In this article it is argued that the author of ‘The integration‐segregation debate: some sociological considerations’ ("BJSE, 6 (1)) fails to provide an adequate justification for not considering the contribution of the interactionist/interpretive paradigm to research, policy and practice in special education. His definition of the term ‘explanation’ is queried, and some consequences of ignoring this paradigm are spelt out. A critical examination of its historical influence would have enriched his own materialist account which, as it stands, fails to engage with progressive thinking in the area. It is suggested that the fault stems partly from the influence of a paradigmatic mentality.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
John Quicke (1986) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: