This article was downloaded by: [University of Stockholm] On: 13 February 2012, At: 14:29 Publisher: Routledge Informa

Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of Special Needs Education

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rejs20

Towards an integrated theoretical framework for research into special educational needs
David Skidmore Available online: 09 Jul 2006

To cite this article: David Skidmore (1996): Towards an integrated theoretical framework for research into special educational needs, European Journal of Special Needs Education, 11:1, 33-47 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0885625960110103

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-andconditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sublicensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

European Journal of Special Needs Education, Vol. 11, No. 1 (1996), pp. 33-47 2996 Routledge 0885-6257

Towards an integrated theoretical framework for research into special educational needs
DAVID SKIDMORE
Address for correspondence:

Downloaded by [University of Stockholm] at 14:29 13 February 2012

David Skidmore, Special Needs Research Group, Department of Education Studies and Management, University of Reading, Bulmershe Court, Earley, Reading, RG6 1HY, UK

ABSTRACT This paper examines the principal theoretical frameworks within which research into special educational needs (SEN) is currently conducted. It is argued that three paradigms can be distinguished, namely the psycho-medical, the sociological and the organizational paradigms, which contrast along the following dimensions: conceptualization of special needs, comprising a model of causation and corresponding proposal for intervention; level of focus; and underlying epistemology. The argument is illustrated through a critical survey of recent work which exemplifies the principal characteristics of each paradigm. It is argued that the existing paradigms share the common limitation of reductionism. The case for an integrated theoretical framework which avoids reductionism' is made. Candidate theories at each level of focus are identified which might be used as the basis from which to develop such a framework. The principal qualities of the proposed anti-reductionist theoretical framework are briefly outlined. KEYWORDS special educational needs; research methodology; educational theory INTRODUCTION Why do some school students have special educational needs (SEN)? How should practitioners respond to students identified as having SEN? Substantive research into these questions returns a variety of contrasting and sometimes incommensurable answers, depending on the theoretical presuppositions which guide the design of the research. This paper will attempt to surface the assumptions underlying the dominant forms of research into SEN and, in so doing, to explicate the principal theoretical frameworks within which such research is conducted. It will be argued that three theoretical frameworks can be distinguished, namely the psychomedical, the sociological and the organizational, and that these traditions

34 European Journal of Special Needs Education, Vol. 11, No. 1 (1996)

Downloaded by [University of Stockholm] at 14:29 13 February 2012

can be viewed as paradigmatic in the following sense: that they offer differing conceptualizations of special needs, comprising a particular model of causation and corresponding proposal for appropriate forms of intervention; that they are characterized by different levels of focus, the psycho-medical paradigm by a focus on micro-level phenomena, the sociological by a focus on macro-level phenomena and the organizational by a focus on meso-level phenomena; and that, ultimately, they imply contrasting epistemological standpoints, respectively a positivist-empiricist standpoint, a structuralist standpoint and a functionalist standpoint. In consequence, researchers working within one paradigm share a common research programme which differs substantially from that implied by work conducted within the other paradigms. The argument will be illustrated through a critical review of recent significant work which exemplifies the principal characteristics of each paradigm. The survey makes no claim to being comprehensive, nor is it suggested that the discrimination of these paradigms can be used to uniquely and completely classify all writing on SEN. It is suggested, however, that these outlooks are characteristic of major current bodies of work in the field. Finally, it will be argued that all of the existing paradigms share a common limitation: their tendency to reductionism, i.e. to explain an irreducibly complex phenomenon in terms of a single, unidirectional model of causation (and, concomitantly, to suggest that a single form of intervention will be a complete and sufficient solution to this problem). It will be suggested that it is necessary to develop a new, integrated theoretical framework which avoids reductionism and thereby furnishes a more adequate theoretical basis from which future research into SEN might be conducted. Candidate theoretical alternatives at each level of focus are identified in the literature which might be used as the basis from which to develop such a framework. The principal qualities of the proposed anti-reductionist theoretical framework are briefly outlined. Although the survey is not concerned to trace the historical development of research into special needs, it will be convenient to treat the paradigms in approximate order of historical seniority (Clark et al., 1995). In each case, however, the analysis will focus on recent influential work exemplifying the characteristics of the paradigm in question.

THE PSYCHO-MEDICAL PARADIGM The historical roots of research into what is now called special needs lie in writing emerging from the psychological and medical traditions. Although the terminology of the first writers differs from that of today's, speaking as it did of the 'backward child' or 'slow learner' (Burt, 1937; Schonell, 1942), there is a continuity between this early work and current research which owes its primary allegiance to the psycho-medical tradition; such work continues to exercise a strong influence at the present day. Work in this paradigm conceptualizes special needs as arising from deficits in the neurological or psychological make-up of the child, analogous to an illness or medical condition. Borrowing from the medical discipline, authors often speak of the 'aetiology' of a given 'syndrome'; in the US literature on learning disabilities, for example, this conceptualization becomes quite explicit, in the form of the 'minimal brain dysfunction' hypothesis, which ascribes difficulties in learning to otherwise undetected cortical lesions (Coles, 1987). In keeping with this model of causation, the interventions prescribed by authors tend to be quasi-clinical in character; much effort, for instance, is bent towards the refining of screening

Special educational needs - a research framework

35

instruments designed to diagnose the presence of a supposed syndrome, and the forms of treatment advocated may include the administration of drugs or therapeutic interventions. The dominant epistemological stance adopted by these writers is positivist-empiricist; papers are often structured as scientific reports on the empirical testing of hypotheses by means of field or clinical trials, and the authors are much concerned to distinguish between different subtypes of a given syndrome. The number of putative syndromes identified by researchers working within this paradigm is large and constantly growing. For the purposes of this paper, it will be sufficient to illustrate its principal characteristics with reference to one case, that of Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). In the USA thousands of school students are diagnosed as being afflicted with this disorder, and a high proportion are prescribed the stimulant Ritalin as treatment for their condition (Reid et al., 1994).
Downloaded by [University of Stockholm] at 14:29 13 February 2012

