Democratic Praxis Pedagogy at the Boundary of Special Education and Disability Studies

• In Event: Critically Complicating (Special) Education Policy, Process, and Praxis Through Family, Youth, Educator, and Scholar Perspectives

Abstract

Purpose
The current political, economic, social, and cultural history and movements we are experiencing within the United States and globally, necessitates engagement in an interdisciplinary and intersectional special and inclusive education approach that honors the macro, meso, and micro dimensions of the “wisdom of practice” through democratic praxis pedagogy (Arnold & Mundy, 2020; Phelan, 2005). The macro refers to the ideologies and historical contexts that shape special and inclusive education, while the meso and the micro account for the institutional logics and lived experiences associated with these enactments. Democratic praxis pedagogy is supported by emotion-aware public policy prolepsis that honors the role of hope given one’s past, present, and future (Freiberg & Carson, 2010; Hoffman-Kipp et al., 2003). It recognizes how technical and the adaptive components of practice (Heifetz, R. et al., 2009; Nelson & Squires, 2017) invest in parties across general, special, and inclusive education. For instance, operationalizing individualized education programs (IEPs, technical) with the necessary democratic praxis pedagogy given the influence of historical, contextual, and ideological factors that shape notions of ability and dis/Ability (adaptive) enshrined in IEPs (Author et al., 2024).

Perspective
We focus on a long-standing problem – the boundary work between traditional special education and the interdisciplinary and intersectional Disability Studies in Education (Author et al., 2023a). Harmful unintended consequences emerge at the fault line between these two paradigms when traditional and a-intersectional paradigms of dis/Ability embedded in special and inclusive education, disproportionality impact and harm the well-being and life-chances of Black, Indigenous, and Youth of Color with and without dis/Abilities.

Method
We present a self-study in teacher education (Pithouse-Morgan, 2022) of our colleagueship and critical friendship along personal, professional, and programmatic lines given our positionalities and relationalities (Boveda & Annamma, 2023; Kosnik et al., 2006). Pithouse-Morgan (2022) listed the following characteristics of self study, which we adopt:
● A sense of curiosity.
● Self-awareness.
● Examine ourselves in context.
● A positive commitment to change.
● Ongoing professional growth.
● Benefit from community support and shared accountability.
● Experience-based knowledge as the epistemic foundation for self-study scholarship.
● Theory guides self-study scholars who, in turn, influence theory development.
● Scholars make their self-focused learning public.
● Requires bravery and resilience (Pithouse-Morgan, 2022, p. 7)

Data Sources
Throughout our colleagueship and friendship, we engaged in the above characteristics as we dialogued and wrote together relative to the boundary work. Consequently, our data sources have been our a) text messages, b) Zoom meetings and recordings, c) phone calls, d) email exchanges, and (e) ongoing conversations related to our personal, professional, and programmatic selves relative to transformative boundary work.

Scholarly Significance
In turn, we ask: How can we further envision and practice transformative boundary work praxis across the macro, meso, and micro dimensions of educational research that is responsive to both technical and adaptive realities relative to theory and practice? The approach can lead to critically and empirically informed democratic praxis pedagogy and can “empirically examine how special and inclusive education are used as a tool for both empowerment and dis-empowerment,” (Call for Proposals SIER SIG).

Authors

• David I. Hernandez-Saca, University of Northern Iowa

• Catherine Kramarczuk Voulgarides, Hunter College - CUNY