Ben Simmons

Postmodern synergistic knowledge creation: extending the boundaries of disability studies

The tensions between the competing discourses of the medical and the social models of disability have traditionally provided a platform for discussion and research in the fields of disability studies and special needs education. Over the last 30 years a wealth of literature has consolidated the debate and produced particular knowledge of impairment and disability. In this paper we argue that by privileging notions of ‘deficit’ within these medical or social model perspectives the richness of the lived experience of people with impairments is denied. The individual becomes lost within a framework of medical symptoms or social inequalities. This paper considers alternative approaches which reveal a fuller picture of the lives of people with impairments. The authors conducted two separate empirical studies, one employing a Deleuzo‐Guattarian perspective, the other a Bourdieusian perspective. In this paper we illustrate how these theories of practice can reveal situated understandings of the individual with impairments and his/her daily life. By embracing new understandings and different theoretical perspectives we show how new knowledge can emerge to illuminate the fluid and ever‐changing notions of ‘disability’, ‘inclusion’ and ‘exclusion’, which form elements of the individual lived experience of the research participants.

Transforming positive risk-taking practices: the possibilities of creativity and resilience in learning disability contexts

In this article we examine discourses, conceptualisations and practices of positive risk-taking for or by children and adults with learning disabilities. We identify tensions and contradictions in positive risk-taking discourses that are unhelpful for clarifying for practitioners how positive risk-taking might be implemented. We suggest a conceptual framework that incorporates creativity and resilience and use this to offer examples from special and inclusive education (Intensive Interaction and Learning without Limits) that illustrate how positive risk-taking can be found in education practices. We conclude by arguing that conceptual frameworks such as the one proposed, when linked to supportive frameworks and guiding principles that emphasise professional judgement, offer one way to problematise and challenge current risk-averse practices in education, health and social care settings.

The PMLD Ambiguity: Articulating the Life-Worlds of Children with Profound and Multiple Learning Disabilities

This book challenges the ways we experience, think about, and interact with children described as having profound and multiple learning disabilities (PMLD). Contrary to received wisdom, the book starts from the premise that traditional psychological approaches operating in the “PMLD field” are overly reductive and constrain our abilities to listen to and learn from children with PMLD. This in turn runs the risk of maintaining exclusionary practices such as segregated education, where such practices are predicated upon the notion that some children are too disabled to participate in mainstream life. To address the situation the authors explore new terrain in three areas: theory, research and practice. The authors draw from phenomenological notions of embodied consciousness and introduce how this gives rise to novel ways of understanding the agency of children with PMLD. This critique leads to examination of interpersonal methodology as a means to access the experiences of children with PMLD, which in turn culminates in a research project examining how inclusive education could support learning for a young boy with PMLD. What becomes apparent through this story is that children with PMLD engage with the world in ways far more complex than existing approaches can take account of.

From Individualism to Co-construction and Back Again: Rethinking Research Methodology for Children with Profound and Multiple Learning Disabilities

Children with profound and multiple learning disabilities (PMLD) are said to experience severe congenital impairments to consciousness and cognition stemming from neurological damage. Such children are understood as operating at the pre-verbal stages of development, and research in the field typically draws conceptual resources from psychology to devise educational interventions and assessment tools. Criticism has been levelled at studies that treat children with PMLD as objects of research rather than subjects to be consulted. Proponents of the latter view have attempted to redress the situation by exploring how personal experiences can be gleaned through adapted qualitative methods. Debate about methodology in the PMLD field tends to coalesce around these individualist polemics: either children with PMLD are positioned as incompetent and lacking voice; or researchers are positioned as lacking the appropriate tools to gain access to such voice. This paper offers an alternative position to the individualism of post-positivist/constructivist approaches, identifying the need for a critical and participatory approach that sees knowledge about children with PMLD as situated and co-constructed through regular and longitudinal interaction between the researcher, children with PMLD, and significant others. Context to this argument is provided by exploring the application of this approach to an inclusive education research project for a child with PMLD.

Why is parental involvement in children's mathematics learning hard? Parental perspectives on their role supporting children's learning

This article focuses on parents’ experiences and practices supporting children’s mathematics learning. We employ a conceptual framework that makes a distinction between school-centered and parent-centered approaches to parental involvement in children’s learning. We review literature showing that aspects of both school-centered and parent-centered approaches can be problematic, and explore this further in a group interview study. Group interviews were conducted with parents of children in 16 primary schools in a city in the southwest of England. Topics of discussion included parents’ level of confidence and perceived ability in mathematics, their experience of doing mathematics with their children out-of-school, and their interactions with school about mathematics. Findings revealed some specific negative effects of school-centered approaches, and suggested that school-centered approaches may in fact restrict parents’ understanding of how they can support mathematics learning in the home. However, the analysis also adds useful depth to our understanding of opportunities associated with a parent-centered approach to parental involvement in mathematics learning.

The minor gesture: The minor gesture, by Erin Manning, Durham, NC, Duke University Press, 2016,276 pp., £20.99 (paperback), ISBN 978-0-82-236121-3

This rich study raises other critical issues. To give a mere hint, Tang contests idealised understandings of one’s home country as somewhere one can always go back to; exposes ‘the risk of mistaking stereotypical “culturalist” assumptions for “cultural sensitivity”’ (96); and reflects on medicalisation as an ‘“incomplete” project of colonisation of a lifeworld’ (61). In a ‘methodological epilogue’, she also makes a case for the advancement of the knowledge of Chinese service users. Tang explains here that the main reason she was not able to adopt ‘a more participatory model of research’ (153) is that this project was undertaken as a PhD study. Despite winning a full scholarship, she faced decisive time and resource constraints. While this is not mentioned, it seems that academic demands and the need to prove the scientific and methodological ‘soundness’ of this research are the invisible restraints on this undertaking. One can only hope that having undoubtedly met these demands, this unique piece of work can now expand to its full potential and begin a life beyond academia. Currently, the project seems to be imprisoned in a book that will not be attainable for most people outside universities. It would be tragic if this important research remained the sole property of the ivory tower and its contribution was reduced to a footnoted perspective on the mental health of ethnic minorities. I hope that this author finds ways and resources to keep jointly producing knowledge with the community whom her work is about and – beyond this – with the always more visible international community of service user/survivor researchers. Without wanting to pin Tang down to any particular research approach or school, I would highlight the relevance of her work for the emerging field of Mad Studies and its contribution to – as she writes – ‘building a collective capability for knowledge development’ (159).