Review of Research in the Department of Education and Special Education: The Special and Inclusive Education Research Theme Introduction

Transcription

1 Review of Research in the Department of Education and Special Education: The Special and Inclusive Education Research Theme Peder Haug, University College, Volda, Norway and Sheila Riddell, University of Edinburgh, Scotland Introduction Following the RED10 review of research in the Department of Education at the University of Gothenberg, a commitment was made to reviewing the development of research in the five newly established departments and developing an action plan for future developments. Peder Haug and Sheila Riddell were commissioned to undertake a review of the special education section. In this report, we first summarise some of the key findings of the RED10 review, before considering possible directions for research development. Finally, we consider the actions which might be undertaken to encourage the development of research in special and inclusive education with regard to making improvements in the quantity and quality of research conducted. Findings of the RED10 review of research in the Department of Education The Department of Education and Special Education is one out of five departments in the Faculty of Education following reorganisation in Several aspects of the research in this department were evaluated in 2010, with an overall positive conclusion. The Evaluation Panel considered the department very good with some excellent features. However, it was also noted that the number of research outputs per member of academic staff was low as a result of very uneven engagement in research by staff. It was also noted that there was a need to encourage publication in English language journals in order to reach an international audience. With regard to research funding, it was noted that there was a strong reliance on one particular source, the Swedish Research Council, with relatively little funding from international sources such as the European Commission. Over-reliance on one source made the department vulnerable if there was a reduction in available funds from this source. Throughout the review, there was scarcely any mention of research in the field of special and inclusive education, and this was not highlighted as an area for future development. The theme which the Department of Education and Special Education identified as meriting future development and investment was entitled Differentiation, Epistemic Organization and Values in Education. This title is perhaps a little unwieldy, and does not intuitively suggest a major role for research in the field of special education. However, it was suggested that the theme might include work on relationships between education and social stratification in terms of gender, class, ethnicity etc., between education policy and educational offers, and the effects, powers and rationalities of assessment tools, such as evaluations, grades and rankings. There is clearly considerable potential here to develop work on the relationship between disability/special educational needs with regard to children s and young people s educational experiences and outcomes, but these are not classed as key variables to be explored along with gender, race and social class. Overall, the lack of focus on special education is a cause for concern, since areas with strong research are likely to attract additional funding in the future. If an area is perceived as weak in research, then there is a danger that staff will be expected to concentrate their efforts on 1

2 teaching, with less time being available for research and scholarship. In the context of globalization, the University of Gothenberg seeks to position itself as a leading institution characterized by research-led teaching. It is therefore very important for staff in the field of special and inclusive education to become producers as well as transmitters of knowledge, identifying the substantive areas for future development, as well as the changes to the environment which are necessary to foster research in their field. Developing a coherent research agenda should not be difficult, since the EU and other international bodies have identified the issue of early school leaving, particularly associated with pupils with special educational needs, as one of the most pressing educational problems to be tackled during the second decade of the twenty first century. Studies of pupil achievement suggest that about a third of students are educated in institutions which do not meet their learning needs, leading to a range of learning and behavioural difficulties. Schools have used a range of measures to address this mismatch, including formal and informal exclusion. However, there is an urgent need for schools in the twenty first century to seek more positive ways of working with pupils with learning difficulties, and preventing learning difficulties from arising in the first place. Furthermore, schools need to be more sensitive to pupil diversity, acknowledging differences relating to gender, social class, race, immigration status, type of family, sexual identity, religion and so on. Identifying substantive areas for development Our main challenge is to consider how the area of special and inclusive education research might be developed within this department. A high general departmental quality is a promising condition, indicating that research activities are going on within an inspiring context. But this is not sufficient for special and inclusive education research. The future focus of research is of course of most importance, therefore we consider the topics and themes which might be developed, as well as some of the potential tensions between them. To address this issue, it is necessary to consider how special and inclusive education is understood, and how research within this area is defined. It is no surprise for those who have been inside this field of research, that it is difficult to limit, and to draw the borders between special and inclusive education research and educational research in general and indeed there are some strong arguments for retaining a distinct field of special and inclusive education research. There are at least two approaches with regard to the relationship between research in the field of special education and more generic educational research. These two positions were clearly articulated by different groups when we visited the department in November One group defined special and inclusive education research as a discrete field. Pragmatically the field could be defined as the topics studies by the researchers within this group. This would include, for example, the study of the education of pupils with visual or hearing impairment, or the special educational needs of pupils from migrant families. Measures to support this research area could then be limited to those defining themselves as first and foremost researchers in special education. This however would exclude relevant work from other areas of educational research, for example, the findings of longitudinal studies with regard to groups of pupils who are likely to be identified as having special educational needs and their experiences and outcomes within the education system. Many areas of research, such as studies of policy and politics and also classroom practice, are likely to be highly pertinent to the field of special and inclusive education, but tight insulation might prevent such connections from being made. The 2

