04. Inclusive Education
Paper
‘Ticking the box’: Navigating Ethical and Methodological Tensions within Participatory Research with and for Adults with Intellectual Disabilities
Cara Baer
University of Plymouth, United Kingdom
Presenting Author: Baer, Cara
Participatory research can be methodologically challenging to implement and work with (Gristy, 2015), and when intending to engage adults with intellectual disabilities within participatory research as active participants and co-researchers, additional methodological and ethical tensions arise (Northway, Howarth and Evans, 2015). This particular project explores the experiences of adults with disabilities within an inclusive community outside of formal education, to identify what the core ingredients of an inclusive community are and how policy, education and other provisions can learn from such inclusive community practices. As an unsuspecting product of the research, methodological and ethical components became more significant due to the lack of guidance I could find in the literature about the combination of participation and intellectual disabilities, indicating a significant gap.
Engaging adults with intellectual disabilities in education research is underdeveloped and limited (Wolbring and Lillywhite, 2021); when people with intellectual disabilities have previously been involved with research, it has been predominately including them as research subjects rather than as active participants or co-researchers. As such, my research with adults with intellectual disabilities within a community setting, intends to push through research on, encompassing notions of research for, but prioritising research with (Nind, 2014).
Despite the intention of qualitative research being to hear experiences and learn from what is meaningful to participants (Ary et al., 2018), the researcher still tends to be in control of research decisions. Therefore, qualitative research can still play a role in generating hierarchical barriers between the researcher and the researched (Nind, 2008; Nind and Vinha, 2014). There is a need to develop more inclusive research and thinking about participatory methodologies to ensure education researchers are not reproducing researcher dominance and privilege. When conducting participatory work in education, the vast majority of studies work with children, developing methodologies and frameworks to include those perceived as vulnerable. Whilst a valuable movement, with many lessons learnt on how to diversify education research, this is not comparable to the experiences of people with intellectual disabilities and does these individuals a disservice when methodological frameworks are not developed with them in mind.
The formal ethics process can be inhibiting to the exploratory nature of participatory work, with the need to categorise both research participants and research activities (Northway, Howarth and Evans, 2015; Dierckx et al., 2021). Tensions arose when the ethics procedure asked me to ‘Tick the Box’ if my study involved ‘Adults lacking capacity to consent for themselves’. I felt resistance and shame to be categorising my participants before I could even consult them.
Since this project is ethically nuanced, the approval process took 7 months, which raised questions about the restrictive nature of procedural ethics if one is exploring underrepresented ideas and topics. It is important to reflect on how many projects, like this, have not make it through this process due to restrictions such as time and funding. It could be argued that the process, that intends to protect participants from harm, is subtly and subconsciously perpetuating inequitable treatment, notions of exclusion and rigidities around value and capability. Such considerations align with Iacono and Murray (2003, p.49), where ethical procedures conflict with the ‘need to protect vulnerable participant groups, while ensuring that demands placed on researchers are not so restrictive as to preclude valuable research’.
This research paper presentation explores the value, practicalities and complexities of conducting participatory work with adults with disabilities. Whilst the research intends to contribute to inclusion theory, policy and application, as well as methodological and ethical development and applications of participatory work, this specific presentation explores the methodological and ethical findings alongside presenting a ‘how to’ to navigating such processes.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe research involves a three-stage data collection process that include varying levels of participation. The sample is of around 20 adults with intellectual disabilities, who may be involved as participants and/or co-researchers.
The first stage, Participatory Diagramming (Alexander et al., 2007), acts as an easing into the project and the concept of researching, since participants have not been involved in research before; early deployment of participatory methods enhance a sense of ownership of the research. Participatory diagramming involves the use of paper, pens and verbal ideas to map out, draw or write participant thoughts, feelings and experiences. Participatory diagramming is a ‘graphic and/or tactile materials to create visual representations that express participants’ ideas and understandings’ (Alexander et al., 2007:112), with Bezzina (2022) using this approach to elicit the lived experiences of people with disabilities.
Within the second stage, participants are invited to a researcher-led conversational-style interview, to gain greater insight to their experiences. I am an insider of the community that this research sits within, thus this method builds upon the communication and comfort that has been developed throughout my time with this group. Of course, insider bias and influence are considered (Ross, 2017), with many check-in points to ensure comfort with the research process; my insider lens enables me to use my privileged position as researcher to create space for voices to be heard (Macbeth, 2010).
