Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Spaces of inclusion: Investigating place, positioning and perspective in educational
settings through photo-elicitation.
Linda Dunne, Fiona Hallett, Virginia Kay and Clare Woolhouse.
Dr. Linda Dunne, Corresponding authorFaculty of EducationEdge Hill UniversitySt Helens RoadOrmskirkLancsL39 4QP01695 [email protected] [email protected] corresponding email
Dr. Fiona HallettFaculty of EducationEdge Hill UniversitySt Helens RoadOrmskirkLancsL39 4QP01695 [email protected]
Virginia KayFaculty of EducationEdge Hill UniversitySt Helens RoadOrmskirkLancsL39 4QP01965 [email protected]
Dr. Clare WoolhouseFaculty of EducationEdge Hill UniversitySt Helens RoadOrmskirkLancsL39 4QP01695 [email protected]
1
Abstract
This paper presents findings from a collaborative research study which sought to explore perspectives and understandings of the concept of inclusion, as played out in schools and colleges in northwest England, via the use of images. The research had two parts: in the first part, children and young people took photographs in their school setting that they felt represented inclusion or exclusion, offering an explanation for their choice. Some of these photographs and the accompanying comments were anonymised and formed the second part of the research that sought the viewpoints and perspectives of student teachers, serving teachers, teaching assistants and academics via seminars and workshops. It is the responses received in the seminars and workshops that form the focus of this paper. Four images and a range of responses to them have been selected for discussion and are framed within three key inter-related themes of place, positioning and perspective. Such an analysis is made to consider how self-positioning might inform diverse interpretations of the cultural construction and visual representation of inclusion and exclusion.
Key words: Inclusion, photo-elicitation, space, place and positioning
Introduction
Whilst inclusion is becoming an integral part of school policy and practice in many national
contexts (Engsig & Johnston 2014; Norwich 2014; Schneider 2015) what inclusion means
remains open to debate (Allan 2010; Lloyd 2008; UNESCO 2015). Conceptually, inclusion
may be associated with belonging (Prince and Hadwin, 2013) or participation (Booth and
Ainscow, 2011) and can involve attempting to ensure that all feel visible, welcome and
respected (CSIE 2015). Historically, inclusion could be seen to have emerged from the
notion of equity and rights (Barton and Tomlinson, 2012) and as a way of addressing
inequalities and injustices. However, the way in which inclusion has been represented in UK
policy arguably commodifies values around social justice (Ball, 2012) by creating and
subjectifying the ‘included’ child (e.g. DfE, 2013). If it is an evolving ideology (Stockall,
2013), it could be argued that ideological shifts in North America and the UK have been
driven by market competition between schools and league tables of ‘performance’
(Hargreaves, 2009) serving to conceal the often contradictory ways in which teachers engage
with notions of inclusion (Woodcock & Hardy, 2017). This process of reduction threatens to
assimilate and normalise those targeted for ‘inclusion’ (Graham and Slee, 2008) thereby
disguising the instantiation of exclusion. We do not believe that inclusion exists in a
conceptual vacuum, nor that it can be seen as independent from the notion of exclusion; they
are not binary opposites. Indeed, as Hodkinson (2012: 680) argues ‘inclusion and exclusion
[have] been constructed as a false dichotomy’ and for this reason, we use the term
2
‘in(ex)clusion’ to highlight that they in part define each other and can exist simultaneously.
As such, we are seeking to move ‘beyond the binary’ (Woodcock and Hardy, 2017) in order
to explore the complexity of notions of inclusion, exclusion and in(ex)clusion. Yet we do not
enter the fray naïvely, we are fully aware, for example, of concerns about the desire for
practical and experiential knowledge over theoretical, pedagogical and subject knowledge
(Raffo, Thorbes and Thompson, 2015).
Ongoing questions surrounding in(ex)clusion in educational settings were of interest to us as
we work on a range of professional development courses in the area of inclusion and
disability at a university in the North West of England and we felt that the research, in
addition to further addressing issues relating to social justice, would help inform our practice.
In order to explore notions and ideologies of inclusion in greater depth, photo-elicitation, as
one form of visual research methodology, was used to offer a space for the expression of
broader understandings of what it is to be ‘included’ or ‘excluded’ and to elicit
conceptualisations of “community, social capital, equality and respect” (Thomas 2013, 474).
As co-researchers passionate about issues relating to social justice, an aim was to encourage
children, young people and practitioners to reflect upon, and share their understandings of,
in(ex)clusion within educational settings. In this way we were seeking the “multi-voiced-
ness” (DePalma and Atkinson 2007, 502) of lived experiences relating to inclusion, via the
use of photographs taken by children and young people. A further research aim was to
encourage educators (student-teachers, teacher educators and educational professionals) to
think, reflect and question their own understandings and assumptions around ‘inclusion’.
Whilst recent studies are creating spaces for the exploration of new ways of thinking - for
example with regard to the ‘dysconscious ableism’ expressed by pre-service teachers
(Broderick and Lalvani, 2017) - this paper offers an original contribution to knowledge by
examining contrasting perceptions across a range of education professionals in an attempt to
dismantle exclusion as it presents itself in education (Slee 2013).
Although using images to research school culture has become more prevalent in the past
decade (for example, Moss et al., 2007; Prosser 2007; Prosser and Loxley 2007; Nind et al.,
2012; Stockall 2013), in our collaborative project it was the children and young people who
took the photographs that they felt represented inclusion or exclusion. The anonymised
3
images were then shared with groups of student teachers, serving teachers, teaching assistants
and academics within workshop styled sessions as a stimulus for discussion about their own
interpretations of each image and it is the responses to four of the images that are presented
here.
