1
Dilemmas of difference, inclusion and disability: international perspectives
Brahm Norwich
School of Education and Lifelong Learning, University of Exeter.
Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual
Conference, University of Warwick, 6-9 September 2006
Introduction
This paper will examine theoretical and empirical aspects about dilemmas of
difference as they apply to education and specifically to the area of disability (special
educational needs). The basic dilemma is whether to recognise or not to recognise
differences, as either way there are some negative implications or risks associated
with stigma, devaluation, rejection or denial of relevant opportunities. The study is
based on the assumption that there are hard decisions or dilemmas about difference
and differentiation. This is because there are positive and negative conceptions in
plural democratic societies about human differences and what we call differentiation
in education. The negative perspective is that ‘difference’ reflects lower status, less
value, perpetuating inequalities and poor quality provision and unfair treatment. The
positive perspective is that ‘difference’ reflects the recognition of individuality and
individual needs and interests. It is this tension between these conceptions of
difference that leads us to confront dilemmas of difference. The specific origins of the
notion of dilemmas of difference are political ideas about ideological dilemmas (Dahl,
1982, Berlin, 1990) and US socio-legal analyses about how all kinds of difference are
handled in the legal systems which are committed to egalitarian values (Minow, 1985,
1990). Though dilemmas of difference have relevance to other aspects of diversity,
beyond disability, and in areas of society, beyond education, the focus in this paper is
disability in the area of education.
There has been a notable lack of theoretical analysis of educational matters from the
perspective of dilemmas. Though the term ‘dilemma’ is often seen in educational
theory and research, this use is just as an alternative way of referring to problems or
issues. As Judge (1981) has pointed out, the term ‘dilemma’ refers to something more
specific, a situation when there is choice between alternatives when neither is
favourable. In this sense Judge defended the idea that in education generally that ‘our
purposes are conflicting, contradictory and largely unexamined’ (page 111). He
identified the following dilemmas:
1. utility v. culture
2. fair selection v. comprehensive and universality in school examinations
3. common v. diverse school curriculum
4. management v. autonomy
5. function or profession as regards teachers’ roles.
Though 25 years old, this line of analysis resembles later dilemmatic views – that
tensions need to be addressed, not avoided, that they need to be thought through and
that the form that the tension takes reflects historical factors.
Another point to note about Judge’s analysis is that his dilemmas map closely to
Dahl’s broader analysis of dilemmas of plural democracy (Dahl, 1982). Though Judge
does not refer to these political analyses, this is an example of where major themes
2
come to be represented in different disciplines. Dahl argues that in a plural
democracy, individuals and organisations ought to have some autonomy, but at the
same time also be controlled, as they have the potential to increase injustice, to foster
egoism and even weaken democracy. He identifies six forms of this dilemma in:
i. rights v. utility:
ii. a more exclusive v more inclusive demos
iii. equality among individuals v. equality among organisations
iv. uniformity v. diversity
v. centralisation v. decentralisation
vi. concentration v. dispersal of power and political resources.
The links between these versions of dilemmas is clear. Judge’s dilemma of
management v. autonomy corresponds to Dahl’s basic dilemma of autonomy v.
control, and Judge’s dilemma of common v. diverse school curriculum is a specific
version of Dahl’s more general dilemma of uniformity v. diversity.
Dahl argues that recognising dilemmas is no justification for inaction, but provides
‘considerations to be taken into account in clarifying alternatives before us’ (page
107). But, what he does not focus on are the implications and losses associated with
his dilemmatic views. This is where the political analyses of Isaiah Berlin are
relevant, as they acknowledge the agonising over alternatives in value dilemmas
(Berlin, 1990). Berlin’s position is that not all human values either now or in the past
are necessarily compatible with each other. For him this means that there are no final
solutions where tensions and conflicts are resolved once and for all:
‘The notion of the perfect whole, the ultimate solution, in which all good things coexist, seems
to be not merely unattainable - that is a truism – but conceptually incoherent; I do not know
what is meant by harmony of this kind. Some of the Great goods cannot live together. That is
a conceptual truth. We are doomed to choose, and every choice may entail an irreparable loss.’
((page 13)
Dahl’s uniformity v. diversity dilemma might be better phrased as the diversity v.
commonality dilemma, which is clearly linked to the notion of dilemmas of difference
which arises from a US socio-legal perspective (Minow, 1985, 1990). Minow has
analysed US legislation relating to equality to reveal that the problems of inequality
can be aggravated either by treating members of a minority as the same as the
majority or by treating them as different. Minow’s analysis of the pervasiveness of the
dilemmas of difference in the US context shows how these hard questions and choices
are reflected in constitutional matters with respect to equal protection, due process
and statutory interpretations of civil rights. She points out how these controversies
extend beyond the legal sphere into the world of education, employment, housing etc.:
These controversies enact the political dramas of a diverse society committed to equality and
pluralism. I suggest that the dilemma of difference is not an accidental problem in this society.
The dilemma of difference grows from the ways in which this society assigns individuals to
categories and, on that basis, determines whom to exclude from political, social and economic
activities. (Minow, 1990, p.21)
Minow’s stance to the dilemma of difference in her 1990 book is not only to point to
the pervasiveness of the dilemma, but to the sources of the dilemma in a way that she
considers to offer productive responses to challenge it. So, not only is difference
recreated though colour or gender or disability blindness and in affirmative action, it
can also be reflected in Government neutrality and Government preferences. She then
3
sets out 5 unstated assumptions which she identifies as underlying the difference
dilemma, that need to be made explicit and questioned from what she calls a relational
approach. In so doing she contends that other choices and responses to difference are
made possible, so challenging or renovating the dilemmas.
1: difference is intrinsic, not a comparison.
2: the norm need not be stated.
3: the observer can see without a perspective
4: other perspectives are irrelevant
5: the status quo is natural, un-coerced and good
In making these five assumptions explicit and the questioning them, she intends to
show that the differences that lead to dilemmas arise from relationships in social
contexts which are alterable. Her position is that this is the way to introduce new
possibilities for change, though she does also recognise that making these
assumptions explicit in specific cases and situations is more difficult than an abstract
presentation of them. In her 1990 book Minow tries to illustrate how her social
constructionist turn opens up promising ways of approaching dilemmas of difference.
Though there is not space in this paper to go into detail, tensions seem to persist,
though perhaps less sharply, in the examples she uses. It is notable that at the end of
this book, she recognises that her approach only goes so far, as she talks about the
dilemma becoming ‘less paralysing’ (page 375) if we try to look at the issues from
another point of view. She argues that it is possible to ‘replace a norm that excludes
with a norm that includes’ (page 377), but then admits that the ‘resolution is not a
solution, but a shift in assumptions’ (page 383).
At about the same time as Judge’s dilemmatic analysis, Berlak and Berlak (1981)
wrote a book about dilemmas of schooling which used the same language and
assumptions. Here were two Americans, from St Louis, Missouri, who developed an
analysis of everyday primary teaching issues from a study of British primary schools.
Their aim was to represent the process of classroom teaching and learning in terms of
a number of dilemmas and their resolutions. These authors came to the UK at the time
of US interest in open education to find out how the British system of informal
primary schools worked and what lessons it had for developments in the USA. They
found that their experiences of the UK primary schools did not correspond with the
literature about informal and open educational practices. Their difficulty in finding a
way to represent the complexity of what they experienced, led them to use the
language of dilemmas. Their study is a demonstration of how three sets of dilemmas
help to make sense of the context, issues and processes of teaching that they observed
while in the UK. They identified 16 distinct dilemmas that they organised into 3 broad
sets, in terms of i. control, ii. curriculum and iii. societal themes.
i. Control set:
1. whole child v. child as student.
2. teacher v. child control (time)
3. teacher v. child control (operations)
4. teacher v child control (standards
Curriculum set:
5. personal v. public knowledge.
6. knowledge as content v. process
7. knowledge as given v. problematical
8. intrinsic v extrinsic motivation
9. learning as holistic v. molecular
10. each child unique v. children have shared
4
11. learning as social v. individual
12. child as person v. client
Societal set:
13. childhood as continuous v. unique
14. equal v. differential allocation of resources
15. equal justice under the law v. ad hoc applications of rules
16. common culture v. sub-group consciousness.
What is interesting about these three sets of teaching dilemmas is their focus on the
classroom, by contrast with Judge’s dilemmas that focus on systemic issues. The
Berlak’s theoretical analysis is based on what they call a dialectical account of teacher
action based on symbolic interactionism. They argue that a dilemmatic approach
represents the thought and action of teachers as the ongoing dynamic of behaviour
and consciousness and that dilemmas imply a focus on acts and their consequences.
Their approach had similarities to a more recent social psychological attempt to
understand everyday thinking, including that of teachers, in terms of ideological
dilemmas (Billig et al. 1988). Billig’s approach resembles the Berlak’s in that he also
rejects the sociological view that individuals are simply shaped by ideology. Billig
assumes that individuals are not only acted on, but also think and initiate actions.
