Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 577

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Conceptual diversities and empirical shortcomings – a critical analysis of research on inclusive education

Göransson, Kerstin, Nilholm, Claes·2014·European Journal of Special Needs 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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/08856257.2014.933545

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 577

Metadata

Authors
Göransson, K., & Nilholm, C.
Venue
European Journal of Special Needs Education
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.