https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8585-2530
Resumen
Este artículo tiene el próposito de exponer por qué es necesario complejizar el sentido de la inclusión en la educación desde las transformaciones que deben guiar la educación escolar, debido a que cada vez toma mayor fuerza ver la inclusión como lenguaje políticamente correcto. En este sentido, se presenta un conjunto de argumentos que analiza la importancia de la interseccionalidad como elemento armonizador en las investigaciones sobre educación inclusiva. Estas contribuyen a superar la concepción difusa de la inclusión desde su capacidad emancipatoria para comprender la realidad local. Se empleó el método de revisión documental descriptivo y análisis crítico para sostener esta articulación, orientada desde una perspectiva crítica, alejada de identidades marginales, de la práctica derivada de prescripciones, de la normatividad cortoplacista y de especificidades didácticas y metodológicas regidas por el modelo tradicional de educación especial. En los resultados se señala la importancia de sobrepasar algunos errores en la comprensión de la inclusión. La investigación en educación inclusiva, además de romper las linealidades canónicas de los contextos escolares, necesita de la interseccionalidad para ampliar la mirada, las formas y los objetos que se utilizan para mirar al otro, destacando ángulos que pasan inadvertidos en los estándares académicos tradicionales.
Palabras clave: educación inclusiva; epistemología; investigación; perspectiva crítica; interseccionalidad.
The purpose of this article is to explain why it is necessary to complexify the meaning of inclusion in education from the transformations that should guide school education, due to the fact that inclusion is increasingly seen as a politically correct language. In this sense, a set of arguments is presented that analyzes the importance of intersectionality as a harmonizing element in research on inclusive education. These contribute to overcome the diffuse conception of inclusion from its emancipatory capacity to understand the local reality. The descriptive documentary review method and critical analysis were used to support this articulation, oriented from a critical perspective, away from marginal identities, from the practice derived from prescriptions, from short-sighted normativity and from didactic and methodological specificities governed by the traditional model of special education. The results point out the importance of overcoming some errors in the understanding of inclusion. Research in inclusive education, in addition to breaking the canonical linearities of school contexts, needs intersectionality to broaden the gaze, the forms and objects used to look at the other, highlighting angles that go unnoticed in traditional academic standards.
Keywords: inclusive education; epistemology; research; critical perspective; intersectionality.
Resumo
O objetivo deste artigo é explicar por que é necessário complexificar o significado de inclusão na educação a partir das transformações que devem orientar a educação escolar, uma vez que está se tornando cada vez mais importante ver a inclusão como uma linguagem politicamente correta. Nesse sentido, é apresentado um conjunto de argumentos que analisa a importância da interseccionalidade como elemento harmonizador nas pesquisas sobre educação inclusiva. Esses contribuem para a superação da concepção difusa de inclusão a partir de sua capacidade emancipatória de compreender a realidade local. O método de revisão documental descritiva e a análise crítica foram utilizados para apoiar essa articulação, orientada a partir de uma perspectiva crítica, afastada das identidades marginais, da prática derivada de prescrições, de regulamentações de curto prazo e de especificidades didáticas e metodológicas regidas pelo modelo tradicional de educação especial. Os resultados apontam para a importância de superar alguns mal-entendidos sobre a inclusão. A pesquisa em educação inclusiva, além de romper com as linearidades canônicas dos contextos escolares, necessita da interseccionalidade para ampliar o olhar, as formas e os objetos utilizados para olhar o outro, destacando ângulos que passam despercebidos nos padrões acadêmicos tradicionais.
Palavras-chave: educação inclusiva; epistemologia; pesquisa; perspetiva crítica; interseccionalidade.
DOI del artículo: https://doi.org/10.26620/uniminuto.inclusion.11.1.2024.55-65
Introduction
Inclusive education as an educational model in today’s society has undergone constant evolution in recent years, characterized by perspectives, at times ephemeral, derived from regulatory frameworks that establish actions without solid foundations. It has now has ceased to be a specialized and restricted discourse and has become an indispensable topic that delves into the rhetoric of policies, academia, and research agendas.