They think about ideological matters of basic values, and this involves considering the
contrary and conflicting aspects of this thinking. Billig illustrated his position by
drawing on the work of Edwards and Mercer (1987), who explored the thinking and
practice of primary school 'progressive' teachers. This study showed that teachers
tended to draw on elements of the opposing ideologies, at times from a discourse of
exploratory and experiential learning, and at others, a discourse which attributed
failure to innate, personal and social factors, not to inappropriate teaching and
learning conditions. There was also evidence that teachers felt a dilemma themselves
in being aware of the competition between different educational ideologies and
having to find a resolution and balance between them
There has also been relatively little work on dilemmas in special education. Artiles
has been someone who has drawn attention in the USA to a silence about other
dimensions of difference within special educational research circles, in particular
ethnic and social class differences (Artiles, 2000). He has drawn on Minow’s notion
of a dilemma of difference (Artiles, 1998) and also highlighted points she has made in
her questioning of the 5 assumptions about difference (see above). From a UK
perspective, Dyson, (2001) has also used a dilemmatic perspective to make sense of
special education policy and practice historically drawing on Norwich (1994) and
Artiles (1998). Dyson’s use of the dilemma of difference is interesting because of its
focus on a historical perspective and the way he traces recent historical developments
over the last quarter century in the UK. Another relevant study is one by Croll and
Moses (2000) who examined English professional and administrators’ views about
inclusion. They found tensions between widespread expressions of support for the
principle of inclusion and the continuing level of support for separate school
provision. There was widespread support for inclusion as an educational ideal
amongst those more directly involved in special education, what they called a
‘pragmatic’ view. These authors also found a clear expression of the educational ideal
of individual care in the views of their respondents. This is an interesting study from
several perspectives. First, its focus on tensions in professional views and so has
similarities to an earlier study (Norwich, 1993), which will be discussed below.
Secondly, though Croll and Moses make no reference to dilemmas of difference, their
5
findings can be interpreted in these terms. Thirdly, they do interpret their findings in
terms of contemporary ideas about utopian thinking and the social and personal
functions of such thinking. In a recent US paper Ho has identified a dilemma about
labelling children as having a learning disability (Ho, 2004). Though she references
Minow’s 1990 book on dilemmas of difference, she makes no reference to this notion,
though it is clear that she is dealing with a version of the dilemma of difference in her
recognition of the risks associated with identification in this area of special education.
Her proposed resolution to the dilemma of disability labels is to adopt the assumption
that all children learn in unique ways and to apply this in how we design and manage
our educational system. This resolution veers strongly towards the commonality
option, in her terms ‘refrain from pathologising academic difficulties as much as
possible’ (page 90). However, this is an incomplete resolution, as she does not say
how far it is possible to refrain from identifying difficulties and disorders, to use a less
negative sounding term than ‘pathologising’. This paper is very relevant to this study
as one of the dilemmas which was studied across the three countries was this
identification dilemma.
Terzi (2006) has argued that the capability approach developed by Amartya Sen
provides a perspective that ‘takes the educational debate beyond the dilemma of
difference in significant ways’ (page 1). The capability approach is a framework for
assessing inequality and it proposes that equality/inequality be judged in terms of
capabilities, rather than other factors, such as income, welfare etc. By capabilities,
Sen means the real freedoms that people have to achieve their own well-being. It is
clear that this focus on capabilities requires an analysis of the interaction between
individuals and their social circumstances. Terzi uses this interactionist assumption to
argue against the false opposition between individual and social causal accounts of
disability, what are often called the medical versus the social model. She also shows
how the capability approach supports a re-conceptualisation of disability by starting
with the question ‘equality of what’? By talking about equality of capabilities, she
explains that this is about the freedom to achieve valued functioning. This links
equality to the freedom to choose and distinguishes between valued functionings
(reading, walking eating etc) and capabilities (potential functionings). So in this
approach, what is key is what people are actually able to do or be, even if they choose
not to use these freedoms.
The reason why Sen’s capability approach is so useful for the area of disability is that
it builds diversity into its framework and has a multi-factor model of the origins of
functionings and capabilities. For Sen, there is diversity in 3 basic ways: i. differences
in personal characteristics (gender, age, abilities, proneness to illness and so on.), ii.
differences in external circumstances (inherited wealth, environmental factors, social
arrangements and so on) and iii. the ability to convert resources into valued
functionings. As Terzi points out, one of the benefits of the capability approach is that
judgements about equality/inequality become a matter of capabilities, not about the
causal origins of their disabilities. What matters is not the causes of the disabilities,
but that disabilities are limitations on relevant capabilities. Though Terzi argues that
the capability approach ‘resolves the dilemma of difference by significantly
addressing the tensions at its core’ (page 11), it is not made clear exactly how this is
done. The capability approach does provide justifications for differential resources to
those with disabilities, but how it relates to the implications of this differential
allocation is not addressed. It can be argued that by providing a justification for
6
differential resources and provision for children with disabilities that the capability
approach promotes a more positive image of disability. In this sense the capability
approach presents a framework that treats all children alike in terms of common
allocation principles that take account of different requirements and so supports a
balance between common and different aspects. This is an interesting and original
framework, but it is one thing to conceptualise difference in positive terms, it is
another to deal with the reality of stigma and devaluation associated with exceptional
areas of difference.
The precursor to the studied reported in this paper was a study into ideological
dilemmas in special needs education (Norwich, 1993). In that study I explored the
idea that key policy issues in special needs education took the form of ideological
dilemmas. Its aim was to investigate how educators responded to the possibility that
there might be dilemmas in various areas of special education and how they might
resolve the dilemmas if recognised. The focus was on the sense made of the negative
consequences of alternatives to each dilemma and how they deliberated about the
nature of these difficulties and ways of resolving them. Four areas were chosen in
which different social values were relevant – equality, individuality and powersharing. These areas were:
i.
what to learning - common curriculum dilemma – whether children with
disabilities and difficulties would have the same learning content as other
children or some different content
ii.
whether to identify – identification dilemma – whether and how to identify
children with as needing special education provision,
iii.
relative influence of parents and professionals – parent-professional
dilemma – whether and how parents and professionals can share power or
not relating to decisions about children with difficulties and disabilities,
iv.
where to learn - integration dilemma –whether and to what extent children
with disabilities and difficulties would learn in regular classes or not
Two groups of professionals from rural and urban areas of Pennsylvania, USA (n=38)
and Northampton, England (n=43) were interviewed. In both areas, the 81 participants
included teachers and senior teachers in ordinary/regular schools (primary and
secondary) and in special schools, advisory teachers, support staff (psychologists,
specialist teachers).
The findings indicated that the identification, curriculum and integration dilemmas
were seen most frequently as at least a significant dilemma in both countries. In the
USA, the identification dilemma was seen most frequently as a considerable dilemma
and there were many more participants who saw a significant curriculum dilemma
than in the England. However, in both countries the presented parent-professional
dilemma was not seen most frequently as a dilemma. As regards resolutions, most
participants, who recognised the dilemma to some extent, also saw a significant
resolution in all four areas. For the integration dilemma almost twice as many English
participants saw a significant resolution as US participants. The reasons for their
responses to recognising dilemmas or not and ways of resolving them were also
similar across the two country groups, though there were some themes which were
specific to each country group. So this earlier study was taken as showing that a
sample of professional educators in different national systems not only recognised the
contrary aspects to some key issues in the field, but resolved the dilemmas in similar
ways, despite differences in national contexts.
7
Aims, design and methods
Aims and rationale
The primary aim of this study was to examine the perspectives of education
practitioners and policy makers in specific school systems in the UK (England), USA
and the Netherlands about recognising and resolving dilemmas of difference in
relation to special and inclusive education. There were two secondary aims, one was
to compare these perspectives to the SEN/disability dilemmas with those from similar
groups in the UK and USA from the early 1990s, and the other, to examine
perspectives about the possibility of related dilemmas or tensions about educational
differentiation in other areas of difference, such as gender, social class, ethnic and
cultural/religious differences. Data relevant to the second of the secondary aims
cannot be reported in this paper.
As argued in the 1993 study (Norwich, 1993), it is possible to identify these
difference dilemmas applying to the SEN/disability field in three areas:
i.
Whether and how to identify children with significant difficulties in
learning as having SEN/disabilities or not – the identification dilemma;
ii.
Whether children with SEN/disabilities should learn the same common
curriculum content as other children without SEN/disabilities or not – the
curriculum dilemma; and
iii.
Whether and to what extent children with SEN/disabilities should learn in
ordinary classrooms or not – location dilemma.
A similar research orientation was used in this study as 13 years before for the same
reasons that applied then. This involved an exploratory semi-structured interview to
generate both quantitative and qualitative data. The aim was to engage participants in
explanations and justifications of their positions and perspectives and to see how they
responded to contrary positions, in what can be called an argumentative model.
Participants
50 English, 50 US and 32 Dutch professionals and policy makers (total of 132)
involved in the special needs/inclusive education field participated in the study. The
countries were chosen to represent similarities in policy development and legislative
systems (USA and UK) and differences in the historical organisation of schooling
(USA and UK v. Netherlands). Participants worked in regular and special
schools/settings, in primary and secondary schools, were class and senior teachers
from two areas (urban and rural) in each country. Some were also local and national
government administrators/advisers.
Table 1: Breakdown of participants by area and level across the 3 countries
USA
Netherlands
England
Area / level
No
%
No
%
No
%
Urban District/Authority/Board
23
46
24
75
22
44
Rural District/Authority/Board
State/ Regional / National
19
8
38
16
4
4
12.5
12.5
21
7
42
14
Totals
50
100
32
100
50
100
Totals
No
%
69
52.3
44
19
132
33.3
13.4
100
8
Table 1 shows the number of participants interviewed in the urban and rural areas and
at national, state or regional levels. The plan was to interview 50 participants in each
country from each of these levels. This was done for the USA and England, but for
the Netherlands it was only possible to interview 4 participants in the rural area. There
were two reasons for this, first, that the rural area selected was very small and second,
that it was very much more difficult to arrange access to interviewing in the
Netherlands and this reduced the number of interviews in the time available.
Table 2: Breakdown of participants by role across the 3 countries
Roles
SE resource teacher/SE
supervisor in regular school/SEN
Co-ordinator
Senior teacher regular school
Class teacher regular school
Senior teacher special
school/center
Class teacher special school
Resource teacher special school /
center
Counselor / psychologist /
therapist
Teaching assistant
School district/ LEA /Board
administrator
Administrators / advisers in State
/ National SE department
Totals
USA
No.
