The “Strong Poet”: Essays in Honor of Lous Heshusius is an edited volume focused on the research, scholarship, and leadership of one of the earliest proponents of radical change in the field of special education. This volume is part of the series
Critical Leaders and the Foundation of Disability Studies in Education, a collective history of the ecology of ideas that gave way to the emergence of the field of Disability Studies in Education (DSE). The series formalizes the value of attending to a history, distinguished by Steve Taylor (2005), as one that existed before it was named DSE. In this volume the contributors borrow from the venerable life work of Lous Heshusius, to center her original claims, early research, and the enduring challenge she posed to special education against examples from their own practice and personal histories. Each chapter recovers aspects of the genius of Heshusius that ultimately disrupted status quo thinking about disability. Specifically her attention to recognizing the lives and desires of those that society too often relegates to categories and contexts devoid of self direction and authentic agency. In brief, we find in Heshusius, a researcher who sought to privilege the voice of individuals with disability. She was among those who drew from and elaborated upon the methods and tools of qualitative research.
Contributors are: Julie Allan, Alicia Broderick, Danielle Cowley, Deborah J. Gallagher, Emily A. Nusbaum, and Linda Ware.
Migration is one of the major phenomena that characterizes the modern world and even more post-modernity. Improved transportation and advanced technology have facilitated transition from place to place and this phenomenon of greater mobility has changed the world and humanity. Given the fact that many countries in both the developed and underdeveloped world face similar challenges due to the current mass migration, comparative research in terms of the responses of government and non-government organizations (NGOs), both local and international, allows for a deeper understanding of ways of approaching the many challenges relating to immigration and education. The comparative dimension enables both scholars and policy makers to compare and contrast different approaches and to weigh up what approach is most suitable for their circumstances.
The aim of
Migrants and Comparative Education: Call to Re/Engagement is to bring together new research and conceptualizations on education’s complex and evolving role in the immigration process in different contexts around the world, at different levels of education, and from different theoretical perspectives. It is hoped that by so doing a better understanding will emerge of the issues and challenges associated with immigration that can assist policy makers and practitioners.
There is no shortage of scholarly research that reflects the growing importance of open education, whether referring to issues surrounding access to education (formal, informal or postformal); different copyright licencing regimes (e.g. Creative Commons); alternative forms of educational delivery such as Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), or alternative pathways to learning, curriculum development and delivery and/or assessing and accrediting learning. So what can another publication add to our understanding of open education?
It has become clear that thinking in terms of the binaries of ‘open’ versus ‘closed’ can no longer account and do justice to the wide range of possibilities and the varying factors that destabilise some definitions and practices. In
Open(ing) Education: Theory and Practice, the authors therefore map ‘open’ as emerging from a dynamic network or ecology of often mutually constitutive factors resulting in a range of possibilities. The chapters in this book provide us with glimpses of open, opening, and opened, with none of these being permanent states of affairs, but rather contingent, serendipitous, often uncertain, and fluid.
This book is unique not only with regard to its variety of approaches to mapping the various possibilities between open and closed but also with regard to the global spread of its many contributing authors.
Conversations related to epistemology and methodology have been present in comparative and international education (CIE) since the field’s inception. How CIE phenomena are studied, the questions asked, the tools used, and ideas about knowledge and reality that they reflect, shape the nature of the knowledge produced, the valuing of that knowledge, and the implications for practice in diverse societies. This book is part of a growing conversation in which the ways that standardized practices in CIE research have functioned to reproduce problematic hierarchies, silences and exclusions of diverse peoples, societies, knowledges, and realities. Argued is that there must be recognition and understanding of the negative consequences of hegemonic onto-epistemologies and methodologies in CIE, dominantly sourced in European social science traditions, that continue to shape and influence the design, implementation and dissemination/application of CIE research knowledge. Yet, while critical reflection is necessary, it alone is insufficient to realize the transformative change called for: as students, researchers, practitioners and policymakers, we must hear and heed calls for concrete action to challenge, resist and transform the status quo in the field and work to further realize a more ethical and inclusive CIE.
Interrogating and Innovating Comparative and International Research presents a series of conceptual and empirically-based essays that critically explore and problematize the dominance of Eurocentric epistemological and methodological traditions in CIE research. As an action-oriented volume, the contributions do not end with critique, rather suggestions are made and orientations modelled from different perspectives about the possibilities for change in CIE.
