International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tqse20

Fierce parenting: an autoethnographic study of

disability, inclusion, and ‘othering’

Alina Kewanian, Edwin Creely & Jane Southcott

To cite this article: Alina Kewanian, Edwin Creely & Jane Southcott (06 May 2023): Fierce
parenting: an autoethnographic study of disability, inclusion, and ‘othering’, International
Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, DOI: 10.1080/09518398.2023.2203118

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2023.2203118

© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group

Published online: 06 May 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1287

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tqse20
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education
https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2023.2203118

Fierce parenting: an autoethnographic study of disability,

inclusion, and ‘othering’
Alina Kewanian , Edwin Creely and Jane Southcott
Faculty of Education, Monash University, Clayton, Australia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This critical autoethnographic article with academic friends explores the Received 18 January
complex territory of disability from a strengths-based, inclusive perspective. 2022
The article centres on the experiences of a mother and educator (the lead Accepted 24 February
2023
author), who continues to navigate the disability landscape, which is encum-
bered with deficit views. The curated narratives (or vignettes) presented KEYWORDS
hereafter, focus on specific educational experiences and challenges related Disability; inclusion;
to perceptions of disability and “othering” that threaten to exclude. Each alterity; deficit views;
narrative reveals the lead author’s direct experiences of alienation and her fierceness; critical
need to develop a strong sense of fierceness to protect and secure the autoethnography;
strength-based practices;
right to an equitable, inclusive education for her “othered” child. The authors Lévinas
analyse each story using emic and etic perspectives utilising ideas drawn
from Lévinas’ notion of alterity and his ethics of encounter, as well as critical
discourse analysis to bring attention to the deficit language. Collectively,
the narratives and the analyses aim to bring critical awareness to the lived
experiences of this mother and educator and identify the deficit mindsets
that affected her so profoundly.

Introduction
This autoethnographic article embodies a walk through painful memories. As I begin my journey of
reflection on the effects of the term “disability” on my life, my initial thoughts seem negative. I feel
like I have been transferred to a barren, lonely land, where I am othered (Thomas-Olalde & Velho,
2011). I continue to focus on writing despite such emotions, hoping that my persistent explorations
can help weave together the tapestry of “disability” as I have come to know it for many years.
Throughout this process, I am learning to embrace moments of stillness that lead me to contemplate
and adopt an analytical gaze that enables me to explore the meaning of the label “disability” within
my experiential boundaries. In doing so, I am aware of my complex gaze. I am an individual who
happens to fall within the “normativity narrative [that] will by definition create the abnormal, the
other” (Davis, 1995, p. 42). I find myself within the so-called abled group that form the “hegemony
of normalcy” (Davies, 1995, p. 45). Concurrently, as a mother and teacher, I continue to live through
and experience the limiting effects of “disability,” whilst I strive to protect the educational rights of
my child. The three curated vignettes herein are representative incidents in my lived experience, and
illuminate my core beliefs about and understandings of just and inclusive education.

CONTACT Alina Kewanian alina.kewanian@monash.edu Faculty of Education, Monash University, Clayton, Australia
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided
the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. The terms on which this article has been
published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
2 A. KEWANIAN ET AL.

My central focus is to disturb this hegemony. I am deliberately disrupting and purposefully

challenging (Leonardo & Broderick, 2011) our common understandings through interrogating
and investigating the effects of classifying a person according to their ableness. I invite the
reader to consider that the position of a continuoud subscription to such dominant views have
“consequences – perceived as real, it has real effect” (Bowker & Star, 1999, p. 319) on the life
of individuals and families. I delve into my personal struggles to access equitable inclusive
education within the context of the continued persistence of a tradition of exclusion (Best et al.,
2018; Slee, 2011). As I write, my reflections interweave, coming from a position of being both
parent and educator who firmly believes in the right of every child to access inclusive education.
Since becoming the mother of a child with a label, I remain surrounded by professional opinions
within educational contexts derived from assumptions that tend to devalue (Knight, 2013).
This study is situated in Victoria, Australia. Several years preceding the events depicted in
these vignettes, Australia ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with
Disabilities (2006) and the Disability Discrimination legislation was implemented for over thirty
years (DDA, 1992). The current Disability Strategy, 2021–2031, envisions a more inclusive society
(National Disability Insurance Agency, 2022). In Victoria, the Department of Education emphasizes
that it is “delivering an inclusive education agenda” (Department of Education, 2022). A recent
interim report for the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People
with Disability (2020) highlights the stark reality for students with disability. The Inquiry into
Social Inclusion and Victorians with Disability (2014) acknowledges that considerable progress
is still required to achieve fully inclusive participation of all students in our education system.
I am reminded of Slee’s warning that “exclusion resides deep in the bones of education” (Slee,
2018, p. 1). This ignited a determination to share my experiences, reflect, interrogate, and forge
new ways of conceiving disability.
The interpersonal encounters reported in the following three vignettes take place within my
child’s transitional period from primary to secondary school. This important milestone has been
widely acknowledged as an exciting but challenging time for students (Jindal-Snape & Foggie,
2008; Pitt et al., 2021). The first two vignettes focus directly on schooling and education, whilst
the third presents an incident within the broader community. Collectively, the vignettes reveal
a substantial difference between the rhetoric about inclusive education and the reality of prac-
tices and language.
The negative attitudes that I have experienced first-hand have affronted my personal beliefs
about inclusion, both as an individual and an educator. As I witness overt stigmatization, fear,
and reluctance, I find a new personal force: being fierce and challenging the dominant deficit
discourses and stereotypical understandings about disability that continue to perpetuate “neg-
ative ideas and narratives about disabilities” (Mueller, 2019, p. 277). I want to emphasise instead
the rich resources that each person brings to life and school, regardless of labels such as “dis-
ability.” As a reflexive educational practitioner who understands the subtleties of how deficit
views of disability operate on the ground carried in the language used, I seek opportunities to
reflect, explore and embrace practices of strength and positivity.
Two additional voices are evident in the text. They are my academic colleagues, whose writing
intertwines with mine as critical friends, to offer further insights into my lived experiences. Both
friends identify as abled but have worked with and known many students with disability and
so have voice out of those experiences. The term “critical friend” is taken to be inclusive of
collaborative writing as co-authors and professional critical engagement in the development of
ideas (Fuentealba & Russell, 2016). At times, our rich discussions supported my beliefs about
labels of “disability [as] stigmatised, politically marginalised, and economically disadvantaged”
(Rivas et al., 2021, p. 192), but my critical friends also challenged me to balance raw emotions
and critical engagement. The three voices in the article are represented thus: when the personal
subjective is used (I and me), that is the voice of the first author, Ani [real name to be inserted
after review]. Speaking as “we” or in third person denotes our consensus. At other times,
 International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 3

