The field that has been known as special education or, more recently, special needs education, is involved in a period of considerable uncertainty. In particular, the emphasis on inclusive education that is now evident in many countries challenges special needs practitioners to reconsider their own thinking and practice. My own view is that this context of uncertainty provides the special education field with new opportunities for continuing its historical purpose of addressing the needs of those learners who become marginalised within existing educational arrangements.

A brief look at history reminds us that in the 19th Century special educators in many countries argued for and helped to develop provision for children and young people who were excluded from educational plans. Only much later did this provision become adopted by national governments and local authorities. It is also worth noting that in England it was only as recent as 1971 that one group of learners, those categorised as ‘having severe learning difficulties’, was deemed to be even worthy of education.

Similarly, provision for children experiencing difficulties within mainstream schools grew as a result of a gradual recognition that some pupils were marginalised within and, in some instances, excluded from existing arrangements for providing education. As this provision developed during the latter part of the 20th century, there was also increased emphasis on notions of integration, as special educators in many countries explored ways of supporting previously segregated groups in order that they could find a place in mainstream schools.

It can be argued, therefore, that the current international emphasis on inclusive education is but a further step along this historical road. It is, however, a major step, in that the aim is to transform the mainstream in ways that will increase its capacity for responding to all learners (Ainscow, 1999; Dyson and Millward, 2000). And, of course, such a project requires the participation of many stakeholders in ways that challenge much of the status quo.

My own work attempts to contribute directly to thinking and practice in relation to such developments, at the classroom, school and systems levels. For many years I have worked closely with educational practitioners, in my own country and overseas, as they have attempted to move towards more inclusive ways of working (Ainscow, 1994; 1999). Acting as a critical friend, I see my task as helping them to learn from their experiences and, in so doing, to point to patterns and examples of practice that might be instructive to others who are addressing similar agendas. In this sense my aim is not to propose recipes that can be applied universally but rather to suggest ingredients that might be worthy of further consideration within particular contexts.

In this paper I use examples to illustrate the nature and potential of this approach, focusing on initiatives that have involved work at different levels of the education service. First of all, however, I provide a brief explanation of my overall approach to research.

My research has involved a search for forms of inquiry that have the flexibility to deal with the uniqueness of particular educational occurrences and contexts; that allow social organisations, such as schools and classrooms to be understood from the perspectives of different participants, not least children themselves; and that encourage stakeholders to investigate their own situations and practices with a view to bringing about improvements (eg Ainscow et al, 1995; Ainscow et al, 1998; Ainscow, 1999). It has involved the development of a form of action research, an approach to inquiry that in its original form sought to use the experimental approach of social science with programmes of social action in response to social problems (Lewin, 1946). More recently action research has come to refer to a process of inquiry undertaken by practitioners in their own workplaces. Here the aim is to improve practice and understanding through a combination of systematic reflection and strategic innovation (Kemmis and McTaggart, 1982).

Action research is sometimes dismissed as not being ‘proper’ research by researchers working within more traditional research paradigms. Others, whilst acknowledging it as a worthwhile activity for practitioners, are anxious that claims for the validity of findings should not be made beyond the particular contexts in which the investigation is carried out (eg Hammersley, 1992). Proponents of action research, on the other hand, have responded to these criticisms by rejecting the conceptions of rigour imposed by traditional social science, and by mounting their own counter-criticism of the methododology and assumptions about knowledge upon which these conceptions of rigour are dependent (eg Winter, 1989). They claim, for example, that the notions of rigour to which both positivist and interpretative researchers aspire are oppressive, restrictive and prescriptive, designed to perpetuate the hierarchical divisions between the producers and users of research (Iano, 1986).

In devising a suitable methodology I have been aware of others who have attempted to follow a similar path. For example, Poplin and Weeres (1992) report a study called ‘Voices From the Inside’, carried out by students, teachers, administrators and parents in four schools. Here the aim was ‘ to create strategies that allowed everyone at the school site to speak and ensured that everyone be heard’. Thus the research allowed all participants to be both the researchers and, at the same time, the subjects of the research. Since the study began with the assumption that academics had already ‘misnamed the problems of schooling’, the roles of outsiders had to be rethought so that those on the inside could come to know and articulate the problems they experience. The use of this process was reported to have led to many changes in the schools, although it was also found to be extremely time-consuming.