Stage three, the participant-led focus groups, are where most ethical complexities arose. This stage allows participants to develop the research to explore what is specifically important to them, since they are the experts in their own lives. They will conduct a group interview/focus groups with peers and/or support workers and families who are all members of this community. This stage required me to know the unknowns of my exploratory, participatory study. In order to navigate approval of this exploratory aspect, Scenario Planning of the potential design of this data collection method was developed, in order to align with ethical expectations. Additionally, since participants are invited to be researchers, but have not been exposed to ethical dilemmas in the same way that I have, Boundary Setting, Declarations of Confidentiality, Codes of Conduct and Ground Rules were developed to scaffold co-researchers to conducting ethically safe research whilst also protecting themselves from harm.
Participants will be asked to reflect on their experience as a co-researcher within this project, which will be presented alongside main project findings.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsOutcomes of the research will contribute to theoretical applications of inclusion as well as contributions to the methodological development and application of participatory research for intellectual disability. The findings from the research process will contribute to the development of a participatory researcher’s toolkit, the importance of which is identified by Wilson, Kenny and Dickson-Swift (2017). This is to ensure that important research is conducted, with tangible examples and processes being explored so that future participatory researchers can access guidance. Further, the voice and experiences of adults with intellectual disabilities as co-researchers will be shared, to illustrate the value for such individuals to engage with participatory research.
The research will explore how to gain participatory approval, specifically how to develop and to implement Scenario Planning that can be used to articulate the unknowns to an ethics panel and to provide researcher clarity. Alongside this, examples of Boundary Setting, Declarations of Confidentiality, Codes of Conduct and Ground Rules are presented as part of the participatory researcher’s toolkit identified above.
Results discuss how to navigate ethical restrictions within formal processes and the importance of working with and through tensions to ensure research does not continue to silence those who traditionally have been (Northway, Howarth and Evans, 2015). The work shares my inclusive researcher resistance to how traditional research and those in the majority contribute towards the continuous labelling and naming of ‘things’ (Hall, 2014). It begins to disrupt the ethical approval process in its current form, where exploratory and participatory work does not fit the structure and presents the exclusionary nature of ‘Ticking the Box’ that categorises those involved before being consulted. The intention is to outline a more inclusive research process for future work as a non-negotiable for research moving forward.
ReferencesAlexander, C., Beale, N., Kesby, M., McMillan, J., Pain, R. & Ziegler, F. (2007) ‘Participatory Diagramming’, in Kindon, S., Pain, R. & Kesby, M. (eds.). Participatory Action Research Approaches and Methods: Connecting People, Participation and Place. London: Routledge, pp. 112-121.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Irvine, C. K. S. and Walker, D. (2018) Introduction to research in education. Australia: Cengage Learning.
Bezzina, L. (2022) 'Participatory video and diagramming with disabled people in Burkina Faso', Disability & Society, pp. 1-23.
Dierckx, C., Hendricks, L., Coemans, S. & Hannes, K. (2021) 'The third sphere: Reconceptualising allyship in community-based participatory research praxis', Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18 (4), pp. 473-497.
Gristy, C. (2015) 'Engaging with and moving on from participatory research: A personal reflection', International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 38 (4), pp. 371-387.
Iacono, T. & Murray, V. (2003) ‘Issues of informed consent in conducting medical research involving people with intellectual disability’, Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 16, 41-51.
Macbeth, J. L. (2010) ‘Reflecting on disability research in sport and leisure settings’, Leisure Studies, 29 (4), pp. 447-485.
Nind, M. & Vinha, H. (2014) 'Doing research inclusively: bridges to multiple possibilities in inclusive research', British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42 (2), pp. 102-109.
Nind, M. (2008) 'Conducting qualitative research with people with learning, communication and other disabilities: Methodological challenges', National Centre for Research Methods, Available at: https://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/id/eprint/491/1/MethodsReviewPaperNCRM-012.pdf (Accessed: 26/01/2023).
Northway, R., Howarth, J. & Evans, L. (2014) 'Participatory research, people with intellectual disabilities and ethical approval: making reasonable adjustments to enable participation', Journal of Clinical Nursing, 24 (3-4), pp. 573-581.
Ross, L. E. (2017) ‘An Account from the Insider: Examining the Emotional Impact of Qualitative Research Through the Lens of ‘Insider’ Research’, Qualitative Psychology, 4 (3), pp. 326-337.
Wilson, E., Kenny, A. & Dickson-Swift, V. (2017) ‘Ethical Challenges in Community-Based Participatory Research’, Qualitative Health Research, 28 (2), pp. 189-199.
Wolbring, G. and Lillywhite, A. (2021) ‘Equity/Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) in Universities: The Case of Disabled People’, Societies, 11 (49), pp. 1-34.
04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Relationship Between Social-emotional Competencies of Primary School Teachers and the Social Participation of Students with Disabilities
Christina Oswald1, Lisa Paleczek1,2, Barbara Gasteiger-Klicpera1,2
1University of Graz, Austria; 2Research Center for Inclusive Education, Austria
Presenting Author: Oswald, Christina
Due to different challenges associated with the teaching profession, there is an increasing focus on skills that support teachers in dealing with them. In this context, teachers’ intrapersonal and interpersonal mindfulness is considered an important ability to meet the diversity of the students and manage the classroom proactively. The concept of mindfulness refers to the teachers´ ability to shift their attention from the whole classroom to individual student’s needs, while also being aware of their own feelings and bodily sensations (Frank et al., 2016). Research has highlighted the beneficial impact of teachers' mindfulness on their social-emotional competencies, that in turn play a central role on students' wellbeing through student-teacher relationships (Emerson et al., 2017; Grant, 2017). Accordingly, teachers who treat their students with compassion and respect can create an environment that is conducive to students' self-esteem and prosocial behaviour (Cooper, 2016). In this regard, their emotional self-efficacy and relational skills are crucial for developing and maintaining supportive student-teacher relationships (Muris, 2001; Vidmar & Kerman, 2016). Social-emotionally competent teachers model pro-social behaviour and facilitate an environment conducive to social participation among students (Cooper, 2016). Research indicates that students with special educational needs (SEN) experience difficulties in their social participation. Accordingly, this group of students has a significantly lower number of friends, fewer interactions with peers and is more often rejected by their classmates compared to students without disabilities (Avramidis, 2010; Bossaert et al., 2013; De Leeuw et al., 2018; Koster et al., 2010). Among learners with SEN, students with social, emotional or behavioural difficulties (SEBD) are particularly at risk of social exclusion due to behavioural characteristics associated with SEBD. Teachers have reported difficulties in supporting students with SEBD in inclusive settings and apply a limited repertoire of strategies to promote their social participation at school (De Leeuw et al., 2018; De Leeuw et al., 2020). Due to these findings, the aim of the present study was to investigate the correlation between the teachers´ above mentioned abilities (mindfulness and social-emotional competencies) and the social participation of students with SEBD. To gain deeper insights into the current situation in Austrian primary schools on that matter, we collected data on teachers' self-assessments of their mindfulness in teaching, relational competence and emotional self-efficacy and asked them about strategies they apply to promote the social participation of students with SEBD. Therefore, the following research questions were addressed:
- How do Austrian primary school teachers perceive their mindfulness in teaching, their relational competence, and their emotional self-efficacy?
- What strategies do they apply to foster the social participation of students with SEBD?
- To what extent are teachers' self-rated mindfulness in teaching, relational competence, and emotional self-efficacy related to their strategies applied to foster the social participation of students with SEBD?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedFrom March to April 2022 an online survey was sent by email to all primary schools in three federal states in Austria (Upper Austria, Styria, Carinthia). In total, 155 general and special education teachers filled in the questionnaire, 81.9% of whom worked in rural schools. The respondents were predominantly female (95.5%) and had a mean age of 45.72 years (SD = 11.09, range = 24–64). The mean teaching experience was 19.75 years (SD = 12.49, range = 0–43 years) for general education teachers and 14.22 years (SD = 11.92, range = 1–38 years) for special education teachers. To assess mindfulness in the context of responsive teaching behavior the Mindfulness in Teaching Scale (MTS) was used (Frank et al., 2016), which consists of 14 items and is divided into two subscales representing teachers’ intrapersonal (9 reversed items, α =.79) and interpersonal (5 items, α =.61; 5-point Likert scale: 1=“never true” to 5=”always true”) behaviours within the school setting. To examine relational competence among teachers, we used an adapted version of the Teachers’ Relational Competence Scale (TRCS) focusing on dimensions of responsibility (4 items, α =.66) and individuality (3 items, α =.77). Participants rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1=“Never true” to 5=“Always true”). To explore teachers' capabilities to deal with negative emotions, we used the subscale emotional self-efficacy (8 items, α =.85; 5-point Likert scale: 1=“not at all” to 5=”very well”) from the Self-Efficacy Questionnaire for Children (SEQ-C; Muris, 2001). Finally, teacher strategies to foster the social participation of students with SEBD were collected using the Teacher Strategy Questionnaire on Social Participation in the Classroom (TSQ-SPC; De Leeuw et al., 2020). The TSQ-SPC consists of 38 items each of which relates to a specific strategy, and refers to strategies directly (teacher social participation strategies, 20 items) or indirectly (pre-conditional strategies, 18 items) applied by teachers. Participants rated whether they applied the strategies (1=“Yes”, 2=“No”, 3=“‘Not possible’”). Strategies applied by teachers entailed follow-up questions to rate the frequency of application and perceived effectiveness. All English scales were translated into German by the research team. Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 27.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsOn average, teachers rated their mindfulness in teaching as rather high in terms of both intrapersonal (M = 1.91, SD = .56) and interpersonal behaviour (M = 3.95, SD = .57). Similar results were found with regard to teachers' self-assessments of their relational competence, which was found to be rather high in both sub-dimensions (responsibility (M = 3.69, SD = .66), individuality (M = 3.91, SD = .72)). Teachers´ assessments of their emotional self-efficacy were slightly above the scale mean (M = 3.37, SD = .74), indicating a rather moderate level of competence. If teachers reported applying strategies to foster the social participation of students with SEBD, they used strategies aimed at directly improving students’ social participation (M = 11.68, SD = 2.84, range = 2–18 strategies) and those related to students' environment (M = 10.53, SD = 3.13, range = 4–17 strategies) equally. Our results illustrate that no teacher applied all (direct or indirect) strategies. Most of them used between 10 and 14 direct strategies that refer to making class agreements about desired social behaviour (98.8%), ensuring an open atmosphere for conversations within the classroom (96.4%) and explicitly addressing positive behaviour of the student (96.4%). In terms of indirect strategies, the majority of teachers applied between 8 and 12 strategies that concern keeping parents informed about their child's problems, concerns and progress (94.5%) and actively working on a trusting teacher - student relationship (93.2%). Our findings indicate that there is a relationship between teachers' interpersonal mindfulness, their relational competence and the number of direct as well as indirect strategies used to foster the social participation of students with SEBD. In summary, our results highlight the impact that teachers' mindfulness and relational skills can have in promoting the social participation of at-risk students.
ReferencesAvramidis, E. (2010). Social relationships of pupils with special educational needs in the mainstream primary class: peer group membership and peer-assessed social behaviour. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 25(4), 413-429. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08856257.2010.513550
Bossaert, G., Colpin, H., Pijl, S. J., & Petry, K. (2013). Truly included? A literature study focusing on the social dimension of inclusion in education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17(1), 60–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2011.580464
Cooper, P. (2016). Teacher Education, Students with Diverse Needs and Social-Emotional Education. In L. J. Chi-Kin & C. Day (Eds), Quality and Change in Teacher Education. Western and Chinese Perspectives (Professional Learning and Development in Schools and Higher Education, Vol 13, pp 293–305). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24139-5_18
De Leeuw, R. R., De Boer, A., Bijstra, J., & Minnaert, A. (2018). Teacher strategies to support the social participation of students with SEBD in the regular classroom. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 33(3), 412–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2017.1334433
De Leeuw, R. R., De Boer, A., & Minnaert, A. (2020). What do Dutch general education teachers do to facilitate the social participation of students with SEBD? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 24(11), 1194-1217. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13603116.2018.1514081
Emerson, L. M., Leyland, A., Hudson, K., Rowse, G., Hanley, P., & Hugh-Jones, S. (2017). Teaching Mindfulness to Teachers: a Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis. Mindfulness, 8, 1136-1149. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12671-017-0691-4
Frank, J. L., Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2016). Validation of the Mindfulness in Teaching Scale. Mindfulness, 7(1), 155-163. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12671-015-0461-0
Grant, K. C. (2017). From Teaching to Being: The Qualities of a Mindful Teacher, Childhood Education, 93(2), 147-152. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2017.1300493
Koster, M., Pijl, S. J., Nakken, H., & Van Houten, E. J. (2010). Social Participation of Students with Special Needs in Regular Primary Education in the Netherlands, International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 57(1), 59-75. https://doi.org/10.1080/10349120903537905
Muris, P. (2001). A Brief Questionnaire for Measuring Self-Efficacy in Youths. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 23(3), 145-149. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1010961119608
Vidmar, M., & Kerman, K. (2016). The development of Teacher’s Relational Competence Scale: Structural Validity and Reliability. Šolsko polje, 27(1/2). 41-62. http://www.dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:DOC-V4ORJBA1
04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Depth-hermeneutic and Photovoice as Methods in Participatory Research with Adults with Disabilities
Katharina Obens
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany
Presenting Author: Obens, Katharina
Refugees with disabilities belong to the group of particularly vulnerable refugees according to the EU Asylum Procedures Directive (2013/32/EU). Nevertheless, numerous problems of access to medical and rehabilitative care and education have been documented (Köbsell, 2019), especially when it comes to the issue of language as the key to social and professional participation. In many European countries, language skills have been made a condition for the granting of residence permits (Van Avermaert, 2009). In Germany, the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees introduced mandatory language courses in 2004, but to date there are no language courses for people with intellectual disabilities or learning difficulties (BT- Drucksache 19/27553).
