- provides a space devoted to the conceptual framework known as Hodges' model. Read about this tool that can help integrate HEALTH, SOCIAL CARE, INFORMATICS and EDUCATION. The model can facilitate PERSON-CENTREDNESS, CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT, HOLISTIC CARE and REFLECTION. Follow the development of a new website using Drupal (it might happen one day!!). See our bibliography, posts since 2006 and if interested please get in touch [@h2cm OR h2cmng AT yahoo.co.uk]. Welcome.

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

i3: Inclusion, Integration, Informatics

As well as studying Bortoft over several months (time...!), I've been reading Oberski's (2003) paper 'A Goethean way of seeing inclusively' (ref. below) which discusses inclusion within special education. The second page in - I sat up. Although the subject is education, inclusion and integration are central drivers in care service development and improvement. Let's face it, you can't read or listen anywhere without coming across 'i' this and that.

Usually, ask a philosopher to justify their existence and amongst other earnest pursuits they will point to their detailed critique and qualification of the way words are used in our routine daily lives, both domestic and working. They do us a great favour, as the world would grind to a halt if everyone was blinded by the light of uncertainty and what would be perpetual philosophical deliberations.

In this paper, Oberski refers to sources that highlight some crucial differences between inclusion and integration. In this context inclusion means the school must adjust to accommodate and include the child with special educational needs.

As for integration, it is the child [individual] who must 'fall-in-line' and match themselves to the institution the school.

Of course, [special needs] education is not health - is it? Whatever the extent of education within health and social care, it must play a far greater role in future. That's why distinctions like this are important.

The policy push is ongoing - integrated services, public involvement (inclusion?), patient engagement (self-assessment, carer assessment, self-care = inclusion?). How does all this fit together and :-

1. is it generally consistent?
2. are these terms consistent as applied across the h2cm domains:


There's an exercise here if you care to try?

Actually, if inclusion and integration are not used consistently across the care domains, what does that mean for #1 and the general situation? Surely declaring a conflict of definition - should any exist - is as important as declaring a conflict of interest?

If a conflict is found do we freeze in panic, transfixed in the glare of uncertainty?

Or do we just play it cool. Reach for the sunglasses and watch as informatics pulls it all together?

Oberski, I. (2003). A Goethean way of seeing inclusively, Eur. J. of Special Needs Education, 18, 3, 333-340.

Stumble Upon Toolbar