In developing my own approach I have been keen to pursue a similar, participatory orientation, along the lines of what has been defined as ‘collaborative inquiry’ (Reason and Rowan, 1980; Reason, 1988). The use of such approaches emphasise, in particular, the value of group processes and the use of varied methods of recording. Here my own thinking has been influenced by experience of using collaborative inquiry methods in English schools (eg. Ainscow et al, 1994; Ainscow et al, 1995; Ainscow et al, 1998; Ainscow and Brown, 1999), and approaches developed for use in countries of the South, such as ‘participatory rural appraisal’ (PRA), as developed by Chambers (1992) and refined by Stubbs (1995) and Ainscow (1999) for use in educational contexts.

From these earlier experiences I have found it useful to take account of four principles as I seek to involve colleagues in the research process. These are that it should: be of direct help to people in the contexts involved; demonstrate rigour and trustworthiness such that the findings are worthy of wider attention; contribute to the development of policies and practices elsewhere; and inform the thinking of the ‘outsider’ research team. As a result of earlier experiences of using this orientation I have become clearer about both the advantages and, of course, the difficulties involved in carrying out such a study.

In terms of advantages, from the point of view of the research contexts, there was strong evidence that those involved found the process to be both informative and stimulating. Specifically they found that the need to engage with multiple interpretations of events had forced them to think much more deeply about their own perceptions. Furthermore, exploring ways of valuing points of view that they might more usually ignore, or even oppose, also seemed to stimulate them to consider previously ignored possibilities for the development of thinking and practice. At the same time they found the process to be affirming, giving them an opportunity to celebrate many achievements in their working contexts.

Turning to difficulties, these earlier experiences highlight some of the problems that can occur when practitioners take on the task of carrying out what might be referred to as insider research. We found, for example, that despite a commitment to reporting a wide range of opinions, some accounts revealed little evidence of alternative voices, thus giving the impression of what seemed to be most unlikely level of consensus. Sometimes there was very little evidence presented from children and parents, gaps that seem particularly regrettable when I read the findings of the Poplin and Weeres’ study, reported earlier. Finally there remain some concerns about confidentiality. Specifically, as the accounts are read by more people in a particular context can we be sure that the views of certain individuals will remain anonymous?

Overall, then, the methodology described here can be characterised as essentially a social process. It requires a newly formed group of stakeholders within a particular context to engage in a search for a common agenda to guide their enquiries and, at much the same time, a series of struggles to establish ways of working that enable them to collect and find meaning in different types of information. They also have to find ways of reporting their conclusions. All of this has to be carried out in a way that will be of direct benefit to those in the contexts under consideration. In so doing the members of the group are exposed to manifestations of one another’s perspectives and assumptions. At its best all of this provides wonderful opportunities for developing new understandings. However, such possibilities can only be utilised if potential social, cultural, linguistic and micro-political barriers are overcome.

It seems to me that such an orientation helps to overcome the traditional gap between research and practice. As Robinson (1998) argues, it has generally been assumed that this gap has resulted from inadequate dissemination strategies. The implication being that educational research does speak to issues of practice, if only the right people would listen. She suggests an alternative explanation, pointing out that research findings may well continue to be ignored, regardless of how well they are communicated, because they bypass the ways in which practitioners formulate the problems they face and the constraints within which they have to work. As we have noted, participatory research is fraught with difficulties. On the other hand, the potential benefits are enormous, not least in that the understandings gained can have an immediate impact on the development of thinking and practice

In what follows I summarise two examples of collaborative inquiry in order to illustrate the nature of the process and the types of outcomes that are generated. As I have suggested, these studies do not set out to develop understandings that can tell practitioners what to do. Rather they provide frameworks that practitioners can use to reflect on their own contexts and their own ways of working in order to formulate relevant ways of moving their practices forward. In other words, this type of research generates ‘maps’ that are intended to assist ‘explorers’ in collecting further evidence as they continue their own ‘journeys’. Usually these maps or frameworks are given further meaning by the presentation of detailed accounts of practice, often written collaboratively with practitioners. Unfortunately, word limitations placed on this particular paper make this impossible but, where appropriate, I provide readers with references as to where such accounts can be found

In recent years my colleagues and I have been involved in a series of collaborative research activities in relation to the development of more inclusive schools (e.g. Ainscow, 1991; Ainscow et al, 1994; Hopkins et al, 1994; Ainscow, 1999; Ainscow, Booth and Dyson, 2001). In essence this work seeks to address the question, how do we create educational contexts that ‘reach out to all learners’?

