Conference Agenda

Regarding the funding of inclusion, it is clear from multiple sources (for example, Fontaine, 2019; Meijer and Watkins, 2019; Slee, 2018; UNESCO, 2020) that an effective inclusive education system requires investment and adequate support. Whilst the various properties of inclusion funding models are numerous, it is argued by Meijer (1999) that all funding for inclusion/special educational needs is essentially:

1. input - needs funding. Sometimes referred to as a pupil Backpack fund that travels with a child through their school/college life.

or

1. throughput - tasks funding. Throughput funding of tasks, services, continuing professional development, etc.

Of the two forms of funding, throughput is argued to be the more inclusive of the funding options (Meijer and Watkins, 2019) as it seeks to develop and improve services and is more likely to avoid the labelling of pupils (Meijer, 1999). In this paper, the focus is on governmental throughput funding of practitioner research projects in the form of Action Research for Inclusion and Special Educational Needs and Disability (ISEND). The funding of Action Research as continuing professional development (CPD), is considered to be particularly interesting because it aligns with the current and widely respected literature on the topic of efficacious CPD for inclusion (for example, Alves, 2020; Black-Hawkins and Florian, 2012; Norwich and Ylonen, 2014; Rouse, 2008), and contrasts with other current trends which are steering towards the homogenisation of teacher CPD.

This paper comes from the premise that when teacher CPD is set within a constructivist ontology which frames inclusive practice as a process rather than an end goal, teachers are more likely to embrace its challenges (Robinson, 2021). The constructivist ontology also aligns with Jordan et al.’s (2009) construction of an interventionist paradigm, which views inclusive teachers as holding a belief that children with SEND are their responsibility and their actions have a positive and meaningful effect on the outcomes for children with SEND. The interventionist paradigm being juxtaposed against the pathognomonic paradigm which situates SEND as ‘within the child’ and requiring specialist intervention from experts, and a greater use of segregated forms of support which take place outside of the classroom (Jordan, et al., 2009). Pathognomonic beliefs have also been argued to deplete teachers’ feelings of professional wellbeing (Codina and Fordham, 2021). In this paper the epistemology and efficacy of practitioner research (which recognises teachers as complex agents of change who operate in highly contextualised and collaborative settings) is explored.

Key questions on which this paper will focus

- What is the relationship between the Action Research projects undertaken by participants and the interventionist and pathognomonic paradigms?

- Is this form of throughput funding leading to participants’ engagement in projects which promote inclusive practice (as set within a constructivist ontology)?

- Is there anything that can be said about Action Research for ISEND and a reduced reliance, or shift in analyses, regarding the use of backpack funding?

- Will the teachers involved in this project be interested in, or able to, embed a practitioner research culture within their setting, if so why?

Inclusive education arises from the idea that dominant culture and practices prioritize certain social groups while excluding others. Kozleski and Waitoller (2010) note that teachers are often trained to be "transmitters of the dominant culture, practices, and knowledge" and, as a result, they often reinforce existing inequities. To combat this, inclusive education requires teachers who are aware of their role in maintaining/challenging existing inequalities and are motivated to remove barriers to student participation and learning. In other words, inclusive education requires professional development activities which are more localized and tailored to the specific circumstances of particular teachers and schools (Darling-Hammond et al., 2003; Shulman, 1992).

Collaborative action research (CAR) could be considered a tool for the mobilization and sharing of knowledge among participants, as well as an opportunity for improving educational practices in interconnection with the immediate environment (Moliner et al., 2021). This localized nature of CAR, i.e., transforming practices within the specific context of a school, leads to the development of teachers’ and schools’ ownership of identified problems and processes of change (Jovanović et al., 2017).

CAR values the expertise and interdependence of both practitioners and researchers, and, at the same time, offers an opportunity for learning for all involved. The collaboration and change in power relations open up the opportunity for practitioners to take on new roles and exhibit leadership, giving legitimacy to school professionals’ practical understanding and their definition of problems (Lieberman, 1986). Through CAR, practitioners develop both practical knowledge and a critical understanding of the everyday practices that result in exclusion. Therefore, CAR contributes to the development of teachers’ sense of agency, changes teachers’ definitions of their professional roles, and fosters teachers’ competencies (Angelides et al., 2008; Jovanović et al., 2017).

CAR requires different stakeholders to become engaged within a particular context in a search for common agenda to guide their work (Ainscow et al., 2004). Through this process of collaboration and constant negotiation of different understandings, CAR is modeling how to learn from differences and how to build a school community that acknowledges these differences.

The research aims to examine the process of creating an inclusive school culture and practices through collaborative action research.

Every child has the right to receive education that considers the child's individual needs (Unesco, 1994). For some children, collaborative approaches in support are fundamental in ensuring their inclusion and sense of belonging in education (e.g. Äikäs & Pesonen, 2022). Such collaborative practices refer to interprofessional collaboration, which is a method of working in special needs education, social work, and healthcare (Bricker et al., 2022). Interprofessional collaboration has been found to be beneficial (Anderson, 2013), and the importance of educating future professionals to work together is evident (Dobbs-Oates & Watcher Morris 2016). Interprofessional collaboration has also been emphasized in the recent educational reforms in Finland (Alila et al. 2022).

