Reconsidering Comparison in Inclusive Education Through a Neurodiversity-Informed Transcultural Methodology of Care

Comparative studies in inclusive education promise cross-national learning yet often rely on standardised designs that flatten cultural, epistemic, and ethical complexity. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed these limits for neurodivergent learners whose participation depends on everyday arrangements that dashboards rarely register. This article is methodological, not a report of new fieldwork. It advances a neurodiversity-informed, transcultural methodology of care that re-specifies the object and warrant of comparison. Drawing on care ethics, neurodiversity scholarship, decolonial thought, and sociological work on space and policy translation, the approach operationalises three procedures: (a) reflexive translation as method; (b) warranted incommensurability as a comparative warrant; and (c) spatialities of care as primary comparative evidence. The documentary, interpretive methods include critical policy analysis, document analysis, and critical interpretive synthesis. We demonstrate the approach with Greece (Law 3699/2008; KEDASY under Law 4823/2021) and the United Arab Emirates (National Policy for People of Determination, 2017; Ministerial Decision 647/2020; Dubai Inclusive Education Policy Framework, 2017). The analysis traces translation chains and practice-proximal descriptions of classroom micro-ecologies drawn from guidance and secondary literature, not new observations, showing how multimodal, neuro-inclusive materials could be treated as comparative evidence rather than context or accommodation. Figure 1 provides an illustrated protocol for analysing drawing and photo-elicitation in empirical deployments; here, it functions as a methodological demonstration rather than participant data. The article concludes with a portable design grammar for qualitative comparison, translation transparency, principled naming of non-equivalence, and admissibility of multimodal evidence, and implications for review criteria and policy evaluation. Comparison is framed as a dialogic, care-centred practice that supports reforms expanding resources, status, and voice across contexts.