Attention Deficit Disorder From its origins in studies of 'hyperkinesis' in the 1960s, the syndrome of Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) was elevated to official status in 1980 by its inclusion in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM) compiled by the American Psychiatric Association. It has been applied, along with closely associated terms such as hyperactivity, to identify that group of children whose behaviour in school persistently fails to conform to the norms of the orderly classroom, and whose learning and attainments are thereby held to be impaired. A special issue of the internationally reputed American journal Exceptional Children was recently dedicated to discussion of this syndrome (vol. 60, no. 2, 1993). The sequence of headline articles falls neatly into the structure of the medical approach to special needs: diagnosis, neurological causation and clinical intervention (Dykman and Ackerman, 1993; McBurnett, Lahey and Pfiffner, 1993; Riccio et al., 1993). McBurnett et al. are concerned to demonstrate the 'increased validity and reliability' of the recently revised diagnostic criteria, a function, they claim, of the greater number of 'symptoms' required to be present before a diagnosis of ADD is made. Riccio et al. go on to review the various neurological models based on supposed anatomical, chemical or physiological dysfunctions - which have been proposed in the aetiology of ADD. Finally, Dykman and Ackerman identify three behavioural subtypes of ADD: without hyperactivity; with hyperactivity; and with hyperactivity and aggression. The latter authors go on to argue the need for an even further refined system of categorization, and for the identification of 'biological markers' (e.g. adrenalin secretion, salivation), before advocating the use of drugs to control the aggressive behaviour of children with ADD, concluding: 'Teachers and counsellors...should find the medicated defiant/aggressive child more open to suggestions regarding socially acceptable ways to handle irritation and frustration' (p. 139). This series of articles illustrates the principal characteristics of the psycho-medical paradigm which were described above. Special needs are conceptualized as arising from neurological deficits within the individual child; clinical forms of intervention are advocated; subtypes of the syndrome are distinguished; and the articles are structured as scientific papers, within the discourse of a positivist-empiricist epistemology. Some of the limitations of this paradigm also stand revealed. The validity of a neurological model of causation is presumed, in spite of the frank admission of 'the inability [of researchers] to map behavioral descriptors onto relevant neurologic components' (Riccio et al., 1993, p. 118). There is little discussion of the pedagogical implications of the theory, although the great majority

36 European Journal of Special Needs Education, Vol. 11, No. 1 (1996)

of those diagnosed as having ADD are students in mainstream schools. Finally, for these authors, the ethics of administering drugs to control the behaviour of defiant children does not appear to require consideration. These points are echoed by critics who question the validity of ADD as a disability category, note the lack of evidence to substantiate a biological aetiology and report that students identified as ADD cannot necessarily be regarded as academic underachievers (Reid, Maag and Vasa, 1993; Reid et al., 1994), concluding: 'strict adherence to the medical/psychiatric perspective of ADHD has helped to obfuscate efforts to examine gaps in the knowledge base, as well as empirical and logical flaws in the assumptions underlying advocates' arguments' (Reid, Maag and Vasa, 1993, p. 209). Discussion
Downloaded by [University of Stockholm] at 14:29 13 February 2012

Any critique of writing about special needs in the psycho-medical paradigm must start from the recognition that there is a recurrent incidence of conditions in the general population which affect pupils' learning and have implications for their education, and for which a genetic or organic basis is uncontroversial - e.g. Down's syndrome. There are other forms of mental disability, such as autism, where the case for physical causation is less certain, but which are known to be lifelong, and may be associated with communication disorders which are so severe that few would contest the need for psychological expertise in diagnosis and intervention, and for further research within the conceptual framework of clinical psychology. Given its long historical roots, and the reality of conditions with a biological basis, it is likely that research into special needs in the psycho-medical paradigm will continue to be conducted, that it will continue to exert an influence on the wider field and that some of its findings will be found useful by teachers working with pupils who are affected by these conditions. The difficulty arises when illicit attempts are made to apply this framework to an infinitely extensible set of putative syndromes or disorders for which reliable evidence of a neurological or organic basis is entirely lacking, and where 'diagnosis' rests on value-laden judgements about behavioural or cognitive norms. The question is not academic. In the case of ADD, the long-term side-effects of the stimulant drugs used to treat the 'disorder' are unknown. In addition, evidence has been presented to suggest that educational and behavioural interventions are more effective than medication in enhancing the attainment of students with learning difficulties (Reid et al., 1994). Given the complete absence of evidence to substantiate a neurological aetiology for ADD, it seems justified to conclude that, in this instance, the rhetorical stance of authoritative objectivity associated with the empiricist method has been turned to the service of a scarcely concealed project of social control. Historically, dissatisfaction with weaknesses of the psycho-medical paradigm, such as those noted above, provoked a reaction which led some members of the special needs research community to look to alternative theoretical frameworks to guide their inquiries. First among them was the sociological paradigm, which will be described in the following section. THE SOCIOLOGICAL PARADIGM During the 1980s, a strand of sociologically orientated research into special education emerged and came to assume an important position in the field. It has been particularly well-represented in the work from the UK, and its influence

Special educational needs - a research framework

37

Downloaded by [University of Stockholm] at 14:29 13 February 2012

remains significant. Seminal works in this paradigm include Tomlinson's (1982) ground-breaking analysis of special education and Bines's (1986) research into the development of the role of the remedial teacher into the special needs coordinator. Significant contributions can also be found in the collections edited by Barton and Tomlinson (Barton, 1988; Barton and Tomlinson, 1981, 1984b). It would be a mistake to imply that a single undifferentiated perspective unites all these works. Differing sociological traditions are drawn on by the various authors, some for instance subscribing to the theoretical framework of symbolic interactionism, deriving ultimately from Mead (e.g. Bogdan and Kugelmass, 1984). However, the dominant perspective found among these writers can be described as a form of structuralist or neo-Marxist sociology. Taking over the theory of cultural reproduction from the general sociology of education, they apply it to the case of special education, developing and modifying its conceptual framework in the process. This results in an analysis of special education as a sorting mechanism contributing to the reproduction of existing social inequalities by syphoning off a proportion of the school population and assigning them to an alternative, lower-status educational track. Various formulations of this conceptualization can be found in the literature. Tomlinson (1982), for instance, deploys the metaphor of a 'safety valve' to describe the function of the special school system, referring to the way in which its existence allows troublesome and disruptive children to be removed from the mainstream system, which is thereby permitted to continue undisturbed in its task of delivering an unreconstructed academic curriculum to the majority. In a similar vein, Carrier (1984) describes special education as a mechanism for differentiating and allocating children to different educational treatments. Like Tomlinson, he connects its emergence historically to the development of mass public education: 'special education as a significant differentiating and allocating device is not a random occurrence, but appears only when mass education occurs in conjunction with an egalitarian ideology' (p. 60). This conceptualization marks a sharp break with the hypothesis of special needs as arising from neurological deficits inherent in the student which typifies research in the psycho-medical paradigm. A shift away from this conceptualization was already to be found in the UK in the language of the Warnock Report (DES, 1978) and the succeeding Education Act 1981, which abolished the ten existing statutory categories of handicap and introduced in their place the concept of special educational needs. However, the later sociological writings of Tomlinson (1985) and others question whether this change in terminology masks a practice which continues to determine children's educational careers by assigning to them an identity defined by an administrative label.

Discussion Perhaps the major achievement of this paradigm is its sustained critique of what Tomlinson (1982) calls the 'ideology of benevolent humanitarianism' (p. 134) which had for long been dominant in the field of special education. In the aftermath of this critique, it is no longer possible to assume an a priori consensus around the idea that children deemed to have difficulties in learning should be segregated from others and subject to an alternative form of educational provision. It may also be judged to have had.a direct impact on practice in sensitizing practitioners to the potentially damaging effects of attaching negative diagnostic labels to pupils. Further, it has brought into the arena of debate the issue of the co-existence of two separate school systems, the mainstream and the special. Finally, the general

38 European Journal of Special Needs Education, Vol. 11, No. 1 (1996)

principles of this critique also have clear implications for the question of the treatment of children with special needs within ordinary schools - for example, whether they should be taught in withdrawal classes or in the mainstream. Against these achievements, however, it is necessary to note that much writing in this paradigm is marred by a tendency towards abstract, hypothetical argument. Too often, writers take over concepts from general sociological theory and argue for their applicability to the field of special needs, but neglect to support their point with empirical evidence; such, for example, are Freeman's (1988) discussion of the concept of social competence or Bart's discussion of deviance (Bart, 1984). Furthermore, writing in this paradigm tends to treat the 'sorting' function of special education as an automatic, mechanistic process, as if children arrived at one end of a conveyor belt and issued from the other, neatly allocated to their appropriate track, in a smooth, uninterrupted stream. Some studies, for example, lay great stress on the asymmetry of power relationships between professionals and parents (Tomlinson, 1985; Wood, 1988); but an asymmetrical relationship may nevertheless be contested, and it is not the case that professionals always have their way in deciding the form of schooling a child is to receive, nor indeed that the professionals always agree among themselves. Likewise, in their enthusiasm to demonstrate the continued operation of the sorting process despite apparent changes in the education system, some commentators tend to conflate very different policy regimes. This tendency is found, for instance, in Barton and Tomlinson's (1984a) critique of the integration movement following the Warnock Report for its 'romanticism' in ignoring the inequalities endemic to schooling. Inequalities may indeed be endemic to schooling, but it is simplistic to suggest that there is no qualitative difference between the inequalities endemic to the regime of the 1944 Education Act, with its tripartite system of schools and ten statutory categories of handicap, and those endemic to the regime of the 1981 Act, with a system of comprehensive schools and the notion of a continuum of special educational needs. Finally, early writing in this paradigm tends to neglect the need to articulate a coherent alternative to the state of affairs which it criticizes. A sense of fatalism pervades many of the contributions referred to above, as if the macro-social processes they analyse were impervious to all human influence. There is some evidence, however, that recent work influenced by the tradition of sociological critique has begun to formulate a more explicit vision of alternative forms of policy and provision for special needs - cf. the case made by Oliver (1992) for the disabled to engage in a process of political struggle to create a more integrated education system; or the vision of a new role for LEAs as 'advocates' for children with special needs proposed by Bines and Thomas (1994). It is clear that the influence of the sociological paradigm on research in the field of special needs remains strong. The need for policy analysis and critique, always strong elements in this tradition of writing, is unlikely to diminish in the UK in the context of the revision of special education policy carried through by the 1993 Education Act and the accompanying Code of Practice (DFE, 1994); it is to be hoped that such critique will be informed by a greater recognition of the need to substantiate its theoretical analysis with empirical evidence than has often been the case in the past. In the meantime, a third tradition of research into special needs has arisen in recent years, in part as a reaction to the weaknesses of the sociological paradigm described above, viz. its tendency to abstraction, its application of undigested sociological concepts, and its deterministic perspective. This third paradigm draws on theoretical concepts formulated in the context of organisational research, and on other branches of educational research, notably the literature on effective schools, school restructuring and school improvement.