The methods of interprofessional support vary, since each child needs different types of support. The support varies from structured daily routines (e.g. pedagogy) and flexible groupings to collaboration between different units of extensive expertise (e.g.,. hospital schools, specialized centers for learning and consulting). For example, when planning teaching by activity areas consultation is often needed. Also, hospital schooling might be needed for children with severe socio-emotional support needs that might be also very sudden, or consultation regarding the use of communication or other supportive methods that generally the early childhood education or school cannot provide alone.

Moreover, children should receive support based on their individual needs rather than based on the diagnosis that they might have (Äikäs et al., 2022). Important factors for a child or youth receiving interprofessional support are high-quality early childhood or primary education and an operating culture that supports all students as a whole, and these have also been highlighted in research conducted in these contexts. Effective and ideal interprofessional support consists of working collaboratively across different administrative sectors (Äikäs et al., 2022). Although previous studies have indicated inadequacies in the implementation of interprofessional collaboration (Bricker et al. 2022;), successful collaboration is possible; trust, mutual respect, and functional communication between the sectors are prerequisites for promoting inclusive practices.

However, if the collaboration is not functional, children that need such interprofessional support may have a particularly high risk of being excluded from mainstream education (Äikäs & Pesonen, 2022). Additionally, teachers often encounter challenges in supporting children that require more interprofessional collaborative approaches in inclusive settings (Saha & Pesonen, 2022). A reform concerning cross-sectional and administrative collaboration is currently in process in Finland. Furthermore, internationally the interprofessional support, good practice models and concepts describing such working methods are also unclear (e.g. Heiskanen et al., 2021) Thus, more research to describe the interprofessional support and how to efficiently organize functional support are needed.

The aim of this study is to examine the state of interprofessional support by focusing on outputs from our research and developmental projects in Finland. We used an integrative review approach (Cronin & Georger, 2023) as a guide for synthesizing the projects’ outputs in the context of Finnish special needs education. We synthesized the projects’ studies, technical reports, theses and developmental work to answer the following research question:

1. How interprofessional support methods should be outlined and conceptualized in order to guarantee education for all?

2. What possibilities does interprofessional support offer for enhancing education for all?

Inclusive education research has grown over the past decades but is skewed towards Global North contexts, mostly framed by Global North scholars and published in outlets legitimated in the Global North. This Global North hegemony has been challenged, with calls for the field to be decolonised (Walton, 2018). In response to these calls, we ask the following research question:

How can inclusive education research(ers) be informed, challenged and changed by decolonial approaches?

In answering the research question, we pursue these objectives:

*To develop provocations for the field(work) that serve as prompts for reflection, critique and transformation.

*To animate these provocations with examples from the presenters’ research.

*To advance the field with suggestions for new ways of being, doing and thinking research.

Decolonial theories offer the theoretical framework. We are informed by Epistemologies of the South (Santos, 2018) and the grounding ideas are the coloniality of being, the coloniality of knowledge, and the coloniality of power, as developed by Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2013) and Dastile and Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2013). These colonialities are imbricated, and are mutually constitutive, and decolonial perspectives need to address each, and in combination. The coloniality of being renders some people as lesser humans in value and capacity, and thereby their exploitation is enabled and normalised. The coloniality of knowledge refers to epistemological colonisation whereby local, indigenous, and alternative knowledges have been displaced, disciplined or destroyed (Dastile & Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2013) by assumptions of the superiority and universality of the scientific and technical knowledge of the coloniser. The colonialities of knowledge and of being are enabled by the coloniality of power, which refers to modern global power that is characterised by domination, exploitation, extraction and control, affecting all dimensions of social and ecological existence.

The colonialities of being, knowledge, and power challenge inclusive education research and researchers in the imbricated dimensions of the subjective (issues of being), the epistemic (issues of knowledge) and the political (issues of power). In this paper, we offer provocations to ourselves and our colleagues in each of these dimensions.

A decolonial provocation for the subject: What investments and divestments does inclusive education research demand from the researcher?

This provocation engages the inclusive education researcher as a subject and echoes Allan’s (2005, p.293) statement that inclusion is not “‘something we do to a discrete population of children, but rather… something that we must do to ourselves”. With this provocation, we call for a recognition of positionality, especially by Global North researchers, and a willingness to learn and delearn, to embrace academic humility, and to divest from inequitable and exploitative research relations with others.

A provocation about epistemology: Whose and what knowledge counts?

This provocation is prompted by concerns about extractive research practices, deficit assumptions about certain knowers, and the perpetuation of a theory/practice hierarchy. It is a challenge to seeing people as research projects, to theorising their practices, and then re-packaging that theory and selling it back to them. We query the notion of ‘findings’ in inclusive education research, and its foreclosure of further searchings. We ask what an ecology of inclusive education knowledge/s (Santos, 2018) might look for, and how this might shape the field and its concerns differently.

A provocation about power: Who/what is the research for?

This provocation is political. It’s about the importance of work that is transformational and emancipatory. It asks what activism inclusive education demands from us, and challenges the armchair theorist. We question who our research makes a difference for, and who determines what difference should be made. It calls for co-production, partnership and allyship and challenges power relations and structures in the field(work).