co-authors speak with their own voice, using the pseudonyms Felix and Kate [real names to
be inserted after review]. A complex multivocality permeates the article.
Through reflexivity with my critical friends, I have been able to explore the contexts in which
deficit language is used. Following in Schalk’s footsteps (2018), we question what may happen
when we begin to imagine disability differently. This article, through sharing familiar, dominant
narratives, aims to challenge but also strives to expand our outlook, our ways of seeing and
being. Therefore, we choose to begin by addressing the word disability itself. Scholars present
common variations in the use of the term “disability,” such as “dis/ability” where the presence
of the slash “/” denotes a binary that “asks us to consider how we value the human and what
kind of society are worth fighting for” (Goodley & Runswick-Cole, 2016, p. 3). There is also “(Dis)
ability” (McRuer, 2006; Price, 2015) which reinforces difference. From this point on, I posit an
alternative as a way of expanding conceptual boundaries. I propose “dis-ability,” hyphenated
with the use of M-dash, instead of the more common “/” slash. I choose the longer M-dash to
connect the words holistically, but also to create a physical distance that gives pause to the
reader, to bring emphasis whilst allowing critical engagement with the prefix “dis” that under-
mines the pedagogical potential of the noun “ability.” My aim is not to trivialize the issue and
the genuine challenges for individuals, parents, families, school communities; rather, I strive to
explore new ways to think about dis-ability, including ones based on strength, on recognising
individual abilities, and on celebrating differences.

Ethics, alterity, transcendence and Lévinas

Our writing inhabits an ethical space constituted in the relational, central to inclusive practices.
In seeking a theorist who spoke to the dynamics of a relational ethic evident in the vignettes,
we turned to Emmanuel Lévinas. Core to his work is the notion of radical concern for the other
built on alterity, the sense of distinction between oneself and another. In his seminal work,
Totality and Infinity (1979) alterity is assembled on the values of respect and responsibility for
the other. These values apply both to the otherness of bodies and to subjectivities as they exist
in specific sites. This respect is mediated through body (facial expressions, voice, gesture, move-
ment, and spatial orientation) and text (language, positionality of speaking, and textual repre-
sentation). Of concern in Lévinas’ ethics of being human is a state of being with and for
the other.
For Lévinas (1979), alterity emerges through recognition of the face (the seeing of an
embodied state), constituting his notion of deep intersubjectivity and intercorporeality. This
sense of grounded practicality based on perception of the face of the other can be used to
examine notions of dis-ability. Lévinas’ ethics is one of duty to protect and embrace alterity.
His writing is imbued with a thoroughgoing sense of equity that suffuses all interactions
between oneself and another. Lévinas writes of the encounter: a face-to-face coming together,
where each human becomes a unique being. In abandoning the label of sameness, a profound
ethics of responsibility is established. This encounter is “primordially enacted as conversation”
(Lévinas, 1979, p. 39). The joyful and respectful seeking of the other in interlocution, challenges
discourses of sameness, dehumanization, and categorisation that often characterize disempow-
ering labels and deficit discourses (DeShong, 2008).
Lévinas’ theory of encounter and recognition of alterity has considerable import for ethical
awareness in education and in the disposition of dis-ability and inclusion. Though we may
seek the other, we can never possess the transcendent other; the other is not under our
power, thus challenging the hegemony of sameness and any tendency towards being
custodial.
4 A. KEWANIAN ET AL.

Language and the Power of Words

While Lévinas’ perspective about ethics is critical for this study, and while he does acknowledge
the significance of language in human encounters, we nevertheless realised that a second
theoretical lens was needed to appreciate the power of language to construct notions of
dis-ability, inclusion, and deficit thinking. The vignettes are predicated on how language (text
and talk) is used to convey attitudes and to position individuals within educational and social
settings. We thus turned to critical discourse analysis (CDA) (Mullet, 2018) which critically inves-
tigates how language is used to position ideas, groups, and individuals within a sociocultural
context (Fairclough, 1989). CDA is also useful for understanding how language is used to
empower and to create identities as people operate in different settings (Gee, 2014). Typically,
CDA is oriented to the following concerns:

• Positionality and status out of which people speak implying levels of authority and
influence;
• Use of different texts (including policy documents) to shape human behaviours, experi-
ences, and actions;
• Power in discourse to determine how particular individuals, communities and groups
are perceived in the public realm; and
• Critical presentation of issues such as social class, gender, ethnicity, and dis-ability in
public discourses.

We conceive CDA as necessary to complement Lévinas’ perspective of alterity. Lévinas provides

the philosophical foundation of the thinking articulated in this article, whereas CDA is a spe-
cialized tool for understanding the function of language in the vignettes.

The lived story through an autoethnographic lens

In critical autoethnography “theory and story share a reciprocal, inter-animating relationship”
(Holman Jones, 2016, p. 229), interpreted through “cultural perspectives formed through years
of socio-cultural, socio-historical, socio-political, and socio-economic events and circumstances”
(Tilley-Lubbs, 2014, p. 268). My critical autoethnography with collegial input seeks to problema-
tize, challenge and resist the cultural and educational perspectives evident in the curated
narratives and provide critical engagement that “involves both a material and ethical praxis”
(Holman Jones, 2016, p. 229).
Throughout my writing, I have had detailed discussions and shared my work with my child
and immediate family. They read the vignettes as well as the article and actively encouraged
my writing. Receiving their support, with the condition of withholding private information and
discussions, or the exposure of personal details, has given me permission to explore my personal
reflections and interpretations with honesty. Any concerns about identifying my child (who is
now an adult about to begin university study) were ethically addressed by obtaining a written
consent mediated through an independent academic. Moreover, although sharing my vulnera-
bilities and committing my thoughts to paper can be a scary process (Lilyea, 2022), it is precisely
this point that I strive to achieve. I aim to be present, speak from my heart (Bochner & Ellis,
2016) in order make my feelings, experiences and learning visible to my unknown reader (Bossle
et al., 2014). Such an approach is not without precedent (Barley, 2020).
In this article we present a complex interweaving of multivocal narratives and critical writing
in intersection with theory, and we adopt a postqualitative turn, threading various ways of
knowing (Creely et al., 2021; Lather & St. Pierre, 2013). In this complex mix of reflective writing
in the vignettes and analyses, we seek to transgress epistemological boundaries with our
 International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 5

intentional weaving of emic and etic perspectives that forms multiple helices of entanglement.
By choosing this approach, originally developed by Pike (1954), we delve into the stories, share
the emotional impact and then move out to review, reflect, revise my/our position. In this,
balancing emic and etic stances is vital (Olive, 2014). We recognise the power of the individual
story which can recruit and compel attention, lead to reflection, involve us personally, change
how we understand, and deepen our interpretation (van Manen, 2015).
Procedurally, first author, Ani, wrote the vignettes, then Kate and Felix constructed responses
to which Ani responded. We then engaged in “confabulative conversation” (Johansson, 2016, p.
445) before crafting our shared writing. Throughout the stories, I (Ani) choose to be political,
to take a stand and explore the “incongruent relationship” (Garland-Thomson, 2011, p. 592) of
being the misfit. Instead of accepting submissively, the negative experiences I encounter, artic-
ulate my “political demands” (Oliver, 1984, p. 31). I focus on pushing against the dominant
discourses of negativity that surround dis-ability. My stand is within debates about the ethics
of care and what counts as disabled (Goodley, 2013).