Inclusive space: place, positioning and perspectives
To situate our research we drew upon existing and developing bodies of work that foreground
spatial theory in inclusive education, and the ways in which subjects are constituted through
place and space (e.g. Armstrong 1999; 2007; Youdell and Armstrong 2011; Armstrong
2012). Lefebvre (1972, 1976) considered the production of social spaces and the ways in
which this production of space influences social relations and how (in)justice becomes
visible. Spatial justice has become an area of critical theory and pedagogy in which the use of
space and the positioning of individuals are explored and interrogated; it addresses the ways
in which power and equity are embedded in the use of physical space and the operation of
in(ex)clusion. Therefore spatial justice can be interpreted as part of the struggle for a rights-
based education; exposing and challenging marginalisation, pupil segregation and the ways in
which educational spaces and practices can be exclusionary (e.g. Slee 2013; D'Alessio 2012;
Hemingway and Armstrong 2012).
Three intersecting concepts emerged during the adult workshop discussions about the
photograph taken by the children: namely place, positioning and perspective. It is via these
concepts that we aim to explore in more detail how notions of space and justice are informed
by a person’s experiences and understandings. When we use the term place we are referring
to physical place – the architecture, the environment, the room and so on. An individual’s
positioning within a place refers to their personal (or assigned) identity; role and relationships
with, and proximity to, others. Our third concept is that of perspective, which we use to
denote the ways in which people articulate their understanding of place and positioning; their
philosophy, pedagogy and experiences. We are using these intersecting concepts with an
understanding that there is no a-spatial or a-political space (Prosser and Loxley 2007;
Hemingway and Armstrong 2012). In an exploration of a broader notion of space, Veck
(2009, 53) argues that ‘all persons are equal within an educational institution because within
it each has a responsibility to create spaces that are worthy of everyone’s belonging’. We
question whether this act of creation is more an inter-personal ethic rather than a
4
responsibility as it is dependent upon the positioning of the persons involved. A teaching
assistant, for example, may perceive themselves as having a different role in creating an
inclusive classroom than a classroom teacher. We suggest that differing views from all those
involved in a setting need to be actively sought within research, rather than focusing on the
most vocal or powerful.
Visual methodologies and photo-elicitation
As the focus of this paper is the exploration of differing interpretations of in(ex)clusion in
educational settings, it follows to adopt a qualitative methodological approach to data
collection that comfortably operates within a constructivist and interpretivist paradigm
(Hamilton and Corbett-Whittier 2012). A visual methodology was a suitable choice because
it provided a means by which to access different types of data, such as emotional responses to
situations and experiences that might ‘evoke a different kind of information’ and ‘connect an
individual to experiences and eras even if the images do not reflect the research subject’s
actual lives’ (Harper 2002, 13).
The methodology deployed was a broad adaptation of photo-elicitation, which is an
established vein of visual methodology research (Booth and Booth 2003; Boxall and Ralph
2009; Prosser and Loxley 2007). There are a wide range of visual methodologies that have
been adopted in the past whereby participants produce visual art works (Leavy, 2015) or
partake in a range of activities based on interaction and discussion with visual materials
(Clark, 2012; Hartley and Allen 2015; Thompson, 2008; Wall et al., 2007; Woolner et al,
2010). For our project, we wanted to combine these approaches by inviting children and
young people to create photographs upon which they could comment. These photographs
could then be distributed to adults who work in education as a starting point for discussion
around in(ex)clusion. Allen (2011) suggests that this method can be a means of documenting
official and unofficial discourse around a topic, but can also raise concerns that may not be
on the researchers’ radar; thus adopting this approach can make the ‘taken for granted’, and
invisible, visible, and normative ideologies may be challenged. Photo-elicitation was a good
fit, precisely because the research project sought to investigate the diverse views and ideas
prompted by images (Collinson et al., 2012; Dunne et al., 2017; Nind 2012). In addition,
whilst it has been acknowledged that the use of creative visual methods can be helpful in
5
involving children who may be underrepresented in research (Boxall and Ralph 2009), one
of the aims was to involve children and young people from the project’s inception.
In adopting this method, it was anticipated that some of the adults’ reactions to the images
taken by children might be emotive or unsettling in some way. As Harper (2002, 21)
indicates, visual encounters are different to other methods of eliciting peoples’ views because
‘photographs can jolt subjects into a new awareness of their social existence’. By examining
the way in which meaning is co-constructed with visual images, we can uncover how images
‘embody and enfold people into particular ideologies’ (Stockall 2013, 31). The value in using
a photograph is that it can prick the conscience of the viewer, asking them to reflect on what
they think and do. In making an analysis of the original photographs, Barthes’ (1980, 1984)
conceptualisations of studium (the element that creates interest in a photographic image) and
punctum (the element that jumps out at the viewer from within a photograph) were utilised.
Indeed, photo-elicitation methods ‘are likely to evoke a more emotional, many-layered
response in participants’ (Croghan et al., 2008, 346). However, it was hoped that the
possibility of having differing and difficult emotions evoked by the images might enable a
more reflective and questioning discussion, which could lead to negotiated understandings
that acknowledge differing interpretations of ‘inclusion’ .
Data collection
In the first part of the project, an archive of 63 photographs was produced by children and
young people from four schools in the northwest of England that were part of an existing
University-School network partnership with mutually supportive professional relationships.
