Search results

This chapter conceptualises inclusion and neoliberalism and theorises the relationship between these two phenomena in order to contextualise the debates presented in the rest of the chapters in this book. Additionally, this chapter investigates the evolution of the meaning of ‘inclusion’ in the key international Bologna Process (BP) policy documents. This chapter is informed by a thematic analysis of 26 documents, issued between 1998 and 2020. The chapter demonstrates that understanding ‘inclusion’ only with regard to lifelong learning, student-centred education and the social dimension has pitfalls – there are overlaps between these action lines and, consequently, the relationships among them are unclear. A better way of understanding inclusion in Bologna may be through considering a tight relationship between the inclusion and neoliberal discourses in the support of marginalised groups in higher education (HE). The relationship has been evolving in relevant policy documents since 1998 which is the year that marks the preparatory Sorbonne meeting that gave life to Bologna in 1999. The inclusion discourse grew in strengths, while the neoliberal rhetoric firmly stood its ground since the beginning of the BP, while undergoing some transformations. In spite of such seemingly positive dynamic in the development of inclusion in the BP, its definition remained vague in the policy documents until 2020 as it was unclear which exact underprivileged groups were meant to be supported in the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). The 2020 conference outcome documents made a significant step towards closing the gaps in our understanding of whom inclusion targets in Bologna and how to implement these inclusion ideas. The chapter highlights this achievement and also prepares the reader to problematise its reach in national contexts later in the book.

This Research Watch reviews two recent papers reporting on work that seemed to increase social inclusion for people with mental health diagnoses.

The first paper is about a social inclusion project spanning three European countries and using a novel approach to research. Mental health professionals and service users worked together and visited projects in the other countries, sharing their learning about social inclusion. The second paper is about a 12-session art course in a community setting. Participants completed questionnaires before and after, and some gave feedback in a focus group. Their responses were compared with people not on the course.

The cross-Europe project seemed to create social inclusion by its very nature and activities. Staff and service users created together their understanding of social inclusion. Inclusion encompassed work and education, but also went beyond these to having safe places to work and learn together. Participants of the art course reported increased well-being and social inclusion, and some felt more able to go on to voluntary work afterwards. People who were on the waiting list did not report these improvements, but those of them who went onto the next art course later reported similar improvements.

The cross-Europe project used a novel collaborative research method and spanned three countries. The study of the art course was the first to capture improved social inclusion in people with a range of mental health needs following attendance of a therapeutic art course rather than ‘art psychotherapy’ compared with a comparison group not attending the course.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss how employment regulations and stigma, arising from working for welfare in “public works”, limit the social inclusion of social assistance beneficiaries. Activation in “public works” is meant for those beneficiaries unable to participate to the unsubsidised labour market because of range of work impairments.

The paper is based on qualitative interviews concerning the perspectives of social assistance beneficiaries in Luxembourg who work in “public works” activation schemes in exchange for social assistance support. The paper uses an encompassing definition of social inclusion based on the idea of social rights.

Access to legal employment status and to social rights are fundamental conditions to foster social inclusion and labour market integration. People in “public works” schemes consider their inclusion hampered by the lack of a legal status that could allow them to access social rights, basic social services and economic life – such as decent housing or access to credit – and the presence of stigma related to working for social assistance.

Ensuring social protection of work and lifting stigma aside labour market integration are key for a social inclusion strategy that could support social assistance beneficiaries’ social inclusion.

Debate on activation, including that arising from social investment, stress the centrality of labour market integration for social inclusion but does not take into account institutional factors – such as the social protection of work – and stigmatisation practices that can directly undermine the social inclusion of social assistance beneficiaries working for welfare.

The purpose of this paper is to expand the theoretical understanding of social inclusion of vulnerable populations. Employing cross disciplinary literature from marketing and social policy, this paper examines the factors shaping internal migrant workers experience of inclusion and vulnerability in the context of COVID-19 pandemic.

The authors conducted a review of social inclusion and consumer vulnerability literature to develop a new and innovative conceptual framework which operationalises social inclusion. This framework was then examined using an illustrative case study of internal migrant worker crisis in India. Data for the case were collected from various national and international media, government and non-government reports published in English on the pandemic related migrant crisis in India.

Access and control over food was fraught with barriers for migrant workers. As the lockdown progressed, access to and control over work opportunities was precarious. Furthermore, the resource-control constraints faced by migrant workers in terms of food, work and transport had a direct impact on their experience of social inclusion. Lastly, the stranded migrant workers found themselves unable to fully participate in economic activities.

To the authors’ knowledge this is the first paper that integrates consumer vulnerability concept, originating in marketing scholarship into the social inclusion framework. This allowed for anchoring the “aspirational goals” of social inclusion into the concrete context of consumers and marketplaces.

Digital and social inclusion are becoming more talked about as approaches to what has been discussed as the digital divide. But what is digital or social inclusion? The purpose of this paper is to explore the notion of social exclusion as a variety of, sometimes conflicting, social programmes which embody ideas of what society should be. Becoming more aware of this variety of approach can give insights into programmes addressing the digital divide and the political, cultural and social aspects of policies of social inclusion.

The paper analyses the notion of social inclusion as a variety of social policies to address social exclusion and develop the nation state. It uses an example of a telecentre in Jordan's knowledge station (KS) programme to illustrate and extend this analysis.

The analysis and discussion of the KS initiative shows how different notions of social and digital inclusion are important features of strengthening the Jordanian state and are useful in analysing the relative success of this programme.

The paper argues that analyses of digital divides and digital exclusion could be strengthened by a closer understanding of policies of social inclusion. In this way it is possible to move from technological connection as a measure of a digital divide to a more thorough understanding using social inclusion policy which illuminates social, political and cultural aspects of technological change.

This study aims to assess whether technological incentives inspire communities in the process of digital inclusion. The factors analyzed by the authors assess five dimensions: technology incentives, technology utilization, searching skills, social integration, and capabilities.

Data were collected from 329 respondents in 14 public libraries and analyzed using structural equation modeling to validate the proposed research model and its relationships with the factors the authors analyzed.

The results showed that technological incentives significantly impact on technology utilization, searching skills, social integration, and capabilities to support community digital inclusion in Pakistan.

Technological incentives to the community will lead to the improvement of network technology for things like online taxation, banking transactions, social integration, participation in government, and modern health and education benefits. In addition, technological incentives will also enhance information literacy and digital access, helping people improve cognitive skills and critical thinking and also helping to develop skills.

This research is based on raw data first collected from various people with different opinions from the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa public libraries. This study was conducted to gain a deeper understanding of the overall situation related to the use of technology in Pakistan and the complications involved.

Social inclusion incorporates attitudes, expectations and perceptions about what it means to belong to a group. Belonging is embedded in personal beliefs and social structures that set forth criteria that determine how individuals and groups are accorded value and esteem. This chapter explores the constructs of social inclusion, exclusion and belonging with regard to persons in general and more specifically children with disability. It examines the importance of belonging and social inclusion to academic and psychosocial well-being and the effects of stigmatization and exclusion on self-perception, agency and voice. The chapter concludes with a number of evidence-based strategies for creating classrooms, schools and communities in which all are valued, welcomed and belong.

This paper sets out to look at social inclusion among users within services, asking the questions is there a general measure of agreement about what social inclusion means to people, and is there an accepted way of measuring these views? The initiative was funded by the NIHR Research Methods programme now part of the Health Technology Assessment group at Southampton. Nine focus groups explored what people understand by ‘social inclusion’ and concept mapping was used to try and define the term. The research methods are reported here, along with plans for the future.

The concept of social inclusion features prominently in current policy and practice developments in mental health services. The Social Exclusion Unit (2006) highlighted the need for mental health day services to promote inclusion and participation, by integrating with the wider community, and by supporting and encouraging users to access opportunities in the local community. The Leeds i3 (inspire, improve, include) project aimed to modernise local mental health day services accordingly. The aim of our study was to develop and validate a measure of social inclusion to be used in mental health day services in Leeds. The underlying assumption was that recent changes in mental health day service provision would substantially improve social inclusion of the service users.The social inclusion questionnaire was developed through extensive iterative consultation with mental health service users and staff, and its reliability was proven using test‐retest statistics. It was shown to be a simple, inexpensive, user‐friendly and repeatable measure that could be used routinely by mental health day services. Factor analysis of the questionnaire showed that social inclusion had seven important components. We suggest that these components form a useful basis for discussion with service users, as well as for planning and evaluating services.

The transfer to partnership in public sector management has created significantly new modes of service delivery, and is suggested to be the best means of ensuring that disadvantaged groups are socially included. The purpose of this paper is to examine New Leisure Trust (NLT) structures in public leisure provision relative to direct, in‐house managed facilities and privately run Leisure Management Contractor (LMC) facilities. In particular, NLTs receive significant government funds and subsidies through tax breaks that are not forthcoming to rivals, which raises questions as to whether NLTs deserve such aid for delivering upon the social inclusion agenda of the government.

The research involved a national survey questionnaire to 1,060 public leisure service providers in England. Empirical testing through multiple analysis of variance and regression analysis was applied to the dataset.

The authors find that NLTs do not follow social orientation strategies to any significantly greater degree than rivals, nor seem to create social inclusion to any greater degree. Further, NLTs have the least to gain in terms of business performance from creating social inclusion, whilst in‐house (in particular) and LMC facilities stand to gain the most.

Though each approach to provision examined places a considerable strategic emphasis on being socially oriented, they are not effective at increasing the social inclusion of recreationally disadvantaged groups.

This paper calls for the current public leisure management playing field to be levelled in a rebalance of opportunity and investment through the removal of anti‐competitive measures.