This research indicates that schools that do make progress in this respect do so by developing conditions within which every member of the school community is encouraged to be a learner. All of this helps to throw further light on what is meant by inclusion in education. It suggests that it involves the creation of a school culture that encourages a preoccupation with the development of ways of working that attempt to reduce barriers to learner participation. In this sense, moves towards greater inclusion can be seen as a significant contribution to overall school improvement.

Our analysis of what is involved in the development of inclusive schools has pointed to the connections between policies, practices and cultures. It has also shown that such developments involve an essentially social process within which those within a school learn how to live with differences and, indeed, learn from differences (Ainscow, 1999). This orientation underpins the ‘Index for Inclusion’, a school development instrument that was developed as a result of another collaborative research project (Booth and Ainscow, 2000). This project was carried out over a three-year period, and involved a team of teachers, parents, governors, researchers and a representative of disability groups, with wide experience of attempts to develop more inclusive ways of working. They carried out two phases of action research, in partnership with a total of twenty-two schools, in six different LEAs.

The Index involves schools in a process of inclusive school development, drawing on the views of staff, governors, pupils, parents/carers and other community members. It is concerned with improving educational attainments through inclusive practices and thus provides an attempt to redress a balance in those schools that have concentrated on raising student attainment at the expense of the development of a supportive school community for staff and pupils.

The process of working with the Index is itself designed to contribute to the inclusive development of schools. It encourages staff to share and build on their existing knowledge about what impedes learning and participation. It assists them in a detailed examination of the possibilities for increasing learning and participation in all aspects of their school for all their pupils. This is not seen as an additional initiative for schools but rather as a systematic way of engaging in school development planning, setting priorities for change, implementing developments and reviewing progress.

It is important to understand that the view of inclusion presented in the Index is a broad one, which goes well beyond many of the formulations that have been previously used. It is concerned with minimising all barriers to learning and participation, whoever experiences them and wherever they are located within the cultures, policies and practices of a school. It involves an emphasis on mobilising under-used resources within staff, pupils, governors, parents and other members of the school’s communities. In this context diversity is seen as a rich resource for supporting the development of teaching and learning.

The recommended Index process involves five interconnected phases. During the first phase the members of an ‘Index co-ordinating group’ inform themselves and the rest of the staff about the Index concepts and materials, and take responsibility for gathering together knowledge about the school from all members of the school’s communities. In phase 2, the materials are used as a basis of a detailed analysis of the school, and priorities for development are negotiated. In phase 3 the school development plan is revised in the light of new priorities. In phase 4 the co-ordinating group support the implementation of agreed changes and the staff development activities necessary to support them. Then, in phase 5, the whole process is reviewed with the aim of formulating further improvement efforts.

The Index materials guide the exploration of the school along three interconnected dimensions: ‘creating inclusive cultures’, ‘producing inclusive policies’ and ‘evolving inclusive practices’. They cover all aspects of school life, from collaboration and values, to induction and learning support policies, to classroom practices and resource planning. The dimensions have been chosen to direct thinking about school change and represent relatively distinct areas of school activity. In the past, too little attention has been given to the potential of school cultures to support or undermine developments in teaching and learning. It is through inclusive school cultures that those changes in policies and practices, achieved by a school community, can be sustained and passed on to new staff and students. However, our experience indicates that sustainable development depends on change occurring in all the dimensions.

