Theoretical framework

It was argued in section 1.6 that IE literature is Western dominated because most studies in the field have been carried out in developed countries, and only a few in developing countries. This means there is a gap in the literature in terms of

developing country perspectives on IE. This was one of the motivations for this study, which embarked on exploring secondary school teacher perceptions of IE in Lesotho (one of the developing or under-developed countries in Africa).

The theoretical framework for studying people’s perceptions of a phenomenon within their institution, is supported in the social constructivist theory. As per this theory, the mind is active in the construction of knowledge; the mind of human beings is not passive, but actively constructs knowledge and ideas (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000). In other words, human beings do not construct their interpretations in isolation, but against the environment in which they are actively engaged. Creswell (2003) concurs, claiming that constructivists suppose that individuals seek understanding of the world in which they live and work – developing subjective meaning of their experiences directed at certain objects or things. Constructivists rely on participant views of the situation studied, and then can construct meaning of a situation, which is usually forged in discussions or interactions with others. Hence, the social constructivist approach helped the researcher investigate secondary school teacher perceptions of the inclusion of children with disabilities within their mainstream schools in the Maseru District of Lesotho, through teacher discussions of this concept. This inductive approach to research concurs with Bourdieu’s (1985, 1999) three conceptual tools of habitus, field and capital.

Bourdieu (1985, 1999) uses the three thinking tools of habitus, field and capital, to explain the relationship between objective social structures – linking from macro structures to the micro-level. These include institutions, discourses, fields, ideologies, and everyday practices in the social structures (Reed-Danahay, 2005). As Nolan (2012:203) argues, Bourdieu’s (1985, 1999) concepts are one important set of tools from his toolbox that represent the “... dynamic relationship between the structure and agency within a social practice pointing to the promise and possibility of social change”. The three concepts (habitus, field and capital) are inter-related according to the formula, (Habitus x Capital) + Field = Practice(see Jayasinghe and Wickramsinghe, 2008; Suminar, 2013).

Habitus

Habitus is understood as the vibrant intersection of structure and action, society and the individual. It is considered to operate at different levels in an individual’s thought and explains how an individual is supposed to behave, think and feel (Nolan, 2012; Suminar, 2013). In line with this thinking, Webb, Shrirato and Danaher (2002) believe that knowledge is always constructed through the habitus – rather than being passively recorded. According to these authors, human beings are inclined towards certain attitudes, values or ways of behaving, because of the influence exerted by their cultural trajectories. They view the habitus as always constituted in moments of practice: “It is always of the moment brought out when a set of dispositions meet a particular problem, choice or context ....” (Webb et al., 2002:38). Finally, habitus is taken to operate at a level that is at least partly unconscious. Habitus can also express the meaning of things by providing an explanation of the phenomena that exist in the social structure because of one’s direct involvement in it (Lizardo, 2004; Suminar, 2013).

In the current study, this implies that teachers’ daily interactions with learners with disabilities would describe their habitus, and thus the perceptions they hold and experiences they have while implementing IE in their schools. Teachers can use their habitus to describe their everyday practices of inclusion – the way they chose their teaching strategies, approaches and classroom management to teach children with disabilities in their regular schools. According to Nolan (2011), teachers can use their habitus to classify children with specific disabilities and to adapt their teaching strategies and approaches to meet students’ varying learning needs. For example, teachers may classify students with hearing impairment as having learning needs, and, as such, adapt the lessons to engage all the learners. Such approaches taken by a teacher would maximise the benefits to children with disabilities, of being included in a mainstream classroom. The researcher believes that teacher perceptions (views and conceptualisations) and experiences of IE include both conscious and unconscious elements, which is their habitus – and which would emerge from their discussions about IE.

Field

Bourdieu (1985, 1999) explains field as a structured social system occupied by individuals or institutions that have a matrix of power, and which corresponds to further systems of objective relations. Thus, field is a state of the distribution of the specific ‘capital’ which has been accumulated in the course of previous struggles, and which orientates subsequent strategies (DiGiorgio, 2010; Suminar, 2013). Therefore, field is characterised by things such as schools, institutions and political declarations. The positions held by individuals in the field define their identity and influence on other occupants, agents and institutions. According to Pijl and Frissen (2009), education policy-makers are accountable to the government and general public. They are obliged to maintain and improve the quality of education. Their means to influence practice in schools basically comprises legislation, regulation, and the inspectorate. These means can be useful to fulfil the necessary conditions for IE. For example – clear policy statements, improving special education legislation, re-organising funding, setting up support structures, and empowering parents and NGOs.

The researcher understands that the concept of field explains that IE policy is a product of history: the struggles of people with disabilities to gain recognition and to participate in all aspects of life. Their voices were finally heard by the wider global community, and this stimulated the idea for inclusion in education. Subsequently, countries began perceiving education as a human right, and thereafter each country took on the responsibility of developing an IE policy that would help its children with disabilities to receive education alongside their peers in a regular educational setting (Torombe, 2013). A school may be seen as a smaller field, while the education system is a larger one.

As argued next, teachers require the “capital” in order for them to be part of the school environment (the smaller field).

Capital

The concept of capital is understood as power resources in situations of struggle. Swartz (2008) indicates that there are different types of power resources: material and non-material. Capital is considered to act as a medium of communication

between field and habitus (Grenfell, 2009). Thus, the quantity of capital decides an individual’s power and status in a particular field. There are four types of capital (although they are not mutually exclusive): economic, cultural, social and symbolic (DiGiorgio, 2009; Suminar, 2013).

Economic capital refers to wealth such as money or financial resources (Emirbayer and Johnson, 2008; Suminar, 2013). Economic capital can influence IE by determining the types of teaching resources and facilities available in a school. DiDiorgio (2009:182) concurs that “... economic capital is important at the school level as ... public schools are required to provide services for students with special needs....” Thus, sufficient resources and facilities to enable IE require sufficient money.

On the other hand, cultural capital represents “... resources that people accumulate and exchange in order to maintain their positions of power within a field” (DiGiorgio, 2009:181). In other words, cultural capital represents non-financial assets that individuals possess and that determine their status within their field. Examples include external markers such as educational qualifications, skills and authority. Hurtado (2010) considers cultural capital to also be linguistic capital, as one’s feature(s) or deficits may be attached to a certain name that his/her people hold for such a feature or deficit. For example, in Lesotho, a child born with visual impairment is called a “blind child” (“sefofu”), because of the language system in the Basotho culture that determines the name attached to the loss of a sense in the body. Hence, in the inclusive classroom, the child’s learning is vital, as it depends on the teacher fully understanding the difference between the child’s lack of ability to see and their learning and intellectual abilities.

Symbolic capital refers to prestige, reputation et cetera. Social capital is understood to form a binding social network that includes the form of support an individual requires to be added to the capital he/she already has in order to play a role in the field (DiGiorgio, 2009; Grenfell, 2009; Suminar, 2013). In brief, the concept capital (economic, cultural, symbolic and social) was conceptualised in this study as teacher professional skills and knowledge on inclusion, along with resources, facilities and support, that enable teachers to be inclusive in their schools.

In brief, this study endeavoured to inductively investigate Lesotho secondary school teacher knowledge/conceptualisations and experiences (habitus and capital) of the inclusion of children with disabilities into their regular schools (field). The following sections discuss IE factors that may be influenced by or which may influence teachers’ habitus, field and/or capital – thereby impacting on their understanding of this concept. The researcher begins the discussion by providing background to the inclusion initiative.