Our Sociology Department lecturer Dr. Oğuz Öztosun had an interview with Prof. Dr. Florian Kuippis from the University of Freiburg (Catholic University of Applied Sciences), who lectured at our department between October 30-November 1, 2024 as part of the university mobility program, on his area of expertise, “inclusive education”. You can find the text of the interview below:
Inclusive Education: A Path to Equity and Belonging
In an era defined by globalization and rapid social change, the principles of equity and belonging have emerged as essential cornerstones of a just and interconnected world. Inclusive education, a concept deeply rooted in these principles, challenges us to move beyond traditional pedagogical frameworks and embrace practices that honor diversity, foster accessibility, and promote mutual understanding. It is not merely a methodology; it is a philosophy that demands an unwavering commitment to the intrinsic value of every individual.
The following conversation delves into the heart of inclusive education, featuring the profound insights of Dr. Florian Kiuppis, a renowned scholar from the Catholic University of Applied Sciences Freiburg, Germany. Dr. Kiuppis, who visited Yeditepe University as part of the Erasmus+ Teaching Mobility Agreement, brings to the dialogue a wealth of expertise in international and comparative inclusive education. His academic journey, marked by a dedication to exploring the intersections of education, culture, and social justice, offers a compelling lens through which to understand the evolving landscape of inclusion.
During his time at Yeditepe University, Dr. Kiuppis delivered a series of thought-provoking lectures, addressing topics such as the historical development of disability classifications, theoretical perspectives on inclusive education, and the transformative potential of Baskin Inclusive Basketball. These sessions not only illuminated critical themes but also sparked meaningful discussions among students and faculty, underscoring the value of transdisciplinary and cross-cultural academic exchanges.
At the core of this interview lies Dr. Kiuppis’s challenge to reimagine inclusion beyond its conventional boundaries. He advocates a paradigm shift from deficit-based models, which emphasize limitations and constraints, to resource-oriented approaches that highlight strengths, capabilities, and opportunities. His reflections urge educators and policymakers alike to consider the broader implications of their practices, emphasizing that inclusion is not simply about integrating individuals into existing systems but about reshaping those systems to reflect the diversity of human experience.
One of the most inspiring aspects of Dr. Kiuppis’s work is his exploration of Baskin Inclusive Basketball, an innovative initiative that bridges the worlds of sport and education. This unique approach transcends traditional boundaries, creating spaces where individuals of all abilities can participate, collaborate, and thrive. As he recounts the stories and lessons gleaned from this endeavor, readers are invited to consider how similar strategies can be adapted to their own educational and social contexts.
The conversation also touches on the historical evolution of disability classifications, a topic that reveals the deep-seated cultural, political, and social influences shaping perceptions of disability over time. By examining these classifications through a critical lens, Dr. Kiuppis sheds light on the ways they have both constrained and enabled progress toward inclusivity. His insights remind us that history is not merely a record of the past but a guide for shaping a more equitable future.
Through his thoughtful and nuanced responses, Dr. Kiuppis invites us to rethink entrenched perspectives and envision a world where education serves as a bridge, not a barrier. His words resonate as both a call to action and a source of inspiration, encouraging educators, researchers, and practitioners to embrace inclusivity as a shared responsibility.
This interview is more than an academic exercise; it is a testament to the power of dialogue, collaboration, and human connection. It underscores the importance of creating spaces where diverse voices can come together to address pressing global challenges. As you engage with the insights presented in these pages, I hope you find not only theoretical knowledge but also practical strategies to advance the cause of inclusivity within your own spheres of influence.
Dr. Kiuppis’s work reminds us that the journey toward inclusive education is neither linear nor easy, but it is profoundly worthwhile. By fostering fairness, adaptability, and collaboration, we can create learning environments that not only educate but also empower.
I am honored to present this dialogue, which reflects the spirit of academic exchange and shared commitment to a more inclusive world.
Dr. Oğuz Öztosun
Lecturer, Department of Sociology
Yeditepe University
Dr. Oğuz Öztosun: Dr. Florian Kiuppis, welcome to Yeditepe University Sociology Department Could you tell us about your experience with the Erasmus+ Teaching Mobility Agreement? What motivated you to participate in this program?