9
%
18
Netherlands
No.
%
4
12.5
England
No.
%
8
16
Total
No.
%
21
15.9
2
5
5
4
10
10
3
2
4
9.4
6.3
12.5
4
3
7
8
6
14
9
10
16
6.8
7.6
12.1
7
4
14
8
5
3
15.5
9.4
7
2
14
4
19
9
14.4
6.8
7
14
3
9.4
6
12
16
12.1
1
2
2
4
/
4
/
12.5
3
3
6
6
4
9
3.0
6.8
8
16
4
12.5
7
14
19
14.4
50
100
32
100
50
100
132
100
Table 2 shows the breakdown of the participants in the study in terms of their work
settings and roles. This table shows that the plan to cover the range of roles was
successfully implemented.
Methods:
An exploratory semi-structured interview method was used in which general
statements of the 3 dilemmas were presented. There were several reasons for using
general statements. One was that this approach had been used in the 1993 study and
using a similar one this time would assist in comparing the results. Second, it enabled
participants to structure their own responses and third it made it possible to use the
same presentation across the 3 countries (with minor changes for local terms). As in
that earlier study this put much emphasis on the methods of interviewing, in particular
to engage participants in considering various perspectives that differed from their own
perspectives. This style of argumentative style of interviewing pursued participants’
responses by asking for their reasons for not accepting different perspectives and
positions.
See appendix for the formulation of the 3 dilemmas (Figure 1). Participants were
provided with a booklet which set out the dilemmas in written form. In the
Netherlands, where the interviews were all conducted in English, participants were
provided with a Dutch and English version of the dilemmas. Following each dilemma
statement in the booklets, participants were provided with two rating scales for them
to give their rating of the degree of recognition of the dilemma and degree of
resolution, only if they had recognised it. See appendix for rating scales (Figure 2).
9
Interviewing procedures and ethical issues
Interviews took between 45 –60 minutes and were conducted on an individual basis,
except on two occasions when there were more involved (in one case, 2 teachers and
another 4 State administrators). This was done because of the pressure of time. All
participants consented to the interviews on the basis of an explanation of the purposes
of the study and what would happen to the interviews. Confidentiality and anonymity
were assured. It was explained that this meant that there would be no reference to
themselves as individuals, their service or school or their authority, district or State.
They were promised a report on the findings before any publications about the study.
These conditions have all been fulfilled. Participants also consented to tape
recordings, except in 3 cases in the USA when hand written notes of their responses
had to be taken.
At the start of the interviews participants were shown the first page of the booklet
which set out the form of the dilemmas. This was used to explain what was meant by
a dilemma in the study (see appendix for Figure 3).
Analysing the data
Dilemma recognition and resolution ratings were transferred from the interview
transcripts to a SPPS data file and then analysed in terms of their distributions and
some simple bi-variate relationships. The qualitative data, which constituted about
600,000 words or about 1,200 pages of single spaced transcribed interview text across
the 3 countries, were analysed at several levels using the NVIVO programme. For
each country the transcriptions were analysed in terms of 6 areas, made up of 3
(dilemma areas) x 2 (recognition and resolution responses). The US interviews were
the first to be analysed for first level themes using a grounded style of comparing
responses in each of the 6 areas to identify distinct themes which applied across the
responses of the range of participants. In terms of Drisko’s approaches to qualitative
data analysis, the first level involved an editing approach, which emphasised the
interpretation of meanings in the text in a grounded theory style. (Drisko, 2000).
Table 3 shows the number of distinct first level themes that were identified for the 6
areas across the 3 countries.
Table 3: Frequencies of first level themes across the 3 countries
identification
curriculum
38
31
Recognition
USA
themes
49
48
England
37
39
Netherlands
30
29
Resolution
USA
themes
39
41
England
30
32
Netherlands
location
54
75
52
47
68
49
In generating first level themes for the Netherlands data, relevant US themes were
used where they fitted, otherwise new themes were generated. For the English
transcriptions relevant US and Netherlands themes were used, otherwise new ones
were generated. Table 3 shows that the numbers of themes across the 6 areas were
similar for the USA and Netherlands data, but there were consistently more themes in
the English data. This could be due to the much greater length of the English (279,000
words) than the US (175,000 words) and Netherlands (144,000 words) transcripts.
10
The first level coding of the data then made it possible to derive the frequencies with
which these themes were used in the 6 areas across the 3 countries. This was done by
setting up SPSS data files for each of the 6 areas across each country (18 files) to
cross reference the themes used by each of the participants. From these data files it
was possible to identify not only the overall frequency of use of the first level themes,
but the frequency of use of themes for different levels of dilemma recognition and
resolution.
Given the extensive range of distinct themes used to explain and justify recognition
and resolutions of these dilemmas, it was decided to develop a 2nd level of thematic
analysis. The aim was to identify commonalities across the first level themes within
each area, which might also relate to a conceptual analysis of the kinds of possible
responses to these dilemmas. Second level themes were generated by comparing first
level themes and relating these to this conceptual analysis. In terms of Drisko’s
approaches, this 2nd level of thematic analysis involved a template approach, which
uses themes derived from top down (conceptual analysis) and bottom up influences
(emergent first level themes) (Drisko, 2000). The conceptual analysis of responses to
dilemmas is illustrated below in Figure 4.
Figure 4: Map of conceptual analysis of different responses to a dilemma in form
presented in study
Choice made despite
hard choice through
some balancing
RESOLVED
TENSION
Question validity of
dilemma
i link between A and x
ii link between not A
and y
DENY OR
MODERATE
DILEMMA
Hard choice
experienced and
recognised
Form of dilemma:
TENSION
If not A, then y
(x and y have negative
consequences)
Identify other
outcomes to A or
not A n- negative
and positive
outcomes
OTHER
OUTCOMES
If A, then x
Four broad alternative responses can be identified to a dilemma in the form of the one
used in this study. One alternative is that the hard choice is recognised and
experienced, called ‘tension’. Another assumes that there is still some tension but a
choice has been made through some balancing, called ‘resolved tension’. The third
alternative questions the validity of the dilemma through questioning the link between
option and negative outcome. This can be done for one or both options, but doubt
about either one is enough to ‘deny or moderate the dilemma’. The fourth alternative
presents other outcomes for either option, which could be more negative outcomes or
some positive ones, called ‘other outcomes’. The 2nd level thematic analysis
integrated this conceptual analysis with the emergent analysis of the first level
recognition themes. The theoretical input into the derivation of the 2nd level themes
11
for resolving the dilemmas also followed from dilemmatic assumptions. First, it was
assumed that there would be some recognition of the persistence of issues in the
resolutions. Second, it was assumed that some resolutions would take the form of
either balancing or trading off between options or giving priority to certain options.
Table 4 shows that for all 3 dilemmas there was a ‘continuing issues’ 2nd level theme
and that there were instance of balancing between and prioritising options. Table 4
shows the 2nd level themes across the 3 dilemmas.
Table 4: Breakdown of second level themes for recognition and resolution of
dilemmas across the 3 countries
Identification dilemma
Tensions
Resolved tensions
Other positive consequences
Curriculum dilemma
Recognition
Tensions
Resolved tension
Other positive consequences
Other negative consequences
Other negative consequences
Negative consequences by
other means
Moderate or deny devaluation
consequences
Moderate or deny resources
consequences
Depends
Comments
Moderate relevance/individual
needs consequence
Moderate lower status
consequence
Wider then SEN tensions
Continuing issue
Reduce special education
identification
Change attitude to
disability/SEN
National/local developments
Go beyond negative labels
Depends
Comments
Resolution
Continuing issues
Balance common/different
aspects
Priority to individual relevance
Priority to common aspects
Choice
Promote positive aspects of
difference
Enhance staffing/resources
Communication
System development
Comment
Participation
Comments
Location dilemma
Tension
Resolved tension
Moderate/deny reduced
specialist provision
Moderate/deny feel
excluded
Positive aspects inclusion
Positive aspects separation
Depends
Comment
Continuing issue
Balance included/separate
provision
Student and parent
participation
Accept separate specialist
provision
Limits to inclusion
Promote positive contacts,
attitudes, reduce feelings of
exclusion
Enhance flexible specialist
services/staffing in regular
schools
Systemic/national changes
Depends
Comments
Findings
Limited space means that only a selection of the findings will be presented in this
section. The selected findings will set out the following: i. breakdown of the
recognition and resolution ratings across the 3 dilemmas across the 3 countries, ii.
comparison of 2nd level themes for recognising and resolving location dilemma
across the 3 countries and iii. excerpts from the transcriptions of the most frequent 1st
level themes used in the recognition and resolution of the location dilemma in each of
the 3 countries.
12
Recognition and resolution ratings across the 3 dilemmas across the 3 countries
The detailed breakdown of the ratings for recognising and resolving the 3 dilemmas
across the 3 countries (Tables 5-10) are in the appendix. Table 11 and 12 summarise
some key aspects of the 6 tables. Table 11 shows some lower recognition of the
dilemmas in the USA for the identification dilemmas (modal rating as marginal)
compared to the curriculum and location dilemmas (modal rating as significant). For
the Netherlands all 3 dilemmas the modal rating was significant. This was also found
for the English participants, except that for the identification dilemma, there were two
modal ratings, significant and not at all.
In the US sample, for the marginal modal rating of the identification dilemma there
was a significant modal resolution level. But, for the curriculum dilemma, which had
a significant modal recognition rating, the resolution was marginal. In the Netherlands
sample the modal resolution ratings were significant in the identification and
curriculum areas, but only marginal in the location area. In the English sample the
modal resolution level was significant for all 3 dilemma areas.