In Colombia, a statutory bill is currently being debated to regulate the fundamental right to education at all levels, with a status of constitutional protection. The perspective of education as a fundamental right remains under discussion and emphasizes that educational institutions must ensure access and retention for all, based on criteria of diversity, inclusion, and equity, while maintaining quality and territorial relevance. When referring to everyone, it alludes to women, racial minorities, indigenous peoples, people with disabilities, the LGBTIQ+ community, displaced persons, and victims of the conflict (Ministry of National Education, 2023).
The rapid expansion of inclusive education has almost always been carried out through mechanical and normative prescriptions, which necessitates maintaining a careful and critical attitude to prevent inclusion from being reduced to a slogan or a demand for fleeting, superficial, and complacent practices and/or activities in the name of transformations coded in rhetorical-political expressions (Ocampo, 2021, 2022; Barton, 2011; Quiceno and Peñaloza, 2011). It is necessary to take a step back and ask what happens beyond the managerial and technical language that surrounds inclusion.
In its early stages, inclusive education focused on special education. The objective was to integrate certain communities and/or population groups classified as vulnerable, with an emphasis on educational institutions. Subsequently, broader processes were observed and forms of education centered on presence, participation, and achievement were proposed, leading to barriers and facilitators for specific learning contexts.
Ainscow (2007, 2016, 2020, 2024) has been recognized for his extensive research trajectory in the international context. In his works, he has highlighted the need to emphasize what he has termed inclusive shift(2007), in which he questions the role of research in promoting inclusive education systems (Calderón et al., 2020). In the face of these concerns, Ocampo (2017, 2021, 2023) had already posited that inclusive education has a dubious scientific status in terms of explaining its nature, authenticity, and identity. The epistemological status of inclusion is a question that this author addresses forcefully in his postulates. He questions and manages to destabilize some of the “truths” that have emerged around the phrase inclusion and the concept of inclusive education. Specifically, he defines inclusiveness as something that is incomplete, unfinished, and in a state of constant transformation.
According to Ocampo (2021), critical and proscribed intellectual and political projects such as anti-colonialism, de-colonialism and post-colonialism, the philosophy of difference, political philosophy, queer studies, anti-racism studies, women’s studies, gender studies, negritude and contemporary feminism, critical race theory, intersectionality, and many more form heuristic planes of inclusiveness that configure their distinctiveness. This author’s critical stance invites to break free from the constraints and reductionisms that limit understanding. Therefore, following Ocampo (2023), inclusion is much more than a hegemonic approach. It is a complex approach that, as a device for transforming the world, entails a theoretical, epistemological, and methodological structure that is complex, polysemous, polyphonic, dialectical, dilemmatic, contingent, post-disciplinary, and “characterized by a nebulous quality that affects the modes of approaching the subject” (Ocampo, 2018, p. 4).
The analytical alliance derived from the research seeks to understand its object of study from the current ways of inhabiting educational contexts, aiming to identify proximate conditions to analyze the complexity of singularity. Furthermore, the issues surpass the technical and methodological dimensions, highlighting that “the social and political dimensions are the most significant. These, when taken seriously, invite us to recognize the dangers of complacency and superficiality with respect to our thinking and practice” (Barton, 2011, p. 74).
After addressing the need to expand and complicate inclusion in education based on the transformations that school education must undertake, some analytical conditions are presented that focus on renewing the meaning of inclusive education. This is done by moving away from particular interests centered on categorizations that reinforce marginal identities, from praxis derived from prescriptive measures and short-term regulations, and from specific didactic and methodological approaches to addressing the phenomenon, which are primarily governed by the control of difference anchored to the traditional model of special education (Arroyave, 2024b).
Metodology
To provide arguments that help overcome the diffuse conception of inclusion from its emancipatory capacity to understand local reality and to analyze the importance of intersectionality as a harmonizing element of this understanding, this study is based on a descriptive literature review and critical analysis (Galeano, 2018). The aforementioned required a careful and systematic review of primary and secondary sources with the explicit intention of recognizing and understanding the imaginative articulations and openings that can emerge from intersectionality as a paradigm in inclusive education research.
