Theorising Special Education

Catherine Clark, Alan Dyson, Alan Millward, Catherine Clark, Alan Dyson, Alan Millward

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2005
• eBook ISBN: 9781134754779
• Topic: Pedagogía
• Subtopic: Educación general

The field of special needs education is well established, and although it continues to develop in exciting and controversial ways, involving some of education's leading thinkers, many people feel it is lacking a coherent theoretical analysis of its own. Students and practitioners, looking for some solid theory to reinforce their own study or practice, commonly have to 'borrow' from other disciplines, such as psychology and sociology, since there has been no attempt to provide a theoretical foundation for the special needs community. This book does exactly that, bringing together contributions from key names in the field from UK and beyond. The book will establish itself as an essential text for students and teachers, as well as all those involved in special needs across the social sciences.

1
INTRODUCING THE ISSUE OF
THEORISING

Catherine Clark, Alan Dyson and Alan Millward

This book arises out of a symposium of the same title organised by the editors at the International Education Congress in Birmingham, UK, in 1995. Our own professional backgrounds are first as teachers in a range of mainstream and special educational settings, then as teacher trainers and finally as researchers in the field of special education.¹ Over a period of years, however, we have noted how our own somewhat pragmatic concerns have become permeated by theoretical issues, and how theoretical questions have continually forced themselves upon our attention. It seems impossible to consider issues of educational failure (the child's or the school's?), of disability (personal tragedy or public issue?), of inclusive schooling (ethically necessary or educationally damaging?) from a purely pragmatic perspective. Questions of fundamental values, of assumptions about learning and learners, of conceptualisations of difference and deviance seem to arise at every turn.

Alongside our growing concern was a sense that the state of theorising in special education was complex, not to say confused. On the one hand, the certainties which underpinned the pioneering work of Burt and Schonell seemed to have disappeared. In their place had arisen a multiplicity of positions ranging from the powerful advocacy of new approaches to difference based on an unequivocal commitment to principles of equity and inclusion to subtle deconstructions of special education based on sophisticated theories of organisational types, or of professional learning or of social interests. On the other hand, much practice and research in the field of special education seemed to be proceeding on a pragmatic basis, as though these newer ideas simply did not exist. Above all, it was clear that, if a single reliable theory on which special educational practice could be based had ever existed, no such simple and universal relationship between theory and practice was now possible.

In view of this situation, it seemed to us that the time was ripe for issues of theory in special education to be placed centre stage. In convening the Birmingham seminar–and in the additional work which is incorporated in this book–we asked our contributors to address three questions:

• Do we need a theory of special education?
• What should such a theory look like?
• What are the implications of such a theory for practice and research in the field of special education?

Such questions may well be simple to the point of naïveté; indeed, some of our contributors have not been slow to problematise the whole project of theorising, much less of seeking a single theoretical account of a field which itself is highly problematic and diffuse. Nonetheless, we felt–and continue to feel—that these questions open up perspectives on special education which would be difficult to find and address in other ways. Although, therefore, each contributor has addressed these key questions in different ways, we hope that readers will be able to trace these themes in each of these chapters and will find their own engagement with these questions enriched by so doing.

Is this book really necessary?

It is evident that the project of theorising special education is important to us and, indeed, in very different ways, to our contributors. But is it important beyond that? Does it matter to practitioners and policy-makers, or, indeed, to the learners who are the supposed beneficiaries of special education?

Our answer is that, whether this particular book is important or not, the business of theorising is not simply necessary in special education, but is inevitable. Following Schön (1983a, b), we would argue that any form of purposeful action at the very least implies a theory. Simply in order for that action to be purposeful—to be directed at making a difference to the world in order to achieve some goal or other—there must be a set of assumptions of the order of : ‘this part of the phenomenal world is such that action of the sort y is likely to produce outcome x’. Such assumptions are theoretical in the very basic sense—but a sense that we accept—that they move beyond a simple description of observed phenomena towards an explanation of how those phenomena come to be, how they interact, and how they might be changed.