The study I would like to present discusses educational problems in Language acquisition, for example that we can only rudimentarily identify the causes of learning difficulties in the interplay of trauma- or stress-related learning impairment, limited formal educational experience and low literacy. Addressing the complex field of inclusive language education for people with intellectual disabilities, studies have additionally shown that people with intellectual disabilities are significantly more likely to experience adverse life events, abuse and trauma in childhood compared to the general population (McNally, Taggart & Shevlin, 2021). The educational understanding of trauma applied here defines itself as an "inner-psychic disturbance(s) of the relationship to oneself and to others" (Zimmermann, 2017, p. 94). The psychodynamic interpretation often shows traumatic processes already due to problematic relationship experiences with the primary caregivers, which play a big role in personality development and learning behavior (Pforr, 2009). Following on from this, theories and studies on relationship dynamics in educational settings from psychoanalytic pedagogy and trauma pedagogy (Plutzar, 2016; Zimmermann, 2019) show that due to traumatic experiences, ambivalent object relationships, inner-psychic conflicts and fears interfere with learning. Zimmermann states that the phenomenon of trauma must be taken seriously in the context of all educational relationships and institutions (Zimmermann, 2017, p. 13). Accordingly, learners in inclusive adult education also benefit from teachers' reflexive relational work on the question of learners' autonomy and self-determination and knowledge of affective teaching dynamics. The trauma pedagogical concept "Language teaching as relational work" by Plutzar (2016) then focuses on trauma-sensitive teaching and relational design in language teaching, which should, however, also be methodologically innovative (ibid., p. 121) and promote learner participation.
Participatory and inclusive research with marginalized groups, which presupposes agreed ethical standards (Hauser, 2020), is costly in terms of research practice, also due to the necessity of interpreters joining the research and there are limits to writing-based work with people with low literacy. All this requires special methods for ongoing ethical reflexivity during the research, which I would like to discuss: How can the intersections of participatory-oriented research with refugees with learning disabilities be researched with methods from Depth-hermeneutics and Photovoice and how can this research approach be reflected in terms of research ethics?
