New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies

, Volume 51, Issue 2, pp 227–244 | Cite as

Using Meta-perspectives to Improve Equity and Inclusion

  • Julia Budd


Equity for those experiencing disability is a complex real-world issue best studied by cross-disciplinary groups. However, these cross-disciplinary studies are often unsuccessful due to the different perspectives held by members of the cross-disciplinary group. Meta-perspectives have been found to help overcome the issues caused by these different perspectives. This article discusses how a meta-perspective based on a typology of paradigms of disability can be useful to map and explore different paradigms of disability, build common ground, and help facilitate cross-disciplinary understanding and collaboration when studying topics such as equity and inclusion. The article then goes on to introduce a critical realist meta-perspective that transcends the different paradigms and the individual and social divide. This critical realist meta-perspective expands the typology further and allows the disciplines and perspectives to be mapped across a matrix of levels and scales of reality. This mapping of perspectives could shed new light on the issue of developing an equitable, inclusive society for those experiencing disability.


Collaboration Diversity Equity Meta-perspective 


  1. Allet, L., Burge, E., & Monnin, D. (2008). ICF: Clinical relevance for physiotherapy? A critical review. Advances in Physiotherapy, 10, 127–137. doi: 10.1080/14038190802315941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Annan, J., & Mentis, M. (2013). Shifting perspectives to shape inclusive practice. In Centre of Excellence for Research in Inclusive Education (Ed.), Inclusive education: Perspectives on professional practice (pp. 25–39). Auckland: Dunmore Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  3. Barnes, C., & Mercer, G. (2004). Theorising and researching disability from a social model perspective. In C. Barnes & G. Mercer (Eds.), Implementing the social model of disability: Theory and research. Leeds: The Disability Press.Google Scholar
  4. Barnes, M., & Ward, A. (2000). Concepts of rehabilitation. In M. Barnes & A. Wards (Eds.), Textbook of rehabilitation (pp. 3–13). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Benton, T., & Craib, I. (2001). Philosophy of social sciences: The philosophical foundations of social thought. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  6. Bevan-Brown, J. (2003). The cultural self-review: Providing culturally effective, inclusive education for Māori learners. Wellington: NZCER.Google Scholar
  7. Bhaskar, R. (1975). A realist theory of science. Leeds: Leeds Books Ltd.Google Scholar
  8. Bromme, R. (2000). Beyond one’s own perspective: The psychology of cognitive interdisciplinarity. In P. Weingart & N. Stehr (Eds.), Practicing Interdisciplinarity (pp. 115–133). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  9. Budd, J. M. (2014). A design-based research study to promote cross-disciplinary collaboration using a case study from the New Zealand disability field. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand).Google Scholar
  10. Collier, A. (2004). Critical realism. An introduction to Roy Bhaskar’s philosophy. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  11. Conklin, J. (2005). Wicked problems and social complexity. In J. Conklin (Ed.), Dialogue mapping: Building shared understanding of wicked problems. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  12. Cruickshank, J. (2003). Introduction. In J. Cruickshank (Ed.), Critical realism: The difference it makes (pp. 1–14). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Danermark, B. (2002). Interdisciplinary research and critical realism: The example of disability research. Journal of Critical Realism, 5(1), 56–64. Retrieved from
  14. Dean, S., Siegert, R., & Taylor, V. (2012). Conclusion: Rethinking rehabilitation. In S. Dean, R. Siegert, & V. Taylor (Eds.), Interprofessional rehabilitation (pp. 167–183). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dong, H. (2007). Shifting paradigms in universal design. In C. Stephanidis (Ed.), Universal access in human computer interaction. Coping with Diversity (pp. 66–74). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dunn, D., & Dougherty, S. (2005). Prospects for a positive psychology of rehabilitation. Rehabilitation Psychology, 50(3), 305–311. doi: 10.1037/0090-5550.50.3.305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Geyh, S., Peter, C., Muller, R., Stucki, G., & Cieza, A. (2011). Translating topics in SCI psychology into the international classification of functioning, disability and health. The Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation, 16(3), 104–130. doi: 10.1310/sci1603-104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gilson, S. F., & DePoy, E. (2002). Theoretical approaches to disability content in social work education. Journal of Social Work Education, 38(1), 153–165.Google Scholar
