ABSTRACT

In relatively recent times, the education and schooling, particularly in mainstream institutions, of those considered to have some form of special need and/or disability has come under the inclusion spotlight to the extent that the word has almost come to be synonymous with those so identifi ed. […] Despite this international usage of ‘inclusive’, ‘inclusion’ and ‘integration’

it would seem that neither the words themselves, nor the concepts they denote and which underpin them (e.g. social justice, equity, equal opportunities, or, specifi cally, the ‘social model’ of disablement; Oliver, 1990, 1996) are commonly understood. This lack of shared defi nition is problematic, not least because it can be exploited in various ways by different factions and interest groups. […] As Armstrong (2005) points out, the implications of there not being a common discourse are far-reaching since, ‘different usages refl ect the contested nature, not simply of inclusive education as a policy but of wider political contestations across the postcolonial political landscape’ (p. 1). This contestation, we suggest, is both extant and problematic through all levels of social life, since it seems that understandings are not shared between, within and across individuals, groups (e.g. school departments, professional groups within schools), and larger collectives (e.g. local areas, countries, nation states).