56                                                                                                                Global Education Review 1 (1) 
 

Global Education Review is a publication of The School of Education at Mercy College, New York.  This is an Open Access  article distributed under the terms of the 
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License, permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the 
original work is properly cited. Citation: Brown, Alisha M. B.  (2014). Situating Disability Within Comparative Education: A Review of the Literature. 
Global Education Review, 1 (1). 56-75 

 
Situating Disability within Comparative Education:  

A Review of the Literature 
 
 

Alisha M. B. Brown 
Michigan State University 

 
 

Abstract 
This paper is an inquiry into where the topic of disability falls within the vast field of comparative 
education research.  It explores the extent to which disability is present in comparative education 
literature, and in what ways it is represented.  A review of literature across the core comparative 
education peer-reviewed journals was conducted.  Findings show that a limited number of studies in 
comparative education have examined students with disabilities, though numbers have increased in 
recent years.  Additionally, two major themes emerged from the literature: (1) social interpretations of 
disability, and (2) global versus local.  The findings are discussed in terms of implications for inclusive 
education and future research. 

 
Keywords 
disability, comparative education, special needs, inclusive education 

 
 
 

Introduction 
The field of comparative education is vast and 
diverse.  It has multiple goals, aims, and 
methods of inquiry (Chabbott & Elliot, 2003; 
Philips & Schweisfurth, 2010).  In an attempt 
to set boundaries on the field of comparative 
education, Epstein (2011) described the 
difficulty in doing this because the field is 
conflated with other disciplines, including but 
not limited to sociology, history, philosophy, 
economics, political science, and psychology.  
Further, he contended that comparative 
education is conflated with ancillary fields like 
international education, global education, 
intercultural education, and development 
education, and is plagued with ideological 
disparity (e.g., Marxist interpretations, liberal 
Western interpretations).  To add to this 
ambiguity, Epstein described the 
epistemological line of comparative education 

scholars as existing on a continuum between 
positivism and relativism.   
 Within the wide breadth of comparative 
education discourse, this paper aims to 
identify where the topic of disability falls.  It 
asks whether disability is encompassed by this 
large field, and if so, in what ways it is 
represented.  Thus, the guiding research 
questions for this inquiry were:  
1. To what extent is the topic of disability 
present in comparative education literature?   
2. How is disability represented in 
comparative education literature? 
 
______________________________ 
Corresponding Author: 
Alisha M. B. Brown, College of Education, Michigan State 
University, 620 Farm Lane, Room 203 Erickson Hall, East 
Lansing, MI 48824 
Email: brown248@msu.edu 

 
 



Situating Disability within Comparative Education                                                                          57 

Disability Defined 
Given that this paper aims to bridge 
comparative education and the topic of 
disability, careful consideration was made in 
choosing a definition of disability that would 
be internationally representative and culturally 
sensitive.  To reflect an internationally 
respected understanding of disability, the 
characterization of disability as outlined in the 
United Nations Convention on the Rights of 
Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) was adopted.  
Herein, disability is defined as, “those who 
have long-term physical, mental, intellectual 
or sensory impairments which in interaction 
with various barriers may hinder their full and 
effective participation in society on an equal 
basis with others” (United Nations General 
Assembly, 2007, Article 1).  This definition was 
selected not only because it reflects an 
internationally respected understanding of 
disability, but also because it is inclusive in 
nature.  Specifically, the CRPD definition is 
inclusive in that it does not limit the analysis 
to any particular type of disability, such as 
cognitive impairment or physical disability.   
 

Bridging Disability and 
Comparative Education 
The primary motivation for conducting this 
literature review was the belief that research 
on disability can compliment and add value 
to comparative education scholarship.  In 
terms of where disability might fit into the 
field of comparative education, a suitable 
entry point is work on equal opportunity 
and access to quality education.  This 
stream of research is quite prominent in the 
field; in their epistemic analysis of the field 
of comparative education, Cook, Hite, and 
Epstein (2004) found that equality in 
education was one of the top five most 
frequently named themes in comparative 
education by the comparativists whom they 
surveyed.  An important question to 
consider, however, is what specific student 

populations are included under the equality 
umbrella. 

Similar to the findings of Cook et al. 
(2004), Arnove (2001) also identified 
equality of educational opportunities and 
outcomes as a prominent topic when 
assessing the dominant issues addressed by 
the field of comparative education which are 
present in major works of scholarship in the 
field.  Going one step further than Cook et 
al., Arnove listed women, ethnic minorities, 
rural populations, and the working class as 
being especially situated populations for 
whom this area is most appropriate.  In 
alignment with the abovementioned 
definition of disability as a barrier to equal 
participation in society, this article 
presupposes that disability constitutes 
another population that should be added to 
this list of marginalized populations for 
comparativists researching equality of 
education to study.   

Given recent global initiatives such as 
the United Nations Convention on the 
Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 
disability is increasingly being understood 
as a human rights issue (World Health 
Organization, 2011).  Akin to women, ethnic 
minorities, rural populations, and the 
working class, individuals with disabilities 
comprise a marginalized group whose rights 
to an education can be in jeopardy.  In fact, 
compared to other marginalized 
populations studied within comparative 
education, the vulnerability of individuals 
with disabilities is exceedingly high.  Among 
all of the marginalized populations, 
UNESCO (2010) considers disability to be 
“one of the least visible but most potent 
factors in educational marginalization” (p. 
181).   

An improved understanding of the 
scope of comparative education research 
that has been conducted thus far on 
individuals with disabilities is vital in order 
to uncover the potential of this type of work 



58                                                                                                                      Global Education Review 1(1)                                                                                                                                  

 
and to guide future scholarship. The topic of 
disability compliments the field of 
comparative education with its direct 
relevance to the prominent research subject 
of equality of educational opportunities for 
marginalized populations.  Further, 
incorporating disability into comparative 
education research will expand the 
categories of marginalized populations that 
has been focused on previously, thereby 
contributing to the growth and 
advancement of the field.  This article sets 
out to serve as a starting point in this 
endeavour by exploring the presence and 
representation of disability within 
comparative education literature. 

 

Procedure 
A literature review was conducted to address 
the two aforementioned research questions:  

1. To what extent is the topic of disability 
present in comparative education 
literature?   
2. How is disability represented in 
comparative education literature?   

Four peer-reviewed journals in the field 
of comparative education were identified to be 
included in the literature search using multiple 
inclusion criteria.  First, the journal must be 
explicitly dedicated to the field of comparative 
education to meet the primary aim of this 
paper of situating disability within the field of 
comparative education.  This was determined 
by reviewing the published aims and scope of 
journals.  Second, the journal must be peer-
reviewed to ensure a high level of academic 
rigor and accountability.  Third, journal impact 
factors were used as a proxy to demonstrate 
relative importance in the field.  The journal 
must have an impact factor indexed in the 
Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web 
of KnowledgeSM Journal Citation Reports® 
(JCR®) database.  Journals identified using 
these inclusion criteria included the 
Comparative Education Review, Comparative 
Education, Compare: A Journal of 
Comparative Education, and the 
International Journal of Educational 
Development.  The respective impact factors of 
the target journals are listed in order of highest 
to lowest in Table 1.   

Table 1 
Impact Factors of Target Comparative Education Journals 

Journal Title Impact Factor 

Comparative Education Review 1.132 

International Journal of Educational Development 1.000 

Comparative Education 0.625 

Compare: A Journal of Comparative Education 0.458 

Note. Journal impact factors were obtained from 2013 release of the ISI Web of KnowledgeSM Journal 
Citation Reports® Social Sciences Edition which includes 2012 citation data (Thompson Reuters, 
2013). 

