About the Journal
Editorial Board
Scientific Council
Reviewers
Ethical Code
AI Policy
Special Issue
GDRP - information on the processing of personal data
Terms of the journal
Indexing
Licenses & Access
Archive
For Authors
Publishing Policy
Technical instruction for the authors
Agreement CC BY-SA
Copyright statement
Publication procedure
Peer Review Process
Reviewer’s form .doc
Reviewer’s form .pdf
Contact
About the Journal
Editorial Board
Scientific Council
Reviewers
Ethical Code
AI Policy
Special Issue
GDRP - information on the processing of personal data
Terms of the journal
Indexing
Licenses & Access
ORIGINAL PAPER
Vulnerability as a fundamental category of inclusive education: theoretical and pedagogical perspectives for convergence between general pedagogy and special pedagogy
1
Mercatorum University
Submission date: 2026-02-23
Acceptance date: 2026-06-19
Publication date: 2026-07-29
JoMS 2026;66(2):295-308
KEYWORDS
vulnerabilityinclusive educationUniversal Design for Learningphilosophy of careanthropological and pedagogical category
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Objectives:
To redefine vulnerability as a foundational category of education, moving beyond its association with deficit or marginality, and to develop an integrated theoretical framework connecting general and special pedagogy within an inclusive perspective.
Material and methods:
An interdisciplinary theoretical-critical analysis drawing on moral philosophy (Nussbaum, Levinas, Ricoeur), pedagogy of care (Mortari), the transformative inclusion paradigm (Booth and Ainscow; Florian), and Universal Design for Learning, including engagement with Butler and Fineman.
Results:
Vulnerability emerges as a universal anthropological condition, an ethical criterion, and a regulatory principle for designing flexible, cooperative, and justice-oriented educational contexts, thus overcoming the deficit paradigm.
Conclusions:
Adopting vulnerability as a pedagogical principle enables a shift from compensatory interventions to universal inclusive design, transforming fragility into a relational resource and the foundation of equitable education.
To redefine vulnerability as a foundational category of education, moving beyond its association with deficit or marginality, and to develop an integrated theoretical framework connecting general and special pedagogy within an inclusive perspective.
Material and methods:
An interdisciplinary theoretical-critical analysis drawing on moral philosophy (Nussbaum, Levinas, Ricoeur), pedagogy of care (Mortari), the transformative inclusion paradigm (Booth and Ainscow; Florian), and Universal Design for Learning, including engagement with Butler and Fineman.
Results:
Vulnerability emerges as a universal anthropological condition, an ethical criterion, and a regulatory principle for designing flexible, cooperative, and justice-oriented educational contexts, thus overcoming the deficit paradigm.
Conclusions:
Adopting vulnerability as a pedagogical principle enables a shift from compensatory interventions to universal inclusive design, transforming fragility into a relational resource and the foundation of equitable education.
License
REFERENCES (30)
1.
AA.VV. (2018). Disability Studies e Inclusione. Per una lettura critica delle politiche e pratiche educative. Trento: Erickson.
2.
Ainscow, M. (2020). Promoting Inclusion and Equity in Education: Lessons from International Experiences. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 6(1), 7–16.
3.
Al-Azawei, A., Serenelli, F., & Lundqvist, K. (2016). Universal Design for Learning (UDL): A Content Analysis of Peer Reviewed Journal Papers from 2012 to 2015. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 16(3), 39–56.
5.
Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2014). Index for Inclusion: Developing Learning and Participation in Schools (3rd ed.). Bristol: Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education.
6.
Butler, J. (2004). Precarious Life: The Powers of Mourning and Violence. London: Verso.
8.
CAST. (2018). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines Version 2.2. Wakefield, MA: CAST.
9.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.
D’Alonzo, L. (2016). La differenziazione didattica per l’inclusione. Metodi, Strategie, Attività. Trento: Erickson.
11.
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The Impact of Enhancing Students’ Social and Emotional Learning: A Meta-Analysis of School-Based Universal Interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405–432.
12.
Dweck, C. S. (2017). Mindset: Changing the Way You Think to Fulfil Your Potential (Updated ed.). London: Robinson.
13.
Fineman, M. A. (2008). The Vulnerable Subject: Anchoring Equality in the Human Condition. Yale Journal of Law & Feminism, 20(1), 1–23.
14.
Florian, L. (2014). What Counts as Evidence of Inclusive Education? European Journal of Special Needs Education, 29(3), 286–294.
15.
Florian, L., & Black-Hawkins, K. (2011). Exploring Inclusive Pedagogy. British Educational Research Journal, 37(5), 813–828.
16.
Ghedin, E., & Mazzocut, S. (2017). Universal Design for Learning per una valorizzazione delle differenze: un’indagine esplorativa sulle percezioni degli insegnanti. Giornale Italiano della Ricerca Educativa, 10/18, 145–162.
17.
Hall, T. E., Meyer, A., & Rose, D. H. (2012). Universal Design for Learning in the Classroom: Practical Applications. New York: Guilford Press.
18.
Ianes, D. (2015). L’evoluzione dell’insegnante di sostegno: Verso una didattica inclusiva. Trento: Erickson.
21.
Mariani, A. (2024). Introduzione. La relazione educativa tra scienze umane e società democratica avanzata. In A. Mariani (a cura di), La relazione educativa. Prospettive contemporanee. Roma: Carocci.
23.
Norwich, B. (2013). Addressing Tensions and Dilemmas in Inclusive Education. London: Routledge.
24.
Nussbaum, M. C. (2011). Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
25.
Rao, K., Ok, M. W., & Bryant, B. R. (2014). A Review of Research on Universal Design Educational Models. Remedial and Special Education, 35(3), 153–166.
26.
Savia, G. (a cura di). (2016). Universal Design for Learning. La progettazione Universale per l’Apprendimento per una didattica inclusiva. Trento: Erickson.
27.
Slee, R. (2011). The Irregular School: Exclusion, Schooling and Inclusive Education. London: Routledge.
28.
Slee, R. (2018). Inclusive Education Isn’t Dead, It Just Smells Funny. London: Routledge.
29.
Tomlinson, S. (2017). A Sociology of Special and Inclusive Education. London: Routledge.
30.
Virginia Braun, V., & Victoria Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/147808....
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| eISSN: | 2391-789X |
| ISSN: | 1734-2031 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
