Abstract

Our differences with Croll and Moses centre on their interpretation of the term 'inclusion', the way in which they theorise their findings, and their use of the terms 'pragmatism' and 'ideology' as instruments of analysis in trying to understand a patchy move to inclusion. In particular, a taken-as-given use of the term 'ideological' to describe the views of others is troublesome, carrying as it does intimations of partisanship in others, but only rationality in the user. We suggest that if informants and commentators employ the term 'ideological', the use of this descriptor by these informants and commentators should form a principal focus of scholarly analysis.