Such implicit ‘theories in action’ may, of course, be made more or less explicit. They may be articulated as the relatively unproblematised assumptions of individual or social groups about their worlds. They may be subsequently developed into local theories which might, for example, suggest how to organise a school, or how to teach particular children. These theories may be further extended in their range, their precision and their coherence so that they become what we might call ‘theory proper’—the sorts of theories which offer accounts and explanations of particular ‘types’ of special needs, for instance, or which seek to explain the historical origins of special education, or which account for special education as the product of professional self-interest.

The diversity of these types of theories is enormous. What is important for us, however, is that, whilst the development of ‘theory proper’ is optional, the process of theorising itself is not. Moreover, we share with Skrtic (1995) the prejudice (and it may be no more than this) that ‘naive pragmatism’—the basing of action on implicit or relatively unproblematised local theories—is dangerous. The development of ‘theory proper’ is optional, as indeed, is the grounding of action in such theory. However, if action is ultimately to be rational in the sense that its purposes and its means of achieving those purposes are to be opened to principled and methodologically rigorous scrutiny, then the construction of ‘theory proper’ is essential. This is one way in which we are able to interrogate the assumptions and values which are implicit in our actions.

However, we also believe that we have to be careful with the notion of ‘theory proper’ as an ‘explanation’ of phenomena. The question is not whether theory should or should not attempt such explanations (it is difficult to see what else a theory—at least ‘theory proper’—might be), so much as whether single and consensual explanations are possible. As readers progress through this book, they will become aware of the shift in thinking which sometimes calls itself postmodernism (see, for instance, Best and Kellner, 1991; Cooper and Burrell, 1988; Hassan, 1987; Lather, 1990) and which problematises the notion of ‘foundational’ knowledge. It is not simply that theoretical explanations can be ‘wrong’ in the sense that they break their own rules of evidence in explaining phenomena, but that different sorts of explanations call upon different rules and sorts of evidence, or see different sets of phenomena as calling for explanation. Within our own field, the prime example is the sort of shift to which we alluded earlier, and to which we shall return in the final chapter. That is the shift from an attempt to explain children’s difficulties using the natural scientific rules of (some sorts of) psychology and medicine towards an explanation of them in terms of social processes of construction and production, using the rules of interpretivism or radical-structuralist sociology.

It follows from this that theoretical explanations do not formalise what we know for certain, but, rather, formalise what we believe we know and wish to know at any one time. As our interests and priorities shift, so does the nature of our knowledge and of the theories which formalise that knowledge. Moreover, those shifts arise neither entirely arbitrarily nor entirely out of the internal dynamics of rational knowledge production. Because knowledge is produced by particular people at particular times and in particular places, those shifts arise also out of the social, cultural and historical contexts within which knowledge is produced. Within our own field, therefore, the knowledge about educational difference produced by the pioneer educational psychologists of the first half of the twentieth century is different from the knowledge produced by the sociologists of the 1960s and 1970s or the inclusion advocates of the 1990s— with each form of knowledge reflecting its time and place.

The assumptions on which this book is based, therefore, are that theorising is an ongoing process which is an inevitable concomitant of action; that the explication of this process in terms of ‘theory proper’ is highly desirable; and that the process of theorising is socially and historically located. The clarification of these assumptions is important if the reader is to understand what this book does and does not attempt to achieve. In the first place, it does not attempt to develop a single ‘theory of special education’. The diversity of types of theory, the nature of theorising as a process, and the dependency of that process on the assumptions, interests and priorities of particular contexts make such a venture meaningless.