The materials contain a branching tree structure allowing progressively more detailed examination of all aspects of the school. The three dimensions are expressed in terms of 45 indicators and the meaning of each of these is clarified by a series of questions. The indicators are statements of inclusive aspiration against which existing arrangements in a school can be compared in order to set priorities for development. The detailed questions ensure that the materials can challenge the thinking in any school, whatever its current state of development. Together, the dimensions, indicators and questions provide a progressively more detailed map to guide the exploration of the current position of a school and to plot future possibilities.

People are encouraged to use the materials flexibly and in a variety of ways, although they are written with the assumption that the Index process will be initiated by individual schools. In some areas, groups of schools are working in collaboration with each other and with LEA advisory staff, and there is increasing evidence that such networking arrangements add value to the processes involved. Our experience of working in the schools in the pilot phase and the positive reactions we have received to our latest version from the many teachers with which we have worked, in England and other countries, gives us confidence that schools that wish to do so can use the Index to support their own efforts in making significant improvements to the lives of staff and pupils in schools.

Considerable work has already gone on in relation to the use of the Index for school development purposes, including current projects that are going on in countries as diverse as Australia, Brasil, India, Norway, Portugal, Romania, and South Africa. Nevertheless, there is still much more that needs to be done in order that we can develop deeper understandings as to how this complex and challenging document can be used effectively within different contexts. In other words, there is room for yet further collaborative inquiry.

As I have explained, much of our research has been addressing issues of inclusion in relation to school level factors. Increasingly, however, we have found ourselves drawn to a consideration of the contributions made at the local education authority (LEA) level. This has led us to argue that what LEAs do does make a difference to school improvement efforts (Ainscow, Farrell and Tweddle, 2000; Ainscow, Howes and Nicolaidou, 2000). Our research in England has also begun the process of mapping the features of LEA policies and practices that make the difference (Ainscow and Tweddle, 2001; Ainscow and Howes, 2001).

LEAs in England are accountable to their electorates and to the Secretary of State for maintained schools in their areas. In this sense they can be seen as part of the democratic process by which educational provision is made available for all children and young people within a local area. However, since 1988 a series of national reforms have gradually eroded the power of LEAs. In essence the stated aim has been to delegate greater responsibility to the level of schools in the belief that this will help to foster improvements in ‘standards’.

Part of our current research programme is concerned with the implications of these changes for efforts to develop more inclusive forms of education. It is important to note that this work is still at a very early stage of development. Nevertheless, it has already begun to throw light on ways in which the erosion of local control of education may make it more difficult to foster inclusive arrangements.

In our present work, then, we are attempting to develop a deeper understanding of the complex factors that are involved, whilst, at the same time, working in particular contexts to move policies and practices forward. Consequently, we have once again chosen to adopt processes of collaborative inquiry somewhat similar to those that we have been using in our studies of schools and classrooms. Our aim is to work with LEA colleagues in order to develop ‘maps’ that can be used to review and develop their work in relation to inclusion and achievement. In order to illustrate the kind of approach we are using and some of the initial thoughts that this has generated, I will use the example of one of the LEAs in which we have recently been involved.

As a result of its recent inspection the LEA decided that it needed to address certain inclusion related issues. In order to do this a strategy group was set up. During the first year of the initiative the group was comprised of an equal number of officers and Headteachers. My colleague Dave Tweddle and I were also members of the group. Working together to address a series of operational problems facing the LEA, such as funding arrangements for children categorised as having special educational needs, support for students experiencing behavioural difficulties, and concerns about the profile of special provision within the LEA, the group decided that it was essential to formulate a longer term strategy.

The strategy attempted to clarify key relationships within the LEA, particular in respect to the work of schools, and units and services within the education department. The conclusion of the strategy group was that the context created by the national changes outlined earlier demanded a new approach to the development of policy within the LEA. In particular, it was decided that moves towards more inclusive education had to be school led, and that the education department would, therefore, need to review its working arrangements in order to develop more relevant systems for supporting and challenging schools.

To guide these activities a statement of overall principles was developed, outlining the LEA’s overall position on inclusion and achievement. This statement emphasised a number of points that were intended to help clarify definitions and purposes. These were summarised within the LEA in the following way:

The full statement was written concisely on a single page so as to encourage those interested to read and engage with it. Over a period of months it was discussed widely with different groups in the local community and within the education service. Throughout this period it was also occasionally adjusted as a result of feedback.

