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

Inclusive education, a global trend promoted by organizations like UNESCO, aims to integrate students with disabilities into mainstream education. The Salamanca Statement (1994) was a crucial milestone in this movement. While Saudi Arabia signed the statement, inclusive education remains uncertain in the Saudi context, both theoretically and practically. Existing regulations prioritize special education, and many exclusionary practices are mistakenly labeled as inclusive. This study addresses the lack of clarity surrounding the concept of inclusive education in Saudi Arabia by investigating how Saudi academics specializing in special education define and understand it. This is crucial because a clear understanding of inclusive education is fundamental to its successful implementation.

The lack of a universally agreed-upon definition of inclusive education is a well-documented challenge. Various definitions exist, reflecting diverse perspectives and research schools. Some definitions highlight inclusive education as a process of responding to diverse student needs, adapting curricula and teaching strategies, and creating a welcoming environment. Other definitions focus on transforming schools to support all students, removing barriers and promoting full participation. Loreman (2009) outlines key characteristics of inclusive education, including zero-rejection policies, heterogeneous classrooms, adapted curricula, and celebration of diversity. However, the ambiguity and potential confusion with related terms like integration, mainstreaming, and placement remain significant issues.

This study employed a qualitative approach using semi-structured interviews as the primary data collection method. Twelve faculty members specializing in special education from seven Saudi governmental universities were selected using purposive sampling. Inclusion criteria included holding a doctorate and being a faculty member in a special education department. Interviews, conducted remotely using Google Meet and lasting 45–60 minutes, explored participants' definitions of inclusive education, examples of inclusive practices, distinctions between inclusive and special education, and the existence of inclusive practices in Saudi Arabia. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the data, employing a deductive approach guided by Roger Slee's inclusive education theory and Loreman's (2009) definition. The findings were validated by sending the thematic framework to three academics and seven participants for feedback.

Thematic analysis revealed three main themes: (1) Identical or close definition: Only two participants' definitions closely aligned with the study's adopted definition of inclusive education. Many definitions lacked key components such as flexible curricula, valuing all students, and differentiated assessment. (2) Ambiguity of definition: Ten out of twelve participants (83%) exhibited ambiguity or confusion, with some lacking clarity and others conflating inclusive education with concepts like least restrictive environment (LRE) and integration. Significant confusion existed between the terms "inclusion," "integration," "mainstreaming," and "placement." (3) Relationship conception: Eleven out of twelve participants perceived a relationship between inclusive and special education, with some considering one a subset of the other. Only one participant correctly identified them as philosophically and practically opposed. The study found inconsistencies between the participants' understanding of inclusive education and the study's adopted definition. Many participants viewed inclusive education as synonymous with or a subset of special education, rather than as a distinct concept.

The findings highlight a significant gap between the ideal of inclusive education and the actual understanding and practice among Saudi academics specializing in special education. The lack of a unified, accepted definition of inclusive education in Saudi Arabia contributes to the ambiguity and confusion. The conflation of inclusive education with LRE and integration points to a limited understanding of inclusive education's broader goals. The prevailing view of a close relationship between inclusive and special education reveals a misunderstanding of their fundamentally different philosophical and practical underpinnings. Inclusive education, based on the social model of disability, challenges the medical model underpinning special education, emphasizing removing societal barriers rather than remediating individual deficits.

This study demonstrates the need for a unified and widely accepted definition of inclusive education in Saudi Arabia. To foster genuine inclusive practices, efforts must focus on clarifying the concept and highlighting its distinction from special education. Further research should explore the factors contributing to this misunderstanding among Saudi academics and the implications for the implementation of inclusive education. Recommendations include the adoption of a comprehensive definition, educational programs to promote accurate understanding, supportive legislation, and evaluation of current practices based on that definition.

The study's reliance on a small sample of faculty members from specific universities may limit the generalizability of the findings. The qualitative nature of the research limits the capacity for quantitative generalization. The focus on the perspectives of academics may not fully reflect the views and experiences of other stakeholders involved in implementing inclusive education. Future research with larger, more diverse samples and mixed-methods approaches is needed for comprehensive insights.