The project had been advertised across the university-school partnership network and the
head teachers of six schools expressed interest in the research (two special schools, two
mainstream primary schools, one secondary mainstream school and one secondary
mainstream school with specialist provision). In each setting, a member of the team explained
the remit and purpose of the study and permission was sought from parents. Following the
detailed advice of Sensoy (2011), explanations of the project aims, that matched each child's
understanding and communication requirements, were provided and child, parental and
school permissions were established. The children and young people were given digital
cameras and asked to take photographs that they felt represented inclusion or exclusion
during their everyday activities in school. They explained (verbally and/or in writing) what
6
these images meant to them. The images were anonymised via a ‘cartoonise’ software
package, and the accompanying explanations provided by the children then became the data
for the second part of the project.
The next stage of data collection involved selecting anonymised images from the photograph
archive to share in workshop sessions with adults to gather a range of viewpoints and
interpretations. The workshops were conducted with two groups of Post Graduate Certificate
in Education (PGCE) Secondary school students; two groups of PGCE Primary students;
three groups of teaching assistants and individuals intending to become teachers who were
undertaking under-graduate study in the area of educational inclusion; one group of students
training to be Education Psychologists, and one group of qualified teachers and Special
Educational Needs Co-ordinators (SENCO’s) undertaking Masters (MA) level study in
Inclusive Education. These groups were all studying in a University in northwest England
and were readily available to us via our teaching schedule. In addition, four groups of Higher
Education (HE) lecturers attending UK conferences and one group attending a European
conference also took part in workshops that were conducted as part of conference
programmes. The 30 photographs selected for workshop discussion were those which
provoked the most discussion between us, had ‘punctum’ (Barthes 1984) and those we felt
would likely create powerful reactions from workshop participants. During each workshop, a
selection of photographs were displayed on a screen and as hand-outs. Following an
explanation of the research, participants engaged in group discussion about the photographs,
following some prompt questions including:
Do the images represent inclusion or exclusion? Why? Has anything been left out of the photograph? What would you add? What questions do the images encourage you to ask? Having talked about the image have you changed your mind about inclusion?
Space was provided on the hand-out inviting participants to write comments. Groups were
given the opportunity to share their responses with other groups in their workshop and one of
us made notes of the responses. It was decided not to audio-record the sessions as it may have
precluded more open discussion. The views of the young photographers were not shared
until the end of the sessions in order not to influence responses. In taking this approach to
data collection, it was hoped to create non-judgemental arenas whereby those commenting on
the photographs could explore contrasting perspectives and reflect upon their own
7
interpretations of in(ex)clusion. Inviting people to discuss and reflect on images is a creative
reasoning process necessary for changing beliefs or habits of mind (Stockall 2013, 322) and
the intention was to invite a dialogue through which to explore multiple viewpoints and
understandings of a contested concept, while being cognisant of the widely agreed notion that
photographs are polysemous in nature (Prosser and Loxley, 2008).This polsemy was viewed
as advantageous as we were not analysing the photograph themselves; rather, we were
analysing written and verbal responses to photographs. Packard (2008, 63) draws on the work
of Chaplin (1994) to explain: ‘visual methods [are] not simply a way to record or display
data, but rather [are] a way to generate new knowledge, to tap into existing resources which
would otherwise lie dormant, unexplored and unutilised’. Consequently, due to the nature of
our data, analysis was done thematically using an iterative methodology (Braun and Clarke
2006). The thirty photographs, accompanying written comments and group discussion notes
were divided between us in the first stage of analysis, to form photograph data sets. Each of
us aimed to read responses relating to the photographs within our set and to become familiar
with our data. We each transcribed and charted responses to a photograph from the
respondent groups, in terms of recurrent words, phrases and language patterns. In the next
stage of analysis we shared with each other the emergent themes we had identified from our
photograph sets. There was regular use of prepositions (‘next to, ‘behind’ and so on) and
there were more questions around the photographs than statements. A wider thematic pattern
emerged as we shared our analysed data sets, that related to space, place and positioning.
Four images have been selected for the purpose of this paper, and what follows is an
exploration of the responses of the adults who participated in the workshops - the spectators
(Barthes 1980), who inevitably engaged with each image from their own culturally
constructed world-view and, perhaps to some extent, professional positionality.
Visualising place, positioning and perspective
The image in Figure 1 was taken by thirteen year-old female student, Becky, who described it
as an example of exclusion, stating that: ‘the boy in blue [third from the left] is not being
included or encouraged to sit near the screen’. The adults who focused on the same student
either expressed concerns about him being excluded from access to the computer or described
him as ‘coasting’, ‘sitting around’ and in one instance, as ‘a con-artist’ (PGCE secondary
student).
8
Figure 1: At computers
A number of adults demonstrated a desire to understand the degree to which this photograph
represented an educational task, with at least one third of the comments exploring whether
paired or group work was intended or taking place. In addition, reference to isolation,
loneliness, position and the use of space permeated many of the comments made. For
example, concern was expressed that ‘the boy third from the left looks to be paired with the
pupil on his right (chair position) however, he is looking at the other pairs’ work and is
therefore being excluded from both groups. He looks lost’ (PGCE secondary student) and that
‘the others are leaving him out’ (teaching assistant). On the other hand, where adults
predominantly saw inclusion in this photograph, they perceived space differently
commenting that ‘it appears that the boys are all working together, collaborating, being on
task, sitting happily in close proximity’ (SENCo).
Where considerations of relationships beyond those evident in the image were discussed,
some participants paid greater attention to the degree that the positioning of the boys may be
a consequence of a lack of adult supervision. These responses related to perspective and
9
social positioning, whereby some participants specifically linked ‘a lack of supervision [to
the fact that] one boy has been pushed out’ (teaching assistant).
When people expressed uncertainty of the learning objectives at play: ‘I would add more
space and computers and a clear objective for what they are doing’ (undergraduate student),
relationships between the academic and social positioning of the boys came to the fore. This
became evident when participants asked about ‘the ability of the pupils….have they been
chosen to work with each other – is the spatial positioning of the third boy a form of
bullying?’ (teaching assistant). In general, there was an acceptance that the image may show
inclusion ‘depending upon the task’ (PGCE secondary teacher), with participants
problematising the binary distinction between inclusion and exclusion as one that is not easy
to see or define in practice.
Responses from academics appeared to reflect the discipline within which they were situated.
Those in education faculties adopted a pedagogical lens which was more practical and raised
questions about uniformity in terms of both clothing and behaviour. There were questions
around separation, for example: ‘have the children been punitively segregated from their
peers?’ (HE lecturer, Education). In contrast, academics outside faculties of education
seemed to take a more philosophical perspective talking about social versus educational
inclusion and drawing a clear distinction between classroom and youth culture. In one case
this was described as ‘including each other in their activities but excluding the teacher and
classroom context’ (HE lecturer, Sociology), reflecting the argument that there is no a-spatial,
a-political or value-neutral space. Furthermore, this group of academics posed more questions
than any other about the broader context of the classroom, other activities that may not be in
the frame of the photograph and whether adults had grouped the students.
The photograph of two adults helping two children prepare cakes for baking (Figure 2) was
taken in a primary-aged special school by a nine year-old boy, Tom, who identified as having
moderate learning difficulties. Tom provided an explanation about why he chose to take this
picture, stating that ‘this image is of inclusion – with grown-ups to help if you can’t do it
yourself’, suggesting that he experiences similar support in a positive way. This photograph
was selected because of the strong and somewhat contradictory responses of various viewers,
who appeared to be particularly affected by the punctum of the image (Barthes 1984). The
majority of the respondents were unsettled by the image and their discomfort seemed to
10
revolve around issues of agency and in the positioning of the two adults and the two children.
The terms ‘smothered’, ‘swamped’ and ‘disempowered’ were used repeatedly.
Figure 2: Baking
A number of participants appeared to relate their response to the positioning and relationships
between those in the image to their own experiences and perspectives. Examples of the kinds
of evocative comments gathered included: ‘the boy in the centre looks like a prisoner’
(teaching assistant) and ‘no acceptance of what a child can do…smothering’ (teaching
assistant). This emotive language attended to the imagined standpoint of the children and
focused on the experience of inclusion and how the children might feel.
Other participants focused more on the role of the adults in the baking task, musing whether
this was an example of ‘exclusion – two members of staff helping one child, other child left
to watch’ (SENCo) and raising questions as to whether ‘the teacher is taking over…has the
child on the right had a turn?’ (SENCo). Participants repeatedly commented upon what one
teacher identified as the ‘clamour of adults’ exploring how the physical placement of the
children and adults may have materialised relationships of power; perceiving the adults to be
11
in the ‘driving seat’. In one case, a teacher commented that ‘he looks overwhelmed by the
physical closeness of his helpers and the other boy is excluded from the activity’ (SENCo)
Although respondents were critical of the practice depicted in the photograph, this was not a
universal view and some interpreted the image differently; a primary school SENco said ‘this
is inclusion: teaching assistant support to ensure all pupils take turns, guidance to ensure
participation in lesson, small group work, possibly too much guidance?’. Others explored the
potential for differing interpretations as ‘inclusion – supporting a child with additional needs.
Exclusion – child on right is not included in activity’ (HE lecturer, Education).
As with the first image, a different stance was adopted by lecturers who did not have a
background in teaching in schools and they indicated strongly that this photograph
represented inclusion for them because the punctum (Barthes 1984) of the image related to
broader social and cultural aspects of education practice. For many, the image represented
inclusion ‘because food is a culturally shared practice and ritual’ (HE lecturer, Arts) and
depicted ‘a shared task with a common goal’ (HE lecturer, Sports Science). The attention of
these lecturers was focused on the broader social meanings of the actual task rather than the
educational significance for the individual children involved.
A third image selected for comment and discussion (Figure 3) elicited responses that drew
upon ideas of inclusion as being about belonging and participation (Prince and Hadwin
2013). The photographer was an 8 year old girl, May, who identified as having an autistic
spectrum condition and was based in a primary-aged special school. May said ‘if we were at
a mainstream school he [the boy in the image] would not be able to do this. It’s better to
come to this school because they help you talk and move and not do harder work, just
different’.
This image elicited workshop responses that were less dependent upon distinctions between
the professional roles of respondents and the key studium (Barthes 1984) of the image in
Figure 3 within and across all respondent groups was the bib; as a serving teacher put it ‘the
bib jumps out’. There were many questions surrounding this item, for example: ‘why is he
wearing a bib? Is he meant to be eating?’ (HE lecturer, Social Science). The punctum
(Barthes 1984) of the bib was that it generated associations with the concept of normal,
normalisation and ableism, for example: ‘a bib is not a normal part of uniform so it stands out
12
in some way’ (undergraduate student) and ‘a bib isn’t normal so it’s segregating’ (HE lecturer
at European conference).
Figure 3: Boy on carpet
The use of space, as place, was largely interpreted as ‘special’, exemplified in a range of
comments across the discussion groups and across roles: ‘is the boy in a special school?’
(PGCE student); ‘he has special equipment to cater for his SEN’ (HE lecturer, Social
Science). Distinctions were drawn between ‘special’ and ‘mainstream’ schooling, with a
common assumption that the setting was a special school: ‘the child appears to be engaged in
the task, something he may not be given access to in a mainstream school’ (PGCE student).
Positioning in terms of relationships and proximity to others was highly significant in terms
of the perceived singularity and aloneness of the boy: ‘who else is around him?’ (SENco),
with groups asking the recurrent question: ‘why is he on his own?’ In the main, when the
image was interpreted as exclusion it was because of the boy’s assumed isolation: ‘he is
13
playing on his own and is lonely so this is not inclusion’ (PGCE student) and ‘this is not
inclusion because he is on his own’ (teaching assistant). When the image was interpreted as
inclusion, the singularity of the boy was not universally seen as a concern, as indicated by
these comments: ‘there aren’t any other children…. but not everyone needs someone all the
time’ (SENco) and “he may be playing alone by choice” (undergraduate student). However,
most of the comments interpreted the image as representing exclusion because of the
solitariness of the boy. Positioning and relationships seemed to frame notions of separation
and isolation which were demonstrated by questions and concerns about the rest of the class,
for example: ‘where are the other children?’ (teaching assistant); ‘what are the other children
doing? (SENco).
Similarity and difference are concepts often associated with concepts of inclusion and
‘sameness’ emerged from responses to this image, particularly in relation to resources and
classroom activity. Comments indicated that inclusion is dependent upon all children doing
the same activity: ‘can’t see rest of class so can’t tell if they are doing the same work or not’
(PGCE student) and ‘is the child surrounded by children who are doing similar activities?’
(SENco).
The fourth image was taken by Sonia, a 16 year old female student, attending a mainstream
secondary school who identified as having additional educational needs. For Sonia, this
image (Figure 4) represented exclusion due to the ‘girl on the left (on the second row) [being]
isolated for some reason from her peers in this learning environment’.
Figure 4: Class in rows
14
For the minority of workshop respondents who saw this image as being representative of
inclusion, their reasons, as in responses to Figure 3, related to ‘sameness’ and participation
being synonymous with inclusion: ‘this is inclusion, they are all included in the same
activity’ (PGCE student) and ‘inclusion, everyone is working alone and being treated
equally’ (undergraduate student). Whilst there is no way of knowing whether or not all the
learners in this photograph were indeed doing the same work, something about the punctum
(Barthes 1984) of this image, possibly the arrangement of the seating, suggested sameness to
respondents.
A significant number of responses were related to the notions of order and disorder,
particularly focusing around the child on the far left and the child in the centre, who was
referred to as a ‘black hole’ (SENco). Many comments related to a seeming lack of pupil
engagement, implying a sense of judgment that was reminiscent of comments made around
Figure 1; that non-engagement threatened the ‘order’ of the scene. Comments included: ‘the
girl on the far left – cheating or bored, disinterested or trying to distract others?’ (PGCE
secondary student); ‘someone is asleep in the centre row!’ (HE lecturer, Social Science);
‘why are children sitting doing nothing?’ (SENco) and ‘not every child is joining in or getting
involved’ (undergraduate student). The perceived student non-engagement was seen to be
synonymous with a spatial disconnection that signified exclusion; exclusion that was often
seen to be the students’ responsibility.
In addition, the placement of the furniture in the room and the space occupied by those within
the image was strongly related to judgements about the figures in the image. This was tied
with a theme of punishment and punitive practice: ‘Is this a detention?’ (lecturer in
Education); ‘the good pupils are at the front’ (teaching assistant) and ‘looks like they are
doing a test or exam’ (undergraduate student). Aspects of negative school experiences of the
respondents seemed to be ‘jolted’ by this image, such as testing, detention, silence,
punishment. The layout of the room was felt to discourage social interaction and this was felt
to be exclusionary; that there is ‘no space’ for inclusion within this structure: ‘this is
exclusion – layout of the classroom means no social interaction, some students sitting on their
own’ (lecturer in Education) and ‘some children are on their own – lonely learning’
15
(SENCo). The linear structure of the seating suggested the silencing of pupils and seemed to
evoke thoughts of oppression, punishment and a lack of belonging, prompting one secondary
PGCE student to comment that the children were ‘excluded by silence’.
Framing included and excluded identities via place, positioning and perspectives
In response to all four of the photographs presented here, isolation, singularity and uniformity
was associated with exclusion by those who viewed the images, whereas inclusion was
associated with closeness and educational engagement, participation, a sense of belonging,
group work and the same classroom activity. Proximity to others was also generally seen to
be inclusion, although when ‘too’ close, this was interpreted as exclusion. Inclusion or
exclusion were also viewed as task dependent. The concepts associated with in(ex)clusion
are recognisable and are strongly articulated in inclusion guidance (Booth and Ainscow 2011;
UNESCO 2015).
There were marked differences in perspective-responses about inclusion and exclusion
between academics from differing fields in relation to Figure 1 (at computers) and Figure 2
(baking). Those from arts and social sciences tended to focus on cultural aspects of the
photographs and broader social meanings; whereas those from the field of education
considered pedagogy and task. Across all roles, the images provoked what Titchkosky (2009)
refers to as the ‘W’ questions, who-what-why, as much as comments or statements, for
example: “Who is with him? What is s/he doing? Why are they there”?