3 mathematical principle of complementarity illustrates this in a very convincing way. The principle states that two complementary angles sum together to 180 degrees, and when one angle is large, the other must be small. Converted into education, when the ordinary teaching is of high quality the need for special provisions will be low. Vice versa, when the quality of ordinary teaching is low, the need for special provisions will increase. This illustrates the argument that what concerns education in general also has great influence on special education. This also goes for research in these areas. A conclusion then could be that research increasing the general quality of education is of interest here, and that the main step should be to support educational research in general. The contrary view is that special education is an entirely separate field with different problems and sometimes requiring different research methods. There has sometimes been antagonism between those wishing to maintain the distinctiveness of special education as a field of study, and those arguing for a more generic approach to educational research (and of course the debates are also rehearsed in the fields of teacher education, school organization and classroom practice). There are also issues with regard to who should be allowed to define this field and whose research is of value and worthy of financial support. Another issue is that the approach chosen will have influence on the power balance within the department. The Department of Education and Special Education has provided us with a sample of research with relevance for special education. Each member of staff has been invited to make a list of recent research publications with relevance for special education. In 2010 the department had special education as one out of seven different research programs. The lists of research come from member of staff representing several of these groups, not only the special education research program. This illustrates the initial comments made here. We find research of relevance for special education in several research groups. Why this has become so is reflecting both different research interests as well as historical coincidences. We have also received two selected publications from each researcher to review. This we have done, but we do not intend to present an evaluation of the quality of these research works here. This has been done elsewhere. Our intention in reading publications has been to identify the research issues and interests in the department. In the paragraph below, we identify three specific research areas in lists of publications we have received. (If it is of interest, we could make a list of the different contributions). As expected, part of this research is not identified as belonging to the field of special and inclusive education, and this goes for all the three groups of research we have identified. The publications thus reflect the organization of the research programs. The three different categories must be understood as analytical tools, with overlaps between all three areas. 3 (1) The part played by the education system in creating special educational needs. Research in this area considers how the education system creates educational problems for a large group of individuals. Research methods include in-depth ethnographic investigation of classroom interactions between children and professionals which are implicated in the construction of categories such as DAMP/ADHD. There are also examples of large scale quantitative work on disproportionalities in the identification of special educational needs, demonstrating that boys from socially disadvantaged backgrounds are particularly likely to be identified as having special educational needs. This is basic research, with relevance for both policy-making and for classroom activities.

4 (2) Effective teaching and learning strategies for children with special educational needs. The second body of research focuses on how to organize effective special education for those who have additional support needs. For example, some research carried out in the department identifies the extent to which deaf pupils benefit from textual language modification. Another example of this type of work concerns the identification of the characteristics of different groups of readers, with implications for the production of appropriate reading materials. (3) The identification of individual pupil needs. The third body of research identifies the way in which the comprehensive school system may best respond to the needs of individual children in order to provide personalized services. Research in this field considers the implications of pupil diversity for the provision of child-centred services, and the challenges which arise in determining the extent and intensity of individual support. Small-scale studies of the characteristics and needs of individual children in specific contexts, rather than groups of children, characterizes this approach. There is no doubt that these three different research areas are highly relevant for developing special education. Overall, it is important that research in the broad area of special and inclusive education should have an impact on policy and service provision, contributing to improvement in the experiences and outcomes of individuals with learning difficulties. An evaluation of special education courses in Sweden (Högskoleverket) concluded that a weak point was how to prepare teacher students for the practical teaching of individuals with learning difficulties. Students were highly trained in ideologies, in questions about ideal organization but to a smaller extent in how to teach the children themselves. This has also been a principal critique of this field, but from another angle. We know far more about diagnoses, than about how to meet them in practical teaching. The publications which were presented for review seem to be strong on the individual and practical orientation. Another matter is that the research issues are substantially scattered, with one researcher focusing on a particular area, with little team work. This is especially the case for the studies with specific relevance for practical teaching. This is understandable, the territory of special education is wide, and it is almost impossible to unify the different issues tied to the field. However, some of the publications have common and strong methodological and/or theoretical basis, and more might be achieved if staff could be encouraged to work in teams rather than as lone researchers. This is especially likely to be the case when bidding for external funding. Another strong impression is a lack of connection between the three different levels described here. It often seems that researchers are describing different worlds, without acknowledging their inter-connections. As noted above, a major challenge is to forge stronger substantive, methodological and theoretical connections between the wide territory of research interests, This conclusion was also suggested in the discussions we had with groups of researchers in November This challenge is formidable, but there is a way to meet it. That is to open up the field, accept the diversity in research interests and approaches and appoint a highly qualified person (or persons) as responsible for representing special and inclusive education in general. Practical steps which might be taken to energise the special and inclusive education research environment As mentioned above, the field of special and inclusive education has not been identified to date as a major strength in the Department of Education and Special Education. This is a pity, 4

