The ultimate target of this collaborative work is to present how universities, institutions, associations, educators, practitioners, and policy makers assume central roles not only in advancing the frontier of knowledge in disability and inclusion but also in pioneering new means for diffusing and exploiting this knowledge. During the past years, aspects of disability have been put under the microscope of the social model, which supports that disability is not an individual difficulty, but a problem caused by barriers in society (Nind and Seale 2009). Currently, inclusion is the prevalent educational policy for the instruction of students with disabilities or special educational needs in many countries (Ferguson 2008) established in the argument that all students should have equal learning opportunities with the rest of the students in a “school for all” (Keil 2012). The notion of inclusion and its multi-level structure is high in the educational agendas and has led to many educational reformations. Clifton (2004) argues that “inclusion, and thereby participation, in the educational system, is more than simply access to education” (p. 77). Since inclusion refers to a wider community which embodies a number of cultural and linguistic diversities, educators have to strive to highlight the complexity of inclusion and encourage the development of an “inclusive ethos” accompanied with a flexible curriculum and classroom management (Clifton 2004). This perspective has led to the necessity of changing classic techniques and strategies and reflect on collaborative networks conducted by teachers, pupils, and researchers which seek to advance an agenda for inclusion bringing or conveying changes to institutional cultures and practices (Ainscow et al. 2003; Argyropoulos and Stamouli 2006; Langerock 2000; Lloyd 2002; Schoen and Nolen 2004).

At the same time, inclusive education challenges issues of classic pedagogy lead to conflicts between different set of values and goals (Armstrong and Moore 2004). According to Rodney (2003), inclusive education is not just a matter of inaugurating a new term in the educational terminology rather is a shift from one set of beliefs to another. Principles which are underpinned by notions such as empowerment, emancipation, and equity are embedded in the context of inclusion, and many times practitioners and their co-researchers confront dilemmas and difficulties (Armstrong and Moore 2004; Thompson 2004).

It seems that inclusion has two basic goals. The first one aims at the removal of all barriers that prevent participation and learning for students with disabilities and special educational needs, and the second one focuses on the detailed development of cultures, policies, and methods in the educational settings in order to equip those students with skills that can be utilized inside and outside school (e.g., social skills) (Booth and Ainscow 2002). However, it is crucial to mention that inclusion is not addressed exclusively to students with disabilities; on the contrary, all students, with or without disabilities, learn together in a flexible child-centered environment (Nutbrown and Clough 2004; Wedell 2005). In such a school framework, students are taught that all individuals are different, but they can co-exist harmoniously from an early age since they belong to the same community (Wexler 2009).

Broadly speaking, there are three main models adopted for the inclusion of students in primary and secondary regular schools. The first model refers to the simple placement of the students with disabilities or/and special educational needs in the general classrooms without a particular kind of support. The second model refers to the usage of resource rooms which are located in general schools, and a special education teacher is responsible for the students with disabilities or/and special educational needs who are enrolled in the resource rooms. The third one describes a context, which consists of two teachers in the same classroom, the general teacher and the special education teacher who is normally qualified in issues pertinent to special education. The theoretical perspectives of the latter model are underpinned by the notion of co-teaching or team-teaching, a teaching model that occurs when two or more professionals collaborate to plan, decide, and deliver instruction to a certain number of students in the same physical place (Argyropoulos and Nikolaraizi 2009; Luckner 1999). A co-teaching model allows general and special education teachers to share their skills and knowledge, to face difficulties and solve problems together enabling them in such a way to respond more effectively to the diverse needs of their students (Luckner 1999), facilitate their access to learning (Jiménez-Sánchez and Antia 1999; Kirchner 1994), and as such promote “inclusive thinking.”

Inclusion concerns the notion of belonging, the right to have access, and equal opportunities to get involved in all school activities. The basic requirements for a successful inclusion process are the quality advice, the advanced planning, the good teamwork, and the preparation, which demand effective communication, team feedback, and acceptance when things do not work well (Roe et al. 2014). Other factors that contribute to the inclusion of students with disabilities and special educational needs are the healthy social-emotional factors which lead to the social development (Aviles et al. 2006), a sense of well-being, good social competence with peers, good school performance (de Verdier 2016) as well as the legislative framework (Appelhans 1993). In turn, the underestimation of the psychological consequences of the notion of disability, the lack of accessibility in the school area and activities, negative attitudes, or lack of appropriate feedback from teachers and peers should be avoided (Hess 2010; Roe 2008). Apart from the relevant services and specialists, parents play an important role, since they convey information about their children, and provide continuous support and incentives, which motivate them to improve or not to improve (Sacks et al. 2011). For example, Ajuwon and Oyinlade (2008), based on their research, concluded that most parents enrolled their children with visual impairments to typical schools for reasons related to the needs of parents themselves, while the rest preferred special schools taking into account the well-being of children and the quality of education provided. However, some parents refuse to cooperate with the school services because they have not yet accepted their children’s impairment (Kitsiou 2015), or they are critical of the social situation in the schools (de Verdier 2016).

Inclusion relates to a dynamic process by which the diversity of the students is respected and acknowledged during their education in their locality (Booth and Ainscow 2002). On the other hand, many school systems are poor examples of inclusive education because they implement programs without using a thorough and considerate planning process (Walther-Thomas et al. 2000). In our view, these contradictory notions of “what is inclusive and what is not” result in confusion about how to interpret inclusive qualities regarding the everyday school practice. For this, it is argued that in order to promote inclusive thinking, a specific methodological umbrella is needed every time in order to bridge the teaching role and the researching role aiming at “opening up possibilities through a re-examination of taken-for-granted ideas and perspectives” (Phillips and Carr 2006). Inclusive action research,...