Table 11: Summary of most frequent recognition and resolution ratings across
the dilemmas in 3 countries (% of all participants in brackets)
Identification
USA
Marginal (34%)
Netherlands
Significant (38%)
Curriculum
Location
Identification
Curriculum
Location
Significant (44%)
Significant (26%)
Significant (30%)
Marginal (26%)
Significant(20%)
Significant (35%)
Significant (41%)
Significant (41%)
Significant (35%)
Marginal (25%)
Recognition
Resolution
England
Not at all (26%)+
significant (26%)
Significant (46%)
Significant (42%)
Significant (24%)
Significant (30%)
Significant (36%)
Table 12 below shows that only a minority across all 3 countries did not recognise all
the dilemmas. The mean ‘not at all’ level was 17% in England (range 12-26), 15% in
the Netherlands (range 13-16) and 13%. in the USA (range 10-16). Split responses,
where participants distinguished between two aspects (for example, mild v. severe
disability or special v ordinary schools and uncertain responses also represented
overall a minority of participants. The remaining participants made up 2/3rds or more
of participants in each country for recognising all 3 dilemmas. The majority of
participants across the 3 countries recognised the 3 dilemmas to some extent, either
marginally, significantly or considerably.
Table 12 also shows the summary data for resolving the dilemmas with percentages
worked out in terms of those who recognised the dilemmas. This shows that there
were overall very few participants who recognised a dilemma and saw no resolution –
means of 1% for the Netherlands and English and 6% in the US participants.
Uncertain resolutions were also low in the US (0%) and Netherlands (4%) groups, but
higher in the English sample (18%). Mean split resolutions were consistently higher
across the 3 countries - 15% in US, 23 in the Netherlands and 17% in the English
samples. Overall the majority of participants reported that they saw some degree of
resolving these dilemmas – 68% in the US, 72% in the Netherlands and 64% of the
English participants.
13
uncertain
Split
No rating
Other rating
Levels
Uncertain
split
No rating
Other rating
levels
10
16
14
13
78
68
64
70
2
0
10
4
10
16
12
13
16
13
16
15
71
71
62
68
0
0
0
0
13
16
22
17
26
12
14
17
56
70
74
67
0
8
6
5
18
10
6
11
1016
6478
010
1016
1316
6271
0
1322
1226
5674
0-8
618
Resolution
7
10
2
6
74
64
67
68
7
7
16
10
12
19
14
15
0
0
4
1
85
79
52
72
0
4
7
4
15
18
37
23
0
2
2
1
57
66
70
64
14
20
19
18
30
11
9
17
264- 7- 12- 0-4 530- 15- 0-2 57- 1410 74 16 19
85
7
37
70 20
(% in resolution cells represent proportion out of those who recognised the dilemma, not total sample)
930
Second level themes for recognising and resolving location dilemma
Tables 13 and 14 summarise the percentage use of the 2nd level themes only for
recognising and resolving the location dilemmas. There was not enough space to
show the similar data for the other 2 dilemmas. Two aspects of these data need to be
noted. First, a participant was identified as using a 2nd level theme if s/he used at least
one 1st level theme covered by the 2nd level theme. However, most 2nd level themes
were indicated by more than one 1st level theme, so in this analysis no distinction was
made between those using only one 1st level theme and those using several 1st level
themes related to a particular 2nd level theme. Second, the percentages in these tables
do not add up to 100% as participants could use more than one 2nd level theme to
explain their recognition or resolutions positions.
Table 13 shows those 2nd level themes across the 3 countries which were used by
more than 30% of participants, a cut-off that will be taken as worthy of comment. The
most frequently used 2nd level theme was ‘tensions’ across all 3 countries. This theme
represents different ways in which participants recognised tensions in their responses
to the presented location dilemma The second most frequently used 2nd level theme by
the US participants was ‘resolved tensions’. This theme represents the various policies
and practices which were reported as ways of dealing with the issues raised in this
dilemma. ‘Resolved tensions’ was used by English and Netherlands participants but
by less than by 30% of them. The second most frequently used 2nd level theme for
English participants was ‘other negative aspects of inclusion’, which was also used by
just over 30% of the Netherlands participants. The fourth most frequently used 2nd
level theme by Netherlands participants was ‘positive aspects of separation’, which
was not used so frequently by the US and English participants. The themes that
questioned the consequences of the options presented in the location dilemma
(reduced specialist provision and feeling excluded) were hardly used by Netherlands
participants. But, the US participants used the ‘moderate /deny feeling excluded
split
Other rating
levelss
Recognition Identification
Curriculum
Location
Mean
Range
Identification
Curriculum
Location
Mean
Range
uncertain
No rating
Table 12: Summary of percentage of participants for all dilemmas with a no
rating , some degree rating, uncertain and split ratings
% of participants in each
USA
Netherlands
England
country sample
14
consequence’(32%) and the English participants used the ‘moderate/deny specialist
provision consequence’ (30%).
Table 13: Comparison of second level themes for recognising location dilemma
across the 3 countries
(first number-number participants using second level theme; % of all participants in brackets;
% of all second level themes used; themes used by 30% or more of participants in bold)
USA
Netherlands
England
Tensions
N=30(60%)
26% of 2nd level themes
N=28(88%)
38% of 2nd level themes
N=34(68%)
27% of 2nd level themes
Resolved
tensions
N=17(34%)
15% of 2nd level themes
N=9(28%)
12% of 2nd level themes
N=13(26%)
10% of 2nd level themes
Moderate/deny
reduced
specialist
provision
consequence
Moderate/deny
feeling
excluded
consequence
Positive
aspects
inclusion
Positive
aspects
separation
14(28%)
12% of 2nd level themes
N=7 (22%)
10% of 2nd level themes
15(30%)
12% of 2nd level themes
16(32%)
14% of 2nd level themes
N=2(6%)
3% of 2nd level themes
N=10(20%)
8% of 2nd level themes
N=3(6%)
3% of 2nd level themes
N=0
N=2(4%)
2% of 2nd level themes
N=8(16%)
7% of 2nd level themes
N=12(38%)
16%of 2nd level themes
N=14(28%)
11% of 2nd level themes
other negative
aspects
inclusion
7(14%)
6% of 2nd level themes
N=10(31%)
14% of 2nd level themes
N=23(46%)
18% of 2nd level themes
Depends
N=4(8%)
3% of 2nd level themes
N=3(9%)
4% of 2nd level themes
N=5(10%)
4% of 2nd level themes
Comments
N=18(36%)
15% of 2nd level themes
N=2(6%)
3% of 2nd level themes
N=9(18%)
7% of 2nd level themes
Table 14 shows that the most frequently used 2nd level themes across the 3 countries
was ‘balance included and separate provision’, though this was more so by the
Netherlands and English than the US participants. The only other 2nd level theme used
by more than 30% of US participants was ‘enhance flexible services and staffing’,
which was also used frequently by English and Netherlands participants. But, more
than 30% of only the English and Netherlands participants used the ‘continuing
issues’ theme compared to only 16% by US participants. This theme was used most
frequently by the Netherlands participants, which was consistent with 44% of these
participants also using the ‘limits to inclusion’ theme. Nevertheless, more than 30% of
the Netherlands participants used the ‘systems/local developments’ theme, the only
participants to do so.
15
Table 14: Comparison of second level themes for resolving location dilemma
across the 3 countries
(first number-number participants using second level theme; % of all participants in brackets,
% of all second level themes used; themes used by more than 30% of participants in bold)
USA
Netherlands
England
Continuing issues
N=8(16%)
9% of 2nd level themes
N=12(38%)
16% of 2nd level themes
15(30%)
16% of 2nd level themes
Balance
included/separate
provision
N=19(38%)
22% of 2nd level themes
N=20(63%)
26% of 2nd level themes
N=28(56%)
29% of 2nd level themes
Student and
parent
participation in
decisions
Accept separate
specialist
provision
N=5(10%)
6% of 2nd level themes
N=0
N=3(6%)
3% of 2nd level themes
N=6(12%)
7% of 2nd level themes
N=3(9%)
4% of 2nd level themes
N=5(10%)
5% of 2nd level themes
Limits to
inclusion
N=5(10%)
6% of 2nd level themes
N=14(44%)
18% of 2nd level themes
10(20%)
11% of 2nd level themes
Promote positive
contacts
N=2(4%)
2% of 2nd level themes
N=0
N=5(10%)
5% of 2nd level themes
Enhance flexible
services and
staffing
N=17(34%)
20% of 2nd level themes
N=12(38%)
16% of 2nd level themes
N=15(30%)
16% of 2nd level themes
Systems/local
changes
8(16%)
9% of 2nd level themes
N=11(34%)
14% of 2nd level themes
N=8(16%)
8% of 2nd level themes
Depends
N=6(12%)
7% of 2nd level themes
N=0
N=5(10%)
5% of 2nd level themes
Comments
N=8(16%)
9% of 2nd level themes
N=5(16%)
6% of 2nd level themes
N=1(%)
1% of 2nd level themes
Most frequent first level themes in recognising and resolving the location dilemma
English participants
The most frequent 2nd level theme used to explain recognition of this dilemma was
‘tensions’. The 1st level theme ‘problems building capacity in regular class’ which
was used frequently, is an instance of this 2nd level theme. Here are 2 examples of this
1st level theme:
I think specialist services would be a problem, in terms mostly of health services. I have to
say, for speech and language therapy, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, I don’t see that
there is any understanding of the levels which are required to fund those services. I would say
that for children with moderate and severe disabilities in mainstream school there is the issue
of access to higher expectations and specialist services in terms of the specialist services that a
skilled teacher brings in to every classroom. I think a skilled teacher in every classroom is a
very specialist service in many ways. Having said that I think the skilled teacher feels very deskilled at the point of meeting a child with moderate and severe disabilities and that I believe
the inclusion support service is going on a journey with that teacher to support the teacher in
16
developing the skills, and I would like to see longer with individual teachers who are really
trying to include children. So we go regularly in to ‘What are the problems you’ve
encountered? What do you want to know? Can we brainstorm that together?’ because it's a
lonely place to be. (psychologist, rural area)
Absolutely, yes, I mean my major dilemma is getting them in to school to begin with because
that is limited and I know that we do have a lot of children that we believe firmly, and the
Head will talk about this, and it works very much when you have that package that comes
with the child. When you don’t then it presents all sorts of difficulties for the class teacher
who, with twenty eight, thirty other children, cannot manage that child's needs when
emotionally they can't access the class and they’ve got their head down on the table, or they're
under the table kicking and screaming and throwing chairs, and we’ve experienced all this.