Vignette one: Welcome to the world of corresponding stories! Did anyone say
“rights”?
Suddenly, I am aware of people applauding. I look around and realise that I am back in the
hall, at our primary school graduation ceremony. I am eagerly waiting for the announcement
of my child’s name who is one of the graduates. Naturally, I share the excitement; my sense of
happiness in this magnificent achievement clearly reflected with radiant smiles on our faces. I
allow myself to ponder over the countless hurdles that we overcame, the successes and the
setbacks fuse through a maze of learning curves that bring us to this point in time. I wait and
reflect, images of my child’s relentless passion to learn, the twinkling brightness in the eye
mixed with an enthusiastic dedication and a full-hearted laugh each time we acquire a new
concept or overcome a challenge flow through my thoughts. The speaker continues announcing
the names in succession. I feel delight for having this awesome person in my life, both as a
parent and an educator. I join in the celebrations as we begin the eager anticipation for the
approaching secondary school experience.
The summer weeks roll by quickly while we prepare for the unfamiliar, exciting and perhaps
challenging, start of the school year, which brings a new journey for both of us. As a parent,
I feel concerned and protective as I observe my child’s initial, uncertain steps in this new envi-
ronment. Although the trademark dedication and resilience to build strength and confidence
continues to give me hope, the unknown future of how my child’s inclusion will play out leaves
me apprehensive. Attempting to minimise the effects of this change, I offer my unreserved
support to my child, as well as the school, hoping that this would ease any unforeseen challenges.
Within weeks, feelings of fear and intimidation threaten to eradicate any excitement; a sense
of alarm begins to seep through from various individuals. My levels of frustration spiral as I
face a bulging list of shortcomings that challenge and replace my attempts to search for oppor-
tunities to collaborate. Any initiation on my behalf to point out a strength, a reference to my
child’s dedication and passion to learn, seems to be countered instantly by examples of deficit
thinking and fear. I become surrounded by phrases that connote negativity such as “afraid,” “lost
and absent,” culminating in the most repeated example of my child’s inability to read the school
map and timetable, and evidenced ending up in the wrong classroom, twice!
Soon, the issue of the school map and timetable become the central factor that seems to
have the power to decide my child’s rights. The suitability of a mainstream, inclusive education
is questioned with various alternative, specialist settings flaunt around. Meanwhile, the right to
be included feels increasingly diminishing and rapidly dwindling. Conversely, my unyielding
persistence to rebut such views that, at least to me, seem to dwell on a totalised negativity.
6 A. KEWANIAN ET AL.

My argument that many children may be going through similar experiences of feeling lost
during transition are brutally attacked. Increasingly, I feel that the prevailing perception was
that I was representing a mother of a child with “disabilities” who also had a major shortcoming;
I was told, openly, that it was “me who is unable to understand.”
Finally, a painful realisation sets in. There was no space for active listening, searching for
solutions or strengths. At the time, I felt that I had no choice but to force myself to listen in
silence, whilst enduring an internal tempest. I decided to brush away the bruising and belittling
views about my child. As I lived through these events and witnessed the attempts to strip away
the years of hard work and preparation for this right. I chose silence and reluctant accommo-
dation, simply to give my child time to adjust and grow, hoping for improvement.
During this time of distress, a coincidental meeting with a parent, whose child attended our
primary school, led me onto a path of reflection and renewed determination. This accidental
meeting and our shared experiences directed our conversation towards our children’s transition
experiences. Soon, she asked a confronting question about my child’s progress in transitioning
to Year 7. I blurted out a clichéd reply that we were all learning to overcome new challenges,
whilst I tried to silence the raw painful memories of difficulties in transition. As I asked the
same question about her child, with anticipation of receiving a glowing reply, due to her child’s
enrolment in an academically accelerated program, I felt astonished at her reply. I heard phrases
like “finding it difficult,” “unable to cope,” “was not even able to read the timetable,” and most
importantly, “ended up in different classes many times.” Her words immediately caused a sense
of elation, a moment of “Aha! I knew that this happens to others.” I was amazed how identical
the experiences were. I felt euphoric and triumphant. This example provided the evidence that
this child, academically gifted, celebrated, can also experience similar challenges and needs
time to adjust.
Unfortunately, my delight was brief, as I quickly realised that regardless of such parallels,
the outcome for each child was far from being similar. While for my child there was an expec-
tation to reconsider the educational pathways and future, this woman confidently articulated
that “transitioning is hard” and “my child is learning.” To me, the ironically painful moment
arrived when she described the teachers’ acquiescent acceptance of her arguments for allow-
ances and tolerance.
My vexation escalates as I continue to question the conflicting views about the accommo-
dation of one child and not the other. One parent’s needs willingly met, whilst mine justifiably
subjected to a barrage of negativity, suggesting the imposition of a “deficit” label on my child,
an “othering.” To me this became a clear case of discrimination. It incited a moment of choice
that I knew I had to answer, even before the end of my conversation with this parent. My
ultimate decision was to reject submission and to push away frustration, to choose fierceness,
to challenge and support my child, and continue to defend our rights.

An emic analysis (Ani)

Re-reading my vignette, my goal is to step back and take a closer look. Immediately, I feel the
fury, frustration, fear and alienation that was lived and experienced. Later, I decide to acknowl-
edge my subjectivity and emotionality (Ellis et al., 2011). I see that my child’s inability to effec-
tively read timetables will inevitably raise concerns. As an educator, I understand the responsibilities
placed on us daily regarding the welfare and safety of each student in our care. Furthermore,
the policy rhetoric of the Victorian Department of Education (Department of Education and
Training [DET], 2021a) outlines student needs and our obligation to support them during tran-
sition. Consequently, schools annually address the unique challenges of transition by developing
and implementing programs to welcome their students. Having worked in secondary schools
for many years, I have assisted my students who required support and time to adjust.
 International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 7

By contrast, the approach to my child points towards a persistent focus on a “label” of deficit
around so-called “disability.” This leads to a miasmic negativity and a lost opportunity to col-
laborate and foster a student’s desire to learn and build confidence through achievements.
Despite the parallel story of another child’s “right” to be afforded time to transition and accom-
modate change, I had to confront another reality. This suggested the absence of concern for
the individual and the undue emphasis on a perception of deficit. Inclusion as a constructive
attempt to build from individual strength is ignored (Department of Education and Training,
2012). These events lead me to a resolution to be fierce. I reject acquiescence and the removal
of my agency. I decide to act, challenge and move beyond the confines of labels.