Second, this book does not attempt to produce an encyclopaedic handbook or typology of theorising in this field. There is a real temptation to systematise the current multiplicity of theory—a temptation to which we have partly succumbed in the final chapter. However, such systematisation runs the risk of ignoring the insights that emerge within individual contributions. Moreover, it suggests some external standpoint from which the system can be developed and on which it can be based, glossing over the extent to which any such standpoint is itself part of the ongoing process of theory construction. Readers who wish for a more systematic perspective on theory than that offered here are referred to Skrtic’s recent (1995) comprehensive work—though we would counsel them to be alert in their reading to the dangers to which we have alluded.

Third, and perhaps most important, this book makes no pretence to be anything other than historically and socially located. The contributors are certainly different from each other in terms of their interests, views and, indeed, national origins. However, we are remarkably similar to each other in terms of our professional backgrounds. We write, without exception, as academics and therefore as members of a rather privileged social group for which theorising has traditionally been a key professional function bringing a range of personal and professional rewards. Whatever our past histories and however else we might identify ourselves in other contexts, we do not write here primarily (if at all) as members of other key stakeholder groups in special education. We do not, for instance, write as teachers or parents or disabled people or as disaffected school students.

This is important because, in recent years, the growing awareness of the social location of knowledge production has led to claims in some quarters that it is only disabled people or those who identify closely with their interests who can legitimately comment on special education (Ballard, 1994, 1995; Barton, 1994; Clough and Barton, 1995; Oliver, 1992a). Readers will find that some contributors to this book tackle this issue directly. Our own position is to acknowledge the homogeneity of our backgrounds as contributors and to accept the legitimacy of questions about ways in which that background shapes the knowledge which we produce. Whether that knowledge can be reduced to or invalidated by that background is, of course, another matter which we leave to the reader to consider. Suffice it to say that there are other positions from which our work can be critiqued and from which very different books might be written. We welcome and invite such projects and hope that by reading the following contributions individuals are stimulated to join us in the ongoing process of theorising.

In the spirit of the above comments we have not sought to summarise, systematise or in any way order the contributions that follow. By not attempting to impose any order or interpretation on these contributions we are not abrogating an editorial responsibility but acknowledging, without necessarily wholly subscribing to, the relativism implicit in post-modernism. Each of these contributions ‘speaks’ with its own authentic voice. As editors we do not wish to impose our dominant voice or impose an artificial structure on these contributions. We trust the reader to chart their own course through these contributions and to exercise their own judgement about any sequence or grouping which may or may not exist. If they share with us the same view of the field, they will not find this unduly unnerving or indeed surprising; if they are convinced that the complexity and confusion are illusory, then they will impose their own choice regardless of any structure we might offer.

We end this introduction almost at the point that we began by musing on the extent of the complexity and apparent confusion that exists in the state of theorising in special education. If we appear to be reluctant to address this confusion, it is because we believe there is a need for a continued debate. Our hesitancy in this respect may be viewed with scorn by those who believe they have found an unequivocal position which enables them to speak with certainty on these matters. We are content to reserve judgement on such certainties. We prefer instead to see the debate flourish, recognising that there is a possibility that dangerous limitations are ultimately exposed in absolutist positions. We suggest that any uncertainty we have is a reflection of the actual complexity that exists within the field. Confusion is not, therefore, necessarily symptomatic of incoherence or doubt but a recognition of the real diversity that exists within the field. We would not wish to claim that the contributions in this book would necessarily lead to an ending of this complexity. What we would hope is that by bringing together a number of contributions into this one volume we can create a point of reference for those who share our belief that the process of theorising in special education remains underdeveloped.

We have, however, made an editorial decision regarding the ordering of the chapters and exercised one prerogative enjoyed by the authors of most edited collections. Rather than struggling to find a purely random order for the chapters which might, however carefully we sought to construct it, be interpreted as having some underlying structure, we have opted for a sequence which is alphabetic. We have also opted to make our contribution in the form of a final chapter. In this chapter we will articulate our own views on the nature of theorising in special education and suggest that it is ‘time to move on’. We, of course, have had the benefit of reading the other contributions—an opportunity that was not available to the other authors. The reader must view our contribution in that particular light.