Firstly, an approach to intersectionality was undertaken in light of Collins’ (2009, 2005) postulates, the first to recognize intersectionality as an alternative paradigm in the field of structuralist feminism. She indicates that education is a fundamental parameter for perpetuating or breaking with structural racism and other forms of social inequality.
Secondly, several postulates from Ocampo (2017, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023) were taken into account. Ocampo is a theorist of inclusive education who bases his work on the understanding of intersectionality, educational justice, anti-racist education, and post-colonial theories, among others. He defines this type of education as an emerging and creative field of research that challenges the configurations of knowledge production.
In order to achieve the objective, a path of reflection and connection is proposed, delineating voices, positions, and issues that, in turn, emerge as methodological tensions. Among them, the understanding/translation of local knowledge derived from daily practice and the multidimensional analysis of the problem stand out as strategies to interrupt or challenge traditional discourses, in line with the idea of inclusive education as a traveling theory, which forms a constellation of phenomena, knowledge, concepts, and methods in constant mutation (Ocampo, 2023).
The critical analysis allows identifying a thematic network primarily linked to ontological and epistemological tensions. The methodological framework is defined by an exhaustive interpretation surrounding the content that outlines the structure of this manuscript, derived from an approach to certain practices (of research and teaching) that aim to connect inclusive education from an intersectional perspective, “understanding it analytically as a theory and a methodological approach to examine the production of various systems of material and subjective inequality and oppression” (Ocampo, 2021, p. 983). In this regard, after a process of reflection and questioning of conventional practices in the field of education, some considerations emerge to investigate inclusive education in realities closer to Latin America.
The perspective of education as a fundamental right remains under discussion and emphasizes that educational institutions must ensure access and retention for all, based on criteria of diversity, inclusion and equity.
Results and Discussion
Intersectionality as a political and knowledge project in resistance is configured as a tool of thought that aids in the understanding of the disciplinary structure of inclusive education. It frees itself from old theoretical knowledge anchored to the dilemma of differences, which is very characteristic of special education, as the relationships between empowerment, self-definition, and knowledge significantly expand the cognitive architecture of inclusive education. Collins (2015, 2016) approaches the multidimensional understanding of discrimination and proposes understanding the complexity of deep-seated issues (such as oppression) through factors like race, gender, class, ability, age, and citizenship status, among others. These divisions position all individuals differently and, in particular, shape global social inequality. Furthermore, the author examines how power relations intertwine and mutually construct each other around four domains (interpersonal, disciplinary, cultural, and structural).
Collins’ stance opens up the possibility of perceiving and understanding many more spaces of intersectoral interests, which enables an openness to perspectives of continuous change. She posits that all knowledge is political and can be used to serve the interests of specific groups. Intersectionality as an analytical tool fosters a better understanding of the growing global inequality and, in turn, proposes a much more complex map. As an analytical strategy, it provides new perspectives on social phenomena, and as a critical praxis, it informs social justice projects. This is in line with the research needs of inclusive education in Latin America from a critical perspective, considering intersectionality.
Inclusion is experienced on an individual basis (just like discrimination), under subjective conditions laden with emotion.
Collins (2015) proposes transcending group politics and, to this end, explains that science juxtaposes the Eurocentric and the positivist, being susceptible to objectifying subjects and deliberately denying the validity of lived experience. Furthermore, it proposes intentional ways of validating knowledge (which challenge the status quo); it suggests the use of dialogue instead of contradictory debate, as well as the ethics of care, empathy, and emotion as means of validation, and highlights the importance of personal responsibility.
These principles, due to their plasticity, open up other possibilities of thought and assist in the understanding of intellectual projects, such as finding the meaning of inclusive education through the validation of other forms of socio-scientific research from de-colonial perspectives to understand how social injustice operates and is structured. In turn, by warning how institutions perpetuate hegemony and privilege in their practices and analyzing how the knowledge available in its traditional and dominant conception contributes to the complicit and silent expansion of conditions of inequality that endure over time.
