Abstract
The paper is about science policies meant to tackle the challenge of achieving a society in which inclusion, innovation and reflection are implemented. The first part focuses on the inclusive society as addressed in policy documents. The second part focuses on the role of social innovation in meeting the needs of persons with disabilities. The third part proposes experiences of good practices of inclusion in the fields of education, lifelong learning, healthcare, social services. Several e-inclusion technologies for students with disabilities are presented. E-inclusion requires a shift from already structured, open but essentially immobile systems to the creation of learning situations and communities that can dynamically and continuously structure themselves based on the characteristics and needs of individuals. The paper concludes with a focus on global perspectives on inclusion.
1. Inclusive, innovative, and reflective societies
Let me begin with the general definition of a policy agenda as “the list of issues or problems to which government officials, and people outside government who are closely associated with those officials, devote some serious attention at any given time” (Kingdon 1995, 3). It is within a policy agenda that a scientific research and innovation agenda – a process consisting of exploration, commitment and prioritization, integration, programming, and implementation – is laid out to make explicit what the state requires of researchers to relate their studies to real-world problems, to validate their research, and to access research funds allocated by a government agency. A scientific research and innovation agenda is about evaluating different options, which in turn leads to “recommendations for a reorientation of policymaking” (Fischer et al. 2007, 501).
Launched in 1984 to bring together the expertise of all Member States that participate in the European Research Area, the until now nine framework programs for research and innovation have become an important part of research cooperation in Europe, growing progressively in size, scope, and ambition. They have evolved from supporting cross-border cooperation in science and technology to a truly European coordination of activities and policies. The societal challenge 6, Understanding Europe in a changing world: Inclusive, innovative and reflective society, has given shape to one of the main science policy objectives of the European Union’s 8th framework program for research and innovation Horizon 2020 (2014-2020), which was adopted on 10 December 2013: it was individuated to provide funding instruments to support social sciences and humanities research on horizontal issues such as (a) the creation of smart and sustainable growth, (b) social and cultural transformations in European societies, (c) political inclusion and democratic participation, (d) the role of media and the formation of the public sphere, (e) social innovation, (f) innovation in the public sector, (g) Europe’s position as a global actor (EC 2024, 2015).
Supporting inclusive, innovative, and reflective societies is a prerequisite for sustainable cohesion. Speaking of inclusion, science policy is about mapping, synthesizing, and making accessible research fundings for the inclusion of persons with disabilities, how to use them, and to whom they should be directed (King and Lulle 2016). In the 9th framework program for research and innovation Horizon Europe (with a budget of 95.5 billion to be distributed over seven years 2021-2027), the inclusive society is currently addressed in cluster 2 of pillar II, Culture, Creativity and Inclusive Society, which funds scientific and technological research and innovation in the areas of (a) sustainability, (b) job creation, (c) improved working conditions and a sense of belonging to Europe through continuous engagement with citizens, social partners and economic sectors, (d) the development of new technologies, (e) the creation of a knowledge-based society, (f) the transition to new forms of work, ensuring the social inclusiveness of such transformations and attracting, protecting and retaining a skilled workforce, and (g) the full potential of cultural heritage, arts and cultural and creative sectors and industries (EC 2021a).
2. Research infrastructures for the inclusive society
The inclusion of persons with disabilities depends on social services, which in turn are provided by social infrastructures. Social infrastructures are a powerful tool for creating inclusive growth and strengthening the social fabric of a country. They are a tool for development because of their impact on people (education, health management, care services), the environment, culture, and civil liberties. In the following pages, I will present experiences of good practice in health and social care in the fields of special pedagogy, sociology, and sport, understood as a rehabilitative and inclusive opportunities from the perspective of education and lifelong learning (EC 2019a).
Social innovation occurs when a service responds positively to societal issues, i.e., does the innovation solve the problem? Is it cost effective? Is it widely accepted? (EC 2017, 17-18). Social innovation should be the “backbone of all European research policies”, as the President of the Republic of Portugal, Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa, made clear in his speech at the Opening up to an Era of Social Innovation Conference in Lisbon on 28 November 2017 (EC 2019b, 115). Social infrastructures are generally built and maintained at national, regional and local levels. They provide services for education: (1) from preschool to university; (2) lifelong learning, libraries, vocational and continuing education; for health: (3) healthcare; (4) long-term care, persons with disabilities and the elderly; and, finally, for cities: (5) affordable housing, urban regeneration; (6) mobility: commuter networks, urban transport (EC 2019a).
Social and cultural innovation is a concept that includes two syntagmata. Since 2012, it has become current among researchers, as it is the name chosen by the European Strategy Forum Research Infrastructures (ESFRI) for its working group on projects and milestones primarily related to social sciences and humanities. Founded in 2002, ESFRI supports a coherent and policy-driven approach to research infrastructure policymaking in Europe. The Strategy Working Group Social and Cultural Innovation proposes possible solutions to address the societal challenges of today. It also proposes methods through which social sciences and humanities can be used as an evaluation criterion for the activities of other research infrastructures in the ESFRI roadmap (e.g., social impact, etc.). Finally, the working group explores how research infrastructures can contribute to social innovation or better knowledge transfer to society (ESFRI 2021, 105-114).
Research infrastructures are public goods. They are planned, built, and managed to serve large research communities operating in diverse sectors. They are facilities that provide resources and services to research communities to conduct research and foster innovation; they can be used beyond research, e.g., for education or social services, and can either be located on single sites or distributed, or virtual. Their main objective is to provide innovative solutions to current and future challenges.
There are different types of research infrastructures. In Europe, communities can apply for inclusion in the ESFRI roadmap, which currently lists about 50 projects and milestones and is updated every three years. More specifically, ESFRI facilitates multilateral initiatives leading to better use and development of research infrastructures at European and international level. Scientific communities can apply for substantial funding from the European framework programs for research and innovation, which is becoming essential, given that today researchers in social sciences and humanities are confronted with increasingly complex and large amounts of data in highly interdisciplinary settings. Think of the research teams engaged in the European Social Survey (ESS ERIC), or of those committed to collecting data on the aging population for the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE ERIC).
3. Digital equity and inclusion in education
Since the launch of the 8th framework program for research and innovation Horizon 2020 in 2013, European science policy has been implementing the triple aim of (a) strengthening social, economic, and political inclusion, (b) fighting poverty, (c) promoting human rights, digital and educational inclusion, equality, solidarity, cultural diversity, and intercultural dialogue. Funding instruments for interdisciplinary research, indicator development, technological advances, organizational solutions and new forms of cooperation and co-creation have thus been established.
Digital technologies support the inclusion of diverse student groups in education in several ways, including improving the accessibility of educational content, increasing personalization, and providing distance learning opportunities (EC 2021b). Persons with disabilities have equity issues, and – as Thomas Scanlon (2018) has argued – equity matters. Two concepts have emerged. First, digital equity in education, defined as “the distribution and use of tools in a way that does not disadvantage or reduce the learning opportunities of certain groups”. Second, digital inclusion, as “minimizing digital inequalities, thereby widening access and also improving the quality of teaching and learning, with the intention of providing a fair and equitable education” (OECD 2023, 8-9). Hence, scholars have started lines of research to study and experiment with models of inclusive situations implemented with the support of digital technologies (UNESCO 2009).
E-inclusion addresses the relationship between education and students with special educational needs (e.g., disabled, immigrant, learning disabled, or unable to attend school normally), and is modeled on the notion of special needs education (UNESCO 1994), which envisions the inclusion of students with disabilities, no longer simply within an already structured, open, but essentially immobile system, but rather through the creation of learning situations and communities that can dynamically structure themselves within themselves, based on the characteristics and needs of individuals.
Although most teachers are informed about the functioning of the mind and the brain and are often involved in training activities on the subject, research has shown an alarming diffusion in several countries of neuromyths, i.e., beliefs resulting from an oversimplification of neuroscientific findings in the field of education (Lancellotti 2017). Educational neuroscience, as ITD-CNR researcher Chiara Fante has made clear, is concerned with the study of variables that can maintain student motivation and a good attitude towards challenges and possible difficulties. Scientific evidence suggests that a growth mindset is crucial to promote a positive attitude towards studies and school activities, especially in students traditionally associated with greater failure. In the Italian context, as argued by Chiara Malagoli, also of ITD-CNR, law no. 170/2010 has recognized dyslexia, dysorthographia, dysgraphia and dyscalculia as specific learning disorders. Therefore, it is necessary to emphasize the importance of individualized and personalized teaching, to promote the use of compensatory tools and dispensatory measures, and to protect the right to learning of people with disabilities.
One of the critical aspects of independent living in groups of people with intellectual disabilities (especially Down syndrome) is the need for a constant presence of an educator in the organization of the educational apartments provided by the associations and institutions that provide care. Researchers aim to extend and complete the functionalities offered by cloud-mobile platforms so that caretakers can provide comprehensive support to people with intellectual disabilities who experience independent living. In the Smart Home vision, researchers are investigating how ambient assisted living modules can be extended and adapted to support independent living in sheltered housing for people with intellectual disabilities.
Social sharing systems allow the sharing of digital resources that are useful for visual rehabilitation and the evaluation of proven accessibility in the field, where anyone can collaborate, users with disabilities, their families, schools, and rehabilitation professionals. Aggregators of software, games, videos, self-created resources, links, and information accessible to the entire large community of professionals and family members are set up to improve the skills and abilities of children with visual impairments give persons with disabilities the opportunity to grow and reach their full potential.
One of the strengths of our society is the education and research that takes place in universities. However, too many people with disabilities find it difficult to access this right due to numerous barriers and obstacles. As Pope Francis (2015) has pointed out, the university experience of students with disabilities poses significant challenges for both them and their teachers. These challenges often stem from a lack of accessible digital resources and a lack of digital skills among academic staff to adequately address the needs of fragile students. Teachers and accessibility liaison officers often do not know how to support students with disabilities. There is an undeniable gap in cross-national research on the specific needs of students with disabilities regarding accessible educational materials and the needs that arise from distance learning, as well as the knowledge and experience of academic staff and accessibility liaisons in universities regarding different forms of accessible materials and the provision of courses in accessible distance learning.
4. Global Perspectives on Inclusion
The reduction of inequalities and social exclusion has proven to be a key challenge for the development of science policies for an inclusive society. At the same time, there is great potential in the opportunities offered by new forms of innovation and citizen engagement. Given the urgency of making a constructive contribution to the Social Doctrine of the Church on the inclusion of persons with disabilities, it is urgent to bring to the attention of science policy institutions the need to improve science and technology efforts in this direction. What our world seems to be expecting from scholars is to take up the historical challenge of reassessing the meaning, scope, and boundaries of social sciences and humanities as well as of their 21st century offspring (i.e., computational social and cultural analysis, and innovation in religious studies) for the foundation of innovative, reflective, and inclusive societies on a global scale (Fiorucci 2020). Hence the science policy survey presented in this paper ought to be complemented by analogous endeavors focused on Africa, Asia and the Americas. Most importantly, the inclusive society cannot be understood without a reference to the family (Donati 2023), which is currently missing in most policy documents.
An articulated notion of the inclusive society is still a desideratum. It is time for scholarly communities in the social sciences and humanities to (a) recognize cross-cultural inclusiveness as an irreversible orientation in the contemporary world, (b) give due value and recognition to the world cultural heritage and to approaches that enhance the plurality of human civilizations, (c) incorporate them into standard academic tasks (Pozzo 2021). The experience of Horizon 2020 has made it clear that the best way to implement interdisciplinarity with the full involvement of social sciences and humanities is collaborating in an atmosphere of mutual respect (EC 2021a, 6). The challenge to tackle remains, however, to react to the fact that we are apparently still unable to go beyond established disciplinary paradigms. Here, too, reflection is mobilized to involve social sciences and humanities in research in all fields of science for the benefit of social innovation, the backbone of all European science policies. In this direction, a useful reference can be made to taking up two central tenets of Kantian philosophy: the dignity of man (homo noumenon) and the moral law. If it is beyond doubt that Kant has proved vital to mankind since the end of World War II for his framework of world peace, it is to be expected that Kant will again prove vital to what remains of the twenty-first century for his shaping of an inclusive society.
5. References
Donati, Pierpaolo (ed.) (2023): The Family as a relational good: The challenge of love. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.
EC (2008): Council conclusions concerning Joint Programming of Research in Europe in response to the major societal challenges: 2891st COMPETITIVENESS (INTERNAL MARKET, INDUSTRY and RESEARCH) Council meeting Brussels, 2 December 2008.
EC (2014): Horizon 2020: Work Programme 2014-2015: Europe in a changing world – inclusive, innovative and reflective societies.
EC (2015): European Commission Decision C (2015)2453 of 17 April 2015.
EC (2017): Social innovation as a trigger for transformations. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
EC (2019a): Boosting investment in social infrastructure in Europe: Report of the High-Level Task Force on Investing in Social Infrastructure in Europe. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
EC (2019b): Opening up to an era of social innovation conference 27-28 November 2017. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
EC (2021a): Horizon Europe Strategic Plan (2021-2024). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
EC (2021b): Enhancing learning through digital tools and practices: How digital technology in compulsory education can help promote inclusion: Final report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
ESFRI (2021): Strategy Report on Research Infrastructures: Roadmap 2021. Brussels: Science and Technology Facilities Council.
Favorini, Anna Maria (2017): “Credere nell’inclusione per un agire inclusivo”. In Favorini, Anna Maria (ed.): La cultura dell’inclusione nella società contemporanea, 47-61. Milan: Angeli.
Fiorucci, Massimiliano (ed.) (2020): Educazione, formazione e pedagogia in prospettiva interculturale. Milan: Angeli.
Fischer, Fran, Miller, Gerald J., and Sidney, Mara S. (2007). A handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods. London: Routledge.
King, R., & Lulle, A. (2016). Research on migration: Facing realities and maximising opportunities. https://ec.europa.eu/research/social-sciences/pdf/policy_reviews/ki-04-15-841_en_n.pdf
Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agenda, alternatives, and public policies. 2nd ed. HarperCollins.
Lancellotti, Riccardo (2017): “L’inclusione degli alunni con disabilità nei percorsi formativi: Sviluppi e prospettive future”. In Favorini, Anna Maria (ed.): La cultura dell’inclusione nella società contemporanea, 31-36. Milan: Angeli.
OECD (2023): Digital equity and inclusion in education: An overview of practice and policy in OECD countries. Edited by Francesca Gottschalk and Crystal Weise. OECD Education Working Paper No. 299.
Pope Francis (2015): Address of the Holy Father, Cathedral of Santa Maria del Fiore, Florence, 10 October 2015.
Pozzo, Riccardo (2021): History of philosophy and the reflective society. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.
Scanlon, Thomas M. (2018): Why does inequality matter? Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
UNESCO (1994): Salamanca Statement on Special Needs Education. Paris: Unesco.
UNESCO (2009): Policy Guidelines on Inclusion in Education. Paris: Unesco.