Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Shrink-wrapped inclusion: A sociology of access to education for deaf students
Shrink-wrapped inclusion: A sociology of access to education for deaf students
Shrink-wrapped inclusion: A sociology of access to education for deaf students
Shrink-wrapped inclusion: A sociology of access to education for deaf students
Shrink-wrapped inclusion: A sociology of access to education for deaf students
Shrink-wrapped inclusion: A sociology of access to education for deaf students
Shrink-wrapped inclusion: A sociology of access to education for deaf students
Shrink-wrapped inclusion: A sociology of access to education for deaf students
Shrink-wrapped inclusion: A sociology of access to education for deaf students
Shrink-wrapped inclusion: A sociology of access to education for deaf students
Shrink-wrapped inclusion: A sociology of access to education for deaf students
Shrink-wrapped inclusion: A sociology of access to education for deaf students
Shrink-wrapped inclusion: A sociology of access to education for deaf students
Shrink-wrapped inclusion: A sociology of access to education for deaf students
Shrink-wrapped inclusion: A sociology of access to education for deaf students
Shrink-wrapped inclusion: A sociology of access to education for deaf students
Shrink-wrapped inclusion: A sociology of access to education for deaf students
Shrink-wrapped inclusion: A sociology of access to education for deaf students
Shrink-wrapped inclusion: A sociology of access to education for deaf students
Shrink-wrapped inclusion: A sociology of access to education for deaf students
Shrink-wrapped inclusion: A sociology of access to education for deaf students
Shrink-wrapped inclusion: A sociology of access to education for deaf students
Shrink-wrapped inclusion: A sociology of access to education for deaf students
Shrink-wrapped inclusion: A sociology of access to education for deaf students
Shrink-wrapped inclusion: A sociology of access to education for deaf students
Shrink-wrapped inclusion: A sociology of access to education for deaf students
Shrink-wrapped inclusion: A sociology of access to education for deaf students
Shrink-wrapped inclusion: A sociology of access to education for deaf students
Shrink-wrapped inclusion: A sociology of access to education for deaf students
Shrink-wrapped inclusion: A sociology of access to education for deaf students
Shrink-wrapped inclusion: A sociology of access to education for deaf students
Shrink-wrapped inclusion: A sociology of access to education for deaf students
Shrink-wrapped inclusion: A sociology of access to education for deaf students
Shrink-wrapped inclusion: A sociology of access to education for deaf students
Shrink-wrapped inclusion: A sociology of access to education for deaf students
Shrink-wrapped inclusion: A sociology of access to education for deaf students
Shrink-wrapped inclusion: A sociology of access to education for deaf students
Shrink-wrapped inclusion: A sociology of access to education for deaf students
Shrink-wrapped inclusion: A sociology of access to education for deaf students
Shrink-wrapped inclusion: A sociology of access to education for deaf students
Shrink-wrapped inclusion: A sociology of access to education for deaf students
Shrink-wrapped inclusion: A sociology of access to education for deaf students
Shrink-wrapped inclusion: A sociology of access to education for deaf students
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Shrink-wrapped inclusion: A sociology of access to education for deaf students

219

Published on

Invited lecture presented to students and faculty of the University of Oldenburg, 19 june 2014. …

Invited lecture presented to students and faculty of the University of Oldenburg, 19 june 2014.


Educational equality for deaf and hearing-impaired pupils and students seems beset by a double paradox. The first is that the longer full educational inclusion is held out as a goal to be pursued, the more learners are excluded from equal accesss to education; since the greater the care expended on particular cases, the more diffuse and remote becomes the general aim.

A second paradox is that the more technical and personal the research data collected on hearing-impaired and deaf learners, the more support for their learning becomes impersonal and general purpose—that is to say, the more it services a particular kind of learner.

The consequence is that while much is known about learning with deafness or a hearing impairment, deaf and hearing-impaired learners are lured with individually taylored sets of standard, one size fits all support solutions designed with no-one in particular in mind. Inclusive education leads, I suggest, to shrink-wrapping support for learning.

Drawing on research into deaf-inclusive education and various work in social theory I will argue that learning support systems reflect general social conditions that cultivate the idea of the individual but process individuals as instances of kinds. The present state of deaf-inclusive education seems meanwhile that inclusion and equality are offered for personally taylored consumption without being available as such.