Contributors are: Emily Anderson, Supriya Baily, Gerardo L. Blanco, Alisha Braun, Erik Jon Byker, Meagan Call-Cummings, Brendan J. DeCoster, D. Brent Edwards Jr., Sothy Eng, Ameena Ghaffar-Kucher, Jeremy Gombin-Sperling, Kelly Grace, Radhika Iyengar, Huma Kidwai, Lê Minh Hằng, Caroline Manion, Patricia S. Parker, Leigh Patel, Timothy D. Reedy, Karen Ross, Betsy Scotto-Lavino, Payal P. Shah, Derrick Tu, and Matthew A. Witenstein.
Ellen A. Brantlinger: When Meanings Falter and Words Fail, Ideology Matters celebrates the work of and is dedicated to the memory of Ellen A. Brantlinger, a scholar-activist who spent most of her professional career as a professor of special education at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana in the United States of America. Ellen was recognized internationally as an educator and critical theorist and celebrated for her incisive and unyielding critique of special education research, policy, and practice that spanned several decades. Brantlinger held that the impoverished nature of special education theory and practice was rooted to conformance with the most rigid constructs of standardization, normalcy, and its resulting inequitable outcomes for children with disabilities. When the push for educational inclusion gained currency in some quarters in the United States (mid-1980s), Brantlinger was among a handful of scholars who identified special education as the major obstacle to the inclusion of disabled students in the educational system. She was widely published in North American journals well known in special education, teacher education, multicultural education, sociology of education, urban education, school counseling, curriculum theory, qualitative education, and feminist teaching. This book offers an elaboration of the scholarly contributions made by Ellen Brantlinger to research in education, special education, inclusive education, and the early development of Disability Studies in Education. Many of its contributors move between the paradigmatic locations of special education, inclusive education, and disability studies as they consider Ellen’s influence.
Contributors are: Julie Allan, Subini A. Annamma, Jessica Bacon, Alicia A. Broderick, Kathleen M. Collins, David J. Connor, Dianne L. Ferguson, Philip M. Ferguson, Amy L. Ferrel, Beth Ferri, Joanne Kim, Janette Klingner, Corrine Li, Brooke A. Moore, Emily A. Nusbaum, and Janet S. Sauer.
This chapter questions gender biases that are entrenched in culture and traditions. It shows the gap between education policy and practice. The practice here is women’s participation in non-formal and Vocational Education and Training programs. The chapter urges policy makers to bring reforms in the vocational track of the education system, by incorporating the reality that many women face. Through Participatory Action Research method, Iyengar and Witenstein try to illicit the cultural, religious, intergenerational practices that tend to thwart basic human rights for women in India.
Despite the increased attention to inclusion and diversity in comparative and international education policy and practice, the voices of people with disabilities often remain unheard or are silenced by dominant hegemonic discourses. To promote and enact a socially just and transformative ethos grounded in ethical participatory engagement between researchers and the researched, the stories and narratives of people with disabilities should actively be supported by the research methodologies we employ. PhotoVoice is an alternative methodology designed to realize this aim of amplifying the voices of marginalized communities in the research process and literature. This chapter explores the application of PhotoVoice methodology to the field of comparative and international education in the study of disability. Ghana is used as a single-country case in the Global South to illustrate the application of this methodology when researching the inclusion of students with disabilities. The research exemplar illustrates the types of findings that PhotoVoice methodology can offer the field and limitations to consider.
Comparative and international education (CIE) researchers have used education as a mirror to understand practices in countries for educational planning (Bereday, 1964). Although there is a belief that “…there are many schools of thought, and none have dominance…” (Altbach, 1991, p. 493), CIE research is still based on a hegemonic (neo)colonial mindset that can create unjust hierarchies in education (Tikly & Bond, 2013). As a research methodology, Arts-Based Educational Research (ABER) (Cahnmann-Taylor, 2008; Eisner, 2008) is considered to be emancipatory or anti-colonial, but does this approach automatically make educational and research practices more equitable? The purpose of this chapter is to examine epistemological foundations of ABER, and to consider how it can address inequalities in the field of CIE. Specifically, how do researchers know what they know through the aesthetics of an artwork? This chapter explores theoretical issues of aesthetic knowledge in CIE through the lens of aesthetic cognitivism (Kieran, 2011). Aesthetic knowledge is important for addressing inequalities in CIE research because it highlights ephemeral qualities that question positivistic paradigms and scientism within the field (Manzon, 2011). However, using ABER in CIE research does not automatically resist a (neo-) colonial mindset because it can also be reproduced in the arts.
