Inclusion in social entities. Construction and validation of a scale from a mixed model

Authors

  • Gutiérrez-Ortega, M. Universidad Internacional de la Rioja, España
  • Martín-Cilleros, M.V. Universidad de Salamanca, España
  • Hernández-Soto, R. Universidad Internacional de la Rioja, España

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.36367/ntqr.4.2020.153-162

Keywords:

Inclusive Culture; Inclusive Practices; Participation; Community; Mixed Method

Abstract

Introduction Inclusion is a complex process that helps organizations overcome barriers that limit participation and learning. Social entities do not currently have instruments that allow them to know their position regarding inclusion, their processes, or their practices. Goals; Methods The study builds on an internationally recognized instrument. Through a mixed approach, it has been adapted and validated for its subsequent application to the contexts of social entities. We follow a sequential exploratory design in which quantitative methods complement the qualitative approach that sustains the investigation. Results Through a process carried out in four phases, a 24-item instrument grouped into four factors was developed and utilized with a sample of 93 participants. Conclusions. The scale allows collaborative research and proposes continuous improvement actions based on organizational reality and its practices. The implementation of the instrument allows a global treatment of diversity in services covering the entire community. Mixed methods provide a comprehensive approach to address these types of studies.

References

Azorín, C.M. & Ainscow, M. (2018). Guiding schools on their journey towards inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education,24(1), 58-76. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1450900

Barrio de la Puente, J. L. (2009). Hacia una Educación Inclusiva para todos. Revista Complutense de Educación, 20(1), 13 - 31.

Booth, T., & M. Ainscow. 2002. Index for Inclusion: Developing Learning and Participation in Schools. Bristol: Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education.

Booth, T. & Ainscow, M. (2011). Index for Inclusion: developing learning and participation in schools. Bristol: Centre for Studies in Inclusive Education (CSIE).

Brannen, J. (Ed.). (1992). Mixing methods: Qualitative and quantitative research. Aldershot: Avebury.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.

Creswell J.W., Fetters M.D. & Ivankova N.V. (2004). Designing a mixed methods study in primary care. Ann Fam Med, 2,7–12.

Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ferdman, B. M. (2017). Paradoxes of inclusion: Understanding and managing the tensions of diversity and multiculturalism. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 53(2), 235-263. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886317702608

Ferdman, B. M. & Davidson, M. N. (2002). A matter of difference—Inclusion: What can I and my organization do about it? The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 39(4), 80– 85.

Ferdman, B. M. & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2014). Diversity at work: The practice of inclusion. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118764282.ch1

Greene, J. C., & Caracelli, V. J. (2003). Making paradigmatic sense of Mixed Methods practice. En A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook Mixed Methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 91- 110). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gutiérrez-Ortega, M., Martín-Cilleros, M. V. & Jenaro, C. (2014). El Index para la inclusión: presencia, aprendizaje y participación. Revista de Educación Inclusiva, 7(3), 186-201. http://www.revistaeducacioninclusiva.es/index.php/REI/article/view/139/133

Gutiérrez-Ortega, M., Martín-Cilleros, M. V. & Jenaro, C. (2018). La cultura, pieza clave para avanzar en la inclusión en los centros educativos. Revista de Educación Inclusiva,11(2), 13-26.

Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., & Bracken, C. C. (2002). Content analysis in mass communication: Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human Communication Research, 28, 587-604.

Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., & Bracken, C. C. (2003). Correction. Human Communication Research, 29, 469-472

McMaster, Ch. (2015). Inclusion in New Zealand: The Potential and Possibilities of Sustainable Inclusive Change Through Utilising a Framework for Whole School Development. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 50(2), p239-253. doi: 10.1007/s40841-015-0010-3

Rustemier, S., & Booth, T. (2005). Learning about the Index in use; a study of the Index for Inclusion in schools and LEAs in England. Bristol CSIE.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

UNESCO (2017). A Guide for Ensuring Inclusion and Equity in Education. Paris: UNESCO.2002

Watts, M., & Alsop, S. A. (2000). Terms of Engagement: Learners and School Science. In Paper presented to the Annual Conference of the Canadian Society for the Study of Education. University of Edmonton, Canada.

Published

2020-07-02

How to Cite

Gutiérrez-Ortega, M., Martín-Cilleros, M.V., & Hernández-Soto, R. (2020). Inclusion in social entities. Construction and validation of a scale from a mixed model. New Trends in Qualitative Research, 4, 153–162. https://doi.org/10.36367/ntqr.4.2020.153-162