In a separate workshop participants can explore shared ideals and discuss alternatives for inclusive education.

Dr. Ernst D. Thoutenhoofd is sociologist and senior lecturer in (special) education at the University of Göteborg.

Published in: Education, Health & Medicine
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
219
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • —Here I mean to introduce Zygmunt Bauman’s idea of ‘making the world strange’ by becoming an outsider. It is how deaf people have long been conceived, as ‘exiles’ from the world of the hearing, yet living among them. However, to be a stranger in a strange land is also be a keen observer and to learn a great deal, which in turn leads to (re)categorisations of others: in short, emigration is one among many ways of making people.
  • In the Dutch project we invited respondents (deaf students) to list the sorts of learning support they wished for, versus the sorts of support they were actually getting, in open questions divided under four different themes: people and expertise, technology and physical environment, institutional organisation and practice, and curriculum and learning. This slide is a summary of responses to the last theme, curriculum and learning.
  • —As a follow-up to our survey we invited master students to conduct interviews with deaf students for their master dissertations. This slide shows some of the findings reported by the students.
    Some of the interviews were face to face, others via email, chat or facebook.
  • The claim is non-trivial: the conclusion is that education ‘includes’ those whom it deems to be excluded by changing the learner, rather than by changing the teaching and learning. As a consequence inclusion is superficial (and often more apparent than real), since it does not take into account what deaf students *bring to* education in terms of different and inclusive teaching and learning practice, skills, experience and world-making. As Schiller noted, if we wish to be kind to others we should accept what is alien into us and dare to do strange things.
  • Nb: PLE = Perception of Listening Ease, a Canadian questionnaire (Kennedy et al. 2006) developed in order to measure students’ experience of the soundscape qualitites of study environments. We used only part of the questionnaire, since other parts (such as acoustic quality measures of teaching rooms) could not be administered via online survey.
  • These findings too are non-trivial, since what they suggest is that the differences between hearing and hearing-impaired students are perhaps less salient than differences of location (where students study). It is a further implicit comment on the nature of being a stranger among others, as described by student responses to a questionnaire on listening ease.
  • —In this study too we invited a number of master students to conduct follow-up dissertation research. Rinneke van den Dool statistically re-analysed the Groningen data, in search of differences between hearing and hearing-impaired students’ sense of listening as presenting a barrier to effective studying.
  • Nb: Again, we think both observations are non-trivial, since they imply a dual radical inversal of the construction of deafness and hearing impairment. Firstly, impaired access to sound and impaired listening are not firstly medical or audiological outcomes, but constitute primarily a sociocultural phenomenon. And secondly, when a sociocultural phenomenon then by implication responsibility for any disadvantages that accrue are collectively owned and not the individual responsibility of any one impaired person.
  • —Here I meant to exemplify the means and ends of sociology by way of Wiebe Bijker’s claim that ‘we live in a sociotechnical world’ (next slide). In essence, the implication of the increasing role of technology in the shaping of present and future leads to the conclusion that our fate is no longer solely a human affair, but a human-technology co-construction. This has the effect not only of decentring human interest in future shaping, but also means that (at present) we are out of sync with—because we give insufficient credence to—the role that technologies play in our well-being. As another ‘science and technology studies’ (STS) scholar has noted: ours is a posthuman society.
  • In a work that is subtitled ‘Toward a theory of sociotechnical change’ (MIT), Bijker details how the original design of the vélocipède, the cycle with the very high front wheel, was not the outcome of engineering imperatives, but the result of sociopolitical struggles. Women were at the time starting to claim rights (it was the time of the suffragette movement), whereas cycling was constructed as male daring and male sportivity. The very high front wheel effectively kep cycling a male preserve, since the physical strength and trousers needed to ‘man’ the bicycle effectively excluded women from participation. The much later design of cycles with two equal-sized wheels was under constant pressure of women seeking to join the cycling rage and was consequently hailed as the “safety bicycle” – that is, a bicycle better suited to the perceived nature of women.
    This example also shows neatly how exclusion does not have physical origins (as with the notion of hearing impairment) but sociocultural and/or indeed sociotechnical origins.
  • Deafness is not only a differentiating concept of that same order (ie, sociocultural rather than given by nature), it is moreover a concept that is extensible: the categories of being that deafness includes and excludes can be refashioned according to social, cultural and technological imperatives, all of which are inevitably also political.
