Search

With growing attention to including parents and eliciting their voices in the inclusive journey of their children, this paper discusses a process of research-creation. With examples of parents making podcasts about meaningful moments and feltness/felting, we explore parents’ positions and development of strategies in creating inclusive childhoods for their children with disabilities. Our investigation showed how storytelling workshops and the making of podcasts became a process of enabling care. It created a space where parents explored possibilities, actively shaped inclusion and functioned within interconnected networks. We discuss the way parents used the research-creation practice and their collective stories to (1) generate and apply present and future images of their child, (2) consciously invest in and appreciate connections, (3) interact with specific intentions, and (4) become activists and go public. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Drawing on memory stories told in a collective biography workshop about children's encounters with schooling, this paper experiments with re-imagining the child-student-subject as an 'emergent intracorporeal multiplicity' [Fritsch, K. 2015. "Desiring Disability Differently: Neoliberalism, Heterotopic Imagination and Intra-Corporeal Configurations." "Foucault Studies" 19: 43-66, 51]. From the feminist new materialist perspective that the authors work with, the child is configured not as an entity prior to, or separate from, encounters with education systems, but emergent with-in them. This paper focuses on difference in human relations, and in particular on the intersections of disability and gender. It does so not in terms of essential characteristics of individuals, but as emergent, in-the-moment, with others. In focussing on the detail of lives-in-their-making, the authors ask, with Barad [2007. "Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning." Durham: Duke University Press], if we are interested in justice, how we are to 'understand our role in helping constitute who and what come to matter?'

The movement towards inclusion comes together with a neoliberal audit mentality whereby individuals are held responsible for the transformations. The Special Educational Needs Coordinators (SENCOs) are seen as 'change agents' whose task it is, to support teachers in adapting their approach to optimise the chances for children with special needs in regular schools. In this paper, we want to problematise the 'responsibility-blame discourse' and look differently at agency. By using a diffractive methodology based on collaborative work, in which we have used material images of the workplace of the SENCO, and read-the-data-while-thinking-with-theory, we deconstruct the individualisation of agency. The SENCOs are no longer seen as separate individual humanist subjects where agency is solely lodged in the body of an individual agent [Barad, K. 2007. "Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning." Durham: Duke University Press] but the SENCOs are part of the intra-active entanglement of multiple agencies, of an assemblage. This re-conceptualisation of agency leads to a different approach to inclusion, in which the participants in any encounter can work as part of the assemblage to develop communities capable of re-thinking practice and transforming it into a place where children with special needs become legitimate members of the school.

The data in this paper represent the experiences and perspectives of parents and teachers who worked as communities of practice, designing support plans for the inclusion of three students with intellectual disabilities in general education classrooms. Their reflections, obtained through interviews and questionnaires, show how they constructed relevant knowledge to support these children with special educational needs in their class. The findings show the potential benefits of partnerships and local knowledge in addressing the educational challenge of inclusion. (Contains 4 notes.)

The authors take up the challenge of Goodley and Runswick-Cole's call to dismantle the ability/disability binary such that those now called 'disabled' can unproblematically join the ranks of those who will be counted as human. Using the methodology of collective biography, the six authors explore their own memories of becoming abled, and find in those memories a similar pattern of desire for, and critique of, humanness that Goodley and Runswick-Cole found in the participants in their own study, participants who were categorised as intellectually disabled. We turn to post philosophies to further develop the vocabularies through which the meaning of human can be expanded to include those who are currently viewed as less-than-human or other-to-human in their difference from the norm. In this article the authors use the research method of 'collective biography' to explore their first memories of how they became able, and were recognized as normal and human. We work with childhood photos to help open up our memories. We challenge the taken-for-granted division between the categories normal/abnormal, able/disabled. We argue that everybody is different, and that we all change and become able in different ways. We are all vulnerable and we all desire to belong in the same world, irrespective of the categories we are placed in. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article works with the methodology of collective biography to explore the space-in-between normativity and difference/disability. Working with the memories of the participants, collective biography explores the processes of subjectification through which individuals are made social, and through which they are discursively and intracorporeally constituted. The authors of this article work with memories generated in a collective biography workshop in which they set out to explore the ethico-onto-epistemological nature of their own encounters with difference/disability. This methodology opens up the possibility of thinking differently about disability, and of seeing all human beings, notwithstanding the processes of categorization, as multiple and intra-active, and as always becoming in intra-action with others. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]