An etic analysis (Kate)

I read Ani’s words, a mother poised for fight, anxious and waiting for the negativity – crouched
in readiness for attack. When the inevitable occurs, as mother, she is angry and frustrated, but
worn by the notion that this is not the first or the last time she has been through this thicket
of response and emotion. Ani encounters those who see her child as “other” but do not seek
to look beyond and learn from this other. Ani retreats but then encounters another mother
whose child is forgiven the transgressions of confusion by patient and understanding teachers.
This encounter elates Ani, reassuring her that her experience is like others, unique but the
same. Confusion is normalised. Ani subsides but then returns to anger. Why was her child seen
as different? Her child can learn. Ani’s anger is fuelled by a sense of injustice that circles like
an avenging angel to protect and to admonish those who do not see the person. Ani has also
become a label – she is the “difficult” mother who fights.

Vignette two: Welcome to the world of accusations. Did anyone mention

professional integrity?
I present the events of this vignette as a mother and as an educator. I continue striving to
work closely with teaching colleagues, welfare personnel and support staff to maximise my
child’s opportunities for academic progress. I understand how challenging and busy classroom
life can be. Over the years, I often shared resources or learning methods that we have imple-
mented at home, hoping their use in a class context would support staff members. I firmly
believe that good parent-teacher-school communication is central to achieving beneficial out-
comes for everyone.
During the initial weeks of transition, whilst we focused on overcoming the hurdles presented
in the previous vignette, one afternoon, quite unexpectedly, I received a call from one of my
child’s teachers. This was our first conversation, as I have not met this individual yet. Upon
exchanging conventional pleasantries and introductions, it was evident that this teacher had
something to say, and I had to be ready to listen. Almost immediately, the topic of conversation
shifts to the first research task that my child worked through and submitted a couple of days
earlier. I feel surprised for the direct call as I reply that of course I knew the task, since we
spent hours working through each stage. I suddenly feel the urge to add that I was feeling
very proud of my child’s decision to complete the whole task, instead of the expected simpler,
shorter version, and the immense dedication displayed, to accomplish each step of the task.
This added need to provide further explanation raises many conflicting questions in my mind
as I sense that I am forcing myself to remain calm, I anticipate negativity.
My final comment, brushed away effortlessly, horrifies me. The teacher interrupts abruptly,
presenting instead a concern about the homework task and its high quality. The central issue
becomes an absolute belief by the teacher that my child presented little knowledge or skills
in class to be able to complete such a research task. They add that there is a common
8 A. KEWANIAN ET AL.

consensus among staff that it would be impossible for my child to complete such a task. This
fuels further sadness and anger. Ultimately, the existence of such a discrepancy seemed to circle
around me, as I faced the subtle accusation of completing and submitting my child’s homework.
Within moments, the teacher’s definitive decision is an absolute rejection of the submitted
task without an assessment. The teacher concludes that this communication was solely for
notification. Thus, judge and jury delivered the verdict, taking away even an opportunity or a
“right” of defence. The call ends hastily, leaving me perplexed, with an overwhelming grief at
what I saw as another injustice and a lost opportunity to build and to progress. Once again, I
feel exposed and under attack as a mother, and more importantly, as an ethical and hard-working
educator, who is simply trying to do her best.
While hours pass and my initial shock begins to subside, the heavy weight of sorrow over-
whelms my thoughts. I grieve for the hours of our hard work that we had invested to complete
this task. My only way to push back such ideas that hover is to remind myself that taking on
the challenge of working through the whole project was my child’s decision. How then could
I, as an educator with years of expertise, avoid supporting such determination and enthusiasm?
A reflective walk through each step of the whole process begins. I remember dividing the
task into manageable sections, scaffolding each section, and helping with overall structure of
the presentation. As I scrutinise each step, I feel certain that I did not do the work. I directed
and led the process, but my child had to complete each step, independently, with my super-
vision. This I tried to explain to the teacher, not concealing anything. Unfortunately, the teacher
denied me the opportunity to provide further details, the chance to celebrate such dedication
to work hard, and the right to progress and develop confidence in the overall learning process.
Moreover, it seems to me that this incident was a personal attack on a professional level. At
some point during the teacher’s diatribe, the assignment seemed no longer the central issue.
I felt under attack for allegedly doing the work. I felt placed under direct scrutiny by a profes-
sional colleague with my professional expertise and judgement questioned.
My opportunity to defend was long gone, replaced by a feeling of being in the “naughty
corner,” with an expectation to reflect on my actions and choices. I cannot stop thinking that
perhaps the basis of this supposed concern regarding the homework discrepancy stems from
a belief in my child’s inability to learn. Any completed homework that might challenge such
an assumption about what a person with a “dis-ability” can do may lead to a similar backlash.
Once more, I feel that I am at a junction where I could continue allowing the comments and
the spears of words to target my identity and choose to submit, or I could be clear and resolute.

An emic analysis (Ani)

My identity as an educator and the mother of a child with a label continues to shift. I grow
and change as I seek to understand the significance of events depicted in this vignette. Similar
incidents will continue to happen but I am learning to be a truth-maker, to understand what
I stand for, to embrace integrity that will lead me to “becoming more real by acknowledging
the whole of who I am” (Palmer, 1997, p. 38).
Time does not diminish the feelings of devastation at the attack on my professional and
ethical beliefs. As I revisit the battlefield of this vignette, another in a long line of battles, I feel
a heavier weight as this unexpected attack came from a person who belonged to the profession
that I value and love. I ponder the rejection of my child’s hard work and absorb the silencing
of my voice and the dismissal of my agency. Regardless of belonging to the same profession,
this teacher and I are on separate journeys. I choose the path that celebrates all students, builds
on their strengths and supports their growth.
While the veracity of student work is important, the undue focus on and inflexible rejection
of a single piece submitted during the first weeks of a school year based on assumptions,
 International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 9

seems unreasonable. I find myself identifying contextual factors that may afford an improved
performance at home. I recognise the quiet, calm, and comfortable home environment is dif-
ferent to the unfamiliarity of a new classroom and a new teacher. The teacher did not stop to
consider the abilities of my child and to explore ways to build a home-school partnership that
supports student growth to through “creating connections between learning at school and
learning outside of school” (DET, 2021b).