  • Here is the typical Victorian understanding—internalised by a deaf student, composed and written up as a school-exercise in spoken language poetry—of deafness as ‘void’ as nothing but the tragic absence of hearing, which moreover prevents access to the core of human being and duty, namely religious experience and participation. To be deaf is not only to live in a communicative void and be largely silent, it is also to be cut off from the civilising force of religion.
  • However, at the same time a long battle raged between ‘oralists’ and ‘manualists’, which came to a head with the banning of sign language from deaf education, a motion that was overwhelmingely carried by the (mostly hearing) educators present at an international conference held in Milan in 1880, a conference still known as infamous in Deaf history.
  • Note here the striking confirmation of the claim made in the previous slide: cochlear implants, now implanted into the overwhelming majority of severely and profoundly deaf babies born in the Western world, are thought in recent research to be associated with child-difficulties in developing cognitive functions, notably memory and organisational skills.
  • Besides cochlear-implant technologies, there are many other technologies that co-shape our present understanding of what deafness is, and indeed what it is like to be deaf. All these technologies are part and parcel of the present ‘social shaping’ of deafness and the experience of being deaf.
  • In my own doctoral thesis I explored a counter-claim to the common understanding of deafness as hearing loss, namely deafness as a sociocultural performance that primarily centres around the sense of sight (as do sign languages). Deaf experience is, I would claim, by its very nature ‘ocularcentred’, and is so to an extent that is simply not accessible—that is beyond the sensory ‘reach’—of people who are not part of that deaf collective experience. By consequence, a great deal of the present attention in both the (medical/audological and educational) sciences and in technological innovation, are misdirected (and misguided) in sociocultural terms of deep understanding of what it is like to be deaf.
  • Carol Padden and Tom Humphries are Deaf scholars (based at UCLA), and in an important book on the nature of American deaf culture, formulated the same observation thus.
  • Bruno Latour (key scholar in actor-network theory), developed the idea of technological objects not being singular but plural (‘gathered objects’) in a 2004 article entitled ‘Has critique run out of steam?’ My purpose in borrowing the idea of technological objects as ‘gathered’ is to show how technologies are open-ended with respect to the uses to which they are being put, and hence can have ‘evolving’ consequences for example in how deaf people are ‘made’ by them; whereas at the same time technologies have qualities that ‘fix’ their hold and make them stick like superglue.
  • Latour himself used the example of the space shuttle explosions to note how in gathered objects there can be spectacular adjustment arising in the social agency of technological objects, along with alterations in the divisioning of matters of fact from matters of concern. Shuttles exploring space were primarily a matter of fact, until the explosions killed shuttle crews who had always been deemed great cultural heros, the new Explorers of the unknown in the great American tradition of ‘how the west was won’. The explosions presaged the scrapping of the NASA space-programme, but moreover presents a deep cultural trauma in US cultural experience.
  • The last issue I mean to address is precisely how science and technology make it possible to make people. For this I turn to science philosopher Ian Hacking’s analysis of the many different ways in wich both objects and ideas (including ideas about who people are), may be classified. In 2006 Ian Hacking held an excellent speech on this topic to the British Academy, entitled ‘Kinds of people: moving targets’. In the speech he notes that there are just two basic ‘kinds’ of objects and ideas, each with their own very particular characteristics and ways of making people.
  • The Leeds University sociologist Zygmunt Bauman contributes the final element in my puzzle of how deaf access to university is made, by drawing on his descriptions of liquid modernity, a modernity in which power escapes from the public space, leaving it void of direction and agency, into digital networks, while that former public space of shared sociopolitics is filled with the cult of the individual, which has become little more than the imposition of shopping choice. And indeed, shopping choice is what is expected of deaf students with respect to where they study and how they wish to organise their support from a ‘menu’ of possibilities offered by university support shops where you can buy all sorts, from laptops to note-taking and crucially, extra time for exams.
  • Here follows a metaphor that Zygmunt Bauman uses to note the present relationship between the interests and duties of individuals, versus the interests and duties as exercised by systems of public governance (such as in my case universities). Basically, individuals are ‘caravanning’: they seek the good life by setting up temporary camp in places specifically designed to offer such; but should the site fail to deliver on their promise, then caravanners are happy to move on, sooner than organise themselves into a protesting collective aimed to force the campsite in adjusting their provisions. And so indeed, caravanners and campsites mutually adjust to preference not by direct engagement but my passing association and avoiding of any commitment either side: if you don’t like it, seek your comforts elsewhere; we are all ‘free to choose’, although not free from the imperative of choice. As Bauman noted, whereas previously the struggle was for a destiny of our own choice, what technological modernity has foisted upon us is an obsession with choice as our destiny.
  • Transcript

    • 1. www.ips.gu.se/english A sociology of access to education for deaf students Ernst D. Thoutenhoofd | June 2014 Shrink-wrapped inclusion
    • 2. www.ips.gu.se/english Aim and content of this presentation Aim To describe a double paradox in deaf-inclusive education: – inclusion reproduces exclusion – in reason we lose our individuality –Friedrich Schiller 1 Content Explanandum | Experiences of deaf students in HE – Their access in Scotland and the Netherlands – The ‘Have you heard?’ study Explanans – Deafness as extensible concept – How included deaf students are made and make themselves
    • 3. www.ips.gu.se/english On emigration We cannot be the unmoved movers or take the view from nowhere. 2
    • 4. www.ips.gu.se/english Explanandum | Experiences of deaf students in higher education
    • 5. www.ips.gu.se/english Deaf students in Scottish HE (2002–03) 3 • Students’ perceptions of the level and quality of support may not accord with those of access and support staff. • Comments from students suggest that levels of access and support vary across institutions, and this is a factor for students deciding where to study. • Lack of awareness and the need for self-notification may cause delays in the organisation of access arrangements. • A number of students felt that they needed to work harder than peers to achieve the same goals. n=28 • Students report that group tutorials and seminars are most challenging, accepting as ‘inevitable’ that it is difficult to devise effective access and support strategies for those situations. • Although some deaf students in the sample report a positive social experience at their HE institution, the majority find social participation difficult and unrewarding. • As expected, some students are uncomfortable being identified as deaf by way of the high visibility of access and support arranged for them, while others accept it as part of a Deaf identity.
    • 6. www.ips.gu.se/english Deaf students in Dutch HE (2010–13) | context 4 • There is reported structural underperformance of primary and secondary deaf education. • Deaf youngster are at risk in school-work transitions, and at risk of relative underemployment. • They are at habitual risk of social exclusion in- and outside education. • Secondary school results contra- indicate tertiary education. • Policy measures punish institutions for study delays. • There is unwillingness to be a magnet for sub-optimal students. • There is negligible legal imperative or grass-roots activism. • Contextual data collection is culturally impopular. • There is comparatively modest public awareness or disquiet.
    • 7. www.ips.gu.se/english Deaf students in Dutch HE | findings 4 • There is strong, significant interaction between hearing impairment and study delay. • 16 respondents could not specify their deafness on registration; 13 refused. • In assessments they benefit from adjustments in place for other (e.g. dyslectic) students. • Deaf students get general support, but wish for specific support. • Deaf students wish for cutting edge technologies, e.g.: – courses to run in social media (facebook) – smartphone app courses – instant message networking – speech-to-text autotranslation n=47
    • 8. www.ips.gu.se/english Deaf students in Dutch HE | data example 4 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% adapted curriculum adapted materials adapted learning environment advance access materials adapted traineeships adapted time schedule Granted Wished for
    • 9. www.ips.gu.se/english Deaf students in Dutch HE | interviews 5,6 Hazekamp 2012, n=5 • Deaf students avoid students who talk a lot. • They tend to sit in the front of teaching rooms. • They make little use of study advisors or support. • Instead, they arrange their own support. • Some only attend when that is obligatory. Quist 2012, n=7 • Lack of support is structural feature of educational career. • Some choose a university for the proximity of deaf peers, not for a particular programme. • Some stop HE for lack of literacy skills. • Those who do well do not feel addressed by university support: it is ‘for other students’.
    • 10. www.ips.gu.se/english The first paradox in detail • While inclusion (such as university support) compensates for the functional impairments of students and so enables their physical participation, • many students appear to actively avoid support, since – they don’t feel addressed by the stated categories of need, – they feel stigmatised and/or excluded by being singled out, – they experience the support as misdirected or failing, – and/or the core business of HE does not include them. Strong claim | while HE includes deaf students nominally, it excludes them by doing so physically and not intellectually or intelligently.
    • 11. www.ips.gu.se/english The ‘have you heard?’ study 2011–13 7 • 79,158 students from the universities of Oldenburg and Groningen and the applied sciences university of Utrecht were mailed invitations to an online survey. • 10,466 (13%) students completed the survey. • In addition to a range of personal and study-related data, students were asked to self-report, – when relevant, standard questionnaires on hearing loss, tinnitus and/or hyperacusis; – measures of psychosocial strain and judgments of speech recognition under different auditory conditions (Oldenburg Inventory); – measures of their ‘perception of listening ease’ (PLE).
    • 12. www.ips.gu.se/english The ‘have you heard?’ study | key data 7 • 28.8% of respondents indicated impaired audition. Of these, • 55% report hyperacusis, 14% hearing loss, and 7% tinnitus; • 6% report a combination of tinnitus and hyperacusis, 4% a combination of all three; • 22% experience psychosocial stress due to impaired audition; • the level of psychosocial stress rises along the dimension of severity of the impairment.
    • 13. www.ips.gu.se/english The ‘have you heard?’ study | study disruption 8 • 50% of students report very often or almost always experiencing concentration loss due to noise disruption. • 48% fail to hear questions posed by fellow students. • 20% report that lack of understanding results from disruption. • 28% need to work harder as a consequence. • 14% need to ask further clarifications due to noise disruption. • 11% leave lectures. N=7,321 Utrecht PLE data were excluded following technical error.
    • 14. www.ips.gu.se/english The ‘have you heard?’ study | disruption types 8 hi-fi noise disruption • 70% talk noise • 31% people movements noise low-fi noise disruption • 15% climate and ventilation noise • 11% technical equipment noise
    • 15. www.ips.gu.se/english The ‘have you heard?’ study | student proposals 8 • Students prioritise raising lecturers’ skills (8.6%), imposing norms on student behaviour (6.5%) and various technical solutions (8.4%). • Students with auditory impairments are up to 4% more likely to advise corrective measures than are hearing students. However, greater differences were observed when sorting student responses by institution: • Oldenburg students proposed imposing norms on students behaviour and raising didactic skills of lecturers 2x more often. • Groningen students proposed online lectures 3x more often and were 6x more likely to advise technical control solutions.
    • 16. www.ips.gu.se/english The ‘have you heard?’ study | Groningen data 9 van den Dool 2012, n=2.202 • Very little use is made of support. • Students do not expect a study- delay. • Hearing impaired students (n=571) do not experience greater study barriers than do hearing respondents (n=1.631)
    • 17. www.ips.gu.se/english The ‘have you heard?’ study | conclusions 8 • A holistic understanding of the sound of study suggests that the bare facts hearing impairment prevalence rates among students are transcended and that listening be re-socialised, approached as a shared sociocultural performance that is based on collective and continually evolving habits. • Hearing disorder, we suggest, describes those persistently adverse social circumstances of hearing and listening that are collectively owned and given by social norms and material culture, subsuming a wide variety of physical (sensory) and psychological traits.
    • 18. www.ips.gu.se/english The second paradox in detail • The scientific understanding of hearing impairment is ever more enumerative, data-intensive, ranking and narrowing, • so that the public response to hearing impairment tends ever more towards the abstract and impersonal, and toward categorial attributions. Nb, this observation mirrors Schiller’s critique of Kant’s practical reason: if we are dominated by pure or practical reason, we lose our individuality and become mere members of a species, because we are divested from our particularities. 1
    • 19. www.ips.gu.se/english Explanans | a sociology of shrinkwrapped access
    • 20. www.ips.gu.se/english For me, the ends of sociology are: • to make the ordinary appear strange (so that new horizons for collective action may appear); • to remind ourselves that things can always be different (which implies that all facts are underdetermined); • and uncover the structuring operations of power (that is, to see order).
    • 21. www.ips.gu.se/english Wiebe Bijker
    • 22. www.ips.gu.se/english We live in a sociotechnical world. 10
    • 23. www.ips.gu.se/english Deafness is a sociotechnical and extensible concept.
    • 24. www.ips.gu.se/english I moved—a silent exile on this earth 11 As in his dreary cell one doomed for life, My tongue is mute, and closed ear heedeth not; Deep silence over all, and all seems lifeless; The orators exciting strains the crowd Enraptur’d hear, while meteor-like his wit Illuminates the dark abyss of mind— Alone, left in the dark—I hear them not. The balmy words of God’s own messenger Excite to love, and troubled spirits sooth— Religion’s dew-drops bright—I feel them not. —Hartford Asylum student, 1880
    • 25. www.ips.gu.se/english Deafness is a relationship, not a state 11 …and the use of the silence metaphor is one indication of how the relationship is dominated by hearing. Hearing is defined as the universal, and deafness as emptiness.
    • 26. www.ips.gu.se/english Chinese women bind their babies’ feet 11 …to make them small; the Flathead Indians bind their babies’ heads to make them flat. Those who prohibit sign language in the schools are denying the deaf their their free mental growth and are in the same class of criminals. Convention of American Instructors of the Deaf member, 1890
    • 27. www.ips.gu.se/english
    • 28. www.ips.gu.se/english Deafness is partly a product of sociotechnology 1 neonatal screening technologies 2 neurolinguistic (imaging) technologies 3 audiological instruments and tests 4 acoustics instruments and tests 5 aids to hearing 6 cochlear implantation and surgery 7 rehabilitation and its monitoring systems 8 genetics and counselling techniques 9 sign language corpora 10 educational attainment tracking systems 11 Learning support such as laptops, notetaking and extra time 12 social (incidence) statistics and (psychological) classifications
    • 29. www.ips.gu.se/english You find yourself in a dark room and you cannot hear. 12 What will you look for, a hearing aid or the light switch? Like all of us, deaf people do not live by the absence of sensory input, but by their presence. Although definitional of deafness, not hearing is a circumstantial attribute of being deaf.
    • 30. www.ips.gu.se/english This conflict of impulses, 13 …to ‘repair’ on the one hand, and to acknowledge diversity on the other, must be one of the deepest contractions of the twenty- first century. Deaf people, whether they like it or not, live their lives in the middle of this contradiction.
    • 31. www.ips.gu.se/english Bruno Latour
    • 32. www.ips.gu.se/english Latour’s gathered objects 14 Technological objects are combinations of things acting as matters of fact and things acting as matters of concern.
    • 33. www.ips.gu.se/english Sean Cordeiro & Claire Healy Space shuttle explosion in lego 2010
    • 34. www.ips.gu.se/english Ian Hacking
    • 35. www.ips.gu.se/english Hacking’s classification of objects and ideas 15 Indifferent kinds • unaware of being classified • constantly active • e.g. a pathology of deafness • Interactive kinds • aware of being classified • dynamically interactive • e.g. deafness
    • 36. www.ips.gu.se/english I have added technology as producing a distinct class of ‘fixed’ kind Indifferent kinds • unaware of being classified • constantly active example pathology of deafness deaf gene Interactive kinds • aware of being classified • dynamically interactive example deafness hearing impairment Determinate kinds • aware of being classified • interactive and dynamically constant example the cochlear implanted child the language-delayed child the deaf pupil the included deaf student
