Counting inclusion with Chantal Mouffe: a radical democratic approach to intellectual disability research

Simplican, Stacy Clifford; Leader, Geraldine

doi:10.1080/09687599.2015.1021763

Cited by 21 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Rather, inclusion might be better characterised as having authentic interpersonal relationships and being part of a community in more than presence alone (Ngan et al, 2012; Nicholson & Cooper, 2013; Nitzan & Orkibi, 2021). However, the arguably communitarian view of inclusion with its emphasis on ‘belonging’ as evidenced by having relationships ‘in the wider community’ and participating in ‘mainstream’ (ableist‐defined) activities has been criticised for failing to recognise and respect diversity (Clifford‐Simplican & Leader, 2015).…”

Section: Defining Inclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similarly, deinstitutionalisation has not eliminated the segregation of people with disability from the community settings and accommodation options of their choosing (McPherson et al, 2018; Mushkatel et al, 2009; Wong & Stanhope, 2009). Notably, the understanding of inclusion in both policy and practice remains problematic and contested (Clifford‐Simplican et al, 2015; Clifford‐Simplican & Leader, 2015; Gooding et al, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The ontology and epistemology shaping our understanding of inclusion: A critical review of the research literature on disability and inclusion

Spivakovsky

Zirnsak

Ainsworth

et al. 2023

Policy Practice Intel Disabi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People with disability continue to face barriers to substantive and meaningful inclusion in accommodation and community settings. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the characteristics of the literature on ‘inclusion’, ‘integration’, ‘exclusion’, and ‘segregation’ for people with disability in accommodation and community settings. This literature is important because it provides the evidence base that informs policy and practice. We identified 457 articles that primarily related to the experiences of people with intellectual disability and psycho‐social disability. We found: (1) the volume of publications relating to the ‘inclusion’, ‘integration’, ‘exclusion’ and ‘segregation’ of people with disability in accommodation and community living settings has increased each year since 2006; (2) high‐income western countries were overrepresented in research outputs; (3) most research has been undertaken in the health sciences; (4) only 30% of literature directly engaged with people with disability; (5) less than 50% of the publications we reviewed (223 out of 457 manuscripts) identified inclusion, integration, exclusion and segregation as their primary focus; (6) ‘inclusion’, ‘integration’, ‘exclusion’ and ‘segregation’ were predominantly used in the context of specific populations—psycho‐social disability and intellectual disability; (7) there is great variation in the attention paid to the experiences of different communities of people with disability; and (8) the notable absence of current scholarly literature on the experiences and outcomes of people with disability living at home with parents and/or siblings. Each of these findings have important implications for the research agenda, policy, and practice.

show abstract

Section: Defining Inclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The ontology and epistemology shaping our understanding of inclusion: A critical review of the research literature on disability and inclusion

Spivakovsky

Zirnsak

Ainsworth

et al. 2023

Policy Practice Intel Disabi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other scholars discuss belonging as a third component or dimension of social inclusion sitting alongside community participation and interpersonal relationships (Cobigo et al., 2012). This increasing interest in belonging has also surfaced reassessments by some, of the value of the construct of social inclusion altogether (Simplican & Leader, 2015). For example, Hall (2010), asks if belonging is ‘perhaps a more useful way of thinking about what people with [intellectual disabilities] want from their spaces of support and care and, further, how they can relate to and find a place within wider society’ (p. 52).…”

Section: A Relational Understanding Of Belongingmentioning

confidence: 99%

The (radical) role of belonging in shifting and expanding understandings of social inclusion for people labelled with intellectual and developmental disabilities

Reeves

McConnell

Phelan

2022

Sociology Health & Illness

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a gap between the desired outcomes of social inclusion policy and the everyday experiences of people labelled with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Despite belonging rhetorically named in social inclusion policy and practice, belonging is often absent in the lives of people labelled with intellectual and developmental disabilities and remains undertheorised in its relationship to social inclusion. In this paper, we explore the role belonging might play in narrowing the gap between how social inclusion is theorised and how it is experienced. Drawing on critical disability and feminist relational theories, we outline a relational conceptualisation of belonging and use it to 'crip' the construct of social inclusion. Exploring the synergies and tensions that surface when social inclusion and belonging are held together as discrete but interconnected constructs, we name four conceptual shifts and expansions that allow us to see social inclusion differently. Through the centring of the experiences of people labelled with intellectual and developmental disabilities, we explore the ways belonging can help to reimagine inclusion from assimilationist, static, objective and formal towards inclusion as fluid, negotiated, (inter) subjective, (in)formal and intimate.

show abstract

“…Hall stresses that it does not matter if people with intellectual disability are not included within every space and aspect of society, because this is an unrealistic expectation for any person. Belonging refers to an individual’s relationships in multiple different communities, rather than exclusively in ‘mainstream’ services and spaces (Clifford Simplican and Leader 2015; Strnadova and Nind, 2020).…”

Section: Mainstreamingmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Mainstreaming’ Meets ‘Choice and Control’: Unsettling Neoliberal Imaginaries of Service Choice

Wiesel

Bigby

Holstein

et al. 2022

Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

‘Mainstreaming’ and ‘Choice and control’ agendas have played a dominant role in shaping disability policy and advocacy in many countries since the 1970s, however scholarship is yet to critically explore the tensions and synergies between the two. ‘Mainstreaming’ is the aspiration to move people with disability out of ‘specialist’ spaces designed specifically for them, and into ‘mainstream’ spaces open to people of all abilities. ‘Choice and control’ concerns efforts to enhance autonomy and self-determination for people with disability. In this paper we interrogate the relationship between ‘choice and control’ and ‘mainstreaming’, both conceptually and through empirical examination of choices made by people with intellectual disability about use of mainstream services in four Australian cities. Our analysis shows their ability to choose is severely constrained by excessive control practiced by supporters, funding restrictions, affordability constraints, and exclusionary practices in mainstream services. We argue that the potential for both ‘choice and control’ and ‘mainstreaming’ has been constrained by neoliberal socio-spatial imaginaries in which they have been framed.

show abstract

Counting inclusion with Chantal Mouffe: a radical democratic approach to intellectual disability research

Cited by 21 publications

References 50 publications

The ontology and epistemology shaping our understanding of inclusion: A critical review of the research literature on disability and inclusion

The ontology and epistemology shaping our understanding of inclusion: A critical review of the research literature on disability and inclusion

The (radical) role of belonging in shifting and expanding understandings of social inclusion for people labelled with intellectual and developmental disabilities

‘Mainstreaming’ Meets ‘Choice and Control’: Unsettling Neoliberal Imaginaries of Service Choice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About