 

 The Educational Resources Information 
Center (ERIC) and Education Full Text 
electronic bibliographic databases were used 
to search within the four target comparative 
education journals for relevant research 

studies.  The search was limited to peer-
reviewed articles published in the English 
language, and those published within the past 
thirteen years (2000 to 2013).  This time frame 
was selected to capture the essence of the 



Situating Disability within Comparative Education                                                                          59 

current zeitgeist, thereby determining how 
disability is presently situated within 
comparative education literature for Research 
Question 2.  Multiple search terms related to 
disability and the education of students with 
disabilities were used to capture as many 
relevant articles as possible.  The exact 
keyword search terms consisted of 
“disabilities,” “mainstreaming,” “special 
needs,” “inclusive education,” “inclusion,” and 
“inclusive school.”  Boolean logic was applied 
by using the Boolean operator or to retrieve 
studies that contained one or more of the 
specified search terms (Fink, 2005).  Applying 
Boolean logic was done to expand the breadth 
of the search to maximize the likelihood of 
retrieving all of the articles that discussed 
disability using any of the above keywords 
within the target journals.  Likewise, a 
truncation character was added to the search 
terms “disability” and “mainstreaming” to 
retrieve all possible stems of those keyword 
search terms.  To explain, searching disab* 
retrieved articles with the keywords disability, 
disabled, disabilities, or disabling, while 
searching mainstream* retrieved articles with 
the keywords mainstreamed, mainstreaming, 
and so on. 

After relevant comparative education 
journal articles which incorporated the topic of 
disability were identified and collected, the 
articles were read in their entirety and 
subsequently coded for shared themes to 
answer Research Question 2.  Themes were 
developed using a two-step process.  Step one 
involved noting initial impressions and 
creating tentative themes that emerged from 
the articles after an initial reading of the 
articles.  Step two consisted of re-reading the 
articles and refining the themes based on 
similarities across the other articles reviewed 
to develop common themes.  This search for 
themes was guided by applying Ely’s (1991) 
definition of a theme as “a statement of 
meaning that runs through all or most of the 
pertinent data” (p. 150).  Thus, the articles 

were read and re-read in an attempt to identify 
which themes emerged to reflect how disability 
was situated in the comparative education 
articles, thereby constituting common threads 
across the studies and their reflections of the 
topic of disability. 

 

Results and Discussion 
Results are presented and discussed for each 
of the two research questions.  First, Research 
Question 1 is addressed by examining findings 
on the extent to which disability is present in 
comparative education literature.  Next, 
attending to Research Question 2, the different 
ways in which disability is represented in 
comparative education literature is reviewed 
by exploring the two common themes that 
emerged from the articles reviewed. 
 
The Presence of Disability in 
Comparative Education Literature  
The initial search resulted in a total of 34 
research articles: 3 articles from Comparative 
Education Review, 3 articles from 
Comparative Education, 13 articles from 
Compare, and 15 articles from the 
International Journal of Educational 
Development.  Of the original 34 articles, 9 
from Compare and 6 from the International 
Journal of Educational Development were 
excluded from the analysis because a closer 
examination revealed that disability was not a 
topic within those articles.  To explain, instead 
of looking at the mainstreaming of students 
with disabilities, 6 of the excluded articles 
focused on gender mainstreaming and 4 
focused on the inclusion of out-of-school 
children, child workers, pastoralists, or 
refugees.  The other 5 articles were excluded 
because although they focused on inclusive 
schooling and social difference or diversity 
within educational systems, there was no 
explicit mention of students with disabilities or 
special needs as being a form of difference or 
as members of an inclusive system.  So, 
overall, 19 articles across the target 



60                                                                                                                      Global Education Review 1(1)                                                                                                                                  

 

comparative education journals were 
identified as encompassing the topic of 
disability.   

In general, the limited number of studies 
identified suggests that few studies in 
comparative education examine students with 
disabilities.  The degree to which disability as a 
topic was present in comparative education 
literature was enhanced by looking at the 
relative proportion of articles discussing 
disability.  Percentages of the number of 
articles published on disability in each target 

journal out of the total number of articles 
published by each journal from 2000 to 2013 
are illustrated in Figure 1.  Additionally, the 
percentage of the cumulative number of 
articles published on disability out of the total 
number of articles published across all target 
journals is also illustrated in Figure 1.  All 
proportions are extremely low, with rates of 
0.81% for Comparative Education, 0.92% for 
Compare, 1.23% for Comparative Education 
Review, 1.26% for the International Journal of 
Educational Development, and 1.08% overall.   

 

 

Figure 1.  Percentage of comparative education journal articles published on disability out of total 
articles published from 2000 to 2013, by journal and overall. 

 

It is encouraging, however, to see a 
relative increase in the number of articles that 
comparative education journals are publishing 
on disability in more recent years (see Figure 
2).  This implies that individuals with 
disabilities, who constitute a group that has 

been historically marginalized and overlooked, 
are slowly gaining an increased presence in the 
comparative education literature.  That being 
said, there is ample room for improvement, 
and a clear need for future work representing 
this disadvantaged population. 

 



Situating Disability within Comparative Education                                                                          61 

 

Figure 2. Distribution of comparative education articles on disability published by year. 

 
 
The Representation of Disability in 
Comparative Education Literature 
Of the 19 articles that examined students with 
disabilities, the ways in which disability was 
situated within the literature varied.  The 
studies had different research questions and 
foci, used different research traditions and 
designs, and produced different findings, all of 
which are summarized in the Appendix.  These 
surface level differences, however, are 
peripheral to the focus of the present study.  
Instead, this review of the literature was 
focused on identifying themes which highlight 
the ways in which disability was represented 
within the comparative education articles.  
Two major themes emerged from the 
literature: (1) Social Interpretations of 
Disability, and (2) Global versus Local.  The 
first theme is narrower in its scope in that it is 
specific to disability studies, while the latter is 
much broader and is a dominant theme in the 
field of comparative education more generally.  
The ways in which both themes were 
represented in the literature will now be 
reported and discussed. 
 
 

 
 
Theme one: Social interpretations of 
disability 
One theme that emerged from the articles 
reviewed was that disability appeared to be 
socially constructed and dependent on the 
particular cultural context(s) where the 
research took place.  In other words, a 
common thread across the articles was the 
absence of a universally agreed upon 
definition of disability that was being 
uniformly applied in each of the studies.  
Instead, the way in which disability was 
conceived differed depending on the 
respective cultural context(s) under study. 
Viewing disability in this manner as a social 
construct is consistent with a prominent 
theory of disability studies called the social 
model of disability, also referred to as social 
interpretation (Abberley, 1987; Finkelstein, 
1980).  Thus, Theme One has been 
designated as Social Interpretations of 
Disability.  The meaning of this theme will 
be elaborated upon below, as will the ways 
in which the theme manifested itself within 
the articles reviewed by using illustrative 
examples.   