In response to all four of the photographs presented here, isolation, singularity and uniformity
was associated with exclusion by those who viewed the images, whereas inclusion was
associated with closeness and educational engagement, a sense of belonging, group work and
the same classroom activity. Proximity to others was also generally seen to be inclusion,
although when ‘too’ close, this was interpreted as exclusion. Inclusion or exclusion were also
viewed as task dependent.
16
The photographs provoked complex discussion and insightful interpretations that tended to
frame inclusion and exclusion as fixed in terms of physical place and social positioning.
Although the images elicited much talk around in(ex)clusion, there was little reference to
rights, justice or equity (often regarded as underpinning concepts surrounding inclusion) and
most responses related to the ‘modification of presence’ (Hodkinson 2012, 680), for example,
‘it would be inclusive if x moved here…’.
In reviewing the images and respondent comments, we suggest that how a person is
positioned within a place can lead to value-judgements and to the assignation of identities
that either belong or are excluded and that the construction of space can also contribute to the
production of students’ identities as ‘insiders’ or ‘outsiders’ of the learning community”
(D'Alessio 2012, 522). For example, the boy in Figure 3 (boy on carpet) was, in many ways,
assigned an outsider identity. Likewise, the comments relating to spatial positioning of
students in Figure 4 (class in rows) appeared to assign a particular identity associated with
deviance and punishment. The spatial organisation of the room implied, for many
respondents, a sense of regulatory order and uniformity which, coupled with punitive
connotations, is evocative of the means of correct training (Foucault 1991). Gallagher (2010,
268) argues that ‘a school’s regime of sonic surveillance in the classroom arguably
conform[s] more closely to the panoptic model than visual surveillance, since the former [is]
more easily concealed’. Responses to the image of children seated in rows reflects a western
focus on individuality, independence and power; whereas seating children in groups and
working together is perceived as ‘good inclusion’ (Stockall 2013, 320). Gallagher (2011, 54)
suggests that:
‘the elementary schools of the nineteenth century…would have involved a quite different relationship between sound and power. The grid of rows and ranks associated with such institutions would have permitted a greater coincidence between the spatialities of aural and visual surveillance.’
In the case of responses to Figure 1 (at computers) and Figure 4 (class in rows), it would
appear that space and positioning ‘decides’ what activity may occur, but even this ‘decision’
has limits placed upon it (Lefebvre 1991). The arrangement of space implies a certain order
and hence also a certain disorder; framing those students who reject, or are unable to comply
with, these arrangements as the source of their own exclusion. For these students, “the choice
is stark; they must adapt or be adapted, adjust or be adjusted, perform ‘normally’ or be
17
normalised” (Veck 2009, 43). Normalisation can be seen as a form of rehabilitation that
attempts to fix that which falls outside a particular way of being (Foucault 1980) and
markers, or signifiers, of difference may reinforce and perpetuate notions of normality. The
bib in Figure 3, as a marker of difference, generated comments associated with normality and
otherness. Masschelein and Verstraete (2012) suggest that the worrying role of space in the
production of otherness has been mostly associated with the attribution of human beings to a
particular place due to some bodily or mental characteristic. The boy in Figure 3 was
assigned a special identity, through a visible marker of difference (the bib) and through
spatial place and positioning, in relation to ‘others’, thereby creating ‘other territory’ that
objectifies and renders children powerless (Allan 2014, 223).
Conclusion
Photo-elicitation methodology provided a helpful and insightful analytical tool to explore the
complex and often contradictory ways in which ‘inclusion’ is experienced, interpreted and
understood. The possibility that interpretations of inclusion depend upon personal situated-
ness is evidenced by the range of responses to the photographs, highlighting the challenge of
determining what constitutes inclusive practice. A posteriori knowledge is key to Barthes’
(1984) connoted meaning and this would appear to have influenced responses. People bring
to a situation their own experiences and views and will interpret the same practice, or in this
case the same representation of practice, in a range of (contradictory) ways.
The diverse responses received in reaction to the images indicates that it is difficult to frame
inclusion and exclusion as dichotomous or even on a continuum. Rather, whether particular
spaces or practices are inclusive or not, very much depends on who is experiencing them,
who is witnessing them, the experiential lens being used and cultural understandings held. If
‘the individual’s orientation to abstract space is accomplished socially’ (Lefebvre 1991, 288),
then those who design, organise and occupy educational spaces must be awakened to the
symbolic manifestation of spatial practices and their consequences. From a socio-cultural
perspective, ‘the space of a (social) order is hidden in the order of space’ (Lefebvre 1991,
289), yet changing the order of space may not necessarily change the social order that
in(ex)cludes.
18
It is hoped that in sharing this research, those working within the field of teacher education
and educational professionals within schools, colleges and other settings will reflect upon
how in(ex)clusion occurs; the use of space, and how it is subject to encultured and normalised
understandings of school practice that can create injustices (Prosser and Loxley 2007).
Discourse around the use of space can conjure value-laden territories with desirable or
undesirable spaces designated for ‘us’ and ‘the ‘included’. The hidden order can be made
visible by embracing the multi-voiced-ness of all those present in educational spaces and
through respecting what each individual brings to that space.