  19. Godley, D. (2011). Disability studies: An interdisciplinary introduction. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Hinrichs, C. (2008). Interdisciplinarity and boundary work: Challenges and opportunities for agrifood studies. Agriculture and Human Values, 25, 209–213. doi: 10.1007/s10460-008-9118-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Holland, D. (2005). Unifying social science—a critical realist approach. Graduate Journal of Social Science, 2(2). Retrieved from;c=gjss
  22. Kearney, P. (2003). The international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF) and nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 46(2), 162–170. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2003.02976.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kearney, A. (2009). Barriers to school inclusion: An investigation into the exclusion of disabled students from and within New Zealand Schools (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand).Google Scholar
  24. Klein, J. (2010). The taxonomy of interdisciplinarity. In R. Frodeman, J. T. Klein, & C. Mitcham (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. LaGrow, S. (1998). The culture of rehabilitation: An international perspective. Paper presented at the 9th international mobility conference, Atlanta GA, USA.Google Scholar
  26. Lequerica, A., & Korette, K. (2010). Therapeutic engagement: A proposed model of engagement in medical rehabilitation. Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 89(5), 415–422. doi: 10.109/PHM.0b013e3181d8ceb2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lindsay, G. (2003). Inclusive education: A critical perspective. British Journal of Special Education, 30(1), 3–12. doi: 10.1111/1467-8527.00275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Linton, S. (1998). Claiming disability: Knowledge and identity. New York: University of New York.Google Scholar
  29. Meekosha, H. (1998). Body Battles: Bodies, gender and disability. The disability reader: Social science perspectives (pp. 163–181). London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  30. Milner, P., & Kelly, B. (2009). Community participation and inclusion: People with disabilities defining their place. Disability and Society, 24(1), 47–62. doi: 10.1080/09687590802535410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mitchell, D., & Snyder, S. (1997). The body and physical difference: Discourses of disability. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Morgan, H. (2012). The social model of disability as a threshold concept: Troublesome knowledge and liminal spaces in social work education. Social Work Education: The International Journal, 31(2), 215–226. doi: 10.1080/02615479.2012.644964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. New Zealand Ministry of Health. (2002). He korowai oranga—Maori health strategy. Wellington: Ministry of Health.Google Scholar
  34. Office for Disability Issues. (2011). First New Zealand report on implementing the United Nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Wellington: Office for Disability Issues.Google Scholar
  35. Office for Disability Issues. (2015). Disability action plan 2014–2018. Wellington: Office for Disability Issues.Google Scholar
  36. Oliver, M. (1990). The politics of disablement. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Olkin, R., & Pledger, C. (2003). Can disability studies and psychology join hands? American Psychologist, 58(4), 296–304. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.58.4.296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Priestley, M. (1998). Constructions and creations: Idealism, materialism and disability theory. Disability and Society, 13(1), 75–94. doi: 10.1080/09687599826920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Prilleltensky, O. (2009). Critical psychology and disability: Critiqing the mainstream, critiquing the critique. Critical psychology: An introduction (pp. 250–266). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  40. Schmidt, J. (2010). Prospects for a philosophy of interdisciplinarity. In R. Frodeman (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity (pp. 39–41). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Shakespeare, T. (2006). Disability rights and wrongs. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Slee, R. (2011). The irregular school: Exclusion, schooling and inclusive education. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Swain, J., & French, S. (2000). Towards an affirmation model of disability. Disability and Society, 15(4), 569–582. doi: 10.1080/09687590050058189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Threats, T. (2010). The complexity of social/cultural dimension in communication disorders. Folia Phoniatrica et Logopedica, 62, 158–165. doi: 10.1159/000314031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. United Nations. (2006). United Nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Geneva: United Nations.Google Scholar
  46. World Federation of Occupational Therapists. (2012). Definition of occupational therapy. Retrieved from
  47. World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© New Zealand Association for Research in Education 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of EducationMassey UniversityPalmerston NorthNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations