make some ‘time’ to think together about the history of special education, it is also to prompt further studies that opt for similar methodologies in the field of history of special education and disability history.

Armstrong, D. (2003). Historical voices: Philosophical idealism and the methodology of ‘voice’ in the history of education. History of Education, 32(2), 201–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/00467600304157 Atkinson, D., & Walmsley, J. (2010). History from the inside: Towards an inclusive history of intellectual disability. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 12(4). https://doi.org/10.1080/15017410903581205 Fendler, L. (2020). New Cultural Histories. In T. Fitzgerald (Ed.), Handbook of Historical Studies in Education: Debates, Tensions, and Directions (pp. 85–101). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2362-0_5 Ferndale, D. (2018). “Nothing about us without us”: Navigating engagement as hearing researcher in the Deaf community. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 15(4), 437–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2017.1416802 Hammer, G. (2013). ‘This is the anthropologist, and she is sighted’: Ethnographic Research with Blind Women. Disability Studies Quarterly, 33(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v33i2.3707 International Standing Conference for History of Education (2024). Call for papers ISCHE 2025: Public Histories of Education SWG. https://www.ische.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/SWG-Public-Histories-of-Education-CfP-2025-.pdf Kudlick, C. J. (2003). Disability History: Why We Need Another ‘Other’. The American Historical Review, 108(3), 763–793. https://doi.org/10.1086/529597 Linton, S. (1998). Claiming Disability: Knowledge and Identity. In Claiming Disability. New York University Press. https://doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9780814765043.001.0001 Myers, K. (2018), Collaborative Research: History from Below. in K. Facer & K. Dunleavy (eds), Connected Communities Foundation Series. Connected Communities Foundation Series, University of Bristol, pp. 1-49. Nind, M. (2014). What is Inclusive Research? Bloomsbury Academic. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781849668149 Oliver, M. (1992). Changing the Social Relations of Research Production? Disability, Handicap & Society, 7(2), 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/02674649266780141 Verstraete, P. (2007). Towards a Disabled Past: Some preliminary thoughts about the history of disability, governmentality and experience. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 39(1), 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2007.00239.x Weinstein, G. (2019). Hearing Through Their Ears: Developing Inclusive Research Methods to Co-Create with Blind Participants. Ethnographic Praxis in Industry Conference Proceedings, 2019(1), 88–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/1559-8918.2019.01270