Downloaded by [University of Stockholm] at 14:29 13 February 2012

Special educational needs - a research framework 39

THE ORGANIZATIONAL PARADIGM Beginning in the USA in the late 1980s, a third tradition of research into special educational needs emerged, which has recently come to assume a position of dominance in the field. The organizational paradigm sees special needs as arising from deficiencies in the way in which schools are currently organized; concomitantly, the solution advocated is to restructure schools to remove these deficiencies. Various formulations of this position are found in the literature which draw on somewhat different sources; consequently, the model of the reformed school put forward varies in detail from one contribution to another. Nevertheless, these authors are united in the conviction that a properly implemented policy of school restructuring will eliminate or reduce to a minimum the problem of students who fail to fulfil their learning potential in the schooling system. Although it is rarely made explicitly, these authors can be seen as operating within a broadly functionalist perspective, which sees schools as more or less successful agents for socializing students into the values and behaviours required by existing society. Three major variants of the school restructuring proposal are briefly illustrated below. The adhocratic school. Drawing on the work of Mintzberg in the field of organization theory (Miller and Mintzberg, 1983), Skrtic analyses schools as 'professional bureaucracies' in which teachers work in relative isolation from one another, and tend to fit the needs of pupils to their repertoire of skills, rather than adopting innovative solutions to the varying needs of students. Students with special needs are thus seen as 'artefacts of the traditional curriculum' (Skrtic, 1991b, p. 20). Skrtic puts forward the case for a reconfiguration of schools as 'adhocracies,' marked among other features by greater use of collaborative teamwork and the continuous coordination of work through informal communication (Skrtic, 1991a, 1991b). The heterogeneous school. Citing evidence from programmes of school restructuring, Thousand and Villa propose that schools be reformed to 'accommodate for greater student variance', i.e. to cater adequately for the educational needs of all students in the local community, including students with severe behaviour disorders and physical and sensory impairments who would previously have attended a separate special school. This model is termed the 'zero reject' of heterogeneous school. (Thousand and Villa, 1991; Villa, Thousand, Stainback and Stainback, 1992). The school which is effective for all students. Drawing on the findings of research into school effectiveness, Ainscow (echoing Skrtic) argues that pupils experiencing difficulties should be seen as 'indicators of the need for reform' (Aiscow, 1991a, p. 3), and suggests that schools which exhibit the characteristics identified in the effectiveness literature will be similarly successful in promoting the learning of all students, including those with special needs (Ainscow, 1991a, 1991b, 1993). The findings of school effectiveness research thus furnish a model for the restructuring of schools which will minimize the incidence of learning difficulties. These examples by no means exhaust the restructuring proposals which have been put forward. Others include: the refashioned mainstream (Gartner and Lipsky, 1987, 1989); the adaptive learning environment (Wang, 1991); the quality school (Glasser, 1992); and school renewal/cultural change (Joyce et al., 1991). Though their terminology varies, these proposals share the common conceptualization of special needs noted above - i.e. that they are caused by pathologies in the way schools are currently organized, and that they can be overcome by reforming schools as organizations. There is presently a convergence of these views around

Downloaded by [University of Stockholm] at 14:29 13 February 2012

40 European Journal of Special Needs Education, Vol. 11, No. 1 (1996)

the notion of the 'inclusive school', which its advocates suggest would be adapted to respond to the full diversity of learning needs found in the student population; in this model, no group would be identified as 'special' and requiring a qualitatively different form of educational provision (Clark, Dyson and Millward, 1995). The inclusive schools movement is not without its critics, some portraying it as an extremist group whose radicalism will alienate those working in general education (Fuchs and Fuchs, 1994), others casting doubt on the assumption that the effective school will be equally successful in promoting the learning of all pupils (Reynolds, 1995). None the less, there can be no doubt that the organizational paradigm currently commands widespread allegiance in the field of research into special needs; from the point of view of theory development, its influence at present seems dominant.
Downloaded by [University of Stockholm] at 14:29 13 February 2012

Discussion Writing in the organizational paradigm has made a significant contribution to the understanding of how students come to have special educational needs by drawing attention to the role of school- and classroom-level variables - factors which lie within the power of educators to affect, and which (there is good evidence to suppose) are implicated in students' learning or failure to learn. By comparison, both the pupil-deficit conceptualization of special needs associated with the psycho-medical paradigm and the sociological conceptualization of special needs as arising from macro-level processes of sorting and differentiation had tended to underestimate the significance of these factors. In addition, some empirical evidence has been presented of school restructuring programmes which appear to be successful in promoting the social integration of students with special needs, and which do not have an adverse impact on learning outcomes and may be associated with improved attainment. (In spite of the author's anti-integrationist sentiments, this is the only conclusion that can be drawn from the review of research presented by Hornby, 1992.) There are, however, a number of issues surrounding the conceptualization of special needs offered by the organizational paradigm which remain unresolved. Foremost among these is its propensity to analyse the internal organizational characteristics of the school in isolation - i.e. to the exclusion of any other factors which may be implicated in the creation of special needs. Although some of these studies examine the effects of a variety of teaching strategies, such as cooperative group learning, individualized instruction and collaborative staff teams (Ainscow, 1991b; Villa and Thousand, 1992), the paradigm tends to operate with an image of the school as an organization which is globally effective or ineffective, inclusive or exclusive and heterogeneous or homogeneous, and neglects to investigate the individual interactions between teacher and student, or student and student, through which learning takes place. It is still weaker in integrating the impact of macro-level forces, such as national education policy, showing a tendency to suppress these altogether from the realm of inquiry. Writers also tend to adopt theoretical models or reported empirical findings which have been developed in other fields and assume that they can be applied unproblematically to the case of provision for special educational needs. The theoretical model of the adhocratic configuration adopted by Skrtic (1991a, 1991b), for instance, was developed by writers concerned to analyse the behaviour of large-scale industrial and state enterprises; and the school effectiveness studies from which Ainscow draws his list of key features were only tangentially concerned with special needs provision. Finally, there is a

