Conference Agenda

The term ‘Autism’ was first used in 1911 by Eugen Bleuler (1951) as a description of a form of schizophrenia. In the 1940s the first widely recognized descriptions auf autism were published by Leo Kanner (1968 [1943]) and Hans Asperger (1944) (Lord et al. 2020). Due to these publications languages a gap between German speaking and international/English discourse became evident and can still be observed in today’s educational discourse.
Kanner's description of the cold ‘schizophrenogenic’ mother as the cause of autism (Sterwald and Baker 2019) was particularly taken up in psychoanalytic considerations in the 1960s and 1970s. Bruno Bettelheim's (1973 [1967]) description of "refrigerator mothers" gained popularity subsequently but is now considered refuted (Zankl 2012). Concurrently, and in addition, the first neurological descriptions of autism emerged (Hermelin and O'CONNOR 1963; Rimland 1964). Especially Rimland shifted the perspective in the search for the origins away from parental misbehavior towards neurological causes. In 1979, Wing and Gould (1979) first used the term ‘Autism-Spectrum’. This term is still present in medical publications such as the ICD-11 (WHO, 2019) today. Autism was first named in a medical diagnostic manual in the DSM-III (1980). With this, research on autism almost exclusively adopted a medical/pathological perspective as evident in the frequent use of the term ‘disorder’ in reference to autism. Approaches such as Baron-Cohen and colleagues' Mind-Blindness Theory (1985; 1995) are exemplary of this perspective. Baron-Cohen himself underwent a paradigm shift in the following years of his career towards a perspective of neurodiversity (Baron-Cohen, 2017), representing the evolution of the scientific discourse.
Through this period autism as a phenomenon was always part of the practical and scientifical educational conversation, presumably highly influenced by the previously described developments in the medical perspectives. As it’s evident for example in the Berlin guidelines on special needs education (SenBJF 2023) where the description criteria for ‘autistic behavior’ matches the diagnostical criteria for ‘autism spectrum disorder’ in ICD-11 (WHO 2020). Similar perspectives can be found in other practical and theoretical publications. This leads to the questions: On what background is autism discussed in the current pedagogical discourse? And how does it correspond to inclusive perspectives?

To answer these questions, this presentation will focus on references to autism used in current pedagogical publications (comparing the German and English discourse) and analyze their implicit meanings and realted models of autism. By doing this, it’s possible to show the current state of pedagogical autism research. This presentation will be based on the results of a scoping review. By taking the underlying models into account it’s also possible to question whether the most commonly used models relate to inclusive models of disability.
This presentation will use the descriptions of inclusive perspectives by Mai-Anh Boger (e.g. 2017) and Adi Goldiner (2022) as a framework.
In the work on the ‘trilemma of inclusion’ Boger uses a philosophical-analytical approach to show the relation between the perspectives of ‘normalization’, ‘deconstruction’ and ‘empowerment’ (Boger 2017). In a nutshell she concludes the inclusive theories can always only engage a maximum of two of these perspectives, while necessarily opposing the last (Redlich and Gerhards 2023).
Meanwhile Goldiners ‘Cluster of Disability Models’ summarizes approaches towards disability models in a three-dimensional scheme. The Cluster concludes that every Model of diability can be assorted in three axis: medical vs. social model; tragedy vs. affirmative model & minority vs. universal model (Goldiner 2022).
These two approaches will be combined in a theoretical framework to assess models of autism from an inclusive perspective and examine their implications for theoretical and practical perspectives. Thus analyzing the implications of descriptions of autism between ‘neurodiversity’, ‘spectrum’ and ‘disorder’.

The aim of my presentation is to present the results of research on the recognition of the discourse of inclusion/social exclusion in the documents of youth organizations operating in Poland.

The basic concepts are inclusion and social exclusion. Social inclusion is "the process of taking initiatives to open people up to diversity in such a way that they respect and accept their differences. These actions are intended to ensure equal rights and access to goods, services, capital and markets, enable the implementation of their plans, and facilitate participation in the life of the community" (Kołodziejczyk, 2018). Social exclusion, on the other hand, is defined as "a partial or total inability to use generally available public goods and institutions, limited participation in social, cultural and economic aspects of an individual's social life and acquiring financial resources necessary for a decent life, as well as hindered performance of social roles in a given community" (NSIS, 2003, p. 23, quoted in: Kołodziejczyk, 2018).

The concepts of inclusion and social exclusion are analyzed within the framework of Teun van Dijk's theory of discourse, in which the factors coupling language with social action are distinguished (Rypel, 2017, p.13). The notion of "discourse" allows us to read the message in the context of its use, and thus "shifts the focus from the finished product to the culturally conditioned strategies of its production" (Grochowski, 2001, p.7). This analysis will be carried out on the basis of two dimensions of discourse: the linguistic phenomenon and the communicative event (Biskupska, 2014, pp. 370-371).