Dr. Florian Kiuppis: Thank you for welcoming me here in Istanbul. So far, I’ve made quite some experiences with Erasmus+ teaching assignments in different countries, for example in France, The Netherlands, Spain/Catalonia — but never before in Türkiye. I was once here in this amazing city, in 2010 for the World Congress of Comparative Education. This time, it was first and foremost the partnership between my employer, the Catholic University of Applied Sciences Freiburg in Germany, and Yeditepe University, that motivated me to participate in the program.
Dr. Oğuz Öztosun: How has your experience at Yeditepe University contributed to your research and teaching on inclusive education?
Dr. Florian Kiuppis: It was extremely fruitful, especially in terms of transdisciplinary exchange we had here for the last three days. I have a background in Education, due to both my Diploma and my PhD from Humboldt University in Berlin, and I did my Postdoc at the Sociology Department of Emory University in Atlanta (USA) and taught also several years at the Sociology Department of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, another partner of my university. So, to a certain extent, my scholarly work is transdisciplinary anyway, also because in the last years, I have published quite extensively also in Sport Sciences. Here at Yeditepe University, I thought that it was very inspiring to not only work interdisciplinarily, but also exchange perspectives in terms of international, comparative and cross-cultural dimensions of teaching and research with colleagues here.
Dr. Oğuz Öztosun: In your lecture on the historical development of disability classifications, what are some key turning points that have significantly influenced current classification systems?
Dr. Florian Kiuppis: In my first lecture, I linked up with empirical research I conducted in context of the World Health Organization (WHO). You ask for key turning points… In the 1970’s, WHO was confronted with emerging criticism of their classificatory work. At that time, the “International Classification of Diseases” was still the one and only classification of the WHO, and Member States were increasingly expressing the need for a classification system that covers consequences of disease. Out of that debate, the “International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps”, short ICIDH, was developed and published in 1980 — that was the first time that disability got systematically classified, certainly a turning point. During the United Nations Decade of Disabled Persons (1983-1992), there was another key turning point: the classification from 1980 was heavily contested, mainly because it was based on medical model thinking only, according to which impairments, disabilities and handicaps were understood solely in a deficit-oriented way, as problems that could simply be attributed to persons. That debate was leading to the revision of the first disability classification and to the development of the “International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health”, published in 2001 — another key turning point.
Dr. Oğuz Öztosun: How do historical perspectives on disability classifications impact our understanding of inclusivity in education today?
Dr. Florian Kiuppis: The so-called ICF, the WHO-classification from 2001 that I mentioned last, is connected with a conceptual framework that is — unlike the ideas behind the former classification from 1980 — both deficit- and resource oriented. While in the years before the UN-Decade, as disability was understood simply in medical terms, the connected educational endeavors were Special Education that was organized in segregated schools. The ICF suggests yet another way of pedagogical thinking, namely Inclusive Education. The connected bio-psycho-social model is associated with a relational thinking, according to which the decision if (and why) a person can be considered to be with disabilities depends on the situation that the person is embedded in. So, when you ask for the impact disability classifications have on our understanding of inclusivity in education today, I would say that just like the ICF suggests that positive changes, such as assistive structures or procedures, made in the context of persons can lead to an improvement of their “Functioning”, Inclusive Education involves an equivalent thinking, according to which barrier removal and the setup of resources can result in an increase in activity and an enhancement of participation. In other words, can both the International Classification of Diseases and the first consequences of disease classification from 1980 be seen as connected with a classical special educational thinking, while the ICF from 2001 can be considered fueling an inclusive educational thinking in terms of our understanding of inclusivity in education today.
Dr. Oğuz Öztosun: Are there specific aspects of past classification approaches that you believe should be re-evaluated or revised in modern educational contexts?
Dr. Florian Kiuppis: That’s an interesting question. I find the differentiation between impairments and disabilities, as distinguished in the ICIDH, worthwhile to be revis(it)ed, with careful consideration of the changing meaning of disability in the WHO-classifications from 1980 and 2001. In Germany, I have currently witnessed the tendency that “disability” (Behinderung) tends to be rather thoughtlessly replaced by “impairment”. The ICF is unfortunately not clear enough on this dual distinction, but it should in my view get re-evaluated somehow, as Disability Studies are mainly based on the difference between impairments and disabilities. Recently, I came across quite a few situations in which persons meant ‘disabilities’ but avoided using the word and instead said ‘impairments’. That is in my view a specific aspect worth to be analytically looked at with reference to past classification approaches, specifically from the viewpoint of international and comparative special and inclusive education with a focus on inclusion, also with careful considerations of variegated use of equivalent words in different languages. In this context, it is for example interesting that in the Anglo-American context, the term “handicap” is outdated, as in French it is still commonly used.