Special educational needs - a research framework

41

Downloaded by [University of Stockholm] at 14:29 13 February 2012

serious weakness in the understanding of organizational change displayed in the paradigm. Where writers address this question, they seem incapable of theorizing the process except in terms of a context between visionary leaders and neurotic resistors (Joyce et al., 1991; Reynolds, 1991; Villa and Thousand, 1992). This, one might suggest, is to prejudge the issue, and with such a simplistic model of the complex process of organizational development, it is scarcely surprising that some of the reported attempts to improve schools end in failure (Reynolds, 1991). In spite of these weaknesses, a number of factors seem destined to secure a continued audience for the restructuring proposals put forward by writers in the organizational paradigm, namely the pragmatic focus of the paradigm on school-level factors which are amenable to practitioner influence; the articulation between this paradigm and other powerful currents of educational research; and the assurance offered by the paradigm that a final solution to the enduring problem of educational under-achievement is at hand, without the need for extra resources to be invested. For these reasons, it seems likely that this paradigm will continue to command the attention of researchers in the field, and that its findings will continue to have an impact on practitioners.

DISCUSSION In this selective survey of current research in the field of special needs, it has been suggested that it is possible to discern three major currents of writing, namely the psycho-medical, the sociological and the organizational paradigms. Their principal characteristics were illustrated by a critical discussion of recent significant exemplars. It has been argued that each paradigm draws on a distinct theoretical framework, operating with its own implied epistemology and characteristic level of focus, positing a different model of the causation of special needs, and proposing a correspondingly different form of intervention. A summary of these distinctions is set forth in Table 1. It is important to stress, once again, that it is not suggested that the discrimination of these paradigms permits all writing on special needs to be uniquely and comprehensively classified. None the less, sufficient evidence has been presented in the course of this survey to demonstrate that the assumptions underlying these paradigms exert a continuing and significant influence on the discourse of the field as it is presently constituted and the design of the research programmes which come to be carried out. Analysis of the three paradigms has also brought to light certain limitations inherent in each. We have seen, for example, the tendency within the psycho-medical paradigm to extend an approach derived from the study of conditions with a known biological basis to cases where evidence for such a basis is quite lacking; the deterministic bias of writing within the sociological paradigm; and the exclusive focus of the organizational paradigm on structural features of the school as an institution. In general, it might be argued that the three paradigms share the common fault of reductionism, i.e. the tendency to explain an intrinsically complex phenomenon in terms of a single, unidirectional model of causation, and (concomitantly) to propose a single form of intervention as a complete and adequate solution to the problem. The question now arises as to whether it is possible to develop an alternative, integrated framework which will avoid this tendency towards reductionism, and furnish a more adequate theoretical basis to guide future research into special needs. The following section will attempt to address this question.

42 European Journal of Special Needs Education, Vol. 11, No. 1 (1996) Table 1: The three paradigms of research into special educational needs Paradigm Epistemology Level of focus Model of causation Form of intervention proposed Diagnostic testing and quasi-clinical remediation Root and branch political reform of the education system to remove inequitable practices

Psycho-medical

Positivist-

empiricist Sociological Structuralist

Micro (individual)

Downloaded by [University of Stockholm] at 14:29 13 February 2012

Organizational

Functionalist

Special needs arise from deficits within the individual pupil Macro Special needs arise (societal) from the reproduction of structural inequalities in society through processes of sorting and tracking Meso Special needs arise (institutional) from deficiencies in the ways in which schools are currently organized

Programme of school restructuring to eliminate organizational deficiencies

TOWARDS AN INTEGRATED THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR RESEARCH INTO SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS One response to this question would be to attempt a syncretic blending of the existing paradigms. However, the divergence between their epistemological standpoints suggests that this exercise is likely to prove fruitless. A more promising approach would seem to be to identify other candidates in the theoretical literature which exhibit the same level of focus, but eschew the reductionism of the existing paradigms, and which might therefore offer a more compatible basis from which to develop an integrated framework.

The Micro-level: The Interactive Process of Learning Recent work on the psychology of learning and cognition focuses attention on the importance of the dynamics of the interaction between teacher and student in facilitating or impeding learning. The perspectives of interactionism and interactivity theory (Coles, 1987; Quicke and Winter, 1994) draw on constructivist theories of learning (Vygotsky, 1986) and original empirical work to investigate the influence of the instructional relationship and the learning environment on the process of learning. This approach offers the prospect of developing insights into the specifics of the pedagogical situation in which special needs occur, without reverting to the pupil-deficit theories which characterized earlier writing in the psycho-medical tradition.