Intersectionality allows us to assume experience and social practice as sources of knowledge. The lived experience refers to situated knowledge, characteristic of those who know from their own experience (Viveros Vigoya, 2016). This principle is crucial for stripping the meaning of inclusion (from the perspective of globalized education) as an absolute and complete concept that seeks to impose a uniform sense of education for all
Continuing with Collins (2015), lived experience vindicates the educational realities of the Global South as realities that must be studied and understood in their complexity. The use of dialogue instead of contradictory debate implies the presence of at least two subjects; therefore, knowledge is not considered to have an objective existence apart from lived experiences. From the perspective of this principle, the legitimacy of the voice of educational actors is exalted above legal reasoning, allowing for a genuine problematization of the place and meaning of inclusion in educational contexts from various voices and territories.
For its part, the ethics of care suggests that all knowledge is intrinsically value-laden and must be validated by the presence of empathy and compassion. This principle represents for inclusive education a way to give equal importance and voice to affection, love, emotion, solidarity, teaching, and learning, and to set aside the Eurocentric binarism that separates emotion from intellect.
Inclusion is experienced individually (just like discrimination), under subjective conditions laden with emotion. Here, generalization is a fundamental error, since individuality, identity, lived experience, and local reality are pertinent and interdependent conditions for understanding the meaning (or, if preferred, the meanings) of inclusion in education
Inclusive education understood from the perspective of recognition and individuality is unworkable without relationships, love, care, and reflection. This statement challenges binary oppositions and asserts the individuality of the collective or the self, beyond the categorization under which some educational institutions recognize their students. At this point, the discussion turns to personal responsibility, another principle proposed by Collins (2015). As knowledge is constructed based on lived experience, its evaluation is simultaneous with the assessment of the character, values, and ethics of the individual who knows
Lastly, intersectionality helps to understand the depth, complexity, and multidimensionality of inclusive education, by making explicit the spaces of intersectoral interests that broaden the vision based on a multiplicity of factors.
Professionals are often front line actors in addressing social issues that are clearly linked to complex social inequalities, a social position that predisposes them to respond to intersectionality as a critical praxis. Teachers, social workers, parents, policy advocates, university support staff, community organizers, clergy, lawyers, graduate students, and nurses often have a close view and personal relationship with violence, homelessness, hunger, illiteracy, poverty, sexual aggression, and similar phenomena. (Collins, 2015, p. 15).
Inclusive education is sustained by a body of knowledge in constant motion, without a fixed point of arrival, derived from local, present knowledge, whose analysis must generate legitimate transformations in education, pedagogy, culture, and our practices. “Educational realities have complex facets and disruptive elements in which the mastery of inclusion cannot be conceived solely and exclusively in populations categorized by diagnoses” (Arroyave, 2024a, p. 406).
In this same vein, Ocampo (2018) refers to the historicity of the present, which allows for the analysis of the how of things and expands new knowledge in use and inherited methodological frameworks, based on new modes of reading and new images arising from the connection between the past and the present regarding educational phenomena.
By presenting other forms of thought and recognizing other voices, other truths related to the intersection of systems of oppression become visible, and more strongly, the particularities of the territory, the aging of populations, the acceleration of climatic, technological, and social changes, conflicts, terrorism, and poverty, which challenge pre-established macrosocial aspects and lead to thinking about improving the relevance of political agendas, considering that these particularities are variable and continue to be an open empirical question.
One of the issues faced by the global south is the assertion of difference, directly linked to decolonizing consciousness, the rejection of hegemonic power-domination practices, and the challenge of binary oppositions. These matters are intricately intertwined with the understanding of inclusive education from the perspective of groups or places that remain unnoticed by academic and research standards. The theory of inclusion derived from local knowledge, far from being useless and particular, removed from universal status and its sense of utility, holds a promising importance. According to Ball (2003), the possibility of seeing, doing, and thinking beyond what is frequent, habitual, or common is thanks to theory. Theorizing about inclusion allows us to think, imagine, and act differently.