Dr. Oğuz Öztosun: How do different countries approach inclusive education, and what can they learn from each other’s models?
Dr. Florian Kiuppis: Seen from an international and comparative perspective, there are a lot of different meanings of inclusive education. Accordingly, the approaches vary also considerably. While in one country, inclusive education might be claimed with focus on access to education, for example when all children and youths in a certain age group are reached by some sort of formal education and nobody is left behind, in another national context, education is perhaps only considered inclusive if all special schools got closed and all youngsters in a neighborhood attend the same school. There is another approach to inclusive education connected with the question, what is actually happening in a school for all. Rather than arguing from the side of who is learning where together, that use of the word inclusion takes a careful look at the quality of education in a process-oriented sense and with focus on inclusively arranged learning environments. However, what complicates inclusion debates world-wide is that there are quite some different meanings to the question how the target group of inclusive education can be defined. When looking for example at country reports in context of world conferences, e.g., the International Conference on Inclusive Education that was organised in 2008 by an organization called International Bureau of Education (IBE), that is connected with the United Nations Educational, Cultural and Scientific Organization (UNESCO), after a comparative educational closer look it becomes quickly clear that a lot of countries focus what they call their inclusive education system on people with disabilities; others refer more broadly to marginalized and vulnerable groups (including e.g., indigenous minorities); and again others have first and foremost non-categorical approaches in mind, according to which the basic assumption of inclusive education is the heterogeneity of learners, without that there is any group-related thinking. You also asked what countries can learn from each other’s models — well, that is difficult to answer, just because in the field of international and comparative (inclusive) education, this question depends on which countries you look at in cross-cultural research. If you take Norway as an example, there is an approach to inclusive education that is called “Tilpassed opplæring” — difficult to translate, but that approach is mainly about differentiated instruction in terms of adapting schools and the teaching therein to the learners, and not vice versa. Normatively speaking, I’d say that inclusivity in education globally could be further advanced if more countries would arrange their education system along those lines.
Dr. Oğuz Öztosun: Can you share some of the main theoretical perspectives you discussed on international and comparative inclusive education? How do these theories apply to practice in schools?
Dr. Florian Kiuppis: I worked with approaches from Sociology of Knowledge, as well from Sociology of Organizations; with Goffman’s concept of Stigma, and with a research program called “Human Differentiation” that has recently been developed by the German sociologist Stefan Hirschauer. The theoretical perspective I am currently increasingly dealing with is Neo-Phenomenology. I am planning a book that I will write next year, tentatively titled Atmospheres of Inclusive Education, in which I am going to take an approach to inclusive education with emphasis on emotions and felt-bodily experiences. But coming back to your question about varying approaches to inclusive education: the atmospherical perspective that I mentioned last is yet another way to analyze inclusive education comparatively, and I would argue that this is a newly emerging meaning of inclusive education, as well as novice field of studies. Linking up with what the German philosopher Gernot Böhme called “new aesthetics”, in terms of the application of this theoretical background to pedagogical practice, in the book I will deal with both producers and recipients of inclusive educational atmospheres.
Dr. Oğuz Öztosun: Could you explain the concept of Baskin Inclusive Basketball and what inspired this inclusive approach in sports?
Dr. Florian Kiuppis: Baskin is an inclusive and also competitive team sport that was invented ca. 20 years ago in Italy. Initially, its rules were developed by two men, both fathers of girls with disabilities, who were inspired by the idea to establish and cultivate an adapted physical activity for all. So, Baskin is an universally designed variant of Basketball with certain modifications in terms of space, materials, rules, and definitions of player roles. The basic idea is that everybody who wants to join the game should be able to, together with all others who want to play together, thanks to the setup that players are divided into five different categories, that are reflected by the number on their jerseys (nr. 1-5) and the principal rule that players with higher numbers may not attack or defend players with lower numbers. Baskin can be played on a regular basketball field, but with six baskets (two additional ones on each side line), while only players with the numbers 1, 2 and 3 can score by using the extra baskets. Since we do not have enough time now to talk about all details of Baskin, as it cannot — like e.g., Chess — be explained quickly, I recommend that you (and the readers of this interview) check out online a Baskin promo video in English.