The linguistic phenomenon is understood in terms of the formal features of language, which generally consist of lexis, stylistics and grammar. In my analyses, I focus primarily on the lexis of the language used by organizations, and in particular on the vocabulary that directly or indirectly indicates inclusion/exclusion. A communicative event is interpreted as a written or oral statement on a specific topic or categories and rules of discussion. In my analyses, I focus on statements with specific themes, i.e. those that concern activities and subjects subject to inclusion/exclusion.

On the one hand, the definitions indicate the actions and, on the other, the subjects of the actions. Therefore, two research questions were posed:

1. What lexical forms with an inclusive/exclusive meaning are used by youth organizations operating in Poland?

2. In what forms of communication are statements of inclusive/exclusive significance presented, and what activities and entities do they concern?

The first dimension of discourse, understood in terms of the formal features of language, was analysed in a two-stage procedure: the selection of words on the basis of synonyms and words synonymous with inclusion/exclusion, and the selection of utterances read on the basis of indicators derived from the definition of inclusion/exclusivity, placed in the context of utterances. I perceive the second dimension of discourse, i.e. the communicative event, perceived as a statement, a text, a message on a specific topic, as dependent on its cultural context. In these analyses, I have focused on the forms of expression and their subject matter, revealing the forms of undertaken actions and their subjects, i.e. the recipients of these actions.

The research is carried out as part of the broader project "Heterotopies of Citizenship - Educational Discourse and Pedagogies of Militarization in the Spaces of Youth Organizations. Analytical-critical and comparative approach", funded by a grant from the National Science Centre (no. 2019/35/B/HS6/01365). As part of the project, there were corresponding articles published by Helena Ostrowicka, & Klaudia Wolniewicz-Słomka (2023) and Celina Czech-Włodarczyk, & Magdalena Cuprjak, in the study.

Ever since special education emerged as a discipline, it has consisted of contradicting views on what constitutes good education for children with disabilities (Haustätter & Thuen, 2014). In Norway, the conflicting perspectives existing within special education culminated in the late 1980’s where a decision was made to close down all state governed special schools. Replacing the special school system was an ambition of integrating children with disabilities into their neighbourhood schools (Haug, 2014; Wendelborg & Tøssebro, 2011). However, integration gradually received criticism for becoming too focused on adapting the pupil with disabilities to fit within ordinary education rather than focusing on how the educational system itself could change in order to encompass a broader diversity within the context of an education for all (Haug, 2014). Inclusion later replaced integration as the principle to realise education for all. However, there is not one agreed upon definition of inclusion and the concept could both mean both participation in an ordinary fellowship and in a segregated setting (Haug, 2010).

Theoretical perspectives

The theoretical framework of this paper is based on critical theory (Skjervheim, 1996). Skjervheim argues that we have two alternatives when interacting with others who may have different perspectives on a certain topic from ourselves. On one hand, we can choose to take a participant position where the interaction will consist of at least three parts, the ego (the self), the alter (the other) and the topic for discussion. This position requires an equal distribution of power between the actors and is recognised by both parties (the ego and alter) being willing to engage in the topic the other puts forward. On the other hand, we can choose a spectator position. In this position the interaction is reduced to two parts, the ego and the alter. Instead of engaging in the topic that the alter puts forward, we instead direct our attention to the one stating it. A spectator position is recognised by an attempt interpret what the statement of the other can tell us about the one stating it. In the latter position we are, according to Skjervheim, Psychologising the other, similar to how a therapist tries to analyse what a statement of a patient can tell us about their condition.

However, the two mentioned position is not only restricted to interactions taking place between subjects, the same may also be the case between representatives of different perspectives sharing interest in the same area. The issue with a spectator position is that it inhibits dialogue and cooperation between disciplines or interests within special/inclusive education because one or more actor is reluctant to negotiate on one’s own position. Alternatively one could envision a discourse within special/inclusive education emerging from a participant position, where the focus is no longer on dominating the other perspective but instead on what kinds of original knowledge can emerge from engaging in discussion on certain topics from different positions. There are examples on how the reconciliation of two or more opposing perspectives may have beneficial outcomes, such as the relational perspective on disability. If actors within different branches of special education are able to avoid objectifying opposing perspective and engage with representatives of these perspectives as subjects holding views worthy of respect, contradicting perspective could become potential enrichments to field of special education going forward.

Research question

This paper has the following research question: What potential outcomes may emerge from taking a participant position in discussion between actors representing opposing views about the future of special education?