There is a type of theorization that is based on complexity, uncertainty, reflexivity about its own production, and its claims of knowledge about the social aspect. This serves as a foundation for thinking differently and thus proposing disruptive hypotheses and distinct modes of thought, far removed from dominant practices
Research in inclusive education must prioritize intersectionality in its agenda as an alternative through which the lived experiences of individuals and educational actors can be illuminated and structured.
and categories. Viewing the epistemological, analytical, and methodological conditions of inclusion from an intersectional perspective is fundamental to guiding research, policies, and everyday practices. It allows us to be attentive to the demands that arise from social systems that are in constant dynamics and changing, such as those in most Latin American countries.
Having reached this point, it is important to refer to the viewpoint as another necessary aspect for analytical articulation, especially from the perspective that Han (2017) proposes in The Expulsion of the Other. Today, the world is profoundly lacking in viewpoints. “Today, the viewpoint disappears on many levels, even control is exercised without the viewpoint” (p. 78). In this field, optics, if approached from a central perspective, leaves blind spots; whereas surveillance from both the center and the periphery ensures that these areas are fully illuminated from all angles, even from within. The research in inclusive education, in addition to aiming to break the canonical linearities of school contexts, needs to broaden the perspective, the methods, and the objects used to look at the other.
Some errors in approaching the understanding of inclusive education as a subject of study are due to the unmediated and untranslated relationship with special education and the impossibility of certain methodological strategies to study this relationship. With the intention of overcoming shortcomings, a series of open and critical questions are posed below, based on Ocampo’s (2023) conception, which explains that inclusive education is a heuristic device, and Collins (2015, 2016), who presents intersectionality as a vast terrain where different, opposing, and varied perceptions and perspectives are considered, generating tensions among them. This can contribute to the shift, change, and disruptive practice in the examination of research processes in order to expand and complicate the meaning of inclusion in education through intersectionality.
One must then ask: from the conceptions of inclusive education, who continue to be the recipients of special education? How can education and school institutions challenge stereotypes and prejudices based on differences? Why does the labeling and classification of differences as determinants of educational interaction continue to prevail? Why do school institutions continue to assume disability from a place of inferiority and incapacity? What do school institutions lack in order to recognize the existence of all identities? How do school institutions experience love, affection, solidarity, and care in educational interactions? What is the meaning of inclusive education in schools of Education, what knowledge emerges, and how is it made visible? What are the ways of understanding our educational realities?
On the other hand, the following emerging points from the analysis can contribute to the heuristic dimension of inclusive education:
• The emerging ontological tensions of inclusive education are related to the recognition of viewpoints and voices, both present and absent, within classroom spaces and institutional dynamics. • The knowledge and understanding of theoretical frameworks and local practices have implications for one’s own beliefs, perspectives, and modes of interaction. What is validated as an inclusive practice? • Intersectionality is based on multiple interpretations to identify, describe, and denounce power relations, a fundamental tool for re-signifying inequalities or injustices that persist over time and are perpetuated under the complacency of traditional stances (Collins, 2015; Ocampo, 2019). • It is necessary to clarify the meaning of inclusion with respect to everyone, and not just to groups of labeled individuals. “Inclusive education should not be assumed as a methodological alternative for certain population groups, but rather as the raison d’être of educational systems” (Arroyave, 2018, p. 181).
Conclusion
Research in inclusive education must prioritize intersectionality in its agenda as an alternative through which the lived experiences of individuals and educational actors can be illuminated and structured, without reinforcing the objectified position of structuralism and positivism, and must move away from deficit discourses that ignore, obscure, and/or render invisible the social, economic, and political conditions and contexts intrinsic to the richness and uniqueness of individuals. The above opens other imaginative possibilities to connect with ontological, epistemological, and methodological dilemmas in new ways of thinking and understanding the meaning of inclusion in education.
The central idea of the research framing this article is to understand the reciprocity of theoretical and pragmatic perspectives in the interpretative and multidimensional forms of inclusive education, in order to analyze its processes and challenges within different educational and cultural contexts. This analysis is done from a broad and transformative perspective and under ethical, political, and social conditions that are in line with the changes in the world. This leads to a deeper examination of issues such as who is authorized to appoint and decide what and how research is conducted in education, and what and how a practice should be declared as inclusive. These aspects pose dilemmas regarding how to approach inclusive educational processes and how to recognize participants as holders of that knowledge.