But I would agree that if they're not taught in general classrooms then they do feel excluded,
they do feel not accepted, but there's a huge amount of work to be done around social skills
and acceptance to allow this to happen for them to be in class. So if you spoke to a class
teacher they would have very different views to mine. Because they are managing children
within the classroom and they would say ‘I do not have time to deal with the extent of this
child's difficulty.’ (SEN advisory teacher, urban area)
Two 1st level themes indicating the more frequent 2nd level theme ‘other negative
aspects of inclusion’ were ‘full inclusion creates exclusion feeling and stigma’ and
‘students stand out and are isolated in regular classes’. Here are examples of both
themes:
‘full inclusion creates exclusion feeling and stigma’:
It might not be, and of course there's been the wholesale push for inclusion which happened in
our authority when our present director was made director he stopped all things that were
going on including the building of a new school because he was questioning whether we
needed special schools cause his idea of inclusion, I feel, was ten years old, ten years out of
date - the wholesale ‘they all go in to mainstream schools’. That is not going to work, that will
create even more stigma because mainstream staff aren’t trained, they haven't got the
experience and they're frightened of the unknown, as we all would be, it's not their fault.
(senior teacher, special school, rural area)
‘students stand out and are isolated in regular classes’ (2)
I think they're going to feel excluded by being in the lessons because they…well because they
feel they're different, they can't cope. It doesn’t mean anything to them and they're not doing
what their friends are doing and they begin then sometimes to withdraw and become quite
isolated and become bullied and picked on. (teacher, special school, urban area)
There were, nevertheless, some English participants who used the theme ‘for some,
build support in regular class’. This was a more frequent indicator of the 2nd level
theme ‘moderate/deny reduced specialist provision consequence’, which questions the
validity of the consequence of one of the presented options. Here is an example of this
theme.
‘for some, build support in regular class’:
I'm not sure that I entirely accept that they are less likely to have access to scarce and
specialist resources, you know, in terms of, certainly locally the services are looking at how
they can be provided within mainstream schools, so speech and language therapy services, for
example, it isn’t necessarily easier to access those in a specialist setting than in a mainstream.
(psychologist, urban area)
As regards resolving the location dilemma, the most frequently used 2nd level theme
was ‘balance included and separate provision’ which was indicated most often by the
1st level theme ‘mixed models’. Here are two examples of this theme:
I just see a solution really, I mean we’ve got the ideal solution here, it's what parents have
said, it's the best of both worlds because they’ve got access to their peers in mainstream for
17
some things where it's appropriate and they’ve got a high staffing ratio for one to one working
here and they’ve got play time, and I wish you’d have seen one of our play times where apart
from the different colour of the t-shirts, you wouldn’t know any difference. And I wish you’d
have been here yesterday lunchtime when one of the mainstream children was over talking to
our children after the lunch, which is normal, (...) wow you know, that blows you away, so
that's why I'm saying yes there is a tension there but there is a solution and we are living it.
(senior teacher, special school, rural area)
Absolutely, and it's through ignorance, it's through not understanding what real inclusion is
about, it's through actually saying ‘my idea of inclusion is that that child is in there and stays
in there no matter whether they hate it or not, and that’s inclusion.’ And you know, that child,
I've got Connor here in the mainstream, he goes to every single lesson, he's in the mid stream
now in his abilities and he actually is, always comes back from that lesson and chills, because
that’s what he needs to do. He was one of the most violent autistic children I've come across
and he hasn’t had one single outburst, well maybe two in the last two years. (SEN advisory
teacher, urban area)
One of the second most frequently used 2nd level theme was ‘enhance flexible
specialist services/staffing in regular schools’. Here are two 1st level theme which
indicate this 2nd level theme:
‘improve training teachers and administrators’
improve the capability of the mainstream school to take on and educate effectively the
children with specific, you know, with special educational needs, and quite complex learning
needs and so forth. For example we are expecting our mainstream schools to educate children
with moderate learning difficulties and it needs a high level of training and understanding for
them to be able to do that. (local administrator, urban area)
‘appropriate specialist services in regular schools’
Well I think, I mean certainly our experience so far going into it is that actually we are already
working in some of those areas looking at an integrated disabled children's service which
would include health. Part of it is the bit about, that we do have in our mainstream schools
some children with severe physical difficulties and some of the tension there is actually about
how do we get the occupational therapy, physiotherapy etc in within that mainstream setting.
And so it's just working more tightly together to enable services that have historically gone to
one school because of the children being in those…(local administrator, rural area)
The other second most frequently used 2nd level theme was ‘continuing issues’, which
is indicated by the 1st level theme ‘problems with special-regular school link scheme’.
Here is an example of this theme:
Absolutely, there are people who have been reporting in our local paper recently, they’ve been
investigated because their SATs results have gone down and they say that with the children
you’ve had in the last two years, what do you expect? People need to understand all those
things, I think we’re going the wrong way to measure what is a good school and I think it's
counter productive to special, to those who are at the moment in special education. We have
two satellite classes, as you know, here, and they are struggling so hard to get any integration
into the other classes. (class teacher, special school, urban area)
Netherlands participants
The most frequent 2nd level theme used to explain recognising the location dilemma
was ‘tensions’. One of the most frequent 1st level themes under this 2nd level theme
was ‘experienced tensions’. Here are 2 examples of this 1st level theme:
I think there is a group who are pleased to be there (separate setting) and they are very happy
and I think it's very important to interview the children themselves and study how the children
feel when they were in the regular school and in special education. And, I think the most
important thing is that the child is happy of course, the parents will be happy as well when the
18
child is happy in the school and he is learning. When it's getting better in our school the
deputy can say ‘ok maybe now it's time to go back to the regular school with special treatment
and special education or support from the special teachers.’ And I think that I can't say that it's
better for a child to go back into the school or it's better for a child in a special school, it
depends on the handicap, on the child, on everything, and you look very, you have to look
very well to all that, what are the best things for these children? And I think it's a hard choice,
it's a hard decision. Yeah I think, but of course it's a dilemma all the time, what's the best place
for this child to learn, in a special school or a regular school in a special class? (advisory
teacher, urban area)
It depends, if the school can cope with the children with severe learning difficulties I would
prefer to keep it in a regular school, but if in the IEP the goals that are there can only be
reached by placing outside the classroom, then what's the difference between a regular school
and a special school? That’s a tension. (psychologist, urban area)
Another more frequent 2nd level theme used by Netherlands participants in their
response to the location dilemma was ‘positive aspects of separation’. One of the
more frequent 1st level themes ‘severe disability like, feel relieved and comfortable in
separate settings’ is covered by this 2nd level theme. Here is an example of this 1st
level theme:
Yeah, and there is also this solidarity between the pupils here because when they are in a
regular setting they are always the exception, and here they see everybody is an exception so
that makes them normal, being surrounded with, everybody has this problem and they can
relate to each other with this being different. I think that in the regular field which I come
from we also see this and you see the unhappiness and you feel your own inability to help, and
I think also what we, pupils who are coming here, they are, sometimes they are so happy to
come here, they can't wait because it's a relief. (senior teacher special school urban area)
The other more frequently used 2nd level theme used in response to this dilemma was
‘other negative aspects of inclusion’. The 1st level theme ‘students with moderatesevere disability feel excluded in regular schools’ was covered by this 2nd level theme.
