What is meant by inclusion? An analysis of European and North American journal articles with high impact

TLDR

In research, inclusion is variably defined, yet few studies have mapped these definitions or identified patterns in their use. This review seeks to deepen understanding of how inclusion is defined in research. The authors selected the 30 most cited articles from North American and European arenas and analyzed each for genre, theoretical tradition, and the inclusion concept employed. The review uncovered a divide between position papers that discuss inclusion conceptually and empirical papers that use inclusion to mean placing children with disabilities in mainstream settings, critical theory was more common in position papers, both arenas were dominated by Anglo‑Saxon researchers, and conceptual confusion hampers field development.

Abstract

The purpose of this review is to further our knowledge about what is meant by inclusion in research addressing the topic. While it is common to remark that inclusion is defined in different ways in research, few attempts have been made to map and analyse different types of definitions and whether there are patterns to be find in how the concept is used. The 30 most cited journal articles from a North American and a European research arena were selected for analysis. Each article was analysed in relation to genre, theoretical tradition and inclusion concept used. The review yielded several important results. To name a few, a divide was identified between position articles, with developed discussions about and analyses of the meaning of inclusion, and empirical articles, where inclusion signifies that children with disabilities are placed in the mainstream. In addition, writing within a critical theoretical tradition was much more common among positional papers. Further, both arenas are dominated by Anglo-Saxon researchers. It is argued that the conceptual confusion characterising the field impedes its development.