The analytical conditions for methodologically addressing inclusive education from an intersectional perspective are primarily grounded in the epistemological problem of who, about whom, and about what knowledge is produced. In this regard, the problematization of the object of study must first be expanded, emphasizing elements of connection with frameworks and dynamics related to social inequalities, rather than norms.
Secondly, by changing the understanding of the visible boundaries between categories, epistemological, analytical, and political positions of the objects of study are opened up, which recognizes the urgent need to conduct more research that privileges the everyday, the local, intersected by values, perceptions, and meanings that are constructed in the interactions of a complex thinking and doing. Thus, it is imperative to employ sufficiently sensitive methods and techniques to better capture and understand the multidimensionality of lived experiences.
Thirdly, fostering the actual circulation of knowledge, from various formats and expressions that reject the marginalization of certain production and reception of knowledge related to education and the hegemony of specific academic discourses, emphasizes the principle of reciprocity (so often forgotten in this type of research) to provoke dialogue and culturally understand the meaning of inclusion. The faculties of Education are called upon to generate pertinent knowledge in response to the challenges that teachers and students face daily in the educational realities of countries marked by social inequality. It is necessary to propose in the curricula and micro-curricula various ways of approaching, reading, studying, and understanding educational realities.
Finally, the lived experiences must be central; therefore, the questions and reflections regarding inclusive education should outline a map of analytical conditions that encompass a wide repertoire of situations and possibilities intertwined with other dimensions that challenge dominant, universal, or hegemonic representations, which are at times unquestioned due to their majority status. According to Contreras and Pérez de Lara (2010):
That is why we believe that the investigation of experience is about finding the threads of meaning: those axes that guide us in what we have lived to find the thread of thought. Threads that can be fine, subtle, long, sometimes tangled, interwoven with other threads. They are axes of meaning that traverse the experience, that accompany it, not that break it down or decompose it. Although they are interwoven with others, they stand out because they do not lose their meaning, they do not become lifeless, unlike the categories of analysis, which only regain meaning in reconstruction. Finding the thread—or threads—of meaning, attempting to visualize them in their pathways, observing how they traverse the experience, how they completely run through it, but with their own sense, is the task inherent to signification in the research process, the awakening of pedagogical thought that it brings us. (p. 82).
References
Ainscow, M. (2007). Taking an inclusive turn. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 7(1), 3-7. Recuperado de 10.1111/j.1471-3802.2007.00075.x
Ainscow, M. (2016). Struggles for equity in education: the selected works. Routledge. Recuperado de 10.4324/9781315688213
Ainscow, M. (2020). Promoting inclusion and equity in education: lessons from international experiences. The Nordic Journal of Studies on Education Policy, 6(1), 7-16. Recuperado de 10.1080/20020317.2020.1729587
Ainscow, M. (2024). Inclusión y equidad en la educación: una agenda global para la investigación y la comunidad investigadora. En I. Calderón y M. T. Rascón (Coords.), El papel de la universidad en la construcción de sistemas educativos inclusivos: dificultades, propuestas y desafíos (pp. 17-42). Octaedro. Recuperado de 9788410054639.pdf
Arroyave, P. M. (2018). Entornos digitales como espacios de participación para personas excluidas del sistema escolar. Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Educativos, 14(2), 179-202. Recuperado de 10.17151/rlee.2018.14.2.9
Arroyave, P. M. (2024a). Enunciaciones locales para interpelar la educación inclusiva. En A. Ocampo González, M. L. Arciniegas Singüenza y S. Vercellino (Coords.), Debates críticos sobre educación inclusiva en Latinoamérica (pp. 401-414). CELEI. Recuperado de 11242
Arroyave, P. M. (2024b). Entre la educación inclusiva y la educación especial: una reflexión desde la formación inicial docente. En A. Ocampo González, M. L. Arciniegas Singüenza y S. Vercellino (Coords.), Debates críticos sobre educación inclusiva en Latinoamérica (pp. 146-165). CELEI. https://rid.unrn.edu.ar/handle/20.500.12049/11242
Ball, S. J. (2003). Educational studies, policy entrepreneurship and social theory. In R. Slee, S. Tomlinson y G. Weiner (Eds.), School effectiveness for whom? (pp. 76-89). Routledge. Recuperado de 10.4324/9780203209257-9
Barton, L. (2011). La investigación en la educación inclusiva y la difusión de la investigación sobre discapacidad. Revista Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 25(1), 63-76. Recuperado de 27419147004.pdf
Calderón, I., Ainscow, M., Bersanelli, S. y Molina, P. (2020). Educational inclusion and equity in Latin America: an analysis of the challenges. Prospects, 49, 169-186. Recuperado de 10.1007/s11125-020-09501-1
Collins, H. P. (2009). Another kind of public education: Race, schools, the media, and democratic possibilities. Beacon Press.