Our research findings resonate for us as university tutors who work with educational
professionals and student-teachers to critically evaluate inclusive educational provision from
a social justice and rights-based perspective, and to explore professional identities in
education beyond a stereotypical norm. In researching the self-identities of student teachers,
Tangen and Beutel (2017: 71) express the need for teacher-educators to facilitate and
challenge them ‘to explore their own possible selves as inclusive educators’ and this is what
we aim to do. There is also a need to critically examine, more deeply, epistemological
assumptions held by those at the pedagogical interface. In response, we have incorporated
photo-elicitation approaches in our teaching as a way of critically examining ‘inclusion’ and
encouraging educators on professional development courses, and student-teachers in
particular, to become more aware of engrained institutional values and practices to move
closer to a more socially just conception of education ‘along the spectrum of positions that
could be taken’ (Woodcock and Hardy 2017: 684). The use of images raises questions that
help to disturb and disrupt conventional knowledges about inclusion or ‘special needs’ and
reveal some of the problematic and harmful practices of special education, which now uses
the language of inclusion to re-brand itself (Ballard 2013).
In our work, we urge student-teachers to reflect, question and problematize prevailing
ontological assumptions (evident in our data) surrounding normative inclusive education
discourses and practices (especially those associated with special educational needs and
categories), as a starting point for changes in thinking, ways of seeing and subsequent
practice. Thinking in another way, or thinking otherwise (Slee 2010; Ballard 2013), about
inclusion is not a matter of technicised how-to adjustments to existing practices, nor is it not
about applying abstract principles or articulating recognisable concepts such as belonging or
participation; it ‘requires a profound change in how we think about the world and our place in
19
it and changes in how we teach children, teachers and ourselves’ (Ballard 2013: 762). By
recognising the reality of exclusion as a social disposition (Slee, 2013), we see this study as
contributing to the disruption of the political, conceptual and practical status quo.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank everyone who made this project possible: all the children and young people who took the time and trouble to take photographs and provide their commentary on them, and the education professionals and academics who took part in the workshops.
References
Allan, J. 2010. Questions of inclusion in Scotland and Europe. European Journal of Special Needs Education 25, no. 2: 199-208.
Allen, L. 2011. Picture this: using photo-methods in reach on sexuality and schooling. Qualitative Research Journal 11, no. 5: 487-504.
Armstrong, F. 1999. Inclusion, curriculum and the struggle for space in school. International Journal of Inclusive Education 3, no.1: 75-87.
Armstrong, F. 2012. Landscapes, spatial justice and learning communities. International Journal of Inclusive Education 16, nos. 5-6: 1-18.
Ball, S. 2012. Performativity, commodification and commitment: An I-spy guide the neoliberal university. British Journal of Educational Studies 60, no. 1: 17-28.
Ballard, K. 2013. Thinking in another way: ideas for sustainable inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education 17, no. 8: 762–775,
Barthes, R. 1980. Camera Lucida: Reflections on photography. trans. Richard Howard, New York: Hill and Wang.
Barthes, R. 1984. Camera Lucida. London: Harper Collins.
Boxall, K. and Ralph, S. 2009. Research ethics and the use of visual images in research with people with intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability 34, no. 1: 45-54.
Booth, T., and Booth, W. 2003. In the frame: Photovoice and mothers with learning difficulties Disability and Society 18: 431-442.
Booth, T., and Ainscow, M. 2011. Index for inclusion : developing learning and participation in schools. Bristol: Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education.
20
Broderick, A. and Lalvani, P. 2017. Dysconscious ableism: toward a liberatory praxis in teacher education. International Journal of Inclusive Education. Published online: 02 Mar Refr added2017
Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education. 2015. http://www.csie.org.uk/, accessed 25.02.16.Clark, J. 2012. Using diamond ranking as visual cues to engage young people in the research process. Qualitative Research Journal, 12, no. 2: 222-237.
Croghan, R., Griffin, C., Hunter J., and Phoenix, A. 2008. Young people's constructions of self: Notes on the use and analysis of the photo‐elicitation methods. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 11, no. 4: 345-356.
Collinson, C., Dunne, L., and Woolhouse, C. 2012 Re-visioning disability and dyslexia down the camera lens: interpretations of representations on UK university websites and in a UK government guidance paper Studies in Higher Education, 37, no. 7: 859-873.
D’Alessio, S. 2012. Integrazione scolastica and the development of inclusion in Italy: does space matter? International Journal of Inclusive Education 16, nos. 5-6: 519-534.
Depalma, R., and Atkinson, E. 2007. Strategic Embodiment in Virtual Spaces: Exploring an on-line discussion about sexualities equality in schools. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 28, no. 4: 499 – 514.
Department for Education (DfE). 2013. Special Educational Needs (SEN) Code of Practice: for 0 to 25 years: Statutory guidance for organisations who work with and support children and young people with SEN, London, DfE (Draft published October 2013) available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/251839/Draft_SEN_Code_of_Practice_-_statutory_guidance.pdf, accessed 01.02.14.
Dunne, L., Hallett, F., Kay, V., and Woolhouse, C. 2017. Visualising Inclusion: employing a photo-elicitation methodology to explore views of inclusive education, SAGE Research Methods Cases. http://srmo.sagepub.com/cases.
Engsig, T & Johnston, C. J. 2014. Is there something rotten in the state of Denmark? The paradoxical policies of inclusive education – lessons from Denmark. International Journal of Inclusive Education 19, no. 5: 469-486.
Foucault, M. 1980. Power/knowledge: Selected Interviews and other Writings, 1972-1977.C. Gordon (Ed.), L. Marshall, J. Mepham and K. Soper (Trans.). New York: Pantheon.
Foucault, M. 1991. Discipline and punish, the birth of the prison. London: Penguin.
Gallagher, M. 2010. Are Schools Panoptic? Surveillance and Society 7, nos. 3-4: 262-272.
Gallagher, M. 2011. Sound, space and power in a primary school. Social and Cultural Geography 12, no. 1: 47-61.