Special educational needs - a research framework

43

The Macro-level: The Dilemmas of Schooling and Social Construction of Special Education Categories Two extant traditions promise to elucidate the role of macro-level forces in the creation of special needs, without resorting to determinist explanations. The first stems from the literature on the dilemmas endemic to schooling as a social practice, and to special needs education in particular (Berlak and Berlak, 1981; Grace, 1991; Norwich, 1993; Vlachou and Barton, 1994). While avoiding the temptation to reduce site-specific phenomena to the mechanical reproduction of macro-social forces, this literature insists that the school cannot be seen in isolation from the wider social context in which it is embedded. Specifically, society places on schools a set of demands and expectations which may in themselves be contradictory, and which find expression in the dilemmas experienced by practitioners. The case of special needs may constitute a locus in the education system where these dilemmas are concentrated particularly acutely (cf. the tension reported in Vlachou and Barton's study, 1994, between practitioners' desire to integrate students with special needs, and the pressures they feel as a result of government policies designed to increase competition between schools). A second source of theoretical support is found in the literature on the social construction of special education categories (Booth, 1988; Oliver, 1992; Sleeter, 1986; Soder, 1984). Though there are substantive differences between these authors, all point to the ideological purpose served by the categorization and differential schooling of certain groups of students, yet are at the same time alert to the need to analyse the precise role played by the categorization system at a given juncture. Sleeter, for example, demonstrates how the Learning Disabled (LD) category in the USA emerged in the 1960s as an acceptable label to explain the educational failure of white middle-class children, but was transformed in the 1970s when, in the aftermath of the Civil Rights movement, black students came to be over-represented in the category, which was seen as a more palatable label than that of Educable Mentally Retarded (EMR) which had previously been applied to this group. This approach indicates the possibility of analysing the role of macro-level processes in the creation of categories of special need without reverting to a mechanistic model.

Downloaded by [University of Stockholm] at 14:29 13 February 2012

The Meso-level: The Dialectical Analysis of Organizations and Organizational Ambiguity The overriding weakness of the organizational paradigm noted above was its tendency to model the school as a monolithic, undifferentiated entity, resulting in a simplistic view of the process of organizational development. Efforts to apply the concepts of dialectical analysis to the study of organizations would seem to hold out the possibility of developing a more theoretically adequate understanding of these complex processes (Bartunek, 1984; Benson, 1977, 1983; Fombrun, 1986; Heyderbrand, 1977; McGuire, 1992; Oilman, 1993; Ranson, Hinings and Greenwood, 1980; Zeitz, 1980). Rather than modelling the school as a unitary, undifferentiated entity, this framework suggests the image of a complex, structured whole, in which the coexistence of multiple, competing perspectives is to be expected. This outlook finds support in the work of other authors who, while not deploying the concepts of dialectics as such, also point to the irreducible complexity and ambiguity of organizations (Hargreaves, 1994; Hassard, 1994; Martin and Meyerson, 1988; Schulman, 1993).

44 European Journal of Special Needs Education, Vol. 11, No. 1 (1996)

CONCLUDING REMARKS The candidate theories identified above share a number of common qualities. As a result of these qualities, it is hoped that a theoretical framework erected on their basis would be able to overcome the limitations inherent in the existing paradigms. Crucially, such a framework would be radically anti-reductionist, refusing the temptation to model the occurrence of special needs as an outcome of a single, unidirectional causal process, whether this is envisaged in terms of deficits in the individual, inequalities in society, or deficiencies in school organization. Rather, it would insist on the need for empirical investigation of the role of factors at each level of focus, and of the totality of their combined effect, which is not reducible to the arithmetical sum of each component. The framework would also be directed towards an understanding of special needs as a relational concept, rather than a reified category; a concept which denotes the construction of a specific set of relationships between pupils' learning (or failure to learn) and the system of schooling. Student behaviours identified as problematic, for instance, would need to be analysed in terms of how relationships between the teacher and the student are constructed in the classroom, rather than seen as a fixed and determinate property of the individual pupil. Such an approach does not preclude inquiry into pupil characteristics as an element in the production of special needs, but does insist that they should be seen in the context in which they are manifested. This process-oriented framework would also lead to an analysis of any empirically occurring organizational state of the school as a moment in a dynamic of development - i.e. as a temporary and provisional resolution, rather than a permanent, unchanging structure. Again, this perspective would not prevent investigation of the effect of structural features of the school's organization on provision for special needs, but would see any existing organizational configuration as the outcome of a prior process of development, containing within itself various possibilities for future development. In contrast to the outlook of the organizational paradigm described above, the framework would also see such development as a (potentially) non-linear process of transformation, rather than as a steady progress towards (or decline from) a notional end-state of optimal rationality and effectiveness. In the case of school restructuring proposals, such as those associated with writing in the organizational paradigm, this would imply the need to understand why different constituencies of staff within the same school come to hold different perspectives on special needs, and how the prevailing equilibrium between contending perspectives is likely to develop over time, rather than defining the school's organizational state in terms of a one-sided contest between enlightened visionaries and neurotic resistors. Recent work by the author and collaborating colleagues has made a beginning in the attempt to develop this framework through analytical engagement with empirical data (Clark et al., 1995; Dyson, Millward and Skidmore, 1994; forthcoming). Whether the promise held out by the framework of developing a new, integrated conceptualization of special needs is fulfilled must wait on the results of future research. Regardless of the outcome of these efforts, if the current paper encourages researchers in special needs to re-examine the theoretical presuppositions underlying the design of their research, and the conceptualization of special needs implicit in these presuppositions, then it will have accomplished its purpose.

Downloaded by [University of Stockholm] at 14:29 13 February 2012

Special educational needs - a research framework 45

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I should like to thank Dr Madeleine Atkins of the Department of Education, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, for her incisive comments on an earlier draft of this paper. Responsibility for the views expressed remains, of course, my own.