62                                                                                                                      Global Education Review 1(1)                                                                                                                                  

 

The traditional social model of 
disability focuses on “social biases against 
people whose bodies function differently than 
what is considered ‘normal,’ and beliefs and 
practices resulting from and interacting with 
biases that serve to discriminate…such 
practices do more than discriminate; they 
oppress” (Gabel, 2005, p. 4).  This social 
model runs counter to and outright rejects the 
highly individualized clinical or medical 
model, in which disability is perceived as 
innate individual differences.  In fact, 
subscribers to the social interpretation view 
argue that the medical model focuses on the 
individual level at the expense of examining 
larger socio-political processes of disablement 
(Gabel, 2005).  Within the realm of social 
interpretation, a cultural element has been set 
forth by scholars such as Peters (2010), who 
has argued that disability is a phenomenon 
emerging and resulting from the values and 
practices embedded within culture.  Peters 
pointed to evidence in the small but growing 
body of comparative disability studies work on 
the cultural construction of disability.  The 
majority of the articles reviewed here provide 
additional support to this claim that disability 
is socially and culturally constructed, and the 
ways in which they do so are detailed below. 
 Comparisons across the articles included 
in this literature review show that disability is 
socially defined and conceptualized differently 
depending on the cultural context of study.  
One article that illustrates such differences is 
Peters and Chimedza (2000).  The authors 
described the Zimbabwean idea of the family 
as a social unit that takes on the burden of 
responsibility for its members with disabilities.  
This belief is tied closely to the society’s ideas 
regarding the cause and treatment of 
disability.  To explain, in Zimbabwe disability 
is viewed as the result of bewitchment by 
family enemies or as a form of punishment by 
an ancestral spirit whom is unhappy with the 
family.  As a result, rituals and spiritual 
ceremonies are held in an effort to cleanse the 

person with a disability and to dispel the evil 
spirits from the family.  This custom provides 
the person with a disability support and 
empathy from the entire family and village, 
because everyone attends these functions in 
solidarity to solve a family problem. The 
collective nature of the burden of disability 
therefore makes disability a family and village 
responsibility.  Peters and Chimedza went on 
to contrast this Zimbabwean approach to 
disability with that of the United States, which 
they cite as being much more individualistic 
and paternalistic in nature.  The authors 
explained that in the U.S., disability is viewed 
as a pathological, innate, individual condition 
that has to be cured by professionals.  So even 
within a single article, we can begin to see the 
striking differences between how two cultures 
(in this case Zimbabwe and the U.S.) socially 
construct and interpret disability. 
 Another article that clearly articulated 
the social construction of disability was that by 
Singal and Jain (2012).  Their analysis of youth 
with disabilities in India revealed that in terms 
of individuals’ participation and purposeful 
engagement, it was not exclusively their 
impairment that created exclusion, but their 
socio-cultural and economic realities as well, 
most notably their gender.  Singal and Jain 
found that females could successfully position 
themselves in the role of providers by 
participating in the traditional gender roles of 
cooking, cleaning, and managing the house.  
Such participation provided a way for these 
female youth with disabilities to be accepted 
into social structures, making their disability 
not as “disabling” within the given social and 
cultural context. 
 Preece (2002) serves as a nice contrast 
to Singal and Jain (2012) to further illustrate 
how disability is socially constructed within a 
larger cultural context.  Preece critiqued the 
ways that the Botswana society constructs 
images of women, men, race, class and 
disability.  She concluded that the social 
concept of citizenship is predicated on the 



Situating Disability within Comparative Education                                                                           63 

idealist notion of a white, middle-class, able-
bodied man.  Thus, women and individuals 
with disabilities were rendered invisible.  This 
comparison between articles allows us to see 
how the Indian and Botswana cultures socially 
interpret disability, and the different ways that 
their social conceptions of disability intersect 
with other social concepts like gender.    
 Further illustrations of disability as 
being socially constructed within different 
cultural contexts can be seen by looking across 
additional articles included in this literature 
review.  In terms of what constitutes disability, 
articles on non-Western countries seemed to 
view disabilities more as visible physical 
differences, such as sensory impairments and 
physical disabilities, as opposed to cognitive or 
emotional differences.  A head teacher in 
Tanzania, for example, reported, “Difficulties 
such as Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity 
Disorder and autism do not exist in Africa.  
They are Western problems” (Polat, 2011, p. 
56).  Similarly, Deng and Guo (2007) noted 
that in China some disabilities that are 
commonly observed in Western countries, 
such as learning disabilities and autism, are 
neither recognized as disability types by 
Chinese society, nor are they diagnosed as 
such.   

Additional evidence for differences in 
disability definitions is provided by Bines and 
Lei (2011).  In their article, Bines and Lei 
discussed how the definitional debates in 
northern countries are moving away from 
discrete categories of disabilities towards the 
broader term, ‘special educational needs.’  
Their explanation is as follows: 

 
Although most provisions in 
southern countries has focused to 
date on physical, sensory and 
intellectual impairments, this 
broader definition is having some 
impact, including adoption of 
similar terminology.  However, 
some significant differences 

remain between northern and 
southern countries due to 
differences in health care and 
technology. (p. 420) 
 

An example of a country adopting the broad 
definition that Bines and Lei referred to that 
was represented in this literature review is 
Serbia.  To illustrate, Kovačević and Maćešić-
Petrović (2012) reported, 
 

Pupils with special (educational) 
needs are a broad category 
including pupils with physical, 
mental and sensory disabilities, 
but also the pupils with 
behavioral disorders, pupils with 
serious chronic diseases, pupils 
hospitalized or treated at home 
for long periods of time, pupils 
from culturally or socially 
deprived environments, pupils 
without parental care, affected by 
war and other disasters, refugee 
pupils, displaced and abused 
pupils, as well as talented pupils. 
(p. 465) 
 

Building on Bines and Lei’s (2011) 
assertion quoted above that health care and 
technology influences differences in disability 
definitions across countries, the literature 
reviewed suggests that a country’s education 
system also appears to be another influential 
factor.  The structure of a nation’s education 
system seems to play an important role in 
setting the boundaries as to what constitutes a 
disability and what does not.  Regarding 
Zimbabwe, Chitiyo, Changara, and Chitiyo 
(2008) mentioned that little attention is paid 
to students with emotional or behavioural 
disorders, largely because the special 
education services that are available in the 
educational system focus on four categories of 
disability: hearing, visual, cognitive, and 
physical.  Likewise, Deng and Guo (2007) 



64                                                                                                                      Global Education Review 1(1)                                                                                                                                  

 

explained that in China educational services 
are restricted to three categories of disability: 
mental retardation, visual impairments, and 
hearing impairments.  In contrast, van Zanten 
(2009) found that in Hungary and France the 
provision for children with special needs was 
oriented toward pupils with learning and 
behavioural problems.  The classification of 
children as having special education needs also 
differs when comparing the U.S. to Germany.  
Powell (2009) observed that the U.S. 
categories refer to individual student 
disabilities, whereas the German categories 
refer to educational supports, showing how the 
American system stresses the medical or 
clinical model of disability.  Powell’s portrayal 
of the individualistic U.S. view of disability is 
consistent with that of Peters and Chimedza 
(2000) reported above.  Collectively, these 
examples illustrate the different ways that 
disability is socially defined and classified 
across different cultures.  