Using the statement as a reference point, strategies were introduced to encourage processes of review and development, within both the schools and the education department. School-level activities were encouraged through the creation of clusters. As this work developed it became clear that there is some potential in such school-to-school collaborations. At the same time, however, it is important to recognise that there are difficulties that arise from the current context of the English education system, not least from the overall competitive ethos that exists between schools. Headteachers argued that it would take time for trust to be developed and that schools would need to see evidence of practical benefits. So, for example, the Head of one relatively successful secondary school commented, ‘We will have to see what’s in it for us’. It seems, therefore, that some means of providing tangible incentives is needed.

In practice, there is now little capacity within LEAs to orchestrate the creation of cluster arrangements. Our experience is that schools will choose to collaborate as they see fit, depending on what they perceive to be the benefits, almost irrespective of what the education department tries to organise. All of the Headteachers we spoke to agreed that the focus of collaborative work in clusters must be an issue of common concern. In other words, they felt that the agenda must be set by schools, rather than by the education department, and that there must be a common view amongst partner schools regarding what might be achieved. Of course, this links to the point about incentives insofar as work undertaken within a cluster must enable all schools to feel that they will benefit.

The most significant incentive to emerge through discussion related to the deployment and management of resources. Here there was a widely held view amongst Headteachers that resources managed by the department were not used as effectively and efficiently as they could be. Many Heads and, indeed, officers, felt that such resources could be used more effectively to foster achievement and inclusion if they were ‘handed over’ to the clusters of schools. They also argued that unless this happened cluster groups were only ‘playing about with ideas’ and that, as a result, only a minority of Headteachers would choose to become involved.

All of this suggests, then, that strategies for inclusion and achievement could be encouraged through the use of school cluster arrangements. However, it would seem that this will require genuine delegation of decision-making powers and resources to the school level. And, of course, this implies very different management arrangements within education departments than those that have traditionally existed.

Bearing all of this in mind, the strategy group went on to consider the implications for the work of the education department. It was concluded that one of its central functions must be to provide effective support and challenge to schools on issues related to improving achievement by promoting inclusion. Furthermore, it was decided that this was a radical move that would require significant restructuring in order that this responsibility could be shared by staff in all units and service within the department. To move this restructuring agenda forward, we worked with teams of senior and middle managers, and with Headteachers, to develop ten descriptors of what they would wish to see happening within the department, focusing on factors such as leadership, funding, use of data and staff development (See Ainscow and Tweddle, 2001). These descriptors were also intended to provide criteria against which current arrangements could be evaluated in order to define areas for change.

The ten descriptors were used as the basis of a series of activities in order to determine the views of Headteachers and education department staff about the current situation. These activities, which included surveys and focus group discussions, generated data that were then used to formulate priorities and action plans. Currently work is underway to implement these plans.

In reflecting on this experience we have found ourselves being cautiously optimistic. It does seem that in the new context, with its emphasis on school-led improvement strategies and much narrower roles for education departments, LEA policies for fostering more inclusive arrangements will be difficult to achieve. Various national policies have created many perverse incentives that may actually foster greater segregation within our education system. On the other hand, it does seem possible that approaches of the sort described here could create new partnerships that would help to counter the effects of these worrying trends. In addition, they could encourage the types of experimentation that can help to address barriers to participation and learning.

As I have illustrated, approaches used by practitioners, including teachers and LEA staff, to explore aspects of their practice tend to generate evidence and ideas in a variety of forms, including through discussion, written accounts, statistics and video recordings. A strategy that I have found useful in exploring the significance of such evidence is that of ‘triangulation’, an approach that is familiar to social science researchers. Three forms of triangulation have been found to be relevant. These involve: comparing and contrasting evidence from different people within a particular context (e.g. teachers, support staff and students); scrutinising events from different angles by making use of a variety of methods for collecting information; and using ‘outsiders’ as critical friends.

In my experience the participation of outsiders is an important strategy for strengthening practitioner research. It involves providing guidance on methods of inquiry, and technical help in recording and reporting conclusions, whilst at the same time providing support and an element of critique. A central strategy in this respect is the use of ‘group interpretive processes’ as a means of analysing and interpreting evidence. These require an engagement with the different perspectives of ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’ in ways that encourage critical reflection, collaborative learning, and mutual critique (Wasser and Bresler, 1996). In this context, the use of statistical evidence regarding participation and achievement, and feedback from children regarding their experiences of current practice, can be important elements in that they can provide challenges to practitioners about their existing approaches. The varied theoretical perspectives of outsiders can also provide a valuable means of questioning taken for granted assumptions and helping those within a context to reconsider neglected possibilities for moving practice forward.

In working with colleagues in schools and LEAs to encourage them to reflect upon and experiment with aspects of their practice, I have come to recognise that the process of collaborative inquiry also focuses attention on my own thinking. In this respect, my experience seems to mirror that of Lanzara (1991) who, as a result of a similar process, notes: ‘To my surprise, I discovered that as I was helping my partners to reflect on their own practice, I was also reflecting on my own’. In particular, I have increasingly found myself reflecting on the nature of my involvement as an outsider in practitioner research. For example: what is my role? how am I seen by my practitioner colleagues? what, if anything, do I add to the learning that is occurring in the contexts that I visit?

When I raised these issues some time ago at a seminar, my colleague Alan Dyson suggested that I should engage with the ideas of Elliott Eisner (1988). Writing about his work as an educational evaluator, Eisner explains that his purpose does not involve a search for ‘recipes to control and measure practice’. Rather he is seeking to enhance ‘whatever artistry the teacher can achieve’. Consequently, he argues: ‘Theory plays a role in the cultivation of artistry, but its role is not prescriptive, it is diagnostic. Good theory in education, as in art, helps us to see more; it helps us think about more of the qualities that constitute a set of phenomena. Theory does not replace intelligence and perception and action, it provides some of the windows through which intelligence can look out into the world’.

In the light of this argument, Eisner goes on to define two concepts for guiding educational evaluators. These are, ‘educational connoisseurship’ and ‘educational criticism’, each of which has its roots in the arts. He continues:

Moving on to the notion of criticism, Eisner argues:

Whilst I would be embarrassed to describe myself as a connoisseur or critic to my colleagues in schools and LEAs, the concepts do have a deep resonance. Over many years I have observed hundreds of lessons in schools in this country and overseas. Consequently, like a theatre critic at a play, I reflect on and interpret classroom encounters in the light of my previous experiences. Then, whenever possible, I discuss these events with participants and, in so doing, try to help them to see possibilities for further developments in their practices. The frustrations involve trying to get into the minds of these participants during the action in order to gain better understandings of their significance, and finding ways of capturing and articulating ‘what words can never express’.

No doubt some who read this paper will be disappointed that despite all the years of efforts, involving so many people, few definitive conclusions are reached. Surely, they might argue, educational research has a responsibility to provide practitioners with direct answers to the problems they face in their day-to-day work. My own view is that it is through such assumptions and expectations that possibilities for using research more effectively are masked. What I have tried to illustrate is that by working together practitioners and researchers can use their different skills and perspectives in order to collect and engage with evidence in ways that can have a direct and immediate impact on thinking and practice in the field. Furthermore, I argue that such an approach is particularly important in relation to the development of inclusive practices. As we have seen, this is essentially about those within a given context learning how to work together in order to identify and address barriers to participation and learning experienced by members of their communities. Logic suggests that this requires the use of collaborative inquiry.

So then, returning to the question that I raised at the start of this paper, what are the implications for those of us who have made our careers in the field of special education? Do we have a role in the development of inclusive practice and, if so, what might it be? I believe that we do have an important contribution to make and it is one that requires us to become more centrally involved in the development of the education system. This is what I meant when I referred to the ‘major step’ towards the idea of inclusive practice.

Within this formulation the field of special education has a particular tradition that is of importance. If I think of the best special education contexts I have known, including some excellent special schools that I have and do work with, they always seem to involve a particular way of working. In essence this means the creation of a problem-solving culture within which those involved learn how to use one another’s experiences and resources in order to invent better ways of overcoming barriers to learning. My view is that this is the most important gift that the special education community can offer to the movement towards more inclusive forms of education.