In this chapter, I situate the call for interrogation and innovating comparative and international education research from a lens of the ongoing logics and practices of colonization. In doing so, I necessarily point out the narratives about colonization and decolonization that are told that work to perpetuate the accumulation of wealth and well-being for a few and vulnerability and suffering for millions more. This chapter recants a pointed example of these narratives that unfolded within the opening panel of the 2017 CIES symposium. I close with a call for the truth-telling about the ongoing reality of colonization and reference to past and ongoing quests for freedom that reach far beyond achievement and well-being based on the colonizer’s standards.
In this chapter, Ghaffar-Kucher explores the possibilities of decolonizing academia and the fields of comparative and international educational development specifically. To do so, she provides tangible steps that researchers and practitioners in the field of CIE (and International Educational Development more specifically) can take to destabilize dominant forms of knowledge production, an important corrective actions that moves us in the direction of decolonization. These steps are centered around pushing back against the dominant trends in CIE research in terms of data, methods, conceptual frameworks and location of research.
The author forces the readers to question the beliefs around formal schooling. She narrates the resistance of the madrassa teachers and leaders against the State at the same time highlighting the inherent biases of the State against the madrassas. Many interesting findings are narrated in the chapter, including the power of the official language used in Government documents. These documents are written in a language that is alien to the madrassa leaders and thus create a direct disconnect between the Government, its mandates, and the madrassa. Kidwai also does an interesting hierarchical analysis of the Government officials at various ranks and confirms that the ranks do make a difference in the belief structures. Beliefs around the madrassa are also influenced by the religious affiliation of the Government officials. The Muslims seems much more flexible and empathetic about the madrassa than the Hindu officials. The chapter presents insightful findings on how culture and religion gets entangled with politics and bureaucracy to shape education policy.
A key part in reimagining comparative and international education (CIE) qualitative research is making sure that emerging researchers are supported in engaging in reflexivity, or methodological practices that promote self-awareness, humility, and questioning. Although reflexivity has become more normative in recent years, there is room to go beyond its common manifestation of the positionality statement. In this chapter, we present a collaborative process of critical reflection in which we engaged during and after a short-term research study abroad program in Cuba. By critical reflection, we refer to a series of dialogical processes dedicated to uncovering the power dynamics of knowledge production, including researcher biases, disciplinary tendencies, relations between researcher and researched, our shortcomings, and the logic of coloniality embedded in comparative international education research. We discuss the value of collaborative critical reflection, the steps we engaged in, and the conditions enabling us to continue this process. Although our reflection stems from a specific study abroad program, these practices can support other short-term research endeavours and other emerging scholars in the field who are grappling with the complexity of research, the pressures of being a doctoral student, and the ethics of knowledge production.
The author expertly ties together the three other chapters in this part by pushing a bit on the notions of giving/finding voice. This introductory chapter discusses how the contributions in this part demonstrate ways in which research and methods are pushing boundaries instead of treating local methods and knowledge as fragile. The write-up concludes by sharing that these chapters allude to ways in which research can be done differently and that researchers/practitioners can/should consider abandoning familiarity, making space for “difference”.
In this chapter we provide an overview of the third part of the book, Destabilizing Power and Authority: Taking intersectionality seriously. We focus on epistemological issues of what can be known and how, challenging dominant and hegemonic discourses and presenting alternative perspectives/knowledge. We do this by detailing the epistemological underpinnings of the third symposium and presenting the knowledge produced during this symposium using participatory visual methodologies – namely word collages. The chapter closes with an overview of the three chapters comprising this part. These chapters seek to interrogate, from an intersectional perspective, the legitimization of knowledge in scholarship, funding and evidence-based practices in comparative and international education. Two questions guide this part’s focus: (1) How can CIE investigate power and authority dynamics and their implications for gender and education research and practice? (2) In what ways can research and practice destabilize and transform knowledge hierarchies?