Here is an example of this 1st level theme:
We did have some research on this subject and in the Netherlands it's not that if a child with a
handicap is within a mainstream school or a mainstream class it's more accepted by his co
pupils. What was found was that they were feeling more excluded if they were in the regular
classroom. I think it's mostly to do with multiple handicaps and the mental handicaps, yes
because blind and deaf children, they are accepted quite well ... and Down Syndrome and
things like that. … (national administrator/adviser)
As regards resolving the location dilemma, the most frequent 2nd level theme was
‘balance between included and separate provision’. The 1st level theme ‘mixed model’
was used frequently as an example of this 2nd level theme. Here is an example of the
‘mixed model’ theme:
There is inclusion, in fact there is effective inclusion but the question is what type of children
can we involve and how far can we go? So full inclusion in Holland is not an option.Well I don’t
think there is, that the resolution is choosing for full inclusion or for no inclusion, it's a kind of
mix, what will the school, the regular schools, what can they handle, what do they want to
handle? That’s a part of it. (national administrator/adviser)
Another more frequent 2nd level theme used to explain resolving this dilemma
was ‘continuing issues’. The 1st level themes ‘gap between theory/ideals and practice’
and ‘hard issue – continuing issue’ are instances of this 2nd level theme. Here are
examples of these 1st level themes:
‘gap between theory/ideals and practice’
19
The teachers and the principals and the teachers who are at the schools that are doing it, have a
positive attitude towards the children and towards the opportunities of the students, but that's
not a general feeling, I don’t think so. But this is where, because when you talk to people,
teachers, they say ‘oh yeah ok that’s a possibility,’ and then when there is the child knocking
on their door they say ‘oh wait a second.’ (national administrator/adviser)
‘hard issue – continuing issue’
I think that's a difficult question because what do we do with all the people? Put them in a
house! And so are we prepared to accept people that are different and do we want to have
them in our society or do we pretend that we want it and people pretend that we want it, so we
put all the children in the classroom and nothing happens. So I think I don’t know how
to…(national administrator. / adviser)
Below is an excerpt which illustrates the 1st level themes ‘hard issue’ and ‘mixed
model’:
No I don’t see that as a resolution, not total inclusion. Inclusion is getting better in Holland
now with the backpack. But total inclusion could be nice, but I don’t see a resolution for that. I
think there will always be children who need… or maybe in a big, big building you can call
it… I think all schools have to be special schools with all the teachers inside to teach the
children well. But I think I heard about inclusion in Denmark ... but now they are getting
special schools back and they open them again. They're retaining a group of children that need
special classes, but maybe in the same building. I don’t know, what is a special school? You
can put together a big school and regular classes, special classes, some children can get in the
regular class some time in the special class, that’s ok.. (advisory teacher, urban area)
Another more frequent 2nd level theme was ‘limits to inclusion’. The 1st level theme
‘some willing, other unwilling to change’ is an instance of this 2nd level theme. Here
is an example of this 1st level theme:
Yes but I can't blame them because they have not been trained to help these children, and
some of them, especially the older teachers, lets say fifty years or more, very strongly feel
that, well these children are thrown upon them and it's government policy and I want, I just
want to teach chemistry (senior teacher, regular secondary school).
Two of the 2nd level themes that involved ways of resolving this location dilemma
related to ‘systems/local developments’ and ‘enhancing flexible services and staffing’.
The following two 1st level themes are instances of these 2nd level themes
respectively, ‘legislation for more inclusion’ and ‘improve training of teachers and
administrators’:
‘legislation for more inclusion’
That’s my problem, I say we don’t need them (special schools), but maybe for a very little
group of children, for some blind children, for some deaf children or combinations you can
have a discussion about it, or very severe behavioural problems, you can have a discussion
about it, but otherwise what I try to show schools is that when you make a new arrangement,
you get the money to make it possible in your own school because you have also the facilities,
that way of thinking, the teacher thinking. Some schools understand it, a lot of schools think
‘oh ... my school,’ so the motivation stops at a certain level, but then we need legislation to
make it possible (local administrator, urban area).
‘improve training of teachers and administrators’
By having all kinds of meetings, it's a kind of training. The problem with this type of training
is that you have to repeat it quite frequently, I think because it's not just a one or two hour
course, and you have to learn in practice, so it should be a kind of video training or things like
that, so it would cost a lot of time….I can't see a situation in which every child can go to an
ordinary school because you can have lots of specialist help, especially specialist help is
usually after school hours, after the ordinary lessons, and what we need is the knowledge of
how to deal with these children during the lessons, that’s a critical thing. I don’t think we have
20
that expertise and we’re not going to get it because then we need, here in these four buildings,
I think we’ve got about two hundred and twenty teachers, this would imply that we’d have to
train two hundred and twenty teachers, I think that’s impossible (senior teacher, regular
secondary school).
US participants
The most frequent 2nd level theme that was used to explain recognising the location
dilemma was ‘tensions’. The 1st level theme ‘severe disability not get what they need
in regular classes’ was a more frequently used 1st level theme that illustrates this 2nd
level theme. Here are two examples:
‘Well for some children that have moderate to severe disabilities, they definitely need to have
specialist facilities just to survive ... adaptive skills, self help skills, visualisation skills, they
may need to be in that particular classroom because otherwise it's not safe for them, it's not
really appropriate for them.’ (psychologist, special school urban district)
‘Yes, like I said, from an education stand point I look at the fact ‘are they getting the
education that they need?’ and if we here as general educators can't provide it in a regular
school setting then, I don’t think it's fair to keep the child here and deny them what they need.’
(class teacher, regular class, rural district)
Another frequently used 2nd level theme was ‘resolved tensions’. The 1st level theme
‘part-time in general class inclusion possible’ was a more frequently used 1st level
theme that is an instance of this 2nd level theme. Here is an example of this 1st level
theme:
Well I think the resolution is you have to, I mean some people are (...) for putting special ed
kids in the mainstream completely and I really don’t think that that’s the best for all students,
there are still some students who need specialised instruction and those three main areas are in
reading and language and math and so I think, you have to meet their needs by providing them
with what they need and not just doing all or nothing, one way or the other, either completely
pulling them out or completely putting them in, I think you have to do a… (resource teacher,
middle school rural area)
Some participants questioned the validity of this dilemma by using the 2nd level theme
‘moderate/deny feeling excluded consequence’. A 1st level theme that illustrated this
2nd level theme was ‘severe disabilities were unaware of being separate. Here is an
example of this 1st level theme:
‘I don’t think they're aware of it, not necessarily aware of it because they get math, they get
their math, they get their reading, we include them in the trips we take and they take their own
trips, but I don’t think they feel like they are, they're being excluded or… I really don’t
because as I said, a lot of kids go in and work with them and I don’t think they… I think they
are aware of what they're doing, for example they do their math, they don’t know some of the
kids in the building are doing algebra, I don’t think they realise that some of the kids are doing
a different type of work, I think they just have to do their work.’ (senior teacher, regular
school, urban district)
The other 2nd level theme that participants used more frequently was ‘comments’. The
1st level theme ‘full inclusion is not least restrictive environment’ is an example of
this 2nd level theme. Here is an example:
There are always going to be children at each end of that continuum and every stop along the
way. You're talking about full inclusion, that’s different to inclusion, we’re talking about
children being in the least restrictive environment in which their needs can be best met and in
order to do that there has to be that full continuum of services which the law requires and so,
well we support the least restrictive environment, inclusion is just one method that we can do
that in my view. (State administrator)
21
As regards resolving location dilemma, US participants used the ‘balance between
included and separate provision’ theme most frequently. The 1st level theme ‘mixed
model; include as much as possible’ is a more frequently used instance of this 2nd
level theme. Here are two examples of the theme ‘mixed model; include as much as
possible’:
‘I think doing what we do is trying to get the kids out as much as we can’. (special ed. teacher,
regular school, rural district)
‘It’s a mixed model and with the goal of the kid as much as possible, being socialised
appropriately….so, it’s not in the regular classroom, that’s not practical always… . ’
(administrator, Federal department)
The other more frequently used 2nd level theme to explain resolving this dilemma was
‘enhance flexible services and staffing’. The 1st level theme ‘improved staff
communication and collaboration’ and ‘better staffing, resourcing and planning’ were
more frequently used 1st level themes which illustrate this 2nd level theme. Here are
examples of these themes::
‘improved staff communication and collaboration’
‘I suppose if your school has the services to offer, then yes I suppose it could be done as long
as you have a classroom teacher and special educator that are willing to partner and work very
closely. I have not had experience with that simply because I've never worked at (a resourced
regular school) But I'm sure it could be done.’(class teacher, regular school, rural district)
‘better staffing, resourcing and planning’
‘.. you would need a common planning time with that special educator so that you could sit
down and make sure that you're working towards the same goals. …‘here's how we’re going
to do this, here's how we’re going to include this child in this activity or in this group’. So
that’s, as a classroom teacher that would be my biggest concern, having two teachers that are
willing to do that. You know, if you put someone in there that says ‘yes I’ll go in the
classroom’ but then they don’t want to communicate with you’, it's not much help to us. (class
teacher, regular school, rural district)
Discussion and conclusions
Though there has had to be a selection of the full data from this study in this paper,
there is enough to illustrate the general kinds of findings. This study does show that
the assumption about dilemmas of difference can be subjected to empirical scrutiny.
This is contrary to Clough’s position that the dilemma of difference is an unfalsifiable
assumption (Clough, 2005). Had the participants across the 3 countries responded to
the presented dilemmas by mainly denying tensions, then there would have been some
evidence to question the validity of the assumption. On the contrary, the analysis of
the modal recognition ratings showed that for all 3 dilemmas in the 3 countries there
was some recognition of the dilemmas. A majority (between 67-70%) across the 3
countries recognised dilemmas to some degree. Resolution levels were similarly high
across the 3 dilemmas in the 3 countries. In terms of those who recognised dilemmas,
a majority (64-72%) reported that they saw some resolution of these dilemmas.
The differences in recognising and resolving the dilemmas are interesting and can be
related to the national contexts of policy and practices. Though most English
participants saw a significant dilemma, there was an equal percentage who saw no
identification dilemma. Analysis of the recognition themes shows (this evidence could
not presented in this paper) that these participants questioned the devaluation
consequence of identification in the presented dilemma. Nevertheless, Table 12 does
show that more than half of the English participants recognised the identification to
22
some degree. It was also notable that many more English compared to US and
Netherlands participants were uncertain about their resolution ratings for all the
dilemmas (mean of 18% v means of 10% and 4% respectively). One can conjecture
whether this may reflect current uncertainties in the UK about policy directions in the
special needs/inclusive education field (Warnock, 2005; House of Commons, 2006).