Graham, L. and Slee, R. (2008. An illusory Interiority: Interrogating the discourse/s/ of inclusion. Educational Philosophy and Theory 40, no. 2: 277-293.
Hamilton, L., and Corbett-Whittier, C. 2012. Using Case Study in Education Research. London: Sage (Chapter 9).
21
Harper, D. 2002. Talking about pictures: a case for photo-elicitation. Visual Studies 17, no. 1: 13-26.
Hargreaves, A. 2009. A decade of educational change and a defining moment of opportunity – an introduction. Journal of Educational Change 10, no. 2: 89 – 100.
Hartley, C. and Allen, M. 2015. Symbolic Understanding of Pictures in LowFunctioning Children with Autism: The Effects of Iconicity and Naming. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 45, no. 1: 15-30.
Hemingway, J., and Armstrong, F. 2012. Space, place and inclusive learning. International Journal of Inclusive Education 16, nos. 5-6:1-5.
Hodkinson, A. 2012 ‘All present and correct?’ Exclusionary inclusion within the English educational system. Disability & Society 27, no. 5: 675-688.
Lefebvre, H. 1972. Espace et politique. Paris: Anthropos.
Lefebvre, H. 1976. Reflection on the politics of space (M. Enders, Trans.). Antipode: A Radical Journal of Geography 8, no. 2: 30-37.
Lefebvre, H. 1991. The production of space. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lloyd, C. 2008. Removing Barriers to Achievement: A Strategy for Inclusion or exclusion? International Journal of Inclusive Education 12, no. 2: 221-236.
Masschelein, J., and Verstraete, P. 2012. Living in the presence of others: towards a reconfiguration of space, asylum and inclusion, International Journal of Inclusive Education 16, no. 11: 1189-1202.
Moss, J., Deppeler, J., Astley, L., and Pattison, K. (2007 Student researchers in the middle: using visual images to make sense of inclusive education. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs 7, no. 1: 46-54.
Nind, M., Boorman, G., and Clarke, G. 2012. Creating spaces to belong: listening to the voice of girls with behavioural, emotional and social difficulties through digital visual and narrative methods. International Journal of Inclusive Education 16, no.7: 643-656.
Norwich, B. 2014. Changing policy and legislation and its effects on inclusive and special education: a perspective from England. British Journal of Special Education 41, no. 4: 403-425.
Packard, J. 2008 ‘I’m gonna show you what it’s really like out here’: the power and limitation of participatory visual methods. Visual Studies 22, no. 1: 63-77.
Prince, E., and Hadwin, J. 2013. The Role of a Sense of School Belonging in Understanding the Effectiveness of Inclusion of Children with Special Educational Needs. International Journal of Inclusive Education 17, no. 3: 238-262.
Prosser, J. 2007. Visual methods and the visual culture of schools. Visual Studies 22, no. 1: 13-30.
Prosser, J., and Loxley, A. 2007. Enhancing the contribution of visual methods to inclusive education. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs 7, no. 1: 55-68.
22
Raffo, C., Forbes, C. and Thomson, S. 2015. Ecologies of educational reflexivity and agency – a different way of thinking about equitable educational policies and practices for England and beyond? International Journal of Inclusive Education. 19, no. 11: 1126-1142
Schneider, C. 2015. Social participation of children and youth with disabilities in Canada, France and Germany. International Journal of Inclusive Education 19, no. 10: 1068-1079.
Sensoy, O. 2011. Picturing oppression: seventh graders’ photo essays on racism, classism, and sexism. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 24, no. 3: 323-342.
Slee, R. 2010. Social justice and the changing directions in educational research: the case of inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education 5, no. 2: 167-177.
Slee, R. 2013. How do we make inclusive education happen when exclusion is a political predisposition? International Journal of Inclusive Education 17, no. 8: 895-907.
Stockall, N. 2013. Photo-elicitation and visual semiotics: A unique methodology for studying inclusion for children with disabilities. International Journal of Inclusive Education 17, no. 3: 310-328.
Tangen, D. and Beutel, D. 2017. Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of self as inclusive educators. International Journal of Inclusive Education. 21. no. 1: 63-72.
Thomson, P. 2008. Doing visual research with children and young people. London: Routledge.
Titchkosky, T. 2009. Disability images and the art of theorizing normality. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 22, no. 1:75-84. ·
Thomas, G. 2013. A review of thinking and research about inclusive education policy, with suggestions for a new kind of inclusive thinking. British Educational Research Journal 39, no. 3: 473-490.
UNESCO. 2015. The right to education for persons with disabilities. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
Veck, W. 2009.From an exclusionary to an inclusive understanding of educational difficulties and educational space: Implications for the Learning Support Assistant's role, Oxford Review of Education 35, no. 1: 41-56.
Wall, K., Higgins, S. and Packard, E. 2007. Talking about learning: using templates to find out pupils’ views. Devon, England, Southgate.
Woodcock, S. and Hardy, I. 2017. Beyond the binary: rethinking teachers’ understandings of and engagement with inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education 21, no. 6: 667-686.
Woolner, P, Clark, J., Hall, E., Tiplady, L., Thomas, U. and Wall, K. (2010) Pictures are necessary but not sufficient: Using a range of visual methods to engage users about school design. Learning Environments Research 13, no. 1:1-22.
23
Youdell, D. and Armstrong, F. 2011. A politics beyond subjects: The affective choreographies and smooth spaces of schooling. Emotion, Space and Society 4, no. 3: 144-150.
24
