Positivist and post-positivist paradigms

The p ositivist paradigm w as the driving force in shaping p o licy, discourse and practice in sp ecial education throughout the course o f the last century and w as characterised b y a p sycho-m edical v ie w o f learning disabilities (Clark et. ah, 1998). B ased on the assum ption that learning difficulties w ere due to pathological im pairm ent, or deficit, the p ositivist approach relied on m ethods o f the natural sc ien ces to investigate learning

difficulties. This perspective, w hich shaped discourse and p o lic y in sp ecial education, has been criticised in recent years for its em phasis on w ithin -child factors, or individual impairment, as a m eans o f explaining and addressing learning d ifficu lties.

Other perspectives, or theories, have em erged w h ich focus not on the individual but on the context, includ ing social, cultural and educational, in w hich th ese d ifficu lties occur and are described. Included am ong these perspectives is the social constructionist v ie w (e.g. T om linson, 1982) w h ich describes disability and special education as so c ia l constructs w h ich have been d evised as a m eans o f disem pow ering and m arginalising certain groups in society. Other perspectives (e.g. Slee, 2008) focus on social institutions, such as sch o ols, claim in g that a system o f special education has been developed in order to m anage failure on the part o f sch o o ls to m eet the educational needs o f all pupils. Clark et al. (1 9 9 8 ) suggest that this perspective m arked the em ergence o f a new post-positivist paradigm w h ich is underpinned b y a particular valu es orientation. A n alysis o f special education is underpinned b y the assum ption that those w ith learning difficulties have b een disem p ow ered , disadvantaged and excluded by a system w hich, heretofore, was dom inated b y a p sych o -m ed ica l paradigm. Perspectives w ithin the post-positivist paradigm do not cla im to b e value-free; on the contrary, th ey adopt a stance w hich argues that special education has served as a m ean s o f oppression and disem pow erm ent. Principles o f rights, equity, in clu sio n and participation are values w h ich shape the nature o f inquiry and the interpretation o f find ings o f any inquiry. Clark et al. ack n o w led g e that the post-positivist paradigm has g iv e n a n ew vitality to the field o f special education w h ile at the sam e tim e alluding to the sa m e m isg iv in g s identified b y Thom as and L o x ley w h en they referred to the “sim p lifyin g ten d en cy o f theory” (2 0 0 7 , p. 10) in the social scien ces. Theoretical frameworks m ay distort and m isconstrue social w orlds w hen they dom inate thought and permanently dictate the direction o f analysis. In other

words, there is a danger that a chosen theoretical framework m a y not actually represent the phenom ena under investigation and in an effort to ‘fit’ findings into a particular theory, interpretation m ay not reflect the context and m eaning represented in the data.

Clark et al. (1 9 9 8 ) su ggest that the critique and deconstruction o f special education in terms o f its underlying socia l processes has been the concern o f inquiry w ithin the p ost-p ositivist paradigm. W h ile this is deem ed reputable and necessary, there are a number o f issues w h ich arise as a result o f this. T he first is the assum ption that special education is a so c ia lly constructed phenom enon. This im plies that the function o f critique is to deconstruct special education until it no longer exists. Attem pts to deconstruct the special education k n ow led ge tradition are seen as n ecessary in order to reconstruct it in a w ay that avoids its unintentional negative con seq u en ces (Skrtic, 1995). A m ong these negative con seq u en ces, Skrtic includes theories o f hum an pathology and organizational rationality w h ich underpinned discourse and practice in special education in the latter h a lf o f the tw entieth century. The second issu e identified b y Clark et al. (1 9 9 8 ) is the assum ption that the values o f inclusion, equity and participation b eco m e the lens through w hich special education is critiqued, regardless o f the m ode o f enquiry.

T he problem arises in relation to the issue o f values. W h ile valu es, such as rights, equality, ju stice and participation need to be considered, they are not unproblem atic esp ecially w h en tensions arise. Clark et al. refer to the com p lexities o f educational valu es, highlighting the fact that educational system s are charged w ith realising m ultiple valu es w h ich m ay result in contradictions and ten sions. Equity, for exam ple, as a value, m ay b e seen to contradict the right o f the child to educational provision based on individual needs. Stone (2 0 0 2 ) also highlights the difficu lties surrounding the notion o f equity, and u ses this term to denote

distributions regarded as fair, even though inequalities m ay be n ecessary to ensure fairness, or distributive ju stice. Clark et al. (1998) stress the need to ack n o w led g e that the values o f equity and inclusion have to b e realised in w ays w h ich are im perfect and often contradictory. U nderstanding how this process is realised must be done through a len s w hich acknow ledges the co m p lexity o f the field o f special education, the historical forces w h ich have helped shape it and the pow er structures in volved in its production. Therefore, the theoretical lens through w h ich interpretation and analysis should occur is on e w h ich recogn ises the dilem m as and tensions w ithin special education and its com plexity. A n y d iscu ssion , or analysis o f issues relating to in clu sion , m ust identify the values on w hich it is based and recogn ise the dilem m as and ten sions w h ich arise w hen these valu es appear to contradict each other.