 
Theme two: Global versus local   
The second theme that emerged from this 
literature review was Global versus Local.  This 
theme is intended to reflect how discussions of 
education within the field of comparative 
education exist within global and local 
discourses.  To explain, a dichotomy appears 
to exist, with some in the field siding more 
with sociology’s neo-institutionalism or world 
culture theory, which posits a common global 
model of modern mass education (e.g., Boli, 
2005; Ramirez & Boli, 1987), while others side 
more with anthropology or externalization, 
which emphasizes local variation and agency 
at the national, district, and classroom levels 
(Schriewer & Martinez, 2004; Takayama, 
2010).  Anderson-Levitt (2003) opens the 
dialogue between these two different 
perspectives on schooling around the world, 
encouraging us not to think of them as 
mutually incompatible, but instead urging 
that, “If we take seriously both local variability 
and world culture theory, we recognize that 

each perspective on its own misses something 
crucial” (p. 18).  Similarly, Arnove (1999) 
asserts that a dialectic is at work between the 
global and the local, and it is important for 
those in the field of comparative education to 
understand this interactive process, as well as 
its tensions and contradictions.   

Within the articles, inclusive education 
policy and practice was a prominent topic that 
often revealed how globally circulating ideas 
are relevant to and intersect with local 
practices.  Upon reviewing the literature, I 
found that much insight into the global versus 
local dichotomy could be gained by examining 
the ways in which the articles described and 
evaluated the experience of education for 
students with disabilities in particular national 
and cultural contexts.  Accordingly, the 
discussion of the global versus local theme that 
follows will use the portrayal of inclusive 
education policy and practice in the literature 
to illustrate how Theme Two was manifested.   
 Of the articles where inclusive education 
for students with disabilities was a topic, the 
majority introduced inclusive education as a 
global idea in the papers’ introduction and 
theoretical background sections.  For example, 
before moving into the bulk of his paper 
explaining a participatory action research 
project on inclusion in Tanzania, Polat (2011) 
acknowledged the significant shift from special 
education to inclusive education around the 
globe.  Similarly, Kovačević and Maćešić-
Petrović (2012) opened their paper by 
referring to inclusive education as a 
“contemporary concept” before moving to the 
local level and describing how Serbia defines 
inclusive education.  The global theme is also 
apparent in the article by Kendall and O’Gara 
(2007) who also situate their paper within the 
larger international inclusion discourse by 
speaking about how the global community 
recognizes the rights of all children and 
endorses inclusive education policies like 
Education for All (UNESCO, 2000) and the 
Millennium Development Goals (United 



Situating Disability within Comparative Education                                                                           65 

Nations General Assembly, 2000).  These 
international inclusion policies and others, 
such as the Universal Declaration of Human 
Rights (United Nations General Assembly, 
1948), the Convention on the Rights of the 
Child (United Nations General Assembly, 
1989), the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 
1994), and the Convention on the Rights of 
Persons with Disabilities (United Nations 
General Assembly, 2007), were also featured 
in additional articles reviewed, including Bines 
and Lei (2011), Fleisch, Schindler, and Perry 
(2012), Lynch et al. (2001), Miles et al. (2012), 
Oh and van der Stouwe (2008), Polat (2011), 
and Powell (2009).  Furthermore, Norwich 
(2010) explicitly stated how inclusive 
education as a global force framed his entire 
study: “This study is set within the 
international policy context where standards 
and inclusive education are pursed” (p. 116).  
Thus, it is clear that many of the articles 
reviewed overtly situated their local work on 
inclusive education within the global inclusive 
education discourse. 
 In the majority of the articles, the 
transmission of inclusive education ideas, 
policies, and practices from the global to the 
local was not contested.  For instance, Polat 
(2011) explained that the educational systems 
of most African countries have been influenced 
by income-rich countries.  He noted that this 
cultural transmission of an inclusive education 
system creates difficulties in the use and 
application of terms and concepts like 
“inclusion,” but never questioned whether 
such a system should be transferred in the first 
place.  A positive view of exchanges between 
the global and local was also put forth by Miles 
et al. (2012), who spoke to the facilitation role 
that alliances and networking relationships 
can have among disability-focused 
organizations, nongovernmental 
organizations, and mainstream development 
organizations in the development of culturally 
relevant inclusion policies and practices.  
Bines and Lei (2011) also advocated for a 

global-local partnership, collaboration, and 
joint commitment, as they recommended 
localized development approaches in 
developed and developing countries as being 
necessary for the success of inclusive 
education globally.   

Two articles, however, by Urwick and 
Elliott (2010) and Le Fanu (2013), stood out 
from the others in that they openly questioned 
and criticized the appropriateness of the global 
inclusive education movement in particular 
local contexts, specifically in low-income 
countries.  Urwick and Elliott argued that the 
internationalization of educational goals and 
rights overlooks the diversity of national 
situations.  The authors contested what they 
referred to as the orthodox view of inclusive 
schooling.  They agreed that national 
educational systems should provide for all 
kinds of special education needs, but did not 
endorse the orthodox view that regular schools 
should be adapted or reformed to 
accommodate and support all students with 
special education needs.  Urwick and Elliott 
challenged the globally held assumption that 
inclusion can be effective for all learners in all 
educational contexts, contending that it 
applies only to “ideal” contexts instead of “very 
real” contexts.  The context that Urwick and 
Elliot based their argument on was Lesotho, a 
low-income country that began with ambitious 
inclusion goals, but has failed to meet the 
needs of children with disabilities.  They 
argued that inclusive schooling cannot succeed 
in the conditions of low-income countries like 
Lesotho because, “Although the key principles 
and values associated with inclusion are widely 
accepted…political and economic realities 
often mitigate against its effective operation 
for all” (p. 146).  In the context of Lesotho, the 
nation’s political and economic realities lead to 
a preponderance of unqualified teachers, large 
classes, and inadequate facilities, learning 
materials, and supervisory support.   

Moving to the second article that 
challenged the global in support of a more 



66                                                                                                                      Global Education Review 1(1)                                                                                                                                  

 

local focus, Le Fanu (2013) found that the 
conceptualization of inclusive education in 
Papua New Guinea’s new inclusion policy 
initiative was primarily an ‘exogenous’ 
phenomenon (i.e., imposed from outside the 
country).  Le Fanu’s linguistic analysis of 
policy documents revealed that the inclusive 
precepts in the country’s new inclusion 
curriculum were derived from Australian and 
American texts, thereby prioritizing Western 
education ideology and liberal-democratic 
values over local cultural ways of knowing and 
understanding.  Furthermore, observations of 
primary schools found evidence of curriculum 
non-conformity.  While Papua New Guinea’s 
new inclusion curriculum was designed to 
promote the democratization, socialization, 
and systematization of teaching and learning, 
this study found that teacher practice 
exhibited hierarchism, atomization, and 
simplification of teaching and learning.  Le 
Fanu criticized policymakers for being ‘out of 
touch’ with local realities and urged the 
international development community to 
become more inclusive in their approach by 
understanding the local social worlds where 
they operate in order to avoid such 
disappointing results in the future. 

Overall, analysis of the global versus 
local dichotomy in the representation of 
inclusive education revealed that the authors 
of most of the papers reviewed aimed to 
situate their work on inclusive education 
within the global discourse.  Such authors 
seemed to assume that the transmission of 
inclusive policies and practices from the global 
to the local level was appropriate and 
desirable.  Two notable exceptions to this 
pattern were Urwick and Elliott (2010) and Le 
Fanu (2013), who sided more with the local 
side in comparative education’s global versus 
local debate.  So while the global versus local 
theme ran through many articles on the topic 
of inclusive education, the way in which it was 
manifested in the articles was not entirely 
uniform.   

Conclusions 
The overarching aim of this literature review 
was to better understand where disability falls 
within the vast field of comparative education.  
To engage in this inquiry, the following 
research questions were addressed: 

1. To what extent is the topic of disability 
present in comparative education 
literature? 
2. How is disability represented in 
comparative education literature? 