5 since much very good work is being undertaken. The actions outlined in the following paragraphs might be taken to encourage staff to engage in high quality research producing excellent outputs. Encouraging staff to work in teams to bid for external funding and write for publication At the moment, bidding for external funding is a minority activity, and there is considerable potential to increase the amount of external funding in this field. Securing research grants is, of course, not an end in itself, but external funding allows work of greater rigour to be conducted than is possible for an individual academic working alone and carving out time for fieldwork from an already busy work schedule. Team work can also be very productive in that it encourages ideas to be discussed and publications to be produced which benefit from the input of different individuals. Staff are also more likely to encourage each other to adhere to agreed timescales and teamwork means that research is less likely to be experienced as a solitary activity. As noted above, there are many benefits in encouraging individuals to forge links with different parts of the School of Education, the Faculty and with other universities in Sweden and overseas. Building the international reputation of the special and inclusive education research group As noted in the RED10 review, there is scope for the School of Education, and the special and inclusive education group more specifically, to build a stronger international profile. Staff should be encouraged to attend international conferences not just to present papers on their individual work, but also to forge international networks which may be used as the basis for international funding bids to bodies such as the European Commission. The Swedish education system has many strengths which can contribute to the development of policy and practice in other countries. At the same time, experiences of other countries may contribute to the development of policy and practice in Sweden. International comparative research is an excellent way of developing these mutual learning networks. Developing knowledge exchange activities Throughout the world there is an emphasis on encouraging research which is not just of academic interest, but also has a positive impact on the lives of children and young people. Knowledge exchange can be achieved in a variety of ways, including the production of publications and web-based materials and the organization of seminars, conferences and think tanks aimed at a diverse audience including policy-makers, practitioners and service users. The special education research group might consider prioritizing and reporting on knowledge exchange activities. A strong web presence here is very important. Leadership in the field of special and inclusive education The Head of Department clearly has a responsibility for encouraging research and knowledge exchange activities, but needs to be supported by a Director of Research and Knowledge Exchange with responsibility for developing policy and translating it into practice by working with individual members of staff. The appointment of one or more professors in this field, charged with staff development as well as carrying out their own research programme, would be very helpful. We would also suggest that a professor might be appointed to develop a 5

6 research centres in this area see below for further discussion. Using international experts as visiting professors is also a useful strategy which might be developed further in the future. Incentivising staff to engage in high quality research Annual reviews need to be used to encourage staff to reflect on the extent to which they are developing their research portfolio. In many research intensive universities, it is expected that staff produce at least one high quality journal articles a year, and there is perhaps a need to make this expectation more explicit. Engagement in research might be encouraged by adjusting workloads to reflect the extent to which staff are research focused, as evidenced by publications and research grants. Incentives to encourage staff at an early point in their career might include the award of seed corn funding for pilot projects. Overall, there is a need to find a variety of ways to encourage all staff to engage in research, so that this is no longer seen as an optional extra which always takes second place to teaching commitments. Developing a succession planning strategy and support of new staff It was pointed out in a meeting that many people in the department are due to retire over the next five year period, therefore it is particularly important to develop a coherent strategy for staff replacement. There should be a deliberate policy of only recruiting staff who are research active and who are likely to contribute to the department s future research effort, as well as contributing to teaching. New staff should have published some journal articles and, ideally, have some experience of writing research proposals. It will be important to institute a staff mentoring programme to ensure that new staff do not get swamped with teaching and administration. A peer review system should be instituted to help new and existing staff in writing papers and research proposals. Proposal for the creation of a Research Centre in Special and Inclusive Education A very good way of implementing the actions set out above would be to establish a research centre focusing on various aspects of special and inclusive education. The topics to be addressed in such a centre would depend on the interests of the director and associates. However, we suggest that the centre s remit should be conceived of in broad terms, including projects which focus on approaches to the education of children with specific impairments (e.g. children with hearing and visual impairment), work which focuses on the characteristics of inclusive systems, studies which investigate the social construction of special educational needs and projects which examine the social characteristics of children identified as having special needs with reference to the intersection of gender, ethnicity, nationality, language, social class and so on. There is scope for inter-disciplinarity, with links being forged with researchers in other faculties and universities both in Sweden and overseas. A first step would be the appointment of a director with a specific remit to establish the centre. This key post would need to be funded centrally, but the expectation would be that external grants would be used to fund the salaries of researchers associated with the centre. Lecturers in the Department of Education and Special Education would be invited to become associates of the centre and PhD students would also be centre associates. As well as conducting specific projects, the centre would organise a range of knowledge exchange activities (seminars, conferences, the production of research briefings and 6

7 newsletters). A web site would be developed and publications and reports would be available to download. A high profile launch would ensure that the centre was known within the university and within the wider local and international academic and policy community. As well as providing an academic identity for members of the present department, the centre would be able to lead bids to international bodies using international research teams. Peder Haug and Sheila Riddell