Therefore I like to reflect the results of participatory research (2020-2022) in an inclusive German-as-a-second language course in special education. The research used a mix of depth-hermeneutic, interviews and photovoice methods (Wang & Burris, 1997). Depth-hermeneutics, a „critical cultural analysis with a psychoanalytic orientation [attempts to extend] historical-materialist thinking to the psychodynamics of intersubjective relations“(Krüger, 2017; p.47). This way it works as a theoretically founded approach to „reflective practice“ (Schön, 1983). This Approach offered also the possibility of study the subject-logical perception of institutional conditions and (ableist) discrimination in inclusive language learning lessons.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedIn a combination of participatory-oriented research and psychoanalytical approaches (Lorenzer, 1974), the research was conducted jointly with language course participants (N=38) and staff (N=10). A total of eleven classroom observation protocols following the Word-Discussion-Method (Datler & Datler, 2014) and three audio recordings from the classroom, nine observation protocols of counselling sessions, ten interpreted interviews with language course participants, and twelve individual and group interviews with staff members were conducted. Fifteen participants formulated their needs, barriers, resources and demands for strengthening their social and professional participation as co-researchers in a five-day Photovoice project (Wang & Burris, 1997). Additionaly the data of 205 participants (in 2019-2022) were statistically analysed. The qualitative data were analysed at the manifest and latent level of the learner-teacher relationship and the classroom dynamics in relation to disability-related needs. Within the framework of the depth-hermeneutic interpretation, it was possible to focus on the various levels of speechlessness, including the "destruction of language" brought about under the pressure of conflict, at the interplay of objective-social and subjective structures (Lorenzer, 1974, p. 274f).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe central dynamics in the depth-hermeneutic interpretations reflect the confrontation with the framework conditions of language learning in the highly stressed initial situations.The learners' learning opportunities are determined by their different perspectives on the granting of residence permits; many of the participants are entangled in traumatic processes due to the conditions of war in their country of origin, imprisonment during flight, the effects of their disability and the everyday challenges of "existential waiting" for their right to stay, and a threefold dimension of speechlessness becomes palpable. Bittner sees the reflection of the entanglements of institutional and subject logic in pedagogical interactions as the resource of psychoanalytic pedagogy as a (scientific) discourse on the "invisible spots" in pedagogical institutions; it has the potential to change practice (Bittner, 1996, p. 254). But in this case this only worked because of the combination with the Photovoice project as a more barrier-free method enables participants to respond non-verbally, with photographs, and was used to overcome social, cultural and linguistic barriers to verbal communication and raise awareness of hidden or overlooked issues and aspects of language learning of refugees with disabilities.
ReferencesBittner, G. (1996). Kinder in die Welt, die Welt in die Kinder setzen. Eine Einführung in die pädagogische Aufgabe. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
BT- Drucksache 19/27553. Integrationskurse für Menschen mit Behinderungen. Deutscher Bundestag 19. Wahlperiode 12.03.2021. https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/19/275/1927553.pdf (06.10.2022).
Datler, M. & Datler, W. (2014). Was ist „Work Discussion“? Über die Arbeit mit Praxisprotokollen nach Tavistock-Konzept (S.1-29), https://fedora.phaidra.univie.ac.at/fedora/get/o:368997/ bdef:Content/get. (16.10.2022).
Hauser, M. (2020). Qualität und Güte im gemeinsamen Forschen mit Menschen mit Lernschwierigkeiten. Bad Heilbrunn: Verlag Julius Klinkhardt.
Krüger, S. (2017). Dropping depth hermeneutics into Psychosocial Studies –A Lorenzarian perspective. The Journal of Psycho-Social Studies, 10(1), 47–66.
Lorenzer, A. (1974). Die Wahrheit der psychoanalytischen Erkenntnis. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.
McNally, P., Taggart, L. & Shevlin, M. (2021). Trauma experiences of people with an intellectual disability and their implications. A scoping review. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 34(4), iv, 927–1179.
Pforr, U. (2009). Trauma und Persönlichkeitsbildung bei Menschen mit einer geistigen Behinderung. In R. Haubl, F. Dammasch & H. Krebs (Eds..), Riskante Kindheit. Psychoanalyse und Bildungsprozesse (p. 269–281). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Plutzar, V. (2016). Sprachenlernen nach der Flucht. Überlegungen zu Implikationen der Folgen von Flucht und Trauma für den Deutschunterricht Erwachsener. In H. Cölfen & F. Januschek (Eds.), Flucht_Punkt_Sprache. Osnabrücker Beiträge zur Sprachtheorie (OBST), 89 (p. 109–133.). Duisburg: Universitätsverlag Rhein-Ruhr.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. New York,NY: Basic Books.
Zimmermann, D. (2017). Traumatisierte Kinder und Jugendliche im Unterricht. Ein Praxisleitfaden für Lehrerinnen und Lehrer. Weinheim/Basel: Beltz.
Zimmermann, D. (2019). Die Verschränkung von Behinderung, ihrer Diagnosen und Traumatisierung. Sonderpädagogische Förderung heute, 64(4), 345–357.
Van Avermaet, P. (2009). Fortress Europe? Language policy regimes for immigration and citizenship. In G. Hogan-Brun, C. Mar-Molinero & P. Stevenson (Eds.), Discourses on Language and Integration (Vol. 33, pp. 15–44). Amsterdam ; John Benjamins.
Wang, C. & Burris, M. (1997). Photovoice. Concept, methodology, and use for participatory needs assessment. Health Education & Behavior,24(3), 369–387. doi: 10.1177/109019819702400309. PMID: 9158980.
|