An etic perspective through CDA (Felix)

This narrative unfolds from the dual points of view of educator and parent. These points of
view are quite entangled throughout the text and bring complexity to the representations of
identity evident in the writing. Simultaneously in the language, there is the dilemma of a parent
defending and negotiating the rights of her child, and a teacher whose professional judgements
and knowledge are disputed and apparently divested of agential power. Ani employs language
to construct a sense of her outrage as an educator and her fierceness as a parent about the
outcomes for her child, together with her emotional vulnerability within a context which she
believes is antithetical to her core values and in which there the implication of blame.
In the vignette, Ani reveals her professional beliefs about inclusion, employing a more
student-centred approach and building home-school collaborative practices. She fiercely estab-
lishes her strength-based beliefs about education, repeatedly reiterating these beliefs from the
perspective of parent and teacher. These beliefs become Ani’s benchmark for evaluating the
response of her child’s teacher that she deems other than being inclusive, strength-based, and
collaborative. She writes about feeling under attack because she defended her child. Feelings
of indignation, sadness, and anger are evident in the tonal textures of the language, but there
is also determination to stand her ground. This language suggests the emotional complexity
for Ani in navigating the territory of being a parent and a professional within a discursive
environment and an institutional setting that the writer suggests is perpetuating deficit labels.
In sum, there are three key themes evident in this vignette and in the language choices of
the writer. First, the perceived overt and covert othering of her as a professional educator and
a parent, together with the seeming acceptance of labels that construct her child’s capacity for
learning beyond the classroom bounds. Second, there is an apparent diminution of her agency
and implied helplessness in the face of what she characterises as entrenched practices and
policies embodied in the approach of the other teacher. Finally, there are complex identity
formations for the writer as both teacher and parent, built around her claims of transformational
pedagogical beliefs about inclusion and her fierceness of resistance to the apparent destructive
effects that exclusionary approaches might have on her child.

Vignette three: The privileged “right” to intrude

During this time, I welcome each weekend, as they bring opportunities to put aside all stresses,
concerns, and have some time to pause, recharge, and even reflect. Weekends become my time,
a break from the outside world of teachers, concerns, work commitments, it is a time for my
family, where we can simply enjoy the company of our children and indulge in our simple
familiar routines.
I wake up on a Saturday morning with a heavy heart. The events and discussions of the
past few weeks (presented earlier) continue to linger. I decide that we need a break, some
family time, and so I take my children to a shopping centre as a welcomed distraction. A couple
of hours later, we are a part of the hustle and bustle, walking amongst the crowd, discussing
where to go. Unexpectedly, I come across a female acquaintance, an outgoing and confident
person, who stops us and starts chatting cheerfully. I have little choice but to oblige and
10 A. KEWANIAN ET AL.

participate in this conversation, despite feeling a little apprehensive. This person knows my
child and holds her own personal interpretations of my child’s abilities.
We begin a superficial chat as I try to find a way out. Almost instantly, the pressing question
about my child’s transition to secondary school emerges. In response, as I prepare to provide
the now well-rehearsed, generic statement of “getting used to the environment,” she turns to
a person (a stranger to me) standing beside her and proceeds to describe my child as “special
Ed.” I feel horrified as any space to describe the great personality and the strengths and posi-
tivity that my child brings to us all, quickly dissipates. I watch this charade in utter disbelief.
My child is standing right beside me as she utters these words. I feel a punch to my heart and
focus only on distracting my child. As I turn to them, all I want to do is to scream at their
faces that my child never was, nor is, “just a special case” but the most amazing person
that I know.
I gulp for breath; the blessed end of this conversation finally arrives. With a sinking heart, I
watch them walk away, unscathed, without a single concern about the effects of their comments.
As for me, I know that I will be disturbed and upset throughout that whole weekend at the
right of a passer-by to feel perfectly comfortable to categorize, diminish and label. In my opin-
ion, this casual, overconfident intrusion into my personal life represents a privileged “right” to
reduce a person to a label.

An emic analysis (Ani)

This narrative illustrates the cold tone of indifferent categorisation that instantly reduces an
individual to a trope. The appellation “special Ed.” imposes a judgement loaded with negative
connotations, removing any opportunity to acknowledge the person. I recognize that my anger
is a reaction against the imposition of power that this person demonstrated in her use of dis-
missive language. Her privileged confidence in her own opinion, lack of consideration, certainty
of categorisation, and removal of my agentic right to speak as a parent, were careless acts of
unthinking intrusion.
My experience with this acquaintance, an outsider with uncaring words, denotes “powerful
instruments in the politics of disablement” (Slee, 2004, p. 47). Untouched, this acquaintance
moves on, as my internal struggle rages with familiar anger, frustration, and a wish to retaliate.
My dismay may seem exaggerated but witnessing the loss of personhood of to a category are
grounds for distress. Not only is my child labelled but now I am “mother of special Ed.” We are
both categorised.

An etic analysis (Kate)

An unexpected chance encounter on a Saturday morning triggered a world of past struggle,
hurt, and outrage. The woman’s intrusive use of language and the man’s unthinking acceptance
of the term “special Ed.” leads Ani, the fierce parent, to be shocked and silenced by this unex-
pected intrusion into her cherished family Saturday. Ani’s civility and good manners stop her
from doing what she really wanted to do: scream in their faces. This contributed to the frus-
tration that “ruined the whole day” and threatened to ruin the whole weekend, so it had pro-
found emotional impact.
This encounter also returns Ani to familiar territory. Her child is not special needs, she is,
simply amazing. Ani has fought for her child for so long; she may have won the occasional
skirmish, but the war never seems to end. There is always another battle to be had. Although,
this outrage and the sense of injustice overwhelms Ani, displacing more positive thoughts and
feelings, it is the insensitive existence of perceived power over her that angers her the most.
 International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 11

Moreover, this anger lets others control her and take precious time and energy to muzzle,
leaving her exhausted. Fighting a never-ending war against labelling takes its toll.

An Etic Analysis (Felix)

Lévinas’ ethics is not built on abstracted categories or philosophical reasoning from afar. He
knew all too well the power of the category to dehumanise and to diminish a human to a
mere label. For him, an ethics is built in the reciprocity of one human with another: in a sacred
encounter in which the full humanity of the other is sought and there is joy in the seeking.
An ethics is thus relational and engendered in a recognition of difference (the alterity) demand-
ing a seeking to bridge this difference and encounter a person with genuine empathy and
interest.
The encounter that is depicted is all about the category (“the special Ed.”) and not about a
joyful seeking through the alterity of the other as a “truly amazing” being. The category is used
as a marker of identification that ignores the humanity of this child, the possibility of seeing
a person, a young life with potential. The narrative suggests the pervasiveness of such markers
in shaping how a human is positioned, and the unthinking and dismissive ascribing of the
marker is suggested by the words, “They left unscathed, without a single concern about the
effects of the comments.” The apparent “lack of concern” by the person reveals that this is not
an ethical encounter as Lévinas understands it but an “intrusion” in which the uniqueness of a
person is dissolved in the act of applying a category.