Professor Mel Ainscow is co-director, with Tony Booth and Alan Dyson, of the ESRC Research Network, ‘Understanding and Developing Inclusive Practices in Schools. Further information about the work of the Network can be found at: http://www.man.ac.uk/include

Ainscow, M. (Ed.) (1991) Effective Schools for All. London: Fulton.

Ainscow, M. (1994) Special Needs in the Classroom: A Teacher Education Guide. Jessica Kingsley/UNESCO

Ainscow, M. (1999) Understanding the Development of Inclusive Schools. Falmer

Ainscow, M. And Brown D. (1999) Guidance on Improving Teaching. Lewisham LEA

Ainscow, M., Barrs, D. and Martin, J (1998) Taking school improvement into the classroom. Paper presented at the International Conference on School Effectiveness and Improvement, Manchester, UK, January, 1998 .

Ainscow, M., Booth, T. and Dyson, A. (2001) Understanding and developing inclusive practices in schools. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference. Seattle, USA, April

Ainscow, M., Farrell, P. And Tweddle, D. (2000) Developing policies for inclusive education: a study of the role of local education authorities. International Journal of Inclusive Education 4(3), 211-229

Ainscow, M., Hargreaves, D.H. and Hopkins, D. (1995) Mapping the process of change in schools: the development of six new research techniques. Evaluation and Research in Education 9(2), 75-89

Ainscow, M., Hopkins, D., Southworth, G. and West, M. (1994) Creating the Conditions for School Improvement. London: Fulton

Ainscow, M., Howes, H. and Nicolaidou, M. (2000) The changing roles of English LEAs: a study of practice. Paper presented at the British Education Research Association Conference, Cardiff

Ainscow, M. and Howes, A. (2001) LEAs and school improvement: what is it that makes the difference? Paper presented at the British Education Research Association Conference, Leeds.

Ainscow, M. and Tweddle, D. (2001) Developing the roles of local education authorities in relation to achievement and inclusion: barriers and opportunities. Paper presented at the National Conference of Senior Education Officers, Cambridge.

Booth, T. and Ainscow, M. (2000) The Index for Inclusion. Bristol: Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education

Chamber, R. (1992) Rural Appraisal: Rapid, Relaxed and Participatory. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies

Dyson, A. And Millward, A. (2000) Schools and Special Needs London: Paul Chapman

Eisner, E.W. (1988) Educational connoisseurship and criticism: their form and functions in educational evaluation. In D. Fetterman (ed.) Educational Evaluation.

Hammersley, M. (1992) What’s Wrong With Ethnography? London: Routledge

Hopkins, D., Ainscow, M. and West, M. (1994) School Improvement in an Era of Change. London; Cassell

Iano, R.P. (1986). The study and development of teaching: With implications for the advancement of special education. Remedial and Special Education. 7(5), 50-61.

Kemmis, S. and McTaggart (1982) The Action Research Planner Victoria: Deakin University Press

Lanzara, G.F. (1991). Shifting Stones: learning from a reflective experiment in a design process. In D.A. Schon (Ed) The Reflective Turn. New York: Teachers College Press

Lewin, K. (1946) Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues 2, 34-36

Poplin, M. and Weeres, J. (1992). Voices From the Inside: A Report on Schooling From Inside the Classroom. Claremont, CA: Institute for Education in Transformation.

Reason, P. (1988) Human Inquiry in Action: Developments in New Paradigm Research. London: Sage

Reason, P. and Rowan, J. (1981) Human Inquiry: A Sourcebook for New Pardigm Research Chichester: Wiley

Robinson, V.M.J. (1998) Methodology and the research-practice gap. Educational Researcher 27, 17-26

Stubbs, S. (1995) The Lesotho National Integrated Education Programme: A Case Study of Implementation. MEd Thesis, University of Cambridge.

Wasser, J.D. and Bresler, L. (1996) Working in a collaborative zone: conceptualising collaboration in qualitative research teams. Educational Researcher 25(5), 5-15

Winter, R. (!989) Learning from experience: Principles and Practice in Action Research. London: Falmer