Collins, H. P. (2015). Intersectionality’s definitional dilemmas. Annual Review of Sociology, 41, 1-20. Recuperado de 10.1146/annurev-soc-073014-112142
Collins, H. P. y Bilge, S. (2016). Interseccionalidad. Morata.
Contreras, J. y Pérez de Lara, N. (2010). Investigar la experiencia educativa. Morata.
Galeano, M. E. (2018). Estrategias de investigación social cualitativa: el giro en la mirada. Fondo Editorial FCSH.
Han, B. C. (2017). La expulsión de lo distinto. Herder.
Ministerio de Educación Nacional. (2023). Aprobado en primer debate proyecto de ley estatutaria de educación. Recuperado de 418157:Aprobado-en-primer-debate-proyecto-de-ley-estatutaria-de-educacion#:~
Ocampo, G. A. (2017). Epistemología de la educación inclusiva: un estudio sobre sus condiciones de producción y fabricación del conocimiento [Tesis de doctorado, Universidad de Granada]. Repositorio institucional UG. Recuperado de tesis?codigo=128454
Ocampo, G. A. (2018). Educación inclusiva: una teoría sin disciplina. Legados y recuperación de los saberes diaspóricos para una epistemología heterotópica [Ponencia]. I Congreso Iberoamericano de Docentes, Algeciras, España. Recuperado de 3.pdf
Ocampo, G. A. (2019). Interview with Patricia Hill Collins on critical thinking, intersectionality and educational: key objectives for critical articulation on inclusive education. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 17(2), 151-170. Recuperado de 17-2-6-pahi-2.pdf
Ocampo, G. A. (2020). La educación inclusiva como estrategia analítica. Revista Iberoamericana de Estudos em Educação, Araraquara, 15(1), 2-26. Recuperado de 13302/8792
Ocampo, G. A. (2021). Interseccionalidad, desdenes ontológicos e inclusión para otros mundos. tensiones neo-materialistas. Formação docente, diferença(s) e diversidade(s), 3(7), 962-989. Recuperado de 87
Ocampo, G. A. (2022). La educación inclusiva no es un cliché, ni un mensaje de propaganda. Revista La Clave (Cuenca). Recuperado de La_educaci%C3%B3n_inclusiva_no_es_un_clich%C3%A9_ni_un_mensaje_de_propaganda
Ocampo, G. A. (2023). Claves teórico-metodológicas para entender la investigación en educación inclusiva. Inclusión y Desarrollo, 11(1), pp. 4-17. Recuperado de 10.26620/uniminuto.inclusion.11.1.2024.4-17
Quiceno, H. y Peñaloza, M. L. (2011). La cultura del otro y la escuela inclusiva. Alcaldía de Santiago de Cali.
Viveros Vigoya, M. (2016). La interseccionalidad: una aproximación situada a la dominación. Debate Feminista, 52, 1-17. Recuperado de 10.1016/j.df.2016.09.005
Derechos
Artículo de revision / Review articles / Artigos de revisão