REFERENCES AINSCOW, M. (1991a). 'Effective schools for all: an alternative approach to special needs in education'. In: AINSCOW, M. (Ed.) Effective Schools for All. London: David Fulton, pp. 1-19. AINSCOW, M. (1991b). 'Towards effective schools for all: some problems and possibilities'. In: AINSCOW, M. (Ed.), Effective Schools for All. London: David Fulton, pp. 215-228. AINSCOW, M. (1993). 'Towards effective schools for all' Policy Options for Special Educational Needs in the 1990s, Seminar Paper 2. Stafford: NASEN. BART, D.S. (1984). 'The differential diagnosis of special education: managing social pathology as individual disability'. In: BARTON, L. and TOMLINSON, S. (Eds) Special Education and Social Interests. London: Croom Helm, pp. 81-121. BARTON, L. (Ed.) (1988). The Politics of Special Educational Needs. London: The Falmer Press. BARTON, L. and TOMLINSON, S. (Eds) (1981). Special Education: Policy, Practices and Social Issues. London: Harper and Row. BARTON, L. and TOMLINSON, S. (1984a). 'The politics of integration in England'. In: BARTON, L. and TOMLINSON, S. (Eds) Special Education and Social Interests. London: Croom Helm, pp. 65-80. BARTON, L. and TOMLINSON, S. (Eds) (1984b). Special Education and Social Interests. London: Croom Helm. BARTUNEK, J.M. (1984). 'Changing interpretive schemes and organizational restructuring: the example of a religious order', Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 355-372. BENSON, J.K. (1977). 'Organizations: a dialectical view', Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 1-21. BENSON, J.K. (1983). 'A dialectical method for the study of organizations'. In: MORGAN, G. (Ed.) Beyond Method: Strategies for Social Research. London: Sage, pp. 331-346. BERLAK, A. and BERLAK, H. (1981). Dilemmas of Schooling: Teaching and Social Change. London: Methuen. BINES, H. (1986). Redefining Remedial Education. London: Croom Helm. BINES, H. and THOMAS, G. (1994). 'From bureaucrats to advocates? The changing role of local education authorities', Support for Learning, 9, 2, 61-67. BOGDAN, R. and KUGELMASS, J. (1984). 'Case studies of mainstreaming: a symbolic interactionist approach to special schooling'. In: BARTON, L. and TOMLINSON, S. (Eds) Special Education and Social Interests. London: Croom Helm, pp. 173-191. BOOTH, T. (1988). 'Challenging conceptions of integration'. In: BARTON, L. (Ed.) The Politics of Special Educational Needs. London: Falmer, pp. 97-122. BURT, C. (1937). The Backward Child. London: Hodder and Stoughton. CARRIER, J.G. (1984). 'Comparative special education: ideology, differentiation and allocation in England and the United States'. In: BARTON, L. and TOMLINSON, S., (Eds) Special Education and Social Interests. London: Croom Helm, pp. 35-64. CLARK, C, DYSON, A. and MILLWARD, A. (Eds) (1995). Towards Inclusive Schools? London: David Fulton. CLARK, C, DYSON, A., MILLWARD, A. and SKIDMORE, D. (in press). 'Dialectical analysis, special needs and schools as organizations'. In: CLARK, C, DYSON, A. and MILLWARD, A. (Eds) Towards Inclusive Schools? London: David Fulton. COLES, G. (1987). The Learning Mystique: A Critical Look at 'Learning Disabilities'. New York: Pantheon. DES (1978). Special Educational Needs (The Warnock Report). London: HMSO. DFE (1994). Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special Educational Needs. London: DFE.

Downloaded by [University of Stockholm] at 14:29 13 February 2012

46 European Journal of Special Needs Education, Vol. 11, No. 1 (1996)

DYKMAN, R.A. and ACKERMAN, P.T. (1993). 'Behavioural subtypes of attention deficit disorder', Exceptional Children, 60, 2, 132-141. DYSON, A., MILLWARD, A. and SKIDMORE, D. (1994). 'Beyond the whole school approach: an emerging model of special needs practice and provision in mainstream secondary schools', British Educational Research Journal, 20, 3, 301-317. FOMBRUN, C.J. (1986). 'Structural dynamics within and between organizations', Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 403421. FREEMAN, A. (1988). 'Who's moving the goal posts and what games are we playing anyway? Social competence examined'. In: BARTON, L. (Ed.) The Politics of Special Educational Needs. London: Falmer, pp. 123-144. FUCHS, D. and FUCHS, L.S. (1994). 'Inclusive schools movement and the radicalization of special education reform', Exceptional Children, 60, 4, 294-309. GARTNER, A. and LIPSKY, D.K. (1987). 'Beyond special education: toward a quality system for all students', Harvard Educational Review, 57, 4, 367-395. GARTNER, A. and LIPSKY, D.K. (1989). 'New conceptualizations for special education', European Journal of Special Needs Education, 4, 1, 16-22. GLASSER, W. (1992). 'The quality school'. In: VILLA, R.A., THOUSAND, J.S., STAINBACK, W. and STAINBACK, S. (Eds) Restructuring for Caring and Effective Education: An Administrative Guide to Creating Heterogeneous Schools. Baltimore, Md: Paul H. Brookes. GRACE, G. (1991). 'The state and the teachers: problems in teacher supply, retention and morale'. In: GRACE, G. and LAWN, M. (Eds) Teacher Supply and Teacher Quality: Issues for the 1990s. Clevedon, Ohio: Multilingual Matters, pp. 3-16. HARGREAVES, A. (1994). 'Restructuring restructuring: postmodernity and the prospects for educational change', Journal of Educational Policy, 9, 1, 47-65. HASSARD, J. (1994). 'Postmodern organizational analysis: toward a conceptual framework', Journal of Management Studies, 39, 3, 303-324. HEYDERBRAND, W. (1977). 'Organizational contradictions in public bureaucracies: toward a Marxian theory of organizations', Sociological Quarterly, 18, Winter, 83-107. HORNBY, G. (1992). 'Integration of children with special educational needs: is it time for a policy review?', Support for Learning, 7, 3, 130-134. JOYCE, B., MURPHY, C, SHOWERS, B. and MURPHY, J. (1991). 'School renewal as cultural change'. In: AINSCOW, M. (Ed.) Effective Schools for All. London: David Fulton, pp. 181-194. McBURNETT, K., LAHEY, B.B. and PFIFFNER, L. (1993). 'Diagnosis of attention deficit disorders in DSM-IV: scientific basis and implications for education', Exceptional Children, 60, 2, 108-117. McGUIRE, J.B. (1992). 'A qualitative analysis of dialectical processes in educational organisations', Human Relations, 45, 4, 387410. MARTIN, J. and MEYERSON, D. (1988). 'Organizational cultures and the denial, channelling and acknowledgement of ambiguity'. In: PONDY, L.R., BOLAND, Jr, R.J. and THOMAS, H. (Eds) Managing Ambiguity and Change. Chichester: Wiley. MILLER, D. and MINTZBERG, H. (1983). 'The Case for configuration'. In: MORGAN, G. (Ed.) Beyond Method: Strategies for Social Research. London: Sage, pp. 57-73. NORWICH, B. (1993). 'Ideological dilemmas in special needs education: practitioners' views', Oxford Review of Education, 19, 4, 527-546. OLIVER, M. (1992). 'Intellectual masturbation: a rejoinder to Sder and Booth', European Journal of Special Needs Education, 7, 1, 20-28. OLLMAN, B. (1993). Dialectical Investigations. London: Routledge. QUICKE, J. and WINTER, C. (1994). 'Labelling and learning: an interactionist perspective', Support for Learning, 9, 1, 16-21. RANSON, S., HININGS, B. and GREENWOOD, R. (1980). 'The structuring of organizational structures', Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 1-17. REID, R., MAAG, J.W. and VASA, S.F. (1993). 'Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder as a disability category: a critique', Exceptional Children, 60, 3, 198-214. REID, R., MAAG, J.W., VASA, S.F. and WRIGHT, G. (1994). 'Who are the children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder?: a school-based survey', Journal of Special Education, 28, 2, 117-137.

