A Review of the Literature on Inclusive Postsecondary Education: A Critical Analysis of Student Perspective and Voice in Research

• In Event: Thinking and Feeling With Justice: Destabilizing Voice and Practice in Transition

Abstract

Inclusive postsecondary education (IPSE) programs, an increasingly popular framework for transition programming, support students identified as intellectually and developmentally disabled (IDD) in attending college (Neubert, Moon, Grigal, & Redd, 2001). Thoma et al. (2012) reviewed literature on the participation of students with IDD in postsecondary education between 2001-2010 with the intent to build on a review conducted by Neubert et al. (2001) that included literature from the 1970s-1990s, yet a systematic review of research literature has not been published on studies in the past decade. Whereas Thoma et al. (2012) included 24 articles in their review, a 2019 search of ProQuest and EBSCO databases yielded approximately 80 peer-reviewed articles that can be described as studies. The increase in number of studies indicate the need for an updated review of literature to understand the ongoing development of IPSEs. This review of literature employs a conceptual framework of disability studies, in which the authors strive to be critical of assumptions in research methods and reporting that conform to and enforce compulsory able-bodiedness and able-mindedness (Kafer, 2013). We analyze 1) the frequency and methods with which disabled students are included as participants in IPSE research, and 2) the variation between research findings and recommendations dependent upon how the perspectives and voices of disabled IPSE participants are positioned in the research. Several themes dominate the literature. Common topics describe program aims, outcomes, and student characteristics, strengths, and needs using concepts such as self-determination, self-advocacy, academic support, socialization, social skills, and often emphasize the role of IPSE to prepare students for employment and independent living (c.f., Berg et al, 2017; Hendrickson et al, 2013; Rilotta et al, 2018; Rogan et al, 2014), thus making clear that professional discourses and perspectives are influential in how outcomes are conceptualized and reported. Out of the 80 studies reviewed, only 12 included direct quotes and participation from IPSE program students with disabilities. These seem to yield different descriptions and recommendations related to IPSE experiences and development. On social aspects of IPSE programs, for example, IPSE participants describe social opportunity, relationships, and making friends (Corby et al, 2018; Mock & Love, 2012; Spassiani et al, 2017) as needs and highlights, which can be contrasted with staff and peer reports on “socialization” and “social skills.” We believe that there are important qualitative differences between program development that aims to support opportunity and relationship-building and that which emphasizes the development of socialization or social skills. This critical review contributes a comprehensive discussion of research literature on IPSE with the specific aim to amplify the perspectives and voices of participants labeled IDD reported in research. The implications of the analysis emphasize specific directions in IPSE program evaluation and development that draw from recommendations of disabled participants who often identify meaningful experiences and targets for program needs and improvement different from other stakeholders featured in research literature. Focusing on IPSE participant perspectives reveals the resistance of disabled participants to compulsory ablemindedness, which can shift and shape the trajectory of transition-focused IPSE research and practice.

Authors

• Jessica K. Bacon, Montclair State University

• Susan Baglieri, Montclair State University