Current research on inclusive education in Mexico

The institutionalization of the right of access to formal education for persons with disabilities in Mexico began in 1970, with the creation of the General Directorate of Special Education of the Mexican Ministry of Public Education. From 1993 onwards, agreements on this issue were extended to the whole nation, establishing a specific special education curriculum, with special attention schools that safeguarded, in some cases, the right of access to basic education for persons with disabilities. However, with the Salamanca Statement1, the special education model was questioned, and a new paradigm was promoted, that of educational integration, which eventually became the model of inclusive education2.

At the international level, the concept of inclusion in education was promoted by the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities3, ratified in Mexico in 2008. At this point, Gilberto Rincón – an activist for the rights of persons with disabilities – promoted, throughout the country, the so-called “inclusive education movement”, which proposed equal education in the same educational spaces for persons with and without disabilities, without distinction.

Since 2012, Mexico has integrated the concept of inclusion both in official discourse and in government documents, especially in education reforms. However, in practice, until a few years ago, no real changes have been seen in schools and universities4.

For three decades, the Mexican Council for Educational Research (COMIE) has set up commissions dedicated to documenting evidence of the countryʼs educational reality. In 2021, a team of researchers was formed with the aim of analysing how the educational reality of persons with disabilities in Mexico had been researched in the last nine years, specifically the dimensions related to violence and discrimination in formal education5. The study developed by this team shows that the educational reality of people with disabilities is researched under uncritical dominant paradigms, which result in an indistinct use of concepts such as inclusion and integration.

With regard to the ways in which “disability” is understood, Mexican academic publications tend to develop different paradigms that progressively question each other. Studies first defined “disability” in terms of lack, deficit or dysfunction, be it physical, mental or psychic. However, over time, a handful of studies have emerged that question the hegemonic vision centred on disability as deficiency, questioning the social model of productivity and valuing the right of people to possess non-productive bodies.

Generally speaking, the different terms used in Mexican research over the last decade in relation to people with disabilities have been concepts that are pejorative and dis-criminatory because they belong to the medical model. There has been no investigation into how they arose or how they have been displaced, nor has there been any reflection on the social condition they provoke: On the one hand, a critique of the medical discourse is pointed out, and on the other, similar terms are reintroduced, supposedly under a different discourse. Without paying attention either to its epistemology or to the set of dimensions that imply a symbolic and imaginary matrix, beyond the description of the subject’s referential characteristics, [disability] ends up being more of an adjective6.

At this point, the research developed on education for people with disabilities in Mexico has a bearing on educational policies and programs in formal education based on “good will” and not on legal obligations, as it should be.

In this article we present part of the findings of the research developed by Gajardo and Jacobo aimed at finding out how the educational reality of people with disabilities is researched in Mexico from 2013 to 20217. Specifically, we present a systematized review of the Mexican scientific literature [1] published in indexed journals on the educational processes of people with disabilities. The article aims to provide a descriptive summary of the most frequently mentioned topics, their epistemological treatment, and the objectives they pursue.

Materials and Methods

We conducted a systematised review of the literature. To ensure the quality of the research we used some of the criteria established by the PRISMA-S statement and the PICOS Protocol [2] for the area of Social Sciences.

As the method indicates, we searched the Scopus bibliographic database, the Web of Science (WOS) scientific information service, the scientific dissemination portals Dialnet and Redalyc, the Latin American dissemination project Scielo and the open-access databases of public and private universities in Mexico.

We limited the search to academic articles published in indexed journals Ibero-American journals, developed between 2013 and 2021, which analysed the situation in Mexico with respect to the topic studied and/or which presented the theoretical and/or critical views of Mexican authors.

We used three Spanish keywords combined by Boolean operators: “discapacidad”, “inclusión”, “inclusión educativa”, “educación inclusiva”, “integración”, “sordo”, “ciego”, “baja visión”, “talla baja”, “síndrome de Down”, “autismo” and “diversidad funcional”. The keywords were chosen on the basis of the studies previously carried out by COMIE’s research commissions⁸.

We organised the results following some indicators of the PRISMA-S model and the PICOS protocol: 1) year of publication, 2) search keyword, 3) research method, 4) type of text, 5) predominant research design, 6) predominant area of action, 7) pre-dominant theoretical model, 8) predominant field of study, 9) place of publication and 10) main topic.

The inclusion criteria were as follows:

• 1.    Articles published in indexed Ibero-American journals.

• 2.    Published between 2013 and 2021.

• 3.    Written by Mexican authors and/or analysing the Mexican context.

• 4.    That they have had a blind peer review.

• 5.    Belonging to the area of Social Sciences, specifically to the field of education.

• 6.    Containing at least one key word from the list of key words.

For the analysis of the full texts, we developed an open and inductive coding pro-cess which was elaborated during a seminar lasting more than 70 hours in which the 44 documents, as shown in Table, were analysed. This seminar was attended by all members of the research team. At this point, in order to respond to the research objective and write the report of results, we focused on three main dimensions: 1) Predominant epistemic positioning; 2) Main themes addressed; and 3) What the research seeks to transform.

The result of the search is summarized in Figure 1.

The following is a descriptive report of the findings of the systematised review.

Records identified from databases (n = 212)

Records removed before screening : Duplicate records removed (n = 16)

Records marked as ineligible by automation tools (n = 2)

Records excluded** (n = 141)

Reports not retrieved (n = 0)

Reports excluded (n = 9)

F i g. 1. PRISMA-S process flow

Source : Hereinafter in this article all figures were drawn up by the authors.

T a b l e. Documents included in the review