Discussion
Despite empowering statements by the World Health Organisation that “disability is a part of
the human condition” (WHO, 2011, p. 3) concern persists about the use of the word as a label,
reflected in a perpetual need to advocate for respect, non-discrimination, effective participation,
and regard for difference and equality (UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities,
2007; UN Sustainable Development Goals 2021). The three curated vignettes explore grounded
experiences, reflect on the power of difference, and demand new ways of seeing difference.
Ani’s experiences point to the persistence of deficit language, reflecting the continuing reality
that people with dis—abilities are still viewed as “marginal human beings” (Vehmas, 2004, p. 34).
The vignettes reveal a chasm persisting between the worlds of dis-ability and ability. The
stories expose this gap, created through the use of deficit language. For Ani, the chasm pro-
vokes the existential necessity to seek different ways of seeing dis-ability and pursue alternative
understandings to break assumptions, promote dialogue and ultimately transform lives
(Vehmas, 2004).

The meaning of dis-ability

Both as a term and a category, “dis-ability” is “diverse, unclear, and open to interpretation”
(Hernández-Saca et al., 2018, p. 288). In this article we have positioned the term in respect to
the medical and social models of dis-ability, since they continue to shape policy and practice
(Patel & Brown, 2017). The medical model of dis-ability (Siebers, 2008) highlights the incapacity
of the individual (Barnes, 2008). The social model of dis-ability recognizes both the impairment(s)
that affects an individual, and the societal obstacles and barriers that necessitate the use of
the term (Manago et al., 2017; Oliver & Barnes, 2010). We argue that both these models are
inadequate because they place limitations on the uniqueness and agency of each person.
Students with a dis-ability are as diverse as humanity (Tan et al., 2019). We contend that the
12 A. KEWANIAN ET AL.

focus should be on the person, including the rich personal resources each person brings to
any interaction, transcending the limiting categories of dis-ability.
Dis-ability can also be understood as a social relational phenomenon framed in the interac-
tions between those with power (without disability) and those “who are relatively powerless
because they have been marked out as problematically different” (Thomas, 2004, p. 23). Adopting
a social relational model of dis-ability aligns with the ethical understanding of inclusion pre-
sented in this article. Fine distinction can be made between the personal restrictions identified
by the individual and the imposed social encumbrances which hinder individuals from achieving
their goals (Reindal, 2008).
Using the hyphenated form, “dis-ability” throughout this article, is intended to disrupt casual
labelling and problematise the term in line with emerging trends in critical disability studies
(Goodley et al., 2019). Recognising the root word, “ability,” impels us to acknowledge and appre-
ciate the range of abilities and strengths of people with a dis-ability. It is imperative to refute
the general focus on the negative prefix, “dis,” and become aware of deficit discourses that can
ensue from a focus on it in the language of policy and practice.

Embracing strengths and building a new outlook

Despite the critical imperative that inclusive teachers and schools should offer quality education
for all students, negative attitudes “remain prevalent despite decades of inclusion policy and
practice” (Tan et al., 2019, p. 41). Concurrently, growing research embraces strengths-based
approaches with a focus on each person’s strengths and capabilities (Buntrix, 2013). It is essential
to embrace a paradigm shift from deficit to strength, whilst recognising challenges. Implementing
strength-based approaches can be transformational, affording opportunities to enhance all
students’ academic performances (Chakraborti-Ghosh, 2019) and challenge negative perceptions
of dis-ability in the wider community.

The empowering “Fierce” parent

The crafted narratives reflect my journey as a mother and an educator. My experiences of
motherhood have unfolded in a social and educational world constructed in the language of
labels. Stigmatization, as I have encountered it, is the everyday experience for many parents of
children with dis-ability (Manago et al., 2017). In addition, my adoption of a strengths-based,
person-centred approach is difficult in an educational landscape of intense competition and an
obsession with results and data that creates expectations about success (Giroux, 2020).
We consider that the lived experiences embodied in these vignettes reveal deficit views that
reduce choices and diminish opportunities for those deemed to have a dis-ability through
exclusion and isolation. Nevertheless, Ani continues to defend the right of her child to receive
meaningful, challenging, and inclusive education that fosters growth and progress. The right to
receive education within inclusive-minded schools is widely reflected in global, national, and
local legislation and policy (DET, 2019; UNESCO, 2019). According to policy rhetoric, education
has a transformative role in the lives of children of all abilities (Shakespeare, 2018; Slee, 2011,
Royal Commission, 2020).
The discordance between the practice of labelling and the right to full recognition for those
with dis-abilities create a complex and difficult road for Ani to navigate with her child. While
her emotions and experiences of stigmatization sit uncomfortably with her reflexivity (Corrigan
et al., 2006; Goffman, 1974), she still embraces fierceness and rejects the role of passive bystander.
Her decision is to resist and be “fierce,” challenging those who stigmatize, be they individuals
or institutions. Of course, stigmatisation is not a simple ascribing of a category but a complex
 International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 13

process in which certain bodies are centralised and others are marginalised, and this complexity
lies beneath the apparent simplicity of the language of othering.
I (Ani), cannot simply overlook the difficulties associated with dis-ability. Instead, I strive to
advocate for each unique person and for “positive social identities” (Swain & French, 2000, p.
569) and to reframe the distinctions of difference as manifestations of abilities and strengths.
In doing this, I embrace my journey of becoming a fierce parent. The term “fierce parent” has
rhetorical significance for me in that I am demanding back or reclaiming my agency as a parent
and as an educator and inviting the reader to consider the ways my child and I are positioned.
My voice is political in fiercely asserting my right to speak into localised educational practices,
policy positions and wider societal discourses. I am resisting attempts to silence me as I chal-
lenge long held distinctions between ableism and disablism. I reflect emerging concerns in
disability studies about hearing marginalised voices from the disability community and opening
conversations about the regaining of agency (Boskovich et al., 2019).

