Conference Agenda

Until comparatively recently in Ireland as in many European countries the education of students with disabilities including those identified as blind/vision impaired occurred predominantly within the special education setting. This form of provision led to unfounded assumptions about the learning capabilities of this section of the population implying that their impairment inevitably meant they had more apparent learning needs than their peers (Griffin & Shevlin, 2007). These segregationist and institutional education policies were the norm in Ireland and special education was perceived as being the sole responsibility of dedicated professionals who catered for the needs of children and young people with disabilities (Griffin & Shevlin, 2007). Ireland has witnessed significant changes in how we think about and acknowledge disability as a public issue. Since the 1990s European and international policy including the Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education (United Nations Educational Scientific Cultural Organisation, 1994) has increasingly influenced the Irish education system. Consequently, the numbers of young people with disabilities including those identified as blind/vision impaired in mainstream education setting at all levels of education are growing and “have become the responsibility of everyone in the education system” (Griffin & Shevlin, 2007, p. 3). Consequently, blind/vision impaired young people are now predominantly educated within mainstream settings in their own locality. This has meant that there is now greater evidence of diversity within mainstream education. While blind/vision impaired students have the same curriculum needs as all students, due to vision impairment they can experience difficulties when traditional methods of teaching and learning are used (Spungin, & Ferrell 2007). The research upon which this presentation is based identifies that inclusivity is not always a guiding ethos within educational institutions but is something affixed to a “disablist curriculum” (Hopkins, 2011) as a response to an excluded student. The lack of diversity within our education has reinforced this. This paper will demonstrate the importance of emphasising that equality of access should not stop once the blind/vision impaired student has gained entry to the mainstream setting; these students also require equality of condition and equality of outcome to achieve equal opportunities and experiences.

A growing body of literature critically examines disabled people’s experiences of work, emphasizing the importance of the social relational aspects of embodiment, disability, and ableism within organizational contexts (Damianidou & Georgiadou, 2021; Jammers & Zanoni, 2020). Despite evidence of disabling organizational approaches to time (Seymour, 2002), disability’s relationship with employment and time remains under-researched in the disability studies literature, with relatively scarce accounts of the disabled employees’ experiences of time embodiment.

Time is inherent to the experience of work, the way it is organized and how meaningful is perceived to be, while ableism and disability seem to be a defining factor for the way time is experienced in this context (Seymour, 2002). In fact, evidence reveals that disabled employees frequently spend their time differently due to a prevalent ableist division in family and work life, with Bryson (2007) highlighting the significance of discussing the structuring of time and time consciousness when considering equality. Literature points out that the time squeeze imposed by organizational cultures centered around embedded masculine values and assumptions may result to lower autonomy among individuals, significantly impact their health and wellbeing (Jammaers & Williams, 2020), and hinder any attempts to promote and safeguard inclusion as a sense of belonging to the organization (Georgiadou & Antonacopoulou, 2021).

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent ‘turbulent’ socio-economic environment have left a deep scar on the work experiences of employees around the globe. It has brought to the surface the need for new organizational and management approaches that are characterized by empathy, determination, flexibility, and a more humane face that understands and acknowledges the needs of employees (Georgiadou, Magrizos & Roumpi, 2021). The ways in which time is perceived, acknowledged, valued, used, and assessed are central to the effectiveness of inclusive organizational approaches and equality in private and public life. The notion of time introduces a problem that has plagued scholars over time. What is the nature of time? How does time relate to change or movement? What is the relation of time with each instantaneous 'now'? Is time objective and is it about the objective characteristics of the world or the change that is taking place in it? Or is time dependent on the subjective perception, so that if there was no meaningful subjectivity there would be no time? Most importantly, does time pass at the same pace for everybody?

Even though non-disabled people may have the option to manipulate time and act like sprinters that compete to arrive first, in a race based on who is the fastest, some disabled people may struggle with time because of being different from the norm and thereby not fitting in. Thus, in order to feel and be independent, some disabled people actually depend on how well bodies, current technologies and prevalent institutions relate, not because they have decided how their environment should be arranged, but because other people have taken decisions for them and without them (Schillmeier, 2008). Hence, in order to be able to move spatially and be on time, some disabled people have to consider not only how they will move and how long it will take them, but also whether the social infrastructure allows them to arrive at their final destination at the same time as the ‘sprinters’.

Disability studies scholar Lennard J. Davis argues in his book ‘The End of Normal: Identity in a Biocultural Era’ that diversity has become the new normality. This means ‘on the surface we are better off abandoning some universal standard for bodies and cultures and acknowledging that there isn’t one regnant or ideal body or culture’ (Davis 2013, p. 2). However, Davis underlines that diversity has ideological side as well. The ideological side of diversity is - in turn - well suited to the realm of neoliberalism. As a political ideology, neoliberalism bases on premise of the ‘laissez-faire’ i.e. the greatest good to all is achieved via deregulated global economy. In neoliberal reasoning, deregulated markets replace the governments and reconfigures the citizen into a consumer. Within citizen–consumer-transformation, identity correlates with markets, and culture becomes lifestyle. This means that ‘one’s lifestyle is activated by consumer choice—and this kind of choice becomes the essence of one’s identity’ (Davis 2013, p. 3).

The core of Davis’ argument is that diversity as the new normalizing concept is open to all human beings as long as free choice and consumerism are concerned in a sense of a citizen-consumer. In other words, diversity changes the way of social organisation, and it includes elements of control and categorization. That is, the logic of constitutive othering and marginalization from Eurocentric white-male middle class normality to consumer-citizen alters in the ‘diversity discourse’. People or groups who are unable to choose their identity are still marginalized in the ‘diversity discourse’. Disability remains marginalized in the diversity discourse because subjectivity given to disability is not a matter of choice. Being disabled (or student labelled SEND) is not a lifestyle or an identity matter; instead, disability is an administrative category imposed by society. Drawing from Giorgio Agamben’s idea, Davis argues that disability is located in the ’state of exception’. In that state, neoliberal reasoning of diversity does not apply, but normality does. According to Davis, diversity works as an organising principle as far as hypermarginalized groups such as disabled people are excluded.

Davis’ argument resonates with our experiences related to discussion around educational inclusion. While educational inclusion is recognised as a political commitment and even somewhat celebrated as such, at the level of practice inclusion often generates more critical debates around ‘inclusive-bility’ and ‘educability’ of certain students, thus making underlying differences and norms again visible. The ‘school of all’ is actually for those students that can be included in the diverse but normative ‘all’ (Goodley 2014).

Our paper focuses on analyzing the relationship of disability and diversity in the context of schooling using Davis’ argument concerning normativity of diversity. We ask what kind of boundaries of diversity can be found in the educational inclusion discourse. Our paper explores whether Davis’ theorization of diversity can be applied to deconstruct persistent jams/blockages related to transition to/development of inclusive education. It seems to be a shared experience in countries situated in Global North that the implementation of education inclusion is not a straight-forward process. In our paper we engage in thinking about theoretical tools needed for deconstructing the implicit barriers hampering implementation of inclusion.