Where the Netherlands participants departed from significant modal ratings was for
resolving the location dilemma. Their modal resolution rating was marginal for the
location dilemma. This can be understood in terms of the most frequently used 2nd
level themes to explain their resolutions. Though almost 2/3rds supported a balance
between included and separate provision, and suggested enhanced flexibility of
services and staffing and systems and local changes, prominent 2nd level themes were
about continuing issues and limits to inclusion, at higher levels than the other two
countries. This is also consistent with the historical system of separate provision in the
Netherlands which has not been challenged and reformed to the extent found in
England and the USA (Vislie, 2003).
US participants had lower modal recognition of the identification dilemma (marginal
level) than for the curriculum and location dilemmas (significant level). The US
participants saw significant resolutions in the identification and location, but only
marginal resolutions in the significant dilemma area (curriculum). The lower
identification recognition level can be understood in terms of their 2nd level
identification recognition themes (this evidence could not presented in this paper).
This shows that most US participants questioned the devaluation consequences of
identification. That the modal ratings for recognising the curriculum dilemma was
significant and for resolving this dilemma was marginal can be understood in terms of
current national concerns in special educational circles about the academic standards
agenda as expressed in the No Child Left Behind legislation ((Thurlow, 2002;
McDonnel, McClaughlin and Morison, 1997). This is also consistent with the specific
1st level themes used by US participants (e.g. ‘academic curriculum not meet needs’,
‘problems in using the same standards and tests’), which criticise the overly academic
nature of the performance standards required in the annual testing system required
across the USA.
Comparison of the 2nd level themes for recognising and resolving the location
dilemma across the 3 countries also reinforces some of the above interpretations.
Though the most frequently used 2nd level location recognition theme in all 3
countries was ‘tensions’, indicating a common perspective on the issues about
placement of children with more severe disabilities/SEN in ordinary classrooms, the
percentage of Netherlands participants using this theme was higher than for US and
English participants. This is in line with the relatively high use by Netherlands
participants of the other 2nd level themes, which identify positive aspects of separate
provision and negative aspects of ordinary class inclusion. It is also consistent with
the finding that not one Netherlands participant used the 2nd level them ‘positive
aspects of inclusion’, which includes 1st themes like ‘others and families accept
disability’ and ‘regular teachers welcome them’, which were used by at least some US
and English participants.
23
The most frequently used 2nd level location resolution themes which were used in all 3
countries was about finding a balance between included and separate provision for
children with more severe disabilities/SEN, though this theme was used more by
English and Netherlands than US participants. This may be because in the State in the
USA where the study was conducted, they had already developed provision which
struck a balance between these aspects. Only 18% (2004 census data) of students in
this State who received special education spent more than 60% of their time in
separate provision (in the two districts in the study the comparable figures were 27%
and 8% for the urban and rural districts respectively). Another 2nd level theme that
was used frequently in all 3 countries was about enhancing flexible services and
staffing. However, it was only in the Netherlands where the other 2nd level theme
about systems and local change was used more frequently. This theme includes 1st
level themes about schools’ commitment to restructure for inclusion, the need for
more pilot inclusion trials, more legislation for inclusion and support for schools to be
more inclusive. These themes can be understood in terms of the relatively less
developed system of inclusive education in the Netherlands.
Table 15: Modal ratings for recognition and resolution of dilemmas in the USA
and England for the 1993 and 2005 studies
Recognition
Identification
Curriculum
Location
Resolution
Identification
Curriculum
Location
significant
significant
Significant
Significant
English
2005 study
significant and
not at all
Significant
significant
Significant
significant
significant
significant
significant
Significant
Marginal
Significant
Significant
Significant
Significant
1993 study
significant
US
2005 study
Marginal
1993 study
Significant
significant
significant
significant
Caution is required in drawing conclusions from a comparison of the findings from
the 1993 study and this one for the English and US professionals. Though similar
materials, with some changes, were used across the 12 years, different areas in each
country were involved. Nevertheless, the comparisons are interesting as shown in
Table 15 above. For both recognition and resolution of the 3 dilemmas, the 1993
picture was one of consistently significant modal ratings compared to the 2005 study
reported in this paper. US participants moved from a significant to marginal modal
recognition level for the identification dilemma, but not for the curriculum and
location dilemmas. This contrasts with the English findings which showed no change
from significant modal ratings over time, with one key difference. The same
percentage of participants did not recognise the identification dilemma as saw a
significant dilemma.
One interpretation of the change in recognition of the identification dilemma in both
countries is that there has been a change in social and education beliefs about
disability/SEN from less to more positive images. Though there were qualitative data
in the 1993 study, the way these were analysed does not make it possible to compare
them to the themes used in the current study. But, the themes used in this study to
explain the US marginal and English dual significant/not at all recognition of the
24
identification dilemma, show some questioning of the negative consequences of
disability identification – this is reflected in some current use in both countries of the
2nd level theme which questions the validity of the identification dilemma through 1st
level themes, such as, ‘stigma has reduced’, ‘disability has positive image’ and ‘labels
do not lead to devaluation’. These findings are therefore consistent with the
development of more positive social and educational images of disability in the USA
and England over the last decade. That the US participants in the recent study only
saw a marginal resolution to the curriculum dilemma compared to a significant one in
the 1993 study indicates that the current US concerns lie in this area, as discussed
above.
One final point to be discussed in this paper concerns the relationship between
recognition and resolution ratings and the explanations given in resolving these
dilemmas in the 1st and 2nd level themes. Most English participants in the recent study
recognised a significant location dilemma, for example, and also saw a significant
resolution. However, 56% of them opted for a ‘mixed model’ of provision in their
resolution, which balanced included and separate provision and 10% accepted
separate specialist provision – by contrast with a full inclusion model. Also, 30% of
them saw continuing issues about placing children with severe disabilities in ordinary
classrooms and 20% saw limits to inclusion – therefore not seeing final solutions, but
resolutions based on balancing. This might be interpreted as less than a significant
resolution, though of course this depends on the interpretation participants put on
terms like significant. In the Netherlands most participants used the term marginal to
describe their resolution, and this may be because of their historical and current
special education policy context. However, no English participants saw a considerable
resolution of the location dilemma. So, perhaps it is this finding that suggests that the
use of significant is compatible with seeing the persistence of tensions about inclusive
placements. This kind of interpretation of responses to this particular dilemma by
English participants could be applied to the other dilemmas in England and the other
two countries. This suggests that these teachers and administrators did recognise
dilemmas related to the difference of disability and proposed resolutions that were not
final solutions, but ways forward in which tensions persisted.
This study was conducted because it was evident that despite much talk about
dilemmas, tensions and issues in the field, there has been little interest in a dilemmatic
perspective. The reason for conducting this particular study of professional
perspectives to dilemmas of difference after 12 years was to find out if there was still
evidence for the recognition of such dilemmas. Despite interesting country specific
variations and some possible changes over the last decade, there is still some evidence
that professional beliefs fit this kind of framework. But, the lack of interest in a
dilemmatic approach may have deeper roots. As some political theorists have noted
(Berlin, 1990), adopting a dilemmatic position involves accepting some crucial losses,
social situations which are less than perfect and the giving up of a certain kind of
purist hope for the future. In all the research and theorising about special needs and
inclusive education over the last 12 years since the initial 1993 study, I have found
low levels of receptiveness to the dilemmatic framework, mainly by ignoring it. One
conclusion to draw is that the lack of interest by not even criticising it is probably
because it is threatening and challenging to many committed to the field. However, it
has and can be argued, as I would, that acknowledging and taking account of
dilemmas provides an alternative more realistic and authentic form of hope about an
25
inclusive and humane education. It is form of hope based on analysing, clarifying and
examining options before us, finding ways of having it both ways as far as possible in
a morally acceptable and decent ways.
References
Artiles, A.J. (1998) The dilemma of difference: enriching the disproportionality
discourse with theory and context. Journal of Special Education, 32(1) 322-36
Artiles, A.J. (2000) The inclusive education movement and minority representation in
special education: trends, paradoxes and dilemmas. Paper to ISEC International
Conference, Manchester, UK.
Berlin, I. (1990) The crooked timber of humanity. London, Fontana Press
Berlak, A. and Berlak, H. (1981) Dilemmas of schooling: teaching and social change.
London and New York, Methuen.
Billig, M., Condor, S., Edwards, D., Gane, M., Middleton, D. and Radley, A. (1988)
Ideological dilemmas: a social psychology of everyday thinking. London, Sage.
Clough, P. (2005) Review of ‘Moderate learning difficulties and the future of
inclusion’ by Norwich (2004), European Journal of Special Needs Education xxxx
Croll, P. and Moses, D. (2000) Ideologies and utopias: education professionals’ views
of inclusion. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 15, 1, 1-12
Dahl, R.A. (1982) Dilemmas of pluralist democracy: autonomy and control. New
Haven, Yale University Press.
Drisko, J.W.(2000) Qualitative data analysis: it’s not just anything goes!. Charleston
SC: Society from Social Work and research Conference, 30 Jan. 458
Dyson, A, (2001) Special needs in the twenty-first century: where we’ve been and
where we’re going. British Journal of Special Education, 28, 1, 24-29
Edwards, D. and Mercer, N. M. (1987) Common knowledge : the development of
understanding in the classroom. London: Methuen.
Ho, A. (2004) To be labelled or not to be labelled: that is the question. British Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 32, 86-92
House of Commons (2006) SEN Report. HC478-1.
Judge, H. (1981) Dilemmas in education, Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 22, 11-116
McDonell, L.M., McClaughlin, M.J. and Morison, P. (1997) Educating one and all:
students with disabilities and standards based reform. Washington, D.C., National
Academy Press.
Minow, M. (1985) Learning to live with the dilemma of difference: bilingual and
special education., in Bartlett, K.T. and Wegner, J.W. (eds.) Children with special
needs. Boulder, Transaction Books.