Downloaded by [University of Stockholm] at 14:29 13 February 2012

Special educational needs - a research framework

47

REYNOLDS, D. (1991). 'Changing ineffective schools'. In: AINSCOW, M. (Ed.) Effective Schools for All. London: David Fulton, pp. 92-105. REYNOLDS, D. (1995). 'Using school effectiveness knowledge for children with special needs - the problems and possibilities'. In: CLARK, C , DYSON, A. and MILLWARD, A. (Eds) Towards Inclusive Schools? London: David Fulton. RICCIO, C.A., HYND, G.W., COHEN, M.J. and GONZALEZ, J.J. (1993). 'Neurological basis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder', Exceptional Children, 60, 2, 118-124. SCHONELL, F.J. (1942). Backwardness in the Basic Subjects. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd. SCHULMAN, P.R. (1993). 'The negotiated order of organizational reliability', Administration and Society, 25, 3, 353-372. SKIDMORE, D. (forthcoming). 'The dialectic of school development'. SKRTIC, T.M. (1991a). Behind Special Education: A Critical Analysis of Professional Culture and School Organization. Denver, Colo.: Love Publishing. SKRTIC, T.M. (1991b). 'Students with special educational needs: artifacts of the traditional curriculum'. In: AINSCOW, M. (Ed.) Effective Schools for All. London: David Fulton, pp. 20-42. SLEETER, C.E. (1986). 'Learning disabilities: the social construction of a special education category', Exceptional Children, 53, 1, 46-54. SODER, M. (1984). 'The mentally retarded: ideologies of care and surplus'. In: BARTON, L. and TOMLINSON, S. (Eds) Special Education and Social Interests. London: Croom Helm, pp. 15-34. THOUSAND, J.S. and VILLA, R.A. (1991). 'Accommodating for greater student variance'. In: AINSCOW, M. (Ed.) Effective Schools for All. London: David Fulton, pp. 161-180. TOMLINSON, S. (1982). A Sociology of Special Education. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. TOMLINSON, S. (1985). 'The expansion of special education', Oxford Review of Education, 11, 2, 157-165. VILLA, R.A. and THOUSAND, J.S. (1992). 'Restructuring public school systems: strategies for organizational change and progress'. In: VILLA, R.A., THOUSAND, J.S., STAINBACK, W. and STAINBACK, S. (Eds) Restructuring for Caring and Effective Education: An Administrative Guide to Creating Heterogeneous Schools. Baltimore, Md: Paul H. Brookes. VILLA, R.A., THOUSAND, J.S., STAINBACK, W. and STAINBACK, S. (Eds) (1992). Restructuring for Caring and Effective Education: An Administrative Guide to Creating Heterogeneous Schools. Baltimore, Md: Paul H. Brookes. VLACHOU, A. and BARTON, L. (1994). 'Inclusive education: teachers and the changing culture of schooling', British Journal of Special Education, 21, 4, 105-107. VYGOTSKY, L. (1986). Thought and Language (Trans. A. Kozulin). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT. WANG, M.C. (1991). 'Adaptive instruction: an alternative approach to providing for student diversity'. In: AINSCOW, M. (Ed.) Effective Schools for All. London: David Fulton, pp. 134-161. WOOD, S. (1988). 'Parents: whose partners?'. In: BARTON, L. (Ed.) The Politics of Special Educational Needs. London: The Falmer Press, pp. 190-207. ZEITZ, G. (1980). 'Interorganizational dialectics', Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 72-88.

Downloaded by [University of Stockholm] at 14:29 13 February 2012