The concept of inclusive education from the point of view of academics specialising in special education at Saudi universities

The paper addresses what inclusive education means to Saudi university academics specialising in special education. Inclusive education is framed as a global movement tied to human rights, supported by international milestones such as the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the 1994 Salamanca Statement and Framework (UNESCO), Education for All (2000), UNCRPD, and UNESCO guidance (2009) and World Education Forum goals. Historically, the concept lacks a universally agreed starting point or definition, with Salamanca (1994) a major milestone. In Saudi Arabia, despite signing Salamanca, inclusive education remains theoretically and practically unclear; national regulations (RSEPI) promote special education rather than inclusive education, and exclusionary practices are sometimes mislabelled as inclusion. The study aims to clarify conceptualisations among academics, reduce confusion between inclusion and related terms (integration, mainstreaming, placement), and inform practice. Guided by Slee’s inclusive education theory and Loreman’s conceptualisation, the research question is: What does inclusive education mean among Saudi university academics specialising in special education?

The literature highlights the absence of a single, universally accepted definition of inclusive education, attributed to varied research traditions, inconsistent terminology (integration, mainstreaming, placement), and cross-country/system differences. Key definitional threads include inclusion as a process of responding to all learners’ diverse needs by removing barriers and transforming school cultures, curricula, pedagogy, assessment, and environments (Salamanca 1994; UNESCO 2009). Loreman and colleagues stress inclusion as a right for all students to learn with same-age peers in regular classrooms with adapted curricula, varied teaching strategies, and full participation. Ainscow et al. frame inclusion as reducing barriers to learning and participation for all. Loreman (2009) identifies hallmark characteristics: neighborhood school access, zero-rejection, learning in age-appropriate heterogeneous classes, substantially similar programs with adaptable curricula, full participation with celebration of diversity, social belonging and friendships, and adequate resources and training for staff. The study adopts these characteristics plus the need for flexible curricula and differentiated assessment as inclusion criteria. Theoretical framing draws on Slee’s inclusive education theory, which critiques ambiguity, resists segregation and discriminatory practices, and distinguishes inclusion from integration, placement, accommodation, and from special education’s medical-model roots.

Design: Qualitative study employing semi-structured interviews to gain in-depth understanding of participants’ conceptualisations. Rationale: Qualitative methods enable eliciting rich, experience-based perspectives without constraining responses. Participants and sampling: Purposive sampling of 12 faculty members (FM1–FM12) from 7 Saudi governmental universities. Inclusion criteria: doctorate degree; specialist in education of people with disabilities; faculty member in a special education department. Participants varied in specialty (e.g., behavioral disorders, gifted education, communication disorders, intellectual disability, learning difficulties, deaf education, autism spectrum, visual disability), years of experience, and gender. Data collection: Remote interviews via Google Meet, scheduled by participants; audio-recorded with consent; researcher took notes. Each interview lasted 45–60 minutes. Core questions covered: definitions of inclusive education; examples of inclusive practices; differences between inclusive education and special education; and existence/examples of inclusive practices in Saudi context. Data analysis: Deductive thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke’s six-phase method. The researcher repeatedly read transcripts, coding explicit/implicit meanings related to inclusive education, guided by Slee’s theory and Loreman’s (2009) definition plus requirements for flexible curriculum and differentiated assessment. Codes were organized into experiential themes: (1) identical or close definition; (2) ambiguity of definition; (3) relationship conception. Validation: The three themes were reviewed by three academics and seven participants; based on feedback, the first theme label was refined to “identical or close definition.”

- No participant provided a definition fully identical to the study’s adopted definition; 2 of 12 offered definitions reasonably close, referencing placement in neighborhood general classrooms with same-age peers and provision of services/individual plans. - Ambiguity prevailed: 10 of 12 participants (≈83%) showed confusion about inclusive education. Some equated inclusion with the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE); others conflated inclusion with integration, mainstreaming, or simple placement. Six participants explicitly used integration/placement language when defining inclusion. - Relationship conception: 11 of 12 viewed inclusive education and special education as related. Seven stated inclusion is part of special education; four stated special education is part of inclusion. Only one participant argued they are philosophically and practically contradictory. - Overall, the findings indicate substantial conceptual ambiguity and overlap with related terms, and a prevalent belief in an interdependent relationship between inclusion and special education among Saudi special education academics.

The findings directly address the research question by revealing that most Saudi special education academics lack a precise, comprehensive understanding of inclusive education and frequently conflate it with integration, LRE, or placement. This ambiguity likely impedes correct policy enactment, implementation, and evaluation of inclusive practices. The small subset of near-aligned definitions suggests fragmented but promising understandings. The study underscores the need for a unified operational definition of inclusion within the Saudi context, aligned with international framings that emphasize transforming school systems (curriculum, pedagogy, assessment, culture) to ensure full participation and value for all learners. Distinguishing inclusion from integration/LRE is crucial: integration focuses on placing students based on individual fit, whereas inclusion requires systemic restructuring to remove barriers. The prevalent belief that inclusion and special education are interrelated contrasts with the theoretical stance that they are philosophically opposed (medical vs social models). Clarifying this distinction is vital for redirecting practices from segregating or deficit-based models toward inclusive, equity-oriented schooling. These insights are relevant for policy-makers, teacher educators, and schools seeking to advance authentic inclusion.

The study contributes by empirically documenting conceptual ambiguity surrounding inclusive education among Saudi university academics in special education, highlighting confusion with integration/mainstreaming/placement and a commonly perceived interrelation with special education contrary to inclusion’s social-model foundations. It calls for system-level clarification and alignment with internationally grounded inclusive principles. Recommendations: (1) Authorities should adopt a comprehensive, unified definition of inclusive education and align, implement, and evaluate practices accordingly; (2) Promote accurate concepts among academics and stakeholders via seminars, conferences, and outreach; (3) Support research into the causes and consequences of conceptual and applied shortcomings; (4) Enact and implement laws and policies grounded in a correct conception of inclusive education; (5) Evaluate current practices against the adopted definition of inclusion.