Dr. Oğuz Öztosun: What unique benefits do you believe inclusive sports like Baskin offer to both disabled and non-disabled participants?
Dr. Florian Kiuppis: Please don’t get me wrong — I really like your questions, including this one, but I believe that the most unique benefit that Baskin offers is that the team does not need to be thought of in terms of players with and without disabilities. Instead, those persons who want to play Baskin together are divided into five different performance categories. While it is likely that non-disabled participants generally tend to play with higher numbers than their disabled teammates, this dual distinction must not necessarily be relevant. However, I want to answer your question also in another way, with reference to a conversation I had a few years ago in context of an international Baskin tournament in Luxemburg, where my team (the first in Germany) played against teams from Italy, France, Spain/Catalonia, Greece and Luxemburg. A father of an adult member of my team approached me, and I remember that he talked to me like this: “I assist my son for more than 40 years because, due to trisomy 21, he is constantly needing me. Here at the Baskin event, I experience the very first time in my and his life, that people are not here because we are here; and nobody is getting paid for being here with my son and myself; instead, we are part of a social movement that all people here alike want to be part of. We all have our individual motivations why we are here, but there is no professional reason, no hierarchy, and no clear distinction to be realized between persons with and without disabilities.” In terms of my awareness about benefits of inclusive sports, that was by far the most unique moment in my nearly 10 years long experience with the Baskin movement.
Dr. Oğuz Öztosun: In what ways can inclusive sports initiatives like Baskin be integrated into educational settings to foster inclusivity and understanding among students?
Dr. Florian Kiuppis: That is yet another nice question — I worked both with children in secondary schools and physical education students in Germany and also internationally, as visitor at universities in Bolivia, France, Sweden and Switzerland. In all situations that I met a group of persons — be it children, youth, or adults — who were not familiar with Baskin, it did not take longer than a couple of hours until the basics were understood and the game could start to be played. When being confronted with a group with not much experience with, and with only little knowledge about impairment and disability, it takes perhaps a bit longer to introduce different models of disability, especially the social-relational ones that are associated with Baskin, as well as theoretical considerations about inclusion. But usually, the way that so far worked well for me and the respective target population, was to combine theoretical considerations with practical playing time. That fits to both sports lessons in school and teaching at universities. In the beginning, I tend to interrupt the game a lot, in order to explain the decisions, I make in my double role as instructor and referee. However, a good option for beginners, to learn the theoretical and technical, as well as some tactical basics, is to participate in a Baskin Training Conference, an event that I organized twice in Germany.
Dr. Oğuz Öztosun: Looking at inclusive education globally, what do you see as the next major steps or trends in improving accessibility and inclusivity in educational systems?
Dr. Florian Kiuppis: Analytically speaking, I believe that the wording will likely change, and in connection with that, also the meanings around centrally important guiding principles, models and concepts around Special Needs Education, Inclusive Education and Education for All. Inclusive Education is already for a long time criticized as a concept: 20 years ago, even the Editor of the “International Journal of Inclusive Education” stated that endeavors for the improvement of inclusive schooling worldwide seemed “jet-lagged”. Seen this way, one could say that the term Inclusive Education traveled far and got considerably “tired” — it’s like the circadian rhythm is off. Just like I said before about the changing meanings of disability, Inclusive Education refers in some contexts to anything and in others to nothing. Scholars like for example Mel Ainscow preferably use terms like Equity and Fairness. However, beyond the level of “Talk” about inclusive education globally, I also see that in “Action”, the fragile condition the world is currently in will most likely to a certain extent also have an impact on accessibility and inclusivity in educational systems. Without that I want to talk about politics, it is obvious that wars and poverty are barriers for the further development of inclusive education. In troubled times, as we experienced during the pandemic, even in countries with inclusive education systems on all levels, there is a tendency back to exclusion. For the last years, I organised together with two Norwegian colleagues a doctoral course at the University of Bergen, called “Educational Leadership in the Face of Global Threats”, in which we looked at inclusive education globally, and saw as recent major steps or trends a decrease in accessibility and inclusivity in educational systems. However, like I said in the beginning, it was extremely fruitful to work here, especially in terms of transdisciplinary exchange we had for the last three days. At Yeditepe University, I thought that it was very inspiring to not only work interdisciplinarity, but also exchange perspectives in terms of international, comparative and cross-cultural dimensions of teaching and research with colleagues. Thank you again for welcoming me here in Istanbul.