Minow, M. (1990) Making all the difference: inclusion, exclusion and American Law.
Ithica, Cornell University Press.
Norwich, B. (1993) Ideological dilemmas in special needs education: practitioners’
views. Oxford Review of Education, 19, 4, 527-545
Norwich, B. (1994) Differentiation: from the perspective of resolving tensions
between basic social values and assumptions about individual differences. Curriculum
Studies, 2(3) 289-308
Terzi, L (2006) Beyond the dilemma of difference: the capability approach to
disability and special educational needs, in Florian, L. and McClaughlin, M. (eds.)
Book on Classification (in press).
Thurlow, M. (2002) Positive educational results for all students. Remedial and Special
Education, 23, 4, 195-202
26
Vislie, L (2003) From integration to inclusion: focusing global trends and changes in
the western European societies. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 18, 1,
17-35
Warnock, M. (2005) Special educational needs : a new look. Impact
27
Appendix :
Figure 1: Formulation of three dilemmas
Identification:
- If children experiencing difficulties in learning are identified and labelled as
having a disability (needing special education), then they are likely to be treated as
different, devalued and stigmatised;
-
If children experiencing difficulties in learning are NOT identified as having a
disability (needing special education), then it is less likely additional educational
resources will be identified and ensured for them.
Curriculum:
- If children identified as having a disability (needing special education) are offered
the same learning experiences as other children, they are likely to be denied the
opportunity to have learning experiences relevant to their individual needs,
-
If children identified as having a disability (needing special education) are NOT
offered the same learning experiences as other children, then they are likely to be
treated as a separate lower status group and be denied equal opportunities.
Location:
- If children with moderate and severe disabilities (needing special education) are
taught in general classrooms, then they are less likely to have access to scarce and
specialist services and facilities,
-
If children with moderate and severe disabilities (needing special education) are
NOT taught in general classrooms, then they are more likely to feel excluded and
not be accepted by other children.
Figure 2: Dilemma recognition and resolution rating scales
1. To what extent do these statements represent a dilemma for you?
Choose one of the answers:
Cannot
Decide
Not at
all
Marginal
Extent
Significant
Extent
Considerable
Extent
2. If you see a dilemma, how would you resolve the dilemma?
Choose one of the answers:
Cannot
Decide
Not at
all
Marginal
Extent
Significant
Extent
Considerable
Extent
Figure 3: Account presented about the nature of dilemmas
Dilemmas:
Involve decision situations where there are options (1 and 2) and each has negative consequences or
risks;
If do 1, then there is a risk of a negative consequence;
If do 2, then there is also a risk of a negative consequence;
28
Table 5: Breakdown of identification recognition across 3 countries
USA
Netherlands
England
10 (20%)
5 (16%)
Not at all (not)
13 (26%)
2 (6%)
7 (14%)
Marginal
17 (34%)
0
0
2 (4%)
Marginal/significant
13
(26%)
11 (22%)
11 (22%)
Significant
12 (38%)
2 (4%)
6 (12%)
1 (3%)
9
Significant/ considerable
(28%)
4 (8%)
8 (25%)
8 (16%)
Considerable
1 (2%)
0
0
Uncertain
5 (10%)
4 (13%)
9 (18%)
Split responses
Not-sig
1
Not-mar
1
Not-marg
1
Not-con
1
Not-sig
2
Not-sig
6
Not1 Marg-con
1
Marg-sig
2
marg
Marg-sig
2
50 (100%)
32 (100%)
50 (100%)
Totals
(uncertain - participants were reluctant to indicate a degree; not applicable – when dilemma not
recognised, resolution question is not applicable; split responses – participants interpreted issue by
responding in different ways)
Table 6: Breakdown of identification resolution ratings across 3 countries
USA
Netherlands
England
3 (6%)
0
0
Not at all (not)
11 (22%)
9 (28%)
4 (8%)
Marginal (marg)
2 (4%)
1 (3%)
2 (4%) 12 (24%)
Marginal/significant
15
13 (41%)
(30%)
13 (26%)
12 (38%)
10 (20%)
Significant (sig)
1 (2%)
3
0
1
2 (4%)
5
Significant/
(6%)
(3%)
(10%)
considerable
2 (4%)
1 (3%)
3 (6%)
Considerable (con)
3
(6%)
0
5 (10%)
Uncertain (unc)
5
(10%)
4
(13%)
11
(22%)
Split responses
N/a1
N/a-marg
1
N/a-no
1
marg
Con-unc
1
Sig-sig
1 N/a-marg
1
Sig-unc
1
N/a-sig
2
N/a-sig
4
Marg-sig
1
N/a-unc
1
Marg-sig
2
Sig-sig
2
10 (20%)
5 (10%)
13 (26%)
Not applicable (n/a)
50 (100%)
32 (100%)
50 (100%)
Totals
(uncertain - participants were reluctant to indicate a degree; not applicable – when dilemma not
recognised, resolution question is not applicable; split responses – participants interpreted issue by
responding in different ways)
29
Table 7: Breakdown of curriculum dilemma recognition ratings across 3 countries
USA
Netherlands
England
8 (16%)
4 (13%)
6 (12%)
Not at all (not)
6 (12%)
9 (16%)
10 (20%)
Marginal (marg)
0
3 (9%) 12 (35%)
0 23 (46%)
Marginal/significant
22
(44%)
22(44%)
9 (26%)
23 46%)
Significant (sig)
0
6
1 (3%)
3 (9%)
0
2
Significant/
(12%)
(4%)
considerable
6(12%)
2 (6%)
2 (4%)
Considerable (con)
0
0
4 (8%)
Uncertain (unc)
8 (16%)
5 (16%)
5 (10%)
Split responses
Not-sig
7
Not-sig 2
Not-sig
4
Not-con
1
Not-con 1
Sig-con
1
Marg-sig 1
Marg-con 1
50 (100%)
32 (100%)
50 (100%)
Totals
(uncertain - participants were reluctant to indicate a degree; not applicable – when dilemma not
recognised, resolution question is not applicable; split responses – participants interpreted issue by
responding in different ways )
Table 8: Breakdown of curriculum dilemma resolution ratings across 3 countries
USA
Netherlands
England
4 (8%)
0
1 (2%)
Not at all (not)
9 (26%)
13 (26%)
Marginal (marg)
13 (26%)
0 11 (22%)
3 (9%)
0
Marginal/significant
12 (35%)
15
(30%)
11 (22%)
9 (26%)
15 (30%)
Significant (sig)
3 (6%)
1 (3%)
1 (2%)
Considerable (con)
3 (6%)
1 (3%)
9 (18%)
Uncertain (unc)
8 (16%)
5 (16%)
5 (10%)
Split responses
N/a-not
1
N/a-sig
8
N/a-sig
2
N/a-marg
1
marg-sig
2
Marg-sig
1
N/a-sig
1
Marg-marg
1
Miss-marg
1
8 (16%)
4 (13%)
6(12%)
Not applicable
50 (100%)
32 (100%)
50 (100%)
Totals
(uncertain - participants were reluctant to indicate a degree; not applicable – when dilemma not
recognised, resolution question is not applicable; split responses – participants interpreted issue by
responding in different ways)
30
Table 9: Breakdown of location dilemma recognition ratings across 3 countries
USA
Netherlands
England
7 (14%)
5 (16%)
7 (14%)
Not at all (not)
1 (2%) 11 (22%)
0
2
0 11 (22%)
Not at all/marginal
(6%) 11 (22%)
10 20%)
2 (6%)
Marginal (marg)
2 (4%)
0
0 21 (42%)
Marginal/significant
12
13 (41%)
24%)
10 (20%)
13 (41%)
21 (43%)
Significant (sig)
2 (4%)
8 (16%)
0
5
0
4 (8%)
Significant/
(16%)
considerable
6 12%)
5 (16%)
4 (8%)
Considerable (con)
5 (10%)
0
3 (6%)
Uncertain (unc)
6 (12%)
7 (22%)
3 (6%)
Split responses
Not-sig
5
Not-sig
6
Not-sig
2
Marg-con
1
Not-con
1 Marg-con
1
50 (100%)
32 (100%)
50 (100%)
Totals
(uncertain - participants were reluctant to indicate a degree; not applicable – when dilemma not
recognised, resolution question is not applicable; split responses – participants interpreted issue by
responding in different ways )
Table 10: Breakdown of location dilemma resolution ratings across 3 countries
USA
Netherlands
England
1 (2%)
1 (3%)
1 (2%)
Not at all (not)
1 (2%) 13 (26%)
0
0 12 (24%)
Not at all/ marginal
8 (25%)
12 (24%)
8 (25%)
12 (24%)
Marginal (marg)
2 (4%)
0
5
2 (4%) 18 (36%)
Marginal/significant
15
(13%) 16 (32%)
(30%)
13 (26%)
5 (13%)
Significant (sig)
1 (2%)
1 (3%)
0
Considerable (con)
7 (14%)
2 (6%)
8 (16%)
Uncertain (unc)
6 (12%)
10(16%)
4 (8%)
Split responses
Not-sig
1 N/a-marg
3
N/a-sig
2
Not-unc
1
N/a-unc
1
Marg-sig
1
N/a-not
1
Unc-unc
1
Marg2
sig
Unc-sig
1
N/a-sig
1
Sig-con
1
N/a-con
1
Marg-con
1
Marg-sig
1
Not-sig
1
7 (14%)
5 (16%)
7 (14%)
Not applicable
50 (100%)
32 (100%)
50 (100%)
Totals
(uncertain - participants were reluctant to indicate a degree; not applicable – when dilemma not
recognised, resolution question is not applicable; split responses – participants interpreted issue by
responding in different ways)