    • 37. www.ips.gu.se/english The sociotechnical character of determinate kinds Determinate kinds stabilise or ‘fix’ meanings and so create the illusion of historical and synchronic, calculable equivalence. Example: the quantified self/other | Deaf students can self- identify or be identified (singled out), classify or be classified, monitor or be monitored, and compare or be compared with other students on measures of educational inclusion, educational performance, linguistic competence, and so on. Enumeration is at the heart of determinate kinds. Determinate kinds serve a sociotechnical ecology of scientific, public and individual ends through technical means for (self-)monitoring.
    • 38. www.ips.gu.se/english Zygmunt Bauman
    • 39. www.ips.gu.se/english Liquid modernity 16 In Bauman’s liquid modernity, the relationship between individuals and the state is compared to caravanning: individuals exhibit a passing association with the environments they inhibit, with caravanner and campsite-owner avoiding deeper commitments either side. Rather than caravanners organising collectively in search of better provisions at any one site, they simply move on. The claim is that we are ‘free to choose’; but there is no liberty in the imperative of choice—it has become our destiny. By implication, we are all migrants.
    • 40. www.ips.gu.se/english ‘…how can we be kind, benevolent and humane toward others if we lack the capacity genuinely and truly to accept alien nature in ourselves, to adopt alien situations and to make alien feelings into our own?’ Final thought 1
    • 41. www.ips.gu.se/english The workshop Claim The central problem with the notion of inclusion is that it is never clear who, where or what is ‘alien’: precisely who is excluded from precisely what? Is it not a dog chasing after its own tail? Thought-experiment Hence if we would mean to ‘truly’ include the learners that inclusive education circularly excludes then education might be openly playful, drawing on the particular contributions to developing learning that all those who learn can make.
    • 42. www.ips.gu.se/english References 1. Schiller, F. [1794] (2009) Über die ästetische Erziehung des Menschen | On the æsthetic education of man. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. 2. Greene, M. and Griffiths, M. (2003) Feminism, philosophy and education: imagining public spaces, in N. Blake, P. Smyers, R. Smith and P. Standish (eds) The Blackwell guide to the philosophy of education, pp.73–92. Oxford: Blackwell. 3. Brennan, M., Grimes, M. and Thoutenhoofd, E.D. (2005) Deaf students in Scottish higher education: a report for the Scottish Funding Council. Edinburgh: The University of Edinburgh. 4. Thoutenhoofd, E.D. and van den Bogaerde, B. (2010) deaf students in Dutch higher education. Paper presented to the Equality, Diversity Inclusion Conference. Vienna: Vienna University of Economics and Business. 5. Hazekamp, J. (2012) ‘Al gehoord?’ Kwalitatief onderzoek naar studiebarrières en copingstijlen van studenten met een gehoorbeperking. Master dissertation. Groningen: The University of Groningen. 6. Quist, Y. (2010) Doof studeren. Master dissertation. Groningen: The University of Groningen. 7. Schulze, G., Rogge, J., Jacobs, G., Knot-Dicksheit, J., Thoutenhoofd, E.D. and van den Bogaerde, B. (2013) Grundlagenstudie zur Erfassung der Hörfähigkeit von Studierenden an den Universitäten Oldenburg, Groningen und der Hochschule Utrecht, in Empirische Sonderpädagogik nr1, S.85–99. 8. Thoutenhoofd, E.D., Knot-Dickscheit, J., Rogge, J., van der Meer, M., Schulze, G., Jacobs, G. and van den Bogaerde, B. (under review) The sound of study: student experiences of listening in the university soundscape. Manuscript. 9. Van den Dool, R. (2012) ‘Al gehoord?’ Een kwantitatief onderzoek naar studenten met een beperking aan het gehoor. Master dissertation. Groningen: The University of Groningen.
    • 43. www.ips.gu.se/english 10. Bijker, W. (1997) Of bicyles, bakelites and bulbs. Cambridge: MIT. 11. Baynton, D.C. (1992) ‘A silent exile on this earth’: the metaphorical construction of deafness in the nineteenth century. in American Quarterly 4(2):216–243. 12. Thoutenhoofd, E.D. (1999) See deaf: on sight in deafness. https://www.academia.edu/527261/See_deaf_On_sight_in_deafness. 13. Padden, C. and Humphries, T. (2006) Inside Deaf culture. Harvard: Harvard UP. 14. Latour, B. (2004) Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. in Critical Inquiry 30(2):225–248. 15. Hacking, I. (1999) The social construction of what? Harvard: Harvard UP. 16. Bauman, Z. (2000) Liquid modernity. Cambridge: Polity.

    ×