 
Regarding Research Question 1, only 19 

peer-reviewed articles published between the 
years of 2000 to 2013 in the leading journals 
of comparative education were identified as 
encompassing the topic of disability.  
Furthermore, the percentages of articles 
published on disability out of the total number 
of articles published by the comparative 
education journals reviewed were extremely 
low, ranging from 0.81% to 1.26% across each 
journal, and was only 1.08% overall.  Be that as 
it may, is positive to see that the numbers of 
comparative education articles on disability 
have increased in recent years, and hopefully 
this trend continues.   

In terms of Research Question 2, further 
analysis of the articles reviewed revealed two 
central themes: (1) Social Interpretations of 
Disability, and (2) Global versus Local.  
Regarding the first theme, comparisons across 
the articles demonstrated that disability is 
conceptualized differently depending on the 
cultural context of the study.  Examples of the 
ways in which disability is socially constructed 
and interpreted in different nations were 
compared and contrasted, including 
Zimbabwe, the United States, India, Botswana, 
Tanzania, China, the Republic of Serbia, 
Hungary, France and Germany.  Regarding the 
second theme, most articles that discussed 
inclusive education for students with 
disabilities subscribed to an international 
orthodox view of inclusive schooling.  There 
were a couple of notable exceptions, however, 



Situating Disability within Comparative Education                                                                           67 

that stressed the importance of considering 
local conditions.   

 

Implications for Inclusive 
Education 
The findings of this comparative education 
literature review have numerous implications 
for inclusive education locally and globally.  
Concerning the implications of Theme One, 
the ways in which disability was represented in 
the literature as social interpretations 
dependent on cultural contexts should be 
considered by policymakers and practitioners 
when planning and implementing inclusive 
education initiatives.   Croft (2013) noted that 
the action required to address the injustices 
associated with disability is situated by the way 
that disability is defined.  The actions 
associated with inclusive education are no 
exception.  To ensure that quality, sustainable 
improvements can be made in the inclusion of 
students with disabilities around the world, 
reform leaders should take into account how 
disability is socially constructed by the general 
public in the context where they are working.  
Failure to do so can result in incongruent 
educational policy and practice. 

An example of how divergent social 
interpretations of a concept related to 
disability can have negative ramifications of 
the disconnection between policy and practice 
is provided by the case of Papua New Guinea 
in the Le Fanu (2013) article.  Le Fanu found 
that Papua New Guinea’s new inclusion 
curriculum was designed to promote the 
democratization, socialization, and 
systematization of teaching and learning, but 
these ideals were not realized in schools.  
Instead, teacher practice exhibited 
hierarchism, atomization, and simplification of 
teaching and learning.  There were marked 
inconsistencies between the conceptualization 
of inclusion in the policy documents compared 
to that of teachers working in local schools and 
classrooms.  To alleviate this disconnect, Le 
Fanu called for more responsive and 

participatory approaches to be used by 
international development agencies promoting 
inclusive education, particularly in low-income 
countries.   

The recommendations of this article 
corresponded with those by Le Fanu (2013).  
One way to increase the likelihood that the 
social conceptualization of disability and the 
inclusion of this population are in harmony 
with policy and practice within a given culture 
is to apply a participatory approach.  A 
participatory framework encourages 
professional engagement and reflection (Dyer, 
2005), providing teachers with the opportunity 
to reflect on the ways they perceive students 
with disabilities and how they could make 
improvements in the ways they include these 
students in their classrooms.  Likewise, 
policymakers would have the opportunity to 
reflect on whether inclusion policies are 
aligned with local perceptions and address 
culturally relevant challenges associated with 
disability.  Opening the dialogue between 
policymakers and teachers who are tasked with 
enacting inclusion policy would afford 
policymakers the opportunity to make policy 
informed by local practice, thereby increasing 
the authenticity of the policy.  In turn, teacher 
pedagogy and classroom practice would be 
informed by policy that is responsive to their 
needs, thereby improving the sustainability of 
the policy.  Incorporating a participatory 
approach to inclusive education policy and 
practice by promoting greater exchange 
between policymakers and teachers could be 
advantageous when either creating a new 
inclusion policy or modifying an existing one.  
Doing so would result in an inclusive 
education policy that is designed to reflect the 
social conception of disability and counteract 
local barriers and challenges associated with 
disability.   

Considering the implications of Theme 
Two, future comparative education research 
on inclusive education should continue to 
incorporate multiple global and local  



68                                                                                                                      Global Education Review 1(1)                                                                                                                                  

 

 
perspectives.   It was positive to see a 
divergence in perspectives in the analysis of 
the global versus local dichotomy across the 
articles reviewed.  This finding was aligned 
with the sentiment of Anderson-Levitt (2003) 
and Arnove (1999), who stressed the 
importance of understanding the interaction 
between the global and the local and seeing the 
unique value that both perspectives provide.  
Moving forward, it will be important to 
maintain a presence of global and local 
perspectives in further studies on the topic of 
inclusive education in the field of comparative 
education.    

Additionally, inclusive education 
policymakers at all levels should be aware of 
the global versus local dichotomy and should 
aim to understand how global and local 
perspectives interact in their respective 
contexts if they want their initiatives to 
succeed.  Turning once again to Le Fanu 
(2013), this article criticized how policymakers 
prioritized exogenous global discourses over 
endogenous local ways of knowing in Papua 
New Guinea’s new inclusive curriculum.   Le 
Fanu argued that the inclusion curriculum 
would have been more effective if the policy 
process incorporated more community 
involvement and was more culturally oriented.  
Such an insight would not have been possible 
without broadening one’s awareness beyond 
the national context to identify how global 
forces were impacting local educational 
processes.  Using a global lens to examine local 
contexts contributes to a greater 
understanding of the potential and limitations 
of educational systems (Arnove, 1999).  
Policymakers should apply a global lens as 
recommended by Arnove and as was done by 
Le Fanu to identify the possibilities and 
limitations in their local educational system 
concerning the inclusion of students with 
disabilities. 

 

Limitations and Future 
Directions 

As stated in the introduction, this 
article serves as a starting point to explore 
the presence and representation of 
disability within comparative education 
literature.  Consequently, this study has 
some limitations that should be 
acknowledged.  First, the scope of this 
literature review was restricted to four 
comparative education journals.  These 
target journals were selected using stringent 
inclusion criteria detailed in the procedure 
section above to ensure a high level of 
academic rigor, accountability, and relative 
importance in the field to meet the primary 
aim of this paper of situating disability 
within the field of comparative education.  
While these journals are considered to be 
the leading peer-reviewed journals in the 
field, it is possible that additional studies 
were omitted.  Future work should extend 
the present study reviewing research in 
additional comparative and international 
education journals beyond those reviewed 
here.    

A related limitation is that this review 
was limited to journals published in the 
English language for practical reasons due 
to the language competency of the 
researcher.  It has been acknowledged that 
English-language journals in the field of 
comparative education privilege a different 
set of topics that are communicable in 
English compared to non-English journals 
(Post, 2012), which applies to the present 
study.  To address this limitation, future 
work should examine the presence and 
representation of disability in comparative 
education journals that are published in 
languages other than English.   