Note

1 As always in fields which are in some turmoil, terminology is a problem. For our purposes here, ‘special education’ is taken to refer to any form of educational provision which is regarded within its own context as being ‘special’. This embraces both provision which is made in special settings (special schools, units and so on) and ‘special’ provision which is made in mainstream settings. It also includes the various attempts to reconstruct special education, most notably inclusive education. We freely acknowledge, however, the difficulties both of defining what is ‘special’ and of applying the unreconstructed terminology of special education to the supposedly reconstructed inclusive education.

2
WOULD IT WORK IN THEORY?
Arguments for practitioner research and theorising in the special needs field

Mel Ainscow

There is a story of a famous professor who, though he had written a number of significant papers about quality in education, had not visited a school for over twenty years. A new young colleague persuaded him to visit a local school that had acquired a reputation for the excellence of its work. On the journey back from the visit the young lecturer asked the professor to comment on what he had seen. After a moment’s silence the professor replied, ‘I’m just thinking, would it work in theory?’

In many ways my own work addresses the same question. Perhaps the major difference between me and the famous professor, however, is that I continue to spend significant periods of my working hours in schools. Over the last few years in particular, I have been involved in a series of initiatives in schools, in this country and abroad, that have provided me with endless opportunities to reflect upon and engage with questions about how schools and classrooms can be developed in response to student diversity (Ainscow, 1995a). How far these experiences represent what others regard as research in a formal sense is a matter of debate. What they have stimulated is a process of learning as I have sought to find meaning in and understand what I have experienced.

This chapter provides some personal reflections on all of this, leading to an argument that what is needed is a much greater recognition of the power of practitioner research and theorising in the special needs field. I will argue, however, that such a move requires significant changes in thinking in the field about the nature of educational difficulties and how they should be investigated. It also has major implications for the ways in which researchers go about their business.

Rethinking the special needs task

Over recent years my involvement in a number of development initiatives, particularly the UNESCO teacher education project ‘Special Needs in the Classroom’, which has involved work in many different countries (see Ainscow, 1994a for a detailed account of the research associated with this project), has heightened my awareness of the ways in which different perceptions of the special needs task guide and shape the responses of practitioners. This awareness leads me to assume that concepts of educational difficulty are socially constructed and must, therefore, be regarded as being highly problematic. As I have engaged with these complexities I have found my own position shifting in ways that are, to say the least, both disruptive and disturbing. Inevitably these changes in thinking are apparent in what I have written—thus, perhaps, leading those who read what I write to experience their own feelings of disturbance

Some time ago Susan Hart and I attempted to map out some possible perspectives on educational difficulties in order to assist ourselves (and possibly others) in gaining a better understanding of our own current positions (Ainscow and Hart, 1992). In this context I take perspectives to mean those basic assumptions that determine our attitudes, values and beliefs, and lead us to predict the nature and meaning of ...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contributors
• 1: Introducing the Issue of Theorising
• 2: Would It Work In Theory? Arguments for Practitioner Research and Theorising In the Special Needs Field
• 3: Permission to Speak? Theorising Special Education Inside the Classroom
• 4: From Theory to Practice: Special Education and the Social Relations of Academic Production
• 5: Medical and Psychological Models In Special Needs Education
• 6: Models of Complexity: Theory-Driven Intervention Practices
• 7: The Poverty of Special Education: Theories to the Rescue?
• 8: Embracing the Holistic/Constructivist Paradigm and Sidestepping the Post-Modern Challenge
• 9: Decision Making In Uncertainty
• 10: From Milton Keynes to the Middle Kingdom: Making Sense of Special Education In the 1990s
• 11: The Politics of Theorising Special Education
• 12: Conflicting Perspectives On Learning Disabilities
• 13: Theorising Special Education: Time to Move On?
• References