Final thoughts
In this article we privilege the experiences of a woman who is both teacher and fierce parent,
and critically explore these experiences in intersection with all of our voices that are intricately
woven in the text. We fully acknowledge the limitation of telling just one story as well as the
singular focus on the issue of disability when it clearly has intersections with other critical
issues. Disability is a complex construct and the recent emphasis in critical disability studies on
intersectionality and complexity was considered for inclusion in this article. In the end we opted
for a single story and a single focus to open possibilities for depth and profundity that uniquely
compel and transform. Our purpose is telling one personal, individual story through crafted
vignettes is to embrace alterity, interrogate entrenched ways of seeing and understanding
dis-ability in an especially personal way that transcends categories (Gallagher et al., 2014).
The vignettes capture moments in the life of a person affronted by negative attitudes about
dis-ability, which are carried by the corrosive power of language. Each moment is a crossroad
containing challenges to expectations and aims to offer a counterpoint to the prevailing rhetoric
about inclusive education. Through revealing the persistent and disturbing gap between policy
and what happens on the ground, we strive to join those voices who choose to expose the
reality of exclusion. Thus, the immediacy of the lived experience of Ani, aims to disrupt glib
deficit labels that continue to operate in education and beyond, whilst it embraces relations
that build on strengths and pave the way to just, inclusive education.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes on contributors
Alina Kewanian is a parent, an experienced teacher and doctoral candidate researching disability and inclusionary
practices in education. She continues to work closely with diverse student groups including refugees, students
with different abilities, and international students. The passion to further develop her inclusive teaching pedagogy
and embrace the strengths of all her students lead her research and teaching practice.

Dr. Edwin Creely is a lecturer in the Faculty of Education at Monash University. He is a phenomenological and
ethnographic researcher who focused on lifelong learning, literacies across the years, wellbeing and inclusive
14 A. KEWANIAN ET AL.

education, creativity and creative practices in many learning contexts. Edwin has published widely in a range of
international journals.

Dr. Jane Southcott is a Professor, Faculty of Education, Monash University, Australia. As a phenomenologist, Jane
researches education, cultural identities and hybridity, and community engagement with the arts focusing on
positive ageing. Jane is also an interpretative narrative historian and much of her research is biographical or
institutional. She supervises many postgraduate doctoral research students.

ORCID
Alina Kewanian http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3453-6885
Edwin Creely http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5009-4047
Jane Southcott http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1357-5909

References
Barley, K. (2020). Life is like a box of Derwents – An autoethnography colouring in the life of child sexual abuse.
The Qualitative Report, 25(2), 504–524. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2020.4155
Barnes, C., & Mercer, G. (2006). Independent futures: Creating user-led disability services in a disabling society. Policy
Press.
Barnes, C. (2008). An ethical agenda in disability research: Rhetoric or reality. The Handbook of Social Research
Ethics, 458–473. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483348971
Best, M., Corcoran, T., & Slee, R. (2018). Who’s in? Who’s out? What to do about inclusive education. Brill.
Bochner, A., & Ellis, C. (2016). Evocative autoethnography: Writing lives and telling stories (Vol. 17). Routledge. https://
doi.org/10.4324/9781315545417
Boskovich, L., Cannon, M., Hernández-Saca, D., Kahn, L., & Nusbaum, E. (2019). Self-study of intersectional and
emotional narratives: Narrative inquiry, disability studies in education, and praxis in social science research.
New Narratives of Disability, 11, 215–230. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-354720190000011026
Bossle, F., Molina, N., & Molina, R. (2014). The eye of the hurricane: Autoethnography in the Southern Brazilian
school context. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 27(10), 1226–1242. https://doi.org/10.1
080/09518398.2013.820858
Bowker, G., & Star, S. (1999). Sorting things out. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6352.001.0001
Buntrix, W. H. E. (2013). Understanding disability: A strength based approach. In L. Wehmeyer (Ed.), The Oxford
handbook of positive psychology and disability. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxford-
hb/9780195398786.013.013.0002
Chakraborti-Ghosh, S. (2019). Strength-Based Instruction (SBI): A systematic instructional training model with a
primary focus on a child’s strength. In S. Halder, & V. Argyropoulos (Eds.), Inclusion, equity and access for indi-
viduals with disabilities (pp. 647–663). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-5962-0_31
Commonwealth of Australia, Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with
Disability. (2020). Interim Report. https://disability.royalcommission.gov.au/publications/interim-report
Corrigan, P., Watson, A., & Miller, F. (2006). Blame, shame, and contamination: The impact of mental illness and
drug dependence stigma on family members. Journal of Family Psychology, 20(2), 239–246. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0893-3200.20.2.239
Creely, E., Southcott, J., Carabott, K., & Lyons, D. (2021). Phenomenological Inquiry in Education. Routledge.
Davis, L. J. (1995). Enforcing normalcy: Disability, deafness, and the body. Verso.
Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (Victoria) (DET). (2012). Strength-based approach: A
guide to writing Transition Learning and Development Statements. https://www.education.vic.gov.au/documents/
childhood/professionals/learning/strengthbappr.pdf
Department of Education and Training, Victoria (DET). (2019). Policy and Practice: Policies for students with disabil-
ities or additional needs in government schools. https://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/learningneeds/
Pages/policies.aspx
Department of Education and Training, Victoria (DET). (2021a). School Operations: Transition – Year 6 to 7. https://
www2.education.vic.gov.au/pal/transition-year-6-7/policy
Department of Education and Training, Victoria (DET). (2021b). Dimension: Parents and carers as partners. https://
www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/management/improvement/Pages/dimension4parents.aspx
Department of Education and Training, Victoria (DET). (2022). Inclusive Education for Students with Disabilities.
https://www.vic.gov.au/inclusive-education-for-students-with-disabilities
DeShong, S. (2008). Ability, disability, and the question of philosophy. Essays in Philosophy, 9(1), 77–83. https://
core.ac.uk/download/pdf/48857377.pdf
 International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 15

Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) 1992. (2013). Canberra, Australian capital territory: Australia. Office of Parliamentary
Counsel.
Ellis, C., Adams, T., & Bochner, A. (2011). Autoethnography: An overview. Forum, Qualitative Social Research, 12(1),
273–290. https://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1589/3095
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. Longman.
Fuentealba, R., & Russell, T. (2016). Critical friends using self-study methods to challenge practicum assumptions
and practices. In D. Garbett, & A. Ovens (Eds.), Enacting self-study as methodology for professional inquiry (pp.
441–447). University of Auckland.
Gallagher, D., Connor, D., & Ferri, B. (2014). Beyond the far too incessant schism: Special education and the social
model of disability. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18(11), 1120–1142. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360
3116.2013.875599
Garland-Thomson, R. (2011). Misfits: A feminist materialist disability concept. Hypatia, 26(3), 591–609. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2011.01206.x
Gee, J. (2014). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (4th ed.). SAGE.
Giroux, H. (2020). On critical pedagogy (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury.
Goffman, E. (1974). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. J. Aronson.
Goodley, D. (2013). Dis/entangling critical disability studies. Disability & Society, 28(5), 631–644. https://doi.org/10
.1080/09687599.2012.717884
Goodley, D., & Runswick-Cole, K. (2016). Becoming Dishuman: Thinking about the human through dis/ability.
Discourse, 37(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2014.930021
Goodley, D., Lawthom, R., Liddiard, K., & Runswick-Cole, K. (2019). Provocations for critical disability studies.
Disability & Society, 34(6), 972–997. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2019.1566889
Hernández-Saca, D., Gutmann Kahn, L., & Cannon, M. (2018). Intersectionality dis/ability research: How dis/ability
research in education engages intersectionality to uncover the multidimensional construction of dis/abled
experiences. Review of Research in Education, 42(1), 286–311. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44668722 https://doi.
org/10.3102/0091732X18762439
Holman Jones, S. (2016). Living bodies of thought. Qualitative Inquiry, 22(4), 228–237. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1077800415622509
Jindal-Snape, D., & Foggie, J. (2008). A holistic approach to primary–Secondary transitions. Improving Schools,
11(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480207086750
Johansson, L. (2016). Post-qualitative line of flight and the confabulative conversation: A methodological ethnog-
raphy. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 29(4), 445–466. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839
8.2015.1053157
Knight, K. (2013). The changing face of the ‘good mother’: Trends in research into families with a child with in-
tellectual disability, and some concerns. Disability & Society, 28(5), 660–673. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.
2012.732540
Lather, P., & St. Pierre, E. A. (2013). Post-qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education,
26(6), 629–633. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2013.788752
Leonardo, Z., & Broderick, A. A. (2011). Smartness as property: A critical exploration of intersections between
whiteness and disability studies. Teachers College Record, 113(10), 2206–2232. https://doi.
org/10.1177/016146811111301008
Lévinas, E. (1979). Totality and infinity: An essay on exteriority. M. Nijhoff Publishers.
Lilyea, B. (2022). Choosing to thrive: An autoethnographic journey of cancer, companionship, and carrots. Qualitative
Report, 27(2), COV1-323. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2022.5242
Manago, B., Davis, J., & Goar, C. (2017). Discourse in action: Parents’ use of medical and social models to resist
disability stigma. Social Science & Medicine, 184, 169–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.05.015
McRuer, R. (2006). Crip theory: Cultural signs of queerness and disability. New York University Press.
Mueller, C. (2019). Adolescent understandings of disability labels and social stigma in school. International Journal
of Qualitative Studies in Education, 32(3), 263–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2019.1576940
Mullet, D. (2018). A general critical discourse analysis framework for educational research. Journal of Advanced
Academics, 29(2), 116–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X18758260
National Disability Insurance Agency. (2022). Australia’s Disability Strategy 2021–2031. https://www.ndis.gov.au/
understanding/australias-disability-strategy-2021-2031
Olive, J. (2014). Reflecting on the tensions between emic and etic perspectives in life history research: Lessons
learned. Forum, Qualitative Social Research, 15(2), 2072. https://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/
view/2072
Oliver, M. (1984). The politics of disability. Critical Social Policy, 4(11), 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/026101838400401103
Oliver, M., & Barnes, C. (2010). Disability studies, disabled people and the struggle for inclusion. British Journal of
Sociology of Education, 31(5), 547–560. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2010.500088
Palmer, P. (1997). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher’s life. John Wiley & Sons.
16 A. KEWANIAN ET AL.

Patel, D., & Brown, K. (2017). An overview of the conceptual framework and definitions of disability. International
Journal of Child Health and Human Development, 10(3), 247–252.
Pike, K. (1954). Language in relation to a unified theory of the structure of human behavior. Summer Institute of
Linguistics.
Pitt, F., Dixon, R., & Vialle, W. (2021). The transition experiences of students with disabilities moving from prima-
ry to secondary schools in NSW, Australia. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 25(7), 779–794. https://
doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1572797
Price, M. (2015). The Bodymind problem and the possibilities of pain. Hypatia, 30(1), 268–284. https://doi.
org/10.1111/hypa.12127
Reindal, S. M. (2008). A social relational model of disability: A theoretical framework for special needs education?
European Journal of Special Needs Education, 23(2), 135–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856250801947812
Rivas, C., Tomomatsu, I., & Gough, D. (2021). The many faces of disability in evidence for policy and practice:
Embracing complexity. Evidence & Policy, 17(2), 191–208. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421X16147909420727
Schalk, S. (2018). Bodyminds reimagined: (Dis)ability, race, and gender in black women’s speculative fiction. Duke
University Press.
Shakespeare, T. (2018). Disability: The basics. Taylor & Francis Group.
Siebers, T. (2008). Disability theory. University of Michigan Press.
Slee, R. (2004). Meaning in the service of power. Counterpoints, 270, 46–60. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42978585.
Slee, R. (2011). The irregular school: Exclusion, schooling and inclusive education. Taylor & Francis Group.
Slee, R. (2018). Inclusive education isn’t dead, it just smells funny. Taylor & Francis Group.
Swain, J., & French, S. (2000). Towards an affirmation model of disability. Disability & Society, 15(4), 569–582. https://
doi.org/10.1080/09687590050058189
Tan, B., Wilson, E., Campain, R., Murfitt, K., & Hagiliassis, N. (2019). Understanding negative attitudes toward dis-
ability to foster social inclusion: An Australian case study. In S. Halder, & V. Argyropoulos (Eds.), Inclusion, eq-
uity and access for individuals with disabilities (pp. 41–65). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-5962-0_3
Thomas, C. (2004). Rescuing a social relational understanding of disability. Scandinavian Journal of Disability
Research, 6(1), 22–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/15017410409512637
Thomas-Olalde, O., & Velho, A. (2011). Othering and its effects–Exploring the concept. In H. Niedrig, & C. Ydesen
(Eds.), Writing postcolonial histories of intercultural education (pp. 27–51). Lang.
Tilley-Lubbs, G. (2014). The inquisition/torture of the tenure track. In G. Tilley-Lubbs, & S. Calva (Eds.), Re-telling
our stories. Imagination and Praxis (pp. 85–101). Sense Publishers.
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Disability (UNDESA). (2007). Convention on the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities [A/RES/61/106]. https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/resources/
general-assembly/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities-ares61106.html
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2021). Sustainable development goals education:
Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. https://sdgs.
un.org/topics/education
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2019). Right to education. https://
en.unesco.org/themes/right-to-education
van Manen, M. (2015). Researching lived experience. Routledge.
van Manen, M. (2016). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. Routledge.
Vehmas, S. (2004). Dimensions of disability. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 13(1), 34–40. https://doi.
org/10.1017/S0963180104131071
World Health Organization. (2011). World report on disability. https://www.who.int/teams/noncommunicable-diseases/
sensory-functions-disability-and-rehabilitation/world-report-on-disability.