A final limitation is the range of years 
covered by the present literature review. 
The search was limited to articles published 
within the past thirteen years (2000 to 
2013) to capture the essence of the current 



Situating Disability within Comparative Education                                                                           69 

zeitgeist for Research Question 2. Future 
research can extend this work by examining 
the presence and representation of 
disability in comparative education journals 
in articles that have been published prior to 
the year 2000.  An additional element to 
augment such an analysis would be to 
compare and contrast how disability has 
been situated within comparative education 
literature over time.  One might apply a 
historical perspective similar to Munyi’s 
(2012) endeavour to trace the temporal 
development and formation of international 
perceptions towards individuals with 
disabilities. It would be interesting to see 
whether the social perceptions of disability 
identified in the present review of 
comparative education literature have 
evolved or shifted over time. 

Overall, the present study found that 
although disability is not yet prominently 
featured in the major journals of comparative 
education, when disability is discussed, it is 
commonly represented as a social 
interpretation dependent on cultural context, 
and policies related to the education of 
students with disabilities are often positioned 
within a global dialogue.  Further research on 
students with disabilities should continue to be 
published in comparative education journals 
to increase the visibility of this marginalized 
population within the general comparative 
education academic discourse.   

Additionally, because disability is 
socially and culturally constructed, work done 
in this area must clearly communicate to 
readers how disability is defined in the 
particular context(s) where the research was 
being carried out.  While this literature review 
was able to highlight differences in disability 
definitions across most articles, not all articles 
provided a definition of disability (e.g., Fleisch 
et al., 2012).  When a definition is missing 
from disability and comparative education 
scholarship, this limits the interpretation of 
results reported and the potential for data 

comparison.  Thus, future research on 
disability in comparative education journals 
should provide clear definitions of disability to 
avoid confusions in language or terminology, 
and ultimately meaning.  Being sensitive to the 
cultural understandings and interpretations of 
disability of those directly involved and 
represented in one’s research, as well as of 
those of a diverse international readership, will 
be important as continued work brings the 
voices, perspectives, and lived realities of 
students with disabilities to the comparative 
education arena. 
 
 
References 
Abberley, P. (1987). The concept of oppression and the 

development of a social theory of disability. 
Disability and Society, 2, 5-20. 

Anderson-Levitt, K. (Ed.). (2003). Local meanings, global 
schooling: Anthropology and world culture 
theory. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. 

Arnove, R. F. (1999). Introduction: Reframing 
comparative education:  The dialectic of the global 
and the local. In R. F. Arnove & C. A. Torres (Eds.), 
Comparative Education: The dialectic of the 
global and the local (pp. 1-23).  Boulder, CO:  
Rowman and Littlefield. 

Arnove, R. F. (2001). Comparative and international 
education society (CIES) facing the twenty-first 
century: Challenges and contributions. 
Comparative Education Review, 45, 477-503. 

Bines, H., & Lei, P. (2011). Disability and education: The 
longest road to inclusion. International Journal of 
Educational Development, 31, 419-424. 

Boli, J. (2005). Contemporary developments in world 
culture. International Journal of Comparative 
Sociology, 46, 383-404.  

Chabbott, C., & Elliot, E. (Eds.). (2003). Understanding 
others, educating ourselves: Getting more from 
international comparative studies in education. 
Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 

Chitiyo, M., Changara, D. M., & Chitiyo, G. (2008). 
Providing psychosocial supports to special needs 
children: A case of orphans and vulnerable 
children in Zimbabwe. International Journal of 
Educational Development, 28, 384-392. 

Cook, B. J., Hite, S. J., & Epstein, E. H. (2004). Discerning 
trends, contours, and boundaries in comparative 
education: A survey of comparativists and their 
literature. Comparative Education Review, 48, 
123-149. 

Croft, A. (2013). Promoting access to education for 
disabled children in low-income countries: Do we 
need to know how many disabled children there 



70                                                                                                                      Global Education Review 1(1)                                                                                                                                  

 
are? International Journal of Educational 
Development, 33, 233-243. 

Deng, M., & Guo, L. (2007). Local special education 
administrators’ understanding of inclusive 
education in China. International Journal of 
Educational Development, 27, 697-707. 

Dyer, C. (2005). Cross-cultural collaborative action 
research and practitioner development. In D. 
Hammett & R. Wedgwood (Eds.), The 
methodological challenges of researching 
education and skills development in Africa (pp. 
67-96). Edinburgh: Centre of African Studies. 

Ely, M. (1991). Doing qualitative research: Circles within 
circles. Bristol, PA: The Falmer Press. 

Epstein, E. W. (2011). Setting the normative boundaries: 
Crucial epistemological benchmarks in 
comparative education.  Comparative Education, 
44, 373-386.  

Fink, A. (2005). Conducting research literature reviews: 
From the internet to paper (2nd ed.). Thousand 
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

Finkelstein, V. (1980). Attitudes and disabled people: 
Issues for discussion. Retrieved from Centre for 
Disability Studies, University of Leeds website, 
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-
studies/archiveuk/finkelstein/attitudes.pdf 

Fleisch, B., Shindler, J., & Perry, H. (2012). Who is out of 
school? Evidence from the Statistics South Africa 
Community Survey. International Journal of 
Educational Development, 32, 529-536. 

Gabel, S. (2005). Introduction: Disability studies in 
education. In S.L. Gabel (Ed.), Disability studies in 
education: Readings in theory and method (pp. 1-
20).  New York, NY: Peter Lang. 

Kendall, N., & O’Gara, C. (2007). Vulnerable children, 
communities and schools: Lessons from three 
HIV/AIDS affected areas. Compare, 37, 5-21. 

Kovačević, J., & Maćešić-Petrović, D. (2012). Inclusive 
education – Empirical experience from Siberia. 
International Journal of Educational 
Development, 32, 463-470.  

Le Fanu, G. (2013). The inclusion of inclusive education in 
international development: Lessons from Papua 
New Guinea. International Journal of Educational 
Development, 33, 139-148. 

Lynch, P., McCall, S., Douglas, G., McLinden, M., Mogesa, 
B., Mwaura, M., Muga, J., & Njoroge, M. (2011). 
Inclusive educational practices in Kenya: 
Evidencing practice of itinerant teachers who work 
with children with visual impairment in local 
mainstream schools. International Journal of 
Educational Development, 31, 478-488. 

Miles, S., Fefoame, G. O., Mulligan, D., & Haque, Z. 
(2012). Education for diversity: The role of 
networking in resisting disabled people’s 
marginalization in Bangladesh. Compare, 42, 283-
302. 

Munyi, C. W. (2012). Past and present perceptions 
towards disability: A historical perspective. 
Disability Studies Quarterly, 32(2). Retrieved 
from http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/3197/3068 

Norwich, B. (2010). Dilemmas of difference, curriculum 
and disability: International perspectives. 
Comparative Education, 46, 113-135. 

Oh, S., and van der Stouwe, M. (2008). Education, 
diversity, and inclusion in Burmese refugee camps 
in Thailand. Comparative Education Review, 52, 
589-617. 

Peters, S. (2000). Is there a disability culture? A 
syncretisation of three possible world views. 
Disability and Society, 15, 583-601. 

Peters, S., & Chimedza, R. (2000). Conscientization and 
the cultural politics of education: A radical 
minority perspective. Comparative Education 
Review, 44, 245-271. 

Philips, D., & Schweisfurth, M. (2010). Comparative and 
international education: An introduction to 
theory, method, and practice. New York, NY: 
Continuum. 

