The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Conceptual diversities and empirical shortcomings – a critical analysis of research on inclusive education
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to critically analyse research about inclusive education. Prior reviews and the outcome of a recent search of databases are analysed with regard to (a) how inclusion is defined and (b) what empirical knowledge there is regarding factors that make schools and classrooms more inclusive. Our point of departure is that we regard inclusion as an idea about what school systems, schools and classrooms should accomplish, and as such, an expression of an educational philosophy. Four different understandings of inclusive education were found: (a) inclusion as the placement of pupils with disabilities in mainstream classrooms, (b) inclusion as meeting the social/academic needs of pupils with disabilities, (c) inclusion as meeting the social/academic needs of all pupils and (d) inclusion as creation of communities. Under a strict definition of inclusive education, hardly any research was found which reliably identified factors that give rise to inclusive processes. The outcome of our analyses are discussed from the perspective that different understandings of inclusion should be seen, to a large extent, as expressions of different views of what schools should accomplish. We also propose that some of the adherents to inclusion as creation of communities can be placed in the grand educational tradition reaching back to Dewey that tries to establish new ideals for school systems in a society in which individualism is perhaps the main ideology. The main conclusions are that the operative meaning of inclusion in reviews and empirical research should be much more clearly defined and that new types of studies are needed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Understanding inclusive education: ideals and reality
Haug, P. (2017) · Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research · doi:10.1080/15017419.2016.1224778 · Cited by 630
Nilholm, C. (2021) · European Journal of Special Needs Education · doi:10.1080/08856257.2020.1754547 · Cited by 308
Self-citationThe inclusive practices of classroom teachers: a scoping review and thematic analysis
Finkelstein, S., Sharma, U., & Furlonger, B. (2021) · International Journal of Inclusive Education · doi:10.1080/13603116.2019.1572232 · Cited by 280
Szumski, G., Smogorzewska, J., & Karwowski, M. (2017) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2017.02.004 · Cited by 214
Gonzalez-Gil, F., Martín-Pastor, E., & Poy Castro, R. (2019) · Profesorado, Revista de Currículum y Formación del Profesorado · doi:10.30827/profesorado.v23i1.9153 · Cited by 92
Metadata
- Authors
- Göransson, K., & Nilholm, C.
- Venue
- European Journal of Special Needs Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2014-07-03
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 265-280
- ISSN
- 0885-6257 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-591X
- OpenAlex
- W1994885732
- Cited by
- 577
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 61.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Conceptual diversities and empirical shortcomings – a critical analysis of research on inclusive education. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/08856257.2014.933545
- The paper
- Göransson, K., & Nilholm, C. (2014). Conceptual diversities and empirical shortcomings – a critical analysis of research on inclusive education. European Journal of Special Needs Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2014.933545
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.