Neutrality as a moral standpoint, conceptual confusion and the full inclusion debate
By: Gallagher, Deborah J.
Series: Disability & Society 16 (5) 2001: 637-654.Publisher: 2001Content type: text Media type: unmediated Carrier type: volume Subject(s): INCLUSION | INCLUSIVE EDUCATION | SPECIAL EDUCATION | THEORYSummary: Opposing perspectives on the full inclusion debate reveal a fundamental disjuncture between underlying conceptual frameworks. Advocates contend that full inclusion is a moral issue that cannot be resolved from a supposedly netural scientific stance. Defenders of the traditional continuum of placements argue, to the contray, that scientific research should be the dominant factor in arbitrating between separation and inclusion. In this paper, the author examines the concept of scientific neutrality and its lack of tenability as a foundation for sorting out the full inclusion debate. [AJ].Item type | Current library | Call number | Status | Date due | Barcode | Item holds | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Article Research | IHC Library | Article (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | Available (Article available on request) | 14386 |
Opposing perspectives on the full inclusion debate reveal a fundamental disjuncture between underlying conceptual frameworks. Advocates contend that full inclusion is a moral issue that cannot be resolved from a supposedly netural scientific stance. Defenders of the traditional continuum of placements argue, to the contray, that scientific research should be the dominant factor in arbitrating between separation and inclusion. In this paper, the author examines the concept of scientific neutrality and its lack of tenability as a foundation for sorting out the full inclusion debate. [AJ].
There are no comments on this title.