Polat, F. (2011). Inclusion in education: A step towards 
social justice. International Journal of 
Educational Development, 31, 50-58. 

Post, D. (2012). Rank scholarship. Comparative 
Education Review, 56, 1-17. 

Powell, J. J. W. (2009). To segregate or to separate? 
Special education expansion and divergence in the 
United States and Germany. Comparative 
Education Review, 53, 161-187. 

Preece, J. (2002). Feminist perspectives on the learning of 
citizenship and governance. Compare, 32, 21-33. 

Ramirez, F. O., & Boli, J. (1987). Global patterns of 
educational institutionalization. In G.M. Thomas 
(Ed.), Institutional structure: Constituting state, 
society, and the individual (pp. 150-172). Newbury 
Park, CA: Sage. 

Schriewer, J., & Martinez, C. (2004). Constructions of 
internationality in education. In G. Steiner-Khamsi 
(Ed.), The global political of educational 
borrowing and lending (pp. 29-53). New York, 
NY: Teachers College Press. 

Singal, N., & Jain, A. (2012). Repositioning youth with 
disabilities: Focusing on their social and work 
lives. Compare, 48, 167-180. 

Takayama, K. (2010). Politics of externalization in 
reflexive times: Reinventing Japanese education 
reform discourses through ‘Finnish PISA success.’ 
Comparative Education Review, 54, 51-75. 

Thompson Routers. (2013). Journal citation reports: 
Social science edition. Retrieved from ISI Web of 
KnowledgeSM website, 
http://wokinfo.com/products_tools/analytical/jcr
/ 

UNESCO. (2010). EFA global monitoring report 2010: 
Reaching the marginalized. Paris: UNESCO. 

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies/archiveuk/finkelstein/attitudes.pdf
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies/archiveuk/finkelstein/attitudes.pdf


Situating Disability within Comparative Education                                                                           71 

UNESCO. (2000). Education for all: Meeting our 
collective commitment. The Dakar framework for 
action. Paris: UNESCO. 

UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca statement and 
framework for action on special needs education. 
Paris: UNESCO. 

United Nations General Assembly. (1948). The 
universal declaration of human rights. 
Retrieved from 
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index
.shtml 

United Nations General Assembly. (1989). Convention 
on the rights of the child. Retrieved from 
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInteres
t/Pages/CRC.aspx 

United Nations General Assembly. (2000). United 
Nations millennium declaration. Retrieved 
from 
http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ar
es552e.htm 

United Nations General Assembly. (2007). Convention 
on the rights of persons with disabilities. 
Retrieved from 

http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/co
nventionfull.shtml 

Urwick, J., & Elliott, J. (2010). International orthodoxy 
versus national realities: Inclusive schooling 
and the education of children with disabilities 
in Lesotho. Comparative Education, 46, 137-
150. 

van Zanten, A. (2009). Competitive arenas and schools’ 
logics of action: A European comparison. 
Compare, 39, 85-98. 

World Health Organization. (2011). World report on 
disability 2011. Malta: WHO Press. 

 
 
About the Author 
Alisha M.B. Brown is a doctoral candidate in 
Educational Policy at Michigan State University.  Her 
interests include inclusive education policy and practice, 
and educational access for students with disabilities and 
other marginalized populations. These interests are 
domestic and international in scope, with a particular 
focus on Southern and Eastern Africa.

 
 

Appendix  

Summary of Articles Reviewed 

Study Question/Focus Research 
Tradition 

Research Design Findings 

Bines & 
Lei (2011) 

Examined issues and 
challenges of 
developing countries 
in terms of disability 
definitions, data, 
policies, service 
delivery, finance, and 
capacity development. 

Policy and 
document 
analysis 

Reviewed national 
inclusion policies 
and World Vision 
report on 28 
developing 
countries. 

Differences in 
healthcare, technology, 
and definitions of 
disability and special 
needs exist between 
northern and southern 
contexts. Argue for 
localized approaches to 
inclusive education 
development. 
 

Chitiyo et 
al. (2008) 

Examined the impact 
of providing special 
education services like 
psychosocial support 
(PSS) to children who 
are orphaned by AIDS 
on their schooling 
outcomes. 

Correlational 
design 

Twenty children 
aged 10-14 years 
were provided PSS 
for 8 months in four 
primary schools in 
rural wards in 
Mberengwa district 
of Zimbabwe. Pre- 
and post-
intervention 
interviews and 
observations were 
conducted. 
 
 

PSS resulted in 
improvements in 
several areas, including 
schoolwork during and 
after the intervention 
period. 

http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.htm
http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.htm
http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml
http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml


72                                                                                                                      Global Education Review 1(1)                                                                                                                                  

 

Croft 
(2013) 

Examined whether a 
national survey of 
disability prevalence is 
a necessary and 
feasible starting point 
when promoting the 
inclusion of children 
with disabilities in 
low- and middle-
income countries. 

Theoretical 
document 
analysis 

Reviewed literature, 
survey instruments, 
and international 
development and 
research projects to 
analyze what 
information is 
needed about 
disability in 
education systems 
and difficulties in 
measuring 
childhood disability. 
 

In many contexts a 
national survey of 
disability prevalence is 
not the most useful 
starting point for 
educating children with 
disabilities. 

Deng & 
Guo 
(2007) 

Examined how 
Chinese Local Special 
Education 
Administrators 
(LSEAs) understand 
the ideology of 
inclusive education 
and the “Learning in 
Regular Classrooms” 
(LRC) model. 
 

Qualitative Semi-structured 
interviews of LSEAs 
from one rural 
district and one 
urban district of a 
mid-China province. 

LSEAs morally believe 
that children with 
disabilities are entitled 
to the same right of 
education as their 
nondisabled peers, but 
worry about social 
awareness and 
acceptance. 

Fleisch et 
al. (2012) 

Examined the extent 
to which children aged 
5 to 15 in South Africa 
were out of school and 
the role of disability. 

Secondary data 
analysis 

Analyzed the 
Community Survey 
2007 data collected 
by Statistics South 
Africa of 949,105 
individuals from 
246,618 households.  
 

Children with 
disabilities have higher 
non-attendance ratios 
than those without 
disabilities in South 
Africa. 

Kendall & 
O’Gara 
(2007) 

Examined school and 
community capacities 
to care for, socialize, 
and educate 
vulnerable children 
affected by HIV/AIDS. 

Ethnographic 
case studies 

Case studies of 
schools and 
HIV/AIDS 
vulnerable children 
in Kenya, Malawi, 
and Zimbabwe. 

Malawi and Zimbabwe 
cases show that 
elimination of fees, 
passive open door 
policies and 
exhortations are 
insufficient policy 
measures to bring and 
keep these children in 
school.  The Kenya case 
shows that investments 
in long term, well-
resourced local 
partnerships can be 
effective. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



Situating Disability within Comparative Education                                                                           73 

Kovačević 
& 
Maćešić-
Petrović 
(2012) 

Examined the 
problems faced by 
children with special 
needs in regular 
schools, their attitudes 
toward school, their 
relations with peers 
and teachers, and 
teacher attitudes 
towards inclusive 
education in Serbia. 

Descriptive 
study 

500 teachers in 20 
regular elementary 
schools in the 
Republic of Siberia 
completed 
questionnaires 
about their attitudes 
towards inclusive 
education and 
students with 
special needs’ 
achievement, 
educational 
problems, and 
attitudes toward 
school, peers, and 
teachers. 
 

Pupils with special 
needs are integrated in 
regular classes in 
Serbia but face 
numerous educational 
problems. Teacher 
attitudes towards 
inclusive education are 
changing. 

Le Fanu 
(2013) 

Examined the 
conceptualization, 
generation, and 
mediation of inclusion 
within the new 
inclusion curriculum 
introduced in Papua 
New Guinea. 

Multi-level 
case study 

Analyzed curriculum 
documents using 
‘process-tracking’ 
and ‘inter-textual’ 
techniques, and 
conducted extensive 
classroom 
observation in two 
primary schools in 
the Eastern 
Highlands. 

The new inclusion 
curriculum was 
designed to promote 
the democratization, 
socialization, and 
systematization of 
teaching and learning, 
but this did not happen 
in the case study 
schools.  Instead, 
teacher practice 
exhibited hierarchism, 
atomization, and 
simplification of 
teaching and learning. 
 

Lynch et 
al. (2011) 

Examined the 
training, access to 
equipment, caseload, 
and daily duties 
undertaken by 
specialist itinerant 
teachers supporting 
the inclusion of 
children with visual 
impairment. 

Participatory 
action research 

Analyzed 
questionnaires and 
research journals 
kept over 2-months 
from 38 
professionals in the 
Kenya Integrated 
Education Program 
(KIEP) from 5 
districts. 

All itinerant teachers 
reported having some 
credited training in 
special education, rural 
teachers had less access 
to equipment, caseload 
size varied and ranged 
from 0-26 years, and 
the majority of 
teachers’ daily duties 
consisted of managing 
and teaching their own 
class at their base 
school. 
 

Miles et al. 
(2012) 

Examined the role of 
networking in 
reducing the 
marginalization of 
people with 
disabilities from 
education in 
Bangladesh. 

Mixed methods Semi-structured 
interviews and focus 
groups of 
representatives from 
disability-focused 
organizations, self-
help groups, and 
inclusive education 
trainers. 
 

Building networks 
between people with 
disabilities and 
disability-focused 
organizations reduces 
marginalization from 
education. 



74                                                                                                                      Global Education Review 1(1)                                                                                                                                  

 

Norwich 
(2010) 

Examined the 
perspectives of 
education 
practitioners in the 
UK, USA, and the 
Netherlands about 
whether they 
recognized a 
curriculum dilemma 
of difference for 
students with 
disabilities and how 
they justified their 
position about the 
dilemma. 

Mixed methods Semi-structured 
interviews of 132 
education 
practitioners and 
administrators in 
the UK, USA, and 
the Netherlands 
about their 
perspectives to a 
curriculum dilemma 
about the 
consequences of 
having a common or 
differentiated for 
children with 
disabilities. 
 

A majority in each 
country recognized the 
dilemma about 
curriculum 
commonality-
differentiation, that 
this continued over a 
decade and that there 
were similarities across 
the country in how the 
dilemma was 
recognized and 
resolved. 

Oh & van 
der 
Stouwe 
(2008) 

Analyzed the effect of 
inclusion and diversity 
in education in a 
conflict situation in 
Burmese refugee 
camps in Thailand. 

Participatory 
research 

Conducted inclusion 
assessment, 
interviews, 
workshops, 
meetings, and 
collected statistical 
data from six camps 
along the Thai-
Burmese border. 

Initiatives to promote 
inclusion in the camps 
are happening, but 
challenges do exist.  
Physical barriers to 
school facilities make it 
difficult for special-
needs students to gain 
access to schooling. 
 

Peters & 
Chimedza 
(2000) 

Examined the 
approaches by 
disabled people in 
Zimbabwe to 
educational praxis, 
and compare the 
Zimbabwean 
experiences to the 
growth of the 
disability rights 
movement in the 
United States. 

Critical 
ethnography 

Conducted field 
work across 
Zimbabwe. 

The approach in the 
United States has 
historically emphasized 
transformation of 
societal values and 
educational practices 
through litigation and 
thus lacks the power of 
the Zimbabwean 
experience, with its 
emphasis on 
transformation through 
conscientization and its 
recognition of unity in 
diversity. 
 

Polat 
(2011) 

Discussed the 
theoretical 
relationship between 
inclusion and social 
justice. 

Participatory 
action research 

Project involves 8 
primary schools in 
Dar es Salaam and 
Pwani regions of 
Tanzania and aims 
to develop an Index 
of Inclusion in 
Tanzania. 
 

Some progress has 
been made towards 
inclusive, just, and 
quality education in 
Tanzania but there is 
still a long way to go. 

Powell 
(2009) 

Compared the genesis, 
expansion, and 
persistence of special 
education as a multi-
track, separating 
system in the United 
States and as a dual-
track, segregating 

Institutional 
analysis 

Compared German 
and American 
special education 
institutionalization. 

Although the trend 
toward more school 
integration and 
inclusive education is 
unmistakable, the 
development remains 
far more gradual in 
Germany than in the 



Situating Disability within Comparative Education                                                                           75 

system in Germany. 
 

U.S. 

Preece 
(2002) 

Critical appraisal of 
citizenship and 
governance in relation 
to gender, discussing 
implications for 
disability. 

Theoretical 
analysis 

Draws on post-
structuralism to 
examine the 
relationship 
between power and 
discourse in 
citizenship and 
governance in 
Botswana. 

Argues for a broader, 
more inclusive, ethical 
definition of active 
citizenship that 
empowers women and 
the disabled to play a 
more active role in 
governance. 
 

Singal & 
Jain 
(2012) 

Examined the 
participation and 
purposeful 
engagement in 
education of youth 
with disabilities in 
India 

Narrative 
analysis 

Interviews with 
youth aged 15 to 30 
with physical, visual, 
and hearing 
impairments with a 
history of special 
provisions in 
education in urban 
and rural Dewas, a 
district in Madhya 
Pradesh, on the 
impact of education 
on their lives 
 

Exclusions faced by 
youth with disabilities 
in India were 
determined by the 
socio-cultural and 
economic realities (e.g., 
gender roles) of their 
lives, not by their 
impairment. 

Urwick & 
Elliott 
(2010) 

Questioned the 
relevance of the 
international 
orthodoxy to include 
all children with 
special educational 
needs in regular 
schools and 
classrooms to the 
educational systems of 
low-income countries. 

Policy analysis Examined an 
inclusion policy in 
Lesotho, a low-
income country that 
began with ambition 
goals but failed to 
meet the needs of 
children with 
disabilities, and 
then outlines an 
alternative strategy. 

Argues that low-income 
countries cannot 
progress from virtually 
no educational 
provision for 
disabilities to fully 
integrated provision.  
Specialized facilities 
and selected schools 
are necessary for 
children with 
disabilities to have 
meaningful learning 
opportunities. 
 

van 
Zanten 
2009 

Examined how 
competitive processes 
affect different school 
activities, including 
provision for children 
with special needs. 

Case studies Conducted case 
studies in 14 schools 
in six local 
European contexts 
(London, Paris, 
Lille, Charleroi, 
Budapest, and 
Lisbon) for 18-
months, 
interviewing 
teachers and 
parents, observing 
meetings and 
activities, and 
analyzing school 
websites and 
documents.  

Choice and competition 
can either have positive 
effects by developing 
attractive options for 
special needs students, 
or negative effects 
because the most 
vulnerable schools in 
the marketplace may 
not develop policies 
towards children with